Slashdot Mirror
SwiftFuel Alternative To Alternative Fuels
TheDawgLives writes "PBS has an article by Bob Cringely about the best route to end our dependence on oil and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of replacing all our expensive cars with even more expensive hybrids or electric cars, his suggestion is to use a cheap drop-in replacement for gasoline called Swift Fuel. It is derived from Ethanol, but doesn't require any modification to older cars to prevent corrosion. It can be mixed with gasoline in any amount and can even be distributed using the same network as gasoline, including being pumped in the same pipes and shipped in the same trucks. It is truly a drop-in replacement for gas, and it is real. It is being tested by the FAA for certification in propeller aircraft. It also happens to be about $2 a gallon cheaper than gasoline."
Global warming cultists are *not* environmentalist. They're easily led rubes that have bought into a self flagellating religion born out of politics.
most of whom would agree with your stance that corn for fuel is an exceptionally bad idea.Again, I don't think you get it... It isn't just corn that's a bad idea. Any plan that includes putting lots of new farmland into production is probably a very bad idea if your goal is to reduce CO2. And *any* crop serving as a substitute for fossil fuels is going to require a LOT of farmland. I've explained this before. Numerous times, to people who obviously don't know what they are talking about. Yet they are insistent that their beliefs are correct without being able to produce a shred of relevant evidence to support their position.
If that isn't religion, what would you call it?
There is no doubt that we need to look for alternatives. Although we have been working on it around the world since at least the 70's with the last oil crisis and haven't seemed to find anything viable enough to replace oil long term yet. Of course new technology brings about new approaches which could create better solutions and all that. We simply need to keep working on it.
But using a flawed argument like peak oil is still using a flawed argument. Imagine if I told you that you had to paint your house yellow because we were running out of red paint. Then later your found out that the red paint which is cheaper (and the original color) was in plenty of supply for you to get your house painted the color you wanted, someone was just to lazy to walk in back and get it. You would probably be pissed and not trust me again because not only did I swindle you into paying more for something, I made you buy more of it because of the need to cover the other colors. Well the same is with oil and the peak theories floating around.
You see, your right in that oil is a finite source that we will eventually run out of. But as much as it attempts to sound like we are running out of oil, we aren't and the peak oil theory doesn't pretend to claim we are. It is supposed to addresses our maximum production capabilities and the costs of removing/producing it. We will have oil around for the next couple of hundred years. Hopefully we are off it by then but forcing a switch over right now because of some short sighted or uninformed theory will do nothing but cost more in money and perhaps pollution too. I bring up the pollution factor because after all, Ethanol is supposed to be a replacement for petrol gas for the environment which ended up causing perceived food shortages and as it turns out, is actually worse for the environment. We don't want to rush into another screwed up fix because of some threat that doesn't exist only to find out that it will kill us all. We need to observe the problems and shoot for realistic goals that can be meet without taking 10% of someone's income away from them just so they can afford to live comfortable and drive to work. I think the environmental aspects are over blown but there is enough political and efficiency issues that make up for the need to replace oil though. We just need to do it for the right reasons, in a sound and responsible way, that doesn't cause hardship in the general populace like the current proposals seem to be heading.
Solution? Do nothing. It's the same 'solution' offered by the head of NASA and other seemingly intelligent people. I mean, what's the hurry? Where is there any evidence that warming is bad?
Ten years ago, the cult was threatening us with the infamous hockey stick. Computer models were predicting "runaway" global warming. According to the IPCC we were on the cusp of exponential warming. "Oh noes!!11one1! We's all gonna DIES!one1!!"
Then something funny happened... Someone noticed that if you took the model and entered random data, it produced the same hockey stick graph. Gee, do tell... of course, they denied, denied, denied that it was a complete fraud. Yet the most damning evidence is that now, almost ten years later, their predictions simply didn't materialize. 1998 was anomalously hot and temps have not rocketed out of control since then.
Frankly, the only problem I see is global warming cultists preaching fire and brimstone, despite having their alarmist predictions disproven by observation repeatedly.
[And yes, before some global warming cultist chimes in... Griffin did later cede to peer pressure and apologize for making those statement, but to my knowledge he has never rescinded those statements.]
You seem to imply there's a problem. I regret not putting the word "problem" in quotes in my original post. The importance of CO2 on climate is greatly exaggerated by the cultists, and two, they've yet to provide conclusive evidence that further warming of this planet is necessarily bad. I have already covered this in another post though...
That's right, the universe only has a finite amount of mass. At some point we'll no longer be able to produce energy at all. So why even bother?
Bicycles are not a workable solution for a sufficient percentage of the population. Cycling more than a mile or two, or cycling uphill, requires a level of athletic fitness that a good number of people are legitimately medically incapable of. I'm not talking about smokers or overeaters, I'm talking about the asthmatic, the arthritic, the temporarily and permanently disabled, etc.
Take me: I'm 28 years old, 6'6" tall and weigh 205 pounds, with 12% body fat. I can lift half my weight over my head. I can walk or hike five or ten miles with no ill effects. I catch a cold or flu, on average, once every couple of years, and usually recover twice as fast as the person I caught it from. I've never smoked in my life. Not only am I in excellent shape, but I have some genetic advantages over the rest of the population.
I've also had lung surgery three times. I can't do anything aerobic for more than a few minutes before falling down (yes, literally), gasping for breath, in physical pain. At the absolute maximum, I can run or jog about a quarter mile or bicycle about a mile on a flat surface. I can't bicycle uphill at all.
My specific circumstances are unusual, as are any of the other specific circumstances that could make cycling unfeasible. But there are a LOT of those circumstances. Assuming people become as fit as they are capable of being, can 75% of the population use a bicycle for long distances? Almost certainly. Can 90%? Almost certainly not.
You and I agree on a number of things: The world would be better if more people bicycled. A lot of people who could, don't. Buses combine the worst elements of cars and mass transit. And I understand you're not proposing that bicycles completely replace cars. But the fact that you use your bicycle for trips that I would drive does not make you better than me. It means your personal strengths and weaknesses are more suited to this particular problem than mine.
And I can't say for sure without knowing how much you do use those two sports cars, but it's at least plausible that you use more total gas driving them for fun than I do driving my Honda Civic to work.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.