Slashdot Mirror


US Pumps $175M Into Advanced Auto Fuel Research

coondoggie writes "In the wake of new fuel efficiency standards, the Energy Department this week spotted 40 new research projects $175 million to develop everything from light-weight building materials to electronics and advanced fuel. Last month, the U.S. set new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, saying they must hit 54.5 miles per gallon by Model Year 2025. The projects awarded contracts should address some of the issues involved in making cars and trucks more fuel efficient. At least that's the idea."

200 comments

  1. reminds me of this guy and his water+naptha stuff by TheLink · · Score: 1
    --
  2. I suggest we find a way to utilize hot air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because politicians produce more than enough of it.

    Also journalists. Because they're full of crap. Oh wait, it can be burned for fuel. Hmm.

  3. Still using gasoline? by Mark4ST · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a little disappointed that they thing we'd even be using gasoline in that far-flung future. Aren't there a bunch of competing technologies just around the corner, if not ON that corner?

    1. Re:Still using gasoline? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      I'm fairly confident that they're all 3-5 years away from the market.

    2. Re:Still using gasoline? by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      which is marketing speak for NEVER. Mostly because of patent hell. Seriously being an inventor now days sucks patents are hell.

    3. Re:Still using gasoline? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I agree patents are an awful problem, but are you sure about your "mostly" claim? I.e., how do you know that most promised technologies simply don't pan out well enough to be commericially viable?

    4. Re:Still using gasoline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fairly confident that gasoline is a resource, not a technology.

    5. Re:Still using gasoline? by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 0

      Oblig: XKCD

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    6. Re:Still using gasoline? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean like the ones which prevent us from using NiMH batteries in cars?

      You're not allowed to 'big' large NiMH batteries, for some definition of the word 'big' defined by the oil companies.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:Still using gasoline? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 2

      I miss the good old days when you could invent something by waiting for someone else to do all the hard work and then taking it for your own. Inventing is supposed to be easy!

    8. Re:Still using gasoline? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      But I wasn't asking if there's a single case where patents are stopping advances in this area. I was asking the GP if he really meant it when he implied that the majority of advances never hits the market because of patent concerns. And if so, why reason he had for believing that.

      I think that especially with debates about patents, questions regarding how extensive are the downsides or benefits of patents become quite important.

    9. Re:Still using gasoline? by zzzy · · Score: 1

      I'm a little disappointed that they thing we'd even be using gasoline in that far-flung future. Aren't there a bunch of competing technologies just around the corner, if not ON that corner?

      The short answer is: No. The long answer, nature has stored solar energy over millions of years in this nice carrier called hydrocarbons. I call them nice because they are very energy dense, lack chemical reactivity almost completely (well, aside from combustion that is), and tend to stick together and away from water and thus come concentrated enough to use after only minor processing. Our civilization was built on the premise that this energy dense carrier is available. The nicest thing yet about them, all we have to do to get hydrocarbons is drill holes in the ground and pump them out! Yes, they are not sustainable, yes, they are slowly changing the atmosphere's composition, in other words, are completely unsustainable. But our daily activity as we know it is paced in perfect accord with the readily available hydrocarbon fuels. If what we want is sustainability, we have to give up the crazy pace of this entire civilization. There isn't any possible thermodynamic cycle on the planet that could generate *useful* energy from what the Sun gives us to move things around, cool and heat homes, etc, at a fast enough *rate* to keep us going at the current pace. The rate of available energy is what had kept humanity stuck in the dark ages for so long. If all you have is mules, tallow candles, olive oil, and forest wood, nothing will happen too fast. You can't make enough steel by just burning wood to build wind or hydro turbines. There is not enough wood to make concrete that would build us dams for hydro electric power. Just with wood as a fuel you can't melt and purify silicon to make computers. There is not enough biomass to turn into fuels for transportation at the current demand levels because of the limited efficiency of the chemical processes and thermodynamic cycles involved. We are simply burning energy too fast for what Mother Nature can give us sustainably. We *are* the children of fossil fuels, coal and hydrocarbons, they are what define the current civilization and has been so since the Industrial Revolution. Unless we are ready to give up most of what we have and are today, and return to ox plowing, no governments “visionary” program (like the “hydrogen economy” nonsense) can make us sustainable. We are like a flame consuming a canister of gas. Unless the flame is gone, the gas will keep burning, but we can’t keep burning like we are today without the fuel which sustains us.

    10. Re:Still using gasoline? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0

      >>There isn't any possible thermodynamic cycle on the planet that could generate *useful* energy from what the Sun gives us to move things around, cool and heat homes, etc, at a fast enough *rate* to keep us going at the current pace

      You missed that article yesterday on thorium-powered cars, eh?

      http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/08/12/172229/8-Grams-of-Thorium-Could-Replace-Gasoline-In-Cars

      But don't let me interrupt you. Your mega-paragraph could make for a great start to a Unabomber-like manifesto some day.

    11. Re:Still using gasoline? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      It is not easy for your but it is easy for patent trolls - with enough cash and lawyers you can win any case or rearrange it in such way that in jurisdiction of choice your victim will not be able to defend. In case you misjudge your victim and the whole scheme backfires you can still buy the bloody thing and sue all others for infringement. It is not even patent trolls that do that - Apple is doing this these days too. Seems to be the a business model of today.

    12. Re:Still using gasoline? by zzzy · · Score: 1

      Ha! it does look like a manifesto doesnt it. The thorium piece lost me at the point where i started imagining the thick, heavy lead casing needed to contain the radiation. By the time you take that extra weight into account, 8 grams turn into 8 kilos. Plus, the 5 hr energy(R) folks would make a fortune selling fashionable potassium iodide pill dispensers.

    13. Re:Still using gasoline? by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      Except that's obvious nonsense to anyone with the slighest background in physics.

    14. Re:Still using gasoline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aren't there a bunch of competing technologies just around the corner, if not ON that corner?

      Yeah, they've been "around the corner" for the last 50 years.

      The "problem" is that gasoline and diesel fuel are just really convenient. High energy density, relatively safe (i.e., flammable, but not explosive under most circumstances), established distribution infrastructure and advanced engine technology.

    15. Re:Still using gasoline? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Good example, but also one that will be irrelevant soon.
      Those patents appear to be from the early 1990s and will run out soon. Besides, lithium-ion batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion) are increasingly displacing NiMH for cars anyway, as the energy density is superior.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    16. Re:Still using gasoline? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      I get passed by brand new LEAFs and Volts every day. EV-denialism is dead.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    17. Re:Still using gasoline? by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      The long answer, nature has stored solar energy over millions of years in this nice carrier called hydrocarbons. I call them nice because they are very energy dense, lack chemical reactivity almost completely.

      At 0.00000000001% efficiency. Since you don't understand that the sun hits earth with over 1000 times more energy than a planet of 10 billion Americans, or that my friends drive to work on solar energy hitting 11 foot by 11 foot squares on their roofs, it's not even worth responding to the rest of your derivative, pseudo-intellectual post.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    18. Re:Still using gasoline? by Surt · · Score: 1

      That article and all of its links seem to imply that the patents in question have expired.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    19. Re:Still using gasoline? by Surt · · Score: 1

      That would be funnier if patents weren't being granted for obvious 'inventions'. The obviousness qualification has unfortunately been dropped for patents filed since roughly 2000. As a result, you now have people 'inventing' things that are obvious to everyone in the field, and unless you have documented proof of your prior art and good lawyers and a good legal budget you are screwed.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    20. Re:Still using gasoline? by wcoenen · · Score: 1

      That article is a hoax. There is no such thing as laser induced fission. No really, there isn't.

    21. Re:Still using gasoline? by chill · · Score: 0

      The article says a single sheet of aluminum foil would be enough to stop the radiation from thorium. Unless you're English, then it would be a single sheet of aluminium foil.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    22. Re:Still using gasoline? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>There is no such thing as laser induced fission.

      I believe the original article said fission would not occur?

    23. Re:Still using gasoline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been trolled. Do you seriously believe the bizarre claims of that article?

    24. Re:Still using gasoline? by zzzy · · Score: 0

      Since you don't understand that the sun hits earth with over 1000 times more energy than a planet of 10 billion Americans

      Aside from the fact that I don't understand your comparative above, why don't you go ahead and use that 1000 times more energy than whatever? Oh, I see, there must be some big oil conspiracy preventing you from doing that. Now go crunch some code and hug a tree.

    25. Re:Still using gasoline? by mariovario · · Score: 1

      Stan Meyer discovered and tested his engine that uses water as a fuel. This technology was discovered 30 years ago and United States government knows about it since it is public knowledge. Recently Japan build working car prototype that uses HHO cell to power a car. Youtube it! Unfortunately we will not see this technology on our roads, not because it is too hard to make the engines, or it has zero emissions, it is simple story of control of power. The oil industry is the single most powerful body on this planet. They simply will do anything and spend billions to stop such a technology since they will not be able to control water as a fuel, thus will lose all their business. So please stop pretending that government tries to do "Advanced Fuel Research" - this is just a smoke screen to cover real problems.

    26. Re:Still using gasoline? by stms · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly confident that they're all indefinitely 3-5 years away from the market.

      There fixed that for you.

    27. Re:Still using gasoline? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .......... .for some definition of the word 'big' defined by the oil companies.

      Booga Booga! The oil companies are hiding under your bed!

    28. Re:Still using gasoline? by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Stan Meyer is a proven fraud.

    29. Re:Still using gasoline? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My biodiesel Volkswagen is 12 years away from the market.... meaning it was on the market 12 years ago!

      Biodiesel works right now and it's easy (I didn't have to modify the car or build my own fuel-processing equipment; all I do is go to the biodiesel fuel station and pump it into the car). It even makes the car run better and pollute less (not only does biodiesel have zero sulfur, but the car produces less soot too).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    30. Re:Still using gasoline? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We really need to invent something better than NiMH and Li-Ion. Fuel cells or super capacitors perhaps, but battery tech has been lagging far behind demand for decades now. Capacity is too low, charging takes too long, lifespan is too short.

      Having said that EVs with Li-Ion batteries should become attractive in the next few years as prices fall. They are already very cheap to run, they just need to get cheaper to buy and replace the batteries. They are not general purpose vehicles but if you and your partner both have cars then it would make economic sense for one of you to have an EV at that point. An EV would cover 99% of my journeys.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:Still using gasoline? by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      I've yet to see a single one, and I live where there are hydrogen buses!

  4. Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by sandysnowbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with alternative car fuels is that they're a solution to the wrong problem: the real issue is that it's not sustainable for every person on the planet to transport himself and two tons of metal an average distance of sixteen miles one-way as part of a daily commute.

    1. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      who says cars have to be made of metal? and there is plenty of abundant energy on this earth, no shortage.

    2. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me where I can get that abundant energy. It should be almost free since there is so much of it, right?

    3. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but try to tell that to people living in the suburbs, especially the ones further out (20+ miles) from the nearest city.

    4. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with alternative car fuels is that they're a solution to the wrong problem: the real issue is that it's not sustainable for every person on the planet to transport himself and two tons of metal an average distance of sixteen miles one-way as part of a daily commute.

      sorry, I disagree. In your world utopia, only the rich would have access to personal transportation. That's not the world I want to live in. Personal transportation waiting for you on your driveway is personal freedom. Focusing on efficiency and compact storage of carbon free electrical power will make that all sustainable and a lot of people happy.

    5. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we have thousands of square miles on this earth with bright sunshine and almost never clouds nor storms. we can turn cellulose into butanol, and grow sufficient crops on scrub land for our vehicles. we have thorium supply sufficient for four thousand years of breeding, and moreover use our existing "spent nuclear fuel" to extract over five times the energy as the first burn, leaving short-lived wastes. See, just engineering issues, no fundamental problems. Also, the population will peak at less than 20% more than there is now by early 2070s, so runaway population not even an issue.

    6. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the world we live in just now I'm afraid. You are an American on Slashdot and that pretty much makes you rich (certainly in the top 5% globally). The vast majority of the world doesn't, and never will, have the kind of personal transportation you enjoy.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    7. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence to support that statement, or are you just guessing? I can easily imagine a world in which fusion reactors or high-efficiency solar power generate plenty of cheap electricity, some of which is then converted into high energy density fuels, allowing people to drive their cars wherever they want. What makes you so confident that that can never happen?

    8. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dealing with a Space Nutter. Totally irrational, resistant to logic, reason, facts and education. Good luck.

    9. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to take some time; but eventually the market will fix the suburb problem. Can't walk to work. Can't raise chickens. What good are they?

      When the suburbanite pays $100/day to get to work in the city, and buy eggs for $20/doz from the farmer it'll be too late. He'll be stuck underwater for years; but he's a fool not to see it coming.

    10. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why not?

    11. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by ShakaUVM · · Score: 0

      >>we have thousands of square miles on this earth with bright sunshine and almost never clouds nor storms.

      Yes.

      >>we can turn cellulose into butanol, and grow sufficient crops on scrub land for our vehicles

      No.

      >>we have thorium supply sufficient for four thousand years of breeding

      The reproductive cycle of my species does not depend on Thorium.

      >>Also, the population will peak at less than 20% more than there is now by early 2070s, so runaway population not even an issue.

      Yes.

    12. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're dealing with a Space Nutter. Totally irrational, resistant to logic, reason, facts and education. Good luck.

      There's enough solar energy and land mass available in the asteroid belt to keep us going for millions of years. Like a cancer, our descendants - even if more machine than man - will spread across the galaxy.

      Or we could try it your way and develop an immortality serum instead. Our rulers, being the only ones wealthy enough to fund the research or afford the treatment, could then consume the Earth's limited resources even faster than they are today.

      But you're still going to die of old age before either of those things happen, QA.

    13. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Exaclty right. When we started making centralized shopping with huge parking lots, we just exacerbated the driving problem. I'd rather go back to neighborhoods that have the usual goods (basic groceries, bread, beer, wine, pubs/restaurants) and let the delivery guy drive his single truck around to outfit them all, rather than make 1000 people drive to a single location. If I could arrive home from work, walk to the store, walk to the gym, walk to dinner...my life would be 100% better. In certain areas you can do that, but it should be possible in more than just dense cities.

    14. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignoring the possibility that the OP was suggesting that maybe personal transportation should weight less than two tons or the average commute be less than 16 miles. Neither of which requires any economic class having exclusive access to personal transportation.

    15. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      You know I'm not sure that's the real problem. See there were already some really kick ass cars made in the last 20 years that got really good mileage. The problem? They were too good, or they were neigh indestructible. A 4 day, but long work week would be a good option for one thing, personally I'm a bigger supporter of that. I already work it in my job.

      Anyway, as for cars and all that? My old saturn sw2 gets around 43mpg on the highway, and that's not isolated. Most saturn owners that have the manual, and their cars were made between '94 and 2001 report the same, more so with the original SW series. Some even higher upwards of 52mpg as normal milage on the highway. The lightweight body panels help a lot.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      Peak Oil mostly.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    17. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your world utopia everyone is equal and has equal personal freedoms?? Is that ever likely to happen? As it stands oil and other essential commodities are rising in price, IMHO the golden years of the past few decades that many in the west have enjoyed are reaching a peak and lifestyles are more likely to go down than up. Theres billions of people wanting/trying to live your standard of life, the sad fact is they will drag your lifestyle down more than they can raise theirs.

    18. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      Because they're not American, that's why. There's a reason Americans have the highest level of stress combined with the best standards of living. Because Americans as a group bust their ass off both physically and mentally. Of course, some are living a more posh lifestyle off the backs of others but that's part of the worldwide ugly nature of humanity.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      In Cuba, young people often scrounge up whatever they can find to make motor bikes. These little bikes can get up to 90-100 mpg and travel at 40 mph. I built one from a kit - it's not safe, is prone to technical problems, but it works.

      In India (which is not as poor as Cuba, but still poorer than the US), motorbikes and scooters are very common, and share the road with cars and bicycles.

      Anywhere, a fit rider can travel up to 30 mph on a regular unpowered bicycle. Anywhere, a rider can order an electric or gasoline powered 'pedal assist' motor to attach to their bike.

      Peak oil has nothing to do with the freedom of transportation. If we have to ride bikes we will (and do), others put little motors on their bikes, buy scooters, and if they can afford it even cars. My car was $1600, came out in 1991, and gets 30 mpg. I'm poor by US standards and $4 gas doesn't scare me one bit. Almost all of today's modern sedans get 30mph or above.

      However, 'peak oil' has everything to do with the cost of goods, since they have to be transported by big rigs that get a gas mileage as low as 8 mpg. You can say... 'our food economy is unsustainable' and you might have an argument. Maybe we can't support the number of people that we do... but we'll have problems with that long before we stop driving ourselves.

    20. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, you are absolutely correct. Too bad you will be modded down to oblivion.

    21. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by pz · · Score: 1

      There is nothing in the article (or summary) that mentions alternative fuels. Read the article. There are projects on waste heat conversion to electricity, advanced lubricants, advanced (not alternative) fuel properties, carbon fibre manufacturing and testing, etc. It's all pretty hard-core applied materials stuff.

      Did anyone else notice that the submitting UID, coondoggie, is awfully reminiscent of the article's author's name, Michael Cooney?

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    22. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      There is still a lot of desert we could place photovoltaics in. The main reason this is not done big time yet is that fossil energy is so cheap. Looking at the EEX (http://www.eex.com/de/) right now, the average price is around 5 Euro-cents per kWh.

      Renewables have a long way to go before they can compete with that. But compared to the prices the end user pays (typically 20-25 cents/kWh in Germany), photovoltaics are getting close and wind power is already cheaper. So I think our civilisation could survive on that, if we develop less wasteful habits in using energy and raw materials.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    23. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paying a car loan, insurance and gasoline bills every month is the opposite of personal freedom. And paving over the surface of the earth to create an autopia is a perfect example of the tragedy of the commons--nice for you and the affluent now, but it will suck when there is no clean air or wild spaces or even agricultural land left. Strong legs and a bicycle are a much better vision of freedom and health for the future.

    24. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by trawg · · Score: 1

      sorry, I disagree. In your world utopia, only the rich would have access to personal transportation. That's not the world I want to live in. Personal transportation waiting for you on your driveway is personal freedom. Focusing on efficiency and compact storage of carbon free electrical power will make that all sustainable and a lot of people happy.

      yeeeeeeh, I see what you're saying, but I don't know about that. At the risk of sounding like a non-US person casting aspersions on Americans, I feel like this might be a particular aspect of America, where having and owning your own car is not only basically a necessity to survive but also intertwined with this sense of "freedom".

      I remember hearing GWB do a speech at one point early on in the recent wars and he said something that I thought made it clear that he felt cars were a requirement for Americans to live freely. I remember being flabbergasted; wish I could find the quote.

      I have a bunch of friends that live in Europe; I visit them once a year. Every time I am there, I am reminded of the fact that many of them don't have cars - those that drive tend to have motorbikes/scooters - and they rely almost exclusively on their rail network and metro systems to get around.

      I was amazed the first time I was there about how easy it was to get around. I know I could happily live in many parts of Europe where they have this awesome public transport network and not feel like my "personal freedoms" were being infringed because I didn't have a car.

      I know that's not exactly what your saying - I live in Australia and own a car, like most other people here. I like having the freedom to decide one morning I'm going to jump in it and drive somewhere without the hassle of having to check public transport timetables etc. But I do think that a lot of people - both here and in the US - are just really accustomed to the way of life that comes with having a car, and not seeing the other side of it skews the perspective a little bit.

    25. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because at best, they're too busy making iPods and fielding trouble tickets. At worst, they're busy trying to resolve a scheduling conflict between walking 20km to a well or being macheted to death.

    26. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooo snarky remark!

      If peek oil was going on people in most of the world would not be paying such low prices for oil. The current 'high prices' are simple market manipulation (I would not want to be on the other end of that bubble...).

      Most people just simply can not afford the vehicle itself much less the minor recurring cost of gas.

      In china many make in what would be in the US about 80-200 a month. You just simply can not buy a 20-40k car with that. If you made 200 a month would you be buying a car? Even something as 'low' as say a 1500 dollar car? That is the up front cost. The recurring cost would be nearly a fourth or more of your monthly income. Depending on how far you have to drive.

      The reason their wages are so low is simple competition. When you have 100 people apply for 1 job you can pay low wages and probably get someone who is pretty good at it. When competition is low for a job so you have maybe 0-3 people apply for 1 job you raise the rates to get someone to do it. You may end up with someone who is only mildly competent at the job and have to pay them higher wages (example garbage man).

      Whatever macro economics book you have reading just drop it in the circular file please so no one else ever reads that trash. The reason is not peak oil but high unemployment. Due to there being too few jobs for too many people. China is currently careening towards a meltdown of their own. They currently have about 10% growth year over year. That growth is thru building things no one wants being sold at prices no one can afford. That will crater their economy in about 10-15 years.

    27. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we lived in a world where public transportation was the norm and you could rent cars to be put in your driveway early in the morning when you needed it?

    28. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, you'll never have a bungalow on Mars either, Nutter. "Asteroid belt"? Oh dear.... You've really gone over the deep end. Take a look at the numbers. Go ahead. You realize the Asteroid Belt is mostly empty, yes? There's nohing there, and your fatuous use of the term "land mass" to evoke pictures of our planet just don't pan out when you look at reality. But reality is like kryptonite you whackjobs.

      I garantee you, fully and wholly, in ten years, twenty years, a century there will be nothing more happening in space than now. It's over. Too bad you won't live long enough to see if I'm wrong, eh?

      And what's with all this paranoia about our "rulers" consuming all our resources? Such eloquent visions! Such fine motivations! So much nonsense, Nutter. Grow the fuck up. We have neither the energy resources or technology for any of your delusions to happen, ever.

      But you're perfectly happy being outlived by fish and plants, though.

    29. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by qwak23 · · Score: 2

      As an American who currently lives in Japan, I couldn't agree more. I haven't owned a vehicle in over 7 years, If I need to go somewhere, I walk, take a bus, take a train, and if it needs to be exceptionally quick (to a point not readily served by trains), I take a cab. It's a little less convenient for somethings, groceries, checking my post box, etc but I manage. When I look at how much I spend on transportation and then look at the time I spend commuting and compare that to the cost of owning a car and the time I'd save, it's really not worth it. My wife (not American) almost had me convinced to buy a car at one point, until I sat down and did the math, and realized we'd take a huge dip in our quality of life just to make it easier to cart groceries home. For anything else (occasional camping/ski trip and similar) we can easily rent a car for a couple days for less than the monthly fees of owning one (especially since we don't do those activities all that often).

      Most other Americans I know who live here, the first thing they look for once here is a car. Culturally, a car is like a rite of passage for Americans. They can't imagine being without one. I've even been ridiculed by other Americans for not owning a car. I know a few guys who will get in their car and drive to the gym, which is a mile away from their house, and then go for a 3 mile run (on the road, not a treadmill). I've got friends who post more pictures of their car to facebook than their own children. For most people I know, it's not enough to have 1 car for the family, they have one for each individual with a license.

      Granted, Japan has a fairly high population density (at least in greater Tokyo/Yokohama area) which makes useful mass transit feasible. Out in the more rural areas, a car is almost a necessity. While my wife's parents could certainly survive without theres given that they grow a good portion of their own food and have a grocer within walking distance, anything else is too far away. Though I think the major problem with the states and I would suppose Australia (I've only been to a couple cities for a few days at a time, but I don't remember there being a very robust public transit system) is that no one has managed to succeed in putting in an efficient mass transit system in the places that can support it (NYC being a possible exception). A lot of that is probably political lobbying, but I'm sure the culture surrounding the car doesn't help mass transit win any points.

    30. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by trawg · · Score: 1

      Phew, nice to hear some positive feedback - I was worried my post would be taken as just typical random American-bashing which it definitely wasn't (hopefully evident from the subtle Australian-bashing I was doing too).

      We have the same thing with the rite of passage as well.

      I spent a few weeks in Japan over two trips - my first one I was amazed and stunned that I was able to see almost the whole country through a combination of nothing other than walking and getting on trains. Cheaply and easily.

      I often wonder if the big problem with Australia and the US is a function of the size of the two countries and the fact that when they were really exploding, cars were pretty common - so it lead to a lot of cities being designed in such a way that roads/cars were more important than anything else. This was also back before oil cost $100 a barrel, I guess.

      We actually have reassssoonable public transport, as long as you live in a city close to a train or bus line. They're pretty extensive but nowhere near as easy to get around different cities, although that is also because they're generally over 1000km apart.

    31. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      As stated before it is already the rich who have personal private transport.
      I live in an industrialised country and have no car (or driveway.)
      My transport? bicycle, bus, train and very occasional taxi.

      I think that your idea of cars = freedom comes from living in a place that was planned based on near total car ownership.

    32. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Not enough room in the world for 14 billion cars

      --
      This is blinging
    33. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by maeka · · Score: 1

      Not enough room in the world for 14 billion cars

      People need to drop this "argument". There's enough room!

      Let's take a low density urban area where a majority of people own cars, like Columbus Ohio for example. 3,556 people per square mile. It's a quite thinly populated urban area, yet if we take that as a model for all future cities we could put your 14 billion cars in a space not much larger than the country of India.

    34. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by khallow · · Score: 1

      the real issue is that it's not sustainable for every person on the planet to transport himself and two tons of metal an average distance of sixteen miles one-way as part of a daily commute.

      Why is that an "issue"? Some places have the space and wealth to do it. So they do. It's like complaining that because some people live in igloos, then it's an "issue" that everyone doesn't live in an igloo.

    35. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      the real issue is that it's not sustainable for every person on the planet to transport himself and two tons of metal an average distance of sixteen miles one-way as part of a daily commute.

      Straw Man! Straw Man! The situation you describe applies to far less than 5% of the planet's population now. Most people on the planet don't drive to work, or take any form of nonliving transport. Even among commuters worldwide, most who drive themselves use a vehicle under one metric ton.

      India and China together constitute over 1/3 of the world's population. How many of them do you think are solo driving 2 ton vehicles 32 miles a day?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    36. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My car was $1600, came out in 1991, and gets 30 mpg.

      That's nothing; some cars of the same model year and price get 50 mpg!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    37. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There's a reason Americans have the highest level of stress combined with the best standards of living.

      Not really, many European countries do better. Better and universal healthcare, lower working hours and more holidays, lower crime rates, longer life expectancy... France and Germany in particular, most northern European countries, and even the UK.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      They're also financially falling a part. Your healthcare is as much of a joke as ours (love that bureaucracy and malpractice). The only reason Europeans live longer is because you don't cram fast food down your throat only to be washed down with a 44oz soda. As an American, if I see another fellow American eating like that, I will point and laugh.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    39. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're much more violent with each other here in the US compared to Europeans, but the rates of non-violent crime are often similar or lower. The murder rate is particularly bad here, and that gets a lot of attention.

      Regarding life expectancy, DigiShaman already mentioned our unfortunate love of fast food (which wouldn't be as much of a problem if such food were simply made healthier). But there's also a problem of disturbingly high infant mortality in certain poor areas bringing down the overall average. That's a serious social problem (sometimes complicated by persistent racial inequalities) we're simply not addressing properly, but it skews the larger picture.

      - T

    40. Re:Alternate Fuels = Wrong Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do that in dense cities, but then real estate is so expensive, it's much cheaper to live where you're required to move tons of metal around every day.

  5. make full time 32 hours a week by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and move to a 4 day work week. That will cut down on the need for transport and put more people to work as well.

    1. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo. If we all moved to a 32 hour work week, there might be enough work to go around for some of our unemployed friends.

      Instead, everyone seems to be working 60 hour overtime shifts.

    2. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That requires duplication of resources, why not let employees work one day a week from home where possible and issue laptops to them so they can achieve this. Not possible for every job but possible for more jobs than you think.

    3. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      and move to a 4 day work week. That will cut down on the need for transport and put more people to work as well.

      Replacing heavy machinery at construction sites with manual laborers wielding shovels would put more people to work, too. Having them dig with teaspoons instead of shovels would put even more people to work.

      Never mind that it'd be horribly inefficient and much more expensive. You're looking in the wrong place for savings if you go down that road.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    4. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Rising+Ape · · Score: 2

      They aren't the same thing. Your example is inefficient because it uses more labour to achieve the same result - a shorter working week would get less done but require less work to do it, which isn't less efficient.

      I dont' understand why we still have 40 hour weeks. Surely with all the technical improvements over the past few decades we can still be wealthy enough without as much work.

    5. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by RogL · · Score: 2

      I dont' understand why we still have 40 hour weeks. Surely with all the technical improvements over the past few decades we can still be wealthy enough without as much work.

      Nobody's stopping you!

      You can go ahead and start working a 32-hour week; most likely, you'll make roughly 80% of a 40-hour week's pay. Might be hard to arrange, as most jobs include benefits, hard to break those down to 80% but some minor negotiation should get you there. Most people would rather get 5-days pay per week than 4-days. Many folks work overtime, more hours for more compensation. But not everyone; there are "part-time" jobs out there, and self-employed folks can set their own weekly max-hours.

    6. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by mpaque · · Score: 1

      They aren't the same thing. Your example is inefficient because it uses more labour to achieve the same result - a shorter working week would get less done but require less work to do it, which isn't less efficient.

      Nah. We'll get the efficiency back via unpaid overtime.

    7. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      60 hour overtime shifts means you're staffed at 75% of what you really require. Benefits aside, two people can work a 40 for the same cost. It'd be a lot cheaper to hire than have those OT shifts.

    8. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>make full time 32 hours
      >>and move to a 4 day work week. That will cut down on the need for transport and put more people to work as well.

      Oddly enough, when they tried this in South America, it didn't work out very well..

      We have plenty of energy on this planet - talk of running out of fuel hundreds of years from now seems a bit premature. We *should* have fusion up and running by the time all our hydrocarbons and fissilables have run out.

    9. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by thynk · · Score: 2

      Why only one day a week? If we gave some sort of incentive for companies to let their people work from home more often, then they save on office space and we save on transportation costs.

      I used to be 100% remote for a large company, then they spend millions renovating 2 floors of office space and required everyone within 50 miles to be on site every day. Those who were more than 50 miles were let go shortly after. Now workers spend hours driving to work, only to be less productive because it's too damn noisy. The only answer I've ever gotten for this is "because they said so". I'm not sure who came up with the idea, how it got approved but I'm willing to put money on Power Point being used in it. Some of the worst decisions in business history have been made to look good with that damn program.

      Do the math, I live an hour away. That's 10 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. That's 520 hours a year. 13 work weeks each year spend driving to and from a job that has been proven successful when done from home office. 20,000 miles at a cost of over 9,000 (at $0.45 per mile) each year.

      Oh, and they already issue laptops and require employees to have high speed broadband for on call duty.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    10. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      we can still be wealthy enough...

      Good luck selling that one...

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about the 32-hour week, but all the nurses at the hospitals here are on 12 hour shifts, 3 days a week.

      Obviously that is a better arrangement for the hospitals, don't know about the workers.

    12. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by originalTMAN · · Score: 1

      which is why many professional occupations don't pay overtime anymore.

    13. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is four 10 hour days less efficient and more expensive than five 8 hour days?

    14. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome, and while we're at it let's pay everyone $200K per year and give 8 weeks of vacation. Shit, why even work when the state can clothe and feed you your entire life (life expectancy 40 years tops). All animals are created equal after all - well some are more equal than others.

      Socialism is like living at the bottom of the barrel drinking piss-water and eating everyone's shit and claiming you like it and it's good for everyone. By law.

    15. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I don't shave. 6 minutes a day x 5 days a week = 30 minutes a week shaving, or 26 hours a year! That's a whole day wasted shaving.

    16. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40 hours a week, 8 per day, 5 days per week, is an arbitrary standard. Deviance isn't socialism; refusing to consider deviance and equating it all to ridiculous wealth is.

    17. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Immostlyharmless · · Score: 1

      I'm a nurse who works those 12 hour shifts that sometimes turn into 13 and 13 and half hour shifts. I would gladly trade my 3 12s for 4 8s.

    18. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With Republicans pushing to get rid of unions and minimum wage pretty soon people will be working 10 hours a day 6 days a week and be lucky to pay our rent. Isn't Capitalism fun.

    19. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      We're having problems as it is getting qualified workers, cutting 20% on top of that would give us even bigger problems!

      --
      This is blinging
    20. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I dont' understand why we still have 40 hour weeks. Surely with all the technical improvements over the past few decades we can still be wealthy enough without as much work.

      So work freelance. You can choose how much you work, and your income directly correlates with how much work you do. Live somewhere cheap, and you can work a lot less than 30 hours a week.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      you standers are to high or your pay is to low.

    22. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      which is why many professional occupations don't pay overtime anymore.

      Thanks W. Bush!

    23. Re:make full time 32 hours a week by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Nobody's stopping you!

      32 hours being considered "part time" is what is stopping me. You lose a lot of the benefits and protections that working full time brings. We would need to make 32 hours count as full time.

      The reason technology doesn't mean we can work fewer hours is because all it is really doing is allowing us to do more in a given time, and therefore do more complex and labour intensive things. We could decide to take some of the gains ourselves as reduced working hours by passing laws mandating the reduction with no reduction in salary, much as the French did. Politically no-one is offering that though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  6. Where do these numbers come from? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    Did they consider we might be nearing the end of the road for pure gas efficiency? Just wondering if *any* science ever factors into these decisions. As if engineers can engineer anything given time!!

    A Prius may do over 50mpg but that is only because it does not run on gas for a decent portion of it.

    1. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      All stock Priuses run entirely on gasoline. And will do so until the plug-in versions come out later this year. If they're getting 50mpg, it's because they recapture some of the losses and use the performance assist of the electric drive to get away with sizing the engine for average load instead of peak load.

      Don't be like those people who put "I am electric" stickers on their, as far as i can tell, completely unmodified hybrids....

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      The answer to your question is yes. Whenever they set these standards, the lobbyists from the auto industry work with them to make sure the standards are attainable.

    3. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by zzzy · · Score: 1

      Remember that even a plug-in still gets power from the fossil fuel powered grid. The plugin hybrid simply changes the location of the systems boundary, it's not like the overall efficiency is any better (in fact, it will be much worse).

    4. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 2

      No, no one is thinking of any of these things. That's why we have these Slashdot peer reviews, so you unsung geniuses can poke obvious holes in the plans of professionals.

    5. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by psiden · · Score: 2

      The Prius and others are interesting experiments but it will only be a small percentage of cars sold for many years to come. We also have to look at what we can do with the rest of the fleet. 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 is an an extremely modest, if not pathetic, goal. My eight year old Citroën C5, considered a big car by European standards, is around 40 mpg. If I were to update to say a brand new Volvo V70 - also a big, comfortable and safe car - I'd do over 52 mpg (and less than 119 g/km CO2 emissions). Even a couple of years old V70 would do over 48 mpg! And we're still talking 'big' cars while the 54.4 miles per gallon by 2025 is for the average car fleet sold. Two or three years and modern cars will bloody BE at 54.4 mpg - and you will still wait for another ten years?! You might as well shut your motor industry down right now. No, the faster American motor industry gets up to modern standards the faster it gets more competitive! The Ford F-series, a dinosaur relic to be honest, is still the best selling car in the world - THAT IS F**NG AMAZING - but its more or less unsellable anywhere but in the U.S. for being so old-fashioned and having a mileage that wasn't ok even in the 70's. What will you do when if finally stops selling? The U.S. have a grand automotive heritage to defend and you are losing it. This goal is too little and too late. Where did the American confidence go? Why don't you set a goal to ASTONISH the world rather than one that makes you look pathetic. It makes me sad, I know you can do so much better than this. Fire your lawyers and get your engineers to work, you can do it if you want to!

    6. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently getting 52mpg from my (entirely petrol powered) Honda Jazz.

    7. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by psiden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly my point. Isn't "54.5 miles per gallon by 2025" a rather pathetic goal?

    8. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      VW's TDI engines in a compact (Jetta, Rabbit, etc.) can already come pretty close to hitting the proposed mark. Were they to add some of the non-hybrid technology used in hybrids (regenerative braking, etc.) they could problably put that rating up pretty quickly.

      The downside to that approach is cost. As vehicles get more complex, they cost more to make.

      But in large part, I don't see why the numbers are not attainable.

    9. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Were they to add some of the non-hybrid technology used in hybrids (regenerative braking, etc.) they could probably put that rating up pretty quickly

      Already happening. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_hybrid for various levels of this. Of course, those are not quite as efficient as a Prius with its more sophisticated systems.
       

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    10. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by errhuman · · Score: 1

      Just saying that the efficiency is probably less doesn't make it true. As far as I can tell its a trade up between... gasoline refining + transport to filling station + losses in internal combustion engine versus burn in power station (more efficient that small scale internal combustion engine) + transmission losses (6.5% from wikipedia) + losses in electric motors (less than internal combustion engine) ...so I disagree.

    11. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by zzzy · · Score: 1

      versus burn in power station (more efficient that small scale internal combustion engine) +

      The power station efficiency is roughly 35%. To calculate the total efficiency, the operation should be multiplication, not addition. Also, do not forget losses during voltage stepping and rectification, and losses while charging and discharging the battery. (hint: any heating in the battery pack means that part of your precious energy has just turned into heat)

    12. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the figures you quoted for existing cars in british gallons or US gallons? 54.5 mpg (US) is more than 65 mpg (GB). Also, I get the impression that the American EPA mileage estimates are more conservative than the equivalent European ones. A VW GTI MkVI is rated for 31 miles per US gallon highway in the US. A quick google conversion shows it gets about 40 miles per US gallon highway in the UK (VW's UK website rates it at 48.7 mpg). Same car, same engine, same fuel, different mileage estimation techniques.

    13. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      A carefully driven Prius (going 50 or 55 mph on a level highway) can exceed 60 mpg. Recapture is helpful only in situations where the driver has to brake, and it's not as efficient as never braking. The Prius's drivetrain is not as efficient as it should be. (From what I've read, there's excessive loss in the transmission.) The proper sizing helps a great deal, as does the fact that the engine never idles, and that the engine can be precisely tuned for maximum efficiency by running at one speed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    14. Re:Where do these numbers come from? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      But isn't that car listed around 30mpg? I mean, it's wonderful that you get 52 out of it, but it's not what Honda got, and it means even for a Honda Jazz/Fit, the car would somehow need 20 more mpg.

  7. For those that prefer metric by Cimexus · · Score: 1

    For those not in the US, Google says* that the target in TFA is equivalent to ~4.3 litres/100km.

    That figure is very close to the' 'official' stated fuel consumption of the Toyota Prius. So it's a pretty ambitious target considering we are talking about light trucks here.

    * (Google's unit conversion feature continues to surprise me with what it can do - in this case turning a distance per volume and turning it into a volume per multiple of a different distance. Nifty.)

    1. Re:For those that prefer metric by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yep. Does anybody know why it's going to take until 2025 to achieve this?

      2025 is so far away that they might as well not bother. Nobody's going to lift a finger until at least 2020 (and when they do it'll be to lobby the politicians for more time).

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:For those that prefer metric by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I'm betting that trucks won't make that cut, so their prices will reflect a penalty/tax in them, and people (including myself) will pay the tax rather than have an under-powered truck. I only put about 5k miles on my truck (compared to 35k on my car) per year, but a 50MPG truck won't pull a trailer. Ever.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:For those that prefer metric by psiden · · Score: 1

      There's always going to be a need for other vehicles outside the norm - or if not a need then for fun. But its a not exactly optimal when the trucks like the Ford F-series is the norm. Those kind of heavy duty cars need a huge tax upon buying, to keep their numbers down in the used market.

    4. Re:For those that prefer metric by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Ever hear of things called superchargers?* They allow you to change the power output of your engine by pushing a button.

      Do you think it's necessary to drive something that guzzles 100% of the time when it only needs to guzzle a couple of times a year?

      (Superchargers...or similar technologies)

      A few months ago I drove an 'Eco' car which had a supercharger in the gas pedal. When the pedal hit bottom you could give it an extra push; it went 'click' and suddenly you got a load more power for overtaking. Do you not think this sort of thing should be more common?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:For those that prefer metric by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Superchargers are not the answer for heavy duty equipment, or else heavy duty trucks would have them, and literally NONE do. They have more basic, heavy duty engines that focus more on durability than technology. My 2005 2500HD has a Gen III 6.0L (gas), for example, even though Gen IV engines were already out. Heavy duty use tends to break "sophisticated" systems, and beg for more simplicity, which is why diesel is really the best solution.

      Heavy duty trucks need engines that develop high torque at very low RPMs, and gears to push the RPMs up at lower speeds, which is also why my truck runs out of RPMs before it could hit 100MPH. Superchargers (or turbo chargers) are a great idea for lighter loads where overall HP is more important than durability and low RPM torque.

      My new Hyundai Sonata has a 2.0L turbo engine, for example, that pushes 274HP when fully tapped, and gets 33-35MPG on the Hwy if you keep your foot out of it. That is not the same application as I use my truck, which only has 26 more HP. Towing a 10k-12k trailer would destroy my car, but my truck shrugs it off like it is no big deal. Different application, different technology.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    6. Re:For those that prefer metric by karnal · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, most of the heavy duty diesels available on the market now are turbocharged. Granted, mildly different than a supercharger in how they work/help, but they're there.

      Torque is king with pulling; diesel engines are handy for that.

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:For those that prefer metric by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      There are some critical differences in supercharging and turbo charging, which is why turbos are common and blowers are rare at the OEM level. More importantly, they don't turbo charge a light duty but highly efficient engine so it has pulling power when you need it. Instead, they are turbo charging a monster engine, solely for the purpose of giving you higher RPM passing power when you need it.

      With or without the turbo, the engines are huge and not making anything near 50mpg. It is a completely different application. Obviously, there is a huge different in transmissions as well, but even if we stick with gas engines, the main bearings, cranks, rods, etc. are very different on a HD application engine and an engine designed for a passenger car, even if they have the same HP rating. For example, I use my truck to pull small stumps, which is hard on the engine and trans (rocking back and forth, jerking, etc.). No way I would do that with a modern car engine that had the same HP, regardless of the frame type. The parts themselves are not not as beefy.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  8. Low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is everyone neglecting aerodynamics?
    http://www.aerocivic.com/ proved that just some simple changes made a huge difference.
    The dimple test on Mythbusters was another relatively simple change that made a huge difference.
    http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-dimpled-car-minimyth.html

    1. Re:Low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't.

      I actually saw an article today about adding a tail to the end of truck trailers that could improve efficiency 4%.

    2. Re:Low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is research on that dating back to the 70s, but it makes loading and unloading difficult.

    3. Re:Low hanging fruit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is everyone neglecting aerodynamics?

      I wonder... would it be cost effective if we could?

      What if new high speed highways were sealed, vacuum-pumped, air-less (or... some artificially reduced air-pressure) tubes? Internal combustion wouldn't work, but electric would, though cars would need better environmental support so people wouldn't suffocate, and there'd need to be air-locks everywhere... but I wonder how much energy we could save if we could practically remove air resistance as an issue. For what we're paying for lengths of interstate highways... and fuel, we should be half-way there.

      How hard could it be to create a machine that pumps out massive lengths of industry tempered ridiculously thick glass either in the shape of a dome or pointed gothic variety that covers the width of 10 lanes as it moves along?

      An added benefit to developing this infrastructure, if it solves the energy crisis, is it would also eliminate road kill, and it would work on the Moon and Mars...

  9. ONLY $175 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering how much money the government has and the scale of the fuel crisis, I wouldn't call this pumping money into solving the problem. More like a dribble.

  10. How about 1000 miles per gram? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

    That would be thorium. 1 gram would cost you under 10 bucks.

    --
    If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    1. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after 10 grams for everyone, there would be no thorium left on the planet.

      *ANYTHING* that doesn't use the sun as an energy source (not as a container though) nowadays is so utterly retarded that its suggesters deserve massive repeated punches in the face, until they grasp the concept of what "non-renewable" means.

      Fucking retards!

    2. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that's a joke? make that thorium in a central nuclear power plant, and it's a solution

    3. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every-time someone claims we are running out of Element-X I feel strongly compelled to remind them that the earth has a mass of 6x10^24 kgs, but I guess that's just me being a "fucking retard"

    4. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Wingsy · · Score: 1
      --
      If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    5. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

      I re-read the article. 1 gm of thorium has the energy of 7,500 gallons of gasoline, so my topic should read something like "How about 150,000 miles per gram".

      --
      If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    6. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by rubycodez · · Score: 1, Insightful

      hah, sorry but that is a hoax, a scam to get investor money. you can't induce fission, nor can you induce faster thorium decay, by heating with a laser. What you can do is make a thorium breeder reactor, which will NOT fit in a car.

    7. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

      Dunno where you got that from, but the US alone has 440,000 TONS of the stuff. That's 4x10^11 grams.

      So who is this retard you're referring to? Some AC who posts insults here?

      --
      If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    8. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Wingsy · · Score: 1

      I don't want to hear that! :)

      --
      If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
    9. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Fell for that scam, did you?

    10. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And after 10 grams for everyone, there would be no thorium left on the planet.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Reserves says there is a total of 1,300,000 tonnes of thorium reserves. 10 grams for everyone works out to 60,000 tonnes. 1,300,000 > 60,000, so your statement is false.

      *ANYTHING* that doesn't use the sun as an energy source (not as a container though) nowadays is so utterly retarded that its suggesters deserve massive repeated punches in the face, until they grasp the concept of what "non-renewable" means.

      You are an idiot (and you should feel honored as this is the first time EVER I called someone an idiot on slashdot).

      We can't harness enough of the sun's energy just yet to get us to that point. You are telling us to support something that DOES NOT EXIST YET.

      While we are waiting for technology to improve on that point, we are going to flat out ignore your insane rantings and use what we can to grow our society, concentrating on getting the most bang for the buck. This means we are going to use oil, we are going to use natural gas, we are going to use fission fuel. We have HUNDREDS of YEARS of reserves of these items, USING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. Down the road, when solar/wind/etc technology gets to the point of powering everything, THEN we will let you talk. Until then, shut up.

      Go back and read that. Then, once you wipe the fingerprint smears off the screen, tell me: Can you grasp that? We are going to make the best of what we HAVE, even though it doesn't meet your mandate, because your mandate right now is FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE and we aren't going to abandon all current energy sources and go back to the trees just because you are an uppity twat.

      Fucking retards!

      No kidding, took two of them to spawn you.

    11. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember what basic economics teaches us: as the price goes up, it becomes economical to produce more of the thing in question so that the supply becomes essentially unlimited at high enough prices. That works for oil, that works for thorium, the only thing that's immune to this type of inflation is Bitcoins.

    12. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets used ionized silver instead :rollseyes:

    13. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      250 MW? That's 335,000 horsepower!
      WANT!

    14. Re:How about 1000 miles per gram? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still: NON-RENEWABLE, retard! Got that?

  11. I have a better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Make it hard to get a driver's license.

  12. Government. What do you expect? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    More of the same coming from a government - spend more money on more shit that government sees as profitable. But this has nothing with profitability of a business, this has to do with profitability for various government contractors.

    Who is to say that if all of this credit, that government is crowding the private sector out of was available to the private sector, that the private sector would be sinking all of this into more oil research?

    Why not real alternative ways to generate energy, like miniature nuclear reactors?

    Anyway, I expect a bunch of pro-government replies and mods in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ...

  13. what about 4 days a week with 9-10 hours a day? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    what about 4 days a week with 9-10 hours a day?

  14. Loopholes by Coppit · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the new fuel standards close the loophole that allow SUVs and trucks to be exempt from the standards?

    1. Re:Loopholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope not!

      I drive a full-size pickup with a manual transmission. I generally ride solo and seldom carry significant cargo. I maintain my TRUCK in good mechanical condition While I would not object to better mpg I am unwilling to sacrifice performance or safety ( my truck is made primarily of STEEL and i am glad of it!). I pay what I must for gas and accept that it is expensive and likely to become more so. I am happy to grant you your own choices, I make no apology for my choice; I do not accept that people with your apparent viewpoint should be permitted to restrict my choices or to artificially inflate my costs.

      That is what I think; I will now "listen" to what you think, if you choose to reply. Please try to come up with something other than "you're killing the planet" or "you don't 'need' to drive that monster"

      Regards
      'Truck guy'

    2. Re:Loopholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr!
      yor killing teh planet!
      u dn't kneed to drive taht monsta!
      ur a hillbillee!
      your mom!

      /hyper-troll

  15. 175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    It's around 0.0001 times what they gave to the banks for free.
    How much do the oil companies get?
    How much do the agribusinesses get to make ethanol?

    It's laughable.

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would guess it comes to roughly the sum of the golden handshakes given out to the ex-CEO's of said banks who destroyed not only their companies but the world's economy.

      This is where our bizarre version of capitalism falls down, creating clean efficient energy is considered of the same value to society as creating a global financial meltdown.

    2. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by englishknnigits · · Score: 2

      I almost wish agribusinesses would get fined for making ethanol, ethanol is truly laughable. It uses up valuable farm land to take 1 unit of "energy" and create 1.01 units of "energy". That 1 unit of energy that goes into making ethanol is almost always diesel, gasoline, or some other form of petroleum anyways. It is also only feasible because the corn industry is so heavily subsidized making corn damned close to free. The ethanol point aside, I actually agree that this would be a much better use of money than bailing out the banks or subsidizing oil companies. I would favor none of it but this is at least a better use than they often choose.

    3. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How much do the oil companies get?

      How much $ and how many dead in the Middle East so far?

      It's laughable.

      Only on the outside.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just hypothetically speaking, if you had to actually physically produce your own fuel for your own individual consumption, what would you choose and why?

    5. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by errhuman · · Score: 1

      Horse?

    6. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly the point is alcohol is easy to produce irregardless of its efficiency as a fuel, and is a ready substitute for gasoline (with conversion)... if you want to keep driving your favorite classic car in a post-petroleum-product world. If I had some land, I'd consider some rational rotation cropping, and growing sugar cane or anything for the purposes of fermenting to alcohol and stock-piling fuel. Compared to what they can hold, I bet tanks are cheap so long as you have room for them. Farming and getting great yield would be, of course, very very difficult.

    7. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It uses up valuable farm land to take 1 unit of "energy" and create 1.01 units of "energy".

      Even for corn, which has an insanely low EROI, you're getting 1.1 units of energy out. For more something like switchgrass, it's 6.4. And you can run farm equipment on biodiesel quite easily, since most of it's diesel anyway.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:175 million..... more a dribble than a pump... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You just reiterated the GP post's point: the ethanol subsidy is a huge problem. Not only are the farmers growing the wrong damn plant to produce the wrong damn fuel, but we're encouraging them to do it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  16. They fit into the "light truck" category by brokeninside · · Score: 2

    According to Wiki, "light truck" means any vehicle capable of carrying less than 4,000 lbs. Your most popular minivans, SUVs and pickups will fit into that category.

    But note that the proposed standard is an average of the entire fleet. So in 2025, for every subcompacts with 100mpg, there could be an SUV with mileage essentially unchanged from today. (This isn't quite true. Each category--cars, light trucks, etc.--has to meet certain improvements within the category.)

    It's not a horrible approach. And the best approaches are probably politically unfeasible. If the US raised gas taxes to a level that would capture true costs of using that gas, the market would shit to higher mpg vehicles all on its own. But good luck getting a 100% or 150% federal tax on gasoline and diesel passed.

    1. Re:They fit into the "light truck" category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, spelling error, or intentional?

      I agree that if gasoline taxes were raised enough to internalize the true costs, the market, (a whole lot of car owners and buyers) would indeed be looking for a clean pair of skivvies when they first heard about it. But I agree, I rather doubt that we can get enough consensus in DC to make any policy changes of that nature, and it's a pity.

    2. Re:They fit into the "light truck" category by brokeninside · · Score: 1

      That was a typo.

      I meant, "shift."

  17. No one is neglecting aerodynamics anymore by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    As one example, the shape of Toyota's redesign of the Yaris in 2007 was largely a function of work to maximize aerodynamic efficiency.

    Sure, you'll find a few vehicles like the VW Bug that have atrocious designs that simply cannot be made aerodynamic. But for the most part all of the major manufacturers have been doing extensive windtunnel testing for at least the past ten years.

    Or have you not noticed that fewer and fewer cars on the road have straight lines and pointy corners?

  18. What about methanol? by amitofu · · Score: 1

    Methanol is the obvious solution (which is why everyone ignores it). We need to destroy the oil cartel that is looting our country--we can't do that when we only control a few percent of the fuel market.

    But we have lots of coal and natural gas from which we can easily produce lots of methanol. Adapting new cars to run on any combination of gasoline and methanol is trivial, you just have to reprogram the ECU and make sure the fuel lines are up to snuff. And to be clear, a flex-fuel car can run on BOTH methanol and gasoline, you have a choice.

    Methanol can also be made from any source of biomass, so it can be renewable and global-warming neutral too. Unfortunately, the car companies are owned by people who have even larger stakes in the oil industry, so they will never voluntarily make all their cars flex-fueled. Congress needs to mandate that all new cars sold in the U.S. be flex-fueled. It's as simple as that to get out of this mess. No "alternative fuel research" required.

    1. Re:What about methanol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adapting new cars to run on any combination of gasoline and methanol is trivial, you just have to reprogram the ECU and make sure the fuel lines are up to snuff.

      On the contrary, it is far more than just "reprogram the ECU and make sure the fuel lines are up to snuff." You do know that there is extensive emissions testing with each powertrain combination, right?

    2. Re:What about methanol? by couchslug · · Score: 2

      This is supposedly a tech forum. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

      Alcohol fuels must compete with food for arable land, and are not being made form "any source of biomass" because it isn't always cost-effective.

      You are invited to do it yourself and get rich. Have at it.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  19. the Obama fuel conservation plan: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    phart in a jar!

  20. No wonder automakers didn't complain more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was really wondering why there wasn't more news about the automakers belly aching about the new Obama CAFE standards. I guess they figgured they would get subsidized for the research, and ultimately pass the costs to the consumer anyway, so why should they care?

    OBTW moves like this are full of unintended consequences. Federal regulators push for things like reduced oil change intervals has resulted in manufacturers increasing the recommended interval up to 15-25K miles, with little mechanical changes. Sure modern synthetics are great, but not that great. Ultimately the manufacturer is accepting reduced service life of the vehicle to meet the requirements. This results in less oil used over the life of the car, but reduces the life of the car resulting in more waste of energy required in manufacture.

    Same story for run flat tires.

  21. Make Cars Lighter and Areodynamic by PineHall · · Score: 1
    You need to look no farther than the winner of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize (mainstream class). They decided that light weight and aerodynamics was key. It had meet some tough standards.

    The goal: a car with mileage greater than 100 MPGe. The requirements: 4 passengers, 4 wheels, range exceeding 200 miles, 0-60 in less than 15 seconds, meeting Consumers Union dynamic safety standards and Tier 2 Bin 8 emissions.

  22. US should invest in a time machine by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    Anything to spring us 15 years into the future so we can surprise the fusion researchers.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  23. Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Emetophobe · · Score: 2

    U.S. set new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, saying they must hit 54.5 miles per gallon by Model Year 2025

    This seems extremely low to me, cars already do that today. When the U.S reaches 54.5 mpg in 2025 other countries will be on 75-100 mpg.

    1. Re:Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some cars, barely, achieve that. Don't forget that this is the palty US gallon not the more commodious imperial gallon, and that 54.5 US mpg is about 65 Imperial mpg.

    2. Re:Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up.

      The following (newish) cars are 50MPG+

      Kia Rio 1.1L CRDi (88mpg)
      Fiat 500 TwinAir (71)
      Smart fortwo (86)
      Skoda Fabia 1.2 CR TDi Greenline II 2010 (83)
      VW Polo 1.2 (83mpg)

      Okay, so they're small cars and mostly diesel, but the above list was found without really much effort.
      Family cars with similar ratings aren't *that* far off.

      Also, the 2011 Ford Ka 1.2 does 58MPG :-) (okay it's tiny but it's a frigging Ford right?)

    3. Re:Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that in other countries such as the UK, the gallon is bigger so 54.5 mp(us)g is about 65.5 mp(uk)g.

      I agree that it's all too little too late in the eyes of many, but at least it's some progress in the right direction. "Big Oil" is a huge industry which employs millions worldwide, and their lobbying is second to none. However the harsh realities are striking home which gives them, and us, very few other options.

      In case anyone thinks that 100mpg is too difficult, check out the Shell Eco-Marathon .... 2500 mpg ! A little impractical for daily use, but other entries achived 400mpg in more conventional vehicles.

      We'll get there, I'm sure

    4. Re:Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a fleet average though(and using a harmonic mean, whatever that means!), and the calculation methods for fuel mileage can vary in different countries, not just the units.

      So even if it's the exact same car, it might get 35 mpg by US standards, while another country might give it 42.

    5. Re:Low gas efficiency for 2025 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well part of it is even being able to get any support behind it in the US. Since the mantra by a chunk of the population is "big government telling little America how to live is evil" What few seem to realize is big business is the ones who pull the strings if left unchecked by government. And by a democracy's very definition, the voters are in theory a check on both. -- so long as they look themselves for facts rather than simply listen to politicians and news outlets.

      Freedom of the press was supposed to supply a check on government. However who exactly checks that press if you listen to everything it says?

  24. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I've got one ticket to Somalia for you to put your money where your mouth is. Are you up for it, spineless coward?

  25. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooray! The Somalia strawman! You win the prize!

  26. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by xmorg · · Score: 1

    What an idiot.
    "Alternative fuel research" means lots of money to big corporation so they can indefinitely "research" crap, and should they ever find out something AND find out how to gouge the "little people" for it, then they will reveal it.

  27. US Pumps 175 million by Bite_MSMA · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but that is just chump change. There is no serious alternative energy policy in the U.S.

    1. Re:US Pumps 175 million by mariovario · · Score: 1

      No policy is The Policy. Do you seriously think that U.S. government can do anything that will be disproved by Oil Industry? Who controls who?

  28. $175M? Hey Obama: the credit card is maxed out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need to stop throwing my hard earned money away into a black hole. Stop spending!!!!

  29. Considering each country has its own standard by Shivetya · · Score: 0

    who are we to assume is right?

    CAFE standards are "gamed" A car which is flex fuel gets credit for mileage than it can ever do on gasoline alone. A 12 to 16 mile per gallon truck might count for over 20 when it comes to CAFE standards, hell it could count as more.

    The Euro standard always shows higher numbers than can be achieved under US standards, same for Japan. So yeah, they might just claim they have higher mileage cars, up until they are measured by the same standards.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Considering each country has its own standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you look at the same standards, the US is way behind. The most efficient cars sold in the states rack up about 40 miles per gallon in optimal conditions. That's about 17 km/l, which is among the worst possible efficiency you get with the typical European cars. I recently bought the latest Panda "Natural Power", which is dual powered (gasoline/methane), and although it's not even the most efficient car around, it achieves about 19 km/l (gasoline, km/kg for methane) for city drive, and over 25 km/l (gasoline, km/kg for methane) in optimal conditions: and that's measured by yours truly, not the numbers declared by the mfgr.

  30. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

    Sure, as long as you give me a couple dozen of our largest FAE's and a company of Recon to clear out the local despots(a form of government.) and their fanatics first. Then I'll start Galt's Gulch. The idea that because some lines drawn on a map of the pisshole that is Africa no longer denote a single government entity means there is no government left is utterly fucking asinine.

  31. I don't understand. Patent is ~20 years right ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The wiki snippet says the patent is from 1982. Even counting a few years of filling, by now the patent should be expired : we are 29 years afterward.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  32. Re:Still using gasoline? Zero Fuel Here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's one that uses no fuel at all => http://tinyurl.com/superpage007 => available NOW not 2050.

  33. $175M? Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's that, like 2 seconds worth of GDP? Wake me up when we get serious about something besides paying minorities to sit on their asses smoking weed and popping out welfare babies.

  34. Re:Get government out of Research. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be from China.

  35. 2 Stage Cars? by assertation · · Score: 1

    I see so many people driving cars with just themselves in it, burning fuel to haul empty seats with them. Why not build 2 stage detachable cars? A 2 seater for commuting to work that can be snapped to a back seat module for shopping, kids etc?

  36. Needer safer cars for higher MPG by assertation · · Score: 1

    One thing I always hear when people talk about the uber small cars or the cars with very light materials is something along the lines of "what will happen to me if some gluttonous polluting selfish schmuck in an SUV or Minivan hits me?"

    I think they have a valid point.

    Cars are going to have to get lighter and less resilient to get gas mileage up. SUVS being on the road are a barrier.

    1. Re:Needer safer cars for higher MPG by karnal · · Score: 1

      I have a co-worker who drives a Dodge Caravan. I was looking at the BMW mini, thinking that it would be a neat small car to drive around in. He proceeds to call it a death trap. This mentality will always erode the mindset for smaller more efficient cars in the US.

      I was recently in Germany and was amazed at the differences in cars between the US and there. A lot of common-class cars (not luxury) are 2.0l or less turbodiesels. Partly due to the higher cost of petrol/gas/diesel. They're still not bad to drive, and everyone (with the select few) drive appropriately. In fact, for pulling campers and such - most people there use cars. I saw a total of two "trucks" - and that was up closer to Amsterdam.

      --
      Karnal
  37. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you give me a couple dozen of our largest FAE's and a company of Recon to clear out the local despots(a form of government.) and their fanatics first.

    Once you do that you become government by default, whether you think so or not.

  38. Re:Alternative Fuel Research is Government Welfare by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    THANK YOU! Those local despots are good free-market despots. If ravenshrike goes in and clears them out, he is the new government. Even if he leaves afterwards he's just making room for new despots who will effectively be the new government.

    The admission from a libertarian that a non-government entity can effectively become a government is, in effect, a strong renunciation of the ideology, whether he realizes it or not.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  39. You don't know what a Government is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government is a position of authority where a subject is directed to become more like the local inhabitants.

    What you see today is not Government: it's a reason to lay taxes on everyone who is different from that Government not from eachother. If a country is nothing but a bunch of rapists with AIDS, then the people would elect a Government to tax anyone that doesn't have AIDS and hasn't been raped. Who has allegiance to whom? Voting has been said to be the pivotal document that binds a voter to the mass-elected plan for the people to be subject to a new course of action by Government, and voting is not just a simple opinion of your beliefs but you looking to pool your shitty ideals with others and if anyone is similar to yours then you have a chance to push something in common with force onto your neighbor. Voting is rebellion against the existing ideals to force someone else to yours. The secret about voting is if nobody votes then you will still be forced to the ideals of Government: because the perview is that only Criminals are governed, whereas if you did no deviate your activities then you are supposedly civil. Voters are people that have been conquered, domesticated, and are interacting with their conquerors the standing military occupation to reason with their differences using money. At what point do you own property and at what point is it abridged, but Internationaly when you secure land not domestically through Government.

    The position of Government has long been held by religious execution, not by a religion, but someone of esteemed frugal character. For purposes of limited perview of which a Government asserts itself, often a Title of Nobility is drafted to sit as government rather than a general government unnecessarily warded upon all;where the population grow, a Government has been said to be more effective when held by a person of a association or corporation. Today, Government is often a confederation of Corporations spanning across multiple countries as a service route holding those positions of office to adapt multiple regions into a uniform conduct or union.

  40. Whatever. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    As long as ButaMax (IIRC actually BP and DuPont) is able to wield control over the process for making Butanol affordably even though the studies were conducted at public institutions with public money, I don't give one tenth of one fuck about what the government spends on fuel research, since I know it will only be used to fuck me.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  41. Ooooh, pissed of a poow wittle asspie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And got modded down for telling the twuth. Ooh poor widdle wetawd needs his hug-box wets have a pity-pawty!