Carter's CAFE Standards would have ma...

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1317 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:36 pm:        According to a recent report by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, if the United States had continued to conserve oil at the rate it did in the period from 1976 to 1985, it would no longer have needed Persian Gulf oil after 1985. Had we continued this wise course, we might not have had to fight the Persian Gulf war, and we would have insulated ourselves from price shocks in the international oil market. Fuel efficiency is a sound national energy policy, economic policy and foreign policy all wrapped into one. Every increase of one mile per gallon in auto fuel efficiency yields more oil than is in two Arctic National Wildlife Refuges. An improvement right now of 2.7 miles per gallon would eliminate our need for all Persian Gulf oil! http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3254 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 11:42 pm:        Yeah, hindsight's a b*tch. Unfortunately, I was a kid at the time and MOL wasn't even around, so I couldn't have whined at everybody like I do now. Hard to believe that a nation-wide increase of a mere 2.7 mpg would accomplish that much, but if that's true than the really weird thing is that we could do that by simply altering our driving habits with the vehicles we're driving right now. Slow down a bit on the highway, don't rush off the line, and make use of your momentum a little better.   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1319 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:48 am:        Reagan took off the solar cells from the White House- that Carter put on the roof, & dismantled Carters Alternative energy plan.   Straw Kennedy Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 7196 Registered: 10-2001 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:22 am:        boring..very boring. pointless as well.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3257 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:18 am:        Yes, there is no point to ending the country's reliance on imported oil. And the fact that we could probably get a good start on that by simply changing our driving habits is so boring as to hardly be worth mentioning. It just doesn't compare to the thrill of hunting for terrorists behind every telephone, to the mentally feeble. Never mind that our oil purchases are the single greatest factor enabling terrorists, or that our combustion of the oil results in far more deaths than terrorism.   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1326 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:19 am:        The US could be the worlds leader in Alternative energy, solar cells. Instead of France & China. Might be good for the ecomony, making jobs, etc....... Notehead said: "Never mind that our oil purchases are the single greatest factor enabling terrorists," right on target.........   musicme Citizen Username: Musicme Post Number: 1677 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 4:25 pm:        just remember notey If you save energy...the terrorists win.   Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 926 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 4:36 pm:        How many posters on this thread who agree with it's premise drive SUV's. . . ? Just asking. My hypocrisy meter just went off the scale.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14254 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:29 pm:        It is a bit hypocritical, but it is also fair to make a point and be part of the problem. I think if you drive a private motor vehicle at all, you are part of the problem. Still, raising consciousness is the first step, and we might as well do that. I drive a Subaru wagon, which gets a little less than 24 mpg. I drive about 19,000 miles a year, which is a lot. Next week is Bike To Work week! http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bikemonth/   Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 2003 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:48 pm:        I don't have a car. I take the jitney, bike, subway and train to work.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1098 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:44 pm:        Noglider, Thanks for reminding the folk here about bike to work week. Will you be driving or biking? TomR   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14256 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:13 pm:        I prefer to use the verb "cycling" and that's what I'll be doing. It's about 19 miles each way. Biking is what folks on motorcycles do. And why do we say we drive cars and ride bikes? Shouldn't it be the other way around?   Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1337 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:16 pm:        Chris - I am a hypocrit only in the fact I drive a Jeep. I still care about the environment and our dependence on oil. Give me an E85 flex jeep and I will use ethanol. Give me a hybrid jeep and I will use gas and electric. Its the corporations that have to give us the tools to conserve as well.   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1067 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:28 pm:        Give me, Give me. You sound like a 3 year old. Why don't you get off your wallet and put your money where your mouth is.   Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1341 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:40 pm:        ??? thats about as asinine a statement as you could have made. People like you like to have it both ways. Is it the tax cuts that spur economic improvement or does that begin with peoples personal choices? According to the policies of the people you support those giant tax breaks are what is going to provide us with this technology so that we can make better choices. Tell me what you are doing about it.   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4910 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Friday, May 12, 2006 - 11:50 pm:        No, the tax cuts provide the former Chairman of Exxon with a half-billion dollar exit bonus.   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1339 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 2:57 am:        Tom-- did you forgot the most profit for a quarter .......... ever.   3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 193 Registered: 1-2006 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:07 am:        I drive an SUV that gets about 15mpg city/20mpg highway. I like the ride and feel more secure in a larger vehicle. My daily commute from Maplewood to Elizabeth and back is about 12 miles. A bus or train would be problematic because I start work at 6 AM. I probably use less gas than someone who lives in, say, Flemington, and drives a Toyota to Newark everyday. It's not just what you drive. Things like zoning laws and decisions about where you work vs. where you live also matter. I wish I didn't have to drive, but in New Jersey, there isn't always a choice. Cheers   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1068 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:43 am:        Give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me, give me. That's the difference about us. You need someone to give you something, I simply earn it and buy it. I already own a hybrid and ride my bike often to work so don't preach me to me about conservation while you're sitting in traffic with your gas guzzler polluting the air your children breathe!   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4911 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:21 am:        last time I checked there was a year-long waiting list for hybrids. Go out and buy it where?   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1346 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:00 pm:        TOm- touche   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1099 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 6:42 pm:        So, Noglider usually drives to work to the tune of about 10k miles per year, but still manages to rack up another 9k miles for non-commuting purposes. To his credit, he readily admits that he should drive less, and will cycle to work NEXT week. tom appears to be distressed that there is a waiting list for hybrid vehicles, but doesn't mention how long ago he put his name on the waiting list for a hybrid vehicle, even though he thought he drove 30k+ miles per year. Hoops wants somebody to make an E85 flex Jeep or a hybrid Jeep available (I don't think he meant that he wanted one for free) but doesn't tell us why, or even if, he needs a Jeep. An awful lot of people think that something should be done about gas prices/conservation/fosil fuel consumption, as long as its somebody else who does it. The only person posting about gas prices/conservation/fosil fuel consumption who seems to have done anything about it, is notehead. Notehead, I doff my cap to thee. TomR   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1349 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:22 pm:        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/12/tech/main1615295.shtml "Ford's Model T got 25 miles per gallon, and today a Ford Explorer gets 18 miles per gallon," How About A 250-MPG Car? May 13, 2006 (Christian Science Monitor) This article was written by Mark Clayton. The challenge: Build the world's most fuel-efficient production car — one that gets maybe 250 miles per gallon and causes little or no pollution. The payoff: prize money from the group that awarded $10 million for the world's first private spaceflight two years ago. When the X-Prize Foundation unveils its new high-mileage car contest later this year, it will join a small but growing number of competitive prizes for energy development. Instead of watching President Bush and Congress wrangle for months just to get Detroit to boost fuel efficiency by a few miles per gallon, why not offer fat cash prizes to the private sector for breakthrough technologies? Proponents say it's a cheaper and faster way to unhook America from its oil dependency. "Ford's Model T got 25 miles per gallon, and today a Ford Explorer gets 18 miles per gallon," says Peter Diamandis, X-Prize Foundation chairman. "We believe the time is ripe for a fundamental change in what we drive — and we believe an X-Prize in this area can drive a substantial change." Several of the prize ideas are coming from the federal government. For example: The Department of Energy (DOE) is authorized to award up to $10 million in incentives for next-generation technology that could turn wood and other fiber into ethanol. (snip) Back on Earth, former Rep. Robert Shamansky wants to propose a national contest for a high-mileage car. During his first tour in the U.S. Congress in 1982, when the nation was still reeling from the second oil shock, the Ohio Democrat sponsored a bill to award $150 million to the developer of a car that got at least 80 miles per gallon. His bill foundered after he lost his reelection bid. Now, running in Ohio's 12th District, he hopes to revive the plan.   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1357 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 10:18 pm:        Was Jimmy Carter right? by Stephen Koff RELATED NEWS: George W. Bush and Peak Oil: Beyond Incompetence... Voice of America on peak oil... Readers respond to Planning for Peak Oil series... The peak oil crisis: a frenzy in Washington... Portland establishes task force on peak oil... Washington- President Bush is telling Americans to go easy on energy, use carpools and "curtail nonessential travel" - an unusual moment for an administration that used to say it could meet growing energy demand by expanding supply, not consuming less. But this is not a Jimmy Carter, turn- down-the-thermostat, late-1970s moment. Carter wore a cardigan when asking Americans to bear a little discomfort in a time of severe oil price increases. Last Monday, Bush rode in a motorcade - two limousines, three utility vans, six SUVs and a medical truck - to the climate-controlled Department of Energy, where he appeared in a suit and tie behind a podium. Symbols aside, the former oilman who occupies the White House today shares a problem that plagued Carter, a former peanut farmer and naval nuclear engineer: How to solve an energy crunch in a nation utterly dependent on fossil fuel? Conservation is only a tiny part of Bush's answer, although on Monday, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman will lay out what his office calls a comprehensive, national conservation campaign in the face of rising winter energy costs. In the past, Bush focused on promoting new nuclear power plants, better use of coal, new shipments of liquefied natural gas and further exploration of oil and gas in Alaska. Bush's energy problems stem largely from growing worldwide demand for limited supplies of oil and natural gas. The situation has grown worse because of the war in Iraq and, recently, hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which knocked out rigs in the Gulf Coast and hampered refineries. Carter faced a crisis from a combination of economic problems, failed policies of his predecessors and, finally, an Iranian revolution that cut access to some Middle Eastern oil. Carter met the problems by starting sweeping oil-reduction reforms, including creation of the Cabinet-level Department of Energy. He began spending millions of dollars researching alternative sources for electrical power, including solar power. He got utilities to cut their use of oil for electricity and ramp up their use of natural gas or coal. "Up until Carter, we were getting about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation," said Jay Hakes, director of the Energy Information Administration under Carter and an authority on modern presidents and oil. "And post-Carter, it went down to about 3 percent." Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon over the following decade - a requirement passed under Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter. He offered incentives for getting oil from shale, creating a boom initially in the Rockies - and a bust when it failed to be cost-effective. He offered deductions for using solar water heaters in homes and commercial buildings. "People in the upper-income bracket were always looking for tax cuts. They were going to build a house anyhow, so they were saying, 'Well let's look at this solar stuff and see what we can do,' " said Marc Giaccardo, a professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio who at the time was an Albuquerque architect. Carter even had solar collec tors installed on the White House grounds to heat the executive residence's water. Then Carter lost re-election to Ronald Reagan in 1980. The so lar panels at the White House eventually came down - and Reagan and his aides gutted the solar research program. "In June or July of 1981, on the bleakest day of my professional life, they descended on the Solar Energy Research Institute, fired about half of our staff and all of our contractors, including two people who went on to win Nobel prizes in other fields, and reduced our $130 million budget by $100 million," recalls Denis Hayes, the founder of Earth Day, who had been hired by Carter to spearhead the solar initiative. Reagan and Congress stopped aggressively pushing new auto efficiency standards, acceding to Detroit's desire to leave them at Carter-era levels. They let the solar tax benefit expire, and the nascent solar industry went belly- up. It was time to let the markets work their magic and stop all this government tinkering, Reagan and conservatives said. Bad stuff? A recipe for the fix we're in today? A number of environmentalists and conservationists say so. Although the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards already were saving 3 million barrels a day, "they could be saving us a further 3 million or 4 million barrels a day" if they had been ramped up, says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global-warming project. That would be enough to compensate for Katrina or for disruptions in supply from Venezuela and Nigeria in the last year or so, Becker says. "We could be saving more oil than we now import from the Persian Gulf had the government acted to raise the fuel economy." Every president since Carter has refused or been obstructed by Congress - which is lobbied by automakers and unions that fear losing jobs. When Americans want sheer size, they buy American, but when they want fuel efficiency, they tend to buy Japanese. Meantime the nation began its love affair with sport utility vehicles, which are classified as light trucks, not automobiles, and have a lower standard of 20.7 miles to the gallon. That's scheduled to go up to 22.2 miles per gallon by 2007. In August, Bush announced a plan to raise it to 23.5 miles by 2010, but critics call that inadequate - and some moderate Republicans agree. New York Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert introduced legislation in September that would require a 33 mile-per-gallon average for cars and SUVs in the next decade. While anything is possible, a majority in his party has previously rejected these measures. Meantime, the solar energy industry is hopeful - not because of anything that occurred in the White House after Carter, but because the 2005 energy bill, signed by Bush, will give up to $2,000 in tax credits for anyone installing solar energy in a home. The credits begin next January, although they will be available for only two years unless Congress extends them. Solar-energy champions say such a boost was needed 20 years ago, as the Carter tax credits were expiring. "The solar water heating industry instantly went from a billion-dollar industry to an industry that now installs, in the U.S., about 6,000 solar hot water heaters a year," said Noah Kaye, spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association. Had Reagan not squashed it, the research that Carter started could have triggered a substantial shift to solar, wind power and other renewable forms of energy - possibly providing as much as 25 percent of the nation's electricity supply, says Hayes, the Carter solar expert. "We were all aware of what in theory could happen by the year 2000, and it occasionally comes back and haunts us," Hayes said. That is all hypothetical, of course, because the theories never got a chance to run their course. Yet solid data exist on what happened after the free market- loving Reagan chopped Carter's programs to shreds. Oil prices dropped and stayed relatively stabile for two decades. Motorists were thrilled. Oil prices plunged in the early ’80s after the Iranian crisis ended; after a worldwide recession sapped productivity (a less productive economy uses less fuel); and — especially — after Reagan eliminated price controls. The controls, limiting how high the cost of fossil fuel could go, had been in place since Richard Nixon used them in an effort to rein in inflation and dampen consumer prices during the Arab oil embargo. Carter started to eliminate them but never finished. While the controls kept a lid on prices, they also prevented oil companies from earning enough to make them want to reinvest in more exploration and production. “When there’s a shortage of supply and you put in price controls, it makes the matter worse because it decreases incentives to produce more,” Hakes said. “And it decreases the incentives for drivers to cut back.” Reagan couldn’t wait to fix that problem. “He signed the order the day he came in,” said Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Soon prices began reflecting the laws of supply and demand. World affairs, be they labor strife in Venezuela, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait or the threat of higher prices from Middle Eastern countries, could drive prices higher. But renewed drilling in Texas, the new pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope, good relations with foreign producers like Saudi Arabia and occasional siphoning of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (a Ford administration invention created for emergencies) tempered most crises. In fact, the price of petroleum got so low at one point, after the Saudis flooded the market in 1986, that some Texas oilmen went broke. Not that drivers minded. Home heating oil and natural gas prices followed similar patterns. And with inexpensive and seemingly abundant energy, who needed solar? It was cheaper and more reliable to power a home with electricity from the local utility than to gamble that a $20,000 investment in solar panels might eventually pay off. “I’m not sure it’s a benefit to anybody to push a technology that’s not economically viable,” said Rayola Dougher, manager of energy market issues for the American Petroleum Institute, the big oil trade group. But if supply interacts so closely with demand in a free market, ultimately benefiting consumers by driving down prices, then the opposite must also occur: High energy costs will make consumers choose to drive less or trade in their gas guzzlers. High electricity bills will make alternatives like solar power more appealing. Americans will conserve, adapting to the market. Which brings us back to 2005 — and to gasoline prices that have hovered near $3 a gallon for several weeks. “Price is having an effect,” said William O’Keefe, chief executive of the George C. Marshall Institute, a science policy think tank, and a former American Petroleum Institute executive. “There is a shift within the auto market — people are buying more crossover vehicles, they’re looking at the smaller SUVs that get higher miles per gallon.” Higher prices are also “providing incentives to look at alternative fuels, and we are using more alternative fuels all the time,” says Dougher. “In fact, the biggest producer of solar energy today is an oil company, BP, in terms of solar panels.” It bears noting, some energy authorities say, that the free markets embraced by the oil companies aren’t entirely free. Billions of federal dollars flow to the oil, gas and electric utility industries through tax credits, depreciation rules, research grants, insurance guarantees and even direct government expenditures. And yet, some in those industries say that federal taxes should not have subsidized a speculative industry such as solar power in the Carter White House. This is not lost on Hayes, Carter’s solar guru. “For the industry that has gained by far the most subsidies and tax advantages from the federal government ever in American history to talk about the free market is slightly ironic,” he says. http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 460 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:06 am:        As I've asked about a dozen times before, Is there anyone willing to help start a biodiesel cooperative. Been driving a VW Jetta TDI since 1997. Get's 35-45 MPG. I actually agree with Southerner on this one, Put your Money Where your Mouth is and stop with the Give me, Give me, Give me. I've seen some of our biggest "Peace" activists drive up in SUVs; now that's hypocrisy. I've actually disengaged from the local peace movement because there's just too much "Limosine Liberalism". Instead I've spent my time designing a vertical cage electricity generating windmill to put on my roof to augment electricity generation from my solar panels. It takes little effort to sign a petition. It takes real effort to change your lifestyle. I've always believed Pres. Carter got it right, unfortunately the American populice was wrong and still is.   Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 11498 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:56 am:        Who is more responsible? Someone who drives 5,000 miles per year in a car that gets 15mpg or someone who drives 20,000 miles per year in a car that gets 30 mpg? I guess in an ideal world the person driving 5,000 miles per year should get a car that gets 30 mpg. However, real world, who is more of a burden on the economy? Tom brings up the difference between cycling and biking. Another alternative for people who have long commutes is a motorcycle. Many of these get 40 plus miles per gallon with good performance. In the end this comes down to who should make the sacrifices. Most people come down squarely on the side of "theotherguy" making the changes. Doctor De La T, I have to give you credit for really trying, although I do feel a little sorry for your neighbors when you put your windmill on the roof.   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 461 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 11:25 am:        Actually the vert cage windmill make much less noise than conventional windmills. In fact my neigbor don't even know it's there. As far as asthetics, windmills are beautiful, IMHO   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3258 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Sunday, May 14, 2006 - 8:48 pm:        I agree -- windmills are inherently sculptural and relaxing to look at. I've heard about vertical designs but I have not seen any available commercially. That one you've built, Andrew, is wicked cool.   Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1361 Registered: 9-2004 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:15 am:        Everybody bow down before Andrew, for he is a man of action. Wicked cool action. Dude. 40 mpg for a motorcycle sucks, I can buy a $2,500.00 used car that gets 40 mpg. A Vespa 125 cc scooter gets 100+ Mpg. A 1980 Honda got 40 MPG. Andrew-- care to host a forum where folks can see your "DEVICE" and your roof panels?   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 462 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 1:02 am:        Foj, If your really serious about a forum. I think a public forum on grassroots efforts to improve energy efficiency would be great. I'm happy to share designs and ideas with those interested.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3263 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 10:20 am:        You guys might find this website interesting. An Aussie inventor has created a PV module that includes a built-in tracker. He uses a lens to focus a lot of sunlight onto a small amount of high-end solar cell, with an aluminum enclosure to keep the heat down. Quite cost-effective and efficient. His website is kind of cluttered, but it looks like he's really onto something. An American company called SolFocus is using a similar approach. Also, Andrew, if you are not familiar with biodieselnow.com, you might want to take a look at this page which has posts from other biodiesel users in this part of NJ. Perhaps someone on that site would be interested in making biodiesel with you, or could help you get in touch with the right people to get that going.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14266 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:28 am:        Andrew, the biodiesel idea sounds great, but it would require that someone has a lab on premises. And to buy in, I'd need to get a new car, which isn't out of the question, but it's a serious decision. Who has the space and security to have a lab? Most of our properties are pretty small.   Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 927 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:43 am:        I hate to disagree with the historical revisionists, but here goes. . . You give President Carter way too much credit. Under his administration, consuption went down and domestic supply went up. Why? Because of Carter and his bureaucracy? NO. BECAUSE OF THE PRICE. It's that simple. Leave the price of oil at $70 a barrel. Better yet, if it starts to fall, tax it to keep it at $70. Demand will fall as some among us (not including NoGlider) buy smaller and more fuel-efficient cars, industries use fuel more carefully, airlines buy more efficient aircraft, ect. Supply will increase, which is what happens when the market price of something goes up. Oil companies big and small will drill more, explore more, and find other alternatives. All for the almighty dollar. I know this because it is precisely what happened twenty five years ago. 'Plus ca change. . . Plus ca reste le meme.'   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14267 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:49 am:        Why do you think I wouldn't respond to price changes?   Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 930 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 11:58 am:        . . . Didn't you say you were going to start biking, sorry, cycling to work? So your oil use willdrop to zero?   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 464 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:27 pm:        Notehead, There actually was a place in Staten Island I called several times. However, due to my work schedule, never had a chance to get out there. The telephone has been out of service for about a month. There's a couple of places in Long Island and there's a place in Sommerville NJ. Looked into these places about a year ago when diesel was at 2.00 a gallon. Might just take a ride out to Sommerville and get a 55 gal drum for the summer. Anyone willing to take a ride? Tom, Most folks don't need a lab. most of the folkss I've e-mailed and browsed their web site make biodiesel in their garage. It's not a terribly complex process. Though I was a chemistry major in college.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14274 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 12:32 pm:        In March of 2005, I bought a 2000 Subaru Legacy L wagon for about $11,000. The odometer read 42,000 miles, though I wonder if it was rolled back. So far, so good. I'm looking at used Volkswagen Jetta diesel wagons, and they are MUCH more expensive. Why is that? VW reliability data is much worse than that of Subaru. I don't believe it's considered a more luxurious car, either. Are you saying you're willing to start a biodiesel lab in your garage if you had one or two more people to buy into the coop?   Twokitties Citizen Username: Twokitties Post Number: 437 Registered: 8-2004 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 1:08 pm:        McDonald's and every other fast food joint in the country should filter their grease and open a self serve lane next to the drive through for those with diesel or biodiesel cars. Charge $1.50 a gallon. Maybe it wouldn't be much per location, but considering the number of locations of McDonald's, Burger King's et. al., it might make a dent. Maybe they could just run their own fleet off their own grease. Good for shareholders. Good for the planet.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3266 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 1:41 pm:        Twokitties, I've often had similar thoughts. The larger companies that create the grease ought to be able to run their own vehicles with it, although I suspect it they could only meet a small amount of their fuel needs. Still, it would save them money and give their image a boost. Perhaps some do this, though I haven't heard of any.   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 465 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Monday, May 15, 2006 - 3:16 pm:        Actually, the oil used by McDonald's/Burger Kinger is the worst to use as fuel. The best veg oil for use in cars is usually that used in Chinese Resturaunts. Straight Veggie oil (SVO) needs modification to the fuel pump system to warm the oil so it's less viscous and can flow through the injectors. Use of bio-diesel requires no such modification. If I can't get a Coop started in the next year or so will modify my car when the warranty expires. Tom, Would have had my own reactor up and running a while ago. My problem is I don't have a garage. Hope to build one next year. Then I can stop begging people for assistance to brew bio-diesel. Then, as usual, will go it alone. As far as why used TDI's are so expensive, high mpg, low maintainance. As far as I know TDI's are in demand.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1102 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 11:41 pm:        Andrew, Why is Chinese restaurant oil better than McDonald's/Burger King oil? TomR   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 466 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:43 am:        I've heard they tend to use more soy and canola based oils which are less viscous. McDonald's/Burger King tend to use lower quality more viscous oils, ie generic vegatable oil. Granted this based on what I've read and heard. I've no firm data. Either way there's about 10 chinese restaurants on South Orange Ave between my job and Maplewood. I'm sure there's an equal number on Springfield Ave as well. If a coop were to be formed, there's plenty of places to get used Veg oil.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1103 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 12:17 pm:        Andrew, Thanks for the information. More food for thought. When I get the chance, I'll look into the viscosity issue, particularly with respect to our normal winter weather; as well as the hygroscopic properties of biodiesel. TomR   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 467 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 2:11 pm:        Wouldn't use straight BD during winter. Would use 50% BD, 50% dino-diesel. Straight BD might gel if it gets too cold.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14345 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 2:37 pm:        Would the burning point also be a factor? I believe Chinese cooking calls for peanut oil. As far as I know, peanut oil has the highest burning point of all cooking oils.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1104 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 8:29 pm:        I don't have the information on flash points, fire points and spontaneous combustion points at hand, but if I recall correctly, Herr Diesel used peanut oil in his first demonstration of his magnificent machine. Burning point is a term with which I am not familiar. Is it synonomous with one of the above terms? In any event, keep Boyle's law in mind. The temperature of the fuel in a diesel engine at TDC will be sufficiently high to ignite and support combustion for just about any combustible material. (Besides, won't peanut oil work in a a waxless candle?) TomR While on the subject of diesel engines, make sure to read the papers on June 19.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14351 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 9:27 pm:        I'm almost sorry I piped in. I probably know less about chemistry than most people. Burning point is a cooking term, not a scientific one. The chemistry changes objectionably at the burning point. You can smell it. You can cook at higher temperatures using peanut oil than other oils. That's all I know, which isn't a lot. What will we see on June 19?   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1105 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 11:16 pm:        Noglider, No reason to be sorry. Toss in whatever thoughts you have. The more people contribute; the more food for thought there is. And, thinking..., well..., that's a good thing. Until this afternoon, I hadn't even considered the viscosity difference between petrodiesel and biodiesel, or the differing forms of biodiesel; nor the hygroscopic nature of biodiesel. One problem, if it exists, is manageable. The latter, gonna have to think on it. As for June 19, you'll be reading about a stunning victory, a good attempt, or, possibly, a dismal failure in auto racing. Audi is expected to fielding at least two two V-10 diesel powered "cars" at les vingt quatre heures du Mans on June 17 & 18. Given Audi's recent dominance in this particular venue with gasoline powered "cars", I'm figuring that they have the diesel thing down. Or at least think they have. 3,000+ miles in twenty-four hours. A pretty good test of reliability and fuel economy. In a few years, somebody might even build a diesel powered car I would consider buying. As for burning point, is that the same as, or similar to, smoking point? TomR   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14352 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Friday, May 19, 2006 - 7:22 am:        I don't know. Maybe. Ever turned your frying up too high?   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 468 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 10:19 am:        On a side note, but somewhat related. I took my wife to pick up our Toyota Sienna from servicing off of route 22. The manager saw my TDI Jetta wagon and we started talking. I told him I considered buying a Prius, but at the time there was a 6 month wait, the Prius dosen't come in manual transmission and I use the wagon haul things around. He actually asked if I wanted to sell my Jetta TDI. I asked him why he wouldn't buy a Prius. He explained, although the Prius gets exceptionally better MPG than most cars, there's also alot of hype. The Jetta TDI is much more reliable and can actually pull a small trailer which a Prius can't. He went on to note that Toyota sells all types of turbo-diesels in Japan as well as a hybrid Sienna (which is what I originally wanted to purchase). He actually seemed pissed off at the fact that there weren't more diesels in the US and why we're not using low sulfer diesel.   Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 14366 Registered: 1-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 10:31 am:        There are lots of reasons Americans are afraid of diesel cars, and some are not very rational. One was that in the early 80's GM converted a gas engine to diesel and sold it as a regular car. It was poorly designed, and you were lucky to get 80,000 miles out of it. This reputation has stuck in our unconscious. The US is (or was) scheduled to have a mandate for low-sulphur (low pollution) diesel fuel, but Bush deferred the mandate. What a surprise. I mentioned you to my wife at dinner yesterday. She was intrigued with your bio-diesel car aspirations and also your windmill. She wants to see your windmill. Actually, I would love to, also. Could you please email me at noglider@pobox.com? We were in Paris last summer. They have lots of diesel cars there. They don't stink or make noise, and they run very well. We rode in a few diesel taxis, and found them to be perfectly fine.   Andrew N de la Torre Citizen Username: Delatorre Post Number: 469 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, May 20, 2006 - 11:12 am:        I'm on 480 Walton Rd, the prototye is in front (half sized 4" blade, just recieved generator and 6" blades on Friday) Will be around most of today until around 4 PM. Then going out to Montauk to assess other Windmill site. Two good BD and wind sites, you might find useful. http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html http://www.diyfuel.com/index.php?osCsid=135ba543478e2bd90518543cc73d5862 http://www.picoturbine.com/home.htm http://www.southcom.com.au/~windmill/   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3310 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:38 am:        Amazing... this inventor in FL has found a way to extract much more energy from a gaseous form of water than any previous method. This could be huge. It's the "Hybrid car runs on water" story... http://www.cnn.com/TECH/   tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4970 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 11:31 am:        The story isn't there. From your description of it, it sounds pretty cold-fusionish. Maybe they pulled it.   notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 3312 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 2:03 pm:        Yeah. No sign of it now. That is so frikkin' disappointing! I think it was actually their second story on it. I wonder what's up?