Let's move beyond fossile fuels ... now!
Its time to move beyond fossile fuels and get our country onto "future fuels!
Imagine if the computer never evolved beyond the vaccume tube!
My solution:
- Government invcentive to no longer purchase fossile fuel cars: If the goverment made it cheaper to purchase an electric, hydrogen or LNG car, why would anyone want to purchase anything else?
- Government incentive to purchase future fuels: If the governement made it cheaper to purchase electricity, hydrogen or LNG to power our cars, why woudl anyone want to purchase anything else?
That's it, plain and simple!
Who is going to pay for this?
Well ask who will pay if we don't and who is paying for the Iraq war?
Its time we focus on saving ourselves, saving our country rather than taking over another country or the world.
The world hates us for invading IraQ and taking over another country, the world would love us if we implemented a solution to make the world a cleaner place, and provided the technology to do so.
What kind of incentive?
- Future Fuel Cars for less than $10K $5K would be even better
- Future Fuels: the equivalent of $1/gal or less
If this means giving a $10K or $20K tax break to those who purchase a future fuel car, then so be it. if this means discounting the cost of LNG, electricity or hydrogen by 50% or more, then so be it.
If we don't do it, we will all be paying an extra $10K or more to foreign countries just to drive our car to work, so we can pay more taxes to a government that is not helping us.
After we have converted over to future fuels cars, then we can let the market decide on the price for a car, or the price for fuel. As it is now, we don't have time to wait, we don't have time for car makers to decide when the time is right, and we cannot afford another year of doing nothing.
We can invade Iraq and claim to win a war in a few days, why can't we save ourselves in a year?
We can send a man to the moon, but we can't afford to drive our cars to work or the grocery store any more!
For me personally, I WILL NOT purchase another fossile fuel car again.
Hear me car makers, if you want my next car dollar, produce an affordable future fuel car, or you won't get my money! (And by the way, the Chevy Volt, with its $30K or 40K price tag will not get my next car dollar.)
Imagine if the computer never evolved beyond the vaccume tube!
My solution:
- Government invcentive to no longer purchase fossile fuel cars: If the goverment made it cheaper to purchase an electric, hydrogen or LNG car, why would anyone want to purchase anything else?
- Government incentive to purchase future fuels: If the governement made it cheaper to purchase electricity, hydrogen or LNG to power our cars, why woudl anyone want to purchase anything else?
That's it, plain and simple!
Who is going to pay for this?
Well ask who will pay if we don't and who is paying for the Iraq war?
Its time we focus on saving ourselves, saving our country rather than taking over another country or the world.
The world hates us for invading IraQ and taking over another country, the world would love us if we implemented a solution to make the world a cleaner place, and provided the technology to do so.
What kind of incentive?
- Future Fuel Cars for less than $10K $5K would be even better
- Future Fuels: the equivalent of $1/gal or less
If this means giving a $10K or $20K tax break to those who purchase a future fuel car, then so be it. if this means discounting the cost of LNG, electricity or hydrogen by 50% or more, then so be it.
If we don't do it, we will all be paying an extra $10K or more to foreign countries just to drive our car to work, so we can pay more taxes to a government that is not helping us.
After we have converted over to future fuels cars, then we can let the market decide on the price for a car, or the price for fuel. As it is now, we don't have time to wait, we don't have time for car makers to decide when the time is right, and we cannot afford another year of doing nothing.
We can invade Iraq and claim to win a war in a few days, why can't we save ourselves in a year?
We can send a man to the moon, but we can't afford to drive our cars to work or the grocery store any more!
For me personally, I WILL NOT purchase another fossile fuel car again.
Hear me car makers, if you want my next car dollar, produce an affordable future fuel car, or you won't get my money! (And by the way, the Chevy Volt, with its $30K or 40K price tag will not get my next car dollar.)
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on -
Why all this about cars? We are talking transportation. It would be more effective to beef up public transit, light rail and bus, right now.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric on -
Moving public transit to future fuels should be happening now too. When I say cars, I mean, cars, trucks, buses, train, whatever moves.
for me personally, I ride a bike most of the time, whenever I can.
But I don't buy a truck, bus or train, so for me personally, I could only purchase a future fuel car.
We should have a campaign that using fossile fuels is un-american! heck it is, its giving other countries billions of US dollars.
The only solution is to make American using future fuels developed here in the US.
-
Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on
-
Here in Los Angeles, the buses run on NG and the light rail is electrified.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric on
-
Excellent! It should be like that all over the country. I wonder how many barrels of oil that would save? Or to put it differently, how many dollars would that keep in the US, building the US economy, adding to US jobs, etc.
I saw the city they are building in Dubai with our Oil dollars! Wow!
I am sure the fossile fuel producing countries would resist any move to switch from their oil, to our US home grown natural resources ... but then again, keeping the US addicated to their oil is helping to fund their lavish life styles, while American's just barely get by.
The energy policy of the next President is an issue of national security as much as it touches the lives of every single American.
-
Permalink Reply by dave murray on -
we are not addicted to oil. it has been our way of life since they figured out how to get it out of the ground.maybe dependant not addicted
-
Permalink Reply by Eric on
-
true, we are dependant on energy. oil is not only in short supply, but is also getting more expensive, sends money overseas, and pollutes the world.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Goss on -
Eric,
I partially agree with your premis of "Let's move beyond fossil fuels....now". I would only add two words. "Let's start to move beyond fossil fuels .... now".
Making a technology shift has always taken decades for a society to implement. For just a few examples, look at past technology shifts:
-changing from animal powered agricultural tools to mechanized agriculture
-changing from wooden sailing ships to steam powered ships
-changing from steam locomotives to diesel locomotives
-changing from vacuum tubes to transistors .... (I got my first transistor radio in 1963 and my TV still has a big tube in it ... the next one wont)
Some technology shifts have been faster than others, but typically it takes 3 or 4 decades to make a technology shift, and during that transition time there is a mutual coexistence. Let's not succumb to the disruptive panic of "must do it all right now", but let's push to get the process started now with some rational incentives and policies. At the same time, we also need to maintain what we have to give the new technology a chance to develop to maturity. We didn't shoot all of the horses the day after Henry Ford started making automobiles. We kept on feeding them and using them.
Ken Goss
-
Permalink Reply by Eric on
-
I don't think to switch from fossile fuels requires any new technology to make the shift, the technology is already here. we have electric vehicles, we have LNG vehicles. What we don't have is enough incentive to convince people that these technologies are not only better, cleaner, but better for the long run, and cheaper.
If the Chevy Volt comes out costing $30,00 to $45,000, that will not convince the majority of people to dump their existing cars and fork out 30K for a new car.
Moving from vaccum tube computers to transitor and then semi condutor chips computer happened at lightening speed, the cost came down, and the adoption went up.
I like to think of what would happen at the limits or boundaries of problems (typical boundary value problem solving technique) Consider what would happen in these cases:
- The government made purchasing your first LNG or Electric car "FREE" or low cost, and the cost for fuel, essentially FREE. How quickly would the switch happen? We would have people rushing to car dealers, ordering and wanting to drive them as soon as possible. So the more the cost comes down, the quicker the technology that exists today will be adopted.
- On the other end, if the cost for a LNG or Electric car is beyond the reach of the average household, it will take decades for the technology to be adopted.
We can either spend billions/trillions on invading other countries like Iraq, and send billions to the other Oil producing countries, or we can choose to invest trillions to rebuild our own country, and make the technological shift now.
The existing administration has choosen the first option, and our economy has not only suffered, but has now been brought to its knees, all the while the oil producing countries are building their cities, and switching to LNG quicker than we are.
If we say something cannot be done, it won't and never will.
If we say we must do something, and being, at least we will get started, and we may even reach our end goal sooner than we imagined.
If Bush has spent everything that we have already spent in Iraq in switching to future fuels, I am convinced we would already be there. It is only because no one had the conviction (except for maybe Al Gore) that we have not even started.
Let us start now, and let us see how quickly we can make the transition. If it costs trillions to convince everyone we need to do this, that is the cost and we should being now. Pull out of Iraq, re-direct the billions to giving people inventives to switch and start the largest technological shift in history now.
Our children will thank us, for the cleaner air, and the world will thank us for taking the leadership in something useful for a change. It should would give us a better reputation than invading another country, killing their women and children, and destroying their lives.
-
Permalink Reply by Mary Hanson on -
I think, until people realize that it is a matter of national security, that we are not going to get much change. If it takes us 10 years to switch over to the alternative fuels, we won't be much of a country then.
All it will take is a major war in Saudia Arabia, or a major disruption of the worlds oil supply, for the world leaders to realize that a change must be made for thier own country's national security.
Image what would happen if there is a 6 month disruption in the Saudi oil supply? prices at $10/gallon will seem cheap, if you can find any place that has it. At that point, natural gas will be the quickest alternative to switch to, and I am sure we will be able to switch within a matter of months, certainly less than 1 year.
As a country, our next president should be planning for that worst case senario.
We can't rely on the people making such a monumental change, with no financial incentive right now. The consumer will always take the cheapest route.
I also agree that the Volt is not the answer. The Japanese car companies must be laughing all the way to the bank. All they need to do is wait until the Volt is released, and then come out with a fleet of less costly alternatives, in a range of models, all costing 1/2 the cost, and going twice as far without needing gas.
If the US consumer has a choice between a $35K Chevy Volt, that only goes 40 miles wtihout using gas, or a $10K compact, that can go 100 miles without using gas, I can already guess which one will sell better, can you?
On top of that, the Japanese are already planning on putting solar panels on the roof of their hybrid cars. For us here in Texas we could go much further than 40 miles without needing gas, maybe never!
I sure hope we get more serious, and fast!
Mary
www.LongDaGe.com - The Dragon Information Network
WE work harder - so YOU don't have to!
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Goss on
-
Eric,
My point is that the application of new technology requires a transition. Of course a lot of new technology exists today, but we do not yet see it in wide spread use. To follow my original examples, when the first steam powered ship was built, the technology existed (by definition). However, not until several decades later did the last commercial sailing ship disappear, so the wide spread application of that new technology took several decades to implement.
You are correct in that the wide spread applciation of trasnsistor technology replacing vacuum tube technology was lightning fast. In terms of technology shifts, lightning fast still means a couple of decades. I was born in 1949. You could buy a Japanese trasnisitor radio in the late 50s. In the late 70s, some businesses were still using room sized computers with vacuum tubes. I have lived through this technology shift and I remember it well.
My point is that in a transition, you need to support the old technology for a while in order to allow the new technology to mature properly.
Ken Goss
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
