Just can't get a standard. Might as well stick with electric cars.

... if the car companies will start making them again. I really want one.

The only downside to electric cars is that the energy to drive them ultimately comes from predominantly carbon based fuel (coal fired power plants). If this could be done via Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro and Nuclear, then electric cars would be able to put a bigger dent in the hydrocarbon usage.

Philstuf, the technology exists to pump flume gas from coal fire powerplants into vats of algae. This algae will eat the CO2 and convert it into Oxygen. Possible biproducts from the algae that grows is bio-fuels in the form of bio-diesel, ethanol or butanol(which is much much better than ethanol in every aspect.) We can also use the algae to make food.

The only problem with electric cars, is the batteries, if evryone switched now, then once the batteries outlived their usefull life... we're now stuck with all this waste..

My puppy eats batteries, problem solved.

Plus, my electricity comes from a nuclear plant, so ah, electric cars would contribute 0 pollution, well, maybe a little bit of the good old water from the plant.

This story is slightly south of pathetic... and misses the point entirely. Why Tom's Hardware links to this crap is beyond me.

AgentJean:

It is nice that the technology exists to pump flue gasses into Algae, but it is not even implemented now on the small scale. Even so, when implemented, it only removes 40% of the CO2 from the exhaust gasses. While a 40% cut in current emissions is better than the Kyoto treaty mandates, it would not compensate for the additional load (and hence, emissions)vthe power plants would see if the conversion to electric cars was significant.

Additionally, using the algae to produce bio-diesel is a great idea, but ultimately goes back to the initial problem: The release of CO2 and hydrocarbons into the atmosphere.

If we can find ways to produce energy without burning something, then we are in better shape.

The American Lung Association of the Upper Midwest stands by our strong support of E85 and biodiesel. We have seen the methodology this computer model uses, and we find it seriously flawed. Our own studies on real fuel in real vehicles show that emissions from vehicles using E85 are significantly less polluting than the same vehicles using ethanol. Also, the author did not address the major greenhouse gas issue at all -- a typical vehicle using E85 rather than gas save 4 tons of CO2 emissions every year.

Believe me, we would never support a fuel that causes more air pollution and lung disease!

Bob Moffitt
Communications Director
Clean Fuels & Vehicle Technologies program
American Lung Association of Upper Midwest

Sorry, typing too fast. Meant to say:

"Our own studies on real fuel in real vehicles show that emissions from vehicles using E85 are significantly less polluting than the same vehicles using GASOLINE."

The most important thing about switching to bio-fuel is to cut imported oil that's coming from enemies of the USA out of the money loop. If bio-fuels (or any alternative fuel to oil, for that matter) took off, it would be very difficult for the sheiks and hordes of brainwashed muslims to fund the fundamental (read: radical) islamic schools which are popping up everywhere (including the USA) and the terrorist organizations such as al queda, hezbollah and hamas. Once middle-eastern money dries up, so does much of the terrorist problem. Unfortunately, this is probably 20 years away, if not more.

Robert,

Most of Americas oil comes from Canada. Canada is one of the largest oil producers outside of the Middle East. The reason gas is so expensive is that the world market controls the price. Oil is also running out, why do you think the price jumped so high in the last 6 years. It isn't war its commerce. Sure Exxon/Mobil make billions in profit, but it is because we let them. Electric cars have been around as long as gas ones. And fuels like hydrogen could work very well too. The reason we don't use electric or Hydrogen is because it would kill oil companies who have paid off many people to make sure they get what they want. Car companies will build whatever we want, but they need to know we will buy them. Saying you will and doing are two different things. Soon enough the oil will run out, and cars that need gas will run on corn. check Exxon's holding I bet they own some farming company stock too.

John,

First of all, oil is not running out any time soon. Find me one single credible report that says that it is. Credible reports that I've seen estimate at least a fifty year supply as of right now, based only on the reserves we know about now and a 1.4% annual increase in usage - so that does not include new sources, discoveries, technologies, etc.

* In May 1920, the U.S. Geological Survey announced that the world’s total endowment of oil amounted to 60 billion barrels.
* In 1950, geologists estimated the world’s total oil endowment at around 600 billion barrels.
* From 1970 through 1990, their estimates increased to between 1,500 and 2,000 billion barrels.
* In 1994, the U.S. Geological Survey raised the estimate to 2,400 billion barrels, and their most recent estimate (2000) was of a 3,000-billion-barrel endowment.

By the year 2000, a total of 900 billion barrels of oil had been produced. Total world oil production in 2000 was 25 billion barrels. If world oil consumption continues to increase at an average rate of 1.4 percent a year, and no further resources are discovered, the world’s oil supply will not be exhausted until the year 2056.

50 years ago, they thought oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. They were wrong. Many such predictions have been proven wrong over the years and even now, the estimated 50 year supply may well prove wrong.

Oil doesn't come from the dinosaurs either (a most laughable theory). Most of our imported oil may come from Canada and Mexico (after all, they are next door), but the price of oil is "effectively set by Saudi Arabia which has the largest production capacity and the loudest voice in OPEC."

Saudi Arabia is not our friend.

Neither are most OPEC nations.

If we can wean ourselves off of oil, we can cut the financial ties to many of our enemies... and so can the world as they will likely adopt the same technologies to get off of oil as well. This is a good thing on many levels.

Your theory regarding "the reason we don't use electric or hydrogen is because [sic] it would kill oil company profits" is the staple of the tinfoil hat crowd - an absolute ridiculous conspiracy theory. Do me a favor, put your tinfoil hat away and do a little research. Electric is not viable because battery technology has not been good enough and is still not good enough even today. And most electricity comes from coal, not really a good alternative. Hydrogen has not been viable because technology simply wouldn't allow it and there hasn't been (and to my knowledge, there's still not) a good way of producing hydrogen. Today's technology may finally unlock the secrets to practical batteries and hydrogen use, but the tinfoil hat stuff is simply ludicris.

To Robert.

"Oil doesn't come from the dinosaurs either (a most laughable theory)."
What do you mean with that? Is it because God created the earth 7'000 years ago in 7 days, then the "dinosaurs" couldn't exist?

It's a sad to read that you see all those countries as your enemies. Everything is not black or white.

You said that most electricity comes from coal, not really a good alternative. You are talking about a specificity of developping countries and USA. The electricity is becoming an environmentally positive solution in some countries in Europe thanks to the high amount of nuclear, wind and hydro energy. The only weakness is the autonomy, but it is good as a second vehicule for daily short distance transportation.

Alan,

Please, I implore you, do a little research.

You'll find that the modern scientific consensus is that oil did not come from dinosaurs. Many theories from years ago have been proven wrong and the half baked theory that oil came from the dinosaurs is one of them. Use google.

It is indisputable that most OPEC nations are not friendly to the USA. In fact, most of them are downright hostile and would love nothing more than to see the USA destroyed. There's this thing, look it up, it's called wahhabi islam. Google it. Understand what the hidden agenda of most of the middle eastern nations are. Understand that the majority of OPEC nations are taking our money and part of it goes to fund the war against us. And I'm not talking about Iraq. Unfortunately that little fact is unknown to most people who complain ignorantly about the war because they don't understand the big picture.

Another indisputable fact is that most electricity comes from coal, period. Coal is responsible for almost 60% of all electric power generated in the USA. China gets 78% of it's electric from coal. Coal is not clean. In fact, it is terribly dirty and although "clean" coal technology exists, it is currently cost prohibitive and not one single coal burning electric plant currently in use employs it... nor are there any in construction or planning. Alternative energy sources, wind, solar, water power, provide no more than a drop in the bucket. If the nation didn't go ape shit after three mile island, we might have had more and better (relatively) clean nuclear power systems in place.

And even so, as I said in my previous post, battery technology is not there yet to allow for efficient electric vehicles. Current batteries weigh too much per unit of energy carried. They contain huge amounts of toxic chemicals and metals. Between the weight, size and cost of current batteries, along with the inefficiencies of producing electricity and delivering it over long distances, that equals a terribly inefficient electric vehicle. Most people don't see that there is a big picture when it comes to these things - a supply chain, delivery and losses are incurred all along the way. It's not all roses as little Johnny plugs his electric vehicle into the wall. The electricity comes from somewhere and that must be taken into account.

Here's a little known (and very unpopular) fact: at the moment, internal combustion is a far more efficient method of powering vehicles all things considered. If you take into account the efficiency of modern internal combustion engine, the very efficient gasoline distribution systems, and the overall cost in pollution versus the current electric technology, internal combustion wins. Look at the overall inefficiency and pollution levels of the majority of current electric generating systems - since most electric power comes from coal (followed by gas) and there are heavy losses incurred in transmission of electricity to your home or car. With all of this in mind, at the moment, all things considered, mile for mile, an electric vehicle pollutes more than a gasoline powered vehicle. Don't believe me? Do some research and see for yourself.

I love people like yourself who think you know things but in fact are ignorant to reality.

"I love people like yourself who think you know things but in fact are ignorant to reality."

Thanks, and I love one my side to talk to ignorant people like you who think that the USA way of life is the only one in the world.

My goal was to point out that your comments did not apply to all situations. For the electricity production, I was not talking about the USA, as it is the bad example, but some countries in Europe, which have other means to generate electricity:

- France, 80% of their production is nuclear which doesn't generate CO2 (but it generates other problems with the waste)
- Switzerland, 60% nuclear, more than 20% of hydroelectricity and unfortunately a little bit of gas
- Denmark, a lot of wind production and they have the political willingness to suppress most of their CO2 emissions to produce electricity.
- Germany, still a lot to do, but they are really going in the right direction.

For the three first countries, scientifical studies showed that the electricity to power vehicules (trains, trams, electric scooter, and rare cars) are globally very positive concerning CO2 emissions.

"It is indisputable that most OPEC nations are not friendly to the USA. In fact, most of them are downright hostile and would love nothing more than to see the USA destroyed."

Since the actual president and his followers are in the White house, I can only agree, but it should be normally better next year when they leave.

I don't use google to find reliable information, but articles from specialised papers and comments from friends who are specialists in the field. Sorry, this must come from my scientific background.

Your scientific background?

Laughable.

Alan, if you were ever a scientist or even scientist like, then I'm an astrophysicist.

Chances are that the only background you have in science is in tinfoil hat testing, production and fashion.

Those numbers you site for European energy production are practically meaningless with respect to the overall world pollution levels. Mr. Science, you of course know that when you compare those nations in size, population and pollution levels to countries like China, India and the USA, their alternative energy production levels represents a tiny drop in the world bucket - practically meaningless. And even those alternative sources of electricity do no solve the problems of electric transport that you still have not addressed beyond the tinfoil hat statement of "The reason we don't use electric or Hydrogen is because it would kill oil companies who have paid off many people to make sure they get what they want." - LOL! Yes, science!!! Very scientific.

Hold on folks, here's another hum dinger:

"Since the actual president and his followers are in the White house, I can only agree, but it should be normally better next year when they leave."

Guess what, genius? The world hated the USA before President Bush and the will hate the USA after President Bush. Let's be perfectly clear about this, 9/11 was only 8 months into the Bush presidency. 9/11 was in the planning and training stages for YEARS prior to him taking office. WAKE UP!!! The attacks in the USA, Spain and UK were only the opening shots. The ultimate goal of wahabbi islamists is to take over the world in revenge of the crusades and such, and also because we freedom loving, allah hating westerners don't worship their god, and they believe they are superior to all non-muslims. They do not respect whom the current president of USA happens to be and, in fact, your above statement is completely meaningless, tinfoil hat, left wing, dumbass stupidity. Again, fact - most OPEC nations are either openly or secretly hostile to the USA, democracy in general and the freedom loving world, and that includes Europe. Just wait to see what happens to much of Europe over the next 20 years as the muslims continue to take over by migrating in large numbers from places like Yemen and North Africa and by population increase by having families averaging 5 to 8 children. Do you know that native Europeans are down to an average of 1.2 children per family? Do you know how that statistic will play out in the next 20 years? I will likely live to see the fall of Spain, France and possibly the UK as long as ignorant, politically correct, idealistic, smug people like yourself turn a blind eye to what is really going on in the world.

You say you don't find reliable information via the www? So what do you rely on? Coloring books?

Seriously, I know you're pissed at me... but seriously.. go to Amazon.com. Find this book: "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Al-Qaeda-Road-11/dp/037541486X It could very well be the most important book ever written for the 21 century. It's very well researched and documented, so I know that you as a scientist can respect that. It's only 17 bucks. Buy it. Read it. (And it's a helluva good read, too). Learn something that may change your outlook on a lot of things. Really. Read it.

cancer symptoms lung of non

@Robert,

I will not respond to your continuous vomit of insults, which are here just to compensate the weakness of your arguments, but just argue on some points.

You are putting all the muslims in the same basket. It is right that most of them don't like the USA, but the vast majority of the muslims don't like and don't support Al Quaeda too. It is a group of some thousands of fanatics which harms everybody.

I have discussed some months ago with a friend from Jordania (country between Irak, Palestine/Israel) to have his general feeling about the situation. Most of the persons in the middle east where shocked during September 11, their feeling about the USA by the general population was at that time not bad, it was even a dream for a better tomorrow for some of them, but the situation changed since the war in Irak. Since the beginning of this war, which was initiated by your goverment against the will of the international comunity, more than 100'000 people died in Irak, most of them are innocent muslims, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are leaving Irak telling the story of what they lived. The population in the middle East put the reponsability for this situation on the USA and now they clearly don't like you. They compare the 4'000 deads of 9.11 to those 100'000 and they conclude that a life of an US citizen worths the lifes of 25 muslims. It is simple thinking, I know, as the US army didn't kill directly all those persons, but it is like that.

All what your government did during the last 4 years is to support their military industry with hundreds of billions of $ by bringing "peace" in Irak instead of focusing on eliminating Al Quaeda and finding Ben Laden in Afghanistan, which we both agree are the real source of the current troubles. Since Bush controls the USA, the international opinion of your country has never been so low than now.

"Those numbers you site for European energy production are practically meaningless with respect to the overall world pollution levels."
Yes you are right, the pollution levels of Europe is lower than in the USA, even considering that the population of Europe is bigger, but it is still too high and not negligible. We can maybe reach the concensus that coal is bad for electricity production.

Concerning the battery, you are right that I didn't talk about it. You are right too when you say that the weight of the batteries is important, it would then be completely stupid to build an electric SUV. But for a small car for two persons with a weight of half a ton with a limited amount of batteries and an autonomy of 100 miles, that we would use only as a second vehicule for small travels, it would be a very good solution compare to big standard cars, even in the USA. And even the perfect one for 100 millions persons in Europe.

Before trying to destroy a technology because it is not the solution which will solve all the pollution in the world, as you seem to be intelligent (but a little bit agressive), think what would be the best solution for you and do it. This technology might be the right solution for other persons somewhere else in the world.

You didn't talk about the theory of the origin gasoline, the one which says that it doesn't come from fossils, geological compression and millions of years of transformation.