Are non-gasoline powered cars truly a realistic goal for American Society?
355639
yes, and we are far behind other countries in mass transit. I used 10 percent Ethanol 10 years ago. Paid less for it than Gas. The oil companies took it off the market. If HisBushyness had any clue what was going on in America he could fix the problem with one executive order. That will not happen. He will not cut off the hand that feeds him. If he puts price caps in place and the supply goes up then the price will go down and that would stop his cash flow from the wealthy oil corporations who own Congress.
660232
I am sorry that I am unable to support my answer with direct polling and a supposed credible source - but I will say this - the answer given by the WSJ that "Americans tend to drive more miles in high-milage cars, " etc... seems very slanted in the first place. \n\nThinking about it logically, the purpose of owning a higher fuel economy automobile is so that we CAN drive further for less - but that would not mean that one would start driving outside of their normal routine. Example: Driver A has an older, lower economy automobile. Driver A works Monday thru Friday and commutes 15 miles each way to and from work. With the lower economy automobile, Driver A is getting 22 MPG (Average) and therefore is consuming 6.81 gallons of fuel for the weekly commute. \n\nIn addition to The weekly work commute, driver A goes to and from the store on the weekend, and takes a small drive - for a total of 50 extra miles, therefore consuming an additional 2.27 gallons of fuel. (9.08 gallons consumed total)\n\nDriver B owns a higher economy automobile. Driver B works Monday thru Friday and commutes 15 miles each way to and from work. With the higher economy automobile, Driver B is getting 35 MPG (Average) and therefore is consuming 4.28 gallons of fuel for the weekly commute. \n\nIn addition to the weekly work commute, Driver B goes grocery shopping on the weekend, and takes a long drive - for a total of 150 extra miles. Consuming an additional 4.28 gallons of fuel. ( that is a total of 8.56 gallons of fuel consumption)  \n\nThe above is a rediculously surmised argument - based on numbers that I am sure would be impossible to actually total - and without any real ability to monitor consumption - but the results are similar to the truth anyways - higher fuel economy undoubtably means lower fuel consumption - math does not lie - but PEOPLE DO - and the WSJ supposition is NOT based on any reasonably factual study - refute their basis, don't waste time looking for an equally foolish and slanted study to do the work for you.
1055015
Certainly not the bunch of oil-money sucking goofs in Washington, D.C.  (and I'm talking about both sides of the aisle, for those of you who still believe there's a difference).\n\nGood old ingenuity will do it, and enough people are sick of the status quo that I think it will happen within the next 5 years.  I see a lot of people talking about electricity for cars in Y answers--forget it.  Batteries too heavy, most electricity still produced using fossil fuels.  "Hybrids" are smoke and mirrors--still rely on fossil fuels.  My question would be, "Which intelligent people out there are smart enough to buck the system and introduce some new, truly alternative energy sources, not to the hide-bound corporate types and the politicians, but to the average Joes and Janes in this country who would like real options?"
409713
In 20 years, the Internet likely won't exist in the same way as it does now.  We will be accessing all the Internet information through portable devices instead of huge klunky computers that are strapped to a desk.  Think of something the size of the PSP that is as powerful as the fastest desktop on the market today with complete wireless networking from anywhere.\n\nAlso, computers with wireless networking will be built into the dash of most cars in 20 years.\n\nOf course, that all assumes we eliminate our dependance on fossil fuels.  If we can't find an alternative fuel source to run our power grid, cars and transportation system, we may not need to worry about computers in 20 years as the oil may be drying up leaving no way to operate our economy.
941990
I believe the one that could have made the car manufacturer's follow emissions guidlines is just as much a terrorist as the people that buy them, of course you and I would have to be put in that category too unless you walk everywhere you go and don't take public transportation because everything that we drive or ride in uses gas even though it might not be specifically from Iran you never can tell can you.  Our government needs to get into gear and look for an alternative to relying on foreign oil because as long as we have to depend of them we will always be funding fundamentalist groups that want to see the American Empire fall.
267397
Fuel conservation linked to newspaper delivery?  \n\nI suppose, but I suspect you're far off the mark.
187484
Yeah, it works well in Europe.  Trains everyhwere.  America needs a wake up call, and I hope it hurts.  Im well in favor of more mass transit systems and less cars and suv's n shite.  better for the wallet and better for the environment.
1019925
Water as fuel is not reality. Neither is the belief we are fighting for oil.\n\nYou might as well believe in the tooth fairy and Easter bunny.
422577
Are you trying to get Yahoo users to do your homework? :)\n\nWell, the benefits of the car outweigh the harms. They're practical, beneficial and are essential for modern city life. On the down side, car emissions are the one of the greatest contibutors to the greenhouse effect, but cars are so immersed into our culture that it is impossible to get rid of them. we can only eliminate the waste they produce, not the car itself.
953619
I predict that if enough people start driving non-fossil fuel cars that governments will just find another way to tax drivers.  People can't understand that it's possible to have good roads that are well maintained without the government running them.  \n\nActually, governments would love this: Put a per-mile tax on all cars and require that everyone install a GPS that tracks position and broadcasts it to the government agency so the tax can be paid.  Then of course the police will want access to the position data for "safety" reasons.  Then Hooray! Total surveilence!  If you complain then you must have something to hide.  After all, we're doing it for the children.
463041
In rather indirect ways, yes.\nRecycling paper helps save trees (recycle a little bit, save "part" of a tree) which convert carbon dioxide into oxygen.  (Carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse affect)\nMy driving style is geared around saving gas.  Mostly to save myself money, but even if I become very wealthy, I'm still going to be a bit conservative in my driving- still gonna get a hybrid, albeit a more powerful one.  Save gas, less emissions into atmosphere that contribute to global warming.\nOne person can't stop global warming alone.  However, each person can help a little bit, and it'll all add up.
1008919
Do not count on the repuglican party or their illustrious dictator to change anything as they are invested in oil and are profiting by it every day. In answer to your question, yes we do need a super human effort like the space program. We also need to use what we know to minimize the use of fossil fuels, nuclear, renewable, wind, solar, there are many ways to generate energy that we do not use.
1096610
No, because it can be produced without petroleum as it was for thousands of years before we invented the combustion engine. People will always try to survive, they wont just lay down and die because they cant but some diesel in the tractor.
1014207
I would say Paul's answer is very good and level-headed (best answer).\n\nTo add to his answer:\n\nTruth is that petroleum and its products have a very high energy density.  The trick is to find alternate fuels that can compete with that high energy density and use technologies that preserve our fossil fuels (hybrid cars is a good example).  We have these technologies now, it is just going to take a little while before they can be easily and efficiently implemented world-wide.\n\nAlso, we can use more electricity from the power grid to power transportation vehicles and other petroleum-using devices.  It is more economical for a large power plant to use massive amounts of an alternative fuel than a single individual car.  Also, power plants can regulate their gas emissions easier than individual cars.  Plug-in hybrids and other technologies are poised to do great things (see PopSci article linked below).
444384
No offense, but if you cant even spell government or diesel, and believe that the Govt is making big dollars off oil, then you lack the intelligence to invent a vehicle that does not require oil or an oil byproduct. The Govt isnt making money, the oil companies are. Of course, many politicians are involved in oil companies, but the money doesnt GO TO the govt. \n\nIn this world, nearly everything we use is made from oil or oil byproducts. Plastics are made from oil by products. Steel and other metals...oil used in the processing. So, escaping the use of oil or oil byproducts will never happen. However, I have a great idea that the Govt will NEVER buy into:\n\nLegalize marijuana cultivation and use in the country, then tax the hell out of it like they do with cigarettes. The byproduct of marijuana - HEMP - can be used to make virtually ANYTHING on the face of the earth. An entire PC can be made from hemp byproducts - except for the silicon and gold needed for the processors. In the 1930's, H. Ford built an ENTIRE VEHICLE - body, engine and all out of hemp byproducts. He predicted that all cars would be made of hemp within 30 years. The cars actually withstand better crash daamage than a steel car! \n\nHowever, because our government is religeously based (on Christianity, unfortunately), we instead waste our money fighting the "EVILS" of marijuana and other drugs, while we deny global warming and continue to use oil. Bush's idea of lowering prices is STUPID - he says were addicted to oil. Do you cure a crack addicts addition by lowering the price of CRACK?!?!?!
656676
I'll Tell You What the Problem is. You won't want to Hear it, but maybe someone out there in "Cyberspace" that wants to Help Expose the real "Problem" Does! Thanks to the Clinton/Gore EPA-OBD II Law, all Gasoline Powered Vehicles in the USA from 1996 to the Present are Required to Run at 14.7 Parts of Air to 1 Part of Fuel. Any Deviation from that, even if Fuel Economy is Improved, and Emissions are Lowered, will Result in a Failed Vehicle Inspection. The Vehicle will then be Illegal to Operate, because it's not Putting Out Enough Pollution! Really! I've come up with a Way to Turn Regular Pump Gasoline into Propane. 100 Parts of Air, to 1 Part of Fuel. 50 + MPG, with even the Largest SUV! And I'm not the First to do so. I Saw, On-File, at the US Patent Office, the Pogue Carburetor, which was Bought Out before WW II, with a Patented Claim of 100 MPG, with a Flathead Ford V-8 Engine Powered Vehicle that was 15 MPG! And, there are many Others as well. Only a Basic Drawing & General Description is Given, to Prevent an actual Copy of the Device. See, on a Molecular Level, all Petroleum is essentially the Same. Only the Dispersal is Altered. If this is not so, then how is it that Engines DO Run on Expensive, Cumbersome Bottled Propane? My System is Safe, Compact, and uses Low Pressure Air to do it's Thing.It's not just the Oil Companies that have kept a "Lid" on this Technology. When an Engine Runs on Vapor Fuel, it Lasts 10 Times Longer!Now, Who would want to Stop that? Watch what Happens the Next Time Your Car is Inspected with that OBD II Machine. The Gestapo would be so Proud of it! Big Brother has Won! What I'd like to do, to Expose the Hypocricy of this Law is to Restore, Convert, and Donate Vehicles to Charity. Starting with the Local "Meals-On-Wheels" Program. Also, Volunteer Veterans' Assistance Services. We in the USA Owe Them so Very Much! See, there's no Shortage of Good People that want to Help the Less Fortunate. It's the High Cost of Fuel that's made it so Difficult. Charity would be such a "Slap" in the Face of Greed! I can understand why a Vehicle that's putting out an Excessive amount of Pollution should Fail Inspection, but to Fail for not Emitting enough Pollution? This is Insane! It would take "Deep Pockets" to Expose this . Everyone Else that's Tried has been Stopped! For even more Insight, Check Out this Website. It's a Couple of Years Old, but well worth Checking Out! http://energy21.freeservers.com/bookrep.html Please Feel Free to Contact Me, Right Here, to let Me Know what You Think!
350224
The leading company in the field is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).  Yes, it might be a good investment if they can get real financial support from Washington.  Unfortunately, Congress and the White House can't screw a bottle cap on when it comes to energy policy.  The good news is that GM is making more cars that run on the E-85 alternative fuel, and higher gas prices are likely to chase car buyers toward those kinds of cars.  The ultimate problem right now with E-85 is supply.  They just can't make enough of it to supply the country from coast to coast.  It's a speculative play based on whether you feel that the government is likely to act or not.