Everyone else is doing it so why shouldn’t we? Let’s try to keep this tight and relevant: what does Barack Obama’s win mean for cars? Well, his general energy plan promises to slash oil use, promote alternative energy sources and put America on the path to cutting greenhouse gas by 80 percent by 2050. He wants America to be ‘a leader on climate change’. Big change, that. And for cars?
Specific promises are these.
1. Increase fuel economy standards by four percent a year. That means 50 percent more economical in 10 years.
2. Get a million plug-in hybrid cars onto the road by 2015.
3. Create a new $7,000 tax credit for purchasing advanced vehicles.
4. Encourage biofuels.
Still, the Bush-era oilmen won’t be too unhappy: there will be encouragements to tap American reserves, including those in Alaska.
It’s all part of a promise to ‘eliminate our current imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years’.
I don’t have any problem with that. I’ve been given free rein in the new issue of Top Gear magazine to rave on about some of the electric or part-electric cars I’ve tried lately. They’re fast-accelerating, enjoyable, cheap-to-run and clean. And a further avalanche is coming.
Obama has promised (as, to be fair, Bush promised) that car makers developing green technology will get federal subsidies to do it. Let’s hope they aren’t allowed to spunk the money away on irrelevant prehistoric guzzlers.
Beyond cars, Obama has staked much of his energy policy on green energy, which creates new jobs. And, sensibly, on deploying ‘the cheapest, cleanest, fastest energy source – energy efficiency.’
The big problem I have with Obama’s energy plan is that it really only mentions three things: vehicles, power generation and home insulation. The oil problem, and the CO2 issue, are both much bigger than that. Is he just picking on easy, obvious targets?
Anyway, he is using the right language. America is the kind of place (as is Britain) that will only ever adopt green technologies if it recognises they’re good for the economy as well as the environment. In the Bush era, the economy and ecology were painted as mutually exclusive.
Mind you, these lofty campaign promises were framed before the economic crash. Until Obama can steady the present economy, he’s got little chance of creating a new green one.
fist comment for ounce
“1. Increase fuel economy standards by four percent a year. That means 50 percent more economical in 10 years.”
I’m guessing this is something to do with american’s being a bit dim. 4×10 = 50?
@ “second comment”:
No. You’re doing the maths wrong.
If each year increases 4% on the previous year, then the total increase over ten years is close to 50%.
Try it. Take 20mpg, multiply by 1.04, multiply your answer by 1.04, and *that* answer by 1.04, and do this ten times, and you get 29.6mpg, which is a 48% increase. Here:
20mpg x 1.04 = 20.8
20.8 x 1.04 = 21.6
21.6 x 1.04 = 22.5
22.5 x 1.04 = 23.4
23.4 x 1.04 = 24.3
24.3 x 1.04 = 25.3
25.3 x 1.04 = 26.3
26.3 x 1.04 = 27.4
27.4 x 1.04 = 28.5
28.5 x 1.04 = 29.6
See?
A more sarcastic person would reply “It’s not the Americans who are dim, mate…” But really, it’s an easy mistake to make.
However, as much as we all like a bit of fun xenophobia now and then, I think jumping from “I don’t understand this” to “It must be ’cause Americans are stoopid” kind of takes the biscuit.
But would they understand the irony?
First, thanks for pointing out that ‘green’ technology and techniques have to be good for both the environment and the economy
‘The big problem I have with Obama’s energy plan is that it really only mentions three things: vehicles, power generation and home insulation. The oil problem, and the CO2 issue, are both much bigger than that. Is he just picking on easy, obvious targets?’
Yes, and good on him. Vehicles and home insulation are both easy and cheap targets to pick on, and most importantly the tech and systems are there and easy to deploy. They both also make life easier for citizens (I’d disagree on power generation, it’s more complex and there are more vested interests involved, so it’s not nearly so easy).
‘Mind you, these lofty campaign promises were framed before the economic crash. Until Obama can steady the present economy, he’s got little chance of creating a new green one.’
I’d argue the opposite point – if people in the States have more money in their pockets through spending less on gas and domestic energy, the rest of their economy has a chance to recover faster.
Paul, what would you like to see included in Obama’s plan?
Cheers
Hello luckyman. You have a point in that transformative things are easier to achieve in dislocational times, and those are the times we’re entering.
But I disagree that tackling vehicles is necessarily the easiest way to cut oil use or C02. First because they represent only about 20 percent of the oil use (I’m afraid I don’t have the exact figure for the US to hand). Second because the vehicle fleet turns over fairly slowly. Lots of people drive 10 year old vehicles. So even if the new vehicles are high-performaing yet low-consuming, it’ll take a long time for all vehicles to be like that.
Anyway, other measures. Air travel. Industry. War. Oh gosh how energy-intensive warfare is.
Paul
Paul,
Speaking as someone who has a ten year old car, you’re right. However, although the vehicle fleet turns over comparatively slowly fleet vehicles don’t, so one can see that old chestnut, the ‘quick win’. I’d see the main danger here as being the US not taking the opportunity for transformative change, but rather waiting for economic conditions to improve and going back to their leaf sprung tractors
Air travel – it’s a fifth of overall transport fuels (at least for UK), and a proper pain to do anything about. Bio-avgas isn’t ready and it will be expensive. H2? Not likely due to weight/volume
Industry – in hard times it can mostly look after itself with the right advice. Less energy = less cost = bigger profit; though the developed world’s propensity for importing goods from less energy efficient countries is worrying when only considering energy
War – just think of all those Iraqis welcoming us to their country with flowers… in fact I’ll just shut up on that one. Totally agree
On reflection I think one of the smartest things Obama has done is to agree to more exploration in Alaska. He takes it out of the energy/environmental equation. I’ve heard from colleagues in the States that legislators were always forced to choose between exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Corporate Average Fuel Economy. ‘Deep green’ people always wanted to preserve ANWR, which is a wonderful place by all accounts but almost irrelevant in energy terms.
Oil use in the UK is about 65% transport, 5% heating, 15% petrochemical and 15% energy; transport overall is c30% overall UK energy use – most of the rest is gas and coal. I’ll hunt down the US figures for you.
I’d be interested in seeing the US figures as well.
Fleet use is mostly limited to a few companies, rental agencies and public safety/government accounts in the US, as far as I know.
Most of us buy or lease our vehicles. It is my impression that most car owners, especially in urban areas, tend to trade-in their vehicles every two or three years. Those of us in it for the long haul seem to be in the minority. I know that, when discussing cars amonst coworkers or friends, my VW with 160,000 miles gathers raised eyebrows and laughs because “it’s too old!” And it’s just a 2005.
So raising CAFE will have a slow but steady effect, as will getting alternative technologies in place. I’m much more happy to take a few MPG hit with biodiesel knowing that it’s a bit better for the environment AND it benefits local soy farmers and the local refinery.
Thanks for your contributions so far.
Hmmm, biofuels are certainly the quickest win for the existing vehicle fleet, if they’re mixed at 10 percent so vehicles can use them without conversion. But hang on, it is important that the biofuels themselves are low-carbon and don’t disrupt fuel supplies.
I agree that aviation is difficult to convert, and there’s an argument that if it is the very most difficult to convert, then it should be entitled to the very last barrel of oil. But it must pay its way. In Europe we have approx 400 percent tax on road fuel and zero percent on civil jet fuel. That is plain wrong.
Thanks for those figures on oil use by sector. But to be honest I’m not only concerned with oil use. This is also about CO2 and so we need to look at fossil fuel use or CO2 output by sector.
Paul
Was just reading rhe comments and noticed the bits about the aviation sector.Im an aircraft mechanic and i cant ever see hydrogen taking off in the industry (no pun intended).If liquid Hydrogen is lighter than jet fuel,which i presume it is as hydrogen gas is lighter than air,Then no current aircraft could possibly fly with it as it would destroy the balance and weight distribution that is caluclated into the design.And then theres the big one:what happens if a plane full of hydrogen goes down?remember the hindenburg?
Cheers
On a different angle, what about the similarities between Barack Obama and Lewis Hamilton? First black president and first black F1 champion in the same week!
Keith – there must (allegedly!) be some Spanish F1 fans who are even sicker parrots
Conor – I wouldn’t worry just about the weight distribution. H2 has very low energy content by volume. Clarkson was right in saying it’s storing the stuff that’s the problem when he and May were looking at the Honda Clarity last year. Without compression tech (that we don’t have yet) we’d be as well building another Hindenburg and having its own lift gas power its engines. I wouldn’t buy a ticket.
Paul & Tom – if I’m reading the US DoE website correctly oil is about 55% transport, 15% heating, (goodness knows what the rest is for; I’m not used to the way their figures are aggregated). The 55% breaks down 5% aviation 50% road transport.
‘I agree that aviation is difficult to convert… In Europe we have approx 400 percent tax on road fuel and zero percent on civil jet fuel. That is plain wrong.’
That’s another real pain – needs concerted worldwide/regional action otherwise we end up with a situation where airlines buy cheap fuel in one country and carry the maximum, meaning more expensive air travel without significant energy reductions.
Paul, from what Tom says the car situation is pretty much opposite in the US to the UK, in that most new cars are bought privately there?
‘I’m much more happy to take a few MPG hit with biodiesel knowing that it’s a bit better for the environment AND it benefits local soy farmers and the local refinery.’
Good to hear, in fact very good, so long as it’s sustainable on price and especially on food production (As Paul was saying agriculture can be fossil intensive, in that a lot of petrochemical feedstock is used to make fertiliser). We don’t have the agricultural capacity to do it here in the UK. A quick global example of how it can go wrong: jatropha, which can also be used to make biodiesel. It’s poisonous, meaning you can’t use it for food production, and it’s a very hardy weed, so you can grow the stuff pretty much anywhere, even in deserts. Where did companies put it? Prime agricultural land. ‘Silly chaps’, or words to that effect.
Looking at fossil use and CO2 by sector… we’re talking about coal here really, yes?Sticking as closely as I can to vehicles, we’re in a period of demand destruction at the moment; when we come out of it is the danger. Never mind plugging an electric car into a coal fired power plant (which is the standard complaint and is just wrong), how about plugging an ordinary car into a coal mine? Some coal States may soon set up Fischer-Tropsch coal-to-oil plants on a large scale. That would also avoid foreign oil imports.
If China and India were to do the same… the thought is not a happy one. Incidentally, there was a whisper that we were close to peak global coal production last year.
Cheers
How’s it going chaps. obviously i’m from the states but more importantly from just outside of detroit, now i’m not the most politically savvy person to ever walk the earth but i do know this. Obama is considering Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm for his cheif energy secretary. now i’m not sure if you guys know this but jenny isen’t the quickest to act on matters of great importance (see michigan economy past 5 years). so if jenny gets the job i’m not so sure she wouldn’t drop the ball again but this time it would be a much larger ball to drop.
Hello Michigan Man, I’m a bit grey in the face from thinking about China and India using Fischer-Tropsch, but apart from that it’s all good.
I don’t know anything about Jennifer Granholm so I can’t comment, all I can say is that whoever has the ball had better run with it. As soon as this crunch/recession ends we’re looking at $150bbl oil again. Say three to five years. Butter fingers are not an option.
A quick bit of Al Gore news from Reuters http://www.reuters.com/ar ticle/politicsNews/idUSTR E4A58N620081106 in that he’s proposed a US national grid. As ideas go it’s a beauty; with the different time zones in the US it could open up all sorts of options in terms of electric vehicles and other energy.
Do you think Motown can deliver the efficiency gains Obama is looking for?
In my opinion, Obama only said he wanted more exploration in Alaska to steal some Sarah Palin voters. However, his plans are interesting and promising.
However, to find a green solution which is viable immediately, instead of the old excuse ‘in ten years everyone will be driving hydrogen/electic/cow pat powered cars’. What is needed is something dirt cheap, clean as Ron Dennis’ gravel (he sent it away to be cleaned), and safe as a…umm… very safe thing. The inventor of this will be a million times richer then bill gates, and I mean that seriously. hydrogen is to prone to fire, electricity not long enough lasting, and biofuels will starve africa. However, being a devout petrol head, I don’t want this to mean a lot of G-Whizzs. (I did read your article, Paul, but to much of the technology will be ready in a few years. We need a solution – well, 5 years ago.)
electric cars on the streets will reduce co2 in the atmosphere, pollution, cheap to run(light on wallet), and maybe reduce your tax(for 4×4’s, well, a lot). while housing insulation will reduce carbon footprint(co2), and there is other power rescources like water, solar, and wind which may reduce our oil consumption and maybe reduced dramatically(but it is the only step to slow down the oil crisis). if taking on big issues, like co2 and oil crisis, it will be painfully slow, but a slow steady stream of water will erode the hardest rock.the longer the problem took time to develop, the longer it takes to cure it. you know, you cannot just cut off the co2 with gas eating cars on the road.
Paul
Mr Obama could get a step change improvement in fuel consumption by simply getting the Big Three to import European and Asian variants of their cars and trucks. These vehicles all do similar jobs in similar environments while consuming far less fuel. In that way, we don’t have to wait for a technological breakthrough – just a boat.
Paul, it certainly seems easy enough to do, but something tells me there’s more to importing than we know. GM is importing Opels (or Vauxhalls) and rebadging them for their Saturn line. But I bet the mileage and CO2 outputs aren’t the same as the Euro-spec models.
It seems there is some difference in the emissions systems used in the EU and here in the States, which in part adds to the high cost of rebading European models.
Luckyman: One of the benefits of soybeans, apparently, is the oil is used to make fuel and the bean itself is still used for feedstock, unlike corn which is one or the other only.
Unfortunately the Germans don’t seem to favor soybeans from what I’ve read… Something to do with lubricity or some other magic I cannot possibly understand.
Going back to Obama, he has a tough road ahead in regards to energy dependence. The Big Three will be fighting increased CAFE tooth and nail while begging for a handout to keep afloat.
I can’t think of a single fuel or safety standard the government has imposed on the US auto industry that they didn’t fight. I also can’t think of a single goal that they didn’t handily meet once the new rules went into effect.
I have been dreaming up a world for a long time in which the U.N sets global crash and emission standards. if this were to happen auto manufactures across the would would save billions, and it would force larger emerging countries (china) to drive cars that are in line with global standards. it’s something that should have been done at the beginning of the decade when climate change was becoming global issue again.
To conor, what would we all do if all the aeroplanes carried highly explosive liquids and landed near or in most major population centres? Oh they do that already, silly me. There isn’t really a ‘green’ answer to air travel besides not doing it. Biofuels are really not an option as the methods used to produce them as yet are inefficient. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ id/18551000/
The only sustainable solution to all the problems that Obama is trying to tackle is to massively reduce consumption or to fund the invention/perfection of alternatives like nuclear power.
Also, to modifiedace pure electric power cars do not reduce their lifetime CO2 emissions over an efficient diesel in the US because the majority of electricity is produced by fossil fuel power stations. Furthermore the manufacture of the Li-ion battery packs produces a lot of emissions and the disposal of them is equally difficult.
WELL DONE BARACK OBAMA is wat im saying
Baraknophobia is a term I read earlier this morning.
& yes, I do think that the motorist/home owner is a soft target.
I think, Obama might be tackling the easy stuff because they are more relevant than trying to do something that is out of his grasp. Like any good teacher will tell you when you are taking a test, “do all the easy questions first.” He is trying to fix America’s, biggest problems. But he has to stabilize the economy first, like Paul Horrell said.
It’s the U.S. and it’s run by the oil companies. Period. There’s too much money involved to change anything within the next 100yrs. Going green would be nice. But won’t happen in This country any time soon, or at all. No matter who’s president. He’s run by his businesses too.
Well, I suppose Obama is picking easier targets as they’re the most recognizable by me and you, and because he’s being quite realistic. I shall not trust whoever would say me instantly he’d convert the whole pollution stuff in smiling flowers and butterflies.
Of course Obama’s solutions, as well as every choice we will have to make about pollution, is going to be a little sacrifice i.e. get used to green-ish everything (from microwave oven to supercar) and to pay more for new techonlogies. And saying this is still saying things very basically.
Last nights ‘factual’ program has got us all starched.
Fair play to those of you who graced is with figures and stats.
The biggest step forward is that it gets the likes of us talking about it – and if we talk about it enough, those with influence will listen.
The truth is there is no quick fix .
The surest way of reducing your heating bill is to turn the stat down by 1 or 2 degrees (ps turning it up to 30 doesn’t make it heat up any quicker). Although I hate to say it, the surest way to reduce your petrol bill is drive 10% less miles. You know if you, say, buy a new Dodge Challenger, you’re going to want to drive it accross America!
Surely public transport doesn’t have to mean poor people transport – if flying can be a (somewhat) pleasant and effective experience why can’t trains?
The problem with Obama is that his numbers don’t add up. He will either have to drastically increase taxes, or scale back what he promised. Most of the idiots who voted for him did so not based upon critical thought, but because of how his oration made him feel. This has happened before. Just ask the Germans.
you’re all true about that, no one can ever turn our mess into sucess in years maybe. but have you all heard that a car can be turned into a car which only burns water…a filipino did it, (http://carblog.classifie ds1000.com/daniel_dingel/ 20080628-163615-Daniel-Di ngel-and-His-Hydrogen-Pow ered-Car)
he worked for 4 decades, and yet, the philippine government can’t produce such project because os some silly laws. I bet he’s amazing. check it out (I hope the hyperlink works)
I knew a lot about philippines, some have world class inventions and mechanics there are just amazing, yet, the government itself cripples the economy…
Obama, I still believe he can change the US, and even the world…maybe, not by that water thingy…
you don’t know hyperlinks man!
no, just search “daniel dingel”, and you’ll find out. go paul! serach it! haha just kiddin, but if you want, then just find it out.
Being that I’m descended from two revolutionary war veterans, and a veteran of the war of 1812, I find small minded people like Jim Bob to be terrifically offensive. To refer to an entire group (and in fact the majority) of voters as “idiots” is a horrifically stupid thing to do. That level of ignorance deserves no further addressing.
The future should not be a fossil fuel based economy. Germany is implementing a huge government subsidized solar project, that is not only changing their landscape, but largely changing the way that they make electricity as well.
Methane is, to some degree, a renewable fuel (as many things, including garbage dumps produce large amounts of it). The use of which should definitely be encouraged over the coming years. Current vehicles can be converted, at some expense, to run on methane. The internal combustion engine requires oil for lubrication, so it should only be seen as a temporary fix. Methane can also be used in a fuel cell, which would be excellent for mass power production.
Hydrogen is the future, despite those who downplay its possiblities. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and indeed, one of the most abundant elements on our planet earth. People don’t understand hydrogen, and are scared of it because of the Hindenburg disaster. Hydrogen is safe, and can easily be separated from oxygen molecules in water through a process known as electrolysis of water. Adding salt to the water in electrolysis only produces a higher yield of hydrogen, so sea water can be used for this. 71% of the earths surface is covered in water, and the majority of that is sea water.
Stanford Ovshinsky, along with his tragically departed wife, made great advances in the use of hydrogen. It is somewhat confusing that no one in government ever contacted them to consult on policies, and to question them as to their ideas on energy dependence. The Ovshinsky’s made a video with PBS’s Scientific American Frontiers, in which they showed a Prius they had converted to run on hydrogen. This car had an advanced storage unit for the hydrogen, which I assume was storing the hydrogen as a metal hydride. This would allow hydrogen to be stored much more safely and efficiently, and make cars like the Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle even more practical.
he got 300+ miles in just a galoon of tap water! that’s a fact man!ain’t that nice?
I failed to address the CO2 issue in the previous post.
The largest problem in the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere is the destruction of the rain forests, other large and virgin forests, and the growing desert in China due to overfarming. These things alone pose a signifigant threat to all beings on this planet. We are not very sure how much CO2 that the oceans can hold. And from looking at the earths geological and atmospheric past, we don’t want to find out.
Precambrian encompasses a very large amount of time, but in this time, a large amount of CO2 was released into the atmosphere by volcanoes. The oceans became anoxic, and sodium hydroxide (commonly known as lye) was released into the atmosphere. This created the largest extinction of life ever to happen on this planet, albeit of very primitive life-forms.
It is important that developed countries start working with others to stop mass deforestation. The disaster that could come from having the oceans become anoxic is something that all of humanity should work to stop from happening.
Evan…
Hydrogen may be abundant on Earth, but it is not a primay source of energy, just a nifty way to store it.
The only _actual_ primary source of energy we have is the sun. Sunlight long ago created plants, leading to coal and oil. Sunlight moves water (evaporation, rain) and gives us waterpower. Sunlight heats the atmosphere and gives us windpower. And then there is solar panels (heat) and photo panels (electric energy) of course.
I guess hydrogen coupled with fuel-cells would be more eco-friendly than lithium-ion or other hi-chem products. But first you got to solve the primary energy question: how to you produce enough hydrogen to power all cars on earth?
Nuclear fission (uranium) energy is not an option as it is – despite what the industry tells us – not cheap or safe and it _will_ run out, just like oil. Nuclear fusion would be great, but it ist still decades away from even small stage production use. Solar farms in space are daydreaming.
My idea (which i have been promoting for 30 years now) would be to build factories for solar panels along desert coastlines in Africa. They could use the sand for the silicon and the first batch of panels for power. After producing more panels they could start desalinating the seawater to support local communities. They could also provided them with power and food (grown between the panels, watered with the water they desalinate).
The factories would grow inland , but around towns, roads, farms etc. and finaly merge. Then we link Afrika to Europe with a 3 million volt DC cable and that’s it (America has enought deserts on their own). It requires some start-up investment, but it will produce energy, water, food, solar panels for decades, making it highly profitable.
But since nobody listened to me for 30 years i guess it can’t be done… Or can it? What did president-elect Obama say? “Yes we can”…
Thought this was a car blog…?
morty….
well, there is a technology which uses sea water for cars, it has a low milage (300 miles per galoon) compared to the US average milage(17 miles per galoon), and, maybe thanks to the natural water cycle, we can have abundant supply of seawater to supply cars with this technology(maybe not all, because as they say, most people uses cars aged 10yrs+). this technology do exist, its been used for more than 30 yrs… so, maybe that’s the answers for car energy…any comments?
Morty,
That is exactly what I am saying, as Hydrogen is something that we have to create and then store to be able to use. Hydrogen can be burned in internal combustion engines, and the end result is H2O. I am thinking that an internal combustion engine burning methane or hydrogen would need to use less oil for lubrication, as it seems that the acids and sludge would accumulate more slowly. The hydrogen fuel cell is the way to go, in that many less things will need to be lubricated, and you won’t be burning petroleum products.
As for power production, wind, solar, tidal, and all that are fine. We’ll still need other sources of electricity. I think methane should be used more broadly as a source of electricity, since it is renewable. I read recently about a farmer who powers his entire property with the methane produced by cow manure. This could do much to decrease the need of fossil fuel power plants.
Another thing that could be done, would be to take the excess power not being used by the grid when consumption levels are down, and storing that electricity in another way. Hydrogen is one way, but there are many others. One example in use today would be to pump water up to a higher level, so that it can run through a hydro-electric power station.
I realize that I could go on about this stuff for hours, so I’ll end here for now.
Tom Servo – thanks for getting back.
Emissions/rebadging – I don’t know is the simple answer, I know we get more mpg since our gallon is bigger than yours, but beyond that?? They’re cars made by US companies so I’m confused.
Once it’s gone through the transesterification process, there shouldn’t be differences on biodiesel lubricity (unless Top Gear make it, in which case it may eat BMW engines, so goodness knows in that case). UK tends to use waste oil and rapeseed; it’s what suits our climate. Don’t know about the rest of Europe, but the UK doesn’t like US biodiesel since it’s blended as B99 ((B)iodiesel; 99% pure) and then shipped over by supertanker, skewing the market just a tiny wee bit. There was a lot of swearing in the renewables industry here when that started to happen (nothing new there), and it partly lead to a complete reversal of UK government biofuels policy.
‘I can’t think of a single fuel or safety standard the government has imposed on the US auto industry that they didn’t fight. I also can’t think of a single goal that they didn’t handily meet once the new rules went into effect.’ Same situation as with (for example BMW) in Europe a year or so ago. Legislation gets proposed and suddenly their whole range gets about 10% more efficient. Good on them, but it begged a question.
Cheers
I think Obama should bring the pound and dollar situation to rest. It’s been on the news now and is frustrating if you go to America a lot. I also agree with LUCKYMAN.
Can i just say that this has been a really good read, especially the comments.
thanks.
Evan – that’s a good point about hydrogen being safer than petrol: a simple way to demonstrate this is to imagine what would happen if a sac of petrol the size of the Hindenburg were to be ignited by a spark…
Hindenburg was holding the hydrogen in a cloth sack, not the safest of places. It would be much safer now as you’re not allowed to smoke in public and we have pvc ballons
That said – I bought shares in Ballard (leading supplier of fuel cells for vechicles) in 1999. Gave them to charity is 2004 as the value had dropped so much. The problem is hydrogen is still a far away technology. I’d say 10 years at least. They first have to crack the cost of the cells, and get it down from about £100k to less than £5k. Lots of thing like platinum in them. Then someone like BP might start to look at rolling out H2 infrastrucutre if there’s a market for it.
Meantime lightweight hybrid/battery cars are the best step. Proven tech, not perfect but available now. Chek the Apterra xprize entry – 300mpg equiv min, upto 1000mpg equiv on short trips.
Finally you can cut petrol use easy – drive slower. On my round trip 65 mile commute I’m now getting 56 mpg in a 2.0 TDCi C-Max – by sticking to 60mph on the motorway. I used to get 47 when “keeping up with the traffic”. So something that could be imposed internationally to conserve oil and slow the rate of oil depletion is a global 60mph/100kmh (ish) speed limit. Doing it globally would mean it’s not such a local political issue and stops it becoming a vote loser. Saves me 19% in fuel for a 5% increase in time – but a much more relaxing drive.
Alex,
I’m not sure why I’m bothering to respond to you, but hydrogen is safer than gasoline. If stored as a hydride, the danger of using hydrogen goes from being somewhat, to none whatsoever.
I really love gasoline powered cars, but I’ve come to see that we should try to conserve oil. It is a limited resource, and we need it for things like plastics (think medical supplies etc.). I actually don’t mind global warming that much, as I like it when it’s generally warmer out. What worries me is that we are putting more and more CO2 into our atmosphere, and that CO2 is also going into our oceans. The biggest problem isn’t so much our CO2 emissions, but the fact that we are removing things like the rain forests that turn CO2 back into O2.
No one is entirely sure how much CO2 the oceans can hold before becoming anoxic, but one thing is for certain, we don’t want to find out. There have actually been cases of large numbers of people being killed by anoxic lakes releasing CO2 bubbles, and there are greater possible risks that would come from anoxic oceans.
America is the kind of place (as is Britain) that will only ever adopt green technologies if it recognises they’re good for the economy as well as the environment…..
The situation as I see it is far worse than most of the commentators so far suggest. The difference between supply & demand of oil is going to bite very very soon. Flying less and driving more slowly will be small fry – air travel will be an absolute luxury and fuel will need to be rationed with the first call going to farming and public transport, not aviation or private vehicles. Just as Cuba managed to change radically when their supplies were cut, we will need to relocalise virtually everything, work as close to home as possible and start to grow our own food, insulate and draughtstrip our homes as well as we possibly can and generate electricity to feed back into the grid in as many ways as we can think of. It will create a transformed and stronger community if we can avoid catastrophic fuel wars.
My twelve year old (fabulous Celica vert with 106000 on the clock) car is converted to LPG – it cost £1650 and paid itself back in 27 months – the best mod anyone could have. When I’ve found another one with lower mileage I’m going to convert that one to run on CNG (methane from a local source from dairy waste) with the car being filled overnight and the home located supply will also heat my house with a theoretically carbon negative supply. Performance of the Celica is identical running on petrol or LPG… and I can drive for around 550 miles without refuelling if I use both tanks!
The methane technology is available right now & there are many wastes that can be used. Essential reading on transitioning to a low-carbon future can be found on http://transitionculture. org/ and more on methane-powered vehicles at http://www.organic-power. co.uk/gas_vehicles_and_bi omethane.aspx
I only hope that governments are strong enough to show leadership & conviction to make Tradeable Energy Quotas work and lead to a Zero Carbon Britain in a controlled manner!
http://www.teqs.net/
http://www.zerocarbonbrit ain.com/
The oil in Alaska will go on sale on the WORLD market.
This does not reduce American dependance on foreign oil.
Why do people not understand this.
ok, hydrogen on cars is the best plan, and it’s in use right now for 30 yrs, what’s the point, I’m telling oyu the answer now! there’s a technology which is invented by a filipino, and actually, japanese car manufacturers has been trying to offer the inventor(daniel dingel) in change for his invention. and that’s the best bit, 300miles per GALLON, this is no JOKE!!!!!!!!
Agreeing with Goeff – great blog.
To Evan Brockovich, can you explain anoxic (in idiots guide form)?
LOL @ Brockovich
I will attempt the best that I can to explain anoxic. I suggest you check out this link http://toxics.usgs.gov/de finitions/anoxic.html as well, as I am no scientist. I’ve just read a lot of stuff on this, and seen some documentaries.
Anoxic is when a body of water ceases to carry oxygen. In the terms that I’m using it in, it starts to have another gas instead, carbon dioxide. I believe that this allows a specific type of anaerobic bacteria to grow, that produces Sodium Hydroxide (lye) and this is what they believe caused the largest extinction ever on earth during the pre-cambrian period
Here is a link that will help to explain the general danger of anoxic bodies of water.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ont hisday/hi/dates/stories/a ugust/21/newsid_3380000/3 380803.stm
obama has been saying increase exploration in alaska. oil companies dont need encouragement to explore and increase reserves, keeps the shareholders happy. but mining of any sort in alaska is difficult because of national parks and such like getting in the way.
and have you seen the fuss people kick up when you ruin the scenary with a mine.
I’ve been trying to make a post that says that anoxic means without oxygen. It doesn’t seem to be working out very well. I’d like to apologize to Alex, I misread your post and thought that you were suggesting that Gasoline was less dangerous than Hydrogen.
My god, how mislead some people are, if only people looked into this as much as they do over being mislead about the iraq war (just as an example), then in general people would have so much more of a greater understanding of the bigger picture. In reading a few of these comments I’m surprised on the conflict, people are being right and wrong at the same time, because of the info they believe or were fed in the last few decades. This is just one example… I wouldnt worry about forests producing oxygen, as the majority of our oxygen is produced in our seas and oceans. But you are right to be concerned about the forests but for the benefit of its inhabitants and its importance in the life cycle. I did just write a big article, but realised it would cause alot of conflict in this dicussion so decided not to post it, but in the main the message was in relation to thinking about the source of the info and why are they providing this info. Maybe I being picky, as it all leads down to one thing of we need to reduce emmissions just to be safe, if all those eco-warriors and scientist are wrong then atleast we’ve changed our energy use. But back to the article, this comes down to how we best to implement the tech, and who to target, and to the honest obama has a good mindset, which is a vast improvement already, but needs to think about not what people want to hear targeted, but what actually needs targeting then convince the world that these are main areas that need improvement and investment. I think transport does it upmost already to improve energy use, meet targets and improve the recycling… well except maybe trains.
On a seperate last note… as an aerospace engineer I thought I should note for those out there, that the gas turbine you see on airliners is the most efficient form of combustion energy. I would believe this is the last in the line of combustion energy solutions, well apart from improving on the gas turbine. Yes a big plane dumps alot of CO2, but per passenger its roughly the same as per passenger in a car (sometimes lower, sometimes higher, the figure is around 120 grams per passenger.), yet it will get you to your destination that bit quicker, unless your in a race with JC across europe. I’ve worked it out in terms of CO2 as fuel consumption is a little more difficult as cars and planes use different fuels so the comparison would be almost useless… but for those interested its about 60mpg per passenger using aviation fuel, you know roughly how much car uses hopefully.
Quickpoint – ‘The oil in Alaska will go on sale on the WORLD market. This does not reduce American dependance on foreign oil.’ – yes, very true, but at the moment the US relies on overseas oil for about half of domestic consumption; that gives certain overseas governments a vested interest in seeing certain US projects (just purely for example in the Middle East) go extremely badly. They may still go extremely badly, but at least we’d then be able to tell who truly dislikes the US from those who just want to keep making shedloads of cash out of US citizens. Alaska won’t help much on its own in any case, but all the steps together should.
H – anoxic, also anaerobic, just means without air, or more particularly the oxygen in air. Most cells (for a short time) and many bacteria can operate without oxygen; it’s where you get cramps and a stitch from if you’re running too hard (lactic acid by-product), also where we get methane gas by-products from landfills etc. etc. It can be very useful.
Best example I can give you of what Evan means is the Thames about 150yrs ago, before London had sewers. In fact this was why London got sewers – the poor politicians couldn’t stand it. There was a dry summer, little water flow, and so much plant matter, garbage, faeces and bacteria in the river that no air could penetrate and it became anaerobic from above Parliament to below Greenwich if I remember correctly. Think black, stinking sludge out of the bottom of a pond, with sewage mixed in, producing enough methane that you could have probably set fire to the surface. I don’t want to imagine the smell. :-O
On a global scale entirely possible though thankfully not likely at the moment.
Topgearmouse – gas turbines as most efficient combustion – think the makers of a certain two-stroke diesel marine engine would disagree; but GT tech is very very impressive all the same. The main issue that climate scientists have with aircraft emissions is that they go directly into the upper atmosphere, where the climate scientists really don’t have much of a clue what happens, except that it’s not good. I think we’ll be flying for a while yet.
I wanted to post a link to this article before, but I had a problem. I figure it shouldn’t matter since it’s off of the Beeb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ont hisday/hi/dates/stories/a ugust/21/newsid_3380000/3 380803.stm
That’s an example of an anoxic lake, and the potential for danger that they can possess (kind of an extreme example, but you get the idea).
As for the oxygen thing, topgearmouse, I think you should take a look at this off of the Nova website (a free public site from PBS in the USA) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/n ova/methuselah/photosynth esis.html
The “addicted to oil” remark chanted over and over in this country is stupid. What we need here more than anything are more rapid advances and implementations of technologies. People who want battery powered cars are off base, in that you can’t use them in the real world. Yes, if you only go back and forth to work everyday, for your entire life, fine. But, most of us don’t do that! Methane, or hydrogen, allow for a renewable form of energy that could be available at filling stations just as gasoline is now. At first I’m sure piston engines powered by these fuels would be much easier and cheaper for the manufacturers (and lets face it, none of the big 3 have any money left for development at the moment) to build, as they already have the technology for piston engines. Fuel cells will have to wait until further in the future. However, once they are figured out you will be able to drive a virtually silent vehicle, requiring much lower maintenance than a car with an internal combustion engine.
I’m not terribly concerned about “global warming” as I’ve stated before. The earth would continue to get warmer if it was completely uninhabited, as the sun is getting hotter. The sun will eventually become a red giant, and then things will be really hot! So, global warming exists but, as I’ve explained before, this isn’t why we need to work to lower CO2 levels.
luckyman,
I do agree that the methane produced in landfills, sewage treatment plants, and other places is useful and should be put to better use than it is now, as it is mostly released back into the atmosphere. That methane is free usable energy that is basically being wasted.
As for removing oil and coal burning power plants, that is a long way off. The current nuclear plants should also remain, though I don’t agree with the idea of building more of those. What is going on at Yucca mountain, and the mining and enriching of uranium should pretty much be viewed as causing or having already caused natural disasters. The new clean coal technology should be implemented on a greater level. Even if strip mining for coal isn’t the best thing in the world, clean coal is really the best alternative at the moment. This should still only be seen as a temporary solution, until other technologies can be put into place that can produce the large amounts of electricity we need.
Topmouse – 60mpg per passenger is about right for short-haul (it’s less economical on long-haul) but people tend to have two people in their cars, and they don’t go so far as they do on planes. A family of four people going on one long-haul holiday is as much fuel as they’d use in the car in a year. Paul
Paul, but try doing that distance in a car… your logic makes no sense, sure a plane uses as much fuel as a car does in a year on a long haul flight… but one its caring on around 300 people with their luggage 1000’s of miles. The 60mpg i calculated also would be similar to that of a flight halfway round the world… pretty much a long haul flight. Next way did you compare it to a family car’s fuel for a year, lets say an average of two people per car, and with 300 hundred passengers thats 300 cars, so atleast compare it to 300 cars. Here’s a counter bit of messed up logic for you then a motor bike uses less fuel than a family car in a year.
My writing is terrible lets try that again,
Paul, but try doing that distance in a car… your logic makes no sense, sure a plane uses as much fuel as a car does in a year on a long haul flight… but one its carrying around 300 people, with their luggage, 1000’s of miles. The 60mpg I calculated also would be similar to that of a flight halfway round the world… pretty much a long haul flight. Next why did you compare it to a family car’s fuel for a year, lets say an average of two people per car, and with 300 hundred passengers thats 300 cars, so atleast compare it to 300 cars. Here’s a counter bit of messed up logic for you then a motor bike uses less fuel than a family car in a year.
ooo missed evan… that websites proves that plants makes oxygen, well done, but about 60% of the worlds oxygen comes from plankton… if thats spelt right. Basically 60% of the worlds oxygen comes from the sea. Sure plants produce oxygen, but they use quite a bit of that oxygen themselves for their own respiration process. I’m not saying rainforests dont contribute, but no where near as much as people might think, I’d more concerned about the habitat it provides. Also, I’m not sure about this one, but I think plankton is on the increase, I remember it from somewhere? Really can’t be sure about that fact
Topgearmouse – It’s all good, I understood you the first time. I’m self-employed, so you can imagine how much I’ve been earning for the last year or so. Your arguments, Evan’s and Paul’s are all correct, that’s the wonderful world we live in.
Plankton – depends on what type of plankton, since there are some nasties out there that we’ve mostly either bred ourselves or encouraged ourselves. Likewise algae, cichlids, other marine species… It just goes on and on. The biosphere can largely sort itself out – or it’ll just kill us.
If we’re talking global warming or climate change, don’t forget the sun’s activity, and overall climatic conditions – you’ll find we’ve been experiencing a VERY slight cooling trend for the last ten years. VERY arguably, it doesn’t matter, what matters is fossil fuel use. (I do believe that anthropogenic climate change is a reality btw, just pointing out that some people don’t…)
Like I mentioned, gas turbines are very very good tech, and frame turbines are particularly good in the power generation industry; where combined with HTSGs & steam turbines for combined cycle these do (just) provide the most efficient combustion.
Short/long haul flights and driving are two different beasts, but Paul’s figures are correct – one family long haul flight is approximately equal to running a family car for a year. Like I also mentioned, climate scientists are particularly worried about aviation because they know emissions into the upper atmosphere make more difference and also because beyond that they really don’t have much of a clue at the moment.
Right back to cars… I’m working on some figures for some other people that might be of interest, I’ll rework them for the States as far as I can and get back to you
Cheers
yes I agreed with paul that a long haul flight is the same as a year in a family car, but think about the comparison for a second will you please. Its still around 120g of CO2 per passenger (varies quite a bit, plus thats woeking on the aircraft being 75% Full on average so it can be lower per passenger), and for cars well that depends on your car (and I know a car can hold more than 1 passenger, but how many cars do you see nowdays with more than 1 person in them and how many cars actually produce less than 120g of CO2 in the world think really big picture, not just new cars and the UK). As for dumping in the atmosphere, theres no evidence just speculation, just because they started investigating everyone assummed that there was a problem… it could be better dumping CO2 in the sky rather than at sea level. Next people will be saying that aircraft cause more rain clouds because of thr amount of water vapour they produce. I’m not saying lots of CO2 is great just really think about the numbers and forget the media comparisons… the media could make cutting your hair sound bad for you.
Yes I know there are lots of different plankton but wasnt planning on writing an essay on the difference between zooplankton and pytoplankton… my point was the amount of oxygen they provide us, especially pytoplankton. This has drawn us away from the original article… what obama aims to target. I think most here are on the same page for change in transport, but wish that other indutries were targetted as the transport industry is already doing huge amounts.
As for steam turbines I would have to look at figures, but I’m pretty sure we’re obviously talking about different kinds of efficiency here then. I’ll take the statement back as it all depends on scale and what you require… as some the UAV’s I’ve helped on use Wankel engines as they are more efficient than their jet counterparts in certain scenarios. So I restract the statement that Gas Turbines are the most efficient combustion engine.
plus what does being self employed and earning money have to do with it?
Paul, out of interest, what does ‘the tea room’ tag that you’ve added to the post mean?
Topgearmouse – ‘Next people will be saying that aircraft cause more rain clouds because of thr amount of water vapour they produce.’ I think someone already did (air fleet grounded after September 11th 2001, temperature was a degree or two higher during the day and a degree or two lower at night). Can’t remember if it was Clarkson or not.
Evan and all – some (very, very rough) figures for you on Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in the US, and one reason why they are important in terms of overall consumption.
US DoE 2007 figures show US consumption of oil was just over 17.5million barrels a day
I said half of that went to road transport, so say (17.5×0.5) 8.75million barrels per day
Say in (2020-2050?) that 45% of journeys can be accomplished by BEVs or PHEVs operating in electric-only mode, basically excluding haulage and long drives. That displaces (8.75×0.45) just over 3.9million barrels of oil.
Say further that ICE technology has 30% efficiency by then, and that BEVs and PHEVs are 80% efficient. (3.9×0.3) 1.17 million equivalent is therefore the energy that reaches the roads, (1.17/0.8)just under the equivalent of 1.5 million per day equivalent is what needs to be plugged into the car.
The 1.5million bbl/d works out as just under a 20% increase overall per year on US electricity grids (the UK figure is just over 20%).
Important points – even if you were to use an oil fired power station at 40% efficiency to provide the electricity, you still save 150k bbl/d – about a tankers worth. You wouldn’t, you’d use nuclear, hydro, combined cycle gas turbines, wind turbines, reconstituted burgers, whatever. The full 3.9million barrels of oil per day would be displaced, just under a quarter of the US’ present import/export inbalance. Aren’t I generous? Small individual donatons may be made to http://www...
what the hell are you lot on about
im in trouble yet again in school
Ash – saving the United States anything between $200million and $500million-odd each day. War. Global disaster. Planes. Cars.
SSDD
Cheers
Sorry this gonna sound negative and like I’m picking holes but… Those figures are a bit far fetched Luckyman… the main one you missed was the strain on the electric grid would cause a reduced efficieny, if the rest of figures were viable in the first place. Next issue, the 45% of the transport to be electric of that 50% (which should be 60%) of oil you say to be transport in the first place, so for that 45% to happen virtually every new car on the road would have to be electric… or there would have to be electric planes, trucks and buses. Also convince those that use diesel to convert to electric… which is what most oil is produced into. I hope the following figures should help… although its world figures it should give a decent picture (although it was for 2006)
Percent of world oil consumption used for transportation:
Details/Sources
Year of 2006
total consumption: 27.3 billion barrels
used for transport: 16.8 billion barrels
percentage: 61%
for transport:
aviation fuels: 1.8 billion barrels
diesel/gasoline: 8.1 billion barrels
motor gasoline: 6.9 billion barrels
I remember a quote once, something along the lines… that a petrol engine is roughly 25-30% efficient, where as an electric engine is about 80-90% efficient, but because of its source of electricity it would be around 40% efficient overall, so it true electric cars would save oil but at what cost… is the electric car realisitic in everyday use for not only urban use, but also long distance travel… or would you need another car just for the long journeys. How do you plan to convince the masses to do that, it would have to be one very big incentive… other than saving the environment to convert enough to by a new elecric/hybrid car and make a difference.
What I love about these figures is that around 60% of oil goes to transport yet transport doesn’t contribute 60% of pollution. I know resources are an issue… but I thought pollution was the bigger problem… or is that the opposite in the states?
Also please note the amount of oil used by aviation! just 7% of all oil and 11% of transport.
is that the black guy
What Rubbish
Topgearmouse – don’t worry about it, picking holes is what gets us to the right conclusions. They might not necessarily be mine, but I think they may have to be close.
’strain on the electric grid would cause a reduced efficieny’ no, not necessarily. The grid is only used as full capacity during the winter (here in UK (1800GMT is when UK figures are taken from) and northerly parts of the US) or summer (rest of US). If charging were to take place at night and in other demand troughs there wouldn’t be any need for new grid capacity, even tranferring 45% of journeys. You’d therefore have increased grid efficiency.
‘Next issue, the 45% of the transport to be electric of that 50% (which should be 60%).’ – I was a bit out anyway, since I wasn’t used to the US DoE website at the time, but according to your figures I save more oil. What sources are you using for the global data?
‘Also convince those that use diesel to convert to electric… which is what most oil is produced into’ – no, I explicitly excluded haulage and aviation kerosene, by implication also shipping. Also, most oil doesn’t go to electricity, as your own figures have just shown. That’s coal’s job (though hopefully not for long)
’so for that 45% to happen virtually every new car on the road would have to be electric… or there would have to be electric planes, trucks and buses.’ – cars quite possibly, though look at the timescales, as for the rest no. Just no.
‘I remember a quote once…’ – still more efficient than all but the very best and most efficient diesel road transport. The point is that it’s a lot easier and cheaper to make electricity production more diverse and emit less pollution.
‘is the electric car realisitic in everyday use for not only urban use, but also long distance travel… or would you need another car just for the long journeys’ – two choices. If you do almost all city driving, buy electric and rent for other journeys. If it’s more mixed driving, buy a plug in hybrid, that way you have mains electric efficiency around town and a petrol/DERV engine for longer trips. Actually three – if you live up a mountain, buy a land rover.
‘How do you plan to convince the masses’ – I don’t, I’m one of the masses. I do know we need to get away from oil as far as is possible, if for nothing else than to keep your aircraft flying.
‘What I love about these figures…’ I don’t love them at all, I’m occasionally worried about them to the point of feeling as if I’m going to vomit. $147bbl without any specific geopolitical cause. That’s half again as much as the oil embargos of the 70’s. Can you imagine what would have happened to prices if, say just for example, an Iranian nuclear facility had been bombed? If nothing else it would have wiped out western economies rather than just shattering them – or it would have meant conquering the entire middle east. Bit difficult to worry about pollution when your country has just gone bankrupt or is involved in the thrid world war.
Cheers
Just a quick thought that I had when I gave up on working for the night and sat down with a coffee.
The only plug in hybrid we’ve really seen so far is the Chevy Volt; GM keeps costs down and engine efficiency high by using a small and simple engine running at a constant speed, which is used only to constantly charge the batteries beyond journey ranges of about 40miles. It also quite rightly keeps the batteries low in the vehicle for better weight distribution and handling.
However…
Say almost all your journeys are within 40miles – boring commute – but you do like to enjoy driving, and don’t mind trading a bit of efficiency and money for that some of the time (and paying a bit more for the car).
There wouldn’t be anything wrong with then having a switch on the dash to convert to petrol (or maybe diesel or DiesOtto) power under your right foot, with the batteries just helping the torque curve a bit; I’m thinking a light, small capacity, Italianesque six or eight cylinder…
What do you think? Is the natural home of a V8 in a car or a food blender?
im bored again in crappy school this is something to do
Yes the natural home of a v8 is in a car but if you buy a v8 car it would be like buying a v8 toaster on wheels THERE SO CHEEP
hi
hello
Ash – I’m bored again in crappy work and this is something to do. I was taking it all far far too seriously last night though – not good. This is the last time I’m going to post to this thread in case the US State Department give me job
Cheers everyone
luckyman im home now just been suspended for 5 days nice break lol cant wait antil next topgear is on
My last comment on this… your not part of the masses when it comes to OIL… otherwise they’d be alot of electric cars already, Can you really see on a global scale people converting to electric cars over the next 40 years, I can see a minorty that would be happy to have an electric car then hire a petrol car for longer journeys… but thats a very small minority of the world. If elctric or hybrid plug-ins were in demand then there would be alot more option already or in the pipeline, but theres not… as you already said yourself. Electric just doesn’t seem beneficial to the masses as its efficiency doesn’t out-weigh its negatives… something quite impressive would have to be made to even make a slight dent in the combustion engines market. As already shown by the hybrid… its only brought by those who either what the image of making a difference or think they’re making a differnece… I can’t remember which environmental group it was, but they said they’d rather you buy a small diesel than a prius if you had to buy a car.
Also Luckyman if you took haulage, aerospace etc out of the equation your left with between 14-20% of transport using fuel… of which is made up diesel and petrol cars, which would definatly make your figures WAY OUT. With some rough mental maths i think you would only be saving about $25million a day in the U.S, which is almost nothing on the grand scheme of things… not worth the effort when theres alot of other things that could be done to save money. I mean americans could just eat 25% less and that would save on alot of fuel in transportation and cooking, and that just one example of saving money, which would be more effective and more viable than the electric car with no real drawbacks.
Obama made many promises to Us citizens on what he would do for the environment regarding the auto industry among other things. When confronted in the middle of his campaign with a sharply declining economy he still maintained his promises and never changed course. That tells me that he may not care as much about making serious changes available in the auto industry than care about just getting elected. His policies contradict themselves (more later if you wish)and I feel is not the ‘green candidate’ he makes himself out to be.
GM had a car I believe was called the Insight back in the 1990’s that was way beyond it’s time as a gas electric hybrid. They only allowed the cars to be leased and when the leases were up, they refused to sell them, collected them among protests, hid them and had them all crushed…… They can make more efficient cars but do not chose to make better steps that are economically friendly….. money trumps green unless you are Ed Begley Jr so maybe they need to fail and restructure uner the guidance of a chaper 11 judge to smarten up enough to offer more efficient vehicles….. natural gas is the answer.
Kiss Top Gear goodbye if the messiah has his way with boring cars out of Detroit and the world ready to suck on his satanic 3rd nipple…. we will be driving electric Yugos and melting our oyster cards…. here in the US we will take to the mountains and secretly save a corvette or two and use the gas we have been hoarding since the end of the world in 1984
yeah!I’ the last one to blong in this blog…yeah, I happy…
top gear the best! Im a 11 year old kid, top gear rocks, i would like to ask bout the dodge viper 2008 and i would like to know about all its power and top speed thank you top gear is the best
all the hosts are funny especialy the stig
I’m just a-wonderin’: What would Mr. Obama’s favourite kinda car be? A certain Mr. Sinclair says that Barack is rather fond of Limos, but I get the feeling he would also feel at home,…Oh, say,in a Daewoo Lanos.
obama will have a black SUV…someone says