Personally, I don't think there's enough education of the public on just how bad the oil dependence and global warming issues are.
There are no such issues except in marketing and politics.
Hell, most people still think that global warming is a lie.
It is, science has proven that beyond doubt, its gullible eco-nuts, and businessmen and politicians that profit from it that keep the myth alive. The real truth is nature is volatile, it does what it likes. In 4 billion years the earth has been a ball of lava, a ball of ice and everything in between. Need I remind you that we are coming out of an ice age? Or that just 50 million years ago the entire earth was warm enough to the point that no continent had a winter season? We have only been around 18,000 years, I'm sure somebody can come up with an excuse of how we caused it.
but using a low-compression V8 built on a design from the 60s is why ethanol has failed.
No, it failed because consumption increases proportionately with the ratio of ethanol used. If an SUV gets 16mpg on gas, 12mpg on E85 isn't helping anything. Even my parents Fusion goes from 20mpg on E10 to 22mpg on straight gasoline.
There are technologies coming, like the various algae technologies (oil and alcohol) that will help IMMENSELY
Algae biodiesel mass production has been has been "imminent" for over a decade. It seems everyone is happy to publish projected production rates based on lab tests but they can't make it work in the real world....
and science has proven beyond a doubt that global warming is true too
science can prove anything, all depends on how you filter things.
not even going to go into it on any of the other things because it's a waste of everyones time.
and science has proven beyond a doubt that global warming is true too
Only to politicians and other gullible people.
science can prove anything, all depends on how you filter things.
Clearly you don't understand how science actually works, what you are seeing is political filtering. A true scientist accepts reality for what it is even if it conflicts with their established beliefs. A political person sees what they want and bends the perception of reality to fit their beliefs.
not even going to go into it on any of the other things because it's a waste of everyones time.
That is EXACTLY the mentality of why the scam continues to propagate. Instead of looking at the proof you close your eyes, plug your ears and shout "I'm not looking, you cant disprove my beliefs if I don't see it!"
Well, it sure is nice to see that this thread has not turned into a somewhat nasty bit of opinions expressed in non-antagonizing responses. Play nice on the playground please, even if the other kids dont like your new bat and ball.
Its all a pipe dream. Until "cold fusion" is pioneered and/or solar cells make a 10-fold jump in density/efficiency, oil is all we have.
That won't help anything. Reducing what we use is the only viable answer.
Exactly! Making things green and more efficient is great, but it still perpetuates the need for energy.
Exactly! Making things green and more efficient is great, but it still perpetuates the need for energy.
Not at the cost it takes. How "green" is a diesel with a $1000+ DPF that must inject raw fuel into the exhaust to burn off soot? How "green" is it to mine the rare metals needed in catalytic converters? How "green" is it to replace a failed EGR multiple times? How "green" is it to build a pee tank and its urea for the sole purpose of slightly reducing emissions? Where is the efficiency in any of that? All I see is increased fuel consumption, reduced reliability, increased maintenance costs and shorter engine/vehicle lifespan just to slightly reduce soot and NOx emissions that are negligibly harmful in the first place.
The problem with being forced "green" is the manufacturers must divert resources away from developing engines that are clean, powerful, efficient and reliable to making engines that must make compromises to meet the next 90% reduction in emissions allowance 1-3 years away.
Another problem is that as mentioned previously, politics gets involved. An example of what I'm referring to is the restrictions on modifying cars brought on when emissions testing started. Instead of saying we don't care what you do to your car, just meet these minimal emissions standards, they took the easy, lazy or ignorant (take your pick) way out and said "you can't remove any factory emissions equipment". Never mind that a person who knows what they are doing (eg. Gale Banks) could improve efficiency and horsepower and torque and driveability. You can't touch the equipment that was placed on an engine to accomplish a specific emissions goal for the lowest cost available to the manufacturer while making performance marginally acceptable to the average person. Reality does not have an awful lot to do with most emissions laws.
Subsidizing the production of a brand-new diesel vehicle and having it shipped across the pond isn't as -green- as making modest repairs to one that is already local and fifteen years old that operates at the same level of efficiency.
Re: Solar-powered and electric hybrids -- what is the typical battery lifespan and replacement cost on these vehicles? What happens to the expired battery materials? Do they end up in a river?