New German 4 seater gets 157 MPG

Not just ethanol. In Brazil the bagasse, the left-overs from the cane is also used
to power their ethanol plants. I think they've reached the point where ethanol
production doesn't require any oil derived energy input.

Graham

 

Surely more refineries would simply encourage more use of oil derived energy ?

Why does it need more energy ?

Energy efficiency makes vastly more sense.

Graham

 

Which would you prefer - cheap plentiful meat or cheap plentiful fuel for your car
?

Graham

 

And it would also stabilize the prices.

Not if you're trying to solve a growing energy need. You may slow it
down a bit (as we have in the past) but you won't solve the problem.

 

I wish I had the answer to that question. But being a single guy with
no children, I guess I would go for cheaper fuel. Now ask a guy
supporting a family of five with a $200.00 grocery bill every week and
he would probably respond just the opposite.

 

If that is the case, then I can see ethanol having some real utility.
If all it does is convert petroleum energy into ethanol energy with no
real gain, then it is just a political boondogle and we'd be better off
investing our research efforts into Solar, wind and the like.


Matt

 

The idea that it was a net energy loss was simply only ever a ploy by the naysayers who
are opposed to any change.

Graham

 

By whose standards? Diesel fuel is fine for 18-wheel trucks, is it not?
Even with goodly loads of sulphur.

I'd have to research that, myself. If the soot is fed into a catalytic
converter, too much soot would foul the converter.

Detroit has some problems, yes, but there's a few other issues that may
need to be cleaned out as well -- like, perhaps, an overly-friendly
Administration?

I don't know how well a 1/2-metric-tonne car will do on a windy bridge,
but it's a cinch it'll get better gas mileage than an SUV.

 

Prices are only perceived as a problem in the USA. The result of too many years
addicted to astonishingly cheap fuel.

Why does it have to grow. You're apaprently assuming it *has* to. Why not question
that assumption ?

If you can't reduce energy usage you're totally screwed. Just stop and think.

I've easily reduced my energy profile with hardly any trouble.

Graham

 

Hey, the cheaper the better as far as I'm concerned. I'm ready for
cheap fuel anytime it's available.

Simple calculation of a growing population in the US. Another
calculation is the other countries who are now making the products we
used to make. Yes, there are ways to improve the use of fuel, but at
times, it's expensive and time consuming. In the meantime, this
population will continue to grow along with others and the demand for
this additional fuel is needed.

Well, I think that's dandy, but again, it's not a problem solver. It's
a help though. The newest thing out is styrafoam houses. The claim is
that it reduces fuel consumption by 70%. But do you want to live in one
of these homes?

 

Sure, I can't blame you as far your pocket's concerned but I hope you recognise
that profligate use of energy isn't a good long term idea ?

So ? Add in energy efficiency and the demand could still decrease. It's a damn
sight more sensible to use less energy than simply hope the price will drop !

For example - do you use any CFL lighting ? If not why not ?

Fair comment. That's still no excuse to use energy in a profligate way though.

It's a problem helper though. I am for ever perplexed by Americans who expect an
'answer on a plate' ! The answer to more expensive energy is through many
individual improvements, not some single blockbuster one.

Why styrofoam ? There's loads of great insulators. Sounds like you're looking for
simple answers when in reality the solution is more involved. For sure though,
better home ( and office ) insulation is an excellent value for money way to reduce
your energy bills.

Graham

 

I don't think $200 will feed a family of five for a week. Rice, beans
potatoes, eggs maybe.

 

Good lord ! You must have expensive food whereever you live. If anyone can
actually cook, you can feast like a king for that kind of money.

Graham

 

I pulled up food aid for folks in poverty.A family of four can collect a
maximum of $457 A month for food stamps(EBT). That is about 1/2 of what
is estimated for the monthly food bill. So..Perhaps you are close.
But a meat eating family has some real expenses.

 

Uh ? I eat meat too. Not excessively I have to say.

I just cooked a chicken that cost £3 ( $5.40 ) That would have fed 4 ppl
comfortably @ $1.30 per head for an evening meal for example. The veg cost
'pennies' in comparison.

Heck, $200 is $40 per head per week. Or ~ $6 /day. That's way above subsistence.

Graham

 

I have a family of five and we eat for less than $800/month of
groceries. We do eat out at least once a week, but we certainly
wouldn't have to do that. That is pure luxury and adds another probably
$2-300/month.


Matt

 

That's assuming that the price of corn is not subsidized by the government
now. If it is heavily subsidized, then it could be a pretty positive
situation for all involved when those subsidies are no longer needed.

 

What you suggest here is that we deliberately waste energy for kicks and
giggles. Nothing is further from the truth. What is a good idea is to
proportionally increase supply with demand. That's hardly considered
evil in any way.

Simply because I don't like it. I don't like electric cars and I don't
care for driving 55 mph on the highway to conserve fuel. I remember a
quote sometime ago from (I may be incorrect here) JFK. A car in every
driveway. A car in every driveway was a symbol of success in hopes of
ending the cumbersome public transportation that most had to use. A car
in every driveway was a milestone. I don't believe that the citizens of
this country are ready to return to uncomfortable circumstances to
conserve fuel.

You can conserve all you want, but that conservation is offset by the
increasing demand. This is why I state that conservation is only a help
but not a solution.

We are not talking about excuses here, we are talking about simple
supply and demand. Take notice of the consistent energy conservation
that has taken place over the last few decades or so. I am 46 years
old, and I can think back to the days of less efficient fuel usage and
the advancements that brought us to where we are today.

Higher efficiency Air Conditioners, higher efficiency home heating
units, higher MPG in our automobiles, fuel injection and computers,
solar panels, programmable thermostats just to name a few. But even
with all these advancements and technology, we are still in need of
energy because of increased demands due to population here and abroad.
These advancements certainly helped, but it was not a solution.

The answer is to increase supply to meet the demand.

This is true, but consider the typical first home buyer. They are
usually younger people in their lower to mid 20's only looking for the
American Dream of a home purchase. Most are not considering solar
panels or windmills. They just want a place to raise their family and
live within their means in modern comfort.

 

Well that furthers my point so I thank you for your response.

 

Okay, then who pays for these subsidies?