SaabUSA Biopower survey

Too little, too late. If they really wanted to make a difference instead of a token gesture they'd produce a solar/plug-in/hybrid/biodiesel. But of course they don't.

Right. Because a solar car is practical, is that it? Tell me, what power density can we expect from sunlight, please? Kindly compare this to the surface area available, and the power needed to move a street-legal car down the road.

Or, I'll save you the math. There's not enough energy in sunlight, even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, to power a safe, streetable car. It just isn't there.

Plugin? Great, if you drive 10 miles a day. Next?

Hybrid biodiesel. Now we're talking. A diesel/electric hybrid would let people use the existing fuel infrastructure, give the industry more experience with electrical drive systems, and would get us to a point where we can start paying farmers to farm, instead of giving that money to people in parts of the world where they want to kill us. Yes, that seems like a good approach. Plugins, solar cars, and hydrogen, are just distractions.

I had to laugh when I read this. It reminded me of the report of a green government official complaining that her government wasn't doing enough to conserve energy because they were unable to provide her with the up-armored Toyota Prius that she requested.

Walt Kienzle

Which part do you find funny, Walt?

in article snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote on 27/01/2006 16:59:

I'm inclined to agree with the "too little too late" statement, since SAAB should have started this bandwagon rolling. I have oft lamented Volvo's bi-fuel or Vauxhall/Opel's dual fuel offerings, but it does seem that SAAB has gone one better with this one. It is late, but I wonder how much of that has been SAAB "going to the man" and saying "here, take a look at this eco-idea" and having them just reject it.

Okay, I'm being picky. I spent a day or so thinking about whether and why I should ask you ... Who is trying to kill you (I presume the US, you mean) this time? What do you mean?

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

Well, I don't think it's any secret that much (most?) of the oil the US imports, is from arabic countries. And while we're neutral trade-partners with some of them, I'd hardly call them friendly to us (nor us friendly towards them). I'd prefer to have the US work on building up the biofuels industry and infrastructure, which will allow us to support our own farmers rather than supporting people in countries who are uneasy allies at best.

The sooner the US starts using it's energy resources that it has, the sooner it can stop having to juggle unstable situations in order to attempt to secure them from elsewhere.

in article snipped-for-privacy@individual.net, Dave Hinz at snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote on 28/01/2006 20:28:

It's a sensible approach. You guys have vast vast vast areas of open space that could well be as devoted to sugar cane or oil seed rape, as barley ... Or windmills? What kind of lobby do you have going nationally? Are there particular states that are more receptive to changing to alternative fuels?

It is going to need a sea change, culturally, I would imagine. For example, from a UK (perhaps European) perspective, we see 10 MPG V8s as a cultural right in the US; a view of oil usage which leaves us aghast. Well, following the ethanol example, I see that piston-head culture being sustained through any oil shortage. I love the growl of inefficient engines and the smell of unburned petrol, but I do concede that we all need to change and for now, the ethanol direction seems to be the change we need without losing what we had.

Well, I think that would be good for all of us; the UK especially who seem duty bound to follow well, the Bushes, into whatever whichever country they seem to see as the latest sure thing. I wonder how much of the Iran issue is going to be a smokescreen for the next invasion of Venezuela? President Chavez does seem to be unnecessarily "pushing the envelope" when it comes to oil exports to the US. We'll see.

Paul

1989 900 Turbo S

Yup. I'm being paid to not farm on much of my own land, for instance. Lots of surplus capacity.

It's very spotty as to which states encourage what. There's a huge wind farm not far from here, but it's all private industry not state-owned of course. There may be subsidies, but again, to me that's a wise expenditure of our money. Investment in tech keeps people like me in work, and investment in energy independance is hardly wasted.

Well, to be honest, I can count on one hand the number of Hummers or similar vehicles that I've seen on the road, in the last year. We're not talking a significant percentage here, either, and most people look at those folks the same way you seem to.

e10 is standard at the pumps in this area.

It'd be nice if the people who "feel", rather than "think", wouldn't have so much influence here. We don't have new nuclear power plants because 20 years ago a 40 year old design had a well-publicised non-event, and because 20 years ago a Russian design that has never been used in the US blew up. The general public doesn't distinguish between a Chernobyl-type reactor and a modern design as would be built here, and we're all breathing dirtier air and paying for an expensive exercise because of it. If we had sufficient power from nuke plants, then maybe yes, hydrogen would make sense. But as long as we're just burning or converting a different hydrocarbon fuel to get it, it's a net loss.

So yeah, I think it's play in the clutch pedal pivot hole. or whatever the thread was about.

Electric/hybrid isn't suitable for large fast cars. Poor power density.

Graham

I guess the US government is helping keep that secret. Or maybe it is just false propaganda. According to

the 15 top oil exporters to the US, Arabic countries contribute less than 25% (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the Americas. The most comes from North America: Canada and Mexico which provide 33%. South America exports another 17% to the US. Africa contributes 17% and Europe 9%. Your claim hasn't been true since the oil embargo in the 1970's. I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead of false cliché's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil originates, it would be the Americas, not the Arab world.

of the 15 top oil exporters to the US, Arabic countries contribute less than > 25%

OK, so there's a number. yay. I'd call 25% "much", wouldn't you, Walt? Oh, and it's amusing that you say the gummint is keeping it secret, and then cite a government site to show it.

My claim is "much (most?)". I stand by it as your numbers have verified it. Why the word games, Walt?

You need to work on your reading comprehension before lecturing me on my choice of words.

Now then. Did you have anything of substance on the topic, or is it just bullshit and wordgames? Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking me to task for what your inaccurate interpretation of my clear statements is, not for what I said.

Walt, if you keep introducing facts into this you are going to piss off those propaganda mills that run elections with rumor and false facts presented so many times that people believe them.

No, I wouldn't. Particularly considering those numbers are only for IMPORTED oil. It doesn't factor in what is produced domestically. Even just looking at imported oil, how can you conclude that 2nd place is in any way "most". Or that half of what is imported from other contries in the Americas "much"? And you should read more closely when you quote me. I said LESS THAN 25%.

The "secret" part wasn't a cliam on my part, it was an inference based on your prior statement in that you could/didn't come up with any facts to support your claim.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or maybe I am just a stickler for accuracy.

I read just fine and didn't see any substantiation for your claims. Just bad rhetoric.

I am taking you to task on false conclusions based on bad and nonexistent facts.

Thank you for the advice; just doing my part. I'm glad to see someone has a sense of humor here.

The part I found funny because of its accuracy was snipped. Your statements here are accurate and rem> Right. Because a solar car is practical, is that it? Tell me, what

Some of the people in this group think that the effective implementation of alternate fuels can whipped up in minutes, produced in volume, people will buy it and that it can make money. I commend Saab in coming out with the BioPower engine. Too little too late? Maybe Saab took this long so they could get it right - and then learn so they can come up with something better later. Cars that run on E-85 have been around in the US for at least

10 years and at least as long in parts of South America (specifically Brazil where Saab gained much of its knowledge for BioPower). The problem with the early implementations of E-85 was that fuel economy dropped 20% to 30% when compared to gasoline, based on USEPA estimates for certain Ford Taurus, Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Cirrus and various GM SUVs that have been available for several years with E-85 compatibility. For 2006, GM has a newer E-85 engine available in the 3.5L Impala/Monte Carlo that only has a 10% drop in fuel economy with E-85. This is an improvement, but not nearly as good as what Saab promises. I think I would happily pay the extra $1000 for BioPower if it delivers as advertised.

I also agree that Hydrogen Fuel cell is pointless technology unless we can get the hydrogen out of water. Right now, we can't so there is no point in making those vehicles. If you happen to have such a vehicle, the most practical way to get hydrogen fuel is to extract it from natural gas. GM offered Cavaliers that run directly on Compressed Natural Gas until the Cavalier was discontinued last year. Honda still offers the Civic GX

and sells a Natural Gas Refueling Appliance so owners can fuel up at home. For those that say "Too little, too late" I ask if you have purchased or at least investigated any of these new technologies. If you have, great. You are encouraging manufacturers to innovate and come up with new alternate fuel compatible products. When I started my investigation, I had to seek out the sales manager for corporate fleet vehicles. He was thrilled that I, as the general public, was asking about this technology. To all in this NG, ask yourself if you have been informing yourself and helping promote knowledge or just complaining that someone else hasn't done enough.

OK, so you're going on the record that we don't import much oil from arabic countries then? I disagree.

I recall writing "much (most?)". Google agrees.

Great, then we're well into "much" then. None of which changes my central point, which is that I'd rather give money to farmers, than to countries who are unfriendly to us, Walt.

Please don't presume to make my points for me, Walt, it's clear that your misinterpretations make you unqualified to do so.

And you're off on a irrelevant nitpick on a side issue. Other than that, great post.

I stand by my statement that we get "much oil" from unfriendly countries and should work to minimize that. If you choose to imagine that I was somehow making a point about the other things you're responding to that I didn't write, well, maybe you're reading a different thread somewhere else or something. I dunno.

You yourself have confirmed numbers that indicate we get much of our oil from arabic countries. If your argument is "No, Dave, that's a bit, not much", well, count me out of the bullshit wordgames. It's a distraction from the central point of using our own resources. Let's use what we can develop, and stop financing countries unfriendly to us. It's really a pretty simple proposal. Reading into it things that I'm not saying, and then taking me to task for them, says an awful lot more about your points than mine.

He's introducing this "fact" in response to a statement that I neither made nor alluded to. (shrug) He's arguing with made-up points. I don't play that game.

" The USA imports about 55% of its oil needs.

Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (millions of barrels per day, 2001): Canada: 1.79 - Saudi Arabia: 1.66 - Venezuela: 1.54 - Mexico: 1.42 - Nigeria: .86 - Iraq: .78 - Norway: .33 - Angola: .32 - United Kingdom: .31 - Total: 11.62. (Source: Energy Information Administration).

Sources of U.S. Oil Imports (%, 2002): Saudi Arabia: 16.9% - Mexico: 15.1% - Canada: 15.0% - Venezuela: 14.4% - Iraq: 11.4% - Nigeria: 5.9.%.

only about 30% of the USA's oil imports came from Arab countries in 2002. Since USA oil imports are about 55% of USA oil consumption,

***********only about 15% of USA's oil consumption is provided by Arab countries.*************

About 40% of oil in the USA is used to produce gasoline. "

Is 15% 'much' ?

Graham

Which you don't consider to be "much"? This is the word-game I won't play. We import a _metric shitload of oil from places who don't like us_. There. Feel free to argue what "metric shitload" means, but you can do it without me.

Try doing without it. Take a 15 percent pay cut, Graham, and tell me if it was "much", for instance. You're missing my point, which I've made abundantly clear.