So what are your thoughts on this? Can private markets possibly be a workable, timely solution here? Are government initiatives and spending the only option? Some of McCain's speech the other night initiated this thought. I will write down my organized thoughts on the subject when I am rested and sober...

Considering, of course, alternative fuels for cars and the like as well as power plants.

69

wtfdetroit already solved the energy crisis. (http://www.wtfdetroit.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11396)

We wouldn't be in the energy bind if the libs would let us drill. Instead we need to go ask OPEC to increase. They must really be laughing at us.

We wouldn't be in the energy bind if the libs would let us drill. Instead we need to go ask OPEC to increase. They must really be laughing at us.


Do you think gas prices would be less than $3.75 a gallon if oil companies had carte blanche over all of our available oil?

Yes

That's too bad.

I believe our current alternative energy position comes straight from the Kama Sutra -- Congress Of The Cow

Do you think gas prices would be less than $3.75 a gallon if oil companies had carte blanche over all of our available oil?

Nope. They'd jack up the prices because they can. We already have the Saudi's compaining the prices are high for no good reason.

What I can't figure out is why air power is so regulated. I saw a special on wind turbines and they talked about how the government won't use the technology like they should. Out here in Colorado it's an exception to the norm. Where I snowboard at (Keystone) the lifts are all powered %100 by wind energy. My favorite brewery (New Belguim) is powered by wind power. Many people have solar panels out here (if that wasn't so expensive to buy you'd see a lot more). We have the best mass transportation system in the country. It's too bad more places can't instill some of these things.

I don't know if it's auto makers, oil execs, lobbiests or what is holding us back but it sucks.

There's this village here in Spain, just outside of Zaragoza, that has one of the most amazing standards of living thanks to wind turbines. The village was in this barren, hilly area; pretty much all of Zaragoza is that way. You can't grow anything because the soil isn't good and (here's the important part) it's way too windy. So finally the mayor of this one village bought up all the barren land she could for the city and filled it all with wind turbines. The village doesn't pay electricity, pretty much doesn't pay taxes because of what they make off the sale of the production and has some of the most incredible infrastructure and public places for a tiny village that you could ever see.

I've been reading about solar panels. We're building a house out here and I wonder how long it would take to pay for itself, etc. I read there is a better technology being developed right now, but that probably means it will cost even more to install.

I've used solar panels. Getting better all the time. I'm a General Contractor and I'm also about to build a house. Another thing to look into is are the solar roof tiles. Rebates are generally pretty good. Unfortunately the city I'm about to build in has its own electricity plant (and its very cheap) so they are giving very good rebates.

You buy these things a square at a time. Pretty invisible. And they generate power.

I'm going to wait until we are in there for about a year to see how our energy bills are (plus we'll have lots of expenses on new furnature and landscaping anyway). Hopefully the prices come down some more by then.

I think the Repubs could be hammering the Dems on the drilling issue. But Mr Liberal JM doesn't want any drilling. DOUCHE!

The Prez usually gets hammered whenever prices go up. No different this time. Bush and the Repubs are taking the heat. But the Repubs are on the correct side of this thing....drill. Not just for fuel cost relief but for energy security too.

I agree that we should at least seriously look at drilling, but at the same time funding research and implementation of alternative energies. Cheapen fuel (albeit little) in the short term while developing a working, renewable, clean plan for the long term.

I think it would be shocking to see how much we already put into it. Bush doubled Clintons hydrogen research, iirc. And the oil companies are spending a bunch too, but the oil companies are prolly just doing it so they can get in early(make money) on any new forms of energy.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3893/beerjga0.jpg

Ahhh, yes! Brilliant strategery.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/3893/beerjga0.jpg

Make sure gusman sees this.

I'm in favor of exploiting whatever reserves we can find but let's step back and have a moment of realism here.

The reserves estimated to be in ANWR and off our coastlines are no more than a drop in the bucket compared to the demand. We could drill it all and maybe knock 2 or 3 cents off the price of gas... 15 or 20 years from now.

That's the brilliant energy solution being touted by the republicans. Maybe that's why they aren't "hammering" the democrats on drilling... because they big picture makes them look like complete clowns.

We use oil. We need more to lower the price. Republicans say drill. Dems say tax the oil companies. Thats going to do a lot.

The Dems are a bunch of assclowns.

Shummer was excited when the Saudis announced they were going to add 500,000 bbls a day in production. If Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling, we'd be getting 1 million bbs coming from it.

Dems are conflicted.

fwiw...the world is producing about 85 millions bbs a day, the world uses about 85 million bbs a day. More oil would definately help.

Invention brings wind energy home
They call it "wind turbine in a box," a simple off-the-shelf but high-performance wind turbine.
Imda MahawiliThe innovative wind turbine is the first major launch of a commercial product from the Grand Valley State University energy center in Muskegon. Plans are to sell the turbine at home improvement stores for less than $2,000 to homeowners who can use it to provide up to 20 percent of their electricity.

E-Net LLC -- a technology development company brought to GVSU's Michigan Alternative and Renewable Energy Center by the center's executive director, Imad Mahawili -- has signed an exclusive licensing agreement with Muskegon-based EarthTronics to develop, manufacture and market the WindTronics turbine line.

EarthTronics President Reg Adams said his company is working on a refined prototype that could be put into production by the first quarter of 2009. Adams said the initial units will be assembled in Muskegon with parts potentially coming from across the globe. Muskegon vendors are being sought for the units made of metal and composite plastics.

Besides a residential unit for developed countries, EarthTronics also is looking to produce a smaller, even less expensive unit that is targeted for rural villages without electricity in developing countries. Adams said that Mahawili's innovative wind turbine design is ideal for remote locations needing small amounts of electrical power.

"This is huge," Adams said of the potential for the WindTronics units, expected to be sold in the "hundreds of thousands" for the initial models. "Imad's design is amazing. One of the keys to this is the design of simple technologies."

The specifics and details of the "wind turbine in a box" are not being released as commercialization continues. E-Net has U.S. patents pending on the turbine technology that Mahawili describes as "gearless."

The lack of a traditional gear box reduces friction and allows the WindTronics turbine to begin generating power at 3 mph of wind speed. Standard wind turbine technology allows power to be generated above 8 mph and cuts off when winds climb 30 mph or more. WindTronics has no upper wind speed restrictions.

"Our goal is to supply power in the 3-15 mph wind range; we can accomplish that," Adams said. "We want to be less than $2,000 per unit. We know we are there right now."

An initial 200-watt, 36-inch diameter WindTronics unit will drive the costs down to where wind generation becomes economically competitive with utility-provided power, Mahawili said. A typical house needs 1.2-kilowatts of power, he said.

A competitor likely will be Cascade Engineering in Grand Rapids, which is putting one of its 1.5-kilowatt Swift Turbines on the Frauenthal Center for the Performing Arts in Muskegon as a demonstration project. The Swift unit is retailing for about $15,000.

The WindTronics 200-watt unit will take care of about 10 percent to 20 percent of a normal residential home's electrical needs. The EarthTronics turbines could be used to charge a battery or be converted to integrate into a home's electrical system. The units will need an electrician for installation, Adams said.

E-Net LLC got its start as Mahawili contemplated the devastation of the Indian Ocean tsunami four years ago. The inventor, entrepreneur and chemical engineer-turned-academic-think-tank chief began to dream of ways to provide basic electricity to those who don't have it.

E-Net is a business that has a single West Michigan investor and the university's Grand Valley Research Corp. as owners, Mahawili said. Although the details of the long-term deal between E-Net and EarthTronics are not being released, typical licensing agreements would have a percentage of sales going back to E-Net,

That would allow GVSU to share in the proceeds since the turbine technology was developed out of its Muskegon energy center.

E-Net has had the turbine technology ready for commercialization since the end of 2007. The company sought the right partner to launch the initial products and had been working with four suitors, Mahawili said. The product's success will not only be tied to the technology and production, but how it will get into the hands of consumers.

EarthTronics provided the best "marketing channels" and is a Muskegon-based company, he said. EarthTronics is a start-up company that has been operating at the GVSU energy center until its space in the new Hines Building in downtown Muskegon is completed this summer.

Adams has been a transportation company owner and manufacturing executive for Ameriform Inc. in Muskegon. EarthTronics, which arose from discussions with Chinese business leaders on a lighting product, is owned by Adams, Ameriform owners and other West Michigan investors.

EarthTronics is a development, sales and marketing outlet for energy efficient and alternative energy products. It launched the EarthBulb -- a high-efficiency compact fluorescent light -- earlier this year.

The potential for the WindTronics devices is staggering, Mahawili and Adams believe. If a developing-world unit can be produced, Mahawili said it could provide solutions to countries worldwide that have rural villages without electrical service. Worldwide, there are 1.6 billion people without access to electricity, a number expected only to grow in the coming years.
"All wind technology to this point, small or large, has been costly," Mahawili said. "This innovation allows substantial cost savings."
EarthTronics officials see other applications for the new wind turbines. For example, cellular telephone companies need a means to provide auxiliary power for their cell towers as a home-land security issue.
"This changes the whole outlook for wind technology," Adams said. "This, hopefully, will be a home run."
EarthTronics is looking for manufacturing space in Muskegon to assemble the first WindTronic devices, while the company begins looking for part vendors in Muskegon and throughout West Michigan.
"This product covers our focus on alternative energy components and systems," said Ed Garner, president of Muskegon Area First -- an economic development agency. "Up to this point, we have mainly seen a need for parts for the larger turbines. This product is one of the first for the small home or commercial market."
Adams said certain parts will have to be purchased from sources outside of the state and nation. And if the global market for WindTronics should take off, units would probably be manufactured off shore in the future for foreign markets, he said

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/06/large_turbine2.jpg

If they pop out a website that has an easy calculator for me to plug my energy numbers into (and the results look good), I'd buy one (assuming the thing is durable). It's gotta be a tax write-off.

I'm about to build another house and I will look at every possible alternative. Mostly solar out here. With certain sheeting that has extra R value for the roof.

It's amazing that some politicians think that the fix to this problem is "more oil".

Alternative energy sources and subsequently, less reliance on oil, is the only way out of this crisis, IMO.

It also totally changes the global political landscape if we don't have to rely as much on padding the pockets of foreign countries by buying their oil.

Looking for more oil is a backwards way out of this, it's time to change the game.

Easier said than done, I know, but the opportunity is there to take this from a position of weakness/reliance to a position of strength/innovation.

Sorry about the rant.

I'm not sure what the actual numbers are, but I thought I heard something a while ago about how we'd run out of oil to use anyway in the next 50 years. I don't see what more oil solves either.

Extra oil gives us more time to convert to alternatives. And we'll always use some form of oil/gas, I'm guessing.

I was around in the 70s with the long gas lines during the Carter years. We've had several administrations and congress' and while there are hybrids out there, it doesn't seem like we've have anything concrete as far as alternatives.

We're doing some things but obviously not enough.

Personally, I'm with France, nuclear. They have so much energy they sell their excess to Britain, iirc.

Demand is going to keep putting the squeeze on oil. China isn't going away no matter what politicians here do and they are gobbling up oil, coal and everything else (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7460364.stm) in massive quantities. India too.

The only thing that ANWR will accomplish is to make the company that drills it a tidy pile of money. It's not enough oil to change the big picture at all and it'd be years away from coming online in any case. The newly-adopted McCain line that a little more drilling is going to supply anything more than that slightest nudge to the price of oil is pure fantasy.

Aside from demand, another thing oil prices are extremely sensitive to is the political situation in the middle east. Our completely fucked up and failed foreign policy for the last seven years has done nothing but push the middle-east regional conflict doomsday clock closer to midnight, helping jack up the price of oil.

Tahoe, is it not true that US oil drilling would not really make an impact on the price right now? And only a small amount in the future? Why should we even drill now, then? Would you rather not save our oil for the most dire of circumstances? Also, I know last week or so I said I was pro-drilling but that was before I actually researched it.

I don't feel windfall taxes are the answers either but at least the revenue from that would go to funding alternative energy.

I do think we need to push nuclear and electric cars. There are only a few, far off ways where that does not make sense. ie meltdowns and "price"... and that's about it....

I can't imagine driving around mini Chernobyl's everywhere with the idiots I see on the road.

Well, there shouldn't be too many idiots with gigantic SUV's anymore that increase the momentum in multiples of whole numbers greater than 1...

We use oil. We need more to lower the price.
I disagree with that "more to lower the price" bit.

I think we need more purchasing power to lower the price. The lack of a strong dollar kills us. Sure, demand's up, instability in the Middle East is high, and gas prices have gone up some as a result. But our currency is worth roughly 40% less in the worldwide economy than it was 5-6 years ago, and that's what tips us over the edge. Economic weenies exercising strong dollar policy will do more near-term good for prices at the pump than bacteria that shit crude oil from garbage, or offshore drilling of a perishable resource we should be conserving until the rest of the world is way past peak oil.


Dems are conflicted.
I agree with that. Hell, you were just talking about oil, but I'd extend to that energy policy as a whole. The waste management issues of nuclear power are huge, but the waste management issues of fossil fuels are just as huge.

The waste management issues of nuclear power are huge, but the waste management issues of fossil fuels are just as huge.

If anything fossil waste is more dangerous. I haven't inhaled any radioactive discharge lately but I sure get a daily dose of petroleum by products.

None of that matters though since policy is driven by the unshakable perception that nuclear waste is too dangerous to store or transport.

It's amazing that some politicians think that the fix to this problem is "more oil".

Alternative energy sources and subsequently, less reliance on oil, is the only way out of this crisis, IMO.

It also totally changes the global political landscape if we don't have to rely as much on padding the pockets of foreign countries by buying their oil.

Looking for more oil is a backwards way out of this, it's time to change the game.

Easier said than done, I know, but the opportunity is there to take this from a position of weakness/reliance to a position of strength/innovation.

Sorry about the rant.

And to replace the millions of bbs a day that we use? There is NO short term answer.

We aren't going to throw up a few billion windmills and power this country. And not saying you said that.

Some estimates are that we have a trillion bbs of oil in shale in the Rockies. We haven't looked at the Atlantic in 25 years cuz of federal regulations. The Pacific, ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico are out there.

We prolly have more oil reserves than any other place in the world.

We have gabbillion zabbilion tons of coal. If we can find a way to burn it cleanly, theres another alternative.

Announce a lifting of the federal ban on exploration and drilling in this country and thre price drops immediately.

Announce a lifting of the federal ban on exploration and drilling in this country and thre price drops immediately.
That's not what the U.S. government thought just last year:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.

There might be some effect on speculators jacking up the price, but I'd expect there'll be a correction to that particular effect come fall.

And just last year, we weren't paying close to 5 bucks a gallon for diesel. Announcing we drill and explore and produce will have an effect, imo, at these prices.


There might be some effect on speculators jacking up the price, but I'd expect there'll be a correction to that particular effect come fall.

Meaning ...BO will be elected?

The market prices "announcements" at exactly what they're worth.

Gas is cyclical. Most is consumed in the northern hemisphere, with the peak in the late spring/early summer. There's a normal drop in demand in the fall. Once the peak demand time passes, I expect speculators to cash in. Even last year this time when it was $3/gallon, it was $2.70/gallon come October.

The only relevance my comment has to presidential politics is that, because our elections are in November when gas prices historically trend lower, the "clean energy" agenda tends to lose focus. People see their prices go down in a relative sense and have somewhat less concern.

If the oil companies had more domestic leases, they'd move with all due haste to exploit those resources to expand supply... or maybe they'd just add those chips to their stack (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/opinion/19thu1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) to be cashed in later.


Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

The leased land returns are estimated to be the suck.

White House: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban
Congress must still lift legislative ban before offshore drilling can start
WASHINGTON - In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

The president plans to officially lift the ban and explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress for inaction.

“They haven’t even held a single hearing,” Perino said. “So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress.”

Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”

The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.


sure, now he does something

And by "doing something" you mean making a "phantom, politically motivated, largely meaningless gesture", right?

exactly

17 electric cars... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/14/electric-cars-take-over-1_n_112771.html)

Not even George Clooney looks sexy next to an electric car.
http://www.treehugger.com/ec-rnd-014.jpg

I think the Volt actually looks pretty sharp.

Obama says just air up our tires.

Obama says just air up our tires.

LOL

Obama says just air up our tires.


Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.
"I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply," Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. "Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."




All hail our benificient leader. If he says he will negotiate lower prices, he will. He would never lie to those of us that believe in him.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/062800wh-bush.html

The plans that the vice president outlined today -- mostly various forms of tax breaks for businesses that provided or invested in more efficient, less conventional or less polluting sources of energy -- represented an estimated $75 billion in lost federal tax revenue or spending over 10 years, aides said. But they said that the additional proposals that Mr. Gore was expected to make on Wednesday and Thursday would bring that figure up to more than $125 billion.

"The vice president seems to forget who's been in office for seven years," Mr. Bush said at a news conference in Michigan this afternoon. "This is an administration that's been in charge and the price of gasoline has risen steadily."

Mr. Gore's proposals seem to veer in somewhat different directions from those of the last Democratic president to offer a sweeping set of proposals on energy use, Jimmy Carter. As a way of trying to reduce dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Carter set import quotas on the amount of foreign oil accepted into American ports. And he encouraged the development of alternative sources of fuel, including coal, oil shale, unconventional gas and the sun. Mr. Carter asked that utility companies cut their use of oil by 50 percent over a decade, and switch to other fuels, particularly coal.



http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/062800wh-gore.html

It is too bad that tahoe and the the fox zombies voted for bush, cheney, et al. I suppose "negotiating with OPEC" just wasn't the simple solution that bush painted. Of course, anyone with a shred of common sense knows that every word out of bush's mouth is bullshit. Even jimmy carter had much better plans. It is nice to see bush demand that gore take accountability of high gas prices, considering bush's own denial of any blame.

^ LOL

General Motors actually has perfected the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Los Angeles has gas stations with Fuel Cell technology, and GM has given hydrogen cars to high profile people and celebrities. Jay Leno is actually paid by GM to drive a hydrogen car and keep a blog about it. The only complaints that he's had about it is the lack of places to fill up.

The problem is the infrastructure. GM has had countless meetings with oil companies to see how they could hydrogen fuel integrated into gas stations and the answer is always the same: "Why?" There's a chance that they might not make money right away, thus, why take any risk. They would, of course, make money, but there's no reason for the oil companies to move away from oil right now. Yes it would probably help get the country out of the recession, yes it would help everyone save money, yes the environment would be cleaned up, but they might not make their $500,000 quarterly bonus that every employee receives.

The main problem with hydrogen is the safety of it. There is a certain amount of money that goes into cooling the hydrogen at the station, and making sure that entire neighborhoods aren't destroyed by accidents.




(I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I didn't read through the entire "WTF needs to solve the energy crisis" thread.)

The problem with hydrogen is that you need to burn fuel to generate the hydrogen gas. Coal can be used in place of oil, but the process is very inefficient. However, there has recently been a potential major breakthrough that employs advanced materials, which chemically mimic photosynthesis, and convert water and sunlight into hydrogen. If that pans out, we could store solar energy as hydrogen. THe other problem with hydrogen is that it is incredibly explosive, in case of accident.

Yeah, multiple problems with hydrogen cars at this point and they won't be feasible and in commonly held in America's hands for at least 10-20 years. Plug in hybrid technology, on the other hand, has less problems and is advanced enough now to have some cars on the market. I'm hyped for the Volt and am hoping GM can pull through with it... Hopefully those cars will get here ASAP without punching a hole in consumer's pockets (which could be a problem).

Obama says just air up our tires.

I am sure that you think it is hillarious that el rushbo and mccain mock obama about this right? Well, Lieberman has actually been talking about this for years, although he only cares about this when he isn't running dishonest character assassination campaigns:




“Nestled within the ‘Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005,’ which Lieberman introduced in the Senate, section 201 requires the creation of a ‘national tire fuel efficiency program for tires designed for the use on passenger cars and light trucks.’

“It doesn't stop there, either. Lieberman is on record going as far back as 2001 touting the significant role tire efficiency can play in any plan to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil. In a 2001 press release arguing against exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Senator said: ‘Increasing the fuel efficiency of replacement tires for our cars to the same level as those sold on new automobiles will save drivers $90 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the tires and will save the U.S. more than 70 times the amount of oil we might find in the Refuge.’” [Huffington Post, 8/4/08]

Well let's take a look at facts. The federal dept of energy states that proper tire inflation can cut fuel consumption by 3.3% (p. 31).



In contrast, here is a US Dept of Energy report about the impact of opening up off-shore drilling.



The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html (]http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf[/URL)

So you get 0.2 million barrels per day more. The current world production is 83 milllion gallons per day. Thus, global oil production is 0.2% higher. So let's be generous and say that 0.2% increase in global production leads to a 1% drop in global price.

So listen to Obama, inflate and align your tires and get up to a 3.3% drop in fuel expenditure right now or wait around for the Republican bullshit plan and get a 1% decrease in 10 years.



but rush told me to laugh at obama, and rush is always right!

Actually rush is an entertainer who doesn't give a shit about anyone other than rush himself. Everything he says is slanted to favor his political allies and he is a hateful fuck. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if oil companies just dropped prices to prop mccain up if he got them their offshore leases (See Enron and Schwarzeneggar in 2001). It wouldn't last long, just until the election. There is no quick fix to our foreign energy dependence. Carter tried to get us started 30 years ago, and gore tried to get going 8 years ago. Shitheads like bush, cheney, el rushbo mocked them for it and here we are.

For reference, here are some other republicans that endorse proper tire inflation.




GOVERNOR CHARLIE CRIST AND GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER:

“Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change—average citizens—to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption. ‘We all do have the power. Let's not wait for government,’ Schwarzenegger concluded. ‘Energy prices are not going back to the good old days.’” [Los Angeles Times, 6/26/08]

REPUBLICAN REP. MIKE ROGERS (MI-08), WHO WILL HOST A MCCAIN CONFERENCE CALL LATER TODAY:

“You can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure. Under-inflated tires can lower gas mileage by 0.4 percent for every 1 psi drop in pressure of all four tires. Properly inflated tires are safer and last longer. Fuel Economy Benefit: up to 3% Equivalent Gasoline Savings: up to $0.09/gallon.” [Rep. Rogers Website, Accessed 8/4/08]

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY’S “ENERGY SAVERS” MANUAL:

Keep tires properly inflated and aligned to improve your gasoline mileage by around 3.3%. [DOE “Energy Savers” Manual, p.31]

NASCAR:

“With gas prices now hovering around $3, smart drivers care. Savvy consumers are seeking to increase fuel economy and the life of their tires by paying more attention to those rubber objects that are attached to their vehicle…With escalating fuel prices, the time is now for drivers to focus on simple things like proper tire pressure to maximize tire performance and increase fuel economy.” [NASCAR Release, 7/25/06]

THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, TRADE ASSOCIATION FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY:

Keep your tires properly inflated. Underinflated tired can decrease fuel economy by up to 1 mile per gallon. [API “Fuel-Saving Tips for Drivers,” 7/11/08]

REPUBLICAN REP. VERNON EHLERS (MI-03), RANKING MEMBER ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, LETTER TO MEMBERS AND STAFF:

“With gas prices at an all time high, the simple step of keeping tires inflated will help ease pain at the pump, as well as reduce carbon emissions, a major threat to the environment. I encourage any Members and staff who park in the Rayburn Garage to take advantage of this opportunity to maximize their fuel dollars while helping the environment.” [Ehlers Letter, 7/28/08

REPUBLICAN REP. MICHAEL BURGESS (TX-26):

“Now, the one that everyone talks about and you hear it all the time and I will mention it again is tire pressure. Ensuring that tires are properly inflated can result in a 3 percent fuel economy benefit and equivalent gas savings of up to 12 cents a gallon. Properly inflated tires are safer and they last longer, so you will spend less money on your tires. So, in the long run, it is a real bargain.” [Press Release, Rep. Michael Burgess, 7/8/08]
[URL=]http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/whos-the-real-d.html

^Hilarious

^Hilarious

Thanks, my favorite part is when Lieberman says that properly inflating your tires will save 70 times more oil than drilling in ANWR. I think it is so funny because it not only makes 2008 Lieberman look like a fool, but also all of you dittoheads who swallow limbaugh's daily excretions.

^ LOL

http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/08/515098925_3f85d7818f.jpg

Hydrogen Fail (http://gizmodo.com/5041134/first-ever-hydrogen-vehicle-cross+country-road-trip-had-a-lot-of-help)


I'm all for hydrogen—or any alternative fuel source for that matter (Shai Agassi, my man, let's get cooking already! (http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi))—but if you're going to heavily promote your cross-country trek as the "first ever" for hydrogen-powered vehicles, at least make sure large, 1,000-mile stretches of it did not involve having the vehicles carried along on flatbed trucks. This was the case today as the "Hydrogen Road Tour '08" wrapped up in Los Angeles after its 60-strong vehicle fleet entered the Los Angeles Coliseum. From Rolla, Missouri, to Albuquerque, New Mexico, the caravan was carried on the back of carbon-belching flat bed tractor trailer trucks. Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of an alternative fuel road trip right then and there?

Part of the gaff was, of course, due to that fact that there are just 60 hydrogen stations in the U.S., and only two of those are open to the public "without prior arrangement," says Reuters. Nevertheless, event promoter Catherine Dunwoody, executive director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership (a major tour supporter), was optimistic about hydrogen's chances.


"There's a hunger out there for clean, safe vehicles," Brubaker said. "The common refrain everywhere we went was 'Where do we get these cars?'" As a personal aside, I, too, would be interested in such a venture, especially if it meant large swaths of my morning commute involved hopping on the back of a truck, and having someone else do the driving for me.