200 to 300 Miles Per Gallon for a car is to good to import to America ? Mileage tax ?

Daedalus

Bedlam
Now, you were saying?

i was saying i wanted you to source your assertions....which you did, thank you.

The "CSB" graphic isn't much of a way to ask for sources.

Bedlam

Daedalus

Bedlam
Now, you were saying?

i was saying i wanted you to source your assertions....which you did, thank you.

The "CSB" graphic isn't much of a way to ask for sources.

i always do that sort of thing when i see "know it all" type posts with baseless(unsourced) assertions...


but you had facts to back it up, so it's all good..

Nosce
reply to post by JimTSpock

 

You've been planted. Easy as day to see. Lame.

*facepalm*

I see...anyone with dissenting views are plants. Freedom of speech notwithstanding I had not heard of the 2nd coming of Christ, which apparently you are, since everything out of your mouth must be gospel.

Daedalus

freedomSlave
It confuses me how diesel a lesser grade of fuel is soooooooooo much more expensive than gasoline . Not sure what the prices of diesel in other countries it is almost 20 cents more expensive here than low grade gasoline.

ETA I suppose with higher diesel prices will start driving up prices of commodities the cycle will just continue as they will keep raising the cost of fuel , while selling more and more diesel vehicles driving up the cost for diesel . Why not save the big power of diesels for the work trucks . I guess the vw rabbit was appealing when diesel was so much cheaper than gas , mind if someone has a car that does 200miles to a gallon wouldn't be so bad how ever trying to afford a car like that is never going to happen for me and many

edit on 9/4/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

it confuses me how people still think we need to pay for the privilege of disposing of the petroleum company's industrial waste products...

if people had sense, they'd be pushing HARD for a transition back to alcohol, or a straight hydrogen system...

prohibition was a conspiracy.

First, if everyone drove an alcohol powered car, they would hate the acceleration, not to mention fuel would be outrageous since there is not enough capacity to produce the millions of gallons of fuel used every day. So..question: food or fuel?

2nd. Hydrogen if mass produced, given current technologies, would be absolutely ignorant. The amount of energy it would take to generate enough hydrogen would exceed the amount of energy generated in the vehicles burning the hydrogen.

You cannot have an energy source (fuel) that costs more energy to make than it produces. Well, you can, but it would be stupid.

Same reason you cannot have a hydrogen powered car that powers the vehicle and splits water molecules to generate the hydrogen to be used as fuel. 2nd law of thermodynamics...or to put it simply the above vehicle is an impossibility since it would be a "perpetual motion machine" which do not exist. Would be a nice hoax though.

bbracken677
First, if everyone drove an alcohol powered car, they would hate the acceleration, not to mention fuel would be outrageous since there is not enough capacity to produce the millions of gallons of fuel used every day. So..question: food or fuel?

i disagree.

2nd. Hydrogen if mass produced, given current technologies, would be absolutely ignorant. The amount of energy it would take to generate enough hydrogen would exceed the amount of energy generated in the vehicles burning the hydrogen.

You cannot have an energy source (fuel) that costs more energy to make than it produces. Well, you can, but it would be stupid.

Same reason you cannot have a hydrogen powered car that powers the vehicle and splits water molecules to generate the hydrogen to be used as fuel. 2nd law of thermodynamics...or to put it simply the above vehicle is an impossibility since it would be a "perpetual motion machine" which do not exist. Would be a nice hoax though.

a hydrogen-powered car that splits the molecules as it goes is a pipe dream at this point....

i'm talking straight hydrogen storage....no in-drive generation. and united nuclear offers a hydrogen generator, so you can produce your own fuel. i'm not sure why you would say it's not possible to produce enough hydrogen on an industrial-scale, to meet demand...

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by HanzHenry

 

I drive a Ford f-150 with the 5.4L "Triton" V8. If i put on the pedal while cruising at 30mph, i will still fishtail and leave rubber on the road. It is ridiculously powerful.

With that said, I still get almost 20mpg.

No you don't. More like 14 at most.

reply to post by Daedalus


I didn't say it could not be mass produced, or did not intend to send that message. What I said was that it is not practical. It takes more energy to make hydrogen than it returns when you burn it. Ergo, as a fuel (as things currently stand) it is totally impractical as a fuel.
This is true regardless of how it is produced.

2nd law of thermodynamics is a beeaatch.

Lets just say that we are making hydrogen from water... the molecules are held together by "x" amount of energy. It takes x+y amount of energy to break the bonds creating pure hydrogen and pure oxygen.
The amount of energy that you could possibly hope to recover by burning the hydrogen and oxygen would be x...and that assumes that there is no loss through heat or friction or other loss in the process. In the real world you get x-z amount of energy returned. Meaning that you are spending x+y energy to generate a fuel that will deliver x-z energy...in other words, it is a complete "why bother" when you could just use the original energy and save.

See what I mean?

Do you have any idea how many acres of an alcohol generating crop (heaven forbids that we would continue to use corn...when better, more efficient crops exist) it would take to replace all the gasoline used in a single day in the US? I believe (check it out) that 650 gallons of alcohol per acre would be a decent return. The US uses about 365 million gallons of gas a day.

That works out to over 561,000 acres a day of production. A day. Say your crop comes to maturity to harvest in 90 days. That would mean that at any given moment you would have to have over 50 million acres in production (at a minimum). In other words, 1/3 of the state of Texas would be dedicated to doing nothing but growing crops to make alcohol. If you add in roads etc then that 1/3 becomes a lot larger.

Is this feasible?

I think not.

I wont go any further than to ask where would the water to water these additional crops come from given that most states are experiencing water issues...not enough to go around. There are other aspects that make the "alcohol as the only fuel option"....not an option.

reply to post by 727Sky


It cost $120,000!!!!

Are you frickin' kidding me?

reply to post by bbracken677


I think you are probably right. We are hooked on oil with no end in sight. There doesn't seem to be any viable alternatives at this point.

Nuclear fusion reactors generating electricity to produce hydrogen. Or just skip that and go to smaller fusion reactors for vehicles. Maybe in a few years. Then anti gravity nuclear fusion powered flying cars. Maybe in a few more years.

Sounds like fantasy but a new fusion reactor ITER is expected to produce power for the first time, rather than eating it to run.

Achievements like these have led fusion science to an exciting threshold: the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point. Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to produce them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 70 percent of input power. Scientists have now designed the next-step device—ITER—which will produce more power than it consumes: for 50 MW of input power, 500 MW of output power will be produced.

ITER will begin writing the chapter on 21st century fusion.

www.iter.org...

Stuship
reply to post by 727Sky

 

It cost $120,000!!!!

Are you frickin' kidding me?

Yeah, lol and no sound dampening so you hear the brakes grind, you hear the tires on the road, every little seam, pothole etc...

And yet, we Americans are baaaaaad cause we have none on the showroom floors to buy!!! Umm...they are only making 250 of them so.....I guess everyone else in the world is also baaaaaad.

reply to post by Alien Abduct

No you don't. More like 14 at most.

Truck is rated at 20 MPG highway. 14 city. He said almost 20 mpg. Seems legit to me considering we don't know his driving habits. Also factory ratings are typically lower than what the vehicle actually gets. They err on the side of caution. If you chip the thing and put exhaust on you can easily up the mileage too. My car improved 1 mpg city after I popped on just an axle back.

JimTSpock
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I think you are probably right. We are hooked on oil with no end in sight. There doesn't seem to be any viable alternatives at this point.

Nuclear fusion reactors generating electricity to produce hydrogen. Or just skip that and go to smaller fusion reactors for vehicles. Maybe in a few years. Then anti gravity nuclear fusion powered flying cars. Maybe in a few more years.

Sounds like fantasy but a new fusion reactor ITER is expected to produce power for the first time, rather than eating it to run.

Achievements like these have led fusion science to an exciting threshold: the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point. Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to produce them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 70 percent of input power. Scientists have now designed the next-step device—ITER—which will produce more power than it consumes: for 50 MW of input power, 500 MW of output power will be produced.

ITER will begin writing the chapter on 21st century fusion.

www.iter.org...

Given all the alternatives I think Fusion is the most likely to actually pull our rears out of the fire.

Everything else has cost effectiveness issues. lol

reply to post by bbracken677


With regard to hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles I don't think it really matters that it requires more energy to produce than we will get out of it. Just about everything we produce or build requires energy. The real question, like almost everything, is how much will it cost.
If we have reached peak oil and the oil price will only rise with time, hydrogen may become economically viable if we can get the cost of production at a level consumers will pay. I'm not sure how much hydrogen costs per mile or kilometre at this point but it may become a viable option in the future.

Ahabstar
I know that there are American car companies that produce cars for the European markets that are very fuel efficient. In fact, 40 MPG would be on the low end of the scale. But they dodge the question of why they cannot be sold in the US as being due to "regulations". Safety and EPA are the big cop-out words added to "regulations".

Every now and then, we hear talk of "fleet milage standards for efficiency" such as all models made Ford have to average out to 25-30 MPG by 2020 or words to that extent. Often we hear that Americans want more power, bigger/safer cars; the reality is that a person is hard pressed to by a car in the UK or Europe that is below 40 MPG. The exception being high end sports cars.

But as others have said, it comes down to oil company profits and tax revenues on those per gallon sales. If you figure 15 gallons per car at 19 cents per gallon per week. that is $2.85 per week or $148.20 per car per year. There are as of 2009 254,212,610 registered passenger vehicles (does not include commercial vehicles nor motorcycles) so we can just round that off conservatively to $30-$35 Billion per year in taxes for those that don't use 15 gallons per week. (actual math is $37.67 Billion).

And that figure of 37 billion is damm near the 36 billion barrel's of oil that are pumped out of the earth yearly ?

750.000.000 million barrel's per week on average x 52 it is one thirsty planet

rickymouse
A local guy sold a patent he had for a carb system that got over a hundred miles to a gallon to an automaker. Now he wound up with a million bucks but the carb was never manufactured. That was a long time ago, an old guy I know well was telling me about it and even told me exactly where the guy used to live. I suppose the oil companies bought the patent from the auto company. The power derived was very good for the gas mileage. What a way to keep people dependent on oil.

That happens a lot, I have heard about it because I have wandered into the realm of business myself. Large companies, although almost exclusively oil companies, will buy patents of competing technology just to own them and keep them from being produced.

darkbake

[i

That happens a lot, I have heard about it because I have wandered into the realm of business myself. Large companies, although almost exclusively oil companies, will buy patents of competing technology just to own them and keep them from being produced.

It actually makes good business sense. If they keep the patent up, they can use the item in the future, making a bundle when the oil supplies collapse.

JimTSpock
reply to post by bbracken677

 

With regard to hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles I don't think it really matters that it requires more energy to produce than we will get out of it. Just about everything we produce or build requires energy. The real question, like almost everything, is how much will it cost.
If we have reached peak oil and the oil price will only rise with time, hydrogen may become economically viable if we can get the cost of production at a level consumers will pay. I'm not sure how much hydrogen costs per mile or kilometre at this point but it may become a viable option in the future.

I think you are missing the point entirely.

um...if it takes more energy to produce the fuel than we will get out of it in return why not just use the original source of energy? The whole deal with oil is that it is a positive energy producer. It takes less energy to get it out of the ground and refined than it produces in the engine. Once you cross over into the negative with any fuel, there is a question of efficiency that has nothing to do with cost.

If you are using electricity to crack hydrogen for a fuel, why accept the negative return on energy investment when you could just build electric cars and save the energy.

If you do not believe me, then peruse this: hydrogen

Since delivery companies and sales people put in the most miles driving, a tax on miles driven will raise the price of everything.

bbracken677

JimTSpock
reply to post by bbracken677

 

With regard to hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles I don't think it really matters that it requires more energy to produce than we will get out of it. Just about everything we produce or build requires energy. The real question, like almost everything, is how much will it cost.
If we have reached peak oil and the oil price will only rise with time, hydrogen may become economically viable if we can get the cost of production at a level consumers will pay. I'm not sure how much hydrogen costs per mile or kilometre at this point but it may become a viable option in the future.

I think you are missing the point entirely.

um...if it takes more energy to produce the fuel than we will get out of it in return why not just use the original source of energy? The whole deal with oil is that it is a positive energy producer. It takes less energy to get it out of the ground and refined than it produces in the engine. Once you cross over into the negative with any fuel, there is a question of efficiency that has nothing to do with cost.

If you are using electricity to crack hydrogen for a fuel, why accept the negative return on energy investment when you could just build electric cars and save the energy.

If you do not believe me, then peruse this: hydrogen

because electric cars are ultimately MORE wasteful, when you factor in the inefficiency of the batteries, limited range due to battery capacity, manufacturing cost and effort of the batteries, electric motors, etc...there's a reason electric cars are so expensive....because they cost more to make than regular cars...like i said, until we can manufacture large power cells out of graphine, electric cars aren't gonna be where they need to be....

why not just use the original source? because that original source is running out...fossil fuels are gonna go away....

you can generate hydrogen using solar and wind power...not quite sure what the issue is..

in fact, i'm not entirely sure i buy the whole "negative energy" thing either.....it's not as if hydrogen is something weak, like toothpaste, and doesn't burn, or explode.....hydrogen is quite explosive...would you mind explaining your problem with this?

reply to post by bbracken677


It is converting the energy to a form we can use in vehicles. That might be a point you are overlooking. For instance you can't plug your car into the electricity grid and drive around, might need a very long power cord! So trying to use the energy used to produce the hydrogen to power a vehicle may not be possible anyway. There is an energy loss converting electricity into hydrogen obviously. The question is is it worth it?

I've looked at your article and it is too expensive and you lose too much energy for hydrogen to be viable with our current technology. But in the future this may change with new technology. But that is just my own speculation.

We can use electric cars which can plug into the power grid to charge batteries and there will be some energy loss in that process also and the range and battery charge time and lifespan are a problem. Hybrids with much better battery capacity and faster charging times would address most of the problems with electric cars I think. But you would still have to use some oil for longer trips when the battery runs out.

So it's back to oil. lol. Until it starts to run out and hits $500+ a barrel and then we are fubar.