Recent Comments:
Ford says EcoBoost popular with the "young" {Autoblog Green}
Nov 15th 2009 4:38PM Yeah, I saw that too... an F-150 with a 1.6L engine would be quite an odd beast. I can see maybe a Ranger with the 1.6L, but that's still a stretch; a good stretch.
ETA says plug-in cars could "speed climate change" unless we get off coal {Autoblog Green}
Nov 12th 2009 6:01PM Not really sure how I proved or disproved anything. As stated above I'm a fan of basically anything other than coal, and it appears that nuclear is the cheapest/fastest way to eliminate coal use. If you want to take it personally, fine, but the facts are there for anyone with an objective view. I'm not afraid of another nuclear accident, and I don't think there is any conspiracy keeping wind or CO2-algae whatever down. The man is you. You are the man. Let it go.
ETA says plug-in cars could "speed climate change" unless we get off coal {Autoblog Green}
Nov 12th 2009 9:50AM I feel like there are a lot of people that really believe the same things wincros does, so I'll acknowledge the comment and provide some good articles:
Cost Comparison (check out how close wind gets, only 2.5x more, that's good):
http://thisweekinnuclear.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-60-energy-bailout-showdown.html
Three Mile Island (no human deaths or cancer from the PARTIAL meltdown):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Why the Soviets were idiots and Chernobyl is never going to happen again:
"The Soviet-designed RBMK-type reactor unit of 925 MWe such as at Chernobyl uses a large mass of graphite (some 1200 tonnes of it) to moderate the reaction and water flowing through channels holding the fuel elements to cool it. There is no containment structure on this kind of reactor."
(available anywhere, but http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf44.html should be one good source)
If you'd like to make a point, please hang up and try your post again.
ETA says plug-in cars could "speed climate change" unless we get off coal {Autoblog Green}
Nov 11th 2009 8:05PM Every week I see wind turbine parts going down the interstate. We're getting there, somewhere, but in other places we have nukes sitting idle because of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard, see Bellefonte in Hollywood AL). Nuclear power is our near term clean power; long term we can switch to solar and wind, but the power/dollar ratio just isn't as good. Why can't we have engineers as political leaders?
First Drive: 2010 BMW X6 ActiveHybrid is technologically impressive... but to what end? {Autoblog Green}
Nov 11th 2009 7:48PM Yeah, but look at the pretty... don't you want it? I know the soccer moms do, er, maybe the polo moms?
REPORT: IEA hiding truth about dwindling oil reserves {Autoblog Green}
Nov 11th 2009 2:55PM Heck, I knew about this... when I graduated from middle school. Didn't they teach this in every 8th grade science class??? We will run out of oil. It's not IF we run out, or we MIGHT run out, we WILL run out, it's just a question of when. Does it matter when? Won't that oil still be useful even if we don't depend on it and use as little as possible? Why are we still clinging to this sinking ship?
Pay-per-mile car insurance might come to California {Autoblog Green}
Nov 9th 2009 11:59PM Nothing illegal about making a profit. I don't like the prices any more than you do, but if it were a big enough profit more players would enter the game.
BP prepares output of new biofuels - algae diesel and butanol - starting in 2010 {Autoblog Green}
Nov 5th 2009 7:28PM I agree with carney on that point. I don't think it's the only answer, but it does have strong merrits.
BP prepares output of new biofuels - algae diesel and butanol - starting in 2010 {Autoblog Green}
Nov 5th 2009 9:19AM Why do we not use butanol in the US? Is it just because it's so easy to make ethanol from corn? I mean, we do have a lot of corn, but if it's just going to turn into ethanol, can't we grow something else in its place next year that would make butanol? Is there some emissions reason I don't know about? Maybe it's just because we're so good at making whiskey already...
Chrysler to cut weight of next-gen Jeep Liberty by 600 pounds! {Autoblog Green}
Nov 4th 2009 9:51PM You honestly believe that your car's fuel efficiency determines the amount you drive? The correlation is there, to be sure, but you've got it backwards. The amount you drive generally determines the fuel efficiency of your vehicle. This is simple economics; if you drive 100 miles per day and don't haul anything buy yourself, you purchase a car designed to minimize your daily fuel costs. If you only drive 5 miles a day you probably don't care what kind of mileage your vehicle gets because it doesn't hit your wallet. That covers the average person.
Most readers on this site are here because they are not average. They are here to advocate the advancement of automotive technology as it applies to efficiency and environmental impact. Making a car more efficient does not mean it has to be "flimsy" or weak, or even expensive. Some times it requires a little thought or engineering effort, but that's why automotive engineers and designers have jobs. How can you advocate complacency when there is clearly room to improve. Go drive the new Chevy Equinox and tell me that the 32 mpg it gets is somehow less comfortable or less appealing than the model from a 2005 that only managed 24 mpg? That's a 33% increase in the last five years. No hybrid, no diesel, just gasoline and some really smart engineers. Not only is it 33% more fuel efficient, but it's generally more comfortable and safer. Oh, and it starts at $22,440... which is cheaper than the original when you account for inflation.
But you're probably right, we should all just switch to Alcohol and quit with that newfangled technology stuff.
