State of the Union address touches on "oil addiction."
 

As rh77 mentioned in another thread:

Info can be obtained here:

https://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2006/2006-02-01-01.asp

While I don't want this to be a political pissing match, I'm certain my bias will appear to be evident. Needless to say, I'll disclose my actual political affiliation at the end of this message so you can determine if you assumptions about me based on my criticisms/support are accurate.

Honestly, $10 billion is a drop in the bucket. We will end up spending between 1 and 2 TRILLION dollars on the war in Iraq (source). It appears to me that oil has been the priority from the beginning, but we have sunk most of our money into taking ownership of the oil in Iraq and not developing real alternative energy sources. Imagine what 2 trillion dollars could buy in renewables or research. The government could have purchased a gas electric hybrid for every adult in the US with that much money, and still have more than enough to spare for more research.

Better batteries are good. Electric cars are good. Hydrogen cars are a waste, IMHO. There is so much energy lost in producing and storing hydrogen that it becomes a lost cause. Fuel cells and transportation of these cells also becomes a huge factor. At least electric cars were addressed, which is the real future of vehicles IMHO.

Good.. good.. Are we going to address the pollution problems with ethanol fuel? As I mentioned in another post, it takes more energy to get ethanol from corn than you get in return. Countries like Brazil benefit from sugar cane which ethanol can be taken from with little effort. I'm not a big fan of technologies that are counter-productive. As it is now, ethanol and hydrogen are two of those technologies. I'm not saying that it won't change as technology advances, but I think we're better off working with the technologies we have right now instead of trying to pull a rabbit out of our hat.

There lies the problem. I'm unsure if his goal is to remove the "oil addiction" or remove the "foreign oil addiction." It's no secret that Bush comes from a family with high interests in oil. Whatever his motivations are, removing this high dependance on oil (foreign or domestic) is a good thing.

I'm also not sure if our enviroment is the real issue. Anyone who has spent any time in Asia, Mexico, South America, etc. knows that our contribution towards pollution is nothing compared to these other countries. When I lived in the Philippines every car that drove by was beltching black smoke. That's a lot of smoke for a small city with over 20million people in it. And just so you know, within a day naitim and kulangot ko :(

and...

I'm unsure if Bush's comments were simply lip service or not. After all, I've read 1984... I know that all a politician has to do is say one thing enough and the people will believe that is what they are doing. If Bush talks about renewables while doing nothing about it, he can always point to his State of the Union address and say, "see? I've been talking about this for months now." He essentially will be removing any blame from himself.

One also wonders his motivation when he cuts funding to wind power and geothermal heat, both of which have been shown to be more than effective AND drastically reduce dependance on foreign oil.

...

And my politican affiliation is: Nothing. I dislike most politicians. I don't care if they're republican or democrat. To me they're two different flavors of the same evil ice cream. They both melt under pressure, and more often than not their colors are artificial.

matt - feel free to move my
 

from an outsider's perspective, i'd say your presidents comments on "oil addiction" and (specifically) the need to improve battery technology for both hybrid and *electric cars* (yes, he actually mentioned electric cars) is significant.

this, and a number of other things have happened in the last few months that suggest to me that we've hit a real turning point in the future of ICE-dominant vehicles.

been meaning to start a thread on the topic (with links to the "other things"), but been a little bit busy this week...

if you want more info, google: 1) bush's comments; 2) the new "X-Prize" proposed for fuel efficiency; 3) "plug-in partners coalition" (i have no doubt this group influenced bush's comments on battery technology last night); 4) also look for "firefly" battery technology - a dramatic technological increase in the power/range/robustness of low-cost lead-acid batteries - just one of many companies working on batteries, but the only one whose product would be immediately useful due to cost of production (compared to li-ion / ni-cad etc).

A staunch Republican weighs in...
 

I'm as Republican as they get, but the oil/energy part of Bush's speech was pure hogwash. To wit:

1)Fuel efficient cars and trucks ARE available on this planet, just not in the US. Almost every carmaker sells cars in Europe and Asia that get 60-80 MPG. They are safe and have low emissions. But just TRY buying one and shipping it to the US. You can't get it registered once its here.

Why doesn't Bush just tell EPA and NHTSA to certify these cars for import? Perhaps as limited edition, experimental vehicles?

2) Hydrogen fuel cells are never going to provide automotive energy, since it takes a lot more energy to make hydrogen than you get when you "burn" it in a fuel cell. Almost all hydrogen is made from natural gas and coal, and NOT by electrolysis.

And how do you store enough hydrogen gas to provide reasonble range?

Bush sqaundered billions on a technology that has little-to-no chance of succeeding. I believe that this was intentional, throwing a bone to environmentalists while actually accomplishing NOTHING. This money would have been better spent on battery research and diesel/hybrid vehicles.

3) Lithium-ion-iron-phosphate batteries have been developed that would significantly add range without significant weight. Hybrid or pure electric vehicles using these batteries would be inexpensive because the raw materials are abundant and cheap. NiMH batteries (used in ALL current hybrids) contain Nickel which is scarce and expensive.

Why won't Bush throw some Federal money at battery companies (Valence Technologies, SAFT and others) to fund production of cheap, high performance lithium batteries?

4) Why can't Bush introduce legislation to phase light trucks and vans into the CAFE standards?

"I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but...."

i'm not even american,
 

i'm not even american, sludgy, but i think all your points are good ones.

the canadian government floated the idea of implementing independent canadian CAFE standards last year. (they would have been higher than current US levels.)

the automotive lobby got into high-octane, supercharged, high gear to defeat the idea. care to guess whether we created more efficient standards or not?

Re: A staunch Republican weighs in...
 

actually, from what i've seen here and there, there has been US federal funding of hybrid/battery companies. not surprisingly, it comes in the form of defense contracts.

head on over to greencarcongress.com or evworld.com and search around for battery tech articles.

maybe what you mean is funding above and beyond that. which is OK too.

the white house press
 

the white house press release following the s.o.t.u. address gives even more details, and specifically mentions further funding for battery technology and plug-in hybrids:

More on batteries
 

$30M of research money is a nice placebo, isn't it?

What's needed isn't Federal research money. Excellent battery chemistries/technologies already exist. What's needed are PRODUCTION LINES for large rechargeable (lithium) batteries. In order for hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles to make economic sense, we need huge numbers of inexpensive batteries equivalent in size to group 24, 27 or group 31 lead-acid deep cycle batteries.

There are lots of ways to get manufacturers to invest in battery production. Among other means, the Feds could foster the construction of battery factories by requiring that some (or most) government vehicles be equipped with high-performance batteries, even if they are only to be used for starting engines. With guaranteed demand for high performance batteries, investors would build the factories.

This would not take one red cent of Federal money.

And given the uncertainty of world oil supplies, a Manhattan-Project-sized effort for lithium battery production would not be unreasonable.

More on lithium and lead
 

We'd also remove lots of lead from the environment, and make cars safer by not having acid splash about in an accident.

Finally, if we were depressed after the accident, we could take some of the lithium and cheer up!

Re: More on batteries
 

Excellent point Sludgy. This is why I said that he is pandering more to everyone's interest than actually wanting to do anything. Ethanol and Hydrogen just don't work here. Besides, as you mention, the technology exists. Let's import and produce it.

In my line of work we deal with GPS technology. Recently they had the Darpa Grand Challenge. It was a technology race to help develop a vehicle completely self guided using GPS technology. The future application is to have unmanned vehicles in combat areas to deliever supplies, etc. to soldiers. The applications are endless.

The prize was 2 million dollars.

The winner was Stanley

<img src="https://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge05/grandchallengephotos/awardphotos/DSC_5090.jpg" width="400px">


Then, of course, there is the Spaceship One, which won the X-prize for being the first privately built craft to successfully enter space. Prize: 10 million dollars. Even though the cost was twice that, they investors didn't do it for the prize money. They did it to win and for future stake in capital gains.

If I had a million dollars to blow, I'd offer it as a prize to the first group to create an electric car that can go 300 miles, seat four, and be able to recharge quickly (less than 30 minutes). With the publicity this would draw, you bet it would happen, and it would happen much faster than the government could do it.

you're right, $30M is small.
 

you're right, $30M is small. especially compared to the $300M proposed in your 2007 budget for hydrogen research. (makes you want to pull out your hair, eh?)

the technology exists to do most of this. the problem is what it would cost to build and buy. you'd have to add "affordability" to your contest.

a secondary problem is the charging time. most EV proponents *don't* advocate for super-fast-charging batteries, because they put enormous demands on the electricity grid. instead, they advocate for slow overnight charging, when demand on the grid is down, power plants have surplus capacity, and rates are cheapest. also, from my limited understanding of battery technology, slow charging promotes longer battery life.

Thanks for Moving the Thread. Now for the Grassroots Movement.
 

Matt - first thanks for moving the issue to a new thread, I was hoping that would happen and get the discourse moving on the topic.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are independent and are not representative of Gassavers.org or any other group but yours truly.

:-)

Well, let me get a few things out of the way. I didn't want to make this too Political, but I think the topic is what it is. First, I'm proud to call myself a "Liberal", but I'll also admit to having an open mind on a variety of issues. I believe strongly in the value of the Scientific process and the advancement of technology to benefit the greater good (whether it be environmental, biotechnical, medical, etc.) I also believe that the average citizen needs to be more involved in Politics to keep the process under a watchful eye. Instead of letting goverment officials run on "autopilot", I believe in consistantly communicating with them: State, Local, and Federal. Unfortunately, the right and the left are so polarized right now -- probably now more than ever. With that said...

It was hard for me to watch, but I bit the bullet and watched the SOTU address not once, but twice (when it repeated on CNN late last night). I'll limit my comments to the energy plan, because I could go on about the education plan, tax cuts for the wealthy, and the elimination of funding for the poorest, most vulnerable Americans.

Sludgy -- I admire your criticism of the plan considering your political affiliation; in fact, I agree with every point you mentioned. IMHO, Bush's agenda is to benefit big US business. Large Agribusinesses: (Ethanol, and Switchgrass or whatever???); Coal was also a focus. If cars are plugging-in to re-charge, a large draw on the electrical grid will be apparent, day or night (anyone remember Enron and how they ripped-off California in their time of crisis?). "Clean" coal burning power plants were mentioned. Who benefits: Domestic coal producers, the manufacturers of the smokestack catalyst, large sub-contractors to build this stuff (including Nuclear -- not sure where we're going to store all of that contaminated coolant once it's past it's usable life), and power brokers like the energy companies who buy and sell the juice (where was wind and hydro-electric in all of this?) Finally, since he failed at domestic oil once, W is going to try it again. Expect (using the proposed line-item veto) to drill in ANWR for more domestic oil. They've tried to push it through, but it's been caught every time. Benefit: Big U.S. Oil because we're probably offending every Middle-Eastern nation to the point of immenent embargoes, and we're probably going to tap into what's left of the U.S. oil supply. I'm not old enough to have been around for the gas crisis of the 70's, but do a little reading on it if you aren't familiar with it.

2 technologies currently have a negative energy benefit (meaning it takes more energy to create the fuel than when it is combusted). Hydrogen and Ethanol/Alcohol (which has less potential engergy per gallon than gasoline, and emits more CO2).

Let's get engines to run more efficiently, design smaller vehicles, use the momentum rolling with Hybrids, and for pete's sake, get a reliable Diesel engine that America will fall in love with. As for the batteries, that one came out of left field -- not really sure where he was going with that.

And now, your moment of Zen. In every statement, there are 3 sides to the triangle:

1) The way I say it,
2) The way you hear it,
3) and, the way it really IS.

I think he wanted us to hear what we wanted to because of his low approval rating. What really comes of an address like this? Perhaps some attempts to push a few measures through Congress, and then we forget about the speech and go back to our daily lives.

I ask each of you to perform one simple task. Write to a lawmaker and express what you believe to be the best direction for fuel economy. It's easy, just go to www.house.gov or www.senate.gov and e-mail your lawmaker (you can even write State agencies in a similar process, depending on where you are). It takes like 5 minutes, and in many cases you will get a response. At the very least, your one voice can join others in a common goal, and it will make an impression. It is us after all who "hire" these people. They are our "employees". Let's give them direction.

RH77

Battery
 

Hey I know someone from MIT that has THE battery - just can't seem to get anyone to manufacture it and those that have licencing rights to manufacture it seem to be sitting on their hands for years . . .

I invite you all to yahoo groups BMBB to learn about this and other areas of development towards Better Motors Better Batteries.

Re: Thanks for Moving the Thread. Now for the Grassroots Moveme
 

hey, it worked for me - my letter got me a bike rack at canadian tire! maybe it'll get you guys some better fuel economy.

Re: Thanks for Moving the Thread. Now for the Grassroots Moveme
 

My point exactly, all it takes is one letter.

Metro- I was thinking of posting a link to your Parliamentary representative, but embarassingly, I don't know enough about how your government operates. And besides, I think you're our only Neighbor to the North, if I'm not mistaken (and I knew you could figure it out if you wanted to do it :-) ). I might go to CBC's website as before when I learned about the history of the Metric system in Canada, and the election results for Prime Minister (they had a nice section about the different parties and their platforms) to get a feel for Parliament.

RH77

notwithstanding that bush's
 

notwithstanding that bush's comments may amount to a hill of beans when it comes down to actually advancing the state of technology or regulations that might help fuel-efficiency, EVs, or PHEVs...

it sure is a 180 degree turn from your administration's previous position on the matter:

and RH77 - we had a general federal election in late Jan and elected our first conservative prime minister after 13 years of liberal rule. (the cons got a minority). some in the media here have nicknamed him "prime minister Shrub".

get it!? :D

Re: notwithstanding that bush's
 

For your Country's sake, I hope that nickname doesn't hold true! --but I understand the reasoning for the outcome. By the description of his platform, it sounds like he's more of a "Moderate Conservative" by definition in the 'States (which might not be too bad).

In response to the Cheney remark, I think Bush is just blowing smoke to tell people what they want to hear, really -- perhaps to appeal to the left.

RH77

Raise the gas tax
 

I agree partly with Cheney's remark: Namely, that US dependence on OPEC oil is not going to be solved with solar panels. This is because most electicity is generated with coal, nuclear and hydropower that are not imported from the Mideast.

But Bush and Cheney entirely miss the boat regarding fuel efficiency. 40 MPG in mid sized cars like a Ford Taurus or Chevy Malibu is achievable without resorting to exotic technologies. 30 MPG in medium size pickups or SUVs is achievable too. If Detroit built these vehicles and stopped building behemoths, we wouldn't need to import any Islamofascist oil.

We shouldn't politicize the issue as Democrat versus Republican. Legislators both sides of the aisle have a vested interest in preserving the jobs in factories that build fuel-hog cars. Michigan legislators, (including many Democrats) have fought higher CAFE standards for eons. So, we are caught between the jaws of politicians from energy-producing states and politicians from auto industry states.

IMHO, the best way to correct this is by ramping up gasoline taxes. We are seeing the effect of high priced gas right now on what cars people buy. People have slowed sales of gas hogs in the face of $3 per gallon gas.

With higher gas taxes, Demomcrats could support the additional revenue for funding social programs, and Republicans could sponsor offsetting income tax cuts, so the whole thing is revenue-neutral.

solution
 

We need to make the polticians in washington drive their own cars and pay for their own gas with CASH not a credit card so they actually see just how much these gas sucking vehicles they push on americans cost to operate. Like this will ever happen - I was amazed when I heard a Senator McCane say that we should build more nuclear plants as a near term quick solution - takes more than a few years to build a plant doesn't it?

Re: solution
 

That's exactly one of the main problems. It takes years and years to build coal or nuclear plants. During those years you have zero energy produced. the return on investment takes forever.

With wind energy, however, you start getting power produced after one windmill is put up. You receive energy back during the construction process, making the cost of production drastically lower and the investiment to build much lower as well.

More politics
 

I agree totally on windmills. They are easy to construct, don't require air pollution permitting, and (should) go up fast.

There is a private developer that is trying to permit a 400 MW wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts. Guess who's opposed: Ted Kennedy nad John Kerry. It might ruin Ted's view from his Hyannisport compound.

https://capewind.whgrp.com/

It just goes to show that it's not just Bush that's clueless. What hypocrites these Democrats be! We're screwed from left and right.

Re: More politics
 

Better phrasing possibly would have been to remove the sentence about Democrats. I'm glad that you mentioned that we are indeed squeezed between two parties of great divide, but a blanket statement as mentioned could be taken as offensive. I respect your views as a Republican, and wouldn't utter an insulting comment about your party on this site.

At Gassavers, we have a common thread as a community of people trying to reduce fuel consumption -- regardless of political view. I was afraid the mud may start to sling when this thread started.

In response to John Kerry and Robert F Kennedy, Jr. - they indeed seemed to have gone completely against their environmental committments in favor of small groups in their region. Either a powerful lobbying group or the citizenry of the immediate area of the project have made an impact on their decision. It is disappointing, because the benefits of many would outweigh the detriments of a few.

Best course of action, as I have said before -- TELL THEM. Become informed on the subject, and write them a letter or e-mail on your opinion.

Write to Senator Kerry.

Bear in mind that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an Environmental Attorney and shouldn't be confused with Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

RH77

Democrats
 

I wasn't referring to ALL Democrats. If you read the sentence again you can clearly see that it refers to just the two I specifically mentioned. And Ted Kennedy Is in record opposing Cape wind, not just Robert.

I probably sit close to
 

I probably sit close to Sludgy on polotics, but that is not the point.

The important thing here is to realize that the SOTU address really doesn't mean a darn thing. Even if the gov follows through with some of this stuff, it really wont make a diff anyway.

We've seen what does make a diff though, higher gas prices. It comes down to consumers and thier attitudes toward any number of things.

Think about it, outside of our small circle of friends who are nuts about mpg's how many people do you know who even check thier mileage on a regular basis??? Regular maintenence for most people is out of the question as well. But when the price for regular grad gasoline here in Cali got over $3 a gallon, people were putting thier trucks and SUVs up for sale and buying smaller cars, and lots of interest was in the hybrids, that's why there is so much complaining about them missing thier mileage targets, the people only bought them for that, while other people bought it for the look, or to be nicer to the enviornment etc.

Basically, independant of what our government does, at any stage in history, the american public is going to determine what is used, what is popular and how they'll live thier lives. So, basically, for most people, unless it becomes a financial decision, they won't buy a car with new technology. It will have to become 'socially acceptable' instead of being somewhat ridiculed. It comes down to the individual.

yup classic
 

Yup classic case of but I want - one of my friend was looking for a more gas efficent vehicle than his Nisson Exterra that is costing my $60+ a week in gas. Didn't think the xB was big enough for his family of 5 DUH!!! it seats 5 and has lots of room but the point was that he needed something to commute to work with and pick up a kid or two - the rest of the time they have the carravan which runs pretty well if you keep the air in the tires and go easy on the gas pedal. So here I am telling him about additives and my 44-45mpg in the xB and he is still driving the eXterra.

The windmills on the cape are interesting - my brother who usually is for the people sided with the owners out there against the farms - having driven out to the cape on occasion - what most people don't realize is that you can't see water from most of the cape because the land is so flat and the trees and building along the shore. Maybe we should put up a Nuke plant out there or just turn the electric off every other day and make them think twice about it. Another thing is that the blades spin pretty slow and will not be slicing birds in half in mid air as some believe. We have probably the highest cost per KWH in the nation around here. Ironically my friend with the eXterra has a passive solar house but wood stove and a few gas and a wood fireplace and electric heat to suppliment - turns out when they were building the house they heard rumors that there was going to be cheep electric power from canada so ... yeow you should see his electric bill! Funny thing is he tells his kids to turn off the lights and ONE baseboard heater uses more power than all the lights in the house - almost.

Your xB
 

Jan,

I'm WAY impressed with the mileage you clam for the xB. It's higher that the EPA ratings on the sticker. What modifications and additives? What kind of driving do you do?

xb mileage
 

Yeah thanks you guys have got it down pretty good for gas saving tips. The only thing I have done with the xB is add the 3cc of torco GP-7 oil and 2 oz acetone to 10 gallons. Right now I have only 3cc of Torco oil in the gas and trace amounts of acetone in the gallon or so that was in the tank when I put the 10.81 gallons in at the fillup Sunday (11.9 gallon tank). It has 1800 miles on it basically not really flooring it much yet - just a couple of quick bursts now and then and a lot of stop and go driving around town. I have a 12 mile drive around Ocean Drive which I can make at about 25-30 mph with a few slow turns in it that is almost non-stop that yields some good mileage. The rest of the time I watch for red lights and catch a few that change pretty quick from green. Got the tires pumped up pretty good - they were 38.4 psi on all 4 - not sure where they are now 2 months later. Most of the tricks in driving come down to not using your brakes - if you can drive like you don't have any brakes you can save a lot of gas. Once in a while you HAVE to rev the engine a little especially when breaking it in or else you don't get the oil up to the top ring in the pistons and also don't spray the oil around enough to cool and lube all the parts in the engine. Also helps to downshift and let the engine slow you down so you get a little more oil up there in the cylinder. Another thing to remember is that you are breaking in the gears and shaft surfaces too. Pushing the car too hard can overheat the surfaces and break the oil down really quick when the surfaces of the gears have not had a chance to polish yet. What I like to do is when the engine is warmed up and I am taking off from a light or stop sign is to give it a little gas in first gear and just let it rev up until it stops increasing in speed. You get a good idea how loose the motor is getting when it revs up freely - if it stops accelerating at 4000 rpm or so then the motor is still tight and needs more breaking in. Taking off slowly like this sounds cool and then when you hit the next gear you can just goose it a little and really move out as you are already high in the rpm/HP curve or just give it a little gas and rev it in that gear too. I usually do this in the first two gears and then drop it in 5th and watch the MPG on the ScanGauge come way up after loosening the motor a little by reving it. The gaslog has all the gas I have put in it to date - some of the low mileage was hitting 6 stop signs and lights in a 1.2 mile trip between the house I was sitting and the office. Accelerating hard and not coasting enough on those trips really dropped the mileage and it was cold then but the garage was heated so it started warm one way at least. One last thing is the odometer is still reading low so I am actually going 5-10% more miles than what it says - will get on a highway and check the mile markers on my next trip.

Quote:Yeah thanks you guys
 

Does anybody know how to convert mili-liters to cc's? I have a glass container Igot from Walmart that is marked in ounces, teaspoons, tablespoons, and mili-liters. I could be using this to add my Torco. What I have been doing so far is to put 2 ounces of Torco into a gallon of gas and use 1 ounce of that mixture/gallon of gas added to the tank. The other way may be much easier.

milliliters
 

One milliliter ("ml") is exactly equal to one cubic centimeter ("cc").

I thought I had heard that
 

I thought I had heard that before but it just seemed too easy. Thanks for the info.

Torco
 

I just use a 10cc medication seringe and load it up with 3cc of oil straight and then I don't have to deal with gasoline - that gallon will go stale before you get to use it all. 1 ounce is about 30cc so use the graduated cylinder to mix up a smaller amount.

Re: Torco
 

Yeah, the going stale thing is what concerns me. Is there a place to get syringes cheap that won't have you answering a bunch of questions? What I may do is bring an empty gas container with me to the station and put the oil in and pump some fuel into the container to mix it and pour it into the tank. It may be a bit time consuming but it should be easier than trying to figure in the fuel added when adding 1 ounce/gallon at fill-ups.

seringe
 

you should be able to get them at a drug store or ******** or use one from a computer printer ink refill kit - they don't take needles so they can't be used for injecting. Actually the refill kit may come with needles come to think of it. I just shoot the 3cc of oil directly into the filler spout and then fill it up - it will not attack the plastic and the gas will wash it all down - I hope it did anyway . . . anyone got a match??