Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/26/bush.automakers.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/0 3/26/bush.automakers.ap/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By mrichmondj So, now, "ethanol is the answer." What a joke. Your car, burning a gallon ethanol, won't get as far as on a gallon of gasoline. However, it still puts money into the pockets of the big oil producers who will refine and distribute ethanol based fuels just like they do other petroleums. Did you know that the technology exists today to run an electric vehicle on battery packs made from the same lithium-ion batteries you use in laptop computers? The performance from that vehicle could also rival cars currently on the market. Yet, the auto industry continues to say that battery technology is preventing them from building a mass produced electric car. Can you imagine how much better our world would be if we could get consumers out of gasoline powered commuter vehicles and into electric vehicles? Can you imagine the amount of smog that would instantly disappear from our interstates, the prime real estate that is used for gas stations that could be used for other endeavors, and the amount of money that consumers would save with a vehicle that gets the equivalent of 200 mpg? Of course, President Bush would never advocate an approach like that. The oil companies and auto companies paid for him to get elected into office so they wouldn't have to invest in making their products more efficient.
Originally Posted By DAR <<<Was wondering at first why the ex-skipper of the Dodgers was meeting with the President about ethanol.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Popular Mechanics ran a very enlightening article several years ago comparing the relative merits of several alternative fuels. In terms of fuel efficiency, here is how they stacked up (based on a vehicle approximately the size of a 4-door Honda Civic). Gasoline: 33 mpg E85/Ethanol: 17 mpg Methanol: 14 mpg Biodiesel: 44 mpg Compressed Natural Gas: 34 mpg Electricity: 202 mpg Hydrogen: 41 mpg Obviously, you don't buy your electricity by the gallon and the article developed an algorithm to convert electricity consumption into an equivalent figure based on petroleum-based fuel consumption. So, if you had your choice as a consumer, would you pick the vehicle that gets 17 mpg or the vehicle that gets 202 mpg? Why doesn't Detroit or the Bush administration want you to drive the 202 mpg vehicle?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Obviously, you don't buy your electricity by the gallon and the article developed an algorithm to convert electricity consumption into an equivalent figure based on petroleum-based fuel consumption.>> The data has also been adjusted for the oil based products used in the production of Ethanol. Although Ethanol certainly does reduce an automobile's mileage, it is not as great as the numbers above indicate.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << The data has also been adjusted for the oil based products used in the production of Ethanol. Although Ethanol certainly does reduce an automobile's mileage, it is not as great as the numbers above indicate. >> Actually, for E85, Popular Mechanics used the actual fuel economy figures for an E85 Ford Taurus as an example vehicle. So, the fuel efficiency figures were based on real data and not just a mathematical model. Now, a Ford Taurus is not the same as a Honda Civic, which was used as the model for gasoline, so there is difference in fuel economy there.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I think the average fuel efficiency for exactly comparable vehicles is that ethanol based fuels are 15% less efficient than gasoline counterparts. Of course, the price of E85 isn't 15% less than gasoline, so your pocketbook suffers the consequences as well.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I think the average fuel efficiency for exactly comparable vehicles is that ethanol based fuels are 15% less efficient than gasoline counterparts. >> Yes, that matches figures I've seen.
Originally Posted By jonvn Really. I had no idea. That's completely ridiculous. If the battery thing is true, then it's absolutely disgraceful that we are not pursuing that line of technology.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 Tom Lasorda and George Bush, What a meeting of minds that must have been
Originally Posted By disneydad109 and made a boat load of money while he was at it. It makes a very interesting tale. A young from nowhere fighting his way to wealth. Have they ever been hit in the head with a wild pitch ?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "A young from nowhere fighting his way to wealth." Excuse me? Are you talking about George Bush here?
Originally Posted By disneydad109 it's the old american tail . A youth from the dirty rundown east coast makes his way west and with just the sweat of his brow and a little bit of luck makes good. Finds him a simple but pure school teacher and the rest is history.
Originally Posted By jonvn OK! So, does Lasorda still work for the Dodgers or is he totally retired now? Is he even still alive?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <with just the sweat of his brow and a little bit of luck...> ...and a heck of a lot of Daddy's connections...
Originally Posted By disneydad109 well , that never hurts now does it. But still I am sure it was all him, heck just ask. He'll tell you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Actually, he failed at every job he ever had before he was given a sweetheart opportunity to invest in the Rangers. He didn't have much to do with their success, but they did have success, and he made a bundle. Nice work if you can get it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So, does Lasorda still work for the Dodgers or is he totally retired now? Is he even still alive?" Besides his evil twin working for Chrysler, Lasorda is still on the books as a vice president/assistant to the general manager with the Dodgers. He's about 80 or so now. Just recently, his name was purported to be in notorious L.A. madam Baby Doll Gibson's little black book. He denies ever availing himself of her services.
