Yes, no or maybe to nukes?

Here is my question -- why wouldn't a car maker want to figure out how to make a car run on some alternative and cheaper fuel and why wouldn't a car maker want to make cars as efficient as possible?

I really believe a big part of the problem is the design of the engines of automobiles and cars and what I can't quite figure out is why no manufacturer has stepped forward with an engine that can get, say 200 miles on a gallon of alcohol.

To me the first one who can create this kind of machine will reap huge rewards.

 

Isn't it great how Zag can always speak for those who don't share his political beliefs?
I may stop posting on the political threads because anything I want to say has already been more eloquently espoused by him as whining.

 

Because of the immediacy of the demands of the market, IMHO. Someone could do this, yes, but they'd have to invest the time and money to do it, taking away from the balance sheet on the all-important quarterly reports. Then when they actually produced the cars, they'd have to be willing to take a loss on their manufacture for at least a few years while people warmed up to them, fuel stations converted over, etc.

They make natural-gas vehicles now, for example, but there aren't that many places to fill them up. (Except, according to a story I read a while ago, in Utah, of all places.) And of course, natural gas still has to be sucked out of the ground too.

And, too, what resource can we divert to put in cars? You suggest alcohol, but that's gotta come from somewhere, and we've seen how well ethanol's working out. We could do water, but there's not an unlimited supply of that either, as residents of much of the West will tell you.

Not picking at you; more thinking out loud.

 

No. I am on the same page with you -- I think those are all great considerations - I also think that it is something that needs to be explored.

 

I don't think we're in a position to blindly turn down any options when it comes to energy.
Anything that seems viable should be studied.

 

Don't quote me with hypotheticals on threads where I haven't posted. Thanks.

 

McCain was stressing the France point today at the Town Hall in Nashua, N.H. I agree totally with him. I've never wanted to copy France on anything, until now.

As for the Town Hall Meeting, it was special for me. Not only because I am dedicated to voting for McCain, but because I took my 7-year-old niece with me, who was so excited to see McCain in person and only 100 feet away from us.
I started teaching her history and namely presidential history when she was in pre-school - got her a big book on all the presidents and she takes the damn thing everywhere with her.

So she was excited that she got to see someone who could be the next POTUS.

Of course after an hour she got tired from the heat and boring talk for a 7-year-old. But was all excited again when he walked right past us and waved at the end.

I hope Obama comes up here soon, or even in one of the tandem Town Halls that McCain proposed, because I'll take her to that too.

 

I heard on some talk show the other day that France can do nukular power so cheaply because they can mass-produce reactors, and that we can't do that because of our antitrust laws.

Waste is a BIG problem, and it's a "now" problem because we have about 60 years of it stored up with nowhere to put it. I think Yucca Mountain is now open for business, but how safe is it geologically and seismically?

If there were a way to "recycle" this waste and put its still-high residual radioactivity to use, I'd be all for it. As it is, though, I'm leaning in favor of it. Three Mile Island showed us you could have a reactor accident and not have the apocalypse ensue. And Chernobyl showed us what NOT to do when building or running a plant.

 

This may surprise you, but I'm actually for nuclear power plants. My first wife worked at one, and I definitely see the value in it. I would, of course, have concerns about the waste, but if everything's taken care of like it should be, I'd be all for it.

And you sound like an ass going on about the SJ liberal police.

 

Also for it, although I'm surprised Zag wasn't right about what's going on in my head. I guess it's because he's so self-assured that I find myself never doubting him.

 

Bingo. As long as there's a way to adequately deal with the waste so this doesn't become a catastrophe 100 years from now, I'll be the first in line to help anyone who wants to build one of these things.

 

Yucca Mountain won't open until perhaps 2017.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0727/p03s02-uspo.html