[Terrapreta] [Gasification] FUELS AND VEHICLES: ANINTEGRATEDSOLUTION

Kevin Chisholm kchisholm at ca.inter.net
Thu May 22 11:56:35 CDT 2008


Dear Sean

Well, your Vice President is being proven as a very smart and wise man. 
Looks like he was very right when he said:

"The American Way of Life is non-negotiable."

Kevin

Sean K. Barry wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>  
> Do you know of any "electric bikes" that come with snow tires, snow 
> plows, or handle bar and seat warmers for the drivers?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> SKB
> Minnesota
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Mary Lehmann <mailto:mlehmann3 at austin.rr.com>
>     *To:* Roger Samson <mailto:rsamson at reap-canada.com>
>     *Cc:* 'terrapreta group' <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> ;
>     'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'
>     <mailto:gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:19 AM
>     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] [Gasification] FUELS AND VEHICLES:
>     ANINTEGRATEDSOLUTION
>
>     I use a bike mostly.  I visited China when that was true of their 
>     city dwellers too.  After enough polluted air and traffic jams, 
>     they'll go back to bikes, and they'll have company  --eventually.  ML
>     On May 21, 2008, at 3:07 PM, Roger Samson wrote:
>
>     >
>     > Yes mass urban transit is looking like a bit of a crappy (yes
>     not very
>     > scientific word either) strategy to reduce energy ..quite scary
>     > http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
>     > In china they now have 10's of million of electric bicycles,
>     that’s 
>     > the best
>     > way to move people and reduce energy consumption
>     > electric bicycles are the most sustainable urban transport options 
>     > after
>     > shanks pony (for all you youngsters that’s means walking)
>     >
>     > we need to gasify biomass for heat and power and then use electric 
>     > bikes and
>     > small electric cars for a more sustainable transport option. Much 
>     > better
>     > than liquid biofuels running conventional sized vehicles or big
>     public
>     > transit buses
>     >
>     > Roger Samson
>     >
>     > W: www.reap-canada.com <http://www.reap-canada.com>
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
>     <mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org>
>     > [mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg 
>     > and April
>     > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:17 PM
>     > To: Mary Lehmann
>     > Cc: terrapreta group; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and
>     gasification
>     > Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN
>     > INTEGRATEDSOLUTION
>     >
>     > Funny you should say that.
>     >
>     > One of the local news stations did a study to see if it would be 
>     > possable to
>     > ditch the car and take the bus, and reported on it last night.
>     >
>     > Local price of fuel - $3.66 / gal
>     > Local price of a bus ticket ( one way ) - $1.50
>     >
>     > Going from the news station to the baseball stadium during evening 
>     > rush hour
>     > cost $1.50, requires 2 transfers and 3 buses
>     >
>     > A reporter and a photojournalist decided to take to trip one
>     using his
>     > vehicle the other the bus from the same starting point leaving at 
>     > the same
>     > time.
>     >
>     > Time they both left the bus top near the station was 4:43 ( had
>     the 
>     > rider of
>     > the bus missed it, the next bus would not have been by until 5:54 ).
>     >
>     > The time the driver took in the POV arrived at the stadium was 30 
>     > minutes,
>     > with the consumption of .64 gal of gas for a cost of $2.36 per
>     person
>     >
>     > The time it took the rider on the bus was 1:05 for the cost of 
>     > $1.50 ( what
>     > we don't know is the average number of people on the busses or
>     what 
>     > kind of
>     > mileage they get, but it can be logically assumed that they don't 
>     > get but
>     > more than about 8-10 mpg )
>     >
>     > A difference of  $0.86 and 40 minutes.
>     >
>     > At first glance this looks fairly good -
>     >
>     > OTOH assuming they both stayed and watch a ballgame, the driver of 
>     > the car,
>     > would have made the return trip in about 20 minutes and a 
>     > corresponding
>     > decrease in fuel consumption due to lack of traffic, and the rider 
>     > of the
>     > bus would have had to either walk back or get a taxi, because the 
>     > busses
>     > don't run that late.    We also don't know how many miles per
>     gal / 
>     > per
>     > person the busses get, yet I know for a fact that on many routes 
>     > they run
>     > almost empty except during the busiest times of day. - I also know 
>     > that this
>     > is true of many types of mass transit in many cities across the US.
>     >
>     > Riders on the bus, that used the bus to get to and from work,
>     told the
>     > photojournalist, that they have to leave home up to 1 hr earlier
>     in 
>     > the day
>     > to ensure that they get to work on time and about the same coming 
>     > home in
>     > the evening - assuming they didn't miss the bus and that it was 
>     > running on
>     > schedule.
>     >
>     > Locally it doesn't matter where you are going, it's going to take 
>     > at least
>     > twice as long to take the bus as it is in a POV, and that's 
>     > assuming that
>     > you caught the right one and that they are running on schedule.
>     >
>     > Last year there was a time when one of our vehicles was in the
>     shop 
>     > for
>     > work, and since I needed the only other one we had for the kids,
>     my 
>     > wife
>     > tried to take the bus.    It worked out that she needed 2 hrs in 
>     > the morning
>     > and 2 hrs in the evening to go and from work, which was only 15-20 
>     > min away
>     > in a POV.
>     >
>     > Now if your time is worth $1 an hour ( or less ) - then the bus 
>     > would make
>     > perfect sense, from a fuel, time and cost efficiency stand point.
>     >
>     > If your time is worth more than $1 / hr, the total efficiency is 
>     > with the
>     > personal automobile.
>     >
>     >
>     > In the end, it all comes down to the fact that different places have
>     > different transportation systems and each has to be evaluated on 
>     > it's own
>     > merits, and don't forget that while it varies with each bus,
>     unless 
>     > each bus
>     > is running proximity 1/2 full, then it is getting poorer mileage
>     than
>     > someone driving an old pickup.
>     >
>     > The entire idea that mass transit is a cure all answer for all 
>     > places and
>     > all individuals, is phony.
>     >
>     >
>     > Greg H.
>     >
>     >   ----- Original Message -----
>     >   From: Mary Lehmann
>     >   To: Benjamin Domingo Bof
>     >   Cc: terrapreta group ; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and 
>     > gasification ;
>     > killer_ape-peak_oil at yahoogroups.com
>     <mailto:killer_ape-peak_oil at yahoogroups.com>
>     >   Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:00
>     >   Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATED
>     SOLUTION
>     >
>     >
>     >   This effort is sad to see, however well intentioned it is, 
>     > because in the
>     > first place the need to use less energy has been confused with
>     energy
>     > efficiency.  If my car gets extra miles to the gallon, what is to 
>     > keep me
>     > from driving more miles? This is like that phoney drive to add 
>     > wider, faster
>     > roads to shorten commuter time.  People just moved farther out.
>     >
>     >
>     >   In the second place, no account has been taken of the fact that 
>     > there will
>     > not be the available energy to make the passenger cars, compared 
>     > with the
>     > energy economy of mass transit vehicles.  As the energy shortage 
>     > gets worse
>     > (yes, before it gets better, if you like), manufacturers and 
>     > finally the
>     > public will be unwilling to forego mass transit vehicles.  We will 
>     > be like
>     > the Easter Islanders opposing burning the last trees which should 
>     > be saved
>     > for making boats in which to move away.
>     >
>     >
>     >   Mary Lehmann
>     >  
>     ====================================================================
>     >
>     >   On May 16, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Benjamin Domingo Bof wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >          Fuels and vehicles: an integrated solution
>     >
>     >          The use of fossil fuels in transport creates enormous 
>     > greenhouse
>     > gas emissions.  In Canada, in fact, cars and trucks produce more 
>     > than 30% of
>     > all GHG emissions.  To make meaningful progress in reducing GHGs, 
>     > we must
>     > address the transport sector.  Individually, advanced new
>     transport 
>     > fuels
>     > and vehicle technologies contribute to GHG emission reductions.  
>     > However,
>     > the most effective way to reduce CO2 in transport is through an 
>     > approach
>     > which integrates both vehicles and fuels.
>     >           To achieve this, both vehicles and fuel manufacturers
>     are 
>     > spending
>     > billions of dollars to develop and deliver cleaner, more efficient 
>     > systems
>     > that use less gasoline.  But typically, vehicle and fuel
>     solutions are
>     > looked at in separate silos.
>     >           Historical Agreement Made in 2006:  Volkswagen, Shell
>     and 
>     > Iogen
>     > are Combining Fuel and Vehicle Technologies for an Integrated
>     Solution
>     >           On January 8, 2006, Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen signed a 
>     > letter of
>     > intent to conduct a study into the economic feasibility of producing
>     > cellulose ethanol in Germany.
>     >
>     >           Left to right:  Rob Routs, Executive Director Downstream 
>     > (Oil
>     > Products and Chemicals) Royal Dutch Shell; Brian Foody, President, 
>     > Iogen
>     > Corporation; Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of 
>     > Management
>     > of Volkswagen AG.
>     >           This marks the first time that an automotive
>     manufacturer 
>     > has
>     > partnered with an oil company and a technology company to
>     explore the
>     > commercialization opportunity of clean transport fuel such as 
>     > cellulose
>     > ethanol.  Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen face a common challenge to 
>     > deliver
>     > mobility to people through the cars they drive and the fuels they 
>     > use, and
>     > to do it in a sustainable way.  And the biggest challenge for 
>     > sustainability
>     > is dealing with CO2 emissions.  By working together, the three 
>     > organizations
>     > are committed to meeting our sustainability challenges through an 
>     > integrated
>     > approach that uses the most cost effective solutions first.
>     >           Cellulose ethanol is one of the fuel options that:
>     >             a.. reduces overall CO2 emissions from vehicles
>     >             b.. runs in today's cars without any need for automobile
>     > modifications or changes to the fuel distribution system and
>     >             c.. is economical in comparison with all alternatives 
>     > including
>     > many vehicle technology solutions
>     >           Running any of the many available flexible fuel
>     vehicles on
>     > cellulose ethanol E85 is one of the most cost effective ways to 
>     > reduce GHG
>     > emissions in transport.  Currently, there are more than 4 million 
>     > FFVs on
>     > the road in the United States.  Even running today's regular 
>     > vehicles on a
>     > blend of 10% cellulose ethanol will reduce GHGs by close to 10 
>     > grams of CO2
>     > for every kilometre driven.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     > ------
>     >
>     >     Tarjeta de crédito Yahoo! de Banco Supervielle. Solicitá tu
>     nueva
>     > Tarjeta de crédito. De tu PC directo a tu casa.
>     >     Visitá www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar
>     <http://www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar>
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Terrapreta mailing list
>     >     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     >     http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>     > terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>     >     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     >     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     > ------
>     > --
>     >
>     >
>     >   _______________________________________________
>     >   Terrapreta mailing list
>     >   Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     >   http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/
>     > terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
>     >   http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     >   http://info.bioenergylists.org
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Gasification mailing list
>     > Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>     <mailto:Gasification at listserv.repp.org>
>     > http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>     > gasification_listserv.repp.org
>     > http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>     > http://info.bioenergylists.org
>     >
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Terrapreta mailing list
>     Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org <mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>     http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>     http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org





More information about the Terrapreta mailing list