[Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATED SOLUTION
Greg and April
gregandapril at earthlink.net
Fri May 23 11:11:41 CDT 2008
Harmon,
Ask your self, what does it not have to do with both lists. It's all
about energy and it's use and conservation.
If you look at where ( and who ) started the discussion, I think you would
find that it came from a post that Benjamin Domingo Bof, CC'ed to both
lists, so replies from the TP list are also ending up here, because the TP
list is set up so that only Reply All will send it back to the list - and
since Benjamin CC's EVERYTHING ( caps for emphasis only ) he thinks is
pertinent to all the lists he is on, the Gasification list also get's the
replies of everyone that is on both lists.
Greg H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harmon Seaver" <hseaver at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification"
<gasification at listserv.repp.org>
Cc: "Mary Lehmann" <mlehmann3 at austin.rr.com>; "terrapreta group"
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>; <gregandapril at earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 20:07
Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATED
SOLUTION
> And exactly what does this have to do with either gasification or
> terrapreta? And why the hell is it being cross-posted?
>
>
>
> Greg and April wrote:
>> 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
>> 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 cr�dito Yahoo! de Banco Supervielle. Solicit� tu nueva
>> Tarjeta de cr�dito. De tu PC directo a tu casa.
>> Visit� www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gasification mailing list
>> Gasification at listserv.repp.org
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
>> http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>
>
> --
> Harmon Seaver
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list