Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 11, 2010 at 7:21pm

I pay a fuck ton of taxes.

I have to pay sales tax as well as any tax on my profit and if you had even the most basic grasp on how fuel tax works you would understand that there is no way around paying road tax on fuel.

Seriously, if you are going to reply on this have a clue about what you are saying because trying to use the argument that businesses do not pay taxes is so ignorant I don't even have the words...

And if I am passing my cost on, which is what I would have to do. What happens to the cost of the products my customers are bringing to market; which is the center of my reasoning that this is a horrible idea.
Joel said:

Simple, pass on the cost to the consumer. Businesses don't pay taxes in a direct sense, it is a cost of doing business and the customer ultimately foots the bill.

notoriousDUG said:

Jill,

I just ran numbers because I was interested in it but your fuel tax would actually put me out of business or increase the cost of my service to my customers.

I have a need to get technicians all over the Midwest, and sometimes the country, in a timely manner with hundreds of pounds of parts and tools. I have jobs that occasionally require me to transport a large welder/generator and air compressor to customers sites as well as some where I have to utilize a truck with a crane on it.

How would you expect a business such as mine to cope with the fuel tax?

Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on May 12, 2010 at 4:06am

Why is everybody a central planner who has some crackpot scheme to replace the entire physical infrastructure of a continent so it can run on nonexistent energy sources? You know what would be useful? Make a couple of phone calls to let The Man know you want a physically separated bike line on Roosevelt stretching from Michigan to Canal because the current setup is an accident waiting to happen.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 5:45am

I can't tell if you are legitimately a crazy person or if you are actively trying to get a negative reaction...

Where would the money to give away all these free cars come from?

What would be their fuel source?

Do you grasp hold of the fact that the government is not going to be motivated to spend money weening us off of oil because it would eliminate a large part of their income?

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

jillnerkowski said:

I suppose Ali hada good point about paying for cars.
and the thoughts about incentives- perhaps we need to transtition to alterantive vehicles, slowly so as not to put anyone out of business by paying for high gas taxes- the point is not to pay more taxes but to create a desire for alternative vehicles-
perhaps if we start with govt. assistance- the govt. could use moneys gained slowly from the decrease in need to spend on overseas oil, to actually make a free exchange of gasoline vehicles to alternatives, little by little, perhaps just for the poor who cannot afford to buy the new cars, or perhaps with an alphabet system, with one by one, every single person in america is supplied with a free exchange vehicle for the automotive they currently own.
wouldnt that be awesome if we were so organized that we could transition totally and completely to alterantives with every single person in america getting a free exchange vehicle to start out with, that later would be replaced as usual for an ordinary parts replacement price as is currently normal, all for free, and all paid for INSTEAD OF OIL, so that the govt. didnt actually have to pay for the programs with tax money.
of course I wouldn't get one because I only own a bicycle.
by the time everyone had one, alternative transportation would be up and running, and our transportation economy would be totoally green, and self sufficent!!!

HAHAHAHAA!!

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 7:41am

But how does that provide the government with the money to buy the cars you are advocating they give out to people?

The savings are to the consumer; not the government.

Not only that but the reduction in fuel use is going to cost the government income, not increase their income.

Seriously, are you insane or are you just fucking with us because I honestly cannot tell.



jillnerkowski said:

notoriousDUG said:

I can't tell if you are legitimately a crazy person or if you are actively trying to get a negative reaction...

Where would the money to give away all these free cars come from?

What would be their fuel source?

Do you grasp hold of the fact that the government is not going to be motivated to spend money weening us off of oil because it would eliminate a large part of their income?

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

jillnerkowski said:

I suppose Ali hada good point about paying for cars.
and the thoughts about incentives- perhaps we need to transtition to alterantive vehicles, slowly so as not to put anyone out of business by paying for high gas taxes- the point is not to pay more taxes but to create a desire for alternative vehicles-
perhaps if we start with govt. assistance- the govt. could use moneys gained slowly from the decrease in need to spend on overseas oil, to actually make a free exchange of gasoline vehicles to alternatives, little by little, perhaps just for the poor who cannot afford to buy the new cars, or perhaps with an alphabet system, with one by one, every single person in america is supplied with a free exchange vehicle for the automotive they currently own.
wouldnt that be awesome if we were so organized that we could transition totally and completely to alterantives with every single person in america getting a free exchange vehicle to start out with, that later would be replaced as usual for an ordinary parts replacement price as is currently normal, all for free, and all paid for INSTEAD OF OIL, so that the govt. didnt actually have to pay for the programs with tax money.
of course I wouldn't get one because I only own a bicycle.
by the time everyone had one, alternative transportation would be up and running, and our transportation economy would be totoally green, and self sufficent!!!

HAHAHAHAA!!

Well, to get the govt. to pay for the cars: the price of a barrel of crude oil is about 80 dollars which is about 42 gallons of gasoline, which is roughly 100 dollars per barrel.
A smart electric car uses about 1/3 the cost of gas ,for the cost of electricity, to charge the car.
If an average ford taurus, runs 30 miles per gallon, 60 miles per day, 22,000 miles per year, and expires in 7 years, and the cost of a ford taurus and an electric smart car are roughly equivalent brand new, then it would cost roughly 50,ooo gallons, or 1,200 barrels of gas, or 120,000 dollars worth of crude oil to replace one car, which is 4 times more than the cost of the car itself.
If the money saved from using one electric smart car, is 2/3 of the cost to run one gasoline car, and a standard car drives 22,000 miles per year/30 miles per gallon, using 7,333 gallons per year@2.50 per gallon, it costs 18,333 dollars per year to drive, 2/3rds of which , if a smart car is used compared to a taurus, it would save 12,000 dollars per year to drive a smart car, which would pay for the cost of a smart car in about 3 years!
how to get from that savings to the savings of our govt. from the reduction in crude oil purchases is a whole other story.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on May 12, 2010 at 8:47am

can we talk about cycling (something we know a lot about, it's less controversial here, etc.) ... or not ?

sorry ...


DB

notoriousDUG said:

But how does that provide the government with the money to buy the cars you are advocating they give out to people?

The savings are to the consumer; not the government.

Not only that but the reduction in fuel use is going to cost the government income, not increase their income.

Seriously, are you insane or are you just fucking with us because I honestly cannot tell.



jillnerkowski said:

notoriousDUG said:

I can't tell if you are legitimately a crazy person or if you are actively trying to get a negative reaction...

Where would the money to give away all these free cars come from?

What would be their fuel source?

Do you grasp hold of the fact that the government is not going to be motivated to spend money weening us off of oil because it would eliminate a large part of their income?

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

jillnerkowski said:

I suppose Ali hada good point about paying for cars.
and the thoughts about incentives- perhaps we need to transtition to alterantive vehicles, slowly so as not to put anyone out of business by paying for high gas taxes- the point is not to pay more taxes but to create a desire for alternative vehicles-
perhaps if we start with govt. assistance- the govt. could use moneys gained slowly from the decrease in need to spend on overseas oil, to actually make a free exchange of gasoline vehicles to alternatives, little by little, perhaps just for the poor who cannot afford to buy the new cars, or perhaps with an alphabet system, with one by one, every single person in america is supplied with a free exchange vehicle for the automotive they currently own.
wouldnt that be awesome if we were so organized that we could transition totally and completely to alterantives with every single person in america getting a free exchange vehicle to start out with, that later would be replaced as usual for an ordinary parts replacement price as is currently normal, all for free, and all paid for INSTEAD OF OIL, so that the govt. didnt actually have to pay for the programs with tax money.
of course I wouldn't get one because I only own a bicycle.
by the time everyone had one, alternative transportation would be up and running, and our transportation economy would be totoally green, and self sufficent!!!

HAHAHAHAA!!

Well, to get the govt. to pay for the cars: the price of a barrel of crude oil is about 80 dollars which is about 42 gallons of gasoline, which is roughly 100 dollars per barrel.
A smart electric car uses about 1/3 the cost of gas ,for the cost of electricity, to charge the car.
If an average ford taurus, runs 30 miles per gallon, 60 miles per day, 22,000 miles per year, and expires in 7 years, and the cost of a ford taurus and an electric smart car are roughly equivalent brand new, then it would cost roughly 50,ooo gallons, or 1,200 barrels of gas, or 120,000 dollars worth of crude oil to replace one car, which is 4 times more than the cost of the car itself.
If the money saved from using one electric smart car, is 2/3 of the cost to run one gasoline car, and a standard car drives 22,000 miles per year/30 miles per gallon, using 7,333 gallons per year@2.50 per gallon, it costs 18,333 dollars per year to drive, 2/3rds of which , if a smart car is used compared to a taurus, it would save 12,000 dollars per year to drive a smart car, which would pay for the cost of a smart car in about 3 years!
how to get from that savings to the savings of our govt. from the reduction in crude oil purchases is a whole other story.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on May 12, 2010 at 8:48am

can we talk about cycling (something we know a lot about, it's less controversial here, etc.) ... or not ?

sorry ...


DB

notoriousDUG said:

But how does that provide the government with the money to buy the cars you are advocating they give out to people?

The savings are to the consumer; not the government.

Not only that but the reduction in fuel use is going to cost the government income, not increase their income.

Seriously, are you insane or are you just fucking with us because I honestly cannot tell.



jillnerkowski said:

notoriousDUG said:

I can't tell if you are legitimately a crazy person or if you are actively trying to get a negative reaction...

Where would the money to give away all these free cars come from?

What would be their fuel source?

Do you grasp hold of the fact that the government is not going to be motivated to spend money weening us off of oil because it would eliminate a large part of their income?

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

jillnerkowski said:

I suppose Ali hada good point about paying for cars.
and the thoughts about incentives- perhaps we need to transtition to alterantive vehicles, slowly so as not to put anyone out of business by paying for high gas taxes- the point is not to pay more taxes but to create a desire for alternative vehicles-
perhaps if we start with govt. assistance- the govt. could use moneys gained slowly from the decrease in need to spend on overseas oil, to actually make a free exchange of gasoline vehicles to alternatives, little by little, perhaps just for the poor who cannot afford to buy the new cars, or perhaps with an alphabet system, with one by one, every single person in america is supplied with a free exchange vehicle for the automotive they currently own.
wouldnt that be awesome if we were so organized that we could transition totally and completely to alterantives with every single person in america getting a free exchange vehicle to start out with, that later would be replaced as usual for an ordinary parts replacement price as is currently normal, all for free, and all paid for INSTEAD OF OIL, so that the govt. didnt actually have to pay for the programs with tax money.
of course I wouldn't get one because I only own a bicycle.
by the time everyone had one, alternative transportation would be up and running, and our transportation economy would be totoally green, and self sufficent!!!

HAHAHAHAA!!

Well, to get the govt. to pay for the cars: the price of a barrel of crude oil is about 80 dollars which is about 42 gallons of gasoline, which is roughly 100 dollars per barrel.
A smart electric car uses about 1/3 the cost of gas ,for the cost of electricity, to charge the car.
If an average ford taurus, runs 30 miles per gallon, 60 miles per day, 22,000 miles per year, and expires in 7 years, and the cost of a ford taurus and an electric smart car are roughly equivalent brand new, then it would cost roughly 50,ooo gallons, or 1,200 barrels of gas, or 120,000 dollars worth of crude oil to replace one car, which is 4 times more than the cost of the car itself.
If the money saved from using one electric smart car, is 2/3 of the cost to run one gasoline car, and a standard car drives 22,000 miles per year/30 miles per gallon, using 7,333 gallons per year@2.50 per gallon, it costs 18,333 dollars per year to drive, 2/3rds of which , if a smart car is used compared to a taurus, it would save 12,000 dollars per year to drive a smart car, which would pay for the cost of a smart car in about 3 years!
how to get from that savings to the savings of our govt. from the reduction in crude oil purchases is a whole other story.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on May 12, 2010 at 9:10am

OK - I am going to propose this thread be killed.

jillnerkowski - I have no idea who you are, when you joined chainlink, if you ever post about
helping folks with cycling information, and (most importantly) WHY you enjoy provoking folks
here. Yofu are wasting precious bandwidth FAR MORE DESERVING than this idiotic bullshit
of which you are weriously mis-informed and/or uninformed.

anyone that wants to disagree with me ... c'mon. I am ready.

seriously - when Ning is throwing erros and timing out - you are pasting worthless 'facts' here
and making my blood boil. stop this nonsense before I destroy a cab on my way home and blame
you (I am partially kidding here).

and I sat on my hands before hitting "send" thankyouverymuch.

DB

jillnerkowski said:

to notorious dug, like jeff schneider pointed out way back in the discussion, our military spends close to 400 billion a year .
and by : http://ntl.bts.gov/data/military.pdf, 32 billion of that is spent specifically to defend middleast oil.
another report states that at the cost of 7 dollars per gallon ( which they then estimated for 2010, two years ago) the price of gas would knock 24 million households with cars off the road, a little more than half of which have access to public transportation.
asssuming the rest of us could afford either the cost of the gas, granted with budget reductions and complaints or the purchase of a new alternative vehicle, the govt, would be responsible for equipting 10 million people with alternative cars.
if the price of a smart car is 35,000, then the savings in military costs could buy those cars in ten years. thats a long time, but if they were provided on a loan basis, it would be more feasible.
of course a behind the scenes is the conversion of electricity to alternatives as well.
by the time igot here in our discussion, I wonder if it might just be better to make regulations after all and just mandate that all new car purchases be alternative vehicles. and then with the trickle down effect they'd catch up with the poor people after a while.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 9:19am

No.

I cannot just let stuff this short sighted and ignorant just sit there.

I just want me questions answered.

dan brown said:

can we talk about cycling (something we know a lot about, it's less controversial here, etc.) ... or not ?

sorry ...


DB

notoriousDUG said:

But how does that provide the government with the money to buy the cars you are advocating they give out to people?

The savings are to the consumer; not the government.

Not only that but the reduction in fuel use is going to cost the government income, not increase their income.

Seriously, are you insane or are you just fucking with us because I honestly cannot tell.



jillnerkowski said:

notoriousDUG said:

I can't tell if you are legitimately a crazy person or if you are actively trying to get a negative reaction...

Where would the money to give away all these free cars come from?

What would be their fuel source?

Do you grasp hold of the fact that the government is not going to be motivated to spend money weening us off of oil because it would eliminate a large part of their income?

Are you ever going to answer any of my questions?

jillnerkowski said:

I suppose Ali hada good point about paying for cars.
and the thoughts about incentives- perhaps we need to transtition to alterantive vehicles, slowly so as not to put anyone out of business by paying for high gas taxes- the point is not to pay more taxes but to create a desire for alternative vehicles-
perhaps if we start with govt. assistance- the govt. could use moneys gained slowly from the decrease in need to spend on overseas oil, to actually make a free exchange of gasoline vehicles to alternatives, little by little, perhaps just for the poor who cannot afford to buy the new cars, or perhaps with an alphabet system, with one by one, every single person in america is supplied with a free exchange vehicle for the automotive they currently own.
wouldnt that be awesome if we were so organized that we could transition totally and completely to alterantives with every single person in america getting a free exchange vehicle to start out with, that later would be replaced as usual for an ordinary parts replacement price as is currently normal, all for free, and all paid for INSTEAD OF OIL, so that the govt. didnt actually have to pay for the programs with tax money.
of course I wouldn't get one because I only own a bicycle.
by the time everyone had one, alternative transportation would be up and running, and our transportation economy would be totoally green, and self sufficent!!!

HAHAHAHAA!!

Well, to get the govt. to pay for the cars: the price of a barrel of crude oil is about 80 dollars which is about 42 gallons of gasoline, which is roughly 100 dollars per barrel.
A smart electric car uses about 1/3 the cost of gas ,for the cost of electricity, to charge the car.
If an average ford taurus, runs 30 miles per gallon, 60 miles per day, 22,000 miles per year, and expires in 7 years, and the cost of a ford taurus and an electric smart car are roughly equivalent brand new, then it would cost roughly 50,ooo gallons, or 1,200 barrels of gas, or 120,000 dollars worth of crude oil to replace one car, which is 4 times more than the cost of the car itself.
If the money saved from using one electric smart car, is 2/3 of the cost to run one gasoline car, and a standard car drives 22,000 miles per year/30 miles per gallon, using 7,333 gallons per year@2.50 per gallon, it costs 18,333 dollars per year to drive, 2/3rds of which , if a smart car is used compared to a taurus, it would save 12,000 dollars per year to drive a smart car, which would pay for the cost of a smart car in about 3 years!
how to get from that savings to the savings of our govt. from the reduction in crude oil purchases is a whole other story.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 9:21am

What is an 'alternative vehicle?' The quick and easy 'alternative' to petroleum is going to be ethanol, a recognized alternative fuel, because it requires only very minor changes to technology that already exists and is in use now. At that point you have taken a massive step towards turning one of our food staples into a fuel source which is going to so what to the price of corn?

How do you propose integrating them into our current infrastructure which is not set up to deal with many 'alternative fuel' vehicles? It is not like there are a lot of hydrogen fueling stations or charging stations at public parking facilities.

As far as regulations am I correct in understanding that you feel it is within the rights of the federal government to tell me what kind of product I can or can not purchase? Do you think that represents life in a free society?


jillnerkowski said:

to notorious dug, like jeff schneider pointed out way back in the discussion, our military spends close to 400 billion a year .
and by : http://ntl.bts.gov/data/military.pdf, 32 billion of that is spent specifically to defend middleast oil.
another report states that at the cost of 7 dollars per gallon ( which they then estimated for 2010, two years ago) the price of gas would knock 24 million households with cars off the road, a little more than half of which have access to public transportation.
asssuming the rest of us could afford either the cost of the gas, granted with budget reductions and complaints or the purchase of a new alternative vehicle, the govt, would be responsible for equipting 10 million people with alternative cars.
if the price of a smart car is 35,000, then the savings in military costs could buy those cars in ten years. thats a long time, but if they were provided on a loan basis, it would be more feasible.
of course a behind the scenes is the conversion of electricity to alternatives as well.
by the time igot here in our discussion, I wonder if it might just be better to make regulations after all and just mandate that all new car purchases be alternative vehicles. and then with the trickle down effect they'd catch up with the poor people after a while.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 9:26am

How can you say that any of those things are going to be the result of this? Because you want it to be like that?

Jill, let me ask you a very, very serious question: Why have you not answered a single one of my questions directly? You just react to them by shooting off onto another tangent with another short-sighted idea that makes little to no sense when looked at practically. You are making massive assumptions about possible money saved and how the government would use those funds in order to justify what as not become either a massive government entitlement program (giving people cars) or a complete and total trampling of our freedom (telling people what to buy).

I ask again, because I really want to know, are you really a complete whack job or are you just fucking with us to be a complete pain in the ass?

Do yourself, myself, and everyone else here and just stop.

jillnerkowski said:

plus besides the war costs, if the govt. doesnt actually have to purchase oil, it might save some money from the actual costs of oil, which may not all go back into the govt. by the time all is said and done.

plus dan, with the change over to alterantives, much of these will be bicycles and new bike lanes, covering more miles than ever for making bicycling safer , more fun, and more practical. we may even two significant lanes, one for vehicles travelling more than 35 miles per hour ,and one for those travelling less than 35 miles or less.
these may be various mopeds and motor scooters, electric bikes ,and, three wheel covered electric bikes, and things four wheel sophisticated gocarts.
with additional taxes, we may be able to cover all the major routes form the suburbs to the cities with just such bike lanes so that we never have to hear again , oh bicycle riding is a good idea, and its healthy and green and all but its not for me. everything is too far where I live.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 12, 2010 at 10:06am

You apparently never began to use any form of easily understandable sentence structure, and that makes me sad...

Thank you for being direct; with the knowledge that you are a legitimate crack pot I will, maybe, be able to ignore you.

Of course it would still be nice if you gave a direct answer or two to my questions; it helps to demonstrate that you are actually putting rational thought into your plan and not just living in a fantasy world like, you know, a crazy person.
jillnerkowski said:

notoriousDUG said:

How can you say that any of those things are going to be the result of this? Because you want it to be like that?

Jill, let me ask you a very, very serious question: Why have you not answered a single one of my questions directly? You just react to them by shooting off onto another tangent with another short-sighted idea that makes little to no sense when looked at practically. You are making massive assumptions about possible money saved and how the government would use those funds in order to justify what as not become either a massive government entitlement program (giving people cars) or a complete and total trampling of our freedom (telling people what to buy).

I ask again, because I really want to know, are you really a complete whack job or are you just fucking with us to be a complete pain in the ass?

Do yourself, myself, and everyone else here and just stop.

jillnerkowski said:

plus besides the war costs, if the govt. doesnt actually have to purchase oil, it might save some money from the actual costs of oil, which may not all go back into the govt. by the time all is said and done.

plus dan, with the change over to alterantives, much of these will be bicycles and new bike lanes, covering more miles than ever for making bicycling safer , more fun, and more practical. we may even two significant lanes, one for vehicles travelling more than 35 miles per hour ,and one for those travelling less than 35 miles or less.
these may be various mopeds and motor scooters, electric bikes ,and, three wheel covered electric bikes, and things four wheel sophisticated gocarts.
with additional taxes, we may be able to cover all the major routes form the suburbs to the cities with just such bike lanes so that we never have to hear again , oh bicycle riding is a good idea, and its healthy and green and all but its not for me. everything is too far where I live.

well notorious dug,directly, I was once for a awhile labelled as crazy, but after awhile I began to keep my crazy ideas both and hold my own so that I can pass as normally acceptable to live in society.

Permalink Reply by Roger on May 12, 2010 at 10:25am

Ali - Personally, after reading a bunch of your posts here, I can honestly say that I think you are a jerk. You come off as condescending, arrogant, sarcastic, and totally unwilling to except or respect view points that are not your own. I usually make it a point not to argue with jerks as it is pointless and futile. I am making an exception for you as I think you need to be... hit by a train. You may be right that there is not enough fast food grease to power every boat in every ocean right now, but I think that you need to realize that humans can grow efficient oil producing vegetables at a much higher rate (as well as much lower cost along with a much lower environmental impact) than we can dig holes in the ground and soak up oil deposits that have been created over thousands and thousands of years. Jeopardizing the ecosystems of our coast lines, contaminating the air we breath and the water we drink, and continuing to blindly support the oil industry is not an option in my opinion. The oil and auto industry does not, and never will, advocate for cleaner energy sources, environmentally sound energy production, or affordable and renewable energy sources, so it is up to consumers, like me, to take action and aggressively advocate and promote clean, renewable energy sources. I brought up the point that grease fueled diesel engines are a viable, affordable, efficient, environmentally sound, renewable and readily available alternative fuel source to petroleum and you hoped on your high horse, called me stupid, and gave me a list of impossibilities. As a result, I have decided to take the following action.
1) Call you a jerk
2) Make sure that anyone who reads this post understands why I think you are a jerk
3) Forward your message to greasecar.com's founder, Justin Carven, and let him decide whether or not to educate you on the financial and environmental benefits of converting to grease/vegetable diesel fuels on a local/national/global scale.
4) Permanently boycott BP, Exxon Mobil, and their conglomerates.
4) Pledge to buy a diesel as my next automobile and convert it to a grease car.
5) Call you a jerk, again.

I think that you have a rotten attitude on this website and I hope that you can rope in your disdain for people who want to have a positive impact on our surrounds, our community, and our environment. I hope you think of me next time you choke while riding behind a conventional 18 wheeler, because I will think of you next time that happens to me and wonder why you won't want things to be better than they are right now.

You are a jerk.

To anyone else reading this post: the tone in general on these posts has gotten very nasty, mine included. I'd like to see the personal attacks end (now that I've gotten all my name calling out of the way).
Ali said:

Are you suggesting that there are enough grease to power all the locomotives, all the trucks, and all the ships? There is absolutely no way...

I will give you an example...A diesel engine consumes .2 liters of fuel per hour per hp. A small cargo ship will have 15,000 HP engine which granted will not be run at 100% due to wear and tear related as well as efficiency drops as the engine is pushed...But let's assume they are running at 80%. So .8x15,000x.2=2400 liters of grease... 2400/3.6=667 gallons of grease an hour...Just to run one ship and that is given that it has similar caloric content because if not then the engine will need to be run differently...Anyways at any given moment there are thousands of these ships along the U.S. coast and this is not even taking into account, larger ships such as super container ships with 100,000 HP diesels, not to mention that you still have to add the recreational boaters to this. And then add the locomotives with an average of 6000 HP x a few hundred of those...Boy if we try to eat that much fried food for the sake of the environment we will all die in our 40's...But eating fried food is obviously the greener choice...Please do a little bit of research before suggesting an idea as stupid as this and not regurgitate someone else BS...

-Ali

Roger said:

greasecar.com. These diesel engines run on used, post consumer, vegetable oil. The kind of oil that every restaurant that uses a deep fryer has to pay to get ride of. The environmental impact is lower that petroleum, the availability is unbelievably higher, it is a renewable resource, and it saves money from every angle of production.

This is not a new idea, in fact, diesel engines were designed to run on a whole myriad of fuels. Guess who doesn't want you to know that.

In short, the solution to fossil fuels already exists. The fact that the US is afraid to implement them is due to the public lack of knowledge. The nail in to coffin to the argument of a non viable "grease engine" is the fact that Wal Mart (arguably the most money hungry and socially irresponsible business in the US) has a whole fleet of these green machines delivering lead coated toys to our nations children at super low prices. When you don't pay for gas, delivery is more profitable.

I hope this helps you realize that there are solutions to this giant problem that is currently killing the Gulf of Mexico.

notoriousDUG said:

OK, tell me a readily available fuel source, one that is not based on a staple of our food supply, that is going to be able to, in less than two years, replace diesel fuel.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page