Chuck Nicodemus wrote:
>No electric or alternative fuels vehicals shall be allowed on public roads.
>And licenses for the driver and vehical shall not be less than items in
>Proposition CCC.
>
Chuck,
HERE IS AN OPINION I HAVE FORMED.
Thanks for your well considered additions. I thought I would highlight
some of the aspects of the alternative vehicle fuel program that may
have passed the reader's eyes without a lot of background.
1) The purported purpose of the Alternative Fuels Initiative is to
reduce atmospheric ozone emissions caused by the manufacture and use of
fossil fuels. Such a phenomena has been reported as potentially
removing the protective upper atmospheric layer to deadly radiation,
raising the earth's temperature, and melting the polar ice caps, leading
to a hotter, less livable earth. If so, and I have no reason to doubt
such an even could eventually be catastrophic in time, I am not so sure
we have anything like a valid alternative, other than horses, and shovels.
2) Are alternative fuels capable of reducing ozone concentrations in
the atmosphere?
Well, if hydrogen gas, as "mined" from the only known large
source in the world, caverns in the United States, we are limited in
supply, and handicapped by emissions of the energy required to remove,
concentrate, transport, and transfer environmental hydrogen to the place
of use - your car - and safely use it as it is under extreme pressure to
reduce storage volume, and can cause serious consequential damage in
accidents.
Hydrogen gas, as manufactured by dielectric separation of water
into O2 and H2 gas requires energy. So where is this energy coming
from. More later. While this can be done at more regionally close
sites, the only problem remaining is the capital and labor costs of
maintaining a country full of these stations equipped and operated
safely. Remember leaking underground gas tanks. Would you trust YOUR
money taker (they don't pump gas anymore, unless you are covered by
state physical handicap regulations)?
Where is this energy to disassociate the water (or even the water, here
in our Southern California dessert where we import it all. What
generates this electricity? What are the pollution products that
process generates?
3) O.K., there are at least 30 other issues involved here, but let me
just skip to the bottom line so you will know what you should be
concerned about. Our government is committed to this program. Even
"Ahnold" took a stab at it, although mostly promotional as the
technology isn't here yet. Big money contracts have been awarded to
study, and demonstrate a feasible system for the nation, if not the world.
Bottom line. ALL these contracts went to OIL COMPANIES. No solar,
wind, tide, geothermal oriented firms. Now, in the small back of your
mind, under all the bales of shredded meeting notes and eMails, can you
imagine the drive and enthusiasm this publicly funded efforts have in
finding a solution that does NOT use hydrocarbons as it's primary source
for hydrogen or other alternative flammable? If research hasn't even
got a clue as to what direction to go to reduce hydrocarbon dependency
and fuel costs, where are we going with our tax dollars. Electric's
might work, on a Sunny day in California, but none of this is funded.
Mainly, it is the MOST costly, and what do you do with all those
batteries. Dump them in India's back yard, next to the Help Line Center?
This is NOT a "political" message. I do NOT believe the answer is one
of party affiliation, bribes, undue influence, middle east planning, of
any other "evil empire doing". All parties are involved. Moneys change
hands in all directions.
What is missing here is some clear science!!!
Well, it listed as MY OPINION, based on what I have seen.
Steve
--
-----
Steve Laifman
Editor
http://www.TigersUnited.com
|