On The Trump Blog, The Donald recently suggested that the money going into the space program should be redirected to alternative energy research. And he’s fed up with Washington’s wimpy attempts to coax Saudi Arabia and other countries into lowering oil prices. Trump’s answer will surprise no one: Let him (or someone like him) negotiate. “A seasoned business negotiator could do some serious talking,” he wrote, “and those prices would drop like a rock — guaranteed.” Or what? He’s fired?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Regular on Death penalty review promised
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- okobserver on Open thread 11/8
17 Comments
Maybe big D should have been our appointee to the UN.
How about Donald Trump invest in R&D for alternative energy, instead of calling on the government to do it.
Because I seriously doubt that he would put in one penny.
I’m sure his portfolio contains companies that are already doing just that.
As an intelligent businessman, he understands that some problems are so big, only gov’t can really take them on.
Building the interstate highway system for instance was a project that no company could really take on. I assume that most conservatives feel that worked out pretty well.
If the US gov’t wasn’t already so deeply in thrall to big business (like GM, Ford, and Chrysler who have no incentive to switch to another fuel supply for their cars and have repeatedly used gov’t to stop competition as when they crushed the technologically advanced Tucker), we’d be running our cars on hydrogen and batteries about 20 years ago . . .
What other companies have been squashed by the big three that have proposed alternative fuel sources? The big three need to be leading the way to alternative fuels. You’re correct, we should have more viable fuel alternatives by now. The oil companies won’t be the one’s to research new fuel types.
Why haven’t foreign auto makers provided the world with alternatives either? Yes, hybrids are in being sold, but why haven’t they advanced beyond them?
I long for the day when vehicles will be quiet and less poluting.
So now the Mafia wants to get involved in the oil business. Too late, there is already Haliburton.
The Donald. Yawn.
1. Gasoline and diesel fuel have the highest energy density (energy per volume) of any alternative fuel or battery.
2. Gasoline is still cheaper than anything else, or that something else would be available and auto companies would hasten to adapt to it.
I bought a car in 2001 from Chrysler that was designed to run on ethanol, so it isn’t true that auto companies aren’t doing anything.
However, since ethanol holds only 2/3 the energy per gallon as gasoline, a tankful of ethanol takes me only 200 miles, but a tankful of gasoline takes me 300 miles. This means that ethanol should be priced at $2 per gallon when gasoline is at $3 per gallon. But ethanol is priced higher than $2, so it still costs me less per mile to use gasoline.
Galahad NoJoCo
Hydrogen will be a viable energy source when all oil, oil shale, coal, and natural gas are nearly completely depleted. It’s just too expensive to produce, and unless you use nuclear reactors to produce it you truly havent done the environment any favors. Storage cost will be astronomical as well.
We could all be driving electric cars if the U.S. energy consumer were’nt so afraid of Nuke power, but barring a 100 fold increase in Nuke production that makes no sense.
You can sit there and bash big oil and the car company’s all you want, but at this point in time there is no realistic alternative.
Where is logic and common sense? Everybody “knows” an alternative energy needs exposure to the “big three” automakers. In the past, fuel efficient carborators were invented, only to be purchased by someone who didn’t want to provide such auto efficiency. It is all about money, period. If people really cared about this situation, demand would be able to squash those who have surpressed inventions in the past. I, for one, have encouraged all the men I know in the “backyard mechanic” hobby to work on some type of alternate energy for autos on their own. But as they have told me, when someone with big money comes along to buy their invention, they would take the money. Not thinking that they would benefit financially in the long run by selling to the consumer. It is all about the money.
Of course it’s about the money. It always will be. The oil companies are bragging about the obscene record profits they are making off the backs of everyday workers. They could care less about us as long as they’re investors are kept happy.But I have my doubts about so-called fuel-efficient carbs. If that were true, someone would have aftermarket units available. Patents are funny things: It can take very little to change something into a device that would require a new patent. And patents are researchable. Find the plans for such a carb on the net. A real, workable plan. Know someone with a machine shop? Build one. Tell me if it really works. If it does, build me one. I’ll buy it.The gas engine has come a long way, and is still the only real world answer to transportation needs, but the answer to future technology is still not settled. Science will come up with an answer. It needs serious funding, though, to do so. Lets hope it gets it sooner rather than later.
It is also true (since the ’70s) that the major oil companies have colluded in the closing of refineries and the failure to build new ones, in order to restrict the supply chain and keep the cost of fuel high. As long as there is petroleum available SOMEWHERE, they have little incentive to get really serious about research on alternativve energy solutions. If they were treated like any public utility–OOPS!…they’ve become deregulated also (well, except for water and sewage treatment); that’s why our electricity is so “inexpensive” now.
Maybe it’s time to realize that some regulation is necessary when it comes to resources that are necessary to the life of so many. Incidentally, while commentators blithely say that demand for petroleum products hasn’t subtantially decreased, they forget that in those great wastelands outside of New York City, Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, and Seattle, where extensive public transportation is available, many people need their cars to do basic things like…oh…shop for food, go to the doctor, take the kids to school (oh, for the days of neighborhood schools) or even…gasp…go to work at those two jobs that are now necessary to make ends meet. And many poorer people are the ones buying the old “gas guzzlers” because they cannot afford those wonderful energy-efficient vehicles (that many more wealthy people simply choose not to buy). This is, of course, not to mention trucks, airplanes, trains, buses, and all those things that run on some form of petroleum based fuel. Or fuels necessary to cook, heat the house, or even supply electricity to those houses.
Maybe someday the government will get proactive about this problem (yeah…like they’ve done for social security, medicare, universal health care and…TA-DA, Homeland Security vis a vis Hurricane Katrina). I personally would love to give up driving…I just don’t have any alternative. I would love to use radiant heat and a wood fed stove, but that would aggravate environmentalists by denuding forests, endangering wildlife, and polluting the air. Until that time, my demand will probably remain the same, and business commentators will cluck about how demand for petroleum products hasn’t gone down, thus justifying the high prices that makes us choose between food, meager entertainment, medications, driving, and not freezing to death in winter.
The old nonsense about extremely fuel efficient carburetors being withheld from the market by greedy corporations is ridiculous. JM Walker is right that there would be a huge aftermarket for such a thing if they really did exist. As it is, the things you do see in the aftermarket (magnetic fuel conditoners, etc.) are pure scams.
Scientists are well aware of the capabilities of fuels and advanced engines. If huge improvements in fuel efficiency were possible with a mere carburetor, they would all be publishing widely about it. But there is no magic to be had.
The old Fish Carburetor hoax is long dead. Let’s not resurrect it.
If you want a Fish carb I have one. I used it on a 56 Studebaker Golden Hawk with the big Packard V8. It did improve my milage over the Carter 4 barrel carb it came with. I went from 17 mph on the highway to 24 mpg. I took it off when I sold it, Couldnt get the proper adaptor for my next car to install it. It was not a 100 mpg carb and was never advertized as such. It did improve performance & milage over the other standard carbs of the day.
Fuel injection beats carbs anyhow. And, if there were a magic bullet you can bet that one of the “Big Four” automakers would market it. These Four along with their ‘lesser’ competitors in Korea are in compatition in this market. (Can’t speak for the “Derelect Three” though)
For those of you who do not believe that there have been numerous carbs and other devices invented and bought by big business I suggest you go to the following web site.http://www.himacresearch.com/letters/
I personally talked to a older gentlemen while buying gas at Sams Club who told of testing a heavy car in the 60’s for one of the car manufacturers that got over 60 mpg. Never heard that in the news did you?
Check out the website above for some very interesting enlightment.
trump your comments about rosie show what a baffoon you are all of your money cant buy you class you are a real jerk