[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by MidnightViper88

See, that's the thing...I believe in American ingenuity because it's the very things that make the American economy run that are so great, yet at the same time, I have to be cynical and wonder what energy alternative can we come up that will make a significant change...Any energy alternative thrown out there either currently in use or still in concept will take years and/or decades before America in whole will be able to reap the benefits...In order for there to be an efficient and effective energy source, there has to be a ready access and production for all consumers to be able to use it, which is what oil has been able to do for the last hundred and so years after displacing coal...Oil was just easier to to make a transition into than it's been so far making a transition out of...

Don't take this the wrong way, but these all sound like excuses for not transitioning to something new. Oil was easier? It'll take a long time to transition? I don't think so. We already have an electric infrastructure in place should we switch to electric vehicles. Should we change to hydrogen, we already have refueling stations. The stations would need to be refitted for electric or hydrogen, and production for electricity or hydrogen would need to be altered to fit the new demand. But compared with, say, creating a car from scratch, these aren't big deals. You can bet that if gas were cheap these changes would take years to occur, if they would occur at all. But if there were a real fuel crisis you'd probably be amazed to see just how quickly humans can adapt and innovate.

That's why I believe alternative energy sources are best left to be perfected for the long-run while we ease our economic pains by using up our reserves while drilling for new oil sources off-shore in the short-run...We already have an abundance of oil that's currently out of consumer reach, and later or later it's going to run out; Why not use it up while we've got it? It's not like even in the next 5 or 10 years we're going to have drastic changes in our most valuable energy source, so I don't see any logic behind looking for alternative energy sources to increase our energy dependence while killing the economy in the now with high gas prices...

People aren't looking to the future, they're looking to here and now. Even if you can find someone who is looking to the future, there's a good chance they're one of the "I won't be alive by then so I don't care" types. In other words, if people aren't feeling the pinch now, there'll be nothing but lack of motivation and procrastination. Or do you think that the reason that cars haven't changed much over the past 100 years was because of technological limitations? You seem pretty knowledgable about them, so I'd expect that you're aware that hydrogen-powered cars and hybrids are far from new concepts.

Hybrids in particular are damn sensible concepts that should have been around as soon as lithium ion battery technology matured (and maybe even before then), but you didn't see car makers making a big deal out them until the public began scrambling for them. That happened with the price of gas started skyrocketing. There was virtually no innovation in the automotive field until the pinch started occurring.

Where's the money gonna come from if our economy can't stabilize itself with higher gas prices? Can't I have it cheap now and displaced later?

Where's the money for our war coming from? How about instead of pissing away trillions per month on a fruitless war, we do something similar on national infrastructure and research? As for cheap now and displaced later, won't happen. If you aren't put through pain and feel forced to become more efficient and innovative, you won't do it. It's a rule of nature that relates, ironically, to energy efficiency.

Efficiency, effectiveness, economical; That's what I want in my energy source...

How about adding sustainable to that list?

You know, even though I like high fuel efficiency, I find it funny how many people are starting to drive smaller compact cars in an effort to displace the high price to pay for a gas-guzzler...High gas prices are supposed to change our driving habits, right? Well, there's an example...But wouldn't more fuel efficient cars then create less gas consumption, therefore bring the price of gas down? How's that supposed to help in accelerating our need for an alternative energy source?

Because the average person doesn't care about the overall trends of society. If gas is cheap, they'll do whatever they want. If gas is expensive, they'll try to compensate. Realize that the average person isn't thinking ahead and they're not thinking about sustainability or energy efficiency, they're simply reacting to what's happening. It's up to the foreward thinking people and the innovators to bring efficiency to society.

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Well, I'm not sure about your taste in cars, but I personally much prefer to drive my Dad's Lexus SC400 coupe with a 4000cc V8 than my own 2000cc I4 economy car. The difference in fuel economy is two-fold (16 mpg vs 33 mpg), but at about $4 a gallon, the US has (like it always had), the cheapest fuel in the world. At the current price, I'd pay the price for the enjoyment I derive from driving an awesome car.

The US doesn't have the cheapest fuel in the world, Venezuela does. And no offense, but what you wrote sounds pretty spoiled to me. I'm not a car afficionado, so maybe I'm being overly judgemental. Californians also seem to have a love affair with their cars that nobody else can figure out, too. But to shirk efficiency just because one car feels nicer than another? If you're willing to pay the price, I guess that's your business, but when the majority of people feel that way then it's pretty detrimental to innovation and societal trends. If everyone were still big on SUVs and other fuel-inefficient vehicles then we likely wouldn't see companies going for hybrids, including hybrid SUVs.

It's a problem similar to world hunger. The way the ecology works makes it so that it takes 10 times the calories in feed to create the amount of calories present in whatever meat/fish you're eating. If we simply stopped producing meat and figured out a way to distribute the excess food created more evenly, world hunger would cease to exist as a problem. The problem with these solutions? Humans love meat and we also happen to love fast cars. It's just one of the many "human" factors that keeps society from running at perfect efficiency.

That's a very simplistic view on how to cure world hunger. Human love of cars is a non-issue, too. Even if they're regarded as a norm in American society, cars are a luxury in the world. People can do without them, and if it becomes too costly to use them then they won't be used.

I do agree that more efficient automobiles is a good intermediate step, but in the US it's already happening. AFAIK, Toyota is unable to meet Prius demands in the US. Japanese automakers have basically devoted their entire marketing strategy around fuel economy and nothing else.

I love this one. You talk about how it's already happening in America, and then cite how Japanese automakers have been devoting their strategy around fuel efficiency.