I am sitting in the Pheonix Airport working on our internet site, www.considertomorrow.com and I am listening to Obama talk about September 11th and the future of our country, and I see a commercial for Natural Gas.   Changing our cars over to Natural Gas.  It feels good to think that we as publishers are on the right track, by pushing these ideas we have.  It is about time that we a society Take a STAND….

L.J.

…topic

Let see and hear what she has to say.

1/2 hour interview by IDB on energy

Is Drilling the answer?

Take a Stand

Make a Difference

Not that kind. Let’s get an actual definition of Compressed Natural Gas. According to Wikipedia:

“Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is a fossil fuel substitute for gasoline (petrol), diesel, or propane fuel. It is considered by some to be a more environmentally “clean” alternative to those fuels, although it produces greenhouse gases, and it is much safer than other motor fuels in the event of a fuel spill: natural gas is lighter than air, so it disperses quickly when leaked or spilled.

It is made by compressing natural gas (which is mainly composed of methane (CH4)), to less than 1% of its volume at standard atmospheric pressure. It is stored and distributed in hard containers, at a normal pressure of 200–220 bar (2900-3200 psi), usually in cylindrical or spherical shapes.

Compressed natural gas is used in traditional gasoline cars that are thus turned into bi-fuel (gasoline/CNG) cars. CNG/gasoline cars are increasingly used in Europe and South America due to rising gasoline prices.

In response to high fuel prices and environmental concerns, compressed natural gas is starting to be used also in light-duty passenger vehicles and pickup trucks, medium-duty delivery trucks, transit, school buses and trains.

It has a lower energy density compared to LNG (42%), because CNG is not liquified, and to diesel (25%) [1].”

Take a Stand

Do you know anyone with a CNG vehicle? We would like to know first hand of your accounts.

Make a Difference

So, we have heard the buzz surrounding this car. 440 horsepower, twin turbo…sounds like your average sports car right? Well, sort of. It is a great looking sports car, here look for yourself.

But something is different about this car. It is completely run on Ethanol. Yes, that is right, E-100. Not anymore of this E-10 blend that you pay ten cents less and get less fuel efficiency. We know, you are looking at previous posts of ours and thinking, you said earlier you get less efficiency with Ethanol, but here is a quote that The Boston Globe got from SAAB; “One problem with cars fueled by ethanol is that they have a 25 to 35 percent shorter travel range than gas-powered ones, Bergstrom said. Saab and other automakers hope to close that gap by using ethanol in applications with cleaner diesel, hybrid gasoline/electric engines, and turbocharged smaller engines, which develop more power than even some of the V-8s and even V-6s so popular in the United States.” Sweden has the right idea. Why are we not propelling the same initiatives?

Take a Stand

The X-Prize started nothing less than a revolution in the development of new thinking on going into outer space, and now it’s back.  With the X-Prize Foundation’s third contest, it aims to push vehicle efficiency as far as it’s ever gone.  Imagine a world where cars can go 100 miles on each gallon of gasoline (or its equivalent).  This prize wants to make this sweet place a reality, and they are offering $10 million to the company that can do it best.  That amount may seem like a lot, but it’s a small price to pay for the benefit of filling up once a month to go the same amount of miles that you go today on multiple stops at the “convienience” station.

There are some great things going on behind the scenes with the 90 plus companies that want to win this prize, and we are going to look at a few so that you can form an opinion.

Aptera-Three wheelers that are classified as motorcycles.  Both hybrid and electric (100-130 MPG).

FuelVapor Technologies-Another trike, but this one runs on fumes…literally (92 MPG).

MDI/Zero Pollution-This car runs on, get this, air.  Compressed air pushes this car and a secondary fuel makes sure that you get over 100 MPG.

Tesla-You know these guys, they’re the ones that are into building electric vehicles.  Pretty popular with the press.

Venture Vehicles-Zip around on three wheels from Venture and expect 100 MPG from either an electric or hybrid system.

Zap-This company already sells a bunch of cars.  They’re worth a look if you have the time.

As great as all of this is, we can’t let it make us complacent.  Even if new fuel efficiencies take us to places we’ve never been before, and even if we’re saving gallons and money, we still have to keep innovating for the future because the problem hasn’t been solved.

Check out the X-Prize website for all the info.

We personally want to share this video with you again because this plan is phenomenal.

This gentleman has the same thoughts that we do.  The main being collaboration.  We as a society can do anything, if we were all on the same page.  We want to personally thank Mitch Miller for the insight and reference for this video for a second post.  Take the next 5 minutes and do yourself and our country a favor and watch the video.

T. Boone Pickens

Together…we can take a stand to make a difference!!

The key component of this post’s title is fuel, and we are definitely not talking about gasoline.

Here’s the car: The Honda Civic GX

If you don’t want to click on the link, then we’ll just tell you that it is a compressed natural gas car (CNG).  What is the main benefit to this alternative fuel?  It can have, for now at least, a much lower price than what you are currently paying at the pump.  Aside from that, it burns cleaner than gasoline and when you buy you are buying a fuel that was probably made in the U.S.

The car’s $25K price tag is even softer on the wallet when you take into account the tax credits, and at $1.50 per gallon for the fuel, there are even more savings to be had.  The one issue linked to that $1.50 number is that it relies on a home refueling unit, so there’ll be some extra cost there.  There are supposed to be tax credits for the home install though, but make sure to do some research in your state to find out what is available.

The advantages never come without disadvantages, and the biggest for this type of vehicle seems to be the issue of scarcity.  The car is hard to find and fueling stations are not ubiquitous.  Even if these are big barriers, we still encourage you to crunch some numbers and see if it might work out for you.

Don’t like Honda or don’t want to plunk down the $25K?  You can convert your existing vehicle to CNG.  This link is a good place to start if you want to go that route.  Oh, and you’ll probably need to know where to get fuel.  Try this service station finder.

Note: We know this post runs opposite of saving money on natural gas in the home, but if a subject will save money in a different area and help the environment at the same time, we are obligated to report.

Gas prices are still stupid, right?  We know you want to liberate yourself but aren’t quite sure how to do it.  Well, the vehicle highlighted in this post won’t be for everyone, yet it does put a smile on our faces.  Here are the requirements:

1. Less than 50 miles driving per day.

2. No need to go over 55 mph.

3. Live in a dry, temperate climate.

4. A helmet.

5. An adventurous side.

That’s right, folks, we’re talking about an electric moped.  This moped, however, packs quite a punch.  It has a top speed of 55 mph, an estimated range of more than 70 miles (it probably won’t make this mark at high speeds), an expected battery life of 7 - 10 years, and is a ton of fun to drive.  Being 100% electric, you could throw some solar panels or a wind turbine up and be driving for free for as long as the bike lasts you.  Can anyone say freedom from petrol?  It is just too bad a vehicle like this won’t see wider adoption because of silly stuff like lugging the kids around or getting to work dry, but hey, at least some people could convert.

Oh, you want to know what it is?

XM-3500 LI Electric Moped

With a price tag of around $4000 you could trade your car in tomorrow and be saving thousands of gallons and, consequently, thousands of dollars.

First and foremost, we are not out to shift voters.  This post is not about who the better candidate is, but rather how important Energy is to our nation.  This post in no way reflects our own political views.

That being said, let’s dig into the Energy.  As we have posted previously, energy is an enormous problem that needs to be solved.  Relating back to a previous post, what happened to the days where Americans raced with Russia to get to the moon?  What happend to the United States being a head of the game?  Most of this has to do with we are losing Math and Science specialists.

So, the coin flip goes up on which candidate goes first, and it is tails, which was Obama.

On cars and driving:

Obama: Would provide $4 billion in loans and tax credits to American auto plants and manufacturers so that they can retool factories and build fuel-efficient cars; would put 1 million 150-mpg, plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years and would give consumers a $7,000 tax credit to buy fuel-efficient cars.

McCain: Proposed a $300 million award for “the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars.” Called for the suspension of the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax and 24.4-cent-a-gallon diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.  Says the lost revenue would be paid for by money from the general fund.

Both of their ideas and plans are solid.  The break at the pump would sure be nice, but as we have stated before, it isn’t just about cutting the cost, we need to find alternatives.  Obama’s idea would be phenomenal, but is it obtainable?  McCain has a good idea, because in order for the electric car to flourish, the battery needs to be improved….In your opinion…who wins on this topic?

Renewable energy

McCain: Would commit $2 billion annually to advance clean coal technologies.  Calls for a permanent tax credit, which he says will “simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries,” according to his campaign Web site.  Encourages development of low-carbon fuels — wind, hydro and solar power.

Obama: Would require 10 percent of U.S. energy come from renewable sources by the end of his first presidential term. The plan would extend the Production Tax Credit for five years to encourage the production of renewable energy.  Create five first-of-a-kind, coal-fired demonstration plants that would capture and store carbon dioxide emissions and invest in technology that will allow for more coal use.

Very good debate material.  As before they both have very good ideas, with the same common goal.  In this topic Obama basically wants to improve the usage of coal for power.  He wants to make it cleaner and more effective.  Mccain advocates the usage of alternative energy, giving better incentives to the people who do use it.  Who wins this topic?

Climate change

McCain: Proposes a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies.  It is a market-based approach that would set caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and provide industries with tradable credits.

Obama: Calls for a reduction of carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would create what his campaign calls a “Global Energy Forum” and re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This is proof once again of similar outcomes, different approaches.  Which one has the better approach?

Nuclear energy

McCain: Calls for building new nuclear reactors, saying barriers to nuclear energy are political, not technological. Would put a plan in place to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 — with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public would share in the economic benefits.

Obama: Says he’ll find safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste.  In Democratic debate earlier this year, he said, “We should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix.”

Could nuclear Energy be the future?  What do you think?

Offshore drilling

McCain: Proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.  Would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.   Opposes drilling in some wilderness areas — including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and said those places must be left undisturbed.

Obama: Opposed new offshore drilling, but later shifted to say that he would consider it if it were part of a larger strategy to lower energy costs.  Supports bipartisan energy plan from the Senate that combines alternative energy innovation, financial, nuclear energy and drilling proposals. Effort by five Democrats and five Republicans to break Congress’ energy impasse would allow expanded offshore oil exploration and embrace ambitious energy efficiency and efforts to develop alternative fuels.   Believes oil companies should drill on the 68 million acres they have access to but haven’t used and would require oil companies that will not drill to give up their leases.

Is offshore drilling going to lower the cost of fuel in the next 5-10 years?  It is said that the drilling off-shore could take up to 10 years to enter production.  What do you think?

We think this is proof that no matter who you vote for, there is a problem, and we as a society need to

Take a Stand…

Help Make a Difference

Just something to spark a discussion