"Based on talks with actual engineers that work at Ford and GM. These two companies have actively discouraged any improvements in fuel efficiencies. Engineers would be threatened if they were caught tinkering with the computer systems or searching for ways to make the car engines run more efficiently."
To put it another way: We could already be driving much more fuel efficient vehicles!
|
A few, past and present
The world was consuming 85 million barrels of oil a day in 2006.
85 million / day = 31 billion barrels / yearToward the end of 2007 it is expected to hit 86.7 mi
Oil production has been at its peak (flat) since 2005.
* The world's 3 largest oil fields are now all past their peak and in decline. *
( see below )
China and India are ramping up their consumption, 35 even 45 mpg CAFE standards won't be enough. Electric motors (with only one moving part, by the way) is the only rational answer.
finally, Change we can believe in! The Obama-Biden comprehensive
"Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars on the road by 2015, cars that we will
|
What will the trucks, ships, & planes that deliver food, goods and services,
that we have to pay for, be using for fuel - that we all end up paying for?!
Who cares how high the price if there is not enough to go around?
Already Atlanta and Nashville have seen shortages and long lines!
Their same panic will occur more and more, tomorrow after tomorrow as
the supply fails if we don't terminate our addiction to oil.
What if it is "only" $5/gal. by 2012, as predicted? At less than $4/gal
businesses are already closing, airlines are cutting back, others have stopped
hiring, we did not need surveys to tell us that the average family wouldn't travel
on vacations as far as they used to - they don't even travel about town as much
as they used to!
|
|
Gasoline sprayed into the combustion chamber is not vaporized. It is a liquid,
mist, in suspension resulting in a tremendous loss of potential, unreleased,
energy. Secondly, only about 15% to 20% of the energy that is released
by burning fuel in an internal-combustion engine
does any work.
Most of the rest is given off as heat.
68% of the world's oil is used as transportation fuel
(EIA)
despite the fact that it could be something like 1 or .5%.
(see above paragraph and vaporizing carburetors below)
"Who is to blame for high gas prices?"heavy, gas-guzzling SUV's were getting a BIG tax break: (Americans are not so demanding of some right to drive big vehicles as they have been manipulated, succored, by the current "oil" administration, into buying them.) Oil refineries were making operating profits in the $1/gallon range in May 2007. NY Times, JAD MOUAWAD, May 14, 2008 Some consumer advocates say they are deeply suspicious about the behavior of refiners who are sharply cutting production at a time of record gasoline prices. Bush turned down repeated requests by consumer groups for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate price gouging by oil and gas companies, despite a March 2001 FTC finding that companies hoarded gasoline to drive up prices and boost profits, costing consumers billions of dollars. 43 |
We should not have to come this close to committing environmental suicide before realizing that in destroying our planet we destroy ourselves. |
|
Robert F.Kennedy Jr., 2004
It is now known that California's energy crisis was largely engineered by Enron. After one meeting with Enron CEO Kenneth Lay, Cheney dismissed California Gov. Gray Davis' request to cap the state's energy prices. That denial would enrich Enron and nearly bankrupt California. According to the New York Times, Cheney's energy task-force staff circulated a memo that suggested "utilizing" the crisis to justify expanded oil and gas drilling. President Bush and others would cite the engineered California crisis to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. more There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. In the past two years the Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a ten-year peer-reviewed study by the International Panel on Climate Change, commissioned by the president's father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming. After disavowing the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government's National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases, it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees by 2100. A May 2002 report by scientists from the EPA, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, approved by Bush appointees at the Council on Environmental Quality and submitted to the United Nations by the U.S., predicted similarly catastrophic impacts. When confronted with the findings, Bush dismissed it with his smirking condemnation: "I've read the report put out by the bureaucracy. . . ." The Bush administration now plans to contract out thousands of environmental-science jobs to compliant industry consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profit-taking, effectively making federal science an arm of Karl Rove's political machine. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies. |
|
from the inside:
Jeremy Symons, who represented the Environmental Protection Agency on Vice President Cheney's energy task force, described the Bush administration's "carefully orchestrated policy of delay": "It's a charade... They have a single-minded determination to do nothing -- while making it look like they are doing something." |
|
Listen to how one man was told there is an international
agreement denying him the right to produce, or patent his
invention. He does not know he was lied to but, we know
that, given that lie, no one in power was going to help
him and they had the power and the corruption to stop him
if he so much as tried on his own:
Daniel Dingel |
|
May 28th, 2007 Peak Oil Has Arrived
|
January 30, 2007
Bush's Stealth Tactics to Combat Congress
Lest you think President Bush was hamstrung by a recalcitrant Congress, think again. The NYT reports that the White House recently signed a directive giving it "greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy." The directive effectively places a Bush gatekeeper in areas of key domestic policy such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. . . .
Bush's "Don't do anything about the environment if it impeads business, if it costs money" is the same attitude the Chinese have right now. Bush is sending us in their direction:
the World Bank estimates that 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities are found in China's industrial areas.
(Pittsburgh recently wrested the title of America's most polluted city from Los Angeles)
The Peak Oil Crisis: Alarms Are Sounding
2005: "By the end of 2006 there will be no unused production capacity."
|
Oil depletion and the economy The global economy has linked its fate to oil to such a degree that in the event of supply disruptions, sharp oil price rises would ensure a severe economic recession. Although efficiency gains and the economic trend from manufacturing towards service industries have resulted in a significantly lower oil consumption per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a hard landing would spell the end of globalisation and consumerism, leaving us to obtain most necessities from within our locality. Economic fallout coupled with the logistical difficulties in getting to work would result in job losses. Food supply issues Central to the understanding of oil issues and their potential impact on food production is the concept of "food miles", essentially the distance food has travelled to arrive on a plate. While the current globalisation-driven trend is towards increasing food miles, this is oil-intensive and contributes unnecessarily to global warming; we need to be looking in the opposite direction towards localisation of our food requirements. Roughly speaking, in developed countries, about 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy is required to produce one calorie of food energy at the point of purchase. Obviously, these figures vary enormously, and a meat diet is far more energy-intensive than a vegetarian one. Being highly unsustainable, such inefficiencies will have to change, either through new approaches to agriculture, technological innovation or a fossil fuel crisis. In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Fuel scarcity would increase food prices, signify an imminent shift away from farm chemical use, and strongly encourage a shift towards labour-intensive decentralised food production. Home gardening would become more attractive, as would permaculture and the use of low-input perennial crops such as those researched for many years by Wes Jackson of The Land Institute in Kansas. by Martin Oliver: Peak Oil - addressing the end of the fossil fuel era from www.wellbeing.com.au/natural_health_articles?cid=7168&pid=146622 WellBeing magazine, July 2005, Issue, 100 Page, 46; |
Petroleum Insecurity: America's Choice by John Howley, energy policy consultant, and
|
The issue is not just proving that a new fuel or power source works but, individuals in their own garages must be able to build them from inexpensive parts, in a limited amount of time or, "it will never happen". Chrysler (and Chevy and Ford) actually succeeded in replacing the gasoline engine with a turbine engine but "chickened out" when it realized its potential effect on the oil industry. the series of events
More Oil Refineries?
Not if they are unwilling to protect human health!
Posted: March 31, 2006
There haven't been any new oil refineries built in the United States for the past 30 years (1976; and some [smaller ones] have closed), for some pretty good reasons. First, the United States doesn't have that much oil; it imports 60 percent of its fuel. Then there are the vast environmental problems with oil refineries. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's profiles of the refining industry, the average refinery generates more than 10,000 gallons of waste a day; and the industry in total releases and transfers more than 600 toxic chemicals, as well as generating significant toxic wastes. Among the list of chemicals are many associated with chronic illnesses, leukemia, neuro-toxicity and reproductive toxicity. In 1995, the EPA estimated that 4.5 million individuals living within 30 miles of oil refineries were exposed to benzene at concentrations that posed cancer risks 180 times higher than the acceptable risk level. Oil refineries today also emit up to 35 million pounds of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has a global warming potential of 2l times that of carbon dioxide. from: www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412739
They can build "clean" refineries
|
Latest Find !
|
For more information on this and more, go to our NEWS Blog page
|
|
|
The Apollo Alliance 
for Energy Independence |
|
green-grand-prix |
National Resources
Defense Council |
Environmental
Working Group |
Multinational
Monitor |
Electric Cars 
Super Carburetors 
Future Denied,
Hydraulic cars & info 
