It is good to see that machine's like the Nano and the VW golf are making use of greater technology and smaller size to save on fossil fuel usage ( if it is fossil fuel that is ) but unfortunately mathematics trumps all good intentions. The sheer number of motorists coming online in India, China and other developing nations will neutralize the mpg economies of the new machines and drive up the demand for fossil fuel to unprecedented limits and so the introduction of the new, smaller fossil fuel vehicles is really just another nail in the coffin for world oil supply and world economies built synthetically on petrol-powered transportation industries.

Electric cars recharged by nuclear sources and renewable sources will be the wave of the future.

Shorter, more realistic road trips, a return to centralized distribution of goods and necessities such as we had in the hey day of the rail roads and so forth.

I will be contacting my electric company soon to find out where the power that I use is generated...if it is at a petroleum fired plant I am going to exercise my right to buy from a coal fired plant since our grid has recently been opened up to competition. I know that coal is also not the answer and that even clean coal is a problem but we do need something to get us from here to there in our quest to replace our energy sources.

Hydrogen fuel cells and naked bicycle riding on the news today.

in Mexico city...what was their point anyway wasn't it something more poltical than oil?

It depends on what you mean when you say 'future'. All progress is incremental and the reality is that the next five to ten years is going to be a mish-mash of competitive and transitional technologies. If you're buying a car now, a small car makes sense. It's not going to do much to alleviate demand for oil, but it is going to save you money.

Both Toyota and GM will start producing pluggable hybrids in two years in limited production. It will likely be five years before the kinks are worked out, but even so - most of these vehicles will still be hybrids. Almost all of them will be dual-powered, although cars like the Volt will only have an electric drive and the gas engine will only be used to extend the range of the battery.

If the market accepts these cars over the next ten years, then we will have made a significant transition. Combined with other hybrids, smaller cars, and regular hybrids, we will have a very competitive market with many options. It will be twenty years or more before purely electric vehicles overtake the internal combustion engine and by then fuel cells may be entering the market as well.

The primary reason I am not enthusiastic about drilling for more oil is that it won't reduce the price much, but it will slow down the transition. Right now, the most important thing is to give oil some competition and make sure that the competition can stay in the game. Oil has hit that price threshold, but it is artificially high. Any strategy to lower the price of oil now will only give that industry continued and dangerous leverage in the future.

that can be effectively done about oil...it is time to concentrate wholeheartedly on the next wave of energy sources. You are right of course...even if we found a new source of a trillion barrels of high grade crude it wouldn't make any difference...the canoe is gone down the rapids and it ain't coming back ever.

We do need a compromise strategy for the transition...for me coal is the perfect choice...yes it is dirty but we really have nothing else for hydrocarbon supply and with so much equipment already in place...well it is probably the lesser of the two evils.

jo

I believe, with no evidence whatsoever to back me up but I'm lazy today, that China has no intention of mainling petroleum until the last drop has been used. Not that their current demand isn't a threat and will continue for years.

Here's why: For the same reason they've become such an influence in the world oil market, they will be the first one's to opt out.

Their population.

I believe they are well aware that to even contemplate ,even medium rage, relying on petroleum for a billion plus people just isn't logical. With even a small surge in their economy, and individual income, their demand could literally double overnight. that would cause a ripple effect in the oil market that would be catastrophic for them.

Out of pure necessity, they will lead the world in alternate energy. Just a guess.

The US on the other hand is till debating idiotic solutions like drilling in ANWAR and giving 16 cent a gallon tax vacations.

Until the conversation eleiminates as a possible answer drilling our way out or the other red herrings, the US won't even get to the starting line.

ANd a word on nuclear plants. They're too expensive. The right has done a pretty good job convincing everyone that the tree huggers are the only reason the country isn't run by the atom. Bullshit. There's not an expert on the sublect who hasn't said nuclear plants are notoriously white elephants and private companies run away from building them. If permits were handed out today with free land and the approval of "the people", no company would want to build one. WIthout copious govt financial intervention; which congress won't touch with a ten foot pole.

my 2 cents

Naked Cyclists

For better or worse, we already use a lot of coal. Increased utilization appears to by stymied by the definition of 'clean coal'. We don't know enough about global warming to make a commitment to carbon sequestration and we don't know enough about carbon sequestration to know how that would affect the cost.

Wind energy seems to be getting the biggest push right now, except in the southwest where renewable energy portfolio commitments are driving solar in California, Arizona, and Nevada.

The NRC is currently reviewing a dozen applications for new nuclear plants. I'm fairly confident that nuclear and renewables will be the focus for increased capacity over the next ten years. The biggest let-down for the 'clean' coal industry was the de-funding of the FutureGen prototype. Because I think we should have all our options on the table, I wasn't against this idea, but I don't think that coal technology will get the affirmation it needs without government investment.

I had written about CO2 capture and recycling through algae-to-biofuel techniques and a few states (like Arizona) are already doing this, but others have already deferred such plans until they see the results of the existing prototypes.

one of the leading consumers of solar tehnology. They primarily use solar to provide electricity to rural areas rather than extend the grid. They also have a significant investment in wind turbines, but not in comparison to Germany, Spain, Denmark or the U.S.

However, their recent massive earthquake may have been an earth-shaking experience for them. My understanding is that they have experienced significant reduction in coal production/distribution and they are heavily dependent on coal. It might have been enough of a shock to dissuade them from putting all of their hundred-year-old eggs in one basket.

To me, coal is, at best, a part of the transition. The switch from IC to electrical power for vehicle propulsion can begin now, we can proceed with the infrastructure, and as important as anything, we can start to make that emotional break from our love affair with the internal combustion engine.

But coal, at best, is not terribly clean. And so far, the electrical utilities, with support from our political leaders, have resisted upgrading their facilities to the current state of technology.

I suspect, from a greenhouse gas perspective, coal-generated electrical power for vehicles might be slightly better than internal combustion, just because of the inherently superior efficiency -- IC is notoriously inefficient. But it is no panacea. It would help with localized air quality in densely populated metro areas though -- still dumping comparable amounts of crap into the atmosphere, but in areas where it can be more easily dispersed, compared to, eg, the Los Angeles Basin.

Eventually, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear etc must replace hydrocarbon-fired electrical power, but I don't think we should wait for those to become widespread before starting the transition away from IC propulsion.

oil plants...the conversion is not too bad from #6 to fluidized bed and for the next 20 years or so the carbon output isn't going to matter much between #6 and coal..they are pretty damn near identical...more heavy metals in the coal and it is more likely to create monoxide. Gassfied would be good for either power plant or marine and it burns failry clean ... a bit more expensive though.

yes we should begin creating the market for renewables right now and electric cars are an exellent start.

Some of us have had photovoltaic cells implanted in our skin, and between that and specialized clothing, we can generate quite a bit of extra electricity.

is only 60 to 78 inches beneath us...the constant temperature stasis of the earth's crust. It can heat in the winter and cool in the summer and yet we ignore it.

The btu value there is beyond measure.

today i am not invisible!!

hahahahah!!!