I agree Iraq had nothing to do with oil when we invaded them, however, Pakistan, who we invaded first, has had a major oil pipeline installed as a result of our invasion there. I'm also not so sure nuclear is the way to go for power until we can find a safe way to eliminate the waste it produces. A nuclear powered car does sound interesting though. P.S. if I can go to Google Earth, and see cars on the streets from space, why can't Bush find Osama Bin Laden? Doesn't our government have better intel equipment than that? hmmmmmmm. Again, I AM republican, just a realist.

 

I agree about bin laden. Why isn't he dead? That should be job one imo. Something doesn't seem right about him still breathing.

 

Maybe we'l "find" him in October, right before the election. That would be fresh in everyone's mind and that would help McCain. I also wonder why we can't find him with todays technology?

 

Thank Bill Clinton. He told Sudan when they called and offered his head on a platter:

"Thanks anyway, but we're treating this a law-enforcement matter."

In other words, he lacked the cojones to pull the trigger.



And technology isn't going to help much where he's hiding. He's surrounded by rock, in the mountain caves, and guarded by loyal tribes on all sides. Gonna be tough footwork. No other way.

 

When I said nuclear, it was to power cars, it was to make electricity, which in turn would help power cars along with other alternitive fuels. I like my combustion engines and want them to be able to produce something that I can burn besides oil.

 

And then consider that the Bush Admin had "Intel" on where Saddam Hussien was on the night the war was launched yet missed. And didn't find Saddam until months and billions spent later. And still hasn't found Bin Laden after years and billions. Billions spent that have been borrowed from our children and their children, billions that have led to the current economic problems with inflation and mortgage crisis.

For some reason I prefer President Clinton's actions. Those actions were less expensive. The budget was balanced. Planes weren't flying into buildings.

 

Used with dc pcm & other sophisticated controls, monohydroxy is the single-most effective & least polluting fuel in existence for a car. Water4gas produces a less efficient hydroxy & hydrogen from refineries isn't much better than the whole E85 debate. The 2nd best fuel for a car should probably be DC motors running off a battery recharged by power stations. I don't get all the political arguing when monohydroxy is relatively easy to get from tapwater. I haven't done it yet as I need money to build stuff & something running nearly perfect to prove it in.
I've never had anything capable of dealing with E85 either. Curiously, when I had the big blue 03 Ranger Edge, I'd put 1/2 a tank of Sunoco 89 octane (E10 I guess) in the tank & the next morning, it belched so much black smoke, I barely made it to a BP station for nice premium stuff. That Sunoco outfit probably had water & crud in thier tanks, but GEEZ. All our stuff loves BP 87 octane from nearly any station in the Metro area night or day, busy or not.

 

Umm, I read from the creator of the monohydroxy generator (on demand) that it should cost about $2000 for the electronics to be commercially built - then there is the cell where all the violent splitting occurs. Close tolerance special work. I'll probably make do with something cheaper to build eventually. Unless I find my engineering & machining talents on par with the best in the industry.

 

The planes flying into buildings was the start of this mess and if I'm not mistaken, Clinton lacking the ***** to do something earlier is most likely the problem. But of course as always to some just bury your head in the sand and maybe someone else will do your dirty work! E85 is not nor will it be the answer! Just look at the prices of food and things we all need for everyday it affects. My bet would be on a hydrogen car.

 

Why in the world would you use some political correct fuel. It takes a gallon
and a half of fuel to make one gallon of E-85. Gas will always be here untill they make us ride horses, and that I'll never do.

 

Brasil's used Ethanol for 20+ years. If it was that bad, why are they still using it? Hydrogen is negative-net fuel as well. Takes more energy (and $) to produce than it gives back.

 

Yes, however they use mostly a sugar beet crop to do so. It has a much higher sugar content for making e85. It takes more energy to make ethanol than we get out of it, What do you think the fuels they use to make ethanol are? We pay more at the grocery store, we pay more in taxes because of subsidies! It doesn't benifit any of us! Look people stand up to the tree huggers and drill!! In the meantime, hydrogen isn't the answer now, but it can be. Research and the means to do so can happen. Ethanol isn't and never will be the answer to this countries problem, it isn't even a bandaid! All it is is a sham and shame on those who try to pull the wool over all of our eyes!

 

It only costs more energy when it is derived from corn. Plus it is a horrible waste of land, and requires more precious water than what would otherwise be growing on the same land. When it comes from sugar beets or sugar cane, we see a gain, which is why Brazil has been able to commercially sustain ethanol as long as they have. In our country, this is harder to do, we do not have the same climate as Brazil.

Hydrogen will never be the answer, it always takes more power to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen produces. The energy you get from a given amount of hydrogen is about 1/3rd the amount of energy that was used to create it. Plus they are pushing it as a possible remedy to global warming since it supposedly produces zero emissions. What they don't tell you is that it actually produces the most powerful greenhouse gas on the planet.

I believe that hybrids and plug in hybrids, and all-electric cars are a good part of the solution. The GM EV1 was hugely successful, and the only reason it was canned was because it was a conflict of interest. GM had recently acquired Hummer, which stands for gas guzzler. Within weeks of purchasing Hummer, the EV1 project was recalled. GM officially reported problems and potential problems, all of which were exaggerated or falsified. This car regularly achieved the equivalent of 120 miles per gallon, and could peak out at an equivalent 200 mpg. Obviously this is a better solution, but in numbers, the problem would be the strain on the power grid. In a sense, this can be considered a hydrogen powered car, if it uses nickel metal hydride batteries, the difference is that instead of being used as a consumed fuel, the hydrogen acts as an energy modifier/carrier in a metal substrate. The other advantage is unlike fuel cells or internal combustion engines, the electric car is up to 90% energy efficient, meaning the energy released turns into useful motion instead of heat.

 

The only country that I'm reading about using sugar beets as fuel stock is Fwance. And I'm also reading that sugarcane is by far the most efficient stock (sugar) for making ethanol.

You have links to your back up your statements?