[Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATEDSOLUTION

Wed May 21 15:07:35 CDT 2008

Yes mass urban transit is looking like a bit of a crappy (yes not very
scientific word either) strategy to reduce energy ..quite scary
http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
In china they now have 10's of million of electric bicycles, that’s the best
way to move people and reduce energy consumption 
electric bicycles are the most sustainable urban transport options after
shanks pony (for all you youngsters that’s means walking)

we need to gasify biomass for heat and power and then use electric bikes and
small electric cars for a more sustainable transport option. Much better
than liquid biofuels running conventional sized vehicles or big public
transit buses

Roger Samson

W: www.reap-canada.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org
[mailto:gasification-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Greg and April
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:17 PM
To: Mary Lehmann
Cc: terrapreta group; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification
Subject: Re: [Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN
INTEGRATEDSOLUTION

Funny you should say that.

One of the local news stations did a study to see if it would be possable to
ditch the car and take the bus, and reported on it last night.

Local price of fuel - $3.66 / gal
Local price of a bus ticket ( one way ) - $1.50

Going from the news station to the baseball stadium during evening rush hour
cost $1.50, requires 2 transfers and 3 buses

A reporter and a photojournalist decided to take to trip one using his
vehicle the other the bus from the same starting point leaving at the same
time.

Time they both left the bus top near the station was 4:43 ( had the rider of
the bus missed it, the next bus would not have been by until 5:54 ).

The time the driver took in the POV arrived at the stadium was 30 minutes,
with the consumption of .64 gal of gas for a cost of $2.36 per person

The time it took the rider on the bus was 1:05 for the cost of $1.50 ( what
we don't know is the average number of people on the busses or what kind of
mileage they get, but it can be logically assumed that they don't get but
more than about 8-10 mpg )

A difference of  $0.86 and 40 minutes.

At first glance this looks fairly good - 

OTOH assuming they both stayed and watch a ballgame, the driver of the car,
would have made the return trip in about 20 minutes and a corresponding
decrease in fuel consumption due to lack of traffic, and the rider of the
bus would have had to either walk back or get a taxi, because the busses
don't run that late.    We also don't know how many miles per gal / per
person the busses get, yet I know for a fact that on many routes they run
almost empty except during the busiest times of day. - I also know that this
is true of many types of mass transit in many cities across the US.

Riders on the bus, that used the bus to get to and from work, told the
photojournalist, that they have to leave home up to 1 hr earlier in the day
to ensure that they get to work on time and about the same coming home in
the evening - assuming they didn't miss the bus and that it was running on
schedule.

Locally it doesn't matter where you are going, it's going to take at least
twice as long to take the bus as it is in a POV, and that's assuming that
you caught the right one and that they are running on schedule.

Last year there was a time when one of our vehicles was in the shop for
work, and since I needed the only other one we had for the kids, my wife
tried to take the bus.    It worked out that she needed 2 hrs in the morning
and 2 hrs in the evening to go and from work, which was only 15-20 min away
in a POV.

Now if your time is worth $1 an hour ( or less ) - then the bus would make
perfect sense, from a fuel, time and cost efficiency stand point.

If your time is worth more than $1 / hr, the total efficiency is with the
personal automobile.    

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that different places have
different transportation systems and each has to be evaluated on it's own
merits, and don't forget that while it varies with each bus, unless each bus
is running proximity 1/2 full, then it is getting poorer mileage than
someone driving an old pickup. 

The entire idea that mass transit is a cure all answer for all places and
all individuals, is phony.

Greg H.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mary Lehmann 
  To: Benjamin Domingo Bof 
  Cc: terrapreta group ; Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification ;
killer_ape-peak_oil at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:00
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATED SOLUTION

  This effort is sad to see, however well intentioned it is, because in the
first place the need to use less energy has been confused with energy
efficiency.  If my car gets extra miles to the gallon, what is to keep me
from driving more miles? This is like that phoney drive to add wider, faster
roads to shorten commuter time.  People just moved farther out.

  In the second place, no account has been taken of the fact that there will
not be the available energy to make the passenger cars, compared with the
energy economy of mass transit vehicles.  As the energy shortage gets worse
(yes, before it gets better, if you like), manufacturers and finally the
public will be unwilling to forego mass transit vehicles.  We will be like
the Easter Islanders opposing burning the last trees which should be saved
for making boats in which to move away.

  Mary Lehmann
  ====================================================================

  On May 16, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Benjamin Domingo Bof wrote:

         Fuels and vehicles: an integrated solution  

         The use of fossil fuels in transport creates enormous greenhouse
gas emissions.  In Canada, in fact, cars and trucks produce more than 30% of
all GHG emissions.  To make meaningful progress in reducing GHGs, we must
address the transport sector.  Individually, advanced new transport fuels
and vehicle technologies contribute to GHG emission reductions.  However,
the most effective way to reduce CO2 in transport is through an approach
which integrates both vehicles and fuels.
          To achieve this, both vehicles and fuel manufacturers are spending
billions of dollars to develop and deliver cleaner, more efficient systems
that use less gasoline.  But typically, vehicle and fuel solutions are
looked at in separate silos.
          Historical Agreement Made in 2006:  Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen
are Combining Fuel and Vehicle Technologies for an Integrated Solution
          On January 8, 2006, Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen signed a letter of
intent to conduct a study into the economic feasibility of producing
cellulose ethanol in Germany.

          Left to right:  Rob Routs, Executive Director Downstream (Oil
Products and Chemicals) Royal Dutch Shell; Brian Foody, President, Iogen
Corporation; Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, Chairman of the Board of Management
of Volkswagen AG.
          This marks the first time that an automotive manufacturer has
partnered with an oil company and a technology company to explore the
commercialization opportunity of clean transport fuel such as cellulose
ethanol.  Volkswagen, Shell and Iogen face a common challenge to deliver
mobility to people through the cars they drive and the fuels they use, and
to do it in a sustainable way.  And the biggest challenge for sustainability
is dealing with CO2 emissions.  By working together, the three organizations
are committed to meeting our sustainability challenges through an integrated
approach that uses the most cost effective solutions first.
          Cellulose ethanol is one of the fuel options that:
            a.. reduces overall CO2 emissions from vehicles 
            b.. runs in today's cars without any need for automobile
modifications or changes to the fuel distribution system and 
            c.. is economical in comparison with all alternatives including
many vehicle technology solutions 
          Running any of the many available flexible fuel vehicles on
cellulose ethanol E85 is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce GHG
emissions in transport.  Currently, there are more than 4 million FFVs on
the road in the United States.  Even running today's regular vehicles on a
blend of 10% cellulose ethanol will reduce GHGs by close to 10 grams of CO2
for every kilometre driven. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tarjeta de crédito Yahoo! de Banco Supervielle. Solicitá tu nueva
Tarjeta de crédito. De tu PC directo a tu casa. 
    Visitá www.tuprimeratarjeta.com.ar
    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
_______________________________________________
Gasification mailing list
Gasification at listserv.repp.org
http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/gasification_listserv.repp.org
http://gasifiers.bioenergylists.org
http://info.bioenergylists.org