[Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN INTEGRATEDSOLUTION
Rolf Uhle
energiesnaturals at gmx.de
Thu May 22 02:08:07 CDT 2008
Hallo Roger,
this is absolutely my opinion.Only for long distance commuting and mixed
passenger/cargo applications, advanced (electric -regenerative) rail has
advantages.
Rolf
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 21 May 2008 16:07:35 -0400
> Von: "Roger Samson" <rsamson at reap-canada.com>
> An: "'Discussion of biomass pyrolysis and gasification'"
> <gasification at listserv.repp.org>, "'Mary Lehmann'"
> <mlehmann3 at austin.rr.com>
> CC: 'terrapreta group' <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Gasification] [Terrapreta] FUELS AND VEHICLES: AN
> INTEGRATEDSOLUTION
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
More information about the Gasification
mailing list