PHEV hurt the environment more in Manufacturing?

On  Penn And Teller's "Bull Shit" they asked some hard environmental questions, all the while maintaining their brash and caustic sarcasm which viewers like you (an me) may find hilarious. They have addressed such issues as organics, hybrid cars, electric cars and nuclear power. They even went through the process of detailing how a hybrid car is actually more costly to the environment,  simply through its creation, than a Hummer. 

Cecil, a columnist on straightdope.com, addresses these concerns as some other pensive people wrote to him. What he says is very eye opening. He says that in any form it costs the environment and economy and you to get energy to your door. Through creation there is usually going to be petrol used in plants. 

However, there will still be petrol used in plants to create hummers as well. Which is something Penn and Teller neglected to delve into. But, Cecil describes, even with the use of petrol in manufacturing and delivery, Plug-in Hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and Battery electric vehicles (BEV) still get what amounts to 188mpg fuel economy equivalent when talking of the manufacturing and delivering of such a car.

He also details that it is easier to put environmental  restrictions on the plants themselves and that would actually save more for our environmental health.  

Sources

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2759/are-electric-cars-really-more-energy-efficient

Hydrogen and Foreign Oil

According to Fueleconomy.gov hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV) " have the potential to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and lower harmful emissions that cause climate change."

On their site the show a model of a hydrogen car that is made see through in places to give us an in-depth view of what a hydrogen vehicle would look like internally. In the back of the car, near the trunk, is the Hydrogen Storage tank. This device contains the hydrogen at 'extremely high pressure to increase driving range.' One may think that that would be dangerous and cause a Hindenburg reaction, cause puppies and small children to 'weep over your exploded body,' in the words of Charlie sheen. 

But this just isn't true. The combustion of hydrogen is violent, yes, but what you would get is something far different from the burning pit of hell we see in old film from the Hindenburg disaster. There has already been significant discovery about the problems that were a combined effort of the gas and paint and fabrics they used on the blimp (watch Myth Busters).

But the car they are showing also has a supplemental battery,  which is charged kinetically through the car's breaking,  to supply the electric motor with some extra energy. Next is the Fuel Cell Stack, which is located in between the driver's and passenger's seats (where the transmission is often located in regular gas powered cars), this takes the hydrogen gas and adds oxygen to create electricity to run the motor.  

 The engine.. or electric motor, itself is quieter and more efficient than a petrol run combustion engine, according to the site, and it even requires less maintenance. And the out put of such and engine? The harm to our environment? Nada (other than, probably, what is takes to create it), the hydrogen car releases only water as it's byproduct.

sources

fueleconomy.gov

Trump Part 2

I don't think there isn't a one citizen of the United states that would say the state our our nation is harmonious, in synchronicity with the outlying world and within; Financially, environmentally, socially and politically we are sound, we want of nothing.

                No, problems face Americans today, and just today but tomorrow. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, our children's children will be making the hard decisions on out bad one made today. I look at my son and want for him a world dissolved on political dissolutions and strife. But what would those 'right' choices be?

                In the near future I have no doubt that President Obama will emerge triumphant  in this upcoming lame duck election. The fight will me dirty, frivolous and vigorous. But one not-so-secret hopeful candidate seems to have his own strange ideas about what those 'right decisions for our country might be.

                In an interview on Bill O'Reilly's The No Spin Zone Donald trump addressed issue of foreign policy with Iran, Iraq and China. He also addressed the heavily media-frenzied 'birther' fiasco. With a man like Trump, so obviously fingering President Obama due to his race, as president where could we go wrong?

                Trump has certain ideas about the sovereignty of a nation that make his stance to be one made up of a for-profit only nation while being inconsiderate of morals and nationalism.

                Already in hot water after being accused of racism against African Americans, especially due to the birther ordeal, Trump said there is a worldwide "Muslim problem." When O'Reilly asked Trump said "Absolutely. I mean, I don't notice Swedish people knocking down the world trade center."

                To his credit he did go on to say that not all Muslim people are a problem. And then his brownies points were quickly revoked as he , true to nature, dove into his "I know a lot of [insert race here] people and they are [insert stereotype here]" saying that the Muslims he knew, while alluding to Muslims in masses, were smart and industrious peoples.

                Could Trump's unconscious or apparently self-ambivalent racism be a driving factor on his foreign policy policies? He targets 2nd world countries finances and recourse, proposing a 25percent tariff on Chinese goods. Perhaps his most frightening claims is that of his ideas about what should happen in Iraq.

                Trump posits that "15minutes after we leave [Iraq] Iran is going to go into Iraq" to control the oil. O'Reilly asked him, as president, what Trump would do if Iran did come to occupy Iraq. Trump responded saying, "We gotta stay[...] keep the oil[..] You stay and you keep the oil, if Iran is gunna take over the oil, we stay and we keep the oil."'

                He goes on to map out his plan of occupying Iraq militarily in order to gain control of the oil. There is one good thing to say about Trump, at least he's more forward about it then Bush.  His plans to take control of one the largest oil fields and dole out the oil by giving some back to Iraq and the rest to pay off countries that helped us with the war and our own deficit are imperialistic.

                Trump claimed he's war history buff in the interview with O'Reilly but his ignorance of history is astounding. He spouted off imperialist rhetoric as if it were as easily done as the package on one dollar bills as pocket tissues. He says war history is for nations to go in and occupy whereas "we conquer, go in and leave, hand it [the rule] over to people we don't even know." Imperialism doesn't have a good track record. Look at Cuba, Korea, India, Laos, Poland and many others and you will see Imperialism begins bloody and ends bloodier.

                As I stare into my son's eyes I see possibility, future and promise. I fear for him under the rule of such a man, I fear for my brother and all the brothers of our nation. I fear mass worldwide hostility, sovereign nations angered as they watch their nation being raped of their recourses and slip into depression under the burden heavy tariffs. I fear imperialistic, materialistic, meaningless war and the draft. I fear a repeat of Vietnam in Iraq. A war fought under the guise of righteousness when imperialism is the true goal.

Indiana, Not India

    President Obama knows our country's growth depends on cleaner supplies for energy, not off shore drilling. On May, 6 President Obama went to Alisson Transmission Headquarters where hybrid transmissions are manufactured. In the last year, as Obama says, the company ha added 50 new jobs and plans to add another 200 in just 2 more years.
    "This is where the jobs of the future are at," he says of Allison. Obama details his desires for our nation to steer away from the use of foriegn oils and move on to greener pastures. He says he wants the US to be the leader in the green movement and for other nations to buy these products from us. "I don't want the new breakthrough technologies and the new manufacturing taking place in China and India.  I want all those new jobs right here in Indiana, right here in the United States of America, with American workers, American know-how, American ingenuity." Obama's plan seems to be a tripple threat (in a good way). 1) We'll be making goods here and creating jobs for Americans. 2) If we can win the green race we'll be the leader in clean energy and other countries will buy from us and 3) we'll be bennefitiing the environment while reducing our expendeture on crude oils.
        Obama says in the next decade he hopes to reduce our foreign oil expense by one third. He says that simply drilling more, here in the US, wont help. We're already drilling more than ever before, he says, and where we only hold 2-3 percent of the world's oil reserves and consume a quarter, we simply can't "drill our way out of the problem."
      A proponent of clean engery Obama seems to be on the road to creating more jobs for our nation as well as helping out the environment emensly day by day.
          
    

Sweet Crude

      Oil can be sweet or sour, heavy or light, thick or thin and it can even smell differently depending on where it is harvested. These differences in crude oil (aka petroleum) can effect the price of each barrel and can determine what it would be best used for.
       Sweet oil (oil that has a low sulfer content) is most easily refined and is most often used for gasoline. When reading the names of the types of oil extracted from different areas around the world I simply think 'delicious.' It sounds like it should be coffee! (Brent Blend of the North Sea, Bonny Light of Nigeria, Basra light of Iraq, Arab light of Saudi Arabia, Saharan blend of Algeria - mmmmMMMmmm).
      Anything made with petrochemicals uses oil(pretoleum) and this includes anything plastic, waxes, clothing, shoes, paint, rubber, resin, paper and even food and water can contain petrochemicals. In the medical world plastic is a must have for keeping tool sterile and keeping things contained.
       According to the EIA there is actually an increase of about 6% for each barrel of crude oil. This means through the process of refineing the oil we actually get more return (they made the likeness to popping a bag of poppcorn). They also say that 6.8 gallons of every barrel go to 'other uses' not related to fuels. Nearly half of the barrel is used for gasoline, which is about 20 gallons. Deisl fuel accounts for approximately 10 gallons of the total barrel. If we reduce the amount of oil used for fuels we'd be better off by over a half!
      I admit some things are nessasary to use crude oil for, but we have a chance to significantly reduce that use when considering how much is used for fuels. I love driving my cars, gas guzzlers that they are. But I cannot afford a hybrin, electric or biodeisl car. Heck, I cant even afford a newer more reliable car as it is. The govt needs to give out some hefty incentives if they are going to acheive the goals set forth by the energy policy act of 2005.

      




Sources

http://www.oilprices.org/types-of-crude-oil.html
http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/uses/plastic.html
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/325petrochem.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=oil_home-basics

Sick Boy-o

             My poor son, 9-month-old Aiden (whom I call boy-o or lovey), has been sick off and on for a while now. The first time he was sick I was terrified. I had this idea that one little cold would kill my baby boy. But that is not true, I am relieved to have discovered. However, it is still heart wrenching to hear your child congested and struggle to breath at night or coughing so hard he makes himself sick.
            The first time he was sick his temperature got up to 100.4. I was mortified and immediately wanted to rush him to the emergency room - this was a bit of an over-reaction, so I am told. I've found, so far, that there is nothing more scary than anything which threatens the life and comfort of your child.
            My doctor said he just needs alot of rest and fluids... just like a sick adult. He also said that children who attend daycare will seem like they are sick all-the-time, but later in school wont get sick as kids that didnt go to daycare. I am satisfied with that. Only there is this problem with missing school - for me. Daycare wont accept him when he's got a goober-face and a cough-so-hard-I-puke cough. I am more than happy to stay home and take care of my sick baby when he needs me. But it is getting difficult to keep up. I hope someone else is taking good notes that I can pilfer!! :)
          Right now he is peacefully napping with his Cloud B lamb that plays 4 different soothing sounds. They really help him to fall asleep. He used to SCREAM for nap time, but now he'll just fuss a little and curl up next to his lamby that I always put on 'heartbeat' mode. It is actually very soothing for me too, definetly more soothing than baby screams.

Electric Car Tax

I have just come across a couple of intersting articles. These articles have inspired some serious thought on my part about the future of oil in our country (the nessasity) and the future of electric cars.

One article I found details the law that the Senate apporved for a $100 tax per year for electric cars. This tax proposed because polititans fet that owners of electric cars were not doing their part to invest in the roads because they were not paying the tax on the gasoline. Well, this seems to defeat one of the purposes of owning an electric car, anyway. The purpose of avoinding pricey gas and going eletric is countermannded by this tax. While electric cars may still bennefit the environment it seems the government just wants to make it more expensive and harder to do.

So I decided to find out if the gas taxes really even go toward roads. Turns out they do, however, in the article I read it turns out that all the revenues combimes which are car related are not ven enough to pay for the roads people use daily. Money from other areas is needed to pay for the roads. This article suggested that simply building the roads was harmful to the envirnment and that we should follow suit with other countries and replace our freeways and highways with highspeed rail cars.

Could the future of the car be to drive only in the city?  It seems we may actually be able to become even less dependant on foreign oil than I thought. If we use rail systems we would be less dependant on cars and thus oil. We would not longer have to buld pricey roads and pay for the upkeep. It sounds like a great idea, but American's don't like to be crammed in tight spaces with a bunch a strangers... hmm

Sources.
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/03/30/1597321/senate-oks-road-tax-on-electric.html
http://www.uspirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/transportation/transportation2/a-track-record-of-success-high-speed-rail-around-the-world-and-its-promise-for-america