Yes we do need to do something about oil, but doing things that look good that really aren't good, is not helping.

The technology we have now, I find it hard to believe we cannot come up with an alternative fuel source that won't either cause more damage than it fixes or cripple us agriculturally (ethanol).

People still need to get to work and school, and it takes a lot fewer years to increase mpg than to reorganize how cities are laid out.

All things considered, the move to smaller cars is going to have a much bigger impact than hybrids, sure. But that doesn't mean that new technology doesn't help.

I reran my previous numbers with Prius vs Corolla (not really an exact comparison, since the Prius is roomier and has more features). The Prius pays for itself in a little more than half the time than Civic Hybrid does. So someone who bought a Prius today and kept it for a few years could have a reasonable expectation of saving a small amount of money.

Hybrids didn't make any economic sense for the people who first bought them a few years ago. Today, it's mostly a wash. But in a few years, they will make a lot of sense.

An aritcle on Bio-Fuels and their future.

Sad to see Nalgene cave to this nonsense. The research on bisphenol-A is pretty clear: It's about as harmful as Tylenol.

Well researched, its nice to see there are some promising advancements. Its funny, in that it seems to me, that any new advancements don't seem to take off until those with money, i.e. oil execs & government, can find a way to make money on it or tax it, then it seems to find its way to the main stream.

Well written and definately educational for me. It's frustraiting that of the 3 major sources of ethanol, we produce and use the one that is driving food & produce costs up. Granted ethanol from alge appears to be fairly new, but, if I read that right, sugar cane isn't.

Cane sugar is very well researched and accounts for at least 20% of all transportation fuels for Brazil currently. There is still some food and feed industry competition when it comes to cane sugar, but not nearly as significant as corn based ethanol. The reason corn was used first in the US is due to it's availability. This is also why us in the Midwest US have seen E85 ethanol at the pump for about a year now. (Gas City pumps most predominately). Cellulosic ethanol from plant waste is the second generation of ethanol biofuels that can currently see it's future. Algal...well, that might still be a bit of science fiction, or at least well over a decade away as the required technology is still a very immature work in progress. Also, the infrastructure won't begin to be developed or invested in until the technology is proven and tested and people can embrace it as well.

So, a decade before we're splitting transportation fuels significantly (25%-50%) with ethanol biofuels. I would put algal biofuels or a heavy dependence (>50%) on biofuels in general closer to the two decade mark.

Thanks for letting me hijack this thread. Peace.

The first studies of the dangerous effects of BPA were released in 1985, when it was discovered to be a synthetic estrogen.

For those of us who see that fossil fuel emmisions in the US are a serious problem then the additional cost of hybrids becomes more economical.

I am guessing you also believe that global warming is a hoax inspired by "Greenies" to sell more hybrids right?

Well written and definately educational for me.

The debate on the questionable economics of hybrids is not taking into account the increased environmental impact of standard vehicles, which is not even factored into the equation. So if you only think with your wallet then maybe you should drive around in a Geo Metro. For those of us who see that fossil fuel emmisions in the US are a serious problem then the additional cost of hybrids becomes more economical. I suppose you could supply yourself with a whole bunch of cigarettes to smoke in your Metro though......I am guessing you also believe that global warming is a hoax inspired by "Greenies" to sell more hybrids right?

Besides omitting the little side notes of how Brazil has been deforesting the amazon at a very destructive rate to create more farm land, the rising food prices caused by production of ethanol, the amount of new farm land and federal subsidy (tax dollars) needed to increase ethanol production, etc, etc, etc.

Your economic analysis neglects lost opportunity on the additional money initially invested in the more expensive vehicle, and the finance charges.

Your environmental analysis neglects the additional environmental impact of manufacturing more complicated machines. More parts made initially, more long term maintenance, more replacement parts manufactured, etc. Regarding batteries, recycling or not, there is still the environmental impact of mining the additional metals, manufacturing of the chemicals, etc. Not to mention recycling itself has an environmental impact and doesn't reclaim 100%.

Your corolla/ prius comparison is a good one. With a real world mileage comparison of about 47 mpg for the prius and the high 30's for the corolla, how does the $ work out? What if your corolla was a PZEV, how does the environmental impact work out?

Hybrids don't currently make sense, and I'll be surprised if they ever do, other than as a gateway to people's acceptance of plug-in electric cars.

So what non-hybrid PZEV vehicles are available on the market? This is something I would pay for (no economic payoff, but peace of mind).

I'm sure the lawyers are licking their chops over the prospect of all the BPA class action lawsuits.

Electric cars were tried and discarded 10 years ago. They only get ~100 miles and then take several hours to charge. Not practical for most people.

An aritcle on Bio-Fuels and their future.

I didn't read the whole thing, but the general gyst that I got from it was blends of around 10% ethanol were the only practical ideas. Pretty accurate- there just isn't enough arible land (even if it was all put towards it) to supply enough ethanol to replace petrolium.

You should have read the article first, or maybe with your comprehension skills, reading it twice would have been in order.

May be if you had presented something a little more substantial than an amateurish college term paper... You have, in your paper, presented neither an argument for or against any current policies; often quoted sensational comments from sources instead of providing any analysis of the studies. Your conclusion completely switched topic to automobiles. Do I really need to go on?

Since you are in academia, then you certainly have heard the stories of some poor soul having his publication rejected. When the reviewer was confronted by the fact he did not read the whole thing, he simply said one DOES NOT need to read the entire publication to know it's not up to the standard.

I did do this in two days, and no, two days is not two years to conduct my own research and studies and come to my own earth shattering conclusions.