Scooter Polluter

She loves her smog machine! Huh? Yes, an article in "The Idaho Statesman," spells it out in black and white:

"It's true. The cleanest scooter is still dirtier than a car," said John Swanton, air pollution specialist with the California Air Resources Board."

While scooters and motorcycles use less gasoline, they create more smog due to their lack of emissions controls. The article further states:

"Some motorcycles emit as much hydrocarbon in 10 miles as a car driven 850 miles, according to Environmental Protection Agency studies."

It all goes back to choices. If your concern is saving money on gas, a scooter or motorcycle is the way to go. If you are eco-conscious, the answer may be any of a number of choices, like the Hummer they mentioned, or even better, the hydraulic hybrid Hummer, when it becomes available! DriveTime - The used car dealership for those with bad credit. Apply online.

If you are going to buy a scooter or motorcycle, make sure you have the proper training, helmet and leather gear. I recommend Timot Leather, as I have seen how their products perform in actual accidents, which was spectacular! Additionally, make sure the scooter or motorcycle suits your needs and is certified by either the EPA or state environmental boards (like California). Taste the Purest Tea on the Planet – Organic and Fair Trade Certified Shop Numi Organic Tea

From the article: "... a rise in substandard Asian imports, Swanton said. These cheap and dirty scooters and motorcycles do not comply with EPA standards. In 2005, the EPA issued an enforcement alert warning importers and the public about non-EPA compliant motorcycles and scooters entering the U.S. market."

Finally, ride responsibly!

Common Sense vs. Ethanol

As I wrote in a previous post, "Adding up the Cost of Ethanol," the production of ethanol takes more fuel than it creates, it uses 10,000 liters of water for the 5 liters it returns, and it is made by using food crops. As you can imagine, this is about one of the worst strategies for decreasing dependence on foreign oil.

Finally, responsible adults have started to speak up. Governor Rick Perry of Texas has asked the US EPA "...to temporarily waive regulations requiring the oil industry to blend ever-increasing amounts of ethanol into gasoline." according to the New York Times. His contention is that ethanol is causing food prices to sky rocket, including animal feed. Of course, farmers and ethanol producers don't want any waiver.

Some big names have lined up on both sides of this issue. "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, has introduced legislation calling for a freeze of the mandate at the current level, saying it “is clearly causing unintended consequences on food prices.” The measure is co-sponsored by 11 other Republican senators, including John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee." Some could argue that these Senators are in the pocket of ranchers and the preeminent boogie man, "Big Oil."

That same argument can be applied by those who are against the waiver, namely Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. He has been a major recipient of ADM largess. Grassley has stated that support of this waiver is "treasonous." Sure, treason. Good grief!

There is another way to look at this, though. Corn farmers are claiming that fuel costs, as well as those for fertilizer have gone up, thus his prices have to go up to cover his costs. That is reasonable. They also claim that they geared up to meet the regulations and demand for ethanol. If that demand changes because of a change in regulation, then they are stuck with way too much corn. While I sympathize with argument, hey, that's business. How did every liquor manufacturer feel when Prohibition went into effect? The same is true for Freon and other things that regulation has changed the market for.

So what does all of this mean? Probably not much. Oil is still expensive. Anything that uses petroleum and its associated products are going up in price. With or without ethanol, the cost of a bushel of corn will probably stay fairly high, because of the cost of fuel and fertilizer. However, it is good that folks are finally catching on that ethanol is a loser.

Hybrid Hummer Hums

**Read the follow-on article, "Big Green Trucks!" and learn about flywheel hybrids here!**

Huh? A Hummer hybrid? Yes, the picture you see is of a Hummer H1 Hydraulic Hybrid. Hybra Drive Systems and Gates Corporation built this Hummer H1 with a fully hydraulic power train. Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

So, what is an hydraulic hybrid and what should anybody think about them? Much like any other hybrid, there is an gas/diesel engine that is mated with another motor powered by some other source. Most passenger car hybrids are gasoline engines with battery-powered, electric motors, while hydraulic hybrids don't use batteries, but rather hydraulic accumulators to store energy. Hybrid batteries are store approximately 1.3 Kw/hr, while hydraulic accumulators "...have power densities of roughly 500 kW/kg, according to Jim O’Brien, founder and chief technology officer for Hybra Drive Systems, a start-up focusing on the development of hydraulic power trains." (found at DesignNews.com)

They work this way, from Design News:

Design concepts for hydraulic hybrids vary, but the car’s engine powers a hydraulic pump motor, which charges a high-pressure accumulator. The accumulator, in turn, drives one or more additional pump motors connected to the wheels. A second lower pressure accumulator completes the hydraulic circuit. Depending on the design, there may be one pump motor to drive a pair of wheels through a differential or one pump motor per wheel for an all-wheel-drive version with independent torque control. During braking, the pump motors on the wheels reverse themselves, re-charging the accumulator and capturing energy that would otherwise be lost to heat.

OK, so why is this better than an electric hybrid and why isn't it available today? For one reason, it will be easier to dispose of hydraulic fluid than it is to recycle hybrid batteries. Secondly, because they are just so efficient over battery hybrids. Would you feel better if you had more energy? Try FRS® Healthy Energy™ Free*!

"Kargul (Technology Transfer Director at National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Lab) says the gains came from three sources — running the engine at its sweet spot, operating the vehicle with the engine off and capturing braking energy. The regenerative braking capabilities of these systems... can far outshine the electric hybrids... made possible by the high power density of accumulators. Kargul says the EPA’s hydraulic hybrids typically capture at least 70 percent of the braking energy otherwise be lost to heat. He estimates electric hybrids capture more like 20 to 25 percent, because their batteries... have comparatively poor power density. “You would have to triple the size of the batteries to come close to 70 percent,” he says.

Although hydraulic hybrids are now being used in pilot programs on mainly commercial trucks, there are passenger cars being tested also. The current delay to mass acceptance is that the hydraulic pumps are big and expensive. Additionally, the most efficient system will have to do away with the typical, mechanical transmission.




While these challenges aren't insurmountable, they do allow for battery hybrids to rule the roost, so to speak. Fortunately, the free market is learning about this concept, and have begun to catch on. Parker Hannifin, Siemens and Eaton Corporation are the leaders in providing the hydraulic components, not to mention successful companies in their own right.

Green Losers

The purpose of this blog has been to use rational thinking and basic economic principles to evaluate the more popular solutions to the "green crisis." While I promote conservation, new technology, and a clean environment, they all have to be approached with an understanding of costs. When the need to evaluate a position no longer requires empirical data, it is going to be a bad decision.

Business Week reported in the June 30 print edition that companies who signed up for the US EPA's Climate Leaders Initiative lost, on average, 0.9% of its share price in two days, "...more than it would have from normal market factors." This was the result of research done by two Dartmouth College professors, Karen Fisher-Vanden and Karin Thorburn.

The studies goes on to point out that:

Companies in carbon-heavy industries such as utilities, though, don't take as much of a hit. In those cases, ...investors view participation as a preemptive move against all but certain regulations."

What this article points out is that the market doesn't view cutting greenhouse gases as good way to spend the shareholders' money, at least in some industries. Rational investors seem to have figured this out, change when necessary, but not before.

Nuclear, Silver Bullet or Money Pit

When discussing the "energy crisis," one of main issues is electricity, including its generation and distribution. In the US, electricity is mainly generated by burning fossil fuels, however, nuclear power generates about 20% of nations electricity, with hydroelectric, and to a much smaller degree wind and solar rounding out the list (numbers, source EPA).

When considering what is the most efficient as well as "best" for the environment, nuclear seems to be a pretty good option. Its day to day generation of electricity doesn't produce any green house gases or other pollutants to global warming adherents fear. Were that not enough, the French produce 80% of their electricity through nuclear power. So why not more here in the US? Cheap? No. 100% Free. Trade stocks for free on Zecco.com. The Free Trading Community. www.zecco.com

In the July 7, 2008 print edition of "Business Week," there is an article titled, "Nuclear's Tangled Economics," (which is the source of all quotations in this post). It highlights presidential candidate John McCain's desire to have 100 new nuclear power plants. The article also highlights that current estimates put the cost at new plants at about $7 billion dollars. While that number is expected to grow as the cost of materials to build the plants grow, the question is whether it makes sense for power companies to build them.

One the first issues any such project is going to contend with is the cost of regulation. Fortunately, the US has standards for building new plants, as well as more efficient regulation. However, some power companies have decided to drop their projects. Most notably, MidAmerican Energy Holdings, "... a gas and electric utility owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway, shelved its own nuke plan earlier this year, saying it no longer made economic sense." Protect your Medical Identity with TrustedID. $1,000,000 Warranty & Great Customer Service

While Berkshire Hathaway shareholders should be grateful for the careful financial management of the company, they may also consider that NRG Energy, Dominion Resources, Duke Energy, and "...six other companies have already leaped to file applications to construct and operate new plants largely because of incentives Congress has put in place." The incentives are not just tax credits, but also $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. Considering the status of the credit markets, the loan guarantees can make all of the difference. eFax Annual Subscription

While nuclear energy is clearly one the best, proven, and clean technologies for electricity generation, it isn't without commercial risk. Each power company is going to have to review the risks, their capital positions, and the economic climate to determine is building a new, nuclear power plant is right for the share holders.

Reformulated Gas, Improving the Environment or Waste of Money?

In the US Midwest, gasoline was required to be reformulated, based on regions and their air quality conditions, under the 1995 Federal Clean Air Act. "Boutique blends" were created with the purpose of reducing ozone. Understandably, any time a standard product is customized, it increases its cost, and with these boutique blends are definitely more expensive, $0.14 more per gallon to be precise.

The Milwaukee Journal Standard posted an article on June 30 titled, "Some experts question benefits of reformulated gas, Wisconsin asks EPA to eliminate special fuel requirement," detailing the local experience with these blends.

The first point of the article is that the EPA hasn't been able to measure the effect of the reformulated gas as several other factors have changed. Automobiles now have better emissions systems, making them ULEV (ultra-low emission vehicles), as well as cleaner burning, non-formulated gasoline. As US fuel standards become more strict, the value of reformulated gasoline declines.

It should be clear to any consumer, as well as government regulators that with sweeping changes, cost-benefit analysis needs to be performed to insure the highest benefits are achieved at the least cost.

US Representative Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), says it best:

"Wisconsin is being needlessly penalized, ... Reformulated gas is an economic burden on motorists because a limited number of refiners are producing it and it's only being sold in specific markets, ... The current system basically sets up a system for high prices," Ryan said. From Green Bay to St. Louis, there are five different blends of fuels. That makes absolutely no sense.'"