Obama aims for oil independence

[Nick1911]

Gewehr98:

I have a great deal of respect for people who take it upon themselves to work towards energy independence.  That said, I feel that funding it with taxpayer dollars is wrong.  I believe that if green alternatives are currently economically viable, private industry would be jumping at the opportunity to take advantage of them.  With the current level of technology and innovation, these alternative are not economically viable on a large scale.  Only by propping up these alternatives with taxpayer dollars can this industry exist.  For that reason, I view it as going against the fundamental grain of capitalism.  I do not see how it is fundamentally different from bailing out US automakers - they are another group that isn't economically viable, but will be saved at the publics expense.

Having lived in Denver and Sacramento, I'm very much in favor of clean air.  Waking up to see a brown haze blocking the sunrise isn't a fun thing at all. I rode my Harley every day through the brown soup that is Sacramento air, and it's amazing that I didn't end up with respiratory problems.

Air is a communal thing.  The question is, what are we willing to regulate away for the public good.  Truthfully, it could be argued that banning everything from automobiles, cigarette's, alcohol (didn't we try this one?), McDonald's, to Remington Arms and beyond is beneficial to the public.

[Teknoid]

*ahem*

Even the Chinese have higher fuel and emissions standards NOW than what California is proposing. This exact debacle played out in the 70's with catalytic converters. The automotive industry said that it couldn't be done and that the costs would be disastrous. The actual result was innovation, and cleaner air today in a city such as Denver than in the 70's, even with several times as many cars on the road.

*** help us if we can't keep up with China.

http://www.autoproject.org.cn/english/new_advance_en/Pew.pdf

Have you ever BEEN to China? I have, and during the winter you need a mask to walk around in most cities. The majority heat with coal. Dirty coal. It's like walking around in a sulphur fog. Not pleasant. Not clean, either.

[wquay]

Have you ever worked on a car from the mid 1970's to the early 80's?  The emissions controls made those automobiles dogs (compared to the cars of the 1960s).  The only innovation I see as the consequence was that they made cars lighter (unibody construction and thinner gauge materials became the norm) and hence more disposable. 

But this is the usual cost I suppose.  You could either have a heavy emissions spewing car with a full frame and doesn't just rust away over night or you could have the American dream of disposable everything.

But they eventually got it right, to the benefit of everyone. And while I won't comment on vehicles from the 70's and 80's, cars today seem LESS disposable. How many vehicles from the 60's went 200k+ miles?

[wquay]

Have you ever BEEN to China? I have, and during the winter you need a mask to walk around in most cities. The majority heat with coal. Dirty coal. It's like walking around in a sulphur fog. Not pleasant. Not clean, either.

Right, which is why they're now increasing environmental regulations. China has paid a terrible cost for industrialization. I just hope they don't beat us to the green revolution.

[Nick1911]

But they eventually got it right, to the benefit of everyone. And while I won't comment on vehicles from the 70's and 80's, cars today seem LESS disposable. How many vehicles from the 60's went 200k+ miles?

I'm not an automotive engineer, but my best friend is.

As such, I'm strongly of the opinion that the 200k mile car has everything to do with motor oil and metallurgy and nothing to do with federal emission requirements.

I also believe that an accident that would mess up the bumper a little on a 60's Ford would total a 2009 Prius.  YMMV.

[GigaBuist]

I'm also known around these parts for attempting to go off-grid in my personal living style, with varying degrees of success.

I'm not foisting it upon others by using APS as a sounding board for my green style of living, but I do see some very vitriolic responses to what may be a good thing, if properly implemented.

THIS is how we're going to go "green" in this country.  Forward thinking citizens will invest in the technologies that are actually viable.  You're picking stuff that works for you.  The companies providing those products will have more money for R&D to scale them up to larger installations if their ideas pan out on a small scale.

I've got a coworker that just paid $21k to have a geothermal heating/cooling system put into his house.  He's out in the boonies and used a combination of propane, wood, and corn to heat his house before this was put in.  I swear cost effective heating solutions are this guy's hobby.  He's putting money into solutions that work.

I've seen other guys online that have converted Geo Metros to electric motors for as little as $650 dollars.  Sure it only goes 40mph and has a range of 30 miles, but that's what it got with the gas engine, right? :)

On Slashdot.org I've seen guys that rig up their central AC unit to solar panels and battery packs.  They disconnect the AC unit from the house's power grid to keep it simple.  If it's hot the sun's out, right?  Makes sense to me, and they always have the options of plugging the unit back in if needed.

As for myself I keep trying to come up with a way to keep my driveway free of ice and snow without paying for the energy.  I really don't give a rat's behind about the environment.  I'm a cheap bastard that wants to save money on a plow service every year and never ever have an icy driveway.

I work in IT.  I hang out with tech nerds and "green" energy is sorta the talk of the town lately.  It's exciting and offers up opportunities for the home hackers.  Out of this experimentation and cottage industry we WILL see some useful products.

Well, provided that the government doesn't get in the way of them coming to market.