By 2035, Smarter Technology Should Triple Efficiency of Regular Gas-Powered Cars, If They're Still Around

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Leave my horsepower alone!!!!! Leave it aloonnneeee!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

lol j/k aside, I bet if we can curb traffic (no pun intended) we can save a huge amount of gas and hinder pollution.

I do not disagree that we should seek and get greater efficiency from our various modes of transportation - from bicycles to passenger jets. With respect to autos, I have concerns about safety, especially during a transition period from two-ton cars, to one-ton cars not only from the standpoint of the two types colliding but also, controlling them under windy conditions. I am certain however, those things will work themselves out over time and lives.

Now then with regard to the statement: " but the savings – according to DeCicco’s models – would be vast."

What savings?

Gasoline savings? Why save gasoline, what inherent value does it possess? Is gas like gold, a store of value?

No, petrol is useless for any other purpose than burning it and there seems to be plenty of petroleum around for petro-chemical feedstock. As far as I am concerned, burn it, burn it all and once it is all gone, perhaps then we will stop seling our national security and our economy, to oil rich nations. Depleting the resource sooner rather than later will force us to accelerate conversion to greater fuel efficiency and alternative clean technologies than will positively impact numerous industries and the economy as a whole.

Saving money?

Highly doubtful under any scenario. The transition from one technology to another will be massively expensive - in capital terms and to the end user.

The average price of a Ford in the US is already more than $30,000. The Chevy Volt, a transition vehicle, is currently priced at more than $40,000. The long term benefits are clear but short term, 20 or 30 years, not so much.

Money only has value for what it can buy. Saving it for the sake of saving it, is at best cautious and at worst pessimistic about the future. Any farmer or rancher will tell you that money does literally grow on trees and, that you have to spend (risk) it to make it.

Money also springs forth from the minds of creative people. Withold or slow the pace of developing the fertile fields of Silicon Valley, and other technologicaly active centers, simply delays the positive, clean, future that awaits us.

Saving polution?

Noble cause that I fully support but, misdirected. Currently produced vehicles are already low polluters. Trucks, busses, fleet utility vehicles, airplanes pollute far worse. And far more damaging to the global environment are the rapidly advancing economies of China, Russia, and India. Polution by US autos at the consumer level, is spit in the ocean compared to the industrial pollution caused by developing countries.

Moving from point A to point B, whether one is speaking at the societal, political, or technological level, is costly. So then, what exactly is the savings and over what term?

@Cupertino56

I would like to kindly direct you to this sight. It is by no means an exaustive list, but it was the first thing that came up on google and I think it should help prove a point.

http://www,ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

Your rage against oil seems to flirt with the fanatical. There is nothing inherently wrong with oil, or burning it. The consaquences are what we care about. While I agree with your view of reducing pollution; it has to be financially sound for people to go for it, I would hope you don't let this anger cloud your ability to see more solutions that "burn all the oil"

"Burning all the oil" Is the exact opposite of what we want to do.

Our problem currently is that a massive amount of carbon was filtered out of the atmosphere by lifeforms, and burried into the ground. It has now become oil and coal and other hydrocarbons after being energized by intense pressure over a huge span of time.

Now we are releasing that carbon at a very fast rate, increasing the amount of relatively unharnessable heat energy on the planet which could be, and is, detrimental for ecosystems and our general quality of life.

The link I provided above is a fairly long list of modern day things that we use petrol for. Petrol is an oil. Plastic is made from oil, as are many other synthetic materials. In short, yes it is a kind of gold. Petrol and other oil-based products are at the heart of many modern conveinces, and a materials crisis is definately something we want to avoid.

People also see burning oil as bad, and say: "lets not use oil anymore". The reason we use it in the first place is that it that it stores energy chemically, at a massive density. To release that energy, burn it, introducing carbon into the atmosphere. One option that many do not look at is developing carbon filter ideas. Instead of getting rid of oil as a very dense power storage, simply counter-balance the use of oil by filtering out an equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere.

I hope you can take a step back, and think about why you hate oil so much. I agree, its a problem, but zealos rage at anything to do with oil will not improve the situation. Critical thinking and innovation are, as you said, something we must preserve and promote to end massive crisis such as this.

Brilliant...lets talk about innovating technologies in the use of oil(global warming) and gas(fracking) instead of transferring to electric cars. That should keep a few parasitic rich families/investors going for another 50 years...Go Blue...

Insanity is expecting different results with the same input. I think as a corollary we also have:

Lets invest in technologies that we know are on their way to being obsolete and expect the future to be as non-damaging as the current resources of oil and gas are to our current environment.

"Trucks, busses, fleet utility vehicles, airplanes pollute far worse."

Airplanes yes. I have no idea what you're doing with buses in that list, because public transit is *massively* less pollutive per person moved. Other than airplanes, too, those will be the *first* to switch to electric. I mean, it's already happening, slowly.

And as the infrastructure is converted to electric ... well, that takes longer than replacing the fleets. In the interim, smaller, more efficient gas vehicles are an absolute necessity. (I want my T-25, now, dammit.)

I don't care about how much I pay for gas I still love my big block V8 and my supercharged V6. I don't mind at all if everyone else is economical, in fact I encourage it! Buy a Volt! It just means GM will be around longer so I can get my camaro and burn all the gas I can get my hands on. The less gas you use, the more I can.

25 years is too long for me!

Journalists need to leave science to scientists. There is no short term (25 years) replacement for petroleum use in transportation. People that believe that there is do not think, they feel. If you are mentally challenged enough to listen to them you deserve the world that Barack is striving to give you. Think cannibalism.

In 35 years, no one will use a car anymore as we will only sit in front of our 3D computers all day with virtual interfaces so comprehensive that we will never have to leave the house again - ever.

On another topic, please watch this:
www.storyofstuff.com

Yes, we could , but the number of cars are more and more higher. That is the problem. The emission it is still the same.
http://www.auto-my.ro
http://www.auto-tip.ro

http://www.erotizmx.com

http://www.sevismeizle.net
http://www.webturka.net
http://www.firstanalsex.net
http://fk5.net
http://www.sicakadult.net