June 23, 2008

McCain’s Energy Plan, Do Everything But The Obvious
— DrewM

McCain is giving another energy speech today and his big idea of the day is a government sponsored prize for the development of new electric car technology.

Among other ideas, he'll propose inspiring "the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

…With that, McCain will propose leveling "the playing field for all alcohol fuels that break the monopoly of gasoline" and issue a "Clean Car Challenge" -- a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero-emission vehicle.

Wow, government sponsored prizes and tax credits. Thanks Mav!

One of the most consistent complaints we hear against drilling is it will take years to impact the price (of course, that always ignores the incontinent truth that if we had started drilling years ago, it would be impacting the price of gas right now.) yet there’s this fetish for mythical new technologies that proponents seems to think will spring forward any second now. Yep, any second now. All that’s needed is some government money and a few mandates. Wasn’t that the argument we heard for ethanol 30 years ago? Look how well that’s worked out.

Despite the hopes and dreams of many people, oil and gasoline as we know it isn’t going anywhere for a good long time, so let’s go find more. Hell, it’s even politically popular.

UPDATE: Here are some longer excerpts. Sadly (or predictably), they only make things worse.

McCain talks a lot about the central role of government in forcing a change in the kinds of cars we drive.

He talks about how auto makers ignore fuel standards because “the penalties are too small to encourage innovation”. Hey Mav, have you ever considered automakers are simply making the kinds of cars people want to buy? Why exactly should the government be penalizing them for that?

And the hubris of thinking that "the ingenuity and resolve of the American people” will be inspired by some government sponsored contest. Where the hell does he think the that $300 million is going to come from? Here’s a hint…that money he wants to pass out comes from the government taxing people who show ingenuity and resolve every damn day keeping the American economy working and strong.

It’s really too bad the Republicans took a pass on nominating a candidate for President this year.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:04 AM | Comments (124)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

1 And if magically somehow these cars were available tomorrow,  where would all the needed electricity come from? Coal? Natural Gas? Oil? Unicorns?

Posted by: FreakyBoy at June 23, 2008 06:14 AM (4s1it)

2

  Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham et. al constantly harp on the fact that the ingenuity of the American people can solve any problem (something I agree with btw) and everyone agrees.  John McCain comes along and says the same thing and it's a bad thing? 

Government sponsors projects everyday that ends up with commercial applications.  I can see the idea that a competition for a prize might inspire creativity.  At least this way all the development work is done at private expense and the payoff only comes when someone has something that works.   

 

 

 

Posted by: chad at June 23, 2008 06:17 AM (WNcvq)

3 "development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

If you invented such a thing, wouldn't you make a helluva lot more than 300 million anyways from consumers?

Anyways, its probably good marketing.  Something to counter the incessant "green jobs" blather from Obama.

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at June 23, 2008 06:18 AM (QcPNi)

4 Actually the electric car is way more advanced than most people realize. It is the car of the future if people would give it a chance. Tesla Motors has an all electric roadster that can go 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds and can go almost 300 miles on one charge. HST International is doing the same thing with currently built cars. Granted, you can't take a family vacation in one of these cars, but you sure can go back and forth to work, do your shopping, etc. in one. I may not agree with McCain's approach, but if the government is serious about reducing our oil independence the electric car and other hybrids are the way to go. They aren't mythical technologies, they just have been put on the back burner by the US government because the politicians get too much money put in their pockets by the big oil companies.

Posted by: Wade Moline at June 23, 2008 06:19 AM (pt0hM)

5

@1

Probably from the 100 new nuclear plants McCain wants built over the next 20 years. 

Electric cars are hardly a new and mythical technology, what he is proposing is improving batteries so the cars are more afforadable have more range etc.  That battery research would also have industrial and military apps.

Posted by: chad at June 23, 2008 06:20 AM (WNcvq)

6 They don't call 'em "developing technologies" for nothing. It's going to take awhile and their not going to "spring up overnight". That said, the enviro-weenies still insisit we don't need to develop any new oil fields. The miracle devices will save us. Anyone else want to go live in a cave, hunt and grow your own food until the "developing technologies" arrive? Oh, and don't you dare hurt the fish by desalination plants, or dig any of that dirty coal, or those hazardous nuclear plants, or those unsightly wind farms. We need to be satisfied with a lower standard of living.....like the poor people. Level playing field, don't 'cha know. Except for the 'elites', like movie stars and the Goracle.

Posted by: GarandFan at June 23, 2008 06:29 AM (eJ32B)

7

I'm really amused by people who offer batteries as a solution to a lack of energy generation. That goes for electric or fuel cell.

A battery is not a source of power. It is a storage container.

Oooh, my car is electric. Where do you think that electricity comes from? You plug it in at night? Do you figgure it grows inside your wall like the mold?

All this does is move the gas-burning away from you where you can't see it. Is it NIMBYism? Out of sight out of mind? Since you can't SEE the gas being burned it doesn't really happen? You can just leap into a blissful state of denial and pretend you're not burning any?

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 06:33 AM (m6c4H)

8 I can't believe that with all the advisers that McCain surrounds himself with that one of them didn't have the balls to say, why can't we encourage new energy discoveries AND drilling/nuclear, etc.?  Therefore, I will have to assume they did and McCain shot it down. I've never seen a candidate so intent on losing.  So, now the McCainiacs rush in to tell us we will only have ourselves to blame if Obama is elected. Well, no, the only one to blame will be McCain. 

Posted by: GRC at June 23, 2008 06:35 AM (m1/ud)

9

Electric cars are hardly a new and mythical technology, what he is proposing is improving batteries so the cars are more afforadable have more range etc.  That battery research would also have industrial and military apps.

That's how you interpret his comments, not what he said.

Here's how I interpret his comments : Battery Boondoggle. Like ethanol only for duracells. Somehow, someway, this will result in subsidies for hydrochloric acid manufacturers - which will probably be paid for by extra taxes levied on oil refineries.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 06:37 AM (m6c4H)

10 Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham et. al constantly harp on the fact that the ingenuity of the American people can solve any problem (something I agree with btw) and everyone agrees.  John McCain comes along and says the same thing and it's a bad thing?

Yes.  The term you are looking for is "free market." 

When people out there in the world invent and develop useful technology that is superior in terms of utility and price than existing technologies, those people become rich.  They become rich to a degree that is directly proportional to the relative utility and economic competitiveness of their product.  These people are called "inventors" or "entrepreneurs."  See Edison, Thomas; see also Gates, Bill. 

Maverick McGlobalWarming takes a different route.  He wants to sponsor a prize using our money.  $300 million is arbitrary.  It has no economic significance whatsoever.  If the car is a flop, it is too much.  If it is revolutionary, it's too little.  Only the actual fucking ECONOMY (i.e., the aggregate decision-making power of hundreds of millions of people) can determine when a new product is, overall, better than what's already out there.  Those millions of people, acting as consumers, know better than one politician who never invented anything or ever started or ran any business his entire life. 

Tell you what, McDickhead -- take $300 million of Cindy's fucking money, and give it to whomever makes the best electro-car, in your all-knowing opinion.  Call yourself an "investor" if you like.  Take a risk.  See if your plan passes the "economic reality" test. 

Posted by: Phinn at June 23, 2008 06:42 AM (NLtoU)

11 It's not the government's job to tell us what kind of car we can drive. Period.

Posted by: K.R. Kahn at June 23, 2008 06:46 AM (xamKk)

12 Entropy, No, it doesn't move it out of sight, it reduces the dependency on oil, especially foreign oil where the money goes to fund terrorism against us. Electricity doesn't come from oil, it comes from power plants that run on coal, nuclear, and other sources. Most energy sources still produce some type of pollution except wind and solar, but the environmental extremists won't even allow windmill farms for electricity because those mean windmills will kill all the birds on the planet because those poor birds are so dumb they will all fly right into them. Funny, all the years I have been driving, 30+, I think I have hit maybe two or three birds. If the majority can avoid a speeding vehicle I think they know how to avoid windmills.

Posted by: Wade Moline at June 23, 2008 06:50 AM (pt0hM)

13

One solution that's been overlooked until now - on this very moron blog - is simple:

 

Reduce the coefficient of friction on the road ways.

 

I say:  Teflontm the fuck out of the roads

for the children.

Our mileage per vehicle will immediately go up by a metric fuckload *without any new automotive technology development* ... except for brakes.  They may need to be upgraded.   I don't know, I'm an idea-guy.

That whole "stopping" question  is for engineering to deal with.

 

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 23, 2008 06:50 AM (UeP9e)

14 I don't think a lot of people in Washington seem to grasp this issue very well...


Electric cars and so forth, as set up now and in the foreseeable future, have limited range and refueling capabilities.

That means they'll be fine in an area with a lot of infrastructure (big cities, the eastern seaboard) but are worthless to many people in "flyover country" and outside a certain range of big cities on both coasts.


At best, they MAY convince drivers in New York, Boston, DC, Chicago, etc. to switch over to electrics or other alternative-fuel cars, but that's only a certain percentage of the population.

The vast majority of the population will still be dependent on gasoline-powered cars until either a quantum-leap in the technology OR major changes in their local infrastructure that make it feasible to implement alternative-fuel cars in that area..


Until someone figures out a way to make an electric or alternative-fuel car that can drive cross-country from New York to LA without having to take a carefully-prescribed route to ensure refueling, those cars won't take off in this country.


To sum up, keep developing them to get them where they need to be, but stop pushing them as a short-term solution because they ARE NOT a short-term solution for a large chunk of the driving population in this country.

Posted by: BrandonInBatonRouge at June 23, 2008 06:54 AM (mDe8X)

15 BumperStickerist, I have an additional idea, Teflon the f*** out of the engines, no friction at all. And the tires too. Of course stopping on Teflon tires and roads would be interesting...

Posted by: Wade Moline at June 23, 2008 06:56 AM (pt0hM)

16 We have a low coefficient of friction a lot of the time.  It's called winter. 

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 23, 2008 06:59 AM (5aa4z)

17 BrandonInBatonRouge, But for Metro areas it is a beginning. If people would quit saying that the technology is too far in the future and quit ignoring it we would be so much father down the road in advances within a year. Even Tesla Motors sys that next year their cars will have an even greater range. To make tomorrow's technology happen now we need to start now and make it happen now. I know that this is not the end all do all solution, nor is it going to happen overnight, but if people would take the time to look at the technology of today, electrical cars have the brightest future over anything out there right now.

Posted by: Wade Moline at June 23, 2008 07:01 AM (pt0hM)

18

One thing my dad and I were discussing on the electric/hybrid train of thought the other day was, if you have a hybrid or electric car with a solar charger on it, how effective would it be?  Would you have to line the whole car with the collection pannels, like all the retarded looking solar concept cars, or would you be able to have it glean a sufficient quantity of power off something the size of a moonroof, or even twice that size?

Posted by: Ranba Ral at June 23, 2008 07:08 AM (fpk1J)

19 And here I was waiting for the new VW diesels, and thinking I was pushing the envelope on what I'm willing to do in the name of efficiency and conservation. I mean, 40-50 MPG? Even assuming real-world numbers of 30-40 MPG, that beats most everything out there.

Without having to break in a new technology.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at June 23, 2008 07:08 AM (IuKAf)

20

No, it doesn't move it out of sight, it reduces the dependency on oil, especially foreign oil where the money goes to fund terrorism against us. Electricity doesn't come from oil, it comes from power plants that run on coal, nuclear, and other sources. 

No, no it doesn't.

There are oil plants and natural gas plants. But that's beside the point - because cars don't currently run on power plants.

Do you think you just gonna throw all the cars in the country on the power grid and...and...well that's it?

You must love you some brownouts. And running out of power on the way to work half way...

To move all the cars on power plants, we need to generate enough power for all the cars in our power plants. We are gonna need a lot more power plants, and they're going to have to run on something.

The only thing we currently have handy that will provide enough power to drive our entire transportation industry is... what's currently provinding the power to drive our entire transportation industry.

Oil.

You wanna move over to nuclear power? Lots of extra nuclear power, enough to accomodate cars with fuel cells?

OK. STFU and do it... I'm not bitching about extra nuke plants. Go make em. Don't argue with me. There's no argument here. Let's do it. Tapping my foot now. Crossing my arms. Lookin at my watch....

In the mean time don't give me this "To replace oil we needz batteries!" stuff. We've got nothing to charge them with save the same damn oil - and more of it, because batteries lose effeciency and it's better to generate the power at the place you intend to apply the power if at all possible. The only thing batteries are going to give us right now, is more energy overhead.

The call for "better batteries!" is a distraction. The best damn batteries in the world won't charge themselves. You can invent perfect-on-paper batteries with 0% loss in power conversion (both ways), 200 year life spans, and 100 million jiggawatt capacities capable of powering a flux capacitator. You still don't have anything to charge them with except burning the exact same amount (or more) of oil you meant to replace with them.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 07:13 AM (m6c4H)

21
Comparing my 94 Camry to a new Prius, I would save no money from trading in. Besides the extra money to buy a new car, I have to deal with the increased insurance premiums and state taxes, both sales and yearly vehicle registration.

Posted by: GRC at June 23, 2008 07:14 AM (m1/ud)

22 *sigh* He's paying attention to the wrong people again....

We need more oil pumped & refined NOW! The nifty miracle tech can appear when it's ready. In the meantime, while waiting for the miracle tech to occur, a lot of us have to go to work, got to the store, pick up the rugrats, and do other things we need to do in a car because we are not unemployed welfare-case leftards helping shill for the Obamessiah.

Posted by: exdem13 at June 23, 2008 07:16 AM (fenBi)

23

I say:  Teflontm the fuck out of the roads

Question:

Is Teflontm a petroleum derived product?

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 07:16 AM (m6c4H)

24 #18: With the sun directly overhead you have about 800 watts/square meter of solar cells. The cells are only about 10% efficient, so you only get about 80 watts/sq meter, maybe 40 watts for a panel the size of a moon roof. About enough to run the radio.

Posted by: lmg at June 23, 2008 07:28 AM (hEMOH)

25

Quick quiz. When was the first electric car sold in the US?

 

@ Entropy,

Teflon is a petroleum derived product.

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 23, 2008 07:30 AM (tcy4k)

26

If the car is a flop, it is too much.  If it is revolutionary, it's too little.  - Phinn

Nail, head, and well said.

Posted by: toby928 at June 23, 2008 07:31 AM (evdj2)

27 Wade Moline,

The technology is there for what you're pushing about big-city driving.


HOWEVER, two things would need to happen.


1. The lower-end electric / alternative fuel cars would need to be cheap enough for lower-class and middle-class drivers to buy one and use it exclusively in the cities.

(Anyone doing travel outside of the cities would probably still need a gas-powered car due to the range between fueling stations for any non-standard fuel)


2. The upper-end cars would need to be heavily marketed so that the people who can easily afford to drive a gas-guzzler in the city would be willing to change over to a non-gas version.

(The costs of driving, parking, and maintenance in New York, San Francisco, and other cities are so high that a big proportion of the people doing so are likely very rich individuals.

It would be hard to convince them to drop their Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc. in favor of an alternative fuel car unless a massive marketing push was done to make the alternative fuel car a big status symbol to that group.)

Posted by: BrandonInBatonRouge at June 23, 2008 07:33 AM (mDe8X)

28

Ranba Ral at June 23, 2008 12:08 PM (fpk1J)

Even way back as a kid riding in the back of a truck with gale like force of wind in my face I always thought you could be able to put a windmill type device on top of your car to assist in recharging the battery.

Posted by: Rufus at June 23, 2008 07:35 AM (m2CN7)

29 I see chad is earning points toward his free Mexican.

Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham et. al constantly harp on the fact that the ingenuity of the American people can solve any problem (something I agree with btw) and everyone agrees.  John McCain comes along and says the same thing and it's a bad thing?

So, if McCain thinks the American people have such brilliant ingenuity, why doesn't he think we have the ingenuity to drill in ANWR without damaging the environment?

Posted by: No Kool-Aid for me Thanks at June 23, 2008 07:35 AM (PLvLS)

30

Teflon is a petroleum derived product.

So...reduce our dependencies on oil by reducing the amount of oil our cars need to move...by reducing the friction of the roads....by.... coating the roads with oil.

This has Government written all over it.

I would like to invest in this project.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 07:38 AM (m6c4H)

31

I'm taking $5 out of my right pocket and putting it into my left pocket.

This money has been earmarked for development of the Teflon idea.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 07:40 AM (m6c4H)

32

It never ceases to amaze me that people, typically leftist politicians, think that they can wave a magic wand and repeal the laws of chemistry and physics. There are fundamental reasons why redox reaction electrochemical batteries have hit the wall in terms of energy density, weight, recharging cycles, etc. Any progress here is dependent upon advances in materials science that lead to novel materials derived from physical/physical chemistry first principles...think high temp ceramic superconductors).

Simply put, we should continue to drill and refine mined biofuels while working on making said hydrocarbons more easily renewable (which, btw, some people have shown to be an ongoing natural process even without our enhancing nature in this). We should push nuclear power (including power generated by our nuclear powered class G variable star) for electrical power generation.

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 23, 2008 07:41 AM (tcy4k)

33

Even way back as a kid riding in the back of a truck with gale like force of wind in my face I always thought you could be able to put a windmill type device on top of your car to assist in recharging the battery.

This would increase the drag coeffecient - the friction of the air - causing the car to require more power in the first place in order to move forward against it.

Once again - right pocket, left pocket. Musical chairs...batteries and teflon.

I love the way people think about energy. There's gotta be some way I can exploit you rubes by shuffling chairs around for fat cash invest in a brighter, more sustainable tomorrow.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 07:44 AM (m6c4H)

34

If I can't pack a full load in it: five people, crap, dogs, etc comfortably, then drive 400-450 miles or so on a full tank of gas...

or

drive around 300-400 miles to a tank of gas in the city when needed without pluggin the fucking thing in.  I mean come on, my wife can't remember to plug the fucking cell phonein to recharge it overnight.  Anyone else have that problem?..

or

drive 100 miles at 120mph on a full tank of gas...

or any combination thereof above, I don't want the damn vehicle!

And saying "You can drive one to and from work..." is a ridiculous argument.  You want me to buy ANOTHER vehicle which fits maybe HALF my needs HALF the time, but I still need a regular vehicle which fills my needs ALL the time?!

What's the fucking point then exactly?!

And if I can only go around 100 miles or so on a full "charge", and I have to "charge" my car 8-10 times a month - with electricity rates continuing to rise since a lot of electricity if generated by "fossil" fuels how am I saving money exactly?  Am I REALLY saving ANYTHING?

Posted by: catmman at June 23, 2008 07:45 AM (yC6np)

35

Oh, I forgot, leftist politicians think that they can repeal the laws of economics, too.

For those of us morons who have been following polymer semiconductors and polymer conductors, these are petroleum derived products too.

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 23, 2008 07:46 AM (tcy4k)

36 Darn, Entropy (ha ha ha) beat me to it. Violation of the second law of thermodynamics, offense, five yard penalty!

Posted by: Slowking Man at June 23, 2008 07:47 AM (y7B6W)

37 1) McCain (D) vs. Obama (M) - We Are Screwed vs. We Are So Screwed.

2) Rufus, is the Conservation of Energy just something you think happens to other people? Where do you think the power to overcome the drag of the windmill comes from, Unicorns? Nope, your gas tank. Even if your generator was 100% efficient, you would gain nothing - and it isn't.

3) As has been pointed out a gazillion times, WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CONVERT ALL THE CARS TO ELECTRIC. That's going to take a long time even if everyone agrees to do that, which they won't, during which time we need oil. How long do you figure it will take to build 200 nuclear powerplants?

Sweet Baby Jesus, people, this is not rocket science. Try to think one step past your nose, the world will thank you.

I don't care if people want electric cars, fine, get your electric cars, I'm just not going to be forced into one only to find that you have to have an electricity ration card and no-drive days and have to eat your dinner in the damned dark because they've only built 10 of those 200 powerplants they need.

Demanding new batteries is like complaining that your trunk isn't big enough to hold enough groceries to make a trip to the store worthwhile when you don't have any money!

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 07:58 AM (yi5TD)

38

Why doesn't McCain propose converting the entire postal fleet (you know the funny looking white trucks) to electric? The goverment's got boatloads of free money throw at them.

Anyway here is a heads up to McCain, many companies are already working on super storage batteries such as ultracapacitors. I'd be suprised that a $300 million carrot will make it happen much faster.

Posted by: Ken at June 23, 2008 08:00 AM (vgyJ5)

39 Geez, I need to learn to type faster.

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:04 AM (yi5TD)

40

What we need to be asking ourselves is not whether or not sticking a windmall on a car roof would WORK, but rather how much we could sell it for and whether or not we could market it to liberals.

Si, se puede power cars with windmills! Windmills with solar panels on the blades!

And...and..

Instead of a trunk we'll include a mobile compost/fermentation tank. So you can stop on the side of the road and toss roadkill into your trunk to turn into alchohol to power the car.

Also we will include "Perpetual Motion Aluminum Driveshaftstm" in the feature list..

And we can tie in with Nintendo and target kids, or people with fat kids, or fat people with skinny kids, or fat people with fat kids. Every car will have Wii Fit Balance Boards with piezzo-electric circuitry instead of floormats, which will be used to run the AC.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 08:06 AM (m6c4H)

41 Entropy - on reflection, I'm with you. Let's draw up a business plan, you start on the designs, I'll line up the Chinese child labor factories.

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:08 AM (yi5TD)

42 Oh, and I prefer "Perpetual Motion Rebound Action Carbon-Fiber Driveshafts," we can get twice as much for them, and the kids just love Carbon Fiber.

And there's a safety angle too - when they blow up, they're harmless, unlike that SCARY METAL.

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:11 AM (yi5TD)

43

Ooh, we can call the piezzo-electric AC system the "Cold Fusion System".

Because it fuses the issue of fatass kids with the desire to keep your fatass from sweating off 40lbs on the way home from work.

But don't put that last part on the brochures...

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 08:11 AM (m6c4H)

44 HORIZONTAL WINDMILLS for cars - yes, they can work, they spin, they make electricity, AND we get every car in San Francisco to wear a propeller beanie.

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:12 AM (yi5TD)

45 Call it "Kold Fuzion!"

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:13 AM (yi5TD)

46 Our corporate motto will be: "Of course it doesn't work, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sit by while someone else sells it!"

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:14 AM (yi5TD)

47 As a side benefit, thousands of idiots will electrocute themselves while installing them, and at least one person will install 200 windmills on his car, and fry his electrical system while running out of gas on the way to work.

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 08:15 AM (yi5TD)

48

The Hoover Full-Vehicle SuperCharger for the automotive enthusiast.

Every car guy knows about Superchargers.. people use them to give their engine that extra boost of perfomance. By why just the engine? Give your whole car a boost with the Full Vehicle Supercharger System!

The Hoover FV SC system works by a belt-driven design, tapping in to some of that extra unused power generated by your drive shaft. The motor powers a powerful suction vacuum on one side, and the premium model also includes a powerful AirJet blower motor on the reverse. This device attaches to your car roof to propel you foward, literally sucking and blowing your car down the road at theoretically increased speeds!

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 08:26 AM (m6c4H)

49

Design idea:

Superchargers work by drawing power off your engine to power a fan which forces more air into the engine. Turbochargers work by drawing power off a fan that's powered by your exhaust airflow, to draw another different fan to force more air into the engine.

What if you hooked up a turbocharger to a supercharger? So the supercharger's airflow would power the turbocharger, which would use a fan to pump more air into the supercharger - causing more power to the turbo charger, so more air to the supercharger...more power.

This might be dangerous. It will just keep generating more and more airflow until the whole thing explodes! Perhaps we can sell this idea to DARPA.

The turbo-super-turbo-super-turbo-super-turbocharged bomb!

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 08:30 AM (m6c4H)

50

Entropy,


There was a piece in WSJ by James Woolsey, the ex-CIA chief, who is now some kind of energy consultant. The gist was:

Power plants have a lot of idle capacity at night when the demand is low.
His estimate was that if every car in US became fully electric, and charged only at night, we could meet 84% of demand before we have to add a new power plant.

I don't know if his numbers are right, but they are certainly interesting.

The article is here

 

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 08:48 AM (IlgNp)

51 BTW, Entropy, where have you been?

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 08:49 AM (IlgNp)

52 You criticized McCain - no brownie points for you!!

Posted by: thirteen28 at June 23, 2008 08:52 AM (s8N54)

53

Playing Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures and otherwise trolling their game forum with bitching and whining about bugs and nerfs, and the mocking of people who could not intuit obvious game mechanics without getting them reversed when offering advice.

My 'free' month (Fuck you, I payed $55) expired and at the moment I'm not suscribing. The game is too buggy and unfinished..maybe I'll check back later.

Besides, it's distracted me completely from studying Japanese and not being able to log in - because I haven't payed - is a great opportunity to get back to it. I've completely forgot the entire 4th grade of the kyouiku kanji...*sigh* back to memorizing nonsense nip glyphs and runes....

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 08:54 AM (m6c4H)

54 Tushar:

Back to my dictum that any plan that begins with "if only people would..." has already failed.

Plans need to begin with "because people do..."

Posted by: Merovign at June 23, 2008 09:10 AM (yi5TD)

55 Entropy - Haha kanji. Haven't looked at my kanji in a couple months... all fading away. I'm going to nippon this fall for study abroad for an entire year... gonna get out of the country before BusHitler declares martial law am i rite?

Posted by: greg s at June 23, 2008 09:13 AM (sPO/s)

56

Merovign,

I am not endorsing or dissing Woolsey's plan. Just providing more fodder for everyone to chew on.

Every day we are not drilling in ANWR, CA and FL coast, and OCS, we are shooting ourselves in the foot.

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 09:14 AM (IlgNp)

57 Ok, nevermind that blog post I put up here a week or so ago.

McCain obviously doesn't get a damn thing and isn't going to do anything but continue to destroy us with shitty energy plans that will seek to only bankrupt the consumer and extend government control.

What's the new saying these days? We. Are. Fucked?

Posted by: Aurvant at June 23, 2008 09:22 AM (PV/4J)

58

The thing about the article -

I dunno. It's like comparing contradictory AGW information. I'd have to really look into it.

The numbers he tosses about in the article are blatantly contradictory to most of what I've read.

He's claiming only 7% of US farmland could produce enough ethanol to power our entire transportation industry.

I can link a lot of people saying the entirety of US farmland would scarecly power 80% of it.

So I don't know. Is he talking about 7% of farmABLE land? IE "Farm ANWR"? I don't know.

Posted by: Entropy at June 23, 2008 09:32 AM (m6c4H)

59

Entropy,

I don't care about the rest of the article. The only part interesting to me was about the supposedly idle power generation capacity at night.

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 09:37 AM (IlgNp)

60
Entropy:

What if you hooked up a turbocharger to a supercharger? So the supercharger's airflow would power the turbocharger, which would use a fan to pump more air into the supercharger - causing more power to the turbo charger, so more air to the supercharger...more power.

It's been done. It's pretty complicated and expensive so it was mostly used in WWII aircraft engines, where every extra horsepower was critical.

Here's an interesting 1943 pamphlet about it:
The Turbosupercharger and the Airplane Power PlantAnd here's the Wiki article about the Turbocharger. It's mostly about automotive applications.

Posted by: Tinian at June 23, 2008 09:48 AM (1Mq7K)

61

It never ceases to amaze me that people, typically leftist politicians, think that they can wave a magic wand and repeal the laws of chemistry and physics.

I am a P. Chemist and career scientific researcher.  Sometimes, while mowing my lawn, I muse about what it is like in the mental world of politicians and lawyers (but I repeat myself),.  For them, there are no objective facts, only whether or not they can benefit from a situation. For them, the process is the point.  Reality is fungible!  How on earth did we put these clowns in charge?

The fact is that more money spent does not mean faster scientific progress.  It’s like saying if only Teddy Roosevelt had spent the money, we could have had a supercomputer by 1912.  Certainly funding is important, but research by its nature doesn’t follow a straight path.  I don’t suppose they talk about that in law school, though.

Posted by: pep at June 23, 2008 10:08 AM (Ea6mp)

62 This is partly why it's so hard to take Senator McCain's alleged fiscal conservative bona fides seriously. His answer to everything is bigger government, he just doesn't want to spend the money.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 23, 2008 10:12 AM (0+Ggj)

63 The only "government incentive" that makes sense is to reduce or eliminate taxes on all energy production.  New capital will then flow to energy production in general, and to the most promising new technologies in particular.

Posted by: Bugler at June 23, 2008 10:21 AM (YCVBL)

64

Ha!

But her husband has not publicly endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee to succeed President George W. Bush. Asked by journalists when he might do so, Clinton smiled and shook hands with spectators without acknowledging he heard the question.

Posted by: random moron at June 23, 2008 10:21 AM (FgxdU)

65 How on earth did we put these clowns in charge?

Because the only people who want to be elected to office are sociopaths. It's the inherent flaw of elective democracy.

Posted by: No Kool-Aid for me Thanks at June 23, 2008 10:23 AM (PLvLS)

66

bumperstickerist! once again youve made me spit my beverage out!

Posted by: spear at June 23, 2008 10:26 AM (/Ki+D)

67

$300 Million is chump-change.

$300 Billion might get me to release my alternative power-plant and fuel.

Posted by: franksalterego at June 23, 2008 10:28 AM (QdFjo)

68

pep,

we are a bunch of morons here. Don't be scaring us with all your P Chem talk.

Oh, who am I kidding? Hop aboard.

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 10:28 AM (IlgNp)

69 Alternative technology is like seeds in the garden.  You'll starve to death before they mature if you don't feed yourself with something else in the meantime.

And $300M?  The market would already deliver that windfall if someone could deliver it to market today.  A government 'prize' isn't going to make it happen any faster.

Posted by: Unknown Moron at June 23, 2008 10:40 AM (T9Plp)

70

It's really too bad the Republicans took a pass on nominating a candidate for President this year.

Truer words were never spoken.

Posted by: Bugler at June 23, 2008 10:40 AM (YCVBL)

71

Hell, if you could hook a device to a politician's jaw, we'd have all the energy we need.

Posted by: franksalterego at June 23, 2008 10:43 AM (QdFjo)

72

The response to "opening up restricted areas for drilling won't have an immediate impact on prices - it'll take at least 5 to 10 years," is: 

"So what?  What universe are you living in that makes you believe that in 5 or 10 years we will no longer have a need for oil, or gasoline?  Or are you so self-centered and so blinded by your need for immediate gratification that unless a solution can be reached immediately (i.e. within your term of office) that we shouldn't even try?  My son is 9.  In six years he'll be buying gasoline.  Why should he suffer higher prices then, when they could be lowered if we drill now, simply because of your need for instant gratification?  Oh, I get it.  Because you won't be in office then to get the credit."

Posted by: angler at June 23, 2008 10:44 AM (kSuu1)

73

A $300 million prize for developing something that has a market potential into the hundreds of billions.  Brilliant.

You want to really get this in high gear, John?  Offer business loans or investments from a fund of, oh say, $300 million, to businesses doing R & D in the high capacity battery field.  That's going to spur development a hell of a lot faster than a lottery based on some mythical standard.

Why the hell can't we get some business types in gov't?  Next moron who says that gov't has no impact on the economy should be forced to wear a sign saying "I am a fucking Dumbass".

Posted by: JackStraw at June 23, 2008 10:45 AM (VBon8)

74

A prize?  A friggin prize?

 

He really doesn't understand the economy, does he?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 23, 2008 10:49 AM (pzen5)

75 Is this sorta like having the gubmit choose beta over VHS? or HD over blue ray? a bureaucrat who only knows the bureaucracy.

Posted by: billypaintbrush at June 23, 2008 10:49 AM (64vnN)

76

I keep telling people that even if the most profitable oil company on earth invented a cheap, alternative energy source it would make the oil business revenue look like a Dollar General store balance sheet. So why the hell would energy companies kill alternative fuel projects instead of working to be the sole provider of new cheap, clean energy? They wouldn't. They don't need government incentives. If a company developed the right energy technology it would be the richest company on the planet. This is all feel-good nonsense and it disturbs me that my candidate is playing from the liberal feel-good playbook. Does he take us for the fools that the liberals do? God help us all the next 4-8 years.

www.bothinonetrench.com

 

Posted by: Ray Robison at June 23, 2008 10:50 AM (Cgo1/)

77

People who don't know how to swim who get into water over their heads and panic always start flailing around and yelling for help.

Right before they drown.

Politicians, likewise.

Isn't McCain a ...well, a politician?

The CBD (*Clueless Beltway Denizens ...and please note there's no real distinction as to party: Demicans or Republicrats are equally culpable) are slowly drowning slowly in the depths of their political choices of the past 40 years or so with regards to energy policy.

...unfortunately we're drowning with them.

That's what happens when you fire the lifeguards**.

 

**Lifeguard = common sense

Posted by: davis,br at June 23, 2008 10:59 AM (7QgFP)

78 The ONLY reason I don't sit this one out is that I don't want to see Iranian nuclear-tipped Shahabs based in Kentucky and New Mexico being trumpted as "revolutionary agreements resulting from unconditional dialog."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at June 23, 2008 11:00 AM (B+qrE)

79 #21

Yes, McCain thinks you are a gullible fool. But you had better get used to it. The last presidential candidate who didn't have contempt for the American people was, maybe, Dole, and before that? Ronald Reagan. But they don't make'em like Reagan anymore.

Only smart people understand that the free market is far more intelligent and discerning than any one person or government. And using that simple test yields very depressing results. Both of our presidential choices are idiots.

Posted by: iamnotachef at June 23, 2008 11:05 AM (nwJit)

80 Oops.

I meant #27. Sorry.

(Who's the idiot?)

Posted by: iamnotachef at June 23, 2008 11:07 AM (nwJit)

81 This shows why McCain is a retard when it comes to business and the free market. He's thinking with a top-down-from-government mind, so there has to be *ONE* solution that crowds all others out. If he were thinking in a business way, he would be all for drilling now, more refineries, etc. to keep the economy and flow of cash strong to the people who are eventually going to bring us whatever the future of energy is. That is American businessmen. The more alternatives in the mix, the better the solution is that will emerge. Only a jerk-off, who's ignored the whole of the 20th century, could think that government mandates will provide the solution. If that were the case, we'd all be part of the USSR, singing the Internationale and the Dims could be happy. This is why this election sucks donkey balls. Neither candidate believes in capitalism or the free market, either that or they just don't understand it. We've got two big governmentists who worry about other people doing the right thing if they don't control them. All the while ignoring the fact that if someone, anyone, had any kind of solution that was even halfway workable, they'd already have it on the market because there's a huge fortune to be made. No, they only understand the whip and control. They think that by restricting us and our energy choices and making the box ever smaller that they will force a solution, never realizing they are starving the engine of genius. Feh, I've said it before I'll vote for McCain but really it's a choice between food poisoning or cholera.

Posted by: rinseandspit at June 23, 2008 11:08 AM (ao5cQ)

82 Currently we can't even keep our air conditioners running during a heat wave. This new battery would have to be self recharging. How can we put wheels on this.
http://www.hurricanestore.com/product142.html

Posted by: republicangirl at June 23, 2008 11:15 AM (d20qX)

83

Oooh, my car is electric

Republicangirl sums up quite nicely why electric cars are a rather stupid idea considering the fact that there are not enough coal-burning plants to even provide enough electricity to power air-conditioners in major metropolitan cities.

Posted by: syn at June 23, 2008 11:23 AM (Dx06M)

84

Mr iamnotachef, I would suggest that Bob Dole does have contempt for the American people, at least he's darn disappointed.

"Where's the outrage?"

 He lost because the media downplayed Clinton's lies and crimes and Americans let them.

I don't know how many times I've heard, "If it's such a big deal, why hasn't it been in the papers?"

Ahh, who cares? We're all doomed anyway.

Posted by: Veeshir at June 23, 2008 11:32 AM (ThMnZ)

85 @ 10

I disagree when you look at the entire quote in context my interpretation seems reasonable:

Furthermore, in the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.

I further propose we inspire the ingenuity and resolve of the American people by offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. This is one dollar for every man, woman and child in the U.S. – a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency – and should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs.

As for the free market thing - isn't one of the hallmarks of a free market that they respond to incentives? And since when can the government not participate in the market as a consumer? This isn't a regulatory effort which I would be fully against.

Here an incentive is being offered.

I admit there are a lot of things to criticize in McCain's speech such as his references to punishing auto companies for not meeting CAFE standards. Persoanlly I think companies should be able to build what they want and people buy it or not. McCain's challenge doesn't require anyone to participate and it certainly doesn't require people to buy an electric car. It encourages innovation.




Posted by: chad at June 23, 2008 11:36 AM (lNQg8)

86

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass but the splicing together of the two comment threads is not working for me.

Can we just leave the two threads separate?

It might help to continually update the "we've moved" notice for the people still commenting at the old site.

Just a suggestion.

Posted by: Eleven at June 23, 2008 11:39 AM (7DB+a)

87

Entropy, where have you been?

I have not read all the comments, so I may be repeating, but still...

I remember reading a piece in WSJ by Bob Woolmer, the ex-CIA chief, who is now some kind of energy consultant. The gist was:

Due to the way power generation plants are built, it is not easy to adjust electricity supply with fluctuating demand throughout the day. Thus, plants are built with peak demand in mind, and at night, when the demand is low, a lot of electricity is wasted. His estimate was that if every car in US became fully electric, and charged only at night, we could meet 85% of demand before we have to add a new power plant.

I don't know if his numbers are right, but they are certainly interesting.

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 11:57 AM (Q7Ugu)

88

ABC news.com had a mini-forum featuring those has-beens Sam Donaldson and Cokey Roberts.  (and Donna Brasile)

Donaldson reclaimed his credentials as "dumbest bag of cement masquerading as a journalist"  when he pooh-poohed drilling domestically and off-shore, saying (paraphrase) "Why, if we developed alternative energy sources by the time that oil is available to us we might not even NEED it".

---Causing me to scream "Then we could SELL it on the world market, you moron!"  

Someone said the other day that Democrat arguments ----that there's no point in opening up new drilling, because the oil won't be available for years--- are like telling a farmer not to plant his crops in the spring, because they wouldn't be ready to harvest until the fall.

We need a new 2008 campaign slogan:  "It's the Kakistocracy, stupid".

  (except that our candidate is a Founding Member)

 

 

Posted by: fulldroolcup at June 23, 2008 12:01 PM (CU7SK)

89 The guy's name is not woolmer. It is woolsey or something.

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 12:03 PM (Q7Ugu)

90

keep telling people that even if the most profitable oil company on earth invented a cheap, alternative energy source

 

However, the oil industry isn't just about producing energy; there are a whole lot of things the oil industry delivers other than gas to fill your car.

Acutally, there would be no Hollywood if not for the oil industry.  I don't believe celluloid could be made of corn, can it?

Posted by: syn at June 23, 2008 12:04 PM (Dx06M)

Posted by: Tushar at June 23, 2008 12:05 PM (Q7Ugu)

92 McCain talks a lot about the central role of government in forcing a change in the kinds of cars we drive.

I was under the impression that in a free-market economy (in which we currently live) no one is "forced" to do anything in regards to what products they make or how they make them.

When are people going to learn that in order to stop a company from producing a certain product, or utilizing a distasteful manufacturing process, the best way to "force" a change is to get their consumers to stop buying that product! Hit them where it counts, their income!

As usual though, the liberal left considers us citizens too dumb to know what is good for us so they will instead pass legislation against the offending company, rather than let the people solve the problem. 

Posted by: Josh at June 23, 2008 12:15 PM (vqbP7)

93 Woolsey is an advisor to the McCain campaign. He also is a founder of this group, http://www.setamericafree.org/.

There is another similar group, www.secureenergy.org. One of my relatives is on their board. It's a group of transportation execs and retired flag-rank military. They say that 97% of American transportation is dependent on oil, and if there were a sudden disruption in supplies, our economy would be thrashed because transportation is so critical to everything a business (and an individual) does.

Both of these groups have had a lot of influence on President Bush, and on Congress, including McCain.

I don't necessarily agree with all their recommendations, but both groups make some good points, and you might be interested in knowing who are the movers and shakers on a lot of this energy policy.

Posted by: stace at June 23, 2008 12:50 PM (JO0c/)

94

Even way back as a kid riding in the back of a truck with gale like force of wind in my face I always thought you could be able to put a windmill type device on top of your car to assist in recharging the battery.

Even better, just hold a magnet out in front of the car and pull it forward using no energy at all.

 

Posted by: lmg at June 23, 2008 12:59 PM (hEMOH)

95 It would be hard to convince them to drop their Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc. in favor of an alternative fuel car unless a massive marketing push was done to make the alternative fuel car a big status symbol to that group.

That's exactly why the Prius is such a big hit. It's the urban preppy coolness factor.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 23, 2008 01:02 PM (Ds4I5)

96 I'm finding I'm always late to this party, so forgive me if this has already been written, but you gotta love this line from McPres:  "the penalties are too small to encourage innovation".  As if Ford shutting down 3 truck/SUV plants and losing billions in capital weren't enough of a penalty.

Posted by: Davey at June 23, 2008 01:03 PM (yfL6L)

97 I keep seeing references to the Tesla car. I would love to have one. Anyone got a spare $100K sitting around they're not using?

'k, thanx, buh.

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at June 23, 2008 01:06 PM (1hM1d)

98

Paul Anka just called.  He wants Entropy to return his f'ing hammer.

Posted by: Dogstar at June 23, 2008 01:13 PM (FgxdU)

99 We should harness the mysterious force that keeps comments here in a constant state of random motion. Perpetual motion? Maybe.... Moron power? Definitely.

Posted by: rinseandspit at June 23, 2008 01:15 PM (ao5cQ)

100

- A couple of quick, random thoughts I'll throw out there for minimal consideration:


* the industrial waste generated in creating "clean energy sources," such as high capacity batteries and high efficiency solar panels, is extremely hazardous, - as is the disposal/recycling of said "spent/damaged clean energy sources."  I personally wouldn't like the prospect of a superfund abatement project coming to a driveway or rooftop near me...


* the most efficient, clean, incredible solar collectors known to man are called "leaves," commonly found on an organic entity known as a "plant."  When Japanese automotive geneticists figure out how to put a bonzai garden in the back of my pickup truck, and all I have to do is water and fertilize the little bastards, my money goes elsewhere...

Posted by: Fritz at June 23, 2008 01:31 PM (zAvxs)

101

derrr...

When Until Japanese automotive geneticists figure out how to put a bonzai garden in the back of my pickup truck, and all I have to do is water and fertilize the little bastards, my money goes elsewhere...

Posted by: Fritz at June 23, 2008 01:34 PM (zAvxs)

102

My mechanical genius advisor pointed out how far the developmental stages have come behind the scenes in advanced automotives. American automakers who've actually been investing heavily in their future have done a great job of keeping their advancements under wraps whilst getting things into the assembly line.

Those of us in the great Southwest would do well to have solar energy collectors on rooftops collecting power to plug into the vehicle at night.

As per nuclear energy plants, the smaller the better. Community developments would do well to design neighborhoods around a small nuclear power device that runs for 20 years, then to be recycled for a new one. Also, new building structures (residence, office, school, retail) would be so much more efficient when built of concrete, hollow core walls for wiring and plumbing, etc.

Posted by: maverick muse at June 23, 2008 01:48 PM (1cbR0)

103 offering a $300 million prize for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

Suddenly I find myself a McCain supporter.  The crew I'm with has this technology working in the lab right now.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 23, 2008 02:09 PM (dcqty)

104
Is it just me, or does McCain seem to be making up policy on the fly?

I really don't see any comprehensive plan, or theme, for governance. It's like going to the buffet at a Polish restaurant--any restaurant--in Chicago.

Posted by: Steve (aka Ed Snate) at June 23, 2008 02:36 PM (lNxs7)

105 keeping their advancements under wraps whilst getting things into the assembly line.

That's the thing -- no matter what's in the labs, you still gotta have something to ship today. 

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 23, 2008 02:36 PM (dcqty)

106 I really don't see any comprehensive plan, or theme, for governance.

That's OK.  The other guy is just making shit up as he goes along too.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 23, 2008 02:40 PM (dcqty)

107

Tushar 59:

Might be able to juice cars with nighttime power, but would still have to come up with the fuel.  Maybe Woolsey addressed it, but maybe not.

Merovign 37:

Not to mention that I (and everybody else) am supposed to instantly throw my $70k worth of dino powered cars in the trash and cough up a similar (or more likely greater) amount to buy some spark powered crap?  Am I supposed to get a second mortgage?

DrewM.

"One of the most consistent complaints we hear against drilling is it will take years to impact the price ..."  These complaints come from people ignorant of the oil patch.  Offshore West Africa, 4500 feet water depth, initial discovery 3Q2007, first oil 2Q2010, expected production ~300,000 bopd.  About half of my projects are on this kind of timeline now.  The other half are with one of the majors here in the States, and they actually can take forever.

If the federal govt really gets out of the way (not removing the rational safety or environmental requirements, but 86-ing the nonsense), the easy oil (i.e., less than 5,000 ft here in civilization) gets to market in 2 years, the hard stuff in maybe 5.

Posted by: Troll Feeder at June 23, 2008 05:26 PM (Ii2pA)

108

@ 29

If you read further you would see I said I disagreed with a lot of what was in that speech, just not that particular part. 

Just because one idea is bad it doesn't mean that all ideas from the same source are bad. 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: chad at June 23, 2008 05:28 PM (oHlIR)

109

Y'know, if y'all can't get the fucking comment transfers from one website to another right, why not close the other fucking website down. This morning, I'm #22, I check back, and I'm at #78. How the fuck are people supposed to reply to solid references when the fucking postings are all over the fucking place (NOT a fucking question: it's a goddam observation).

At the least, let us know how much longer this shit is happening, so we can just fucking quit posting until it's fucking fixed.

...yes, I'm pissed: this is frapping awful.

Posted by: davis,br at June 23, 2008 05:47 PM (7QgFP)

110 One of the socialists (liberals) classic complaints of the free market is its ruthless pursuit of efficency at the expense of all else including workers. Yet somehow this ruthlessness hasn't applied in the energy sector according to them.

Posted by: Ralph at June 23, 2008 09:59 PM (dxnUk)

111

It seems that no-one took up my electric car question. According to wikipedia, sales of electric cars in the US began in 1890/91. Yeah, I know, citing wikipedia, but this info seems to be right to me. Oh yeah, the first self-propelled carriages were propelled electrically, ca 1838, some 50 years before Otto cycle internal combustion engine powered carriages.

Would anyone like to guess why gasoline and diesel powered internal combustion engine powered carriages, which were less popular than the electrics for the first few decades of use, became the dominant form of motive power for self-propelled carriages?

Posted by: Hank Rearden at June 24, 2008 06:07 AM (tcy4k)

112 So McCain wants to sponsor a contest in the private sector and give a prize to the person in the private sector who comes up with an electric car. What the hell are you idiots whining about? Some of you people are poster kids for corporal punishment.




Posted by: rightwingprof at June 24, 2008 08:00 AM (52wuV)

113 How about gving that $300 million to the people ,thru tax breaks ,that buy cars with a minimum of 40mpg or Truck (ie Mack, Peterbuilt) that get 25mpg.   watch Detroit figure it out.  If they don't you know the Japs will.   What we get now for alt. fuels ain't cutting it.  And all we have to do is get better efficiency with the fuel we have.       hey....Im typing all naked now 

Posted by: DickChaneySHotMe at June 28, 2008 09:17 AM (9IyVr)

114 Hello. That's very nice site but I've seen this before here: [url]http://bb2.inguaro.com/a102f1dd048972d69894acbbf77b111e a102f1dd048972d69894acbbf77b111e

Posted by: Diego at March 03, 2009 11:50 PM (4SLHy)

Posted by: iolanda at September 30, 2009 01:39 AM (YgE7Y)

Posted by: cheap car insurance at January 05, 2010 08:18 AM (a5T53)

117 good update college station rent is a great place to find stuff for rent!

Posted by: aggie classifieds at May 24, 2010 01:30 AM (oGR9J)

118 Lately I have been thinking about losing weight, what do you think I should read first? loosing belly fat how to lose belly fat how to lose stomach fat fast calorie burning foods

Posted by: Thomas at June 09, 2010 07:42 AM (etTtE)

Posted by: دردشة at October 10, 2010 09:13 PM (KeYKJ)

120 thanks alot this is exatc;y what i was loking for.
cb traffic warrior
Facebook Login

Posted by: CB Traffic Warrior at November 24, 2010 09:40 AM (7rcEB)

121 Wow, government sponsored prizes and tax credits. Thanks Mav!

Posted by: sound card driver at August 17, 2011 02:28 AM (XdM1T)

122 Excellent information to many people like to read articles to learn about these issues of great interest. seo services dubai | dubai yachts | medical insurance in dubai | treatment for hair fall | thesis uk | london executive car

Posted by: Gilespi at November 01, 2011 01:48 PM (zPLVT)

123

The dvd to ipad mac converter is the best choice for iPad fans to transfer iPad to Computer. What is more, it also can change 2d to 3d.

Posted by: 3d video converter at November 23, 2011 04:44 AM (xfoLW)

Posted by: Chris at January 25, 2012 03:09 PM (h0jv1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
155kb generated in CPU 0.15, elapsed 1.327 seconds.
63 queries taking 1.2138 seconds, 360 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.