Green Cars Before It’s Too Late – Did Ford know that he was killing us?

Posted on July 23, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Since the oil/gasoline price spike I have avoided driving. I know that not everyone can do that but I refuse to give 1.50$ to oil speculators and .50$ to gasoline refiners through rigged gasoline prices. Still the question of whether Henry Ford knew he was killing us by using the sky as an open sewer is intriguing

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n6_v5/ai_16437572

Ford’s environmentalism is more practical. Vehicle Recyclability Coordinator Susan Day is touring the country, touting the company’s use of recycled products in its far-flung manufacturing operations. “The first Henry Ford used to break down shipping crates and use the wood as floorboards for the Model T,” she said. “And he also tried to build car bodies out of soybeans.” The latter operation was aborted after cows began showing an interest in eating the finished product, but Ford is now recycling more than it ever did.

:}
Early on he was a pacifist:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAford.htm

On the outbreak of the First World War in Europe, Ford soon made it clear he opposed the war and supported the decision of the Woman’s Peace Party to organize a peace conference in Holland. After the conference Ford was contacted by America’s three leading anti-war campaigners, Jane Addams, Oswald Garrison Villard, and Paul Kellogg. They suggested that Ford should sponsor an international conference in Stockholm to discuss ways that the conflict could be brought to an end.Ford came up with the idea of sending a boat of pacifists to Europe to see if they could negotiate an agreement that would end the war. He chartered the ship Oskar II, and it sailed from Hoboken, New Jersey on 4th December, 1915. The Ford Peace Ship reached Stockholm in January, 1916, and a conference was organized with representatives from Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden and the United States. However, unable to persuade representatives from the warring nations to take part, the conference was unable to negotiate an Armistice.

:}Apparently he was a big fan of biofuels and assumed his cars would run on ethanol. In fact he favored waste plants and cellulose rich plants for the creation of that ethanol:

http://www.hempcar.org/ford.shtml

Fuel of the Future

When Henry Ford told a New York Times reporter that ethyl alcohol was “the fuel of the future” in 1925, he was expressing an opinion that was widely shared in the automotive industry. “The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust — almost anything,” he said. “There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There’s enough alcohol in one year’s yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years.”

Ford recognized the utility of the hemp plant. He constructed a car of resin stiffened hemp fiber, and even ran the car on ethanol made from hemp. Ford knew that hemp could produce vast economic resources if widely cultivated.

Ford’s optimistic appraisal of cellulose and crop based ethyl alcohol fuel can be read in several ways. First, it can be seen as an oblique jab at a competitor. General Motors had come to considerable grief that summer of 1925 over another octane boosting fuel called tetra-ethyl lead, and government officials had been quietly in touch with Ford engineers about alternatives to leaded gasoline additives. Secondly, by 1925 the American farms that Ford loved were facing an economic crisis that would later intensify with the depression. Although the causes of the crisis were complex, one possible solution was seen in creating new markets for farm products. With Ford’s financial and political backing, the idea of opening up industrial markets for farmers would be translated into a broad movement for scientific research in agriculture that would be labelled “Farm Chemurgy”.

He is faring better than I thought he would. Wonder if the Oil and Gas Companies had anything to do with the Great Depression? Oh.

Then there is this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15233556/

Renewable energy has an icon:

Henry Ford

Conference hears about

history and ‘bioenergy’ future

ST. LOUIS – A century ago, Henry Ford’s Model T was the first flexible-fuel vehicle, running on gas, ethanol or both, and the automaker foretold the future when he said fuel could be gotten from fruit, weeds, sawdust, or anything else that could be fermented.

The story, as told by Archer Daniels Midland’s CEO Patricia Woertz, resonated with her audience at a national renewable energy conference here Wednesday.

Woertz, formerly head of refining at Chevron, now heads the Decatur, Ill.,-based agricultural company that is also the biggest ethanol producer in the U.S.

Count her among the converted.

“We believe we are just at the start of this new era of bioenergy,” she said, acknowledging ADM began building toward that start 30 years ago. “We believe the market can and should grow larger.”

Woertz was among dozens of speakers representing business, financing, government and research at the conference co-hosted by the U.S. departments of energy and agriculture.

President Bush addressed the conference Thursday, saying that, while he liked seeing the recent drop in oil prices, “it’s not going to dim my enthusiasm for making sure we diversify away from oil.”

Then there is this:

http://www.umd.umich.edu/eic/fordestate.htm

The Castle Made of Fossils:

Henry Ford Estate Fairlane

The building material used to build Henry Ford’s final estate in 1914 is Limestone from Kelley’s Island in Ohio. Glaciers carved out this island exposing many fossils which can be seen in the walls of the the estate. For more information on Kelley’s Island and its rich natural history please visit the Kelley’s Island Natural History webpage. The Natural Area is located on the grounds of the Henry Ford Estate. Henry Ford helped to create and shape this landscape in the early 1900’s. To learn more about the Estate, please visit the Henry Ford Estate official website.

This waterfall on the Rouge River was used by Henry Ford to generate electricity for his home. The Estate’s Powerhouse still generates electricity today. In 1914, Thomas Edison laid the cornerstone for the Powerhouse. Can you find the Cornerstone that he laid?

Scavenger Hunt Question:
Can you find the cornerstone on the powerhouse near the waterfall behind the Estate? It was laid on October, 1914.

Environmental Interpretive Center University of Michigan-Dearborn
4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48128 (313)593-5338

So even though he spread the combustion engine throughout the world which ultimately could do us in he was an EARLY Environmentalist. He generated his own Hydro Power. I am so kind>
:}

Oil Hits 144$$ A Barrel! We are all going to die!

Posted on June 30, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Probably not but we will drive less. Using oil for transportation is dumb.

Dan Piraro Is One Of The Funniest Cartoonist Alive – Well at least to me

Posted on June 12, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

I am told that unofficially and off the record, Chris Robertson and the people at Peak Sun Silicon think so too.

http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/

I think the Peak Oil People are wrong. I think Oil Speculation has DOUBLED the price of oil. The Saudi’s claim that they believe oil is worth 70$$ a barrel. The real question is who tried to corner the Oil Market and Why? The second question is like the Hunt Brothers before them (in silver) when will they go to jail?

A bigger question is will the Saudi’s give the money back that they made as a result? Unfortunately they may have screwed the pooch because people are switching to mass transit and scooters.

What A Difference A Month Makes – The mouth piece for the rich was bitchin about all the “money” we spend on alternatives

Posted on June 9, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Oh I meant the Wall Street Journal, sorry….I bet this article wouldn’t see the light of day today. Wait till oil hits 200$$ a barrel and we shall see what they say then.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)
May 12, 2008; Page A14

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new “Manhattan Project” for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That’s double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you’d expect given all the money Congress is throwing at “renewables.” Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and “clean coal” $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don’t get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other “alternatives.”

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That’s a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of “green jobs.” Those jobs won’t come cheap, and you’ll be paying for them.

Big Oil And The Gasoline Refiners Don’t Make Excess Profits? What a load of crap

Posted on May 23, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Finally Dave Sykuta and the Illinois Petroleum Council have the nerve to tell us that they are making themselves rich at our expense. The Saudia’s, the Russian’s and the Venezuela’s are making billions, and the Oil Refiners are making 100s of millions of $$$ and he shuffles out the old “percentage of profit” arguement. Which any rich person does to make it look like they ain’t ripping you.

** The final factor in gasoline prices are earnings. Major oil companies earned a little above the U.S. industrial average, 8.3 percent, on gasoline for 2007. No doubt, 8 percent earnings represent billions in profit. However, consider that oil companies are large due to their financial commitments, such as alternate fuels ($100 billion since 2000) and clean fuel technology ($65 billion since 1999). Moreover, between 33 percent and 37 percent of gross industry revenues are paid back to government in taxes. And while conspiracy theorists love to think dark thoughts about 8 percent earnings, the reality is that over 65 percent of oil industry assets are held by pension plans, IRAs and 401(k)s. Industry executives hold less than 2 percent. When the “Who owns Big Oil?” question is raised, the answer is usually “You do!”

When in fact the Oil Companies themselves were saying something different:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/business/rnrgoilcos.php

Despite record profits, oil companies find little comfort in high prices

By Christopher Knight

Published: February 17, 2008

PARIS: As crude oil prices topped $100 a barrel in January, some of the world’s major oil companies rang up annual profits that beat the bottom lines of any other company, in any other line of business. Yet, despite appearances, industry analysts are not rushing to pat the majors on the back.

Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, reported at the start of this month a record 2007 profit of $40.6 billion, earnings that trounced any other company. Royal Dutch Shell reported the largest earnings of any company in Britain, at about $31 billion.

But amid rising consumer resistance to high prices of gasoline and other refined products, analysts and even some oil company executives have a hard time putting a positive spin on the future.

“As far as the outlook, it is pretty horrible,” said Peter Hitchens, an oil analyst at Seymour Pierce in London.

So why is Dave using the figure 8.2 %. Well because he knows that NO small business could get by on that. Heck not even a multi-state or a medium sized business could make it for long. So he knows that business men and women will cringe. But a for a world-wide international Corporation the size of Chevron or BP that is incredibly wrong. They made so much money that they don’t know what to do with it and it’s all coming out of MA and PA America.

Then he has the gall to say that they pay taxes, when what he is actually counting are Taxes that you pay at the pump as their taxes.

Finally he ends by claiming that WE the American People own the oil companies. While some long standing pension funds have oil stock. The price of Big OIL stocks has been out of the range of the middle class and modest investor for years. Only the supper rich trade those stocks now. For instance:

query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0712FC3F5F13738DDDA90B94D1405B868DF1D3

ROCKEFELLER GAINS $8,000,000 MORE; Yesterday’s Advance in Standard Oil Stocks Shows an Increase of $32,000,000. THEIR VALUE $2,027,516,000 Market Worth of All Subsidiaries at Close of Day Is Double the Debt of the United States. ROCKEFELLER GETS $8,028,000 IN DAY

http://seekingalpha.com/article/24347-oil-vs-energy-stock-prices-something-s-gotta-give

The charts below show the ratio between the price of the S&P 500 Energy stock sector and the price of crude oil per barrel. The ratio is clearly at its highest level in the past three years, meaning that oil stocks have not fallen as fast as the price of the actual commodity during the current decline. So either the stocks are due to play catch up, or the decline of oil is a bit overdone.

Big Oil Charges Us To Maintain Their Gas Stations – And blame Walmart and other retailers for the volitility

Posted on May 22, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Who really believes this? Normally profits are used for maintaining merchandising outlets. These guys are so greedy that they don’t even do that. And note he admits (and kinda seems proud of the fact) that some gas station’s margins are so thin that they make more money off everything but gas. In other words, the Big Oil people have taken the profits for themselves and left independent gas station owners to get by on the sale of snacks. These guys remind me of profit vacuum cleaners. They suck up every penny they can get. Maybe we should put a plug in it.

** The fourth-biggest factor in prices is the cost to establish and maintain the retail outlet. There are more than 5,000 service stations in Illinois and most experts believe gasoline sales are often a “loss leader.” Springfield is increasingly affected by large general retail chains selling gasoline. Most experts conclude these “new era” marketers sometimes offer lower prices, but cause significant price volatility. My experience tells me many consumers are more upset about volatility than the actual price. Unfortunately, I don’t see price volatility going away.

www.ethosnw.com

smartmortgageadvice.wordpress.com

www.flickr.com

www.flumesday.com

You pays your money and youse take your chances.

Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

Posted on May 20, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents. Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an 85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced. According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

Why The Petroleum Industry Continues To Lie To The Public

Posted on May 19, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything! Bart Simpson

Spokesmen like Sykuta want to act like they are the experts and they know it all. So when they shovel a bunch of BS the public is supposed to go, “OH ok”. Accepting the BS as if it were the truth. Notice he is not talking about oil prices, he is talking about gasoline prices. The real shocker in this piece is how quickly tosses oil off.

** The biggest factor in gasoline prices, almost 58 percent, is the cost of crude oil. Crude oil prices are skyrocketing, but only recently at inflation adjusted highs. There are several reasons:

— Domestic demand, especially for diesel.
— Red-hot worldwide demand, especially in China and India.
— The historically low value of the U.S. dollar.
— Civil/political strife in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran.

These factors have tightened worldwide supply significantly. Continued economic growth, which is directly tied to increased energy use, exerts further upward pressure on crude oil prices. Like it or not, local prices are directly tied to the world market and can’t be controlled by U.S. companies. Exxon controls a miniscule .62 percent of worldwide reserves, and BP accounts for only 3.42 percent of oil production.

So the first thing to say is he is going to make the falacious arguement that oil is only a small part of the gasoline prices, but then sites gasoline usage as a part of the problem…eg. increased domestic diesel usage what isn’t diesel gasoline? GOD

His second arguement is that The Petroleum Companies don’t own the oil we just buy it. Yah and you pay WHATEVER the sellers ask, no matter what and then pass the costs to us. What would happen to the oil market if one time just one time you guys said, “Thats too much. Sell it to someone else.” Instead they are clamboring for more 130$$ oil to be pumped into the ground in a salt dome in Louisiana (better know as the Strategic Reserve).

However his arguement essentially is if wasn’t for all the things that happen after we get a barrel of oil then prices would be cheaper. If you buy his original premise that oil is only 58% of the price of gas…then gas should go for under 2$$ a gallon. Think about how silly that is. Let’s see, when oil was 60$$ a barrel gas prices were 2$$ a gallon and now that oil is at 128$$ a barrel it’s 4$$. But the huge increase in oil prices which is largely due to speculaters in the Futures Market (or if you believe Peak Oil – because we are running out of oil) has nothing to do with it. Get real.

Ok, so what about increase in demand for domestic diesel. Everyone know that increases in price decreases consumption. This is true of truck drivers as well. They are slowing down and taking more direct routes. So we have to mark this one as UNTRUE.

The “red hot” India and China Markets? Look, when a 1/4 of the world’s oil is tied up in the futures market everyone is fighting over oil but it has no direct relationship to India’s or China’s increase in imports. Even the Saudia’s who are known liars have said repeatedly that there is enough oil on the market. That oil isn’t making being made into gasoline. Add to that the fact that the refineries are reportedly running at 85% capacity. So we mark this one as UNTRUE.

Next up the Weakened Dollar. Well well well, and who is responsible for that? Dare we say the Geniuses on Wall Street many of whom are oil company Executives. So much so that, again the Saudies and Dubai had to step in and supply billions of dollars in liquidity. And it still wasn’t enough. Top that off with the debt from a war started by an Oilman over Oil and what exactly do they expect? Mark this one as UNTRUE.

Finally there is the world famous “unstable producers”. Whose fault is that? Oil companies cut deals with Dictators to get oil and they are suprised when “instabilities” occur. NO WAY.

More later:
:}

A Human Powered Car – What a concept!

Posted on May 6, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Unfortunately I found this out initially from a website that advertises fraud. They are very happy about all those “run your car on WATER Scams”, so happy that they pick the TOP 3 for you. These creeps should be in jail. Another sad thing is that they are WAY better than me at finding cool energy technology. For that reason alone I WILL not tell you their website, but I will post their text from last year.

The Human Powered Car

August 10th, 2007

Seattle company HumanCar®, founded by Charles S. Greenwood PE, has been developing human powered vehicles for over 30 years. Their showcase creation is the human car, a 4-wheel, 4-passenger vehicle that can achieve remarkable speeds of 60+ mph! Unfortunately the car is not available to the public, the orginal prototype cost $250,000. The stated goal of the project is to develop efficient transportation alternatives that inspire a “sense of an evolving socioeconomical model”. According to HumanCar®, “The time is drawing near when all of the elements – manufacturing, marketing, and product optimization – come together in a cost effective and aesthetically pleasing form.”

For the reel deal, you can go here though I left the link above hot too:

http://www.humancar.com/

Normally I would post chucks of their website. But it’s all done in Adobe Flash and PDF advanced file types that I can not copy. Fortunately they have a press release so I hope to do something with that.

OKOK due to technival difficulties which transcend the time I have spent on this…NONE of the Press materials came through unscarred. It was transmitted as a ZIP file. I can’t even give you a real address because there is no “contact us” thingy…Maybe these guys aren’t so bright after all…While you wait here are 2 You Tubes about it which are basically the same…one is longer than the other..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=369463415941480101

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xp-923G8i4

Finally something by the inventor himself:

Charles Greenwood P.E. Inventor and Engineer of HumanCar® Inc welcomes you to join us for the launch of the Imagine™ LMV HumanCar®.

The Imagine™ LMV is rocking the world. Get involved. Imagine™ Electric Hybrid Pre-Order Information – The HumanCar® Imagine™ features an exoskeletal safety cage chassis, dual electric motors, variable human power input, Body-Steering™ patented chassis and SyncGuideway™ compatibility as standard equipment. It retails for $15k base. Feel free to email us here for a free pre-order number.

First 100 vehicles “Launch Series” Pre-Orders accepted now. Limited production prototype models are currently in build cycles. We are 6 to 12 months out from scale delivery. (HumanCar Inc. makes three models- the FM4 “Troublemaker”, The Rod, a 10 second 189-mph hybrid race car and the Imagine™ the revolutionary electric/human hybrid)

HumanCar® Inc. developing international appeal and The Great Change.

HumanCar vehicles may be used to generate power or transport people.

Deep Forest OREGON, USA: The evolutionary HumanCar® LMV Imagine™ street-legal dual electric motor/human hybrid vehicle in production, ” represents the entry point to the great change” says Chuck Greenwood CEO of HumanCar Inc. ” people globally will be able to solve critical resource problems locally and create individual efforts to reduce and regenerate their own power.”
He goes on to say that SBS Communications of Seoul just shot a documentary at a HumanCar R/D Center. “They were interested in the spiritual aspect and understood when the inventor and engineer of the project, my father Charles Samuel Greenwood, described how pure chi energy is charged to the heart chakra, it was magical. Thus is the nature of the project. The concept that one four-passenger human power interface can generate well over 2k Watts, enough to power a home or help maintain a charge for transportation is magical. The fun part is, it’s a reality” Mr. Greenwood chimes “As a part of the release this February we wanted to supply a FAQ that will answer new followers to the project’s questions.”
An Interview with Mr. Charles Samuel Greenwood P.E. inventor of the HumanCar.
How many bicycles were used to make the FM-4?

No Bicycle parts are used in the FM-4.
Where are the pedals?

The TWASTA Patent (Team Work and Strength Training Apparatus) defines a mobile – or stationery – full body work out device, for multiple participants. There are no pedals.
How does it handle?

BodySteer utilizes more degrees of freedom than leaning – like riding a motorcycle. High speed handling is critical to the safe performance of any vehicle. Why make a 200 MPH chassis/suspension system? Why not? BodySteer is at least as effective as wheel steering – some would say much more effective.
Then why have both front occupants steer?

Part of the fun of teamwork is to share tasks. Think of it as Pilot and Co-Pilot. Either can control the vehicle, but there is an exotic sensory input when you feel the others sharing the activity. Dominant/Submissive arrangements work, and so does real-time cooperation.
Do you need a full team?

Three people works quite well. Of course, with one or two people you are probably going to want auxiliary power.
Can you tell who is slacking and who is jacking?

Instantly.
Why does the FM-4 prototype not have a motor on it?

(Don’t answer that question. Make them go to the site and see.)

We’re hot rod builders, dirt bike riders, bicycling enthusiasts, and we love all kind of sports, with or without machines, with or without electronics. We love healthy people. You and your family will power yourselves down to the store and back. Then watch for some real exciting radical hardware.
____________________XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______________________
Contact:
HumanCar Inc.
206 280 4772 mobile
http://www.humancar.com/
thehumancar@gmail.com

Another View Of Corn Ethanol As An Automobile Source – Very bad idea

Posted on April 30, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Study: Ethanol use could worsen global warming

By H. JOSEF HEBERT

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into account almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

“Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global wanning,” concludes the study published in Science magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly “plow up more forest or grasslands,” releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to biofuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Association, which represents ethanol producers, called the researchers’ view of land-use changes “simplistic” and said the study “fails to put the issue in context.”

“Assigning the blame for rainforest deforestation and grassland conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels industry ignores key factors that play a greater role,” said Bob Dinneen, the association’s president.

There has been a rush to developing biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in December that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.

The new “green” fuel, whether made from corn or other feedstocks, has been widely promoted — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will replace.

During the recent congressional debate over energy legislation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater benefit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a number of other institutions maintains that these analyses “were one-sided” and counted the carbon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

“The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace croplands and other carbon-absorbing lands, would result in 50 percent more greenhouse gas emissions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be affected by the land-use changes, the study said.

“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste products” such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. “And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don’t require too much too fast. Right now we’re making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.”

But don’t let me decide for you….Check out the raging debate:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/index.htm

www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm

www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

www.usnews.com/articles/business/car-reviews/2008/01/11/corn–ethanol.html

www.feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

www.petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf