Quote:
Originally Posted by truth411
I am just not seeing the logic, this all seems to be about perceptions/marketing and not facts (I could be wrong but I don't think so).
Classic example the Toyota Prius Marketed on Tv with freaking polar bears hugging pruis owners in commercials as if the car is even remotely eviornmentaly friendly. People totaly ignore how the Prius is made and the fact that it does more damage to the enviornment before it leaves the showroom floor than a Tahoe driven like 500,000 miles. Lets say if Cars go electric, don't most electric plants use fossel fuels to produce electricity? It all seems like a giant "reshuffle" of fuel sorces and have people believe that "Hey If we don't see us using fuel to drive our cars that must mean we are useing less of it." Which would be totally bogus.
|
I don't think you're following which 'alternatives' I have in mind...electric cars won't take over the market near-term. They're still very expensive, and don't have the range necessary to be practical. The Volt is a different story...but it's still pretty pricey. As for electrical production...true, many plants are still fossil-fuel powered, but they're cleaner that the equivalent amount of cars their electricity would theoretically take off the road. All those electric/hydrogen cars are long-term things...not what I'm concerned with at the moment.
I'm talking about fuel alternatives for traditional internal-combustion engines, like biomass(not feedstock)-based Ethanol, and algae-based gasoline/diesel. When mass produced, these fuels are competitive, if not cheaper than $4 petroleum-based gasoline and they please the greenies. But without the demand for these clean, renewable alternatives driven by expensive gas, they just don't see life.
That's why I say what I do. I'm tired of being at the mercy of the world market because suddenly China and India want cheap fuel. Time to take care of ourselves. And if a couple years of ridiculously-priced gas is what it takes, then so be it.