OK Explain this???

Question

How can the U.S government even other contries put a man on the moon but can't find another source for fueling cars!!!!!????

Cuz what some friends and I came up with....is that the oil companies r paying the government to not have some of the worlds smartest men/woman us somthing like peanuts or somthin to fuel cars cuz if they can put a man on the moon y can't they turn peanuts into gas like stuff but make it so the peanuts can't be bad for the enviorment like the Ethonal stuff cuz it turned out to be like 5% worse than Gasoline...

so i am just wonding could some1 explain this for me!!!!!!!

Or maby if u r like so Harvord graduate(as u can tell iam not)make somthing up with ur graduate friends that uses peanuts and some other renuable source to make some kid of other fuel that doesn't mess-up the enviorment!!!!!!!!! : ) Ty for your time LOL

Answer 1

check out this car-no alternative fuel- but it gets like 157 mpg http://www.loremo.com/

watch: who killed the electric car

**there is this scientist guy doing research.  He is sailing around the ocean and doing shotgun genomic sequencing of sea water.  What he found was genes in bacteria that can capture energy from the sun to make hydrogen.  They are exploring this as alternative fuel source.

Answer 2

Everyone cries about government this and government that. Well you can make a big difference in that. Example republicans are warmongers and they are payed by big oil. Democrats are elected into office with a majority. And guess what same thing still in place.

Now if the people that are inventing all these great things that are better then what we have now. Where they killed for their information?  did they willingly sell their ideas? Cant blame government for people's individual greed. or necessity who knows.

You want companies to build better cars to save environment. Then buy the stuff they do put out. Let them know how much you care by buying them or you can stop buying the big gas burning SUV's and they will get it that way.

Is all about peoples personal actions. You go after government and business. But you also have to go after the people who sell these great inventions and also the ones who  pollute and don't help. We have to start being responsible for our actions or in-actions instead of blaming others.

Answer 3

The first diesel ran on pure plant oil, so nothing new in this world. Due to the established economic powers we are facing the problems of pollution. A change to renewable energies and a better efficiency of used fuels will take another ten years .  There is light in the end of the tunnel. Look at the Internet for

ELSBETT. He was a German engineer who developed an diesel engine back in the early seventies with an efficiency of 40 % that took 3.51 liters to 100 km for a 3 cylinder 65 KW

diesel on pure plant oil. Unfortunately the guy went bankrupt because the existing industry did not like his ideas. The patents are these days used to improve the combustion for the standard diesels. With blends like b5 or b10 we are trying

to adjust the fuels to the engines. We should change the engines and adjust them to the available fuels in future. Like you say how stupid are we when we can fly to the moon but are not able to improve the efficiency of the fuels we use.

We can all ready do far better. Stop blending. We should just start all over again. Take the threats serious and do better. The technology is there! It needs a real support.

Clemens

Answer 4

I agree with everything you said, OMG.

Hey, I even saw Elvis in the post office last week.

And Michael Moore is the great truth teller of our time............

Psst.....an alien just walked past my house!!!!!!!!!!!

I gotta call Fox and Mulder straightaway!

Answer 5

Lots of alternative fuels exist.  The problem is that the big oil companies buy out the inventor and hide the information from the public.  Here in Ohio this week (saw this on the news) someone discovered how to burn salt water!  It actually heats to 1500 degrees F. and will create enough steam for a steam engine.  The inventor wants to sell his idea.  Wanna guess who's going to buy it???

Answer 6

Alex, I think you partially answered your own question.

The oil companies do have a lot of influence on our lawmakers. They have the money to pay lobbyists and contribute to election campaigns to make sure their steady stream of revenue comes in.

Peanuts can't be used to produce gasoline, but peanut oil is a suitable biodeisel fuel. The problem with bio fuels is that they decompose too quickly to be a practical fuel. That being said, I think with a little more research, that problem could be resolved.

I would like to respond to some of your other comments, but I am accustomed to reading traditionally constructed English grammar. Some of your sentences are difficult for me to interpret. It would be helpful if you used the spelling checker and a grammar checker.

Answer 7

First of all you already can run your car off peanuts.  The diesel engine was invented by rudolph diesel to run on peanut oil.

Others said that big oil has an effect on congress and they do.  They have record profits to pay the best lobbysts to get their point across.

Alternatives are now in the spotlight and the countries best and brightest are working on it.

Here, check this site out.  There are quite a few solutions that we will see very soon:

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Fuel...

.

Answer 8

I suspect alternates have been made, but the oil companies are a very profitible and powerful company so to speak , so they supress other techologies  in hopes of making even more money , and since the us president has his fingers in the oil companies i don't expect to see a change anytime soon

Answer 9

I can't believe nobody caught on to this, but I can turn peanuts into gas. Just ask anyone who has been around me after I ate some. Now if we could make a car that runs on methane and put a harness on my a**. Better put a filter on that harness too, just in case.

Answer 10

Hi, a man a while back came up with a solution similar to yours. He used cooking oil, it was ethanol free and cheap. The government arrested him for it after he a made a documentary on it. We have other ways for fuel but our government makes more money off the oil we get from other countries.

Answer 11

OK, You & your buddies turn lead into gold(easy, cause the molecular stucture is just a little off) Same as changing peanuts to gasoline! To sit in a rocket laden with petrol enhanced fuel and launch it up is easier. Where  you get that ethanol is worse for the environment than petrolium based products? State experiments and results please?

Answer 12

Well, the reason why we dont have cold fusion powered cars is the same reason we don't drive cars that can last a life time....there's no money in it. Basically there is research being done right now for alternative fuel sources (ie fuel cells) but a lot of that research is underfunded. This doesn't totally answer your question, but hope it helps a little.

Answer 13

ethanol is worse than gas because it destroys even more forrests than anything else

check this out

QUOTE

The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.

"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS.

Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas.

Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult.

The FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica.

"The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS.

National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said.

Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality.

Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera.

Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said.

The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests.

One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera.

Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said.

However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this."

This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service



Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/...

Answer 14

In the first world sugar price slump (1977) many countries, Australia, Brazil,,,,and others distilled ethanol as a fuel but at the time it was not competitive with petrol.  Now it is more efficient than petrol to produce ?????

Also, you should watch Ferenhite 9/11 by Mike More, this should answer your other questions.

Answer 15

B.S.

The real reason is that oil is the cheapest and the oil companies have spent billions on refineres and the distribution system.

They ar just ripping us off again. They found a way to do it and so they are doing it.  

Canada has enough oil in the tar sands to last 100 years and they say it is profitable to extract it at $20 to 25  a barrel.

They just discovered a several trillion barrel field in the Gulf of Mexico so we wouldn't really need the 20% of oil the U.S. imports from the Middle East if these were developed.

Answer 16

The reason they can't find another source for fueling cars is that it would be too costly in the short term and most big businesses and the government really only care about the short term.  If a fuel source would take 20 years to make up initial costs, most executives and politicians will be retired and likely dead.  If a politician is 70 years old, why should they care about the future of our planet?  Many executives these days change companies every few years.  They get rewarded for what happened when they are in charge and not what happens after that.  So, if it cost a company $50 million a year for 4 years to get the fuel going, but then made them $20 million a years for the next 40 years, they would have a net margin of $60 million, but if the executive leaves after 4 years, the profit margin while he was there was down $20 million, so he could make millions less.

Answer 17

Ethanol is not worse for the environment. The only negative thing i know so far about ethanol is that it utilizes corn, which is starting to make it harder for farmers to feed their corn fed livestock because of the expense because corn is becoming less readily available.  Cost of feed goes up, so does cost of other groceries. Corn is a key component in lots and lots of foods.  There are other energy sources which we should be using since we are much closer to renning out of oil than anyone cares to admit.  It is only a matter of time. The US reached their peak oil production in 1973.  Estimates indicate that even Saudi Arabia may reach it's peak oil production by 2020.  After that, it's all downhill for everyone.  Everything around you that is made of plastic comes from oil.  China is beginning to want more and more oil and India is not far behind china.  Brother, it's going away.  better stop wasting money and causing wars over oil and spend that same amount of money on developing alternative energy sources. Do a web search for "the new apollo project". It is a strategic initiative that helps to solve many problems all at the same time. Energy sourdes are a huge part of it. but near as i can tell, it has pretty much been scrapped by the government. They are too interested in draining every last drop of oil from the earth before they give up their greedy ways. They make way too much money off oil to want to quit it.

Answer 18

the government or at least the one we have now will not do anything about the price of gas/oil or finding alternate fule because they own to much stock in the oil companies so the fortune we pay out just to be able to get to work and back (for what im not sure its not like we make any money after buying gas) goes right into their pockets.

Answer 19

They are working on two types of cars-One runs on used cooking oil and the other on water and I think one runs on the solar engery.  The thing is that it takes a while to develope a car and get it out but mostly yea, the oily companys is paying them.