Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hobbs
True. However, how much efficiency can we build into vehicles before we hit a brick wall. I mean, there is only so much more efficeint ways to burn fossil fuels (areodynamics, computers, better lubricants, lighter vehicles, etc.), right? After a while, some of the burden has to fall on the fuel manufacturers. They have to come up with better formulas which would eventually move in the direction of nontraditional fossil fuel mixtures. Right?
|
A 200+ horsepower engine under the hood. That massive engine needs how much horsepower to maintain 55 MPH down the highway? 10? So what happened to the other 100 HP? We must burn extra energy just in case a driver wants to accelerate? The inefficiencies are that great. Don't fool yourself. There is a massive inefficiency in cars. But it take time and public demand to discover how to achieve those efficiencies. The American public, encouraged by the current administration, repeatedly demands no such innovation. Cited previously were historical examples of what it took to rescue American innovations. Japanese. Government regulation. A few decades of delay.
Want to appreciate why solutions sit stifled? You make many demands and ask many questions, but demonstrate little laymen's grasp of the problems. Read that previous discussion about horsepower per liter, et al? Grasp every number as if it were a life jacket on the Titanic. Do you know why a radial tire that achieved double or triple mileage, and that increased fuel economy significantly was essentially banned from the US for almost three decades? Just another lesson of history that better puts your questions into perspective. Therein lies a trend that brings about another 'energy crisis'.