Definitely, the best choice for a car is one that already exists, not trading in a 2007 hybrid for a 2008 hybrid. And sometimes the thinking of needing something different is just our wonderful American way of consumption. I was tired of getting 23 MPG in my 97 Subaru Legacy Wagon, and instead of going out and buying a new/different car, I took the time to learn how to drive efficiently. We have all heard how to do it, but it just takes the patience to actually do it. I can now get 40 miles per gallon in the same car, without ANY modifications to the car, simply just changing driving technique. I also drive the shortest distance route, even if it means taking more time because it saves gas. My drive to see my family a few times a year takes a few more hours, but uses 45% of the gas that it used to. So if you want to drive a more efficient car, don't empty your pockets just yet. Learn how to drive efficiently, find the shortest route, and then when your car is really dead, it might be better to buy the new hybrid or electric if you are still going to use a car.
Andy Goodell 1894 Charlotte Creek Road Oneonta, NY 13820 (603) 831-0356 http://geekguyandy.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Margaret McCasland Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:19 PM To: Sustainable Tompkins County listserv Subject: Re: [SustainableTompkins] I hate to drought on your hybrid parade but... >This list would be the place to seek opinions on the credibility of the >following http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310094555.htm > > >[this is indirectly from a press release of an upcoming issue of the >ACS journal "Environmental Science and Technology"...actual article >contents are sketchy translation of an abstract.] Below is the actual content of the summary. To use the authors' own point that "policy makers often neglect the impact that [FILL IN THE BLANK] could have on [FILL IN THE BLANK], some balanced systems thinking is needed here. Their analysis (at least in this summary) seems to be so narrow that I wouldn't call it good "systems thinking." Hybrid cars--or any other "solution"--need to be placed in a complete and balanced systemic context. Assuming that we will continue to produce electricity in the current absurd ways (which ARE water-hungry) is well, continuing to think absurdly. There's a lot we didn't know and/or that the "deciders" decided to ignore when our current electric power system was allowed to form. Saying hybrid cars aren't a good idea because the ways we currently generate electricity are foolish (my term, my bias) is being very selective about our options. "Dissing" hybrids is a distraction from more serious dangers to our usable water. Continued use of fossil fuels and industrial agriculture are probably the two most serious drains on our water resources. Global climate disruption has multiple ways of indirectly reducing the available usable water, but on-going human activities also directly reduce it significantly. Let me know if you need some examples. "Down the road" we will be able to have clean, green, safe AND water-efficient electricity to power plug-in electrics. And we'd better get there sooner rather than later, which means getting there as directly as possible, without a lot of detours through hydrogen fuel, E85 gasahol, hybrid cars, etc. The link below shows how feasible it is to produce enough* electricity with do-able technology. *Conservation and efficiency are, of course, an important part of thinking systemically. See the executive summary of a plan for a coal- AND nuclear-free future that discusses water use (both those technologies--which boil water to create steam to turn magnets that create electricity are major water hogs). http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf A related slide show includes the following bullet points (paraphrased): --re: today's current coal or nuke power plants: a 1,000 MW plant operating at full capacity needs 20 million gallons/day for its cooling tower. --over 1,000,000,000,000 gallons per year (4.5 million acre-feet) of fresh water is consumed by fossil fuel and nuclear plants Good reasons to phase out coal and nuke-fired plants, but not good reasons to keep driving gasoline-powered cars. Because of the "embodied energy" it takes to produce them (including water), people should only buy hybrids if they are buying a new car anyway (well, if they're trading a Hummer for a hybrid, they should probably send the Hummer to the scrap heap and buy the hybrid now, but in general, not putting another NEW car on the road is a better choice than a hybrid). I'm hoping I can keep my 95 Subaru going long enough to skip the hybrid phase and go straight to all electric. Of course the best choice is to minimize use of any care that uses carbon-based fuels. Trains for people, not for coal! (with more engines that are diesel-electric hybrids in the near future, then clean, green electric trains wherever possible). Off to promote a carbon tax! Margaret PS: All this messy weather (oscillating just above and below 32 and full of lake-effect moisture) was predicted by climatologists because the Great Lakes (and Finger Lakes) are a bit warmer all year-round than they have been historically. And I can't imagine that having a coal plant using lake water for its cooling tower helps any. And then there are all those nuke plants on Lake Ontario--the source of a lot of our winter "weather." Never heard this aspect of "heat added locally to heat from global warming" discussed by climatologists, so I don't know how big a factor it is. FROM http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310094555.htm Eco-minded drivers in drought-prone states take note: A new study concludes that producing electricity for hybrid and fully electric vehicles could sharply increase water consumption in the United States. In the study, Carey W. King and Michael E. Webber note that policy makers often neglect the impact that fleets of hybrid and electric vehicles could have on already-scarce water resources. They calculated water usage, consumption, and withdrawal during petroleum refining and electricity generation in the United States. Each mile driven with electricity consumes about three times more water (0.32 versus 0.07-0.14 gallons per mile) than with gasoline, the study found. "This is not to say that the negative impacts on water resources make such a shift undesirable," King and Webber emphasized. "Rather this increase in water usage presents a significant potential impact on regional water resources and should be considered when planning for a plugged-in automotive economy." The article, "The Water Intensity of the Plugged-In Automotive Economy" is scheduled for the June 1 issue of Environmental Science & Technology. Adapted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS. _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
