From Veeduber@aol.com  Sat Oct 19 10:46:24 1996
msgnum: msg17973
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 11:45:20 -0400
From: Veeduber_at_aol_dot_com
Subject: Alternative fuels, alternative engines


To All:

When discussing alternative fuels the questions asked make it clear the
majority expect such fuels to be very similar to gasoline in their
convenience and energy content.  The truth is, the only 'alternatives' which
meet that criteria are  themselves derived from petroleum... with one
exception: Diesel-powered vehicles burning vegetable oils.

When it comes to personal transportation, Americans come equipped with a set
of automatic blinders, expecting any alternative fuel, vehicle or
what-have-you -- to provide about the same speed, comfort and conveniece we
presently enjoy and to provide it at nearly the same cost.  This basic
assumption is extremely unlikely.  Indeed, it is illogical, given the rules
of economics and existing governmental regulations regarding automotive
safety.

The seminal work on gasoline-powered internal combustion engines as a motive
force for personal transportation dates from the mid-1880's.  From that time
to this, all of the 'alternatives' presently touted by various special
interest groups including the environmentalists, have been extensively
explored, with the majority of the work being fully developed and mature by
about 1905(!).  

Each time there is a technological advance the body of information covering
personal transportation is re-examined by persons hoping to become rich by
applying that technological advance to the field of personal transportation.
 These people dream of becoming another Henry Ford but two facts argue
against such sudden success.  The first is that all of the existing
automobile makers are doing exactly the same thing, hoping to improve their
product by incorporating the new technology.  This is what saw turbine
powered cars and trucks on the streets of San Francisco in the late 1950's,
being tested there by Chrysler Corporation.  It is also what sustains the
billion-dollar research facilities maintained by the major auto makers.

The second fact arguing against a revolutionary change in personal
transportation is more subtle.  As a nation we have become accustomed to a
certain standard of service, conveniece and comfort.  We want our cars to be
warm and quiet, with a good stereo system --- and lots of cup holders.  We
want an automatic transmission and an engine we don't have to think about.
 These are the blinders we all wear when it comes to personal transportation.
 (People who drive old Volkswagens fall into a different catagory of course.
 Indeed, the fact we, as drivers of automobiles, are even discussing the
question of alternative fuels IN THE PRACTICAL SENSE sets us well outside the
mainstream of American thought.)

But we are human.  If an alternative fuel -- or a completely new source of
power -- can not provide us with what we have become accustomed to, it stands
little chance of commercial success.  This fundamental fact has been proven
time and again.

The proof of this may be seen in realistic, practical, down-and-dirty
alternatives to what we have today.  Shut off the gasoline and within ten
days I would be chugging around town, my '67 VW beetle powered by wood, a
huge bellows on the roof to hold the combustible gas derived from burning
wood in a small oven on the back bumper.  It would be horribly inconvenient
-- compared to gasoline -- with very limited range and not much power, but
wood-burners are proven technology (they used them extensively in Europe
during World War II) and not too difficult to build.

Alcohol would not be practical because of the cost and the economic realities
of modern day agriculture, which is dependent on the petroleum industry for
the high yield and low manpower typical in American agribusiness.  Without
gasoline, or petroleum derived fertilizers, our crop yield would plunge.
 There would be no surplus grain for export -- or for conversion to ethyl
ethanol.  We would be forced to use wood alcohol -- methyl methanol, which is
as unpleasent a stuff as man has ever invented.

Burining wood DIRECTLY, either to use the gases produced for internal
combustion, or in a steam-powered EXTERNAL combustion engine provides
remarkable fuel efficiency when compared to the wood-derived alternatives.
 In effect, you cut out the alcohol-brewing middleman.  But here again, when
it comes to personal transportation you would not have the comfort and
convenience we presently enjoy.  And while we would eliminate the various
oxides of nitrogen that are a by-product of fossil-fueled internal combustion
engines, pollution would still be with us.  Non-gasoline based pollution
would simply take different forms -- those resulting from the burning of wood
(or other vegetable matter), the production and combustion of alcohol, and so
forth.

There is considerable humor in anything having to do with pollution and the
environment.  The most practical form of personal transportation is the
bicycle yet a majority of people who call themselves 'environmentalists'
drive cars.  They think about bikes... and talk bikes... but they drive cars.
 Such hypocracy is not their fault, of course.  You and I are to blame; we
force them to drive cars because of our insensitivity toward our planet.  And
there is more than a grain of truth in that.

The motorcycle is a good middle-ground alternative for personal
transportation.  In fact, simply thinking smaller is all that would be needed
to drastically reduce the problem of pollution.  Cars having engines of 500cc
or less -- about 30 cubic inches -- are presently EXEMPT from California's
smog laws,  the most stringent in the nation.  And the idea of a car with
such a small engine is not as silly as you may think.  Fiat built millions of
the things and they drove quite well, thank you :-)  Of course, they are tiny
things and the stereo sounds tinny and there isn't a cup-holder to be seen...
 (On the other hand, they would be very cheap to build... until you tried to
meet the present safety standards.  And of course, there is very little
profit margin in building small, inexpensive cars.  This latter reason alone
is enough to squelch any hope of seeing small, efficient cars on American
roads -- the politicians and the automakers simply won't allow it.  What's
good for General Motors is good for America... at least, according to General
Motors.)

The bottom line is that if you are serious about the elimination of pollution
you must be prepared to make radical changes in your life-style and in the
existing structure of our nation's economic base.  And when it comes right
down to it -- when the scope of the required changes is understood -- the
overhwhelming majority of Americans opt to do... nothing at all, other than
continue doing what they have done before.

-Bob