Natural Resources Demand Unprecedented, Pick a Technology, any Technology, Please!

[hb06]

"What is, in fact, unprecedented about the current natural resources boom, which distinguishes it from all previous ones?"

"The scope of the 21 century’s first natural resources demand boom both by category and volume is unprecedented."

"That means if all of the world’s OEM automotive manufacturers were to begin now and to, as Toyota has announced, ramp up their changeover from pure internal combustion engine power trains to hybrids by 2020 the world would need an additional amount of lithium each year beginning around 2012 of as much as is being today produced annually! Under this scenario the world would run out of known reserves in 2020. We would have used up all of the world’s recoverable lithium!"

"What about the nickel metal hydride battery? It works, but the performance and range of the Prius are now as good as they are going to get with the car’s size. By the way, the world’s nickel supply, used mainly in high performance steels is already short of demand."

"What about fuel cell power trains? Well folks today’s fuel cells use between one and three ounces of platinum each to produce the equivalent range and performance of a 4-cylinder internal combustion engine powered car. Using the Toyota projection we would need between 100 million and 300 million ounces of platinum each year after 2020."

"Ethanol? It would be eat or drive."

"Hydrogen might work, not for powering fuel cells-unless a breakthrough non-platinum group metal catalyst comes along right now-but for powering internal combustion engines."

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=31961

[F8L]

Yet a lot of people think technology alone will save us.

Overconsumption is just plain bad, doesn't matter what you are consuming.

[hb06]

Enlightening article on the very real possibility of depletion of the Earth's metals, including Lithium for batteries. Nickel is already depleted. Even the Hydrogen fuel cell technology as it is envisioned today depletes metals such as platinum.

From the topic article:

"How about not hybrids but pure battery powered cars? This would make the problem worse. It would require, at best, even more “minor” metals."

"...none of the above solutions is practical or feasible on just a materials availability basis."

Hybrids and EVs are the best technology available today and for many years to come, but watching Modern Marvels on the History Channel, the future could be vehicles without wheels, no pavement necessary, gliding on magnetic waves. Wonder how far along that will be.

[Darwood]

Mass transit is the best solution, though it needs to be forced on people since it is unappeasing to most. We will need a combinaton of ALL available solutions. My big problem is this stupid statement by all car makers that the batteries aren't ready for EV's yet. EV's do not need a 300 mile range (and hence 6 times the battery size). People can make do with a cheap 40 mile range EV for their daily commute, while using their current car for longer trips. But,since thy can't make a 300 mile range that can charges in 5 minutes, they'll keep on building Tundras, Escalades, and Hummers.

[hb06]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ May 18 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]444824[/snapback]</div>

Mass transit is the best solution, though it needs to be forced on people since it is unappeasing to most. We will need a combinaton of ALL available solutions.
[/b]

Mass transit would help congestion, extensive auto use, and pollution for daily work commutes. It would have to be ramped up within each state to all major city centers with stops at convenient locations. In the San Francisco Bay Area the mass transit system is convenient and well planned for daily commutes - the Park & Ride - woefully missing here in Southern California where it's needed most.

Agree that all available solutions to the transportation problem should be employed to prevent not only environmental pollution but depletion of natural resources such as metals and oil which are needed for other applications.

[F8L]

Mass transit is the way to go. Unfortunately our society and our city structures make this very difficult. Frin what I'm reading is that a cities overall wealth and population has nothing to do with it's use or non-use of mass transit. What is interesting is that those cities who spend the most on mass transit instead of freeway systems seem to be better off. In fact, there was a study done that showed increasing freeway and road infrastructure for cars make congestion worse because when you build more roads, more cars will fill it up. Even more interesting, the Texas Transportation Institute found that there was no difference in the levels of congestion between cities who invested heavily in roads and those that did not.

"Thus it is posible that a policy of road-building designed to reduce traffic can actually have the opposite effect and increase it. [/i](Surface Transportation Policy Project, STPP, "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Highway Expansion and Congestion in Metropolitan Areas: Lessons from the 15 Yreay Texas Transportation Institute Study (Wasgington, DC: 1998)[/i]"

Looking at some numbers:

Average Fuel Efficiency and Occupancy by Mode in Cities 32 Cities, 1990

Mode..... Average Fuel Efficiency (megajoules per passanger-kilometer).... Measured Average Vehicle Occupancy

Car.... 2.91.... 1.52
Bus.... 1.56.... 13.83
Heavy Rail....0.44.... 30.96
Heavy Rail (diesel)....1.44.... 27.97
Light Rail/Tram.... 0.79.... 29.73

Note: Rail mode occupancies are given on the basis of the average loading per wagon, not per train. The average occupancy of cars is a 24-hour figure.

[tripp]

Is Heavy Rail and Light Rail/Tram assumed to be electric? I'm assuming that's why the efficiency is better than Heavy rail/Diesel. Is that right?

[darelldd]

Makes me ill to still be reading comments like this that most people take for granted:

GM in the same year withdrew its all electric, EV1, from the market after a five year test, because GM decided that the performance and range given to the EV1 by its nickel metal hydride batteries, from the same American manufacturer used by Toyota, would not produce a car that Americans would buy.[/b]

The EV1 was not to be a "test" of any sort. GM consumed hundreds of millions of tax payer money to begin the ZEV future. Immediately after production began, the fight to eliminate the ZEV mandate also began. The cars were not taken off the road because Americans would not buy them. The cars were never offered for sale, though many of us certainly offered to buy them!

What a crock. And it just gets repeated every day until it becomes truth.

But I digress...

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ May 18 2007, 01:40 PM) [snapback]445179[/snapback]</div>

Is Heavy Rail and Light Rail/Tram assumed to be electric? I'm assuming that's why the efficiency is better than Heavy rail/Diesel. Is that right?
[/b]

I believe so but the reason stated for efficiency difference between light rail/tram and heavy rail is that the light rail/tram makes more frequent stops and have stations closer together. Electric vs diesel would indeed make a difference in efficiency but it does not state such. Maybe because it is obvious?

[ozyran]

I have the solution!

It's lean, it's clean, it's renewable, and doesn't needsa warranty. You don't need any special registration, but you do need to refuel it often. Regular maintenance is limited to cleaning it and sweet-talking it often. It loves any and all attention you can give to it. It's the most environmentally-friendly transportation you can get!

Anybody know what it is? Anyone? Anyone?

That's right! It's....a horse. Just beware of exhaust leaks, as they can be offensive and messy. They'll make your lawn greener, though!