London Low Emission Zone - Feasiblility Study

I did an emissions test and the fuel filler cap was leaking. Can this cause you to lose fuel?

No it can not. The leaking they are referring to with your fuel cap is air leaking out of it. All modern return style fuel systems are pressurized for emissions purposes. A leaking cap will reduce fuel mileage and maybe also cause a check engine light it should also cause an emissions failure. Stop by your local auto parts store and get a new one. Should cost $10. Good luck

What if starting in say, 2009 they re-vamp the Gas Guzzler tax. For every person that buys a low gas milage vehicle, for instance, 20 mpg and below they are charged a $2000 fee to the EPA. (If your gonna spend $40,000 on a vanity vehicle you should pay it anyway) Then the EPA would take that money and give it back as an insentive to people buying high milage vehicles and fuel cell cars, say 50-60 mpg. SUV’s are selling at a rate of over 1,000,000 per month in the US and hybrid sold at an all time high in July 2007 at 187,000. That could equate to about a $3000-$4000 insentive to start out and taper off as the hybrids begin to overtake the sale of gas guzzlers. all the while cleaning up the environment and not to mention sticking it to the oil companies. So there you go Hillary, you and Obama take it from here.

This is not a new idea. Europe has been doing this for decades. Japan also.

Hybrids are just a stopgap measure until we can get to plug-in electric vehicles for commuting and running errands (most of what we really do with our cars) and linear electric drives for long distances and trucking. There are alternatives that no-one talks about.

I am sure that there is another energy source that has not been explored. When a different energy shortage was endangering our standard of living we started to use oil. We found that we didn’t need whale oil for lamps light anymore and a huge petrochemical industry arose. Can we use Geothermal? Tidal motions? Wind? Photovoltaic panels? Waves? Or something else?

All of those are very possible partial solutions to our energy needs and we need not rely on the supplies of oil to be our only source of energy.

I am creating my own biodiesel fuel and then i must measure the carbon dioxide emission. Does anyone have any idea?

Sure, take a look here for a description:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99082.htm

Isn’t it possible to reduce automobile pollution (i.e., "emissions") without increasing fuel efficiency? And if so, shouldn’t discussions (and political agendas) focused around fuel economy be considered misleading?

Put another way, are we confusing discussions over oil independence (an important discussion on its own) with discussions over global warming?

No, it’s not possible. Not when you include CO2.

When you look at gasoline strictly as a hydrocarbon (ie, without the trace atoms/molecules that make-up "traditional" pollution) then you have a given amount of energy that can be derived from that fuel. The most efficient combustion of a hydrocarbon yields CO2 and H2O. Period. It comes down to stoichiometry. That is exactly what all the sensors for temperature, pressure, O2, etc are trying to accomplish in a modern fuel injection system.

Anything less efficient results in other byproducts like carbon soot, carbon monoxide, and unburnt fuel - that is, an INCREASE in (traditional) pollutants. It is no coincidence that most ULEV and SULEV badges (Ultra Low Emission Vehicle and Super ULEV) are found on high-efficiency vehicles like the Prius or Civic Hybrid.

Do you think that it would be right if a poorly-maintained, poor running 1970 Cadillac DeVille puts out LESS CO2 per gallon of gas than a 2007 Prius?

So, you tell me. Do you think that CO2 should be lumped in with all the other traditional pollutants?

Having the opportunity as an American to travel abroad often, there are some REAL responses that are practical in dealing with the current fuel shortage in North America. For example, there are several European vehicles - full size - family sedans that get over 50 miles per gallon. These are typically diesel motors with new injection technology. One is even a FORD. It appears the pollution emission level is also lower than most American vehicles produced in the US.

So the question is how can we get these vehicles in the US (be approved)? How can the technology be placed in the hands of creative Americans who want to respond affirmatively? How can America wake up to the reality of some awesome available technology that is just an ocean away?

1. Take it to the polls. Exercise your right to vote.
2. Boycott companies that do not support alternative energy or high mileage research and support those who do.
3. Can you back up the statements you made? If so, share your knowledge with others.
The fuel crisis is all about money and greed. We Americans have not done enough to prevent it in the last century and it’s not going away quickly.

We’ve already had a reel mower and a cordless Black & Decker electric, but neither did the job. The reel mower always left blades of grass/weeds sticking up all over the yard. The electric barely cut our small yard on one charge the first year and didn’t get through half of the front by year two or three. That being said, there is no way I can convince my husband to keep dropping money into $100 batteries, especially since we will be moving to a home with a bigger yard soon. So, are some gas mowers more fuel-efficient/cleaner than others? Is there a place to find such information? I am looking to spend $200-$400 tops. Thanks for any info!

Think of how much energy has to be made to power your electric mower.

Two years ago i bought the cheapest non powered gas mower for 165 bucks at sears. It works great.

I have wondered about the emissions, but i havent seen that info anywhere

I just don’t get this guy. The whole idea behind fuel cell vehicles was a zero emission vehicle with the range of a gasoline car. Yet Obama in another one of his grand schemes killed the federal funding for it. Honda and BMW build fuel cell cars. They don’t pollute, and they have great range on hydrogen fuel. Most hydrogen produced today is used to remove sulfer from oil so it is not so hard on the environment.

What doesn’t Obama get?

because switching cars from gasoline to hydrogen is a long way away. Yes they have cars that do run on hydrogen but do you not realize that the entire country would have to restructure every gas station to be able to have a ample fuel supply for the bulk of the country. Do you not realize just how much hydrogen that would take?
Where would it all be stored?
Also you can not forget the billions of dollars that it would require to be done. Also Hydrogen is much more volatile that gasoline so most gas stations would go back to full service because they would not trust the general public not to blow up there store.

When it come down to it at this point in time it would be more economically feasible to focus on cutting the country’s fuel costs through more economical cars. The bad part is most people in america do not want to drive economy cars they want cars that ride nice and have power. If people really wanted economy cars then the entire country would be driving Geo Metro’s instead of Lincoln Navigators.

Some day we will all be driving around in either electric or hydrogen powered cars but that day is not tomorow.

Myself i am saving up to buy a Tesla which is the only cool electric car avalable at this point in time. I only have $175,000.00 to go.

We can put a man on the moon, send a misson to mars, was this real or a fake TV episode set up by our USA government?
So if we can do that here on earth why can we not figure out how to burn wood & trash to power our electic power plants CLEAN with little or no emmision ? Last time i heard somone say to a american that will not work we figured out how to do it?

Waste-To-Energy (WTE) plants are already a small source of power in various locations. I’ve worked at a biomass plant east of Modesto, CA where we took trash wood products (house remodel, orchards, pallets, etc.) and burned them with little emissions. 500 to 800 tons per hour to put out 20 MW-hrs per day. 30 miles to the west of that plant was a genuine garbage burner http://www.covantaholding.com/site/stanislaus/covanta-stanislaus.html that takes 400 tons of waste per hour for 22.5 MW-hr/per pay

http://www.calbiomass.org/county.htm is a listing of wood burning biomass plants

We can put a man on the moon, send a misson to mars, was this real or a fake TV episode set up by our USA government?
So if we can do that here on earth why can we not figure out how to burn wood & trash to power our electic power plants CLEAN with little or no emmision ? Last time i heard somone say to a american that will not work we figured out how to do it?

Waste-To-Energy (WTE) plants are already a small source of power in various locations. I’ve worked at a biomass plant east of Modesto, CA where we took trash wood products (house remodel, orchards, pallets, etc.) and burned them with little emissions. 500 to 800 tons per hour to put out 20 MW-hrs per day. 30 miles to the west of that plant was a genuine garbage burner http://www.covantaholding.com/site/stanislaus/covanta-stanislaus.html that takes 400 tons of waste per hour for 22.5 MW-hr/per pay

http://www.calbiomass.org/county.htm is a listing of wood burning biomass plants

This article claims that is exactly what happened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701557.html

If true it is sad that politicians not scientists are dictating certain truths.

The Bush administration has been very active in suppression of science (far more so than any US administration in history (in the past suppression of science was sporadic but under the Shrub it’s very systematic)).

There’s also been suppression of science at NOAA and NASA that support the fact that global warming is happening, caused by us and probably bad.