Verified answer

The near-term transportation alternatives are hybrids and electric cars. A Prius creates 73% fewer emissions than the average new car, for example.

Electric car emissions depend on the power grid, but even if the electricity is supplied entirely by coal (which is never the case), electric cars still produce less greenhouse gas emissions than burning gas.

Plug-in hybrids will hopefully be available within the next decade, and will rival the emissions of electric cars.

PHEV = plug-in electric hybrid

ICE = internal combustion engine vehicle

HEV = hybrid-electric vehicle

EV = electric vehicle

"PHEVs reduce CO2 emissions by 37%-67% compared with ICEs and by 19%-54% compared with HEVs in well-to-wheels (W2W) analyses assuming fueling with gasoline and electricity from the U.S. mix of power plants (and ignoring one or two outliers in the data). PHEVs reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions too.

EVs reduce CO2 by 11%-100% compared with ICEs and by 24%-54% compared with HEVs, and significantly reduce all other greenhouse gas emissions, using the U.S. grid

mix. If all U.S. cars were EVs, we’d reduce global warming emissions. Using electricity strictly from coal, EVs still would reduce CO2 by 0%-59% compared with ICEs (one analysis found 0% change; six others found reductions of 17%-59%) and might produce 30%-49% more CO2 than HEVs (based on only two analyses). On the other hand, if electricity comes from solar or wind power, EVs eliminate all emissions. Using natural gas to make electricity, emissions fall in between those from coal and renewable power."

Let's make sure we're all clear on ethanol. You're correct in that it generates almost as much CO2 as gasoline. But, the environmentalists argue that it's "carbon neutral" because the CO2 it generates came from the atmosphere recently ... the plants that the ethanol was made from took CO2 out of the air, and we're simply putting it back. CO2 from gasoline cam from the atmosphere millions of years ago, and has been locked up in fossil fuels for all that time.

But, something else hard core environmentalists fail to bring up is that it takes about one gallon of fossil fuel (oil) to produce one gallon of ethanol! After the fermentation process, we have to distill the ethanol, and this takes energy!

In other words, ethanol is a red herring.

In all honesty I don't know the CO2 savings off the top of my head. But the best alternative is going to be the hybrid vehicles for the next few years, at least until the manage to perfect the nanotech battery, or the hydrogen powered car. The problem with the nanotech battery is protecting the people in the car if the battery ruptures. That stuff penetrates the human body about as well as gamma radiation (if i'm not mistaken), and would kill someone really quickly if they had no idea the battery ruptured. If they get a contain to protect people in the event of rupture, they will have a technological success.

As for the hydrogen car, well sure it only produces water as a byproduct, but if you are in a crash with a hydrogen car, it would be almost certain death from the massive explosion that would result.

For now, I put my money on hybrids, getting 50 or 60 miles to the gallon is really good as they go, but you have to beware of the gas engine going out. Do you know how far that electric engine with take you if the gas one goes? As I've learned from a distinguished professor and friend of mine, ONE MILE! But the hybrid I really look forward to is the plug-in hybrid, there are good ones coming down the pike that will be able to take people 60 to 100 miles on there batteries, and that would be a round trip work day for me, so that works for me!

dana, will you please give up the 73% less arguement.

The Prius, by the best estimates is 60mpg. A Camry (a larger car IMO but not by the "passenger volume" listed by the site) gets about 30mpg.

That's only a 50% reduction. And all the numbers here are skewed from reality to make the hybrid look better.

Hydrogen would be a no-carbon fuel.

Methane or natural gas (compressed or liquid) would be a low-carbon fuel compared to gasoline. The reason ethanol or bio-diesel carbon is not counted by envirnomentalists is because it can be quickly regrown. But that's kind of fallacious, because we have to use fertilizer (from natural gas) and water to irrigate as well as the equipment for the transportation. Still, it's better than fossil fuels when it comes to CO2 production.

One gallon of diesel produces 22.2 lb co2/gal (u.s.)

One gallon of L.P.G. produces 12.54 lb co2/gallon.

When I have a good feed of Lasagna, a good red, some chocolate and an apple turnover I have enough energy to ride my bicycle a good sixty miles.

I emit around 2.2lbs of co2 /day (occasionally methane) but I'd do that if I just sat on the couch. At least the co2 I breath out was absorbed by the food I eat. That food recently absorbed it from the atmosphere. (similar to ethanol)

Can anyone top food as a low carbon fuel ?

I am sorry but all the power comes from the carbon. Mother nature has a automatic recycle system for the CO2 . There may be problems with other fuels there may not be a recycle system to support it.The recycle system for our air and also for the fossil fuels. It is looking for a new problem when there is nothing wrong with the old one. Think that the earth is a space craft on a very long journey and every thing must be recycled.

Whatever the alternative is, it must be economical.

People have just so much money to spend on their energy needs. If the alternative vehicle, or the fuel to power it costs 10 times more than what it costs to get from point a to point b now, people will not accept it.

People supply fuels to make money. If alternatives are too expensive, people will not buy them ans suppliers won't sell them as there would be no profit.

We need cheap alternatives. Everything I've seen so far is more expensive

Ethanol

It is clear that water is the only clean fuel, just need to work it out.

I doubt the good folk of Richmond will be inconvenienced in this way so fret no more young man.