Clearly my comment won’t apply to all farm gear, but… It was common practice in the ’60s to put lead oxide powder in tractor tires to give them more weight so they would grip the mud better… Don’t know if it still is. For a very large class of farm gear, added weight is a major feature…

With that said, it is my hope that the fuel of the future for farm equipment is vegetable oil, grown and processed on the farm, used in Diesel engines, and with not one cent of taxes nor profits leaving the farm to go to anyone other than the farmer. It is technically possible today and being done in India.

old construction worker (04:24:53) :
I’m sure many of you have seen the railroad commercial about how they can get 425 miles per gallon of fuel. Why can’t that type of technology (engine powers generator which powers wheel motors) be used in heavy road haulers and farm equipment?

It is. It is called a hybrid… You can get hybrid trucks today from a couple of makers (who’s names escape me because it’s 3am …) Unfortunately, in addition to not being a mile long as others mentioned, there is another aspect of trains that trucks can not match. Steel wheels. The rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails is about as close to nothing as you can get. Not so for rubber tires on concrete… especially not for tires in mud. Trains will always beat trucks for long haul for those reasons. Thus intermodal.

Roger Sowell (16:47:26) :
State laws prevent having triple trailers or more, but Europe allows triples.

Some states allow them on some roads. IIRC Colorado lets them haul over the Rockies.

Did anyone else notice DeSmog only got 88 votes in their catagory.”

Now that is funny. Thanks for pointing it out. Btw – gotta love the CO2 work on your site right now.

HadleyMet appear to have “discontinued” the world’s longest historical record.

Used to be here;

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/fourofour/hadleyredirect.html#/CR_data/Daily/HadCET_act.txt

Big Brother “working for you”.

I must, also, admire the previous posts on alternative fuels.

My two-penneth-worth;

Solar array next to the seaside somewhere hot. Crack seawater to get hydrogen. Use current tech to transport and deliver – docks – tanker – docks. – refinery – tanker – gas station. This maintains the status quo and the top dogs should hardly complain.

http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf

“”

“I’m sure many of you have seen the railroad commercial about how they can get 425 miles per gallon of fuel. Why can’t that type of technology (engine powers generator which powers wheel motors) be used in heavy road haulers and farm equipment?”

I believe the railroads are referring to long-haul trains, which of course have long periods of relatively constant speed. That is quite a bit different than stop-and-start farm equipment. And for long-haul trucks, there is a wind-resistance factor they suffer from, that trains minimize by having a long string of cars very close together. Some trucks approximate this by having dual trailers. State laws prevent having triple trailers or more, but Europe allows triples. Still, you make a good point.

Also, weight is a bigger issue for trucks, as they have an 80,000 pound weight limit. Installing a more efficient power train is no good to them, if it weighs much more than the current system. More weight in the power train means the trucker must reduce the weight of the load, and thereby earn less money. Power-to-weight ratio in the engine/transmission is very important in trucking. GE’s new hybrid locomotive is reported to weigh 207 tons, or 414,000 pounds, and produce 4,400 horsepower. The train lbs/hp is around 94. In contrast, a truck may weigh around 20,000 pounds and have an engine that produces 400 to 500 hp. Using 500 hp, the lbs/hp is around 40.

Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, CA

sea levels are rising. deny your faces off.

nichole, I thought you said that those who are not “Climate Scientists” should not speak as to the “Climate”.

Btw, I’m still waiting for your explanation as to the supposed benefits concerning the “Theory behind Trolling an Oppontent’s Site”.

As far as I can tell, your trolling only brands your supporters as imbeciles. So I wonder what the offset in your specific Trolling could be which offsets that.

man, what gives? why should I have to justify anything? i don’t see you getting on anyone else because for these things. just relax and enjoy the commentary…

Far Out, Man.

Reply: OK, enough.

That’s a consensus!

The winners have been posted on the Weblog Awards home page:

http://2008.weblogawards.org/

Congrats!

Guy

The energy density of batteries (Kwh/kg) is increasing. I predict this will improve, somewhat like computer power on a chip — maybe not quite that fast, doubling every two years, but something similar. Right now, cars can do around 40 miles on one battery charge. Doubling that gets 80 by 2010, then 160 by 2012, then 320 by 2014. That is a good four or five hours in a car, plenty of distance to make it convenient to stop and stretch.

320 miles per tankful is about as much as I can get on my car right now, but…
Do you have some historical information on energy densities of batteries to support your predictions?
I could not find any convenient graphs that would show it, but my impression is that battery’s technology advances are nowhere near Moor’s law.
If I remember right, 40 miles per charge was feasible about 15 years ago, so doubling every 2 years doesn’t sound very realistic.

you’re absolutely correct. i believe that we will always need some sort of combustible fuel to power earth movers, military vehicles, and other heavy equipment. i didn’t mean to confuse normal modes of transportation with those pieces of equipment…sorry about that!

Tim Clark (19:00:51) :

Jeff Alberts (09:08:17) :

“You can not replace gasoline and Diesel liquid fuels with solar without changing the entire vehicle fleet to electric vehicles and that would take at least 15 years if we were already doing it, and we are not.

Sorry, Tim, but I didn’t say what you’re attributing to me.

Pearland Aggie (13:36:29) :
personally, i think coal-to-liquids is a good solution, but it will not be as cheap as naturally-derived petroleum products as long as the demand for them is low or the supply is long. in the mid-term, i think this could be a good bridge to electric- or other-powered vehicles.

I believe you folks are not including agriculture in this picture. As an agronomist, I must add that efficient modern agriculture demands the use of 300 – 1,000+ horsepower tractors. Would someone like to determine the weight of batteries needed to power these vehicles on electric or solar for a 12 hr day? Some of the old steam engines weighed 15-25 tons and produced around 100 hp.
Since the US is the worlds largest exporter of food and the most efficient producer/acre, requiring or utilizing any energy source other than liquid fuel, within our lifetimes, would cause the starvation of billions of people.