Nobel winning physicist takes on Global Warming

[Ivan Seeking]

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu and his scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California work to develop clean fuel technologies, such as new kinds of solar cells and biofuels. Their efforts received a $500 million boost in February, when the energy company BP chose the laboratory to house an Energy Biosciences Institute devoted to developing biofuel technologies. [continued with audio report]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/globalwarming/

I saw Dr. Chu at Stanford a few years ago where he gave a fascinating lecture and was most inspirational. I was thrilled to see him involved in this endeavor. And why not? He is in the business of "cooling" but on a slightly smaller scale.

And 500,000,000 cheers for BP as well! This is the second time that they have stood out for me as the white hats. The other was during a conversation with the CEO on PBS. Unlike the CEO of Shell who claims that we shouldn't want energy independence, BP was completely dedicated to reducing our reliance on petroleum. I think this is what Toffler referenced as the classic battle between 2nd and 3rd wave industries.

 

[Mk]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/globalwarming/

I saw Dr. Chu at Stanford a few years ago where he gave a fascinating lecture and was most inspirational. I was thrilled to see him involved in this endeavor. And why not? He is in the business of "cooling" but on a slightly smaller scale.

And 500,000,000 cheers for BP as well! This is the second time that they have stood out for me as the white hats. The other was during a conversation with the CEO on PBS. Unlike the CEO of Shell who claims that we shouldn't want energy independence, BP was completely dedicated to reducing our reliance on petroleum. I think this is what Toffler referenced as the classic battle between 2nd and 3rd wave industries.

I say skip it and throw all that money into nuclear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The terrorists would love that.

We have 100 plants operating in the US and only need 1300 more of similar size. If we can build 2 a year, it should only take about 650 years.

 

[Moridin]

I think this is a great idea. Like all other areas of science, the more investigation, skepticism and critical thinking the better. It is trying to sweep the scientific investigation under the rug that bothers me.

 

[Skyhunter]

Berkeley has passed measure G which mandates an 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

There is some opposition to the BP/Berkeley venture, overall I support the idea of companies funding public research, as long as the technology remains public. Or at least held jointly by the UC system and the corporate sponsor.

I will talk to the opposition and get the skinny on what the deal looks like and why they oppose it.

 

[Evo]

And 500,000,000 cheers for BP as well! This is the second time that they have stood out for me as the white hats. The other was during a conversation with the CEO on PBS. Unlike the CEO of Shell who claims that we shouldn't want energy independence, BP was completely dedicated to reducing our reliance on petroleum. I think this is what Toffler referenced as the classic battle between 2nd and 3rd wave industries.

This just means that BP has recognized that they are currently relying on a source that is nearing depletion and that in order to survive long term, they need to be able to find something else to sell. They don't care what they sell as long as they turn a profit. If they get tax benefits from backing alternative fuel, all the better for them.

 

[chroot]

I say skip it and throw all that money into nuclear.

I say skip that, too, and just ride a bike instead. All this time and energy spent making better cars just makes me cringe.

- Warren

 

[Skyhunter]

There is going to be a big push for bio-fuels because cellulosic ethanol is being touted as having a small carbon footprint.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/globalwarming/fuel_cost.php

My major concern is what Alice Friedemann terms "Peak Soil".

If we do not adopt an agriculture policy focused on topsoil health, we are in trouble. As oil field production plummets because of pressurization and topsoil is lost because of the high price a farmer can get from the cornstalks. Fertilizer and pesticides will become scarce the food supply will take a huge hit.

Initially when land is switched there is a 50% reduction in yield. Once the soil and ecosystems health is restored yields will return to comparable levels, but this takes a few years. What will we do if suddenly our food supply is cut in half while we have millions of refugees from the low lying areas being inundated by sea level rise.

I am all for research into ethanol, as long as there is comprehensive redress given to the unsustainable industrial agriculture. It has been demonstrated here that organic permaculture can feed the world while it restores the topsoil.

If the big ag and chemical companies have their way it will be a disaster for the food supply. efficiency and renewable is key. Biomass in the short term would be better utilized as charcoal in conjunction with sequestration at existing coal plants.

The initial phase of the meetings started with a review of the current knowledge of man made soils called terra preta occupying an area of the Amazon that total to twice the size of Britain. Carbon was added to these soils in the form of a low temperature charcoal. Using low intensity smoldering fires created these charcoals. By analysis, we can tell that they were created 1000-2000 years ago and were part of a soil management practice designed to take a yellow clay soil of limited biological productivity and convert it into some of the richest soil in the world. A thousand years after its creation it is so well known in Brazil, that it is dug up and sold as potting soil.
<snip>

The economics of this type of carbon utilization can be very simply viewed as the use between carbon-oxygen conversion for energy (ie burning) or its use as a soil amendment. Our estimates using coal as a comparison, at $1.50/MBTU, showed that at 1000lbs/acre with direct injection would be alternately using 10MBTU of carbon in a sequestered form or $15/acre even at double these rates a small increase in crop
yields and decreased fertilizer use produce a positive economic gain for the farm and for future generations are topsoils are restored. Add carbon credits and positive environmental impacts and the rewards justify what a few of us are calling a global Manhattan project of climate change.

http://www.energybulletin.net/1337.html

In the long run coal is the real problem. We will get to 450ppm by any scenario I have seen and oil and gas alone will take us there. Coal is where the most fossil carbon lies.

 

[Evo]

Good points, and a good reeason to fear the overwhelming and skyrocketing use of coal in China.

I think turning non-agricultural land into algae farms like Ivan suggests is a viable alternative. Corn cannot be planted in the same field for consecutive years without artificially enhancing the land. This is why you see corn fields planted with corn one year and soy beans the next year. I was reading an advertisement yesterday from BP about using soy as an alternative fuel. I guess if you can use both plants, you've got it made, but I don't want to see the prices of corn or soy continually increasing and the domino effect of either.

 

[Skyhunter]

I say skip that, too, and just ride a bike instead. All this time and energy spent making better cars just makes me cringe.

- Warren

I live in Berkeley and it is already becoming difficult to find a place to lock up my bike. The governator after wrapping himself in the greenman cloak, is cutting 1.6 billion from the public transit budget. 47% of GHG emissions are from transportation. Public transit, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are the best ways to encourage people to get out of their cars. If you build it they will come. As long as we build more roads we will have more cars.

If we remove parking spaces for bike lanes it will be easier to bike than to drive. I always enjoy grocery shopping as I glide by all the motorists sitting idling waiting for a space.

Mayor Tom Bates got into a disagreement with some other Mayors at a regional transportation meeting. They were saying stuff like;

You"ll get a bike parking station after I get my highway widened."

Bates stood firm and told them; "Cars are no longer the top concern in policy decisions. Climate change will, from now on, figure in all our transportation decisions." or something to that effect¹.

1. Heard second hand at the measure G launch meeting.

 

[Skyhunter]

Algae as a source of ethanol could be quite beneficial, harvest the stuff that is strangling other life in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[chroot]

Excellent post, Skyhunter... I'm glad to see that someone else here actually understands.

There is no single more meaningful change we can make to our dependence on foreign oil, our environment, our waistlines, and our pocketbooks than simply riding a bike when possible. It's so dirt simple... and so incredibly easy. I just wonder why more people don't understand it.

I guess it's just not trendy. Time magazine recently had a huge article on 51 things you could do to stop global warming. Amazingly, only one of the 51 entries included the word bicycle, and it was only in passing, in reference to London's policy prohibiting cars in the core of the city.

I sent a letter to the editor of Time:

I'm disappointed that Time's Global Warming Survival Guide contained only a single, passing reference to the bicycle. Time appears to advocate only the least effective transportation solutions: expensive hybrid vehicles and a trillion-dollar ethanol infrastructure. Instead of encouraging consumers pay a premium for a hybrid that will only reduce their emissions by 20%, why not suggest that they use a bicycle for half their daily trips, saving their money and cutting their emissions by 50%? The Bureau of Transportation Statistics indicates that most Americans make short trips every day that would be ideally suited for bicycle travel. Skip the fancy cars. The $200 bicycle is a better choice for our wallets, waistlines and environment.

Of course, they didn't print my letter. Instead, they printed a letter from some woman who convinced a few people at her office to switch to using coffee mugs instead of stryofoam cups.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Of course, they didn't print my letter. Instead, they printed a letter from some woman who convinced a few people at her office to switch to using coffee mugs instead of stryofoam cups.

- Warren

Good lord, that's pathetic. I have never seen anyone in all my years at work use a disposable styrofoam cup, everyone has their own mug. Wow, I'll bet that letter probably encouraged one or two people in the world to switch.

While biking to work and other places works for some, there are too many that can't do it. I can't because even if I didn't work so far away from my house, my knee was so badly damaged by that glass that went through it, I can't ride a bike for more than a very short distance, like down the street and back.

I'm actually considering moving to a place that has everything I need within walking distance and would consider getting a tricycle (a regular size bike with threee wheels) that has baskets to hold groceries. My only concern is that there is no place to secure a bike anywhere and it would get stolen.

The county I live in has added a bus line, but I have never seen a bus stop, seriously. All you see are these big buses driving around with one or two passengers. The waste of fuel is mind boggling. This is a community of companies spread around a large suburban area and there is no single point from A to B where a bus makes sense. I'm sure it sounded like a good idea when some politician pushed it.

At least my company pays to have a restaurant in the building, it keeps a lot of people from driving to get lunch every day. You don't have workers in other countries going out for fast food every day like Americans. There are so many little things if we changed our habits that would add up in a big way, but Americans are just too spoiled to make the changes.

 

[chroot]

Well, I obviously don't advocate that people with disabilities ride 30 miles on a bike to work... nor do I advocate that people attempt to use bicycles to pick up a family of six from soccer practice. (Many people seem to think that my suggestion to ride bicycles is somehow a blanket statement that automobiles should never be used for any purpose.)

The truth is that many people are perfectly physically capable of pedalling a bike to their local Blockbuster to pick up a movie, but simply choose to fire up the ol' long-block to drive five blocks instead. If they really stopped and thought about it, most people could use a bike instead of a car for probably half of their errands, without affecting their lifestyle in any other way.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

The truth is that many people are perfectly physically capable of pedalling a bike to their local Blockbuster to pick up a movie, but simply choose to fire up the ol' long-block to drive five blocks instead. If they really stopped and thought about it, most people could use a bike instead of a car for probably half of their errands, without affecting their lifestyle in any other way.

- Warren

I absolutely agree and my edited post emphasizes that. I have always car pooled to work when it was feasable, something I don't hear about any more, perhaps it is just not popular in the midwest.

If they made shopping places bike friendly a lot more people would use bikes, also bike paths along busy streets would make so much sense. Why can't people use sidewalks to bike on? No one walks on the sidewalks here and it's just crazy to ride in busy traffic when they could be on the empty sidewalk.

 

[Skyhunter]

Excellent post, Skyhunter... I'm glad to see that someone else here actually understands.

There is no single more meaningful change we can make to our dependence on foreign oil, our environment, our waistlines, and our pocketbooks than simply riding a bike when possible. It's so dirt simple... and so incredibly easy. I just wonder why more people don't understand it.

Actually I went vegan 2 years after I started riding a bicycle, and now eat mostly locally grown organic produce. I can attest that the diet has had an equal impact on the environment to my giving up the car. And health wise it has had a much more profound effect than the extra exercise I get from riding a bicycle and walking.

The key is to provide the infrastructure. If you build it they will come.

I started riding a bicycle 6 years ago. What prompted me to do so was a simple sign on the street that said "Bicycle Boulevard". I thought; "Great, I don't have to hassle with driving or walking."

Went to brunch with an old housemate today. The restaurant was 1.4 miles away and it was a pleasant 10 minute ride on a sunny day for 5 cyclists. If it is within 10 miles or close to public transit the car stays put. If we do drive it is rarely ever a SOV (single occupancy vehicle). Now I know first hand the benefits of riding as opposed to driving.

If the city of Berkeley had not made it easy I don't know how long it would have taken me to get the idea.

That is why I was just incredulous when after the state just passed a 22 billion dollar transportation bond that Schwartznegger is going to cut a huge chunk from non highway funds. I didn't vote for it, (the conservative in me is against borrowing for routine maintenance) but I though at least they wouldn't come after the meager allowance left for non highway infrastructure.

Policy makers that do not see transportation infrastructure as the key to reducing energy consumption, need to be replaced by realists.

What is the saying; "It gets real, when real people, do real things, in real time."

Riding a bike is real action.

 

[Skyhunter]

While biking to work and other places works for some, there are too many that can't do it. I can't because even if I didn't work so far away from my house, my knee was so badly damaged by that glass that went through it, I can't ride a bike for more than a very short distance, like down the street and back.

There are electric assist bicycles and inexpensive solar chargers, the harder you pedal the less assist. Something to look into.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/1285/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO, biodiesel from algae
...
...
...
...
<<<<<<============ Red spots are the oil
...
is the only practical option to petro that offers a real solution, today. Of course we should do everything else that makes sense and helps, but the core issue is the supply of energy.

Since algae can be used to make biodiesel, and/or ethanol, and/or hydrogen, algae may be an excellent transition technology in pursuit of the ultimate goal of a hydrogen economy. And it doesn't pit food against energy as does corn or sugar ethanol.

It can also be used to scrub emissions from coal power plants, to clean up industrial, agricultural, and municipal waste, and it can be grown in brackish water; and then used for the production of fuel.

 

[turbo]

I absolutely agree and my edited post emphasizes that. I have always car pooled to work when it was feasable, something I don't hear about any more, perhaps it is just not popular in the midwest.

My wife used to car-pool with another woman, until that woman decided she wanted to ride alone so she could do spur-of-the-moment shopping etc after work. My wife's car is definitely more fuel efficient than hers, so she must be spending more on gas (>$30/week), but she refuses to start car-pooling again, even with the increasing gas prices. We'd like to cut the wear on our car and save on gas (both for the money and to reduce emissions), but those really don't matter to some people. :grumpy:

 

[Andrew Mason]

Excellent post, Skyhunter... I'm glad to see that someone else here actually understands.

There is no single more meaningful change we can make to our dependence on foreign oil, our environment, our waistlines, and our pocketbooks than simply riding a bike when possible. It's so dirt simple... and so incredibly easy. I just wonder why more people don't understand it.

I guess it's just not trendy.

Try riding a bicycle in Saskatoon from November to April. Elderly people and people with small children are not likely to use bikes en masse. The solution will be a combination of things such as efficient public transportation, better design of cities to minimize sprawl, hybrid cars and other technological innovations that conserve energy, wind, solar (including wind/solar for hydrogen production) and bicycles for those who can ride them and in climates to which they are suited.

AM

 

[chroot]

...and bicycles for those who can ride them and in climates to which they are suited.

You're a perfect example of my earlier statement: Many people seem to think that my suggestion to ride bicycles is somehow a blanket statement that automobiles should never be used for any purpose. Why do people like you always respond with ridiculous extreme counter-arguments about people in Saskatoon in February?

By my reckoning, about 80% of the US population could use bicycle transportation 80% of the year. Remember that the majority of the US population lives near the temperate coasts.

I obviously don't advise that anyone ride in the snow or on ice, but you can ride a bike in relative comfort (by dressing appropriately) in anything from 40 to 100 degree F weather, rain or shine. I have no patience for people and their silly excuses for why they really must drive their cars everywhere. I've had many, many conversations with people about bicycles. Frankly, it's amazing the lengths people will go to rationalize their choices. If people actually believe in and are truly committed to stopping this global warming "crisis," they certainly can get off their butts and pedal a bike a few miles. It's not a big deal. No, really: it's not a big deal.

- Warren

 

[BillJx]

I I have no patience for people and their silly excuses for why they really must drive their cars everywhere. I've had many, many conversations with people about bicycles. Frankly, it's amazing the lengths people will go to rationalize their choices. If people actually believe in and are truly committed to stopping this global warming "crisis," they certainly can get off their butts and pedal a bike a few miles. It's not a big deal. No, really: it's not a big deal.

- Warren

Where cycling is done by a "cyclist" minority in funny clothes, it isn't supported by infrastructure. Bike lanes are afterthoughts, squeezed suicidally between the traffic and the curb. Drivers resent cyclists being in their way, and cyclists have to contend with drivers who are checking for other cars, and don't notice bikes. Residential areas are developed with the assumption that everyone travels by car, so commute distances are long.

It's not all about climate; Holland has lots of cyclists. It's more about culture. I guess it takes a certain percentage of riders to create enough of a need before the infrastucture will be designed to accommodate them. So another reason for people to get their bikes out is simply to help normalize cycling as routine transportation.

 

[Mk]

I say skip that, too, and just ride a bike instead. All this time and energy spent making better cars just makes me cringe.

Uh, ahem, what?

I like to keep my house heated (or cooled) and my appliances running without having to bring in the wood for the night.

The terrorists would love that.

I'm sure, let's stop building tall buildings because the terrorists would love the fly planes into them.

We have 100 plants operating in the US and only need 1300 more of similar size. If we can build 2 a year, it should only take about 650 years.

Plants have been being theoretically developed and drawn out, but those 104 light water plants have been sitting there for decades. Out of those 104, don't we get about 20% of our electricity from those? If we say we want to go entirely nuclear, and we want to use old technology, then isn't that... 5x more? 5x20=100?. So that's ~500. I bet you developments have got us making safer, more secure, cheaper, more powerful plants.

And hey, didn't the thread start about developing plants for power use?

 

[chroot]

Where cycling is done by a "cyclist" minority in funny clothes, it isn't supported by infrastructure. Bike lanes are afterthoughts, squeezed suicidally between the traffic and the curb. Drivers resent cyclists being in their way, and cyclists have to contend with drivers who are checking for other cars, and don't notice bikes. Residential areas are developed with the assumption that everyone travels by car, so commute distances are long.

These are all valid arguments, but they're all easily dealt with. If the bike lanes are suicidal, don't use them. Ride in the traffic lane, where you belong. (You are traffic.) If drivers resent you being in their way, learn to ride correctly so you minimize your impact on the other people sharing the lane with you. Besides, those motorists need to get a grip -- they willingly accept hours of traffic jams caused by ten thousand other cars in their way, yet get all ticked off when a cyclist delays them for five seconds. I have very little sympathy for them, and neither should you. Also, learn to ride defensively, so that you never actually depend on a motorist seeing you. Get a nice big headlight, and learn to yell really, really loudly. I'm so much more agile (and so much smaller) than cars that I can often view them simply as lumbering obstacles.

All of your issues are issues that all new cyclists have to deal with when learning to ride in traffic. After a month or so of riding, you learn how to negotiate traffic, and most of those issues are no longer concerns. You're speaking with a guy who rides something like 3,000 miles a year on roads with other cars. I have no more issues.

It's not all about climate; Holland has lots of cyclists. It's more about culture. I guess it takes a certain percentage of riders to create enough of a need before the infrastucture will be designed to accommodate them. So another reason for people to get their bikes out is simply to help normalize cycling as routine transportation.

Excellent point. All I really need is a couple of feet of asphalt and a Clif bar and I can get anywhere I want to go... so it's really not about infrastructure. If people want to "save the planet," then they just need to figure out that automobiles are a luxury we cannot afford to continue using.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Uh, ahem, what?

I like to keep my house heated (or cooled) and my appliances running without having to bring in the wood for the night.

What, and you got to have a $40k hybrid luxury car to do that? I don't see the logic. If you're going to say "hybrid cars save energy, which can then be used to heat my home and run my appliances," then just realize how much more energy would be saved by not commissioning a legion of Japanese people to mine five tons of iron ore out of the Earth and convert it into an automobile, using more energy in the process of building the car than you'll ever save driving the car.

Let's just be honest: Buying a hybrid car to save energy is like pissing in the ocean to flood China.

Ride a bike. Try it. It's fun.

- Warren

 

[Astronuc]

These are all valid arguments, but they're all easily dealt with. If the bike lanes are suicidal, don't use them. Ride in the traffic lane, where you belong. (You are traffic.) If drivers resent you being in their way, learn to ride correctly so you minimize your impact on the other people sharing the lane with you. Besides, those motorists need to get a grip -- they willingly accept hours of traffic jams caused by ten thousand other cars in their way, yet get all ticked off when a cyclist delays them for five seconds. I have very little sympathy for them, and neither should you. Also, learn to ride defensively, so that you never actually depend on a motorist seeing you. Get a nice big headlight, and learn to yell really, really loudly. I'm so much more agile (and so much smaller) than cars that I can often view them simply as lumbering obstacles.

One should see the cyclists zipping through traffice in NYCity. One can get through middle of Manhattan much faster on bike.

I used to ride in traffic in Houston. Some drivers were surprised that I could keep up with them.

I agree with chroot - whenever possible, ride a bike. However, we know that one cannot ride a bike in all weather conditions - just do what is practical for one's local geography and climate.

 

[BillJx]

These are all valid arguments, but they're all easily dealt with. If the bike lanes are suicidal, don't use them. Ride in the traffic lane, where you belong. (You are traffic.) If drivers resent you being in their way, learn to ride correctly so you minimize your impact on the other people sharing the lane with you.

Obviously we don't live in the same city. It would be impossible for a cyclist to keep up with traffic on most streets in Nanaimo. I'm talking about a spread-out city of 70,000 where traffic isn't usually dense but travels fast. The practice here is for the cyclist to ride on the same side as other vehicles but as far to the right curb as possible.
Our city council creates a "bike route" by erecting "share the road" signs and painting pictures of bicycles beside the curb. Nothing is done to actually make the route safe for cycling. The traffic whizzes by your shoulder and your wheel is inches from a 4" curb. Of course I don't travel those routes. But I'm increasingly limited in routes I'm willing to use.
This is part of the reason I say that more cyclists on the road would result in a more bicycle-friendly infrastructure. The other reason is that if there aren't enough cyclists on the road, then the drivers are only looking out for other cars.

 

[Mk]

What, and you got to have a $40k hybrid luxury car to do that? I don't see the logic. If you're going to say "hybrid cars save energy, which can then be used to heat my home and run my appliances," then just realize how much more energy would be saved by not commissioning a legion of Japanese people to mine five tons of iron ore out of the Earth and convert it into an automobile, using more energy in the process of building the car than you'll ever save driving the car.

Let's just be honest: Buying a hybrid car to save energy is like pissing in the ocean to flood China.

Ride a bike. Try it. It's fun.

- Warren

I don't care, or know the relevance of what you're talking about to my specific post.

I said that we should replace oil and coal more with nuclear power. Then you responded back that we should ride bicycles, and I said that I like to use a lot of energy in my daily life just because it is nice, and you said no body should use hybrid cars. If it were me, I'd say we both were being a little bit.. non sequitorish. Would you agree or am I not understanding the situation?

Bicycles are good. It's just that some people prefer cars to riding bicycles. Sometimes you need to bring a lot of stuff, sometimes the weather doesn't permit, and sometimes people like the amenities of a car where you don't get exhausted just moving, and you have climate control.

 

[Andrew Mason]

What, and you got to have a $40k hybrid luxury car to do that? I don't see the logic. If you're going to say "hybrid cars save energy, which can then be used to heat my home and run my appliances," then just realize how much more energy would be saved by not commissioning a legion of Japanese people to mine five tons of iron ore out of the Earth and convert it into an automobile, using more energy in the process of building the car than you'll ever save driving the car.

I am not sure that this is right. According to http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/file_download.php/a01355752c9e869a63cc5651084cfa30Cars+and+energy.pdf"
it takes 20,000 MJ of energy to make a car. A litre of gasoline has 34.8 MJ of energy, so it takes the energy contained in 575 litres of gasoline to produce a car.

This means that a car which gets 20 km to the litre rather than 10 km/litre has to be driven 11,500 km to save, in fuel, an amount of energy equivalent to that consumed in producing it. Since most hybrids last much longer than non-hybrid cars, good for perhaps 500,000 km or more (we aren't sure yet), the energy savings are enormous.

Let's just be honest: Buying a hybrid car to save energy is like pissing in the ocean to flood China.

If everyone who has a vehicle were to drive a hybrid car instead, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by 2/3. Because they provide super ultra low emissions of other pollutants, hybrids greatly reduce air pollution as well.

AM

 

[baywax]

I am not sure that this is right. According to http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/file_download.php/a01355752c9e869a63cc5651084cfa30Cars+and+energy.pdf"
it takes 20,000 MJ of energy to make a car. A litre of gasoline has 34.8 MJ of energy, so it takes the energy contained in 575 litres of gasoline to produce a car.

This means that a car which gets 20 km to the litre rather than 10 km/litre has to be driven 11,500 km to save, in fuel, an amount of energy equivalent to that consumed in producing it. Since most hybrids last much longer than non-hybrid cars, good for perhaps 500,000 km or more (we aren't sure yet), the energy savings are enormous.

If everyone who has a vehicle were to drive a hybrid car instead, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles by 2/3. Because they provide super ultra low emissions of other pollutants, hybrids greatly reduce air pollution as well.

AM

There's an alternative in India called the Air Car. It's up as a thread in General Technology. Its being criticized as thermodynamically less efficient than oil but when there's no oil (or so little that you have to dig up 20,000 square miles of "tar sands" to produce it), compressed air looks very interesting as a propellant.

here's a link to the thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=172267

edit: One draw-back with compressed air driven cars is the stale air hanging over the cities