what do geeks think about bio fuels?

i been wonderin' what do ya think about changin' our way of life to think differently about our fuel sources and what they do to our world? thoughts on ethanol, bio fuel investing, etc... can't just do computers.

 

they've had the technology for a long time. new research is into cellulose boifuels: those made from household trash, grass clippings,etc. instead of paying for trash pickup we could all contribute and get credit for fuel. then we build distilleries near our landfills and communities would power themselves.

 

I am definately all for it!! Not only would it be easier on natural resources, but it would cut down on the pile up of our waste!!!!

However...(call me a conspiracy theorist, or whatever) but as long as the big oil companies can continue to suck it out of the ground and out of our pockets...they are ONLY going to do JUST enought to make it LOOK like they care, otherwise...as far as they are concerned, they are going to do everything they can to keep going the way they are now and avoid anything that is going to cut into them padding their pocket books!!!!!

Enough of that rant...but me and a buddy that was in town for the weekend, had this conversation the other day!! We came to the conclusion (take vehicles for example) that even though we are coming upon ways to conserve fuel...the average middle class can't afford to pay for a hybrid vehicle, even if they can find one!! I hear people say that you have to think of the fact that you pay a little more up front in order to save a lot later on down the road!! That's all well and good, but like I said...most can't afford the "little more" up front!! It's kind of like going to Sam's Club to grocery shop...sure...you can buy 400 rolls of toilet paper and it is cheaper than if you bought it at the grocery store, or get a pallet of Macaroni and Cheese and save money over the Jewel or Krogers, etc., but a lot of people can't afford the up front cost in order to save later!!!!

Ok...I guess that is enough of my rambling!!!! I think I'm getting a little off course here, but I think you get my drift!!!!

Roger

 

Biodisiel is the total package, so is ethanol. If the US would stop Mickey Mousing around about this stuff, we would be way ahead of the game.

 

There will never be any ONE technology that will work everywhere. I think hybrids would have the greatest short term impact especially among commuters in large cities. The millions of cars that are essentially getting 0 MPG when stopped and compared to a hybrid which will spend 0 GPH in th same situation. Also, get rid of those moving houses, called SUVs, that is just plain excessive!

 

Drawing up new towns where everything can be done walking or with mechanical vehicles and leaving the fuel-powered vehicles outside would take away a lot of the problems with fuel. When zoning went to multi-family, single-family, business, etc. it became necessary to drive everywhere. We live on a solar-powered planet. The concept of fossil fuels is ... well ... fossilized.
abri

 

these are all good comments. i think given a choice, most people don't want to screw up the planet that their kids and grandkids will live in. but if the only choice we have is to buy petroleum products, then that's what we buy. we need more clean choices. gasolene will never be cheap again. by buying gas aren't we hypocritical in that we fund both sides of the 'global war on terror'? what an embarrassment. just 'cause people want to make money not 'cause it's cheap. that's an excuse. if clean fuel terchnology had the backing big oil does, it would be cheap too. it's not cheap 'cause the oil robber barons aren't through fleecing us for every last cent they can squeeze out of us. ain't capitalism grand? people shouldn't be allowed to profit by harming the planet or its inhabitants. we got to be kidding ourselves to think it's o.k.to kill humans to put 'cheap'? gas in our cars? what's next? kill somebody so we can eat steak? people have to start thinking in ways we weren't taught by our parents in order for things to change. what, no hemp activists here? everything made with petroleum products can be made by hemp.EVERYTHING!

 

I'm already running a 50/50 mix of vegatable oil and regular diesel, saves on the fuel bill for sure...
The draw back is that the uncooked oil is too thick and clogs the injectors, in addition the fuel needs to be heated to thin it up, however the plus is better lubricity for the motor, and helps it last longer...

Cummins does not at this time recommend using alternative fuel...

I'm still thinking about running some filtered french fry oil in my pick-up just to see if will work, it did on the Mythbusthers, although they ran it through a older Mercedes Benz...

If prices hit $3.50 u.s. I'm gonna be a used french fry oil filtering fool...

 

see, that's what i'm talkin' about.dodge, volkswagen almost every kind of diesel motor made in today's world has the capacity with slight, cheap mods that, in the long run, pay for themselves and provide a tremendous sense of freedom. the tech is there . the rest of the world is not looking to us to lead them. those days are gone. they're advancing while we let these suckers bleed us to the bone. i'd much rather smell french fries, chinese food, or doughnuts on my travels thru my city. and cleaner air. you can buy a still for around 1500. and it makes 5 gals. an hour of fuel grade hi octane ethanol. it's getting cheaper. people, communities could coop these ideas. why should we wait for big government to tell us what 'they' decided to do with our future?they already decided that they would bleed us dry. folks need to start thinkin' about needing each other again.

 

Biodiesel sounds good, as does ethanol. Biodiesel right now is a novelty, and ethanol is something mixed in gasoline in fairly small percentages. Questions that come to mind in both cases.... How much would be needed annually to power everything? Or at least all diesels in the case of biodiesel. Do we have the capacity to reliably PRODUCE what's needed, and at what overall cost, including the fuel/energy/fertilizers/etc. needed to both grow it and process it? (Straight electric cars looked great until you looked at the polution from the electric plants, which was actually WORSE than standard gas powered cars.) Biodiesel looks great right now because restaurants are happy to give it away; that won't be the case (or enough) to fuel everybody. How well will biodiesel work when you have to start a cold engine in the morning when it's 20 below zero fahrenheit? Diesels can be a bear in really cold weather. And what is "Plan B" if we get a wide area drought bad enough that we need to EAT what's grown instead of refining it?

Hybrid cars DO get better mileage than most (not all!) standard cars, but long term costs are pretty high, including both the initial cost and the replacement cost for the very expensive batteries they use, and long term, those WILL have to be replaced before the car wears out. And their mileage isn't generally nearly as good as was advertised. A LOT of owners are screaming loudly about the mileage that they're not getting.

Personally, I want that fusion reactor from Back To The Future. With or without the DeLorean.

 

I had a 1981 Plymouth K car station wagon. It had a 2.2 4cyl. OHC engine with a carburator and electronicly controlled ignition. It also had a 4 speed manual transmission. When the car was at it's peak, it got 44MPG like clock work and was able to keep up with most V-6 cars on the road. I drove the car to 226,000 miles and only stopped driving it because the frame was rusting out from under it. At the end it was still getting about 38MPG.

No one can convince me that the PT Cruiser I now drive getting 26MPG is burning cleaner then the 20 year old technology that was getting me 44MPG.

I think any renewable fuel source would be a good thing but we need the auto makers to make vehicles that get better mileage to start with.

 

Perfectly agree with you. Your older car polluted less. I use a 1969 Chevy 1/2 ton pickup. My life partner and I had 3 children and she needed something to hold them all. We went throught 6 vehicles, they all needed repairs constantly I figured between the cost of big brother and all the vehicles I spent enough money to drive my truck 88,000 miles. No way I am going to waste my money on a pile of junkers that need testing and repairs everyother year when I have a great vehicle in the driveway (15 mpg)

 

See, I'm more for Hydrogen fuel cells.

 

Biodiesels do fine in cold weather (we are assuming commpressor, at between 500 and 600 hp). You have a 10 gallon tank of number 2 diesel and your regular 30 gallon (or more of (filtered biodiesel), warm your engine up on the diesel the just flip the fuel line to the biodiesel - the engine automatically makes any needed adjustments.

 

Problem with Hydrogen is it is extremely explosive - Hindenburg anyone?, Challenger anyone? Many vehicles came out with CNG (compressed natural gas (methane)), and then had to be parked for more than three years while bugs were worked out.

I am also worried about electric and hybrids because how are we going to help people in auto accidents whent they are surrounded by high amperage electricity - I can reach in a car get some gasoline on me, pull the person out, the use my fire hydrant to save our lives. High amp power just stops boyh our hearts.

 

One biofuel I have not heard of is a succulent that grows very well in southeaster california (where nothing else grows) and in arizona - I do not know the name of the species but it can be grown then processes into light sweet crude oil. Yes when you burn it it gives off CO2, but when you grow it again it takes out CO2 and exhausts O2. It also has the advantage of being totally clean, no worries about sulfer or anything else - it produces at about $75 per barrel.

 

I use what you call a "moving house (essentially)" I have 1969 1/2 chevy. I own my own home, in the middle of nowhere, 17 miles to closest access (I purchaced the house because it was cheap, good for my family, close to my workplace, and I got 50mpg on my motorcycle - worked out great! Until I became disabled, my life parnter died and the children were taken by CPS (I am Bi-polar). Can't sell the house (middle of nowhere), can't buy econo-car (on disability), so I am sort of stuck keeping my truck going and living as I am.

 

An American gallon is 3.785 liters. I live in Europe where we pay about 1.35 Euros for a liter which is $1.72 for a liter. Which is $6.50 per gallon. Most of this money is taxes used to finance, for instance, better subway and train systems.

What does throwing vegetable oil into your engine do to the environment?

There seems to be no end to the short-sightedness of American politcs and "solutions".

abri

 

I know that when I was in london...everyone (or shall I say, most everyone) was driving very small cars and they all got lots better gas mileage then the majority of what we drive over here!!

 

That would be all well and good, except the only viable commercial source of hydrogen is from, wait for it, fossil fuels.

And as a farmer I have investigated seriously all forms of bio fuel. I could ramble on for pages and pages. I see nothing wrong with going to biofuels other than no wide spread support.

On a personal level, I am seriously thinking of buying an old diesel VW Rabbit and run nothing but biodiesel. 40-50 mpg @ 10 cents a gallon? HOOK ME UP!!!

 

Its not a conspiracy theory its fact,the current US administration wont even admit we are damaging the planet with CO2 even thought he rest of the world has acknowledged this fact,I'm not sure if you'v seen them but they'v released propaganda adverts claiming that CO2 isnt bad for the planet as plants breathe it 'you call it bad,we call it life' is their slogan I'll see if I can dig up the film and ofcourse the whole administration are knee deep in oil,they still wont talk about the Kyoto agreement,openly stating thy couldnt agree to something that would harm the economy,so they choose to ignore it

As GT said the fuel has to come from somewhere,theres no way we could grow enough bio mass to fuel our vehicles,hydrogen has to come from either fossil fuels or electrolysis of water, the electricity would have to come from a nuclear power plant to cut out fossil fuel completely

A hydrogen cell is really only a large battery it still needs to be charged

I stick by my previous solution,everyone has to setup thier own turbine on thier house,each houshold with a 2kw turbine and all businesses with larger ones,the cost of the UK's new nuclear power plants is gonna be astronomical and theres the danger involved I hope the Gov put more funding into these small wind turbines but I doubt it

 

http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/0...nce-as-smear-campaign-against-carbon-dioxide/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA

 

Rethinking is kind of the name of the game. What the planet can handle. There are two feet on the bottom of most people's legs, bicycles, and a host of vehicles which hardly need any fuel. Why aren't grocery stores within walking distance? Also, my pet peeve ... what is all this LAWN-MOWING about? We mow medians, for G's sake! How much fuel in the U.S. is used mowing lawns? Has anyone thought of switching back to forested neighborhoods? And letting the leaves lie? <sigh>
abri

 

No offense, but that's a rather pathetic view of the technology. Lest you forget that gas burns and gas vapor explodes, I fail to see your point. Internal COMBUSTION engine ring a bell?

 

I think it would be very useful to have a small trundle beneath my computer like they used to use for the sewing machines.
abri

 

I forgot to mention this but the challenger accident was the result of a failed O ring in the solid fuel booster which uses Ammonium perchlorate,aluminium,iron oxide and epoxy,hydrogen wasnt the cause of the explosion

Also many experts believe the hindenburg accident wouldnt have been as bad if the the skin hadnt been painted with the paint it had 'coincidently' the hindenburg was also painted with a mixture of fine aluminium powder and iron oxide also know as thermite,a high temperature incendiary compound

I'm not arguing that hydrogen is more safe than petroleum, just that your examples are misleading

 

So what if it's explosive? So is petrol and natural gas. That's the idea.

As far as Hindenburg, that was decades ago. Technology has moved on since.


Regarding fuel from crops, a lot of you are missing the point that it takes a lot of energy to grow and harvest, not to mention decent soil, fertiliser and water that is required.

Renewable it may be, but sustainable it's not.

 

I watched a program on Discovery that had indicated that there is some kind of prarie grass that would actually produce enough bio fuel, because of it's fast growth and harvest cycle... lemme check on that though in case my iced tea was spiked...

 

i think that the companies researching cellulose such as iogen www.iogen.ca/index.html have got the right idea. the idea that using plant,wood, trash for ethanol is where you can pick up the slack from corn ethanol. we're stupid if we don't use everything we can to change to greener technologies. have you guys noticed the weather patterns changing from what you remember as kids? we ARE screwing it up and it will reach a point where we've gone too far to repair it. if we can at all. there are so many ways to grow or produce feed stocks for ethanol. the retrofit and changover in tech is not bad. it's a distillery process, not rocket science. all should be propped up by anybody that still looks forward to the future.

 

I think several of the posts here are getting close to the answer which I think is Hydrogen. Yes Hydrogen is very flammable but the automobile makers are trying to build cars that store the fuel so they can sell it at service stations and tax it. Thats not the answer. You need to manufacture the hydrogen as you burn it, storeing only enough to act as a buffer for rapid acceleration. This technology was developed in the 50's or 60's but was bought and killed by the oil companies. It has been rediscovered and might be made public soon if it isn't buried again. Check out this video. He says he can travel 100 miles on 4 ounces of water.

http://www.zippyvideos.com/6233971865113236/waterfuel/

 

yeah, that's what I'm talking about

 

Steam engines, anyone?
And what ever happened to walking?
abri

 

One thing about any fuel made from plants, vehicles that use them are zero emission in terms of CO2. This is because you are releasing the CO2 they absorbed while growing, a closed cycle in other words. With oil you are releasing CO2 that has been locked down for millions of years.

I've often wondered it genetically engineered plants, or pest plants like Kidzu could be used for biofuel. I've heard Kidzu grows so fast you can actually see it growing in some cases, it tends to choke anything else out.

Walking only works in a few cases. I live 10 miles from work, and taking the bus at 10PM isn't very practical. The USA is BIG country, trying to compare to a EU country isn't valid. Texas is bigger than a lot of european countries, and it isn't our biggest state. There are good reasons for cars, so we have to fix the problems with cars, not eliminate them.

 

One other point, hydrogen can be made from water and electricity. I know that isn't how it is done currently, but it could be. And when you burn the hydrogen it is returned to the planet as water. Again, a closed system.

Electricity can be made from many renewable resources, wind, tides, and sun for example. Fusion would be nice...

 

Kudzu is also a very oily plant, for being a weed, and lends itself to biodiesil production very well.

And not having enough arable land to crow enough food and biomass for fuel is a myth. It is put out by a bunch of ecoterrorists that want every one else but themselves to live in the stone ages.

 

That is awesome!!

But as long as the oil companies are making big bucks...they will do everything in their power to stomp on it!!!! After all...Money = Power!!!!!!

Roger

 

There's plenty of kudzu now, without planting more. It wouldn't bother me if it obtained a natural predator in humans.
abri

 

First Abri,you have to heat the water to make steam there are many more engines that can make more efficient use of the current available fuels,steam was only needed when we needed a way to turn coal into motion

That hydrogen engine LOL,anyone who was listening would have heard this "our electrolysis process which is very unique" ,he's using electricity to break the bond between hydrogen and oxygen in water you cannot get more energy out of water than what you put in the bond is too strong

At most he has invented a more efficent electrolysis proccess at no point in that film does he mention how much electricity he's put in to get the energy out, thats all I care about he can keep his flame,his engine and his cup of water,you still basically have to plug his car into a wall socket

If I strand that guy in the middle of the desert with his car,engine and a cup of water and he uses it to drive out of there before drinking it our problems are solved,until then we have to look elswhere

Again hydrogen is only a battery,you still have to charge it,the closed system can be achived simply be making a battery that doesnt leak we've had them for quite a number of years but they havnt helped our planets energy problems

 

Huh? That is plain wrong. Hydrogen is a fuel. It can be used in fuel cells true, but it can also be used in internal combustion engines with little or no modification. And in fuel cells it gets oxidized, IE burned. 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O + <heat and/or electricity>.

Hydrogen can be used anywhere natural gas can be used, with similar results.

"The reason you live 10 miles from work, is because there are cars. Zoning laws have made it almost prohibitive for people to live close to where they work and where the business are that they need everyday.
abri"

The reason I live 10 miles from work is I needed a job. It would be a sad society if I had to move everytime I got a job. In an industrial society living next to work is a luxury, it is not practical as a requirement. I've lived in my home 24 years, a substantial portion of my personal wealth is in my home. I've had my job 5 years, after spending almost a full year unemployeed (no fun there). My first job was about the same distance in the other direction.

Again, the USA is BIG, very big, and we can't all telecomute, nor can we suite other world views, it can't and won't work here. True, cars created this, but it also created the best standard of living in the world. Having created it and maintained it for 100 years, we have to fix cars, not become a 3rd world nation to eliminate them. Also, I don't know what zoning laws are like where you live, but we have them and they are enforced. Their is a good reason for them too, remember the Bopal incident in India? We need the industries, but it doesn't mean we want to live next to them.

I've tried public transport. I could walk in the 102 F heat (39 C) 5 miles (and possibly die trying), spend 1 1/2 hours using public transport (been there, done that), or use a car for 8 minutes. A no brainer from here.

Renewable fuels are the answer, the only question is what kind. Personally I always look at whether the system is closed or not, it is a good gauge how environmentally practical it is.

 

personally, i think it's an out and out lie to say that we cannot, as a nation grow enough feed stocks to power our vehicles. not when we're talkin' about using grasses,wood chips, or what ever. there are too many ways to do it. it's a way to revitalize and empower all communites big and small, save farmers from losing their land( the ones who are left, god bless them) and create new farers, new employment all the way thru the process boidiesel an ethanol are past technology, not future. they are proven methods and with more r&d will only get better. we just need to decide to do it.

 

If kudzu could be profitably turned into a fuel, or anything else, that would be the greatest thing to happen to the South. It is overrunning EVERYTHING in its path, grows faster than the national debt, and is darned near impossible to get rid of. There are LARGE areas not far from here that look like an alien planet; kudzu has completely covered everything in sight; trees (which is kills), fences, abandoned buildings, signs, telephone poles and lines, every square inch of ground. Whoever introduced it here without an environmental impact study should be shot.

Mass transit works here in some places, definitely NOT in others. Part of that is geography; we're too large and too spread out, part of it is social. There are many areas in many cities where it's not SAFE to ride public transit. And many places you can't get to from where you're at. I live just south of the Tennessee/Mississippi border, and work just north of it in Tennessee. No public transit goes over the line. Happily, I only live 4.5 miles from work, so I don't burn a lot of gas getting there, but while it's close enough for bicycling (when it's not pouring rain), most of the roads between here and there are narrow 2 lane, no shoulders, and would be suicide with the lousy innatentive drivers around here. Besides which, with cancer and chemotherapy going on, I don't have the energy for that much biking, even if I could survive it. Much less walking it, which would waste a LOT of time and energy that I no longer have. Shopping is ~ 5 miles in one direction, about 8 mile to hospital when I need major tests, oncologist is about 10 miles in the other direction, and no public transit to any of them.

Before moving down here, I was in the far west Chicago suburbs. Mass transit wasn't an option to work there either; if the car wouldn't go, I couldn't go without bumming a ride or renting a car. I DID happily use the regional train system to get to downtown Chicago when I needed to, then took a cab or walked to where I was going. And I had to drive to the nearest train station first. But that doesn't work everywhere over here.

Hydrogen is a decent fuel, BUT takes a lot of energy to convert from water to hydrogen and free oxygen. Currently, it takes more energy from the power plants than you get in return as hydrogen fuel, which again moves the polution from exhaust pipe to smoke stack, which is not an answer with current power plants. And while that video showing the hydrogen torch looked nice, that was a LARGE box holding his little water tank; I guarantee you he sucked a lot of power to convert. And I don't believe his car boasts. There is not enough energy in 4 ounces of water to push a car any significant distance, even if he could convert. His curren't "hybrid" is cheating; he's still burning mostly gasoline, and no doubt using the car's alternator to break down a small amount of hydrogen, and he doesn't get back the energy needed to produce it. And the issue of energy to convert enough hydrogen remains. His car won't cut it. That video was from a TV reporter not from a scientist. I've seen other quack hoaxes make it onto nightly news somewhere or other.

Biggest problem with hydrogen, other than cost to produce it, is storage. It is a VERY small molecule, leaks easily, and in a car that ages and leaks things after a while, you could easily lose a lot of fuel. To carry enough to be useful, you'd have to store/handle it at very high pressures, aggravating the leakage problem. It's not likely to be a high explosive problem, unless you've got a VERY tightly sealed garage or blow a hose and dump it quickly; it is lighter than air, rises, and wanders out through any cracks. It has to reach a proper concentration for combustion, and you'd likely lose it before it got that concentrated. What's IN the tank can't explode or burn, as there's no oxygen there, and even in a collision, it would disperse quickly.Gasoline is more of a crash and fire hazard than hydrogen would be. Fuel cells have potential, but we're not there yet, either for size or cost.

 

read about iogen. look at what they are doing with enzymes.they're not the only ones and big money is already in on it too. these techniques are supposed to take a step out of the process of making ethanol, i think. that will make it even cheaper.

 

I still think Hydrogen is the answer. Some of you have said that the electricity needed to separate water to hydrogen and oxygen exceeds the energy equivalent released in the hydrogen. The video I posted is a reinvention of a technology that was discovered in the 50's or 60's. The man is using the alternator and battery allready in the car to produce the hydrogen and run his internal combustion engine. Again, this is a reinvention of old technology that was purposly kept from the public.

 

Bill_Marsden, I'm not explaining to you personally why you live 10 miles from work. I'm only suggesting that the zoning laws in the U.S. are forcing people to use cars and not allowing for other options which are neighborhood-oriented.
I have to also dispute your statement that Americans have the highest standard of living in the world. This has not been the case for many years, because the U.S. has not been taking care of the widening gap between the rich and the poor. We, as Americans, have simply not been keeping up with what is going on in the world. We're stuck in a certain mindset with regard to energy politics and economics. These comments are just my opinion.
abri

 

No offense was meant or taken. I lived in Britain a long time ago, I have some idea how Europeans feel about Americans and their cars. You mentioned you lived in Europe, but state your American. Even within the states there are a lot of ways of doing things that aren't practical elsewhere in other states. Painting all of the USA with a broad brush of how we think is a mistake. Right now there is a heat wave extending from Texas to above Kansas of 100+ temperatures. We're going to loose a lot of people due to lack of air conditioning, walking is just a form of painfull suicide in this weather. Again, cars are a necessity, not a luxury. The difference between poverty and getting by is a car, this isn't going to change. So we will have to find other ways to do things, like biofuels (see, I brought it back on topic!).

What we're talking about is energy transportation. All energy, with the exception of nuclear, is ultimately solar on earth, even fossil fuels. I've always liked the Kudzu idea, it struck me as a solution waiting for someone to recognize it.

Another solution no one seems to be looking at are ultra high efficiency combustion engines like stirling engines.
http://www.stirlingengine.com/
They aren't practical for car engines because they can't change speeds very fast, but they would be perfect for a hybrid and charging a battery of same.

 

You're talking about transportation and I'm talking about rezoning. They are two different approaches to the same problem. Regardless of how much fuel we come up with, the Earth can't support the pollution.
abri

 

It is a mistake to assume pollution is a given. The real pollution is the CO2, but if it is returning what was there a year ago it really isn't a problem. Hydrogen doesn't create pollution, so it is an obvious choice. Fossil fuels must go, but this is a true global issue, I don't see China, Europe, USA, or any other country giving it up any time soon. There has to be a viable alternative first.

Most pollution from cars is incompletely burned fuel, but engines are getting better. Something like the stirling engine can burn fuel hot enough and complete enough to reduce it even further.

Your reasoning doesn't jive with mine, maybe we use different theories (a misquote from Niven). What we need is more tech, which translates into knowledge. Going backwards, rejecting possible solutions because they might create problems, guarentees failure.

One thing for sure, zoning codes or no, walking to work only works for small villages with cottage industries, not major industrial powers. Tranportation is one of the cornerstones of our civilization. A basic freedom, one most people aren't giving up.

If we could come up with better sources of electricity such as fusion or renewable sources then hydrogen becomes practical. If solar panels dropped in price (or increased in efficiency) I'd want em on my roof. Right now these are pipe dreams, but that could change quickly and without notice.

 

One of the viable options nature likes to turn to now and then is wipe out of species that can't adapt to it.

I don't consider my ideas as either backwards or going backwards. There seem to be a lot of countries where people go to work on trains. They live in consolidated areas where they have access to services and work in areas that they reach by commuting. There are also a lot of businesses structured around communication which don't require that people go to a separate building at all. I find your entire concept of the future to be old-fashioned, same-ole, same-ole. Anyone who walks in the shade in a 100° knows it is acceptable. Housing was built that was adequately insulated against both heat and cooling long before electricity was a thought in anyone's head. The Indian Village in Anadarko has adequate proof of this. In the U.S., we live in seas of asphalt. Of course it's hot and uncomfortable! Here, I'll post a picture of a nice parking lot and please convince me it's either backwards or impractical. It's nice and it all comes down to what your money should bring you in the longrun! abri
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/558/parkinglot2dh.jpg