Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

What's your favorite alternative fuel?

Apr 24, 2007 10:45AM PDT

What's your favorite alternative fuel, and why do you think it's the best? Does it offer a possible long-term replacement to gasoline? I've covered some current alternative fuels in my column, Your clean, green car choices.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
No need for a common core i think
May 6, 2007 6:59AM PDT

What about just having a battery, no matter about the value, but also have a transformer in the car or whatever. I am no technical person, but if the batteries could work on a capacitor principle, you would only need to charge for a second or two. Longer lasting batteries should be charged overnight.

- Collapse -
Industry Standard
Jun 25, 2007 12:29PM PDT

The only real issue is who will be the first. Sony Blu-ray and the rest HD-DVD have been battling for consumer choice. It seems like the underdog will win (Sony Blu-ray). The same philosophy applies in other industries. U. S. automakers are dying. If they don't start to produce fuel efficient vehicles soon, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. will be the top three automakers in the world.

There are many methods that can get us off of oil, but the American people are led fed and led by the media, and the media caters to the industries that pay those large advertising budgets. You want to know why we are where we are? Follow the money. We are all duped into believing that fuel efficiency is something that has to be developed over years. Truth is, we can have 100+MPG now, as they did back in the early parts of the 20th Century. It is all a matter of how the fuel is used. Because of the gross waste of fuel in motor vehicles, we now have platinum based (expensive) catalytic converters that just burn up all the wasted fuel. A really simple solution can be applied to any internal combustion engine (no not diesel because that fires on compression) by introoducing the fuel as a hot vapor into the combustion cylinder. There are two minor problems with the technology.

1. The vapor must be cool enough so that it does not exploed on the compression stroke, or at least not until the spark plug fires.

2. The fuel cannot be heated/vaporized until it is going into the cylinder because that is also an explosion hazard.

So the answer is to use a vortex that will vaporize the fuel in the manifold as it enters the cylinder. The efficiency will eliminate the need for a catalytic converter, which will more than offset the cost of re-engineering intake manifolds, and in addition to lowering the cost of building the vehicle, you will save thousands anually in fuel costs.

In the meantime, automakers can start looking at the cutting edge technologies in electric motors, battery/capacitor storage, and solar/wind/regenerative braking, etc. to extend the range between chargings.

Built on a Lotus Elise chassis and appointed like a Lotus sports car, The Tesla Roadster is quite a remarkable auto even at $92,000.00. But keep in mind that it has a 248HP 3-phase electric motor that dleivers that HP and torque 0-13,500 RPM. It'll get ya to 60 MPH from a standstill in about 4 seconds. Although they have rather heavy Lithium Ion cells in their ESS (Energy Storage System) they are talking with a Texas company that is touting a new "Ultra-capacitor" as a battery replacement. It should reduce the vehicle weight as they are lighter than Li-Ion cell for cell, and can be charged in minutes instead of hours. They also sue regenerative braking to get the range to about 200 miles between charges. I can see that doubling within the next 2-3 years. Tesla Motors claims their car gets the equivalent of 130+MPG at less that 1.3 cents per mile. That will certainly keep the bucks in your wallet. Even with the 980 Li-ion cells, it onlt produces about one-sixth the polution of a "normal" fuel car.

What we need are more forward thinking people like Tesla Motors' founders to start making competing electric vehicles, and with higher ranges between charges. Maybe they will figure out what Nikola Tesla did and their cars won't have to be recharged at all.

Now before anyone jumps up and down and starts yelling that's sci-fi stuff, do the research on aether energy, and why Einstein was wrong (at least he didn't give the whole story before he died) about the vacuum of space.

- Collapse -
Cars have changed
Jul 21, 2007 12:27AM PDT

You stated that;

"Truth is, we can have 100+MPG now, as they did back in the early parts of the 20th Century"

The early cars weighed a tiny fraction of what they do today. They sometimes had only a single cylinder engine, The original Daimler, the First auto, had a single cylinder and used and evaporation chamber where the air bubbled through the benzene to produce the fumes to run the engine. With such ?minimal engeneering? high mileage is possible. However, try to run a 3 ton behemoth like a Ford Excursion at 75 mph down I-80 that way. I will never work. Our problem is we as a society will not come to grips with the idea that we are inherently WASTEFULL.

- Collapse -
Yes we are!
Jul 21, 2007 10:57AM PDT

That is how we got started, by burning for heat and light. At least that is what is common belief. I think the whole burning fuels was actually a stop gap measure to compensate for destroyed technology.

It may be that our "ancient ancestors" were for more technologically advanced than we are presently, and that science is just being rediscovered by those physicists that think outside the box. But it is a wasteful society that we have deleveloped and live in.

Think of the energy it takes just to deal with the mounds of waste we produce from packaging materials alone. Add all the egg shells and coffee grinds to the banana peels and citrus fruit rinds, and we have a mess. Composting and recycling has helped, but it has grown more expensive to deal with recycling. Much of the cost rise it due to increasing transportation costs (fuel) and the energy costs (fuel) to process the recycled waste.

Fuelless technology is the new paradigm, but I don't know that it will be a reality in my life span. And the shame of that is not that we cannot develop the technology fast enough, but rather the politics of greed demands that we don't upset the status quo of the energy industry. Truth is, just as the auto replaced the horse and buggy, new technology creates new industries of support products and services.

Perhaps another cahnge is due. Changing the way we think about energy and where it comes from.

- Collapse -
Cars have changed by far
Jul 22, 2007 6:03AM PDT

Yes we can have 100+MPG now. In fact, GM made a 100 MPG car in the early 80s. The Saturn project produced this car in 1981 I believe.

Making a car that gets good gas mileage is nothing amazing, nothing new. In fact, I personally could make one myself.

But there are a few problems, namely the fact no one would buy one. People are not so hung up on gas mileage as some of the posts on this forum suggest.

The car needs to be able to hold a number of people. The car needs to hold luggage and have cargo space. The car needs to be fast and have good acceleration. The car needs to be able to go a good distance. The car needs to be safe. The car needs to be good looking.

This is what killed the 100 MPG Saturn project (which later became the Saturn name brand). The 100 MPG car had only 2 seats, minimal cargo space, was not very safe and didn't meet government safety standards, had no real acceleration. Any buyers? No, and that's the point.

I also have a huge issue with your broad brush accusation of "wasteful". How do you know this? I would wager most people have a reason for buy the car they bought.

For example, a friend purchased a Mountaineer. At first glance that could be considered wasteful. But he purchased it because he planned on using it for a kids camp. He takes loads of children every week to a kids camp. He also now has 3 children, so he needs a large car. He also takes long vacations with his family, where a smaller car would not do. So that isn't wasteful. How do you think you know so much to make a judgment on what is wasteful?

Another family I know of has a full size conversion van. If you saw him going to work in it, you'd think he was wasteful. What you didn't know is he has 9 children and a stay at home wife who doesn't have a car. He needed the full size van.

Yes humans in general are wasteful. However I have a problem when idiots think they have any ground to judge how "wasteful" others are. Judge yourself.

- Collapse -
I was not intending to judge
Jul 26, 2007 12:10AM PDT

I am sorry if my words convicted your conscious of something. The things I stated were the same that you did. The technology that moved cars 100 years ago will not work with today?s cars. They have changed. Seat belts and crash protection has reduced car fatality greatly since the 1960s. but at a cost. Weight. To go back would be imposable. However, some of the more popular cars today are not utilitarian. High power cars like the ford Mustang are fast powerful fun to drive, and do not get very good mileage. True? How about the Hummer? I realize there are people who would have a need for a heavy duty 4 wheel drive vehicle like that but, you and I both know there are a large number who buy products like this just to impress. Could this be why the US, with 10 to 15 % of the worlds population uses somewhere around 80% of the oil? I too own a van. I have 5 children at home. We need it. However I also own a 1989 ford escort I bought for $800.00. It now has 175,000 miles on it and it gets 36 miles to the gallon. I drive this daily to and from work. To replace it with a new vehicle that gets 38-40 would be a vast outlay of cash that would take years to recoup with the modest increase in mileage.

- Collapse -
Charge at night
May 7, 2007 6:03AM PDT

I wouldn't think you'd do 350 miles in one day... Even so, with these newer more advanced batteries being tested, you will probably not exceed the limit. You can charge it at night if it takes long, or maybe carry a spare with you.

- Collapse -
Responding to a battery question
Dec 23, 2007 12:40PM PST

The Brits have for over 35 years used for their milk delivery trucks pallet-loaded batteries that could quickly be replaced. and charged inthe warehouse. A Scandanavian company is developing a two-seat EV where you buy the car and rent the batteries from various supply stations.

- Collapse -
Biodiesel in any engine?
May 2, 2007 1:40PM PDT

I dont think so...
According the the GM and reinforced by any owners manual supplement for a 2007 GMC or Chevy truck with a 6.6 Duramax diesel engine (Isuzu with Bosch direct "common-rail" electronic injection) the MAXIMUM concentration of biodiesel permitted is 10% (in order to prevent damage to the fuel system) It's no different for most any of the other major automotive companies that offer diesel engines.

New emissions standards and ultra-low sulfer fuel standards for "on-road" diesels has meant that we wont see the ability to run 100% corn-refined or recycled biodiesel anytime soon. At least if you hope to maintain your warranty...
WOT

- Collapse -
The article is about the future fuels
May 2, 2007 2:10PM PDT

In this post, you are speaking of present day automobiles and circumstances that exist today. You are not taking into consideration the conditions that would exist 5, and 10, and 20 years in the future. The electric grid can be boosted in only a few years and diesel engines can be refined to use up to 100% bio-fuel in just a short time if the market dictates such a move just as gasoline engines are now being modified to run on alcohol.

- Collapse -
biofuel lol
May 6, 2007 9:24AM PDT

When you have used up all of the corn, wheat and other major crops that are grown and turned them into biofuel, WHAT, may I ask will you eat. If you're wealthly enough (own a biofuel company), you may be able to afford the very expensive foods left over from the process, but no one else will be able to.

And no you won't be able to eat meat, it no longer exists, you turned the grass the animals eat into biofuel. Probably burnt a lot of coal and oil, not to mention electricity to turn food into biofuel. Sad!

- Collapse -
Plenty of pasture land to raise cattle...
May 6, 2007 10:17AM PDT

Out here in the midwest there is plenty of grazing land for cattle. Meat would be grass fed instead instead of grain fed feedlot beef. I don't think people would starve although might have to cut back on meat. Corn is raised on whats called "tillable land" while cattle can be raised nearly anywhere that can be fenced in. I'm thinking more small, personal sized veggie gardens will offset any decrease in meat supply. The idea of solar electric powered cars may be the best idea if it can be made to work. Wouldn't have to add gas or plug 'em in!

- Collapse -
grazing land
May 6, 2007 11:04AM PDT

Having been throughout N.America, I know that there are lots of places that livestock would still be able to graze, but with all of the tillable land being turned into bio-fuel, they would have to put our expanding population somewhere and most of our cities now are on built on tillable land, so that would leave new cities being built on grazing lands.

I happen to agree with you that if it can be made to work, solar is the answer, and as soon as they are able to figure a way to bill us for the engery that the gives freely, you can be sure that they will find a way to make it work.

Would not suprise me to find that we already have the technology to make it work, but are unable to figure a way to make money on the after market.

No I am not into the conspiracy thing, but reality says that if someone is not making money and the goverments are unable to tax it, then it will not happen

- Collapse -
Government is a big part of the problem...
May 7, 2007 7:55AM PDT

They tax gasoline & road diesel which may explain why there aren't more alternatives in use already. They're spooking many livestock producers with their NAIS proposal they're trying to make into law. A lot of land which wouldn't be suitable for a city or crop production can be used for cattle, if necessary. I've got forty acres at the end of a dirt road which could be fenced & support somewhere between 50 & 60 head of beef cattle. There are many other such parcels located far enough from cities that most city types wouldn't want to live there. If government programs that pay farmers not to grow crops were ended, there'd be much more farmland brought back into production. Legalize hemp/marijuana would be a big step in the right direction to end the dependence on foreign oil.

- Collapse -
BioDiesel - 80,000 miles with standard unmodified CRTD FIAT
May 2, 2007 8:41PM PDT

I have just sold a Fiat with a 2 Liter Common Rail Turbo Diesel after 80,000 miles on 50 percent (B50) BioDiesel blend - absolutly no mods and absolutly no probs absolutly excellent economy 600 miles to a tank .v. 450 miles on standard diesel (when I couldnt get Bio..)
The lubricity of Bio is far better and hence wear is reduced..
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/perspectives223.htm
only drawback is that it cleans out a previously dirty system so a first time user would be wise to begin using Bio for the first time about 1500 miles before the next Fuel Filter change is due..
If anyone from Hyundai is reading this I have a question.. Why the heck dont you guys allow Bio in your Tucson 2.0CRTD - lets match a great vehicle with great fuel..
nick in Ireland

- Collapse -
BIODIESEL
May 2, 2007 11:26PM PDT

This is not true. Both Chevrolet and GMC websites advertise that the 6.6 Duramax is Biodiesel compatable. You can also check out: http://www.biodiesel.org/
This site offers varied information on the biodiesel product and how it is refined to the same standards as petroleum based diesel fuel.

- Collapse -
Biodiesel limited by law
May 3, 2007 12:03AM PDT

The Ultra-Low Sulfer Diesel (ULSD) standards for "on-road" diesels will allow a 5% biodiesel blend. 80% of diesel being sold today for highway usemust be ULSD(effective beginning June 1, 2006). 100% of this diesel must be ULSD by 2010. SO it doesn't matter what percent your vehicle will allow if the law doesn't allow that type of diesel to be sold.

- Collapse -
yes, biodiesel in today's diesels!
May 3, 2007 7:09AM PDT

GM and others are understandably worried about inferior quality fuel causing warranty issues. As in the guy who fills his tank from the local fish fry. Any industrial mass produced biodiesels fuel will easily be made usable in most of today's diesel engines.

biodiesel is naturally sulphur free.

- Collapse -
100% Bio in 2002 3/4 ton Dodge pick-up
May 3, 2007 10:46AM PDT

This 10% biodiesel is a lot of HOG WASH. I know of three people who are using 100% Bio fuel right now, and have been for over a year with NO problems what so ever right here in the Pacific N.W.. You DO have to change your fuel filters first and after the first tank because Bio fuel will clean out the fuel system. Power output is a little higher with the same M.P.G...Bert

- Collapse -
Switch Grass is a natural biofuel solution
May 3, 2007 12:31AM PDT

From Wikipedia:

Switchgrass is often considered a good candidate for biofuel ? especially ethanol fuel ? production due to its hardiness against poor soil and climate conditions, rapid growth and low fertilization and herbicide requirements. Switchgrass is also perennial, unlike corn and sugarcane, and has a huge biomass output, the raw plant material used to make biofuel, of 6-10 tons per acre.[2][3] President George W. Bush mentioned this usage in his 2006 State of the Union address.

Switchgrass has the potential to produce the biomass required for production of up to 100 gallons (380 liters) of ethanol per metric ton.[4] This gives switchgrass the potential to produce 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre, compared to 665 gallons for sugarcane and 400 gallons for corn.[5]

However, there is debate on the viability of switchgrass, and all other biofuels, as an efficient energy source. University of California, Berkeley professor Tad Patzek points out that switchgrass has a negative ethanol fuel energy balance, requiring 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.[6] In a 2007 lecture Professor Richard Muller, also of the University of California, Berkeley, noted that it is the conversion of switchgrass biomass into ethanol which introduces significant inefficiencies. He also noted that The Helios Project at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory is actively trying to engineer metabolic pathways in bacteria to more efficiently convert cellulose to ethanol.

On the other side, David Bransby, professor of energy crops at Auburn University, has found that for every unit of energy input, switchgrass yields four units out.[7] It is Bransby's work that was the source for President Bush's comments in the 2006 State of the Union address.

[edit] Prominent use in Tennessee alternative fuel program
In January 2007, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen announced that his proposed 2007-08 State budget would include $61 million for a comprehensive alternative fuels strategy designed "to position Tennessee to be a national leader in the production of biomass ethanol and related research."[Cool Bredesen proposed this funding in combination with $11.6 million in existing funding for an ongoing related project at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), for a total proposal representing a $72.6 million comprehensive plan.[9] Scientists at ORNL and the University of Tennessee (UT) Institute for Agriculture have developed ethanol from switchgrass, a crop that can be grown virtually anywhere in Tennessee

- Collapse -
Ethanol is a bad joke
May 3, 2007 12:23PM PDT

Brazil went to ethanol to use up the excess sugar cane that they produced. It worked for them and was a good choice for the feed stock they had.

Butanol is a superior alcohol and should be the bio fuel of choice.

Butanol is a direct replacement for gasoline and mixes with gasoline. Infrastructure for handling is already in place and butanol can be made from the same feedstocks as ethanol as well as other sugar sources. Use of whey, a dairy bi-product, is an alternate feedstock for butanol.

Ethanol will only cause us to reach a situation where we have to choose fuel for car or food for belly.

- Collapse -
Ethanol...
May 6, 2007 7:12AM PDT

We'll burn all the whisky and alcoholic drinks!

- Collapse -
Problems with biofuels
May 6, 2007 4:06AM PDT

I agree with bellboy2k that biofuels from corn doesn't make sense. In addition to the ones already mentioned, there are scientists like Prof. David Pimentel at Cornell who also have pointed out that corn ethanol is a marginal proposition from an energy payback perspective and will not be a sustainable fuel. Pimentel's work indicates that for every unit of energy put into making alcohol from corn you only get back a fraction of that unit like 0.7 so it is not sustainable in the long haul. You have to also consider the other inputs needed like land and water and also the environmental impacts. We need land to grow corn for food for animals as well as humans. This is evident from rising beef prices and the the jump in tortilla prices that Mexicans are already experiencing from the diversion of corn to fuel generation. Even the most optimistic have a hard time justifying corn ethanol economically without government subsidies.

Sugarcane is a different story. Sugar is a solid state alcohol so the conversion to ethyl alcohol is more straightforwrd chemically.The energy payback is 2-3 times over that put in. Maybe we should start investing in sugar farms in Haiti to produce ethanol.

Nonetheless with all biofuels, a key problem is that photosynthesis is very energy inefficient with much less than 1% of the sunlight converted into fuel chemical energy. Also at best, it is global warming neutral in that burning the fuel releases CO2. This will be taken up in the growing of the corn so it is a netwash. While cars can run on electricity, airplanes, however, will demand a biofuel. Otherwise we don't fly.

For those of you who think hydrogen is the answer look at Ulf Bassel's analysis (found on Google)which shows that for the city of Frankfurt where he lives, you need 3 large electricity generating plants and the entire water supply of Frankfurt to make enough hydrogen by electrolysis to fuel the airplanes that take off and land there!

PV solar power modules today convert 15-20% of sunlight energy (1KW/m2)directly into electric energy with an energy payback of ~8 to 1 needed to make solar panels. Since the sun doesn't always shine we have to have a portfolio of alternative generating sources.

Fasten your seatbelts friends as we enter the new world after Peak Oil. Your world as you know it will be changing.

- Collapse -
EVs
May 6, 2007 1:31AM PDT

The problem, Albizzia, is what happens if you're out on the road and your battery runs dead. You can recharge overnight while you try to find a motel.

GM's experience with quick charging was not successful...batteries don't like to accept charge quickly as everyone who owns a cell phone knows. And you would need an recharge infrastructure. Who's going to invest the billions needed for that?

On an energy density scale only zinc air batteries rivals gasoline and so far zinc air can't be cycled many times or provide quick power. While some have talked about filling up with a zinc slurry, this has lots of practical problems. So far hybrids are the best solution, especially with plug-in hybrids now underdevelopment.
Pzev.

- Collapse -
Avoid dead batteries like you avoid running out of gas
May 6, 2007 9:56AM PDT

There are several possible solutions to the electric car "short range long trip" problem. One is to use the electric for everyday driving and use another car for those rare long trips. Another would be to have a swappable battery pack (that has some minor problems to be solved).

My favorite solution would be an automated guideway (or roadway) that could provide electric power "on the go", resulting in unlimited range.

If a very high energy battery comes on the market that could provide a thousand mile (or more) range, that would provide for an entire days driving. Just recharge while you sleep.

There are other very high energy batteries being developed besides zinc air. Both Aluminum air and lithium air have a higher Kwh per kg rating than zinc air, though Al-air batteries are not currently rechargable, and Li-air are still "in the lab".

- Collapse -
Storing electricity in vehicles
Apr 27, 2007 12:17AM PDT

It seems that every bit of battery capacity increase has been hard-won. And because the process is chemical in nature, it may well be just about peaked out. But researchers continue to work.

And there is a second way to store electricity in a vehicle that should be considered: namely, in capacitors. Capacitors are not based on chemistry. Research in large capacity capacitors has moved forward pretty well in recent years. For a number of years now, you have been able to buy multi-farad capacitors that are actually quite small and are available at reasonable prices. Also, there is research that is continuing to increase the capacity and voltage of capacitors, so we may see things happening in this direction in the next few years.

On the long term viability of hydrogen: I can't see hydrogen ever being a viable alternative to simple electricity as long as the number of conversion steps to use hydrogen to power my car exceeds those for electricity. There are more conversion steps to use hydrogen. No conversion step in the real world is 100% efficient, there will always be a loss. Take the efficiencies of all the conversion steps and multiply them to get the total efficiency of the system, and the total efficiency for hydrogen won't look so good in comparison with electricity.

Efficiency is money.

Whenever considering any alternative, consider the efficiency of the conversion process from raw material to power to the wheel. That is what is going to determine the winner at any stage in this ongoing process.

- Collapse -
Capacitors
May 2, 2007 1:03PM PDT

Capacitors have a leakage problem. Also, if you had a short, a multi-farad capacitor would give a mighty big bang Happy

- Collapse -
Count the Steps: Source to Vehicle Performance Results
May 2, 2007 9:32PM PDT

I agree with your posting.

Thus, I would say electric vehicles, powered my mechanisms as close to direct solar and nuclear energy as is possible, safe, globally-deployable, and economical, in that order of evaluation.

Every other vehicle type seems to have too high a carbon-cost for the results attained (e.g., our individual and group convenience in our way of life, our thriving, our sustainment, our survival in an increasingly crowded world). This high cost comes from eventually having to clean up our production bi-products, or else begin to irreparably damage many species on a planetary scale, including our own, and perhaps perish.

I would describe it as follows. Count the number of "conversion" steps from the natural source (e.g., sun, wind, soil, sea, volcanic/geo-thermal, geologic hydrocarbon, nuclear forces) to the delivery of the results we value (e.g., free vehicle mileage with no maintenance), calculate the collection cost (i.e., collecting, storing, loading into production mechanism such as vehicle) per use, calculate the collection infrastructure/manufacturing and maintenance costs, calculate the greenhouse gas remediation costs (e.g., carbon costs). Plug those into a formula, and see which source/collection/conversion/production/remediation life cycle scenario has the highest overall value to the planet (not to the person, nation, industry, or our species). Note that the greenhouse-gas remediation cost will probably be a dominant factor in determining this value of planetary energy consumption for planetary production.

I would speculate that this formula would show solar and nuclear to be the most efficient energy sources overall, with these also having the least likelihood of disrupting the planetary balance between our needs for production and the planet's need to sustain and enrich itself and us.

- Collapse -
Direct solar on cars won't work
May 6, 2007 1:56AM PDT

Here's the numbers you need, roebuck, that show that direct solar on cars won't work.
Practical car engines are 60-100 kW devices so you need a lot of power that has to be delivered quickly. Unfortunately light from the sun does not have high power densities. At noontime, with a 20 % conversion efficient SunPower moduke you'll get 200 W/meter2 (that about a yard squared). No way will you be able to get enough power from solar cells on cars even if you have batteries. And what happens when the sun goes down or it's raining. Can't go to work then.

Yes solar farms over the roof tops of America make sense but not on cars except for solar sun roofs to run fans in the summertime so your car doesn't get too hot when it's parked. Cost of solar PV today is about 2-3 times more expensive than the grid but costs are coming down.

As for nuclear it's not cheap. That's why Fortune magazine has characterized the decision to build nuclear power plants the worst financial decision ever made. No new nuclear plant has been built since 1978 in the U.S. And what do you do about nuclear waste. That why even Al Gore isn't really bullish about nuclear.

The kind of analysis you suggested is done routinely by energy technologists.
Pzev

- Collapse -
I agree
May 2, 2007 6:39PM PDT

Yeah a car running on batteries isnt cool.