Why does the U.S. government not get involved and push for cars that do not burn gasoline?

Question

The technology is out there to devolop cars not to burn gas .Our country was always on the leading edge but known it seems no one cares about the future of our country or our people Im depressed that the future of our country is not going but gone .The noise from all the problems is over whelming and we have no leaders that care deeply about the people of the U.S. We have no capitaol reserves stocks are falling houseing plunging into choas and no one follows immagration laws all illegal aliens should be deported hence the word illegal the federal goverment dosnt even follow the rule of the land ther is a shinking middle class and we gave all our manufacturing to China I see our counrty is doomed . we give all our money to fourign countrys and wont even fix new orleans. Im lost

Answer 1

this is the easiest question i have ever answered
they cant make as much money on anything else . people have created engines that run on vegetable oil, water even air. but the government that runs the u.s. patent office will not allow the patents to be applied because the government wont make money like they do on crude oil for gasoline

Answer 2

It is largely about power density. Simply put, gasoline has a lot more calories per gallon than most other fuels out there. Solar is limitless only in that it will always be there. It is VERY limited in terms of power available. There are a lot of "Perpetual Motion Machine" scams out there. These promise some "Amazing New" technology that will allow you to run your Hummer a hundred miles on a gallon of water, for example. If you belive this, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

Bio-mass? Ethanol from corn, or sugarcane is a possible alternative, but if we are going to zip around in Hummers at a hundred miles an hour, and invite more Chinese to join us, a lot of people will start getting hungry real fast. I would love to spend 50 bucks for a Big Mac, wouldn't you?.

Finding alternatives to oil is a good goal, but all are meaningless if we do not start with conservation.

You may blame politicians, and to some degree that is true, but it has more to do with the unwillingness of the driving public to face the simple truth.

Conserve, or walk.

Answer 3

The technology may exist, but its introduction to the public will take place in the private sector. In our capitalist society, the government cannot control the direction that companies take. The reason companies aren't going after non-combustion engine cars is because they aren't attractive. There are too many unknowns, like how well with this car perform compared to a standard gas powered car? How will our manufacturing process change as a result of using a different type of engine? Will we need to hire new people to deal with different types of situations? How will our operating costs change in the short and long terms?

For the average manufacturer, it is wise and safe to stick with the combustion engine as long as possible. If a manufacturer like Ford were to go all in on non-combustion engine cars, they run an extreme risk of running their business into the ground.

Hint: this is a chance for all those whining environmentalists to stand up and do something, rather than complain. It's easy to point out the problems in the environment, and say "why don't they do this", well, why don't you? Invent a new type of engine, and make it out-perform a combustion engine. If you can do that, not only will you make $ but you can further your cause.

Answer 4

The government is involved and is pushing for alternative solutions. No matter what solution they come up with, it will have to be phased in. There are 300 million people in this country and many of them have new cars that they will not give up even if there was an affordable clean auto out there today. In regards to new Orleans, we have given them 114 billion dollars and if that won't help, then nothing will.

Answer 5

In the governments defense, it is spending a lot of money towards ethanol fuel. However, I agree that they could be doing a lot more.

I also agree with the people here who have mentioned that alternative fuels right now are impractical. Techniques for producing ethanol from corn, wood, and other sources aren't very cost-effective techniques...yet. There are a lot of people around the world working on improving them, though.

Answer 6

I read somewhere that gasoline would have to hit $3 + per gallon and stay there before the existing technologies as they are would be feasible.

Don't blame the government...we are doing this to ourselves by our own consumption habits. The American consumer will buy the cheaper foreign product nearly every time.

Answer 7

Please give cost effective fuel alternative to gasoline. How many more billion are you suggesting be spent on the Mississippi flood delta? Most of New Orleans should never be rebuilt. 17 feet below sea level now and I say let the sea have it. It will never be a safe place for people to live.

Answer 8

the government could care less about cars that do not burn
gasoline. it is the oil companies that grab the cars that get
high gas mileage. like if you made a car that ran on water
the oil companies will be trying to buy that car from you. they
no if that car hits the market that would hurt those oil companies.

Answer 9

It's called politics and big bucks. Look what happened when Tucker tried to invade the local auto market with a new brand automobile.

Answer 10

Why doesn't the government get involved and push for cars that don't burn gas?
Because it's none of their business what I drive.
That's why.