What does clean mean? Quest for perfect scooter

[snoutmeat]

Hello, Buddy fans-

I'm on the quest for the perfect scooter, and I haven't found it yet.

My criteria:

--regular scooter size, near-maxi-scooter power
--price not insane
--reliable
--can keep up w/traffic and be fun to ride
--very clean-burning
--good mileage

Here's a little more background:
I've owned scooters and motorcycles for roughly 2 decades (ever since I got my driver's license). A couple of years ago, I decided that our insatiable appetite for gasoline is the root of many of the planet's problems today, and that I should do everything I can to limit my personal use. I bought a biodiesel VW, which is currently my daily driver. It gets great mileage, it's zippy, and the fuel it burns is made from vegetable oil...but why bother lugging around 3000 pounds of steel when it's more fun to ride a 2-wheeler? Theoretically, one should be able to get much better mileage on a 400-pound motorcycle than in a 3000 pound car, but in practice, my 650cc motorcycle gets just about the same mileage (40 MPG) as my VW, so there's not much point in riding (from an environmental standpoint). So now my quest has moved on to scooters, and I'm looking for the perfect one (see criteria above). I own several vintage scooters, which only get ridden occasionally, and now I want a reliable, affordable, clean-burning modern scoot.

I started on this current scooter quest by picking up an Italjet Torpedo, mostly because it was cheap on Craigslist. Honestly, it's a blast. It's lightweight, zippy, and keeps up with traffic just fine, even on Seattle's big hills. Unfortunately, it's a dirty stinky carbed 2-stroke, which, as many tree-huggy sites like to point out, can pollute more than 10x as much as an SUV. I question some of their numbers, especially since most of the "emissions" are unburned hydrocarbons, which may contribute to smog, but apparently don't contribute to global climate change. But I'm not winning any friends with the cloud of blue smoke I leave behind me.

Then I heard about the Yamaha C3. It's water-cooled, fuel-injected, with a two-way catalyst and mileage somewhere around 115 MPG. Sounded perfect, so I grabbed one. On paper, it's great, but on the street, it's a turd. Having only 50cc really kills it. I live at the bottom of a big hill, and it's just unacceptable to have to pull over to the gutter and creep up the hill at 10 or 15 MPH while cars zip past and honk for impeding traffic. Honestly, I think I'm going to get hit if I keep riding it. Someone who lives in a flatter part of town will probably love it.

Then I heard about the Aprilia Scarabeo...the 250cc model is available here in Seattle for $3000 (leftover 2006 models) new from the dealer. I think the big wheels make a lot of sense for bumpy roads, and $3K is a screaming deal for a 250cc Piaggio-engined scoot. So I took it for a test drive. It's awesome -- a great motorcycle. But I don't want a motorcycle -- it's too big and heavy to be nimble. The 50cc Italjet Torpedo is quick, zippy, nimble, and chuckable. If I could just shoehorn that 250cc motor into the Torpedo (and not increase the vehicle's weight), I'd be set!

I saw the Buddy this summer at Amerivespa, but I didn't have a chance to take it for a test ride -- I was off riding the MP3 instead (another sweet scoot, but too big and heavy for the sort of urban assault vehicle I desire). On paper, the Buddy looks great. Size-wise, it's not much bigger than a 50. The price looks reasonable too. I can live with the small wheels, and I can't be biased against Taiwanese scooters (especially because the Yamaha is built in Taiwan!)...but how clean is it? On the Genuine website, Genuine asserts that the 50 is "clean" and the 125 is "torquey"...I'm guessing that the 125 is also "clean", especially because it's a 4-stroke, but it's carbureted, so how clean could it really be? I know emissions aren't a primary concern of many scooterists, but does anyone know how the Buddy stacks up to (say) a Vespa, which has fuel injection, catalytic converter, and meets Euro 1 or Euro 2 specs?

I know, I know -- my list of requirements probably narrows the field down to zero possible scooters...but I'd love to hear
a) info on the Buddy's emissions
and/or
b) other suggestions to help me on my quest for the perfect scooter.

I think a Vespa probably has everything I'm looking for, but it bugs me to think of paying the $$$ for the Vespa name. Of course, if it's the only bike that meets all of my other criteria, then maybe I'm not simply paying for the name.

Does anyone know if the 2008 Buddy 150 will still be carbed or if it will get fuel injection?

Thanks,
Shane in Seattle

[Drumwoulf]

Hello, Buddy fans-

I'm on the quest for the perfect scooter, and I haven't found it yet.

And you''ll be looking forever, because there's no such thing.~

And why do you think an EFI'd scoot burns a cleaner exhaust than the
same (4-stroke) scoot with a carb? -I've not seen any facts to prove this..? AFAIC the Buddy 125, with it's 80 mpg's and 70+ top speed is just about one of the 'cleanest', less polluting, less energy hogging OEM vehicles you can buy...

Vespas with EFI? Only the GTS 250. Gets around 55 to 65 MPGs, can do 80MPH, and costs twice the Buddy's OTD price! I have a Vespa GT 200 (carb) and I love it, but it's definitely not as 'clean' (if you mean efficient?) as the Buddy...!

The best gas burners are usually the 50cc 4-stroke bikes, true. But they are, so far, extremely impractical for the USA power-mad culture, and are (IMO) unsafe on almost any public USA road unless extremely modified......

Anyway, try the Buddy. You might like it. And if not, sell it and try another... Extended BS'ing and searching and BS'ing and searching will get you nowhere fast...

[jetboy]

If a Buddy 125 or 150 test drive doesn't do it for you, then perhaps ericalm could weigh in on his 190-kitted lx. I'd like to hear about it as well. I'd be thinking about keeping the cost down by buying it used and throwing some dollars at the performance upgrades.

-jetboy

[ericalm]

I'm actually going through a similar process with selecting my next car (with similar criteria) and have decided that the ones I really want aren't yet available in the US.

The scoot you want (and that I think a lot of us would want!) may not exist yet, but it may be close. The Vespa hybrids will be available in the next year or so, though there's quite a debate about the environmental impact of plug-in hybrids and I'd rather us not get into that in this thread.

I've been riding my LX 150 with the new 190 kit for just 5 days, but have put over 200 miles on it. I'm still breaking it in, but have a good sense of it now. Keep in mind, the LX has the same LEADER engine as the older ET and even the Piaggio Fly and later Aprilia Mojitos so this kit would work on any with similar results. (The Mojito is lower than the LX & ET and probably handles differently, but the 2 Vespas should be similar in most regards.)

I rarely ride WOT on open road; most of my riding is in urban traffic, on streets and off the freeway. One reason I picked the LX150 over a GT200 (GTS was not available at the time I bought—and neither were the Genuines) was that the extra displacement of the GT didn't compensate for its extra bulk. I'm not a squid and ride safely but do take advantage of CA's legal lane-splitting and feel I need something flickable and maneuverable.

Before the kit, acceleration was good but not great (especially after I put on some weight, ugh). I could take most cars off the line at a light. My top indicated speed was just over 80mph (so just over 70mph actual) on a straight, flat stretch with a tailwind. I could cruise very comfortably at over 60 if necessary—more if drafting. I do have a mid-sized windscreen, which improved my top speed by a couple MPH and gave me a few more on hills. I'd stopped keeping close track of my gas mileage, but was averaging around 65-70MPG. I had about 10,200 miles on the odometer.

What I wanted from the kit was improved off the line acceleration, better mid-range torque for pulling ahead in traffic, more power for riding with a passenger, and more power for climbing hills. That's pretty much exactly what I got. The scoot feels rejuvenated, as if it had gone through a fitness and weight lifting program. It'd not a rocket, and performs similarly as before, but it's stronger, a little more macho, and performs a lot better. Off the line acceleration similar to a Buddy, more mid torque, definitely better than the Buddy with a passenger and on hills.

Because I'm doing a "soft" engine break-in as advised by my mechanic, Greasy, I don't know what my tops speeds are because I haven't really opened up the throttle all the way long enough to find out. I got just under 60MPG from my first tank of gas, but have been intentionally revving the engine and varying RPMs for the break-in. Also, as with a new engine, that's something that will improve after 600 miles or so.

[weaseltamer]

there is that kinda funky looking new electric scooter. someone thats more "with it" might post a linky to the other thread.

[vitaminC]

How long is your commute? Try walking, riding a bicycle, or taking public transit...

[vitaminC]

And why do you think an EFI'd scoot burns a cleaner exhaust than the
same (4-stroke) scoot with a carb? -I've not seen any facts to prove this..? AFAIC the Buddy 125, with it's 80 mpg's and 70+ top speed is just about one of the 'cleanest', less polluting, less energy hogging OEM vehicles you can buy...

EFI is definitely cleaner than carbs, and for many reasons. Google can tell you more...

http://www.babcox.com/editorial/cm/cm59726.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_the_fall_ ... on_Systems
etc.

[Keys]

...and my official response is; "whatever."

--Keys

[Tazio]

The Buddy must be clean, they allow it to be purchased in Commiefornia where you can't even buy a gas can with a pour spout anymore.

[ericalm]

there is that kinda funky looking new electric scooter. someone thats more "with it" might post a linky to the other thread.

The Vectrix. Provided it's not raining, I'll be checking it out at the IMS in Long Beach this Saturday. Don't think they're doing test rides, though.

The Buddy must be clean, they allow it to be purchased in Commiefornia where you can't even buy a gas can with a pour spout anymore.

Federal emissions standards are now the same as California's CARB standards. CA does have some other requirements for environmental considerations, but these have little impact on most auto scooters.

Meanwhile, you may want to buy a funnel.

[scullyfu]

hey, snoutmeat! did you see this on craigslist in seattle?


http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/mcy/497676299.html

some people in my scooter group know this fellow and his scooter. so he sounds legit and they said the vespa is da bomb!

[Dooglas]

The Buddy must be clean, they allow it to be purchased in Commiefornia where you can't even buy a gas can with a pour spout anymore.

I think you got that one wrong. The "commies", as you put it, were not exactly famous for environmental purity. Quite the contrary as I remember. I think it is the folks that care about stuff like green trees, birds and open spaces that worry about stuff like that. That was sure on my mind when I bought a Buddy.

[gt1000]

Back to the OP...

I'm not quite sure why you're calling the Scarabeo a motorcycle cuz it's a big wheeled scoot through and through. For this reason alone I'm hesitant to make recommendations, but I'll do it anyway. I think there are a handful of scoots you should try out back to back, just to see if anything comes close to your ideal. I'd put the Buddy 125 in a group with the People 200S and the Vespa GTS and ride 'em all the same day. You could conceivably throw in an LX-150, Fly 150 and SYM 200 as well.

These bikes are all pretty compact and nimble and all are under 300 pounds (I think). You have a variety of engine sizes and wheel sizes. Even if you don't find your ideal you may at least decide on some preferences, for example, big wheels over little wheels, or vice versa. I ask a lot less of my scoot than you're asking of yours but I still haven't found my ideal and probably never will.

As for FI, I think it and liquid cooling are too much of a good thing for a small frame scoot. Yes, FI meters fuel much more accurately than a carb but it adds a great deal of complexity to what should be a simple machine. I love the FI on my Duc but I prefer a much simpler approach for my scoots.

[snoutmeat]

Sorry for the slow reply -- I've been working/out of town.

Follow-ups to some specific posts:

--If I wasn't clear before, I'm not expecting to find the perfect scooter. It's an ongoing quest, and I know I'll probably have to make do with "less than perfect". It would be great if someone built a "finder" that let me enter the relative importance of various criteria -- engine size, emissions, mileage, price, tire size, weight, etc -- and then gave me a list of results. Maybe I'll start working on that.

--drumwoulf, thank you for pointing out that only one (top-end) Vespa is fuel-injected. Based on their current "green" marketing and their bragging about meeting EURO emissions standards, I assumed they were all fuel-injected. The fact that they're able to meet EURO standards with carbs gives me hope that some of the other 4-stroke carbed scooters out there aren't too bad.

--Tazio, I've had a heck of a time finding out what the actual CARB numbers are, but as far as I can tell, there aren't any limits for sub-280cc bikes (http://www.bikersrights.com/epa/EPA_emm ... story.html) beyond what was originally established by CARB many years ago -- 1 gram/km of HC and 12 gram/km of CO). The rest of the US can get by with 5x that amount of HC emissions. The newer "commie" Tier I and Tier II CARB standards for motorcyles also monitor NOx emissions, but these standards don't apply for bikes that are <280cc. So yes, the Buddy is cleaner than a 49-state scooter, but CARB certification for sub-280cc bikes apparently hasn't changed in a couple of decades.

--as to the suggestion that I walk, bike, take public transportation, etc: I do walk and I do ride the bus when those options make sense. If it's a reasonable distance (a mile or two) and the weather's not terrible, I do walk. Public transportation in Seattle isn't awesome, and my time is worth something. If I want to go to downtown, the bus is great and that's the way I usually go, but if it's somewhere that's not near my local bus line, then it's not worthwhile for me to transfer -- it's absurd to spend an hour traveling 5 miles. Unfortunately, the combination of hills, weather, and poor public transportation pretty much make Seattle a car town. And even though I CAN walk, bike, or take the bus, I LIKE to ride a scooter. Riding a scooter is FUN, something that can't be said for riding a bus. I'd just like to have that fun without feeling guilty about emissions.

--when I was down in San Francisco last week, we were walking from our hotel near Union Square over to the Mission District, and we happened to walk past a local shop that sells Genuine Scooters. What a weird coincidence! They had a half-dozen Buddies parked at the curb. The physical size seemed great! My wife wasn't as impressed with the cosmetics, asserting that they looked "a little cheap". Frankly, aesthetics are toward the bottom of my list of concerns. I didn't ask for a test drive because I didn't want to inconvenience a dealer who wouldn't be selling me the scoot.

--gt1000, my point in calling the Scarabeo a motorcycle is that it feels as big and heavy as a motorcycle to ride. I wanted to love the Scarabeo -- I had cash in my pocket when I took it for a test drive -- but I'm looking for something that's more zippy and nimble. The Scarabeo felt like a well-engineered, fun machine, but it's bigger and heavier than what I want. I don't know if there's any official definition of "maxi-scoot", but I'd classify the Scarabeo as being a small maxi-scoot. I'm looking for a fast mini-scoot.

--scullyfu, I missed that craigslist post (out of town), and now it's expired. Which bike was it for? Probably sold now anyway.

--I did look at the LX a few days ago at the Vespa dealer in Seattle (while I was getting my firmware updated on my Segway). It looked and felt about right, and I see it has a LEADER engine with catalyst, so that may be the way to go. Ericalm, thank you for the write-up. This sounds like it may be a good solution....or even an ET4.

--as ericalm noted, the electric scooter weaseltamer mentioned is probably the Vectrix...and it's almost exactly what I don't want. It's, big, it weighs more than 450 pounds, and it costs $11,000.

--gt1000, thank you for the list of other suggested bikes. You may be right about liquid cooling and FI being more trouble than they're worth. I love simplicity -- if I could get an air-cooled, carbed bike that had reasonable emissions specs, I'd be fine with that. For example, I know that the mid '70s Honda CVCC engine was able to run cleanly with far fewer emissions devices than other engines of its era -- I can't remember if they used a 2nd intake valve to "swirl" the mix or maybe had a stratified-charge design. Honestly, I prefer low-tech, but I don't think I can get a scoot that's both low-complexity and clean-burning. Another bike I've been considering -- don't laugh, because it couldn't be much more different than a Buddy -- is a Honda Cub/Passport. It's small, lightweight, and apparently bulletproof. I'm trying to find emissions specs for it. My wife had one in college, and she claims that it had zippy acceleration. It's a 3-speed semi-automatic (you shift, but there's no clutch). They've made somewhere around 50 million of them since 1959, and they're still sold in many countries around the world, but not in the US. I have a battered Cub 90 that I literally found in an alley -- I knocked on the door of the nearest house and the owner told me that her son had gotten it many years before, but he'd moved away years ago and no longer had any interest in it. The hotwired ignition means I'll be checking with the police and state licensing department to ensure her son didn't steal it all those years ago, but this could potentially be another option. This is the same single-cylinder Honda design that's been copied by many Chinese companies, which means kits (and whole engines) abound in sizes up to 140cc.

Whew! That was a lot of typing. I have a couple of emails out to Genuine and to CARB to try to get some hard emissions numbers. I'll be taking the Buddy (and Vespas, and Kymco) out for a test drive one of these days when the sun's actually out.

Thanks!

[ericalm]

Thanks for taking the time to do such a thorough reply! As you can see, a lot of us are pretty interested and enthusiastic about finding scoots that meet certain needs and requirements.

The 2008 special International Edition Buddys will have 150cc engines as well as Stebel horns, making them closer to perfect than before.

--as ericalm noted, the electric scooter weaseltamer mentioned is probably the Vectrix...and it's almost exactly what I don't want. It's, big, it weighs more than 450 pounds, and it costs $11,000.

Yeah, the Vectrix is interesting, but I fear it's doomed to fail. I suppose because of the weight and batteries they made it into more of a maxi-sized scoot. They're doing an electric version of the Piaggio MP3 that will retail for $16,000. Nuts.

[gt1000]

--gt1000, my point in calling the Scarabeo a motorcycle is that it feels as big and heavy as a motorcycle to ride. I wanted to love the Scarabeo -- I had cash in my pocket when I took it for a test drive -- but I'm looking for something that's more zippy and nimble. The Scarabeo felt like a well-engineered, fun machine, but it's bigger and heavier than what I want. I don't know if there's any official definition of "maxi-scoot", but I'd classify the Scarabeo as being a small maxi-scoot. I'm looking for a fast mini-scoot.

Fair enough. Just remember that everything is, indeed, relative. Compared to a Buddy, a Scarabeo or GTS might feel like it's pushing maxi, until you ride an actual maxi. So, to be fair, you should add one of the numerous 500cc scoots to the test riding mix in order to get a balanced comparison. I also know that you won't find your ideal because it appears that one of your criteria is similar to one of mine: that is, you want 250 performance in a small frame. So, you'll need to compromise. I love the GTS and it meets or exceeds all of my performance criteria, but on some rides, it feels bulky. It also looks bulky and I far prefer the look of the LX 150.

This is why I settled on the Buddy. Small frame but, performance-wise, it seems stronger than a stock LX. It's possible that one of the new 150 Buds will be even better. But, ideally, I'd really love a 200 or 250 motor in the LX frame, perhaps with upgraded suspension and brakes. That scooter would rock!

If nobody beats me to it, I'll be back later with a few thoughts on the whole "green" thing.

[ThisDude]

If you wanna talk about saving the planet. Then it all comes down to carbon emmisions. The vespas emit more carbon period, all you have to do is look at their gas mileage, carbon is what the kyoto treaty is about not unburnt hydrocarbons those are a nuisance but eventually get broken down into carbon dioxide anyway. Carbon is carbon period. The best way to get the estimate is the mileage of the vehicle. If you burn 1 gallon of gas for 60-70 miles like a vespa no matter what you've put a gallon's worth of carbon in the air, the buddy goes a real life 80-90 mpg which means up to a 29% decrease in carbon emmisions. Who cares if a drop of gas leaks back the other way when you shut down the engine, you probably spill more than that on refill in fact the biggest source of unburnt hydrocarbons in CA second to cows is gas stations not cars and motorcycles. By the way I get better gas mileage on my honda rebel than the vespa scooter that cost me about 1/3 of the price of a big vespa. Plus it's low maintenance if you put a lot of miles and tires last longer on it, remember tires are a huge source of pollution too.

[snoutmeat]

Bonus points to Genuine Scooters for their customer service -- I received a quick reply that confirms that the Buddy does have a catalytic converter and a carbon canister. I didn't ask for permission to forward his message along, so I'll paraphrase:

--All of the Buddy, Rattler, and Roughhouse scooters are 50-state legal and have catalytic converters and carbon canisters.

--The two-strokes (Buddy 50, Roughhouse 50, Rattler 110) are also 50-state approved. He also says that the 2-strokes are no dirtier than the 4-strokes.

I still wish I knew exact numbers required to pass CARB's standards. I still haven't found anything that indicates the limits for sub-280cc scooters are any different than they were 20 years ago. We'll see if CARB replies to my email. I've also (finally) found hard numbers for a car, so I can do a side-by-side comparison when I get the scooter numbers.

I've also seen metrics published by Bajaj touting their "greenness" (http://www.bajajusa.com/emissions.htm). I question their comparison -- they assert that the average car emits 2.80 gm/mile of hydrocarbons, and an SUV emits 3.51 gm/mile...In comparison, the Bajaj emits .43 gm/mile. But Tier 2 emissions standards for cars (in effect now) stipulate a maximum of 0.09 g/mile of non-methane organic gases, which is (as far as I can tell) the same as unburned hydrocarbons. So their implication is that the Bajaj emits 1/6 or 1/8 the amount of HC as a car, when in reality, a new car emits 1/4 the HC of a Bajaj. Hmm...

[snoutmeat]

ThisDude, you assert that "saving the planet" all comes down to carbon emissions. I'll readily admit that I don't know the facts 100% on this, but I'm not sure carbon emissions all contribute equally. For example, I know that, pound for pound, methane is worse for the environment than carbon dioxide. I also know that carbon that's locked up as (for example) a piece of lumber isn't contributing to global warming. I don't know if anyone else has seen the TV commercials for the Dyson vacuum cleaner...the founder of Dyson makes fun of traditional electric motors with carbon brushes, asserting that his new brushless design is somehow revolutionary and bragging that his design has "zero carbon emissions". On their older vacuums, which do have brushed motors, they position the vacuum bag between the motor and the exhaust; again, they say they do this to eliminate carbon emissions. Since when is carbon dust a greenhouse gas? Should we ban pencils? What about toner or graphite lubricant? That's pure powdered carbon. I'm pretty sure particulate carbon isn't contributing in any way to the greenhouse effect.

So what happens with unburnt gasoline? It mixes with NOx and sunlight to make ozone, which (in large volumes) makes smog. Ozone has been linked to some undesirable health effects. But what ultimately happens to the ozone? Does it also act as a greenhouse gas?

[BuddyRaton]

Yep there are noeasy answers. If your concerned about your carbon tire prints (I think carbon footprint is such a stupid expression) the only thin you can really do is walk or ride a bicycle. Oh yeah...there are electric vehicles...oops we burn tons and tons of coal to produce that, or oil, or nuclear. Wind electricity is a very nice idea, except for the migratory birds that get chopped up by the blades. Hydroelectric? Clean, except for all the flooded areas from building dams.

I ride a two stroke and a four stroke. I think that the argument is a wash. Yes a two stroke burns oil, but they don't need oil changes which generate hundreds of thousands of gallons of waste oil. It doesn't take much to contaminate an aquifer. That black stripe in the middle of each lane on EVERY road, waste oil waiting to be washed into groundwater or surface waters. If you run two stroke synthetic oil it produces almost no smoke or odor.

Biofules sound sooo attractive, until you realize that ethenol mixes get terrible mileage and your still burning it so there really is no advantage other than not having to drill for it. Same thing for running on veggie oil, your still burning it. Oh yeah..just how much fuel do the farmers use to produce it, even more alarming they need to use an incredible amount of water, and fertilizers and pesticides and cleared land.

I will admit that I dont do everything I can but I do ride the Burgman to work whenever I can. 70 miles a day 50mpg at 65 75 mph. Do I do it because its the "envirnomentally" proper thing to do? No...I ride it because its fun and saves a few bucks. feeling good about "helping the environment" is a little bonus that I probably dont deserve!

We do need to be more aware and I believe progress is being made. Economics is really the only thing that will drive true changes in lifestyles.

Who is willing to give up all their motor vehicles, heat, air conditioning boats etc? I'd miss the Dairy Queens HonkyTonks and 7-11s!!!

As the Talking Heads said in "Nothing But Flowers" I can't get used to this lifestyle!

[Keys]

...what BuddyRaton said. That's why previously I said "whatever...". Which is why I call the Toyota Prius the Toyota Pious. Its only REAL benefit is it makes the driver feel warm and fuzzy. The fuel requirement for it is really no less if you follow it back to it's source.

--Keys

[ThisDude]

Nox doesn't turn to ozone. what it does do is contribute to acid rain. And while methane is worse for the environment carbon dioxide is released in such great quantities as to offset what methane can do. Totally agree on hybrid cars doing nothing. But about the only smart and clean technology is nuclear. And don't go spouting off about nuclear waste.

The better reactor technologies now like France has (80% of their electricity is nuclear, and they have a better track record than us) which includes on site breeder reactors for complete nuclear waste recycling make it so that if we could ship our nuclear waste to them they'd be able to use it to generate power. That power is clean and has the ability to be truly carbon neutral. Limiting nuclear power here has made us entirely dependent on oil. Our nuclear technology is decades old, dirty, and inefficient. Believe me I was a nuclear tech in the navy I know nuclear power.

[Drumwoulf]

...what BuddyRaton said. That's why previously I said "whatever...". Which is why I call the Toyota Prius the Toyota Pious. Its only REAL benefit is it makes the driver feel warm and fuzzy. The fuel requirement for it is really no less if you follow it back to it's source.
--Keys

The TV show "Boston Legal" recently had a (fictious) trail case where the (probably true) point was made that the Prious uses a great deal of nickel in it's batteries, and this nickel is mostly mined now in a Canadian mine plant that's notorious for polluting everything around it for miles...
So the car is a wash...... ??

[BuddyRaton]

Nox doesn't turn to ozone. what it does do is contribute to acid rain. .

I do believe that acid rain is the by product of burning sulpher containing fuels such as coal or diesel. Sulpher dioxide H2S +O =H2SO4...sulfuric acid

And while methane is worse for the environment carbon dioxide is released in such great quantities as to offset what methane can do. .

HUH?????

Totally agree on hybrid cars doing nothing. But about the only smart and clean technology is nuclear. And don't go spouting off about nuclear waste.

Why not? It is a valid concern

The better reactor technologies now like France has (80% of their electricity is nuclear, and they have a better track record than us) which includes on site breeder reactors for complete nuclear waste recycling.

If you were a nuclear tech then must be aware that there is nosuch thing as "complete nuclear waste recycling".

make it so that if we could ship our nuclear waste to them they'd be able to use it to generate power.

and if the shipment is lost, stolen, damaged, hijacked???

Dont get me wrong, I am not anti nuclear. But there have been serious problems. Three Mile Island, Chernoble. And just how do you decomission a plant that has lived its usefull life?

The raw materials to produce the fuel are very very rare. An incredible amount of material must be mined...usually by strip mining...to obtain the needed quantities.

Once again no easy answers!


LETS RIDE!!!

[BuddyRaton]

LETS RIDE MORE!!!!

[Keys]

LETS RIDE MORE!!!!

Umm. 14,000 miles in 12 months wasn't enough???

--Keys

[Dooglas]

Biofuels sound sooo attractive, until you realize that ethenol mixes get terrible mileage and your still burning it so there really is no advantage other than not having to drill for it. Same thing for running on veggie oil, your still burning it. Oh yeah..just how much fuel do the farmers use to produce it, even more alarming they need to use an incredible amount of water, and fertilizers and pesticides and cleared land.

As far as I know, there are no diesel scooters but there are some diesel motorcycles and more on the way. I also drive a biodiesel car on a daily basis so I have to put my 2 cents worth in on this one. I agree with your point on ethanol. E85 ethanol results in poor fuel mileage and using food grains such as corn to produce fuel is nuts. Present biodiesel, however, is made from reprocessed vegetable oil which has already been used for other purposes such as french fry oil. It is a way to use the same agricultural product twice. There is clearly a limit to how much biodiesel you can make this way though. Experimental processes have been developed that produce biodiesel from waste agricultural materials such as cornstocks and wheat straw. Again, the fertilizer, tractor fuel, etc. is already being used and little more is required to use the materials that are now wasted. Diesels also get about 40% better mileage than gasoline vehicles. I feel pretty good about this one.

[ericalm]

Biofuels sound sooo attractive, until you realize that ethenol mixes get terrible mileage and your still burning it so there really is no advantage other than not having to drill for it. Same thing for running on veggie oil, your still burning it. Oh yeah..just how much fuel do the farmers use to produce it, even more alarming they need to use an incredible amount of water, and fertilizers and pesticides and cleared land.

As far as I know, there are no diesel scooters but there are some diesel motorcycles and more on the way. I also drive a biodiesel car on a daily basis so I have to put my 2 cents worth in on this one. I agree with your point on ethanol. E85 ethanol results in poor fuel mileage and using food grains such as corn to produce fuel is nuts. Present biodiesel, however, is made from reprocessed vegetable oil which has already been used for other purposes such as french fry oil. It is a way to use the same agricultural product twice. There is clearly a limit to how much biodiesel you can make this way though. Experimental processes have been developed that produce biodiesel from waste agricultural materials such as cornstocks and wheat straw. Again, the fertilizer, tractor fuel, etc. is already being used and little more is required to use the materials that are now wasted. Diesels also get about 40% better mileage than gasoline vehicles. I feel pretty good about this one.

I've given some consideration to buying a converted Mercedes diesel. My primary concern is that I can't really see myself collecting waste vegetable oil from local restaurants on a regular basis and filtering it myself, etc. How do you obtain your fuel?

My second concern is that, when it comes right down to it, I'd still be buying an older used car with a lot of miles on the engine, and all the other potential problems that accompany that. I've never owned a new car, but have grown tired of all the pains and hassles of maintaining a 15-year-old one.

[BuddyRaton]

Biofuels sound sooo attractive, until you realize that ethenol mixes get terrible mileage and your still burning it so there really is no advantage other than not having to drill for it. Same thing for running on veggie oil, your still burning it. Oh yeah..just how much fuel do the farmers use to produce it, even more alarming they need to use an incredible amount of water, and fertilizers and pesticides and cleared land.

As far as I know, there are no diesel scooters but there are some diesel motorcycles and more on the way. I also drive a biodiesel car on a daily basis so I have to put my 2 cents worth in on this one. I agree with your point on ethanol. E85 ethanol results in poor fuel mileage and using food grains such as corn to produce fuel is nuts. Present biodiesel, however, is made from reprocessed vegetable oil which has already been used for other purposes such as french fry oil. It is a way to use the same agricultural product twice. There is clearly a limit to how much biodiesel you can make this way though. Experimental processes have been developed that produce biodiesel from waste agricultural materials such as cornstocks and wheat straw. Again, the fertilizer, tractor fuel, etc. is already being used and little more is required to use the materials that are now wasted. Diesels also get about 40% better mileage than gasoline vehicles. I feel pretty good about this one.

Good points, however it is still being burned. And arent we supposed to eat less fried foods? (Like thats ever going to happen! )

[BuddyRaton]

I've given some consideration to buying a converted Mercedes diesel. My primary concern is that I can't really see myself collecting waste vegetable oil from local restaurants on a regular basis and filtering it myself, etc. How do you obtain your fuel?

My second concern is that, when it comes right down to it, I'd still be buying an older used car with a lot of miles on the engine, and all the other potential problems that accompany that. I've never owned a new car, but have grown tired of all the pains and hassles of maintaining a 15-year-old one.

And how much fuel do you burn collecting fuel? I really can't se doing all that work myself!


One big advantage of diesel engines is that they have a lot less moving parts so they last alot longer before needing a rebuild. Mercedes quality has been up and down the past few years too. I have a 5cyl 2.7 turbodiesel Mercedes that has blown 2 turbo resonators in 8K miles

I would do a thorough check of the repair histories for any model.

[ericalm]

I've given some consideration to buying a converted Mercedes diesel. My primary concern is that I can't really see myself collecting waste vegetable oil from local restaurants on a regular basis and filtering it myself, etc. How do you obtain your fuel?

My second concern is that, when it comes right down to it, I'd still be buying an older used car with a lot of miles on the engine, and all the other potential problems that accompany that. I've never owned a new car, but have grown tired of all the pains and hassles of maintaining a 15-year-old one.

And how much fuel do you burn collecting fuel? I really can't se doing all that work myself!


One big advantage of diesel engines is that they have a lot less moving parts so they last alot longer before needing a rebuild. Mercedes quality has been up and down the past few years too. I have a 5cyl 2.7 turbodiesel Mercedes that has blown 2 turbo resonators in 8K miles

I would do a thorough check of the repair histories for any model.

My thoughts exactly on collecting fuel. You can actually have it delivered and ready to pump for much less $$ than gas. But I don't think it's delivered by bicycle!

I put so few miles on my car last year, though, that the idea of getting a diesel cheap, doing an $800 conversion, then only filling it up once or twice a month (less frequently in spring and summer) is somewhat appealing. I'd probably only drive it from 3 ears or so while waiting for someone to come out with a car I like more. 2010 VW Tiguan TDI, maybe?

[ThisDude]

Well I do see that some education is in order. First off sulfuric acid is not the only acid in acid rain, nitric acid is produced by a reaction from NO2 and water. Europe severely controls sulfur levels in gas but they also realize NOX emmisions will produce acid rain just as damaging as sulfuric acid.

Methane causes very little greenhouse effect only 4-9% other than water vapor CO2 causes the largest cut hence don't worry too much about methane, besides it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. Which happen to be the largest contributors to the greenhouse. But methane itself is a very small constituent, yet is still counted as a carbon emmision for my descriptive purposes, it's why I say carbon emmision and not just CO2. CO, CO2, CH4 (methane), gasoline. No matter what form or if burned or not count as a carbon emmision because in the atmosphere they always break down into CO2.

This is specifically for Buddyraton, please don't judge something until you get the facts straight.

We had to study endlessly the nuclear disasters of the world. Funny the ones that only ever come to mind Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl cause that's all there was. No radioactivity was released in Three Mile Island, it's why we have safety features built into these plants, newer plants cannot explode releasing radioactivity, the worst they can do is slowly leak, which can easily be contained. Chernobyl was poor plant design, the reactor was inherently unstable. But my biggest point is America stopped developing nuclear power because of ignorance based fears about nuclear power. I'm about to blow everyones preconceptions here, except of course for nuclear engineers and the like, but new nuclear power is safe and clean. As proof France and Canada never had a nuclear accident and they run far more nuclear plants than we do with better track records. They're plants are even more inherently safe. And if you educate yourself more about the miracle of the breeder reactor you'll see that they can use depleted uranium as fuel. We throw that stuff away, or make them into bullets that kill people. Instead we need to process tons of uranium to get very little fuel, hence the preconception that nuclear fuel is rare, it's not rare uranium is more common than tin, our old reactor designs just cannot use the uranium from the ground the CANDU reactor can. On top of that Thorium is even more common than uranium and can be bred into fuel, the energy possibility is almost inexhaustible. And nuclear reprocessing leaves less environmental nuclear waste than those pesky uranium bullets we shoot into Iraqis. Breeder reactors get a bad name because they can be used to produce plutonium, which can be used to make bombs but then again so can readily available uranium. Copper mining does more damage than nuclear fuel mining so no worry's there about nuclear fuel mining to damage the environment. Radiation levels are also much lower in the newer plants because they don't use highly enriched fuels like ours do. In fact the fuel is as harmless the the bright yellow paint in Picasso paintings surprise that's uranium. I'm not suggesting that we ship our nuclear waste to France, even if we did our nuclear waste containers are so tough they will not break even from the blast of surprise a nuclear bomb! I'm saying update our plants to reprocess the waste into fuel, it sounds too good to be true but nuclear waste can be converted almost entirely into fuel, the reason it's radioactive means there is still energy to be had, you can keep converting till you get harmless lead. And a properly run nuclear plant will have no radiation leakage worries. You can decommision a French power plant and lick the concrete foundations and still get less radiation than standing in the sun. So all this may seem like a very dense rant but enviromental concerns do top my list, which is why I ride a bike. And the only way to fight it is education. There is a lot of fear mongering and ignorance out there, just take a look at all the people who say scooters and motorcycles=instant death. To me it's the same ignorance as nuclear power=instant death. Instead of arguing I try to educate, like people here try to educate others on the benefits of scooters. I've only presented the tip of the iceberg here if you really want to learn about clean energy it'll take far more than this page at least a couple years of study but if I can convince at least a few of you then the world will be a better place for it.

[ebcspace]

oh yeah, the topic was, what was a clean scooter

this is nice, I feel that I've flipped on PBS, etc... late into the morning, and discovered a treasure chest of informative educational knowledge.

when you said "insane" price,

please define "insane"

you were getting at, that you wanted a buddy ? (scooter)

but then you mentioned that you wanted maxi-scooter like power ?

have you completed any jedi training ?

peace. e.b.

[Keys]

I just want a little, simple, nuclear powered Buddy...

--Keys

[BuddyRaton]

I just want a little, simple, nuclear powered Buddy...

--Keys

dude...think big......

Dilithium crystals....yeah...thats the answer to all our problems!

[Dooglas]

I've given some consideration to buying a converted Mercedes diesel. My primary concern is that I can't really see myself collecting waste vegetable oil from local restaurants on a regular basis and filtering it myself, etc. How do you obtain your fuel?

My second concern is that, when it comes right down to it, I'd still be buying an older used car with a lot of miles on the engine, and all the other potential problems that accompany that. I've never owned a new car, but have grown tired of all the pains and hassles of maintaining a 15-year-old one.

Well, I'm far too lazy to go around collecting my own french fry oil. There is a local processor that does all that (SeQuential Biofuels). I just buy the stuff at a local cardlock station. Through the cardlock co-op it is a little cheaper than retail diesel and this stuff has been processed to meet commercial fuel standards so no worries in the engine. I burn this stuff in a 2006 VW Jetta so also no problems with old used cars. This is my daily runner and I'm getting over 40 mpg in a late model, comfortable car. And, oh yeh, you can stick your nose in the stuff coming out of the tailpipe. Don't try that with your gasser.

[BuddyRaton]

Well I do see that some education is in order. First off sulfuric acid is not the only acid in acid rain, nitric acid is produced by a reaction from NO2 and water. Europe severely controls sulfur levels in gas but they also realize NOX emmisions will produce acid rain just as damaging as sulfuric acid.

Agreed, however sulfuric acid is themain component

Methane causes very little greenhouse effect only 4-9% other than water vapor CO2 causes the largest cut hence don't worry too much about methane, besides it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. Which happen to be the largest contributors to the greenhouse. But methane itself is a very small constituent, yet is still counted as a carbon emmision for my descriptive purposes, it's why I say carbon emmision and not just CO2. CO, CO2, CH4 (methane), gasoline. No matter what form or if burned or not count as a carbon emmision because in the atmosphere they always break down into CO2

I must admit that I can not understand this. 4-9% would seem significant to me, and maybe we should be concerned

This is specifically for Buddyraton, please don't judge something until you get the facts straight.

Back Atcha!

We had to study endlessly the nuclear disasters of the world. Funny the ones that only ever come to mind Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl cause that's all there was. .

Thats all?? what about these?


December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957
Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58
A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961
Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961
The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966
The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969
A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975
At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979
Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981
Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986
The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992
At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995
Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.


2007
July 17, Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault

No radioactivity was released in Three Mile Island,.

July 1980 Approximately 43,000 curies of krypton were vented from the reactor building (NRC Report)

As proof France and Canada never had a nuclear accident and they run far more nuclear plants than we do with better track records. ,.

Never???

December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

November 1992
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.



I

n fact the fuel is as harmless the the bright yellow paint in Picasso paintings surprise that's uranium.

Many paints are highly toxic. How does the fact that Picasso used it make it safe? During the 1920s many women were told that the radium used to paint watch hands and dials was safe. They would lick the brush to give it a point. A high number became sick and died from ingesting radium.

I'm not suggesting that we ship our nuclear waste to France

Huh???? then what did you mean by this?

The better reactor technologies now like France has (80% of their electricity is nuclear, and they have a better track record than us) which includes on site breeder reactors for complete nuclear waste recycling make it so that if we could ship our nuclear waste to them they'd be able to use it to generate power.

even if we did our nuclear waste containers are so tough they will not break even from the blast of surprise a nuclear bomb! .

Is this a fact from actual field testing of the containers? No??? I didn't think so.

I'm saying update our plants to reprocess the waste into fuel, it sounds too good to be true but nuclear waste can be converted almost entirely into fuel, .

Almost entirely is quite different from "complete nuclear waste recycling"



[quote="ThisDude"You can decommision a French power plant and lick the concrete foundations and still get less radiation than standing in the sun. .[/quote]


Singling out one structural element is not a valid argument. Do you mean that this is true of every component of the plant? If not then the statement is missleading.

[BuddyRaton]

Well I do see that some education is in order. First off sulfuric acid is not the only acid in acid rain, nitric acid is produced by a reaction from NO2 and water. Europe severely controls sulfur levels in gas but they also realize NOX emmisions will produce acid rain just as damaging as sulfuric acid.

Agreed, however sulfuric acid is themain component

Methane causes very little greenhouse effect only 4-9% other than water vapor CO2 causes the largest cut hence don't worry too much about methane, besides it breaks down into CO2 and water vapor. Which happen to be the largest contributors to the greenhouse. But methane itself is a very small constituent, yet is still counted as a carbon emmision for my descriptive purposes, it's why I say carbon emmision and not just CO2. CO, CO2, CH4 (methane), gasoline. No matter what form or if burned or not count as a carbon emmision because in the atmosphere they always break down into CO2

I must admit that I can not understand this. 4-9% would seem significant to me, and maybe we should be concerned

This is specifically for Buddyraton, please don't judge something until you get the facts straight.

Back Atcha!

We had to study endlessly the nuclear disasters of the world. Funny the ones that only ever come to mind Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl cause that's all there was. .

Thats all?? what about these?


December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957
Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58
A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961
Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961
The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966
The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969
A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975
At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979
Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981
Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986
The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992
At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995
Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.


2007
July 17, Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault

No radioactivity was released in Three Mile Island,.

July 1980 Approximately 43,000 curies of krypton were vented from the reactor building (NRC Report)

As proof France and Canada never had a nuclear accident and they run far more nuclear plants than we do with better track records. ,.

Never???

December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

November 1992
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.



I

n fact the fuel is as harmless the the bright yellow paint in Picasso paintings surprise that's uranium.

Many paints are highly toxic. How does the fact that Picasso used it make it safe? During the 1920s many women were told that the radium used to paint watch hands and dials was safe. They would lick the brush to give it a point. A high number became sick and died from ingesting radium.

I'm not suggesting that we ship our nuclear waste to France

Huh???? then what did you mean by this?

The better reactor technologies now like France has (80% of their electricity is nuclear, and they have a better track record than us) which includes on site breeder reactors for complete nuclear waste recycling make it so that if we could ship our nuclear waste to them they'd be able to use it to generate power.

even if we did our nuclear waste containers are so tough they will not break even from the blast of surprise a nuclear bomb! .

Is this a fact from actual field testing of the containers? No??? I didn't think so.

I'm saying update our plants to reprocess the waste into fuel, it sounds too good to be true but nuclear waste can be converted almost entirely into fuel, .

Almost entirely is quite different from "complete nuclear waste recycling"

You can decommision a French power plant and lick the concrete foundations and still get less radiation than standing in the sun. .

Singling out one structural element is not a valid argument. Do you mean that this is true of every component of the plant? If not then the statement is missleading.

As far as my credentials and experience:
I am a professional geologist
I have been licenced to own, store and use radioactive materials
I have acted as a consultant for the decomissioning of early atomic facilities for the DOE
I currently design, plan and oversee radioactive tracer surveys
I have worked as a HAZWOPER supervisor on various superfund sites.

I hope no offence has been taken because none has been intended
Please understand that to a certain degree I have been playing devil's advocate. I would love to see clean safenuclear energy become a reality, but we are not there yet.


LETS GO RIDE!!!!

[Dooglas]

Wow, that will teach "Keys" to bring up nuclear (not nuculer, I'm a Democrat) scooters. That would have to be a pretty small reactor. Maybe one of those little plutonium motors (ohoh, here I go, stop me).

By the way, "BuddyRaton" or "ericalm" you need to delete the first version of the above long post on problems with nukes. It got doubled up somehow.

[polianarchy]

I just want a little, simple, nuclear powered Buddy...

--Keys

dude...think big......

Dilithium crystals....yeah...thats the answer to all our problems!

Didn't they promise us individual flux capicators for the '08 Buddy 150?

[BuddyRaton]

I just want a little, simple, nuclear powered Buddy...

--Keys

dude...think big......

Dilithium crystals....yeah...thats the answer to all our problems!

Didn't they promise us individual flux capicators for the '08 Buddy 150?

They will be here in the proverbial "Genuine two weeks!"!!!!

[ThisDude]

Canada's accident was over 50 years ago, technologies advanced quite a bit since then. If France's worst accident is stupidity of their workers for not wearing proper gear then I wouldn't mind so much. Plus it was in a particle accelerator not a nuclear plant. I still stand by my reasoning that modern plants are safe.

[BuddyRaton]

Canada's accident was over 50 years ago, technologies advanced quite a bit since then. If France's worst accident is stupidity of their workers for not wearing proper gear then I wouldn't mind so much. Plus it was in a particle accelerator not a nuclear plant. I still stand by my reasoning that modern plants are safe.

I agree with you totally...however if you are going to instruct me to check my facts you should be very cautious with your own. What you stated was that they had NEVER had an accident.

You have many good and valid points, but if you truly want to "educate" people the facts need to be laid out in the open and addresed. Telling people concerned about waste to not go there is not a way to gain their trust! Saying that there have only been two accidents when that is not correct also causes people to question ALL the information.

The industry has made some great advances. It has also had some very serious growing pains as all industries do. Workers aren't to be sacrificed because they are "stupid", or misinstructed, or untrained. I really don't know what happened inthat incident and Im guessing that you don't either since you were not aware of it. It is best to admit mistakes and explain what has been done to prevent a re-occurance, not just pretend that they never happened!

You seem to have a passion for this cause which I admire. All I ask is that you truly strive to educate people, not just insist that since you were a tech they must listen. I wish you nothing but good luck!

[snoutmeat]

Back to the OP...

I think there are a handful of scoots you should try out back to back, just to see if anything comes close to your ideal. I'd put the Buddy 125 in a group with the People 200S and the Vespa GTS and ride 'em all the same day. You could conceivably throw in an LX-150, Fly 150 and SYM 200 as well.

These bikes are all pretty compact and nimble and all are under 300 pounds (I think)...

Oh wise gt1000, I really should have paid more attention to your post when you wrote it. I SHOULD ride a Buddy 125, People, Vespa, etc, all in the same day. I was excited to discover a Buddy 125 on craigslist and took it for a test drive today. I liked its power to weight ratio, and it seemed like a solid, well-built machine to me. My wife came along to look at it, and she doesn't like its look as much. Of course, she's not coming up with any better alternatives...the fact that I haven't driven the Kymco, SYM, or Vespa means I can't definitively say "oh, this is the best of the bunch". She does like the big wheels of my Italjet Torpedo, which means the People or SYM might be a good choice.

So...January 1st, and I'm sure all the dealerships are closed. I'm thinking that the People may make my wife happier in the long run, but a used Buddy with a few cosmetic issues is a lot less $$ than a new Kymco People....

As for some of the environmental issues folks have brought up, I have some comments of my own...

[snoutmeat]

It's now clear to me why there's no single simple site on the web that explains the pollution that comes out of a tailpipe and the negative effects of that pollution. As "thisdude" said, if one's big concern is global climate change, then mileage is a good measure of efficiency. If a vehicle will go 100 miles on a gallon of fuel, then its carbon footprint is relatively small.

As for all the claims that scooters are "super dirty" and "pollute 10 times as much as an SUV", they're not measuring CO2. They're looking at oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons. I guess it's obvious if you stop to think about it, but the best way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases coming out your tailpipe is to reduce the amount of gasoline being burned by the engine.

The negative effects of the "other" pollutants are much harder to assess. Under certain circumstances, sunlight can initiate a reaction between the oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons to create smog, which is mostly composed of ozone. Ozone is highly reactive and is used instead of chlorine as a disinfectant and bleach. Ozone is generally regarded as a bad thing, causing health problems in humans and potentially stunting the growth of plants as well. Photocopiers and laser printers create ozone. Slot car sets do too. Those "ionic" air cleaners sold by the Sharper Image create lots of ozone as well. Lightning strikes create a whole bunch of ozone. I've also read on wikipedia that 2 ozone (O3) molecules break down into 3 stable oxygen (O2)molecules within a few weeks in the mesosphere...but it didn't specify whether that also happens with ground-level ozone. Wikipedia also says "Tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas and initiates the chemical removal of methane and other hydrocarbons from the atmosphere". That sentence seems like a odd contradiction...it's a greenhouse gas, but it initiates the chemical removal of other greenhouse gases?

At any rate, the big goal of emissions controls is to limit the smog-producing components of the exhaust. In retrospect, this is obvious, but EMISSIONS CONTROLS DO NOTHING TO LIMIT CARBON EMISSIONS. In fact, the role of a catalytic converter is to turn other pollutants into CO2 -- CO into CO2 and unburned hydrocarbons into water and CO2. They also turn oxides of nitrogen into oxygen and nitrogen.

If my big concern is global climate change, then I shouldn't be too worried about the other components of the exhaust and should simply seek something that gets great mileage. In Seattle, smog is rarely a problem (several winter days per year when we have a temperature inversion and lots of people burn wood), but those are unlikely to be days when I'd be riding a scooter anyway. If it's possible, I'd rather drive a cleaner-burning scooter that doesn't create much CO, NOx, and unburned hydrocarbon emissions, but now I have a better feel for negative effects of these pollutants.

--So I know I've seen "100 MPG" tossed around as a ballpark mileage figure, but is anyone really getting that kind of mileage?

--When I test-drove the Buddy today, I noticed a sticker that advised changing the oil every 1000km (600 miles). Really? 600 miles? I think the interval on the Piaggio LEADER engine is 2000 miles.

[snoutmeat]

Earlier I'd mentioned that Genuine Scooters was quick to reply with some emissions info (2-way catalyst, evaporative carbon canister, CARB approved). I wrote to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) the same day. In my email, I mentioned that the website showed emissions limits for motorcycles with capacities greater than 280cc and asked for the emissions limits for motorcycles with capacities lower than280cc. Today (roughly 2 weeks later) I received a reply that CARB needs more details before it can answer my question, and requested that I call their hotline instead.

Today, I called the hotline. A real human picked up the phone after a couple of rings.

"What are the CARB emissions limits for motorcycles with engines smaller than 280cc?" I asked.

"Umm, I don't know. Nobody's really asked that before, but I know that some of those scooters are really dirty," he replies.

"The tables are posted on your website for cars, trucks, and even motorcycles -- but only larger-displacement motorcycles. I'm trying to get the same information for motorcycles smaller than 280cc."

"I don't know. Maybe my manager would know, but he's out of the office today. Could you call back later?"


That was my helpful exchange with the California Air Resources Board. All the guy did was perpetuate the statement that "some of those scooters are real dirty!"

[snoutmeat]

Okay, on to biofuels.

BuddyRaton, you state that biofuels are still a problem because "you're still burning it." I'm assuming that you're saying the process of running an internal combustion engine produces lots of CO2, whether the fuel is petroleum-based or vegetable-based. Yes, this is true, but the big difference is that, in a perfect world, the carbon travels on a closed loop. When plants photosynthesize, they pull CO2 from the air and release O2. When we burn biofuel made from those plants, we're emitting CO2, but its the same CO2 that was absorbed from the atmosphere when the plant was growing. I say "in a perfect world" because of numerous inefficiencies, from using petroleum-based fertilizers to transporting the finished product. Theoretically, plants that need little or no fertilization or water (jatropha, switchgrass -- even canola is pretty good) can produce biofuels, and the equipment used to cultivate, harvest, process, and distribute the product could also all run on biofuels. Currently, tropical farmers are burning down forests to set up palm tree plantations because palms create a lot of oil that can be used for biodiesel. However, the amount of CO2 released when the trees are burned is so great that it will take decades of burning biodiesel to compensate.

So yes, both petrofuels and biofuels emit CO2 when burned...but with petrofuels, it's CO2 that's been locked up in the ground for millennia; with biofuels, it's CO2 that was floating around in the atmosphere a couple of months before. In a perfect setup, biofuels are a not-terribly-efficient way to convert sunlight into a form of energy that's easier to store in our gas tanks.


Keys, you say of the Toyota Prius that "The fuel requirement for it is really no less if you follow it back to it's source." I don't follow. The Prius really does get better mileage than similar-sized non-hybrid cars. It does this with several different technologies (including, I believe, low-resistance tires, a particularly aerodynamic shape, etc), but I know that at least some of the batteries' electric charge comes from regenerative braking, which is energy other cars are just throwing away. Even if the batteries are recharged from the engine, the engine is running with a cam profile that maximizes efficiency at the expense of low-end torque. You don't need low-end torque because electric motors have the most torque at the lowest revs-- the electric motor and the gas engine work in harmony. I've mocked Priuses on many occasions in the past, and I will continue to do so, because I'm not sure that the increase in mileage compensates for the increased complexity of design, increased weight, and environmental impacts of production. I'm a big fan of getting people out of their giant cars and into smaller cars. Honestly, there's not much difference between Yaris mileage and Prius mileage. I agree that the majority of Prius owners chose their cars to feel smug, but I'm happy that Toyota is employing creative technology to squeeze out every last MPG.

Dooglas, you know that not all biodiesel comes from reprocessed cooking oil, right? The biggest biodiesel production facility in the world (Imperium) recently opened up here in Grays Harbor, WA, and it's using strictly new unused vegetable oil. The Washington state government is working with another company (Washington Biodiesel) that's constructing a canola crusher and biodiesel manufacturing facility in Eastern Washington, where the arid growing conditions are great for canola. Virtually all of the biodiesel I run is made from virgin oil, not used restaurant oil.

Ericalm, I think you already know this, but to clarify for whoever else is still reading my lengthy posts: if you want to run a diesel vehicle on veggie oil, you have two choices -- modify the vehicle to run on a fuel that's much more viscous than diesel, or modify the oil to make it behave much more like diesel. If you're thinking of getting a Mercedes that's been converted to run on veggie oil, that's not biodiesel -- it's what's called SVO (straight vegetable oil) or WVO (waste vegetable oil). Getting a diesel engine to run on SVO means preheating the oil so it's nice and hot when it gets to the injectors. At high temps, the oil is roughly the same viscosity as diesel. Of course, you also need to ensure there's no oil remaining in the fuel injection system when you stop the car, or else the oil will thicken and the car won't run. SVO systems run with two separate tanks -- one with diesel in it (to use until the engine and veg oil are warmed up) and the other (usually with a heat exchanger using engine coolant) to hold the veggie oil.

Instead of going through this process, I chose to burn biodiesel, which is (speaking very simply) vegetable oil that's been "thinned" to approximate diesel. It's roughly 80% oil and 20% alcohol with a bit of NaOH or KOH added. The mix forms biodiesel and glycerin precipitates out. For my car (a 2001 VW diesel), no modification is required to the car. On older cars (I don't know which era of Benz you're considering), the alcohol can eat the fuel lines, so they may need to be replaced with a type of synthetic rubber that's impervious to the corrosive effects of the fuel. If I feel inspired to go hunt down spare veggie oil in my city, I can do so -- and then make a batch of fuel on my own. If I'm on a cross-country road trip and can't find biodiesel, I can always fill 'er up with regular diesel instead.

As far as I know, the only 2-wheelers that run on diesel are:

--the modified dual-sport Kawasaki KLR650 that Hayes is making for the military. They keep promising civilian versions, but they've been delayed for more than a year now. They're supposed to cost ~$20K.

--various home-built models using small tractor engines etc in vintage motorcycle frames.

--the Royal Enfield Taurus, built and sold in India. I think it's rated at 8 HP and is legendary for its unreliability, pollution, and lack of power.

The modern era of reasonably clean, quiet, and powerful diesel engines has only come about because of turbocharging, computer-controlled fuel injection, and advanced emissions controls, none of which mesh nicely with the idea of a motorcycle or scooter as a small, lightweight, simple, and inexpensive machine. Diesel engines run at really high levels of compression, which typically means they're engineered to be extra heavy-duty -- again, not a good thing for lightweight, simple design. I'm skeptical that we'll be seeing diesel scoots any time soon.

OK, too much typing for me. Time to go to bed, get some sleep, and hope that some dealerships are open so I can go for some test rides!

[ericalm]

Dooglas, you know that not all biodiesel comes from reprocessed cooking oil, right? The biggest biodiesel production facility in the world (Imperium) recently opened up here in Grays Harbor, WA, and it's using strictly new unused vegetable oil. The Washington state government is working with another company (Washington Biodiesel) that's constructing a canola crusher and biodiesel manufacturing facility in Eastern Washington, where the arid growing conditions are great for canola. Virtually all of the biodiesel I run is made from virgin oil, not used restaurant oil.

Ericalm, I think you already know this, but to clarify for whoever else is still reading my lengthy posts: if you want to run a diesel vehicle on veggie oil, you have two choices -- modify the vehicle to run on a fuel that's much more viscous than diesel, or modify the oil to make it behave much more like diesel. If you're thinking of getting a Mercedes that's been converted to run on veggie oil, that's not biodiesel -- it's what's called SVO (straight vegetable oil) or WVO (waste vegetable oil). Getting a diesel engine to run on SVO means preheating the oil so it's nice and hot when it gets to the injectors. At high temps, the oil is roughly the same viscosity as diesel. Of course, you also need to ensure there's no oil remaining in the fuel injection system when you stop the car, or else the oil will thicken and the car won't run. SVO systems run with two separate tanks -- one with diesel in it (to use until the engine and veg oil are warmed up) and the other (usually with a heat exchanger using engine coolant) to hold the veggie oil.

Instead of going through this process, I chose to burn biodiesel, which is (speaking very simply) vegetable oil that's been "thinned" to approximate diesel. It's roughly 80% oil and 20% alcohol with a bit of NaOH or KOH added. The mix forms biodiesel and glycerin precipitates out. For my car (a 2001 VW diesel), no modification is required to the car. On older cars (I don't know which era of Benz you're considering), the alcohol can eat the fuel lines, so they may need to be replaced with a type of synthetic rubber that's impervious to the corrosive effects of the fuel. If I feel inspired to go hunt down spare veggie oil in my city, I can do so -- and then make a batch of fuel on my own. If I'm on a cross-country road trip and can't find biodiesel, I can always fill 'er up with regular diesel instead.

As far as I know, the only 2-wheelers that run on diesel are:

--the modified dual-sport Kawasaki KLR650 that Hayes is making for the military. They keep promising civilian versions, but they've been delayed for more than a year now. They're supposed to cost ~$20K.

--various home-built models using small tractor engines etc in vintage motorcycle frames.

--the Royal Enfield Taurus, built and sold in India. I think it's rated at 8 HP and is legendary for its unreliability, pollution, and lack of power.

The modern era of reasonably clean, quiet, and powerful diesel engines has only come about because of turbocharging, computer-controlled fuel injection, and advanced emissions controls, none of which mesh nicely with the idea of a motorcycle or scooter as a small, lightweight, simple, and inexpensive machine. Diesel engines run at really high levels of compression, which typically means they're engineered to be extra heavy-duty -- again, not a good thing for lightweight, simple design. I'm skeptical that we'll be seeing diesel scoots any time soon.

Yep, I do know that biodiesel and SVO/WVO are not the same thing, though the terminology is becoming murky because people are using them interchangeably. I used to correct them and now have given up and have become a bit sloppy about it myself or just expect people to mean one thing rather than the other.

The diesel conversions sold here will run off either SVO or WVO and don't need a combination of both; they also run off biodiesel. From their FAQ page:

Our conversions allow you to run vegetable oil, Biodiesel, and/or regular diesel. They can be blended in your fuel tank, in any proportions. Vegetable oil can be purchased new at any market, and in bulk at warehouse stores like Costco. You can obtain waste vegetable oil for free (usually) from any restaurant with a fryer (Don't use hydrogenated or shortening based oils) See our "collecting vegetable oil" section in the forums for help.

WVO can be delivered to your door at a cost less than gasoline at the pump, but I have to wonder how it's being delivered and if that really helps anything at all other than my conscience.

I understand that the diesel sold at U.S. gas pumps now is reformulated and burns much cleaner than the unleaded gas they sell there. I'm interested, then, in the forthcoming German diesels—new VWs, Audis, and Mercedes. The VWs will get roughly 45/55 MPG. The new ones will be the first diesels sold in CA in years. If the VW Tiguan diesel makes it stateside, I'd snap one up in a second. No, not the cleanest car out there. But it'd be the cleanest one I could put a Versa Hauler for 2 scoots on.

[Keys]

Snootmeat...yep, I said follow it to its source and the Toyota Prius (or however it's spelled...) is really no more less polluting than anything else. And yes, I must agree, that due to the battery power and the regenerative braking and all that stuff it APPEARS to be less polluting. BUT, check on the energy required to produce batteries and the nasty fumes and offal produced to make them. Also, look into what is introduced into the environment when said batteries are discarded.

I used to work for an outfit that sold batteries and I understand that about 90 percent of the battery is recyclable. However, what do you suppose happens to the acids and leads that are used in storing and creating the power???

--Keys

[nissanman]

Probably far from perfect... but I noticed that nobody's mentioned the Blur 150. Handles great, 4-stroke and since the world is waiting for the Blur 200 dealers are willing to discount the 150s they have. I ride the Rattler 110 (which is definitley cleaner than my 89 GMC K1500). Happy New Year everyone!!!!!