With so many gasoline alternatives out there, do you think the government is holding back on persuading the general public to adopt these new alternatives in order to allow big oil corporations to continue to make more money? If everyone drove hybrid cars, for example, would these oil companies lose so much money that they would all go bankrupt, and if so, how would this affect our economy? Does anyone see all (or majority of) Americans driving hybrids, or using other energy sources besides oil, in the near future? Is this feasible? And do you think there are already gasoline alternatives out there that the government doesn't want to be made public? Is it time for the government to step in and do something about rising gas prices?

The majority of the people in positions to change government policy regarding oil used to work for the oil industry. Didn't you know?

Not only your government. All the others too. They are just lackeys to big business. If they weren't lackeys, they would not get into power.

Iraq subsidizes gasoline to a 5 cents a gallon average price, and thats with a socialist economy.

you're just all wrong, horribly and completely wrong! :D

With so many gasoline alternatives out there, do you think the government is holding back on persuading the general public to adopt these new alternatives in order to allow big oil corporations to continue to make more money? If everyone drove hybrid cars, for example, would these oil companies lose so much money that they would all go bankrupt, and if so, how would this affect our economy?

I think this is a little bit too simplistic. You may not remember this, but Jimmy Carter had various fuel and energy saving initiatives. He even had solar panels on top of the White House. When Ronald Reagan came in, the first thing he did was to rip out those solar panels. He quickly moved to dismantle Carter's energy policy, too, and all the tax breaks for energy conservation and alternative energy sources. I think if we had continued down the path that Carter laid out, our nation would be far more energy independent than it is now. But all those energy conservation measures were stigmatized as part of "malaise" and doom and gloom.

Does anyone see all (or majority of) Americans driving hybrids, or using other energy sources besides oil, in the near future? Is this feasible? And do you think there are already gasoline alternatives out there that the government doesn't want to be made public? Is it time for the government to step in and do something about rising gas prices?

I think we could probably have a nation that is far more energy independent just by using technology that is available "out there." (I don't want to get into the discussion of whether there is a "conspiracy" to suppress technologies.) Japan is a nation that is far more dependent than the US on imported oil, and it is no surprise that they have taken the lead in building fuel-efficient cars.

I also don't think that there is any one single technology that is going to be the solution to this problem, nor should we be putting all our eggs in one basket. But I think there are a number of technologies out there now that are useful.

As far as people switching to hybrid cars is concerned, though, I am not sure the current economics make sense. AFAIK, hybrid cars are fairly expensive, and even with the cost of gas somewhere in the $2-3 range, the cost savings on gas alone don't make up for the added expense of the car. At least if we are talking about something like a Toyota Prius.

I know a fellow who has a Honda Civic hybrid. I think that costs a lot less, but his is only a two-seater. So, you sort of get what you pay for.

I also think that what is good for the country is not necessarily the same as what is good for the individual's pocket book, so if we want individuals to make socially desirable investments, we probably do need to make use of tax incentives and other such economic breaks. I just don't see much political will to do that.

Americans drive much bigger, less fuel-efficient cars than their counterparts do in Western Europe. But I haven't seen much discussion of this, nor have I heard anyone (not even Ralph Nader) suggest that we try to emulate the British (say) in terms of fuel efficiency of our vehicles.

One other thought comes to mind. Not too long ago, Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, made a speech reviewing the effect of rising oil prices on our economy. He pretty much stated that after the fuel crisis of the 70s, American business and manufacturing became very energy efficient, and the whole problem of energy costs was thoroughly analyzed (including with the help of computers) and industry was thoroughly reformed and transformed. I am not trying to say that this isn't so.

What I am focussing on is more at the consumer level. What kind of cars does the consumer buy? What kind of fuel efficiency or energy conservation is practiced at home? I think these are the areas where we have fallen behind where we could have been.

The big money is still in gasoline, because it's still relatively cheap, and therefore has a huge market. Alternatives such as ethanol are subsidized, so we don't know the true costs. Currently alternatives aren't competitive with gasoline in either energy density or cost. That is, the way they are currently produced, it takes more energy to make them than they contain. Clever people may devise new ways to produce them that will bring the energy density up and costs down. But because of physical contraints (that is, the reality of physics and chemistry) alternatives will never have the energy density of gasoline and will always be more "expensive" in terms of energy costs than todays relatively cheap gasoline. The only way to beat this physical reality is to rearrange our way of life to require less energy (conservation/powerdown). Thing is, our economy requires growth, and it's difficult (but maybe not impossible) to grow an economy while using less energy. It would probably require a rather different economy than the one we currently have, which is based on cheap, abundant energy.

The huge problem is that the base that make gasoline isn't a renewable source.

I recently read that any plant/animal based derivative will power a motor. There's cars running on vegetable oil. I was sadden when I saw that they are playing around with pig fat to fuel cars.

lobbyists are a powerful, well funded force.

I was sadden when I saw that they are playing around with pig fat to fuel cars.

That's got to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever seen. Pig fat has got to have one of the worst energy return on energy investment ratios. Aside from the stupidity of basing a motor fuel on a cruel industry.:whack:

Here's an an article of using a combo of chicken fat to fuel school buses in Florida. http://www.700club.com/cbnnews/news/050816e.asp

>>But because of physical contraints (that is, the reality of physics and chemistry) alternatives will never have the energy density of gasoline and will always be more "expensive" in terms of energy costs than todays relatively cheap gasoline.>>

I don't usually take this line, but renewable sources do hold a lot of promise...maybe we wouldn't be in QUITE this pickel if we were to have invested in more R and D. There is enough sunlight falling on our cars to power them (if we were to somehow collect it with 100 percent efficiency).

ebola

I don't usually take this line, but renewable sources do hold a lot of promise...maybe we wouldn't be in QUITE this pickel if we were to have invested in more R and D.


They do, though I'm not convinced more R & D is necessary before we begin a transition. We do need a better battery, and it would be great to get more efficiency from solar panels (currently max about 25% efficient), and folks are working on both those problems. But we need to stop "waiting for a solution." So many people I encounter say "we need to develop new energy sources." No we don't, we just need to begin to implement the ones we do have, slowly making a transition and improving them as we go, while reducing our need for energy.

Thing is, alternatives are painfully expensive for individuals to invest in. I bought a couple solar panels to power a small pump to pull water from the seasonal creek to store in tanks to use during dry seasons to irrigate the main garden. Two panels, each 125 watts, cost about $1200.00 US (somewhat over $550.00 each, plus shipping). That's to run an itty bitty little pump. Grid power, which for me is from a coal plant, is so much cheaper.

My husband is looking into building an electric trike to charge on solar panels so we can get to and from the small towns near here, but I don't know for certain we'll be able to make it to the town with the grocery store and back (12 miles each way). The US isn't set up for renewable/ sustainable transport for the average or low income family. It's so sad; there used to be a railroad that went right through this area, with a station about two miles from my house, it was dismantled many years ago. Much of the rail system in the US was dismantled when the interstate highways went in.

One of the things I've found from reading British news is that the United States is extremely reactive in regards to energy policy. Most of the EU are investing in renewable energy resources because they see it as jockying for position in the 21st century economy. The US seems content to consider energy policy in terms of deregulation and foreign policy.

Personally, government agencies are huge customers, and I think that it would be simple for the government to push the technology forward by annoucing that light fleet vehicles must get 50/55/60mpg by 2010. What drove the silicon revolution of the 70s was the fact that a hefty government contract frequently justified the cost of turning a prototype into a production line.

Likewise, a demand that new construction be self-sufficient for 50-80% of it's power consumption (a modest goal) would inspire venture captial and production into new systems like the Sunflower http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/solar.html

>>But we need to stop "waiting for a solution." So many people I encounter say "we need to develop new energy sources." No we don't, we just need to begin to implement the ones we do have, slowly making a transition and improving them as we go, while reducing our need for energy.>>

exactly, beyond the technological gamble, we need to, here in the first world, come to grips with the fact that we will need to make heavy, heavy lifestyle changes.

ebola

>>But we need to stop "waiting for a solution." So many people I encounter say "we need to develop new energy sources." No we don't, we just need to begin to implement the ones we do have, slowly making a transition and improving them as we go, while reducing our need for energy.>>

exactly, beyond the technological gamble, we need to, here in the first world, come to grips with the fact that we will need to make heavy, heavy lifestyle changes.

ebola

I think the issues are more social than technological. The technology to convert many homes to be largely independent of external electricity has been proven, but the best technology rarely wins in the marketplace.

Just a side-rant... the original post pretty much assumes that VB members are US citizens ("our government", "the government"). VB has members all over the world, not just in the US and not even just in English-speaking countries. It would be nice to see more awareness and acknowledgement of that when people compose their posts. I'm not picking on angiedawn, it's something I see all over the board.

Places in the USA have torn up railroad tracks? Huh... One of things I'd do (given virtually unlimited money to throw around) would be to have a magnetic rail system put up running through rural areas to towns/cities (and in cities to replace any train-based transportation).

Just a side-rant... the original post pretty much assumes that VB members are US citizens ("our government", "the government"). VB has members all over the world, not just in the US and not even just in English-speaking countries. It would be nice to see more awareness and acknowledgement of that when people compose their posts. I'm not picking on angiedawn, it's something I see all over the board.
You're absolutely right, borealis. I apologize. I didn't mean this thread for just Americans or anything...I guess it just came out the way as I was typing. :sick:

There's cars running on vegetable oil.

Did anyone see on 30 Days on F/X with Morgan Spurlock, where they visited the planned community (is this the right term?) and they shared about 3 or 4 cars? They went to local restaurants and took their leftover vegetable oil/grease and then took it back to the community where they then turned it into fuel for their cars. They never had to buy gas.

Did anyone see on 30 Days on F/X with Morgan Spurlock, where they visited the planned community (is this the right term?) and they shared about 3 or 4 cars? They went to local restaurants and took their leftover vegetable oil/grease and then took it back to the community where they then turned it into fuel for their cars. They never had to buy gas.why should the government encourage that sort of thing, it can't be implemented on a large scale (free waste grease, immoral as petrol by categorical imperative standards).

problem with hybrids is that very few customers see their fuel saving amount to justifiying the extra cost. so thats why the bush energy bill gave tax credits for buying an efficient diesel or hybrid car (up to $3400, with a prius crediting about $2500 for example). That takes into effect jan 1 2006 so buy a nice hybrid or diesel then.

why should the government encourage that sort of thing, it can't be implemented on a large scale (free waste grease, immoral as petrol by categorical imperative standards).

This is true, and in most cities, there's already a market for "waste grease" and certainly not enough greasy food outlets to supply any significant percentage of the fuel needed for personal autos. Biofuel on a large scale, with current technology, doesn't make much (if any) sense, because biofuels currently are too expensive in terms of energy inputs versus energy output. Unless, like Brazil, you have enormous virgin tracts of land to plow under and plant to biomass. And even then, this production is subsidized. I think there is a future for biofuels, but there needs to be made significant advances in the way the biomass is grown and harvested, with care to be sure native ecosystems aren't destroyed in the process.

Solar powered battery operated cars would be ideal in my opinion.

Magnetic propelled cars with automated computer drive (with a manual override just in case) similar to mag-trains would be really useful too :D

or...er...just mag trains.
(the widely owned personal car will need to be shed.)

ebola

The DeLorean in "Back to the Future" was pretty nifty. Ran on banana peels and dirty diapers, and could travel through time to boot.