Bio diesel, bio-petrol, solar water heating systems, solar panel based systems and solar thermal power plants are the obvious solution to this problem. Bio petrol and bio diesel can be obtained by the simple process of transesterification, by breaking down of fatty acid chains in fresh and used vegetable oils. This process is so simple, that an average person can make it at home. There are the initial trial and error involved, but one gets the hang of it mighty fast. Once somebody produces his own fuel, he is hooked on it for life. Since these fuels do not emit CO2, these are much more environment friendly. Also, due to no carbon build up in the engines, the engine life is prolonged. There is also the possibility of ethanol being used as fuel. Since ethanol can also be distilled from plants and other kitchen waste, this method is also viable. Solar water heaters with a built in electric coil for rainy days can be used for hot water. Over here in India, they are very cheap. Just 350 $ for a unit of 125 litres. Solar panel based power systems are somewhat expensive. Until the hydrogen cars and solar cars become cheaper, these alternatives are sufficient to tide us over. Once the majority of population is on bio fuels, watch crude crash and watch these sheiks begging us to buy their black stuff.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 5, 2006 11:52 AM

Would it be great to have a water engine? You bet! Let’s get completely off of oil. Where are our great minds in all of this? I call on all scientists and inventors to get in the game and find some better solutions for our future.

Posted by: tgusa at June 5, 2006 12:04 PM

Tgusa,
I believe there is a water engine. I do not know if it actually works, you can see for yourself.

http://www.atsnn.com/article/158213

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 5, 2006 12:09 PM

I think that the present high price of oil is partly due to limitations on capacity. The producers have not been investing in new capacity, preferring to have a tight market with very high prices. So they are smart business-people, using their defacto monopoly to drive up prices and increase the value of their assets.

I think that there could be severe economic consequences to "instability" in the producing nations, due to the tight capacity situation and the already very high price. But this would probably be beneficial in the long run --- as Hugh notes, we already in the midst of civilizational and environmental crises that are intimately related to our dependence on oil.

I recently heard someone say (I think on NPR, of all places) that we won't get to 1$ gasoline until we have experienced 5$ gasoline. I think he is right. Our political leaders don't have the spine or the wisdom to implement policies that would lead to energy independence, so it will be left to market forces to do that.

---------------------------------------------

For those of you who are interested in alternative fuel technologies, here is one to watch:

"Thermal Depolymerization"

It is a chemical reaction in which biological materials (agriculural waste, offal, even sewage, I suppose) is reacted at high temperature in the absence of oxygen. The result is liquid hydrocarbons and a mineral residue. According to something I read recently, it currently costs about $100/barrel of oil equivalent to make this, and the price will fall as the process is improved. It was affirmed in that piece that there is enough agricultural waste produced in the US to entirely replace our petroleum imports if all of it were converted by this process. Of course, the ag waste is used for other purposes now. At some point, it will be more profitable to convert it to hydrocarbon fuel. That day may not be far off.

-----------------------------------------------

A final thought is that it seems to me that it might be useful to have an allied site that highlights developments in the field of US and Western energy independence. JW/DW have been doing an outstanding job of calling attention to individual skirmishes and battles in the global jihad and interpreting the meaning of these in the context of Islamic theology and practice.

There are policy implications which naturally flow from this understanding of what is happening in the world. Hugh frequently writes about these, but they are somewhat eclipsed by the larger reporting agenda of the JW/DW sites. But it seems to me that a highlighting of these might be worthwhile. JW/DW have been relentlessly reporting on the jihad for a number of years, and I think that they have contributed to the changing public perceptions of the meaning of Islamic violence. Perhaps similar a similar approach on the energy independence front might induce changes in public thinking about energy policy

Just a thought. Are there people out there who would be interested to organize such a thing? Could it be done under the umbrella of JW/DW or should it be independent? Are there energy policy experts who also take the jihad seriously who could contribute or advise?

Probably a hare-brained idea. I have lots of those.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at June 5, 2006 12:41 PM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite,
Count me in on any such venture.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 5, 2006 12:55 PM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite, me too!

arjun.sevak
This unique gas is infinitely stable until it comes in contact with a select target media. Then it sublimates, causing a molecular surface exchange of certain elements, reacting with such excitation as to cause temperatures of up to 10,000° F, the temperature of our Sun's surface, which is currently the limits of our ability to measure.
Sounds good, but I will pass on the job of technician.

Posted by: tgusa at June 5, 2006 1:04 PM

If those oil producing Muslim states do enforce an embargo on oil to the west
It would have a dramatic effect upon the west and its economies. But this could
Possibly be a godsend as it would stop the pressure from the oil cartels which is almost certainly stopping alternative sources from being developed as they should be.

The west would suffer quite a lot within 6 months but as most oil producing Muslim countries import most of their food from the west (someone correct me here) a return embargo on food and pharmaceuticals could have an even more dramatic effect on the Muslim OPEC members.

However the bleating bleeding hearts of the west will do their best to ensure that there is a maudling response to the expected pictures of little starving Muhammad or Yasmin a la Chad/Sudan etc. which will flood our media..

But the ultimate effect could be that the west is no longer AS dependent on OPEC as it used to be and that OPEC realises that oil embargoes are a two edged weapon and pulls its horns in accordingly and hopefully far too late.

Could become very interesting.

However the political vested interests (eg Bush family) who will have much to lose by an oil embargo will do their best to ensure that this does not happen and perhaps again the rich elite of this world ruin it for everyone else and ultimately themselves.

Posted by: Zathras at June 5, 2006 1:19 PM

Hi arjun.sevak and tgusa,

I'm not proposing to start or lead such a venture at the moment --- it is not possible at present, though I might be able to contribute toward a group effort at some point in the not-too-distant future. My point in mentioning the idea is to put it on the table for discussion. My own view is that this concept is so closely allied with the agenda of JW/DW that it makes the most sense for such a thing, if it were to come into being, to be under the control and management of the same people. But it appears to me that they are already seriously overworked and underfunded. So it would require either a dilution of their current efforts, which would not be good, or the bringing in of additional resources of people and funding.

As I said, it's probably a hare-brained idea.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at June 5, 2006 1:23 PM

The surrounded Germans during WW II adapted quickly with new technological advances in synthetic fuels and lubricants, when it was to survive.

We're more agile than the Nazis. As proved.

The fuel of the motor of Civilization needs to come home.

Ingenuity blossoms under duress.

(As pressure becomes friction at another level.)

Biodeisel, biomass, solar, tidal, wind.

The alternative future's so bright that OPEC will have to wear shades.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 5, 2006 3:10 PM

There are alternatives to cheap oil from the mid east. If they cut us off from oil they also cut themselves off from money and technology. There are alternatives to cheap oil. There are the tar sands in Canada, heavy oil in venezueala. We can also make sythetic fuels. The largest deposit of oil in the world is in the colorado shale. It is expensive and it requires lots of water and energy to get at it. But lets invest billions as Robert says a manhatten like project to get alternative oil.
Sadly the government is spending billions on political feel good alternatives such as wind and hydrogen. I dont believe these will ever bear fruit.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at June 5, 2006 3:42 PM

Hugh claims: "The Iran-Iraq War, a war between what at the time were the second and third largest producers in the Middle East, did briefly interrupt supply at the very beginning, but for the rest of the eight-year-long war, the price of oil actually sank steadily."

That's a half-truth and historical revisionism. The reason why Iran and Iraq were not able to interrupt the supply for very long, was that President Reagan ordered the U.S. Navy to keep the sea lanes in the Arabian Gulf open. And the deterrent effect of our Navy wasn't enough. Both sides attacked third party oil tankers. And both sides attacked our Naval forces and killed our sailors--and we retaliated with military force, a low-level shooting war that went on for some time.

I apologize for the length of the following article, but I think it's important for folks at JW to understand just why the oil continued to flow--with the sacrifice of American lives:

The U.S.S. Stark Incident

At 8:00 PM on 17 March 1987, a Mirage F-1 fighter jet took off from Iraq's Shaibah military airport and headed south into the Persian Gulf, flying along the Saudi Arabian coast. An Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane, in the air over Saudi Arabia and manned by a joint American-Saudi crew, detected the aircraft. Aboard the USS Stark, a Perry-class frigate on duty in the gulf, radar operators picked up the Mirage when it was some 200 miles away; it was flying at 5,000 feet and traveling at 550 mph....

At 10:10 PM, the AWACS crew noticed that the Mirage had banked suddenly and then turned northward, as though heading for home. What they failed to detect was the launching by the Iraqi pilot of two Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles. The Exocets had a range of 40 miles and each carried a 352 lb. warhead. For some reason, the sea-skimming missiles were not detected by the Stark's sophisticated monitoring equipment. A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters. The resulting fire rushed upward into the vessel's combat information center, disabling the electrical systems. The second missile plowed into the frigate's superstructure....[37 American sailors were killed.] A C141B Starlifter carried 35 flag-draped caskets to the Stark's home base at Mayport, Florida. (Two of the crewmen were lost at sea during the attack.)....

The strife in the gulf had started in 1984 when Iran and Iraq, at war since 1980, began attacking each other's ships. Inevitably, the vessels of third countries became targets. Over 200 ships had been attacked in the past three years. The Iranians were particularly keen to target the ships of Iraq's ally, Kuwait. Even though only 7% of American oil supplies came from the region, the Reagan administration insisted that U.S. strategic interests required a naval presence in the gulf....

The administration argued that to withdraw from the gulf would be to surrender America's role as leader of the free world, and that if oil shipments were disrupted, prices would soar, adversely affecting the U.S. economy. As one Western diplomat put it, if the U.S. backed out, it wouldn't "have enough credibility to float a teacup." Furthermore, the Soviet Union had increased its naval presence in the gulf, and the fear was that if the U.S. faltered, the Soviets would gain the upper hand in the region -- and growing Soviet influence in the region would pose a long-term threat to the West's oil supplies. "We will not be intimidated," said Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error," and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." Evidently, the Mirage pilot had mistaken the Stark for an Iranian tanker. Iraq promised to pay compensation to the families of the 37 slain seamen, and reparations for damages to the frigate. Officially the United States was neutral in the Iran-Iraq conflict, but the administration had decided that geopolitic considerations required that Iraq not lose the war. In the aftermath of the Stark incident, the rhetoric coming out of Washington was of a forgiving nature where Iraq was concerned, while growing increasingly hostile in reference to Iran.

The White House was resolute. "The use of the vital sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not be dictated by the Iranians," said President Reagan during a press conference. "Those lanes will not be allowed to come under the control of the Soviet Union. The Persian Gulf will remain open to navigation by the nations of the world." The U.S. naval presence was increased from six to nine ships. Air cover would be provided by a carrier stationed outside the gulf. The American warships would escort convoys of Kuwaiti tankers every ten days or so. Iran vowed to continue attacking Kuwaiti tankers regardless of whether they flew the Stars and Stripes....

Unfortunately, the U.S. was so concerned about Iranian Sidewinder missiles being placed so as to control the Strait of Hormuz that it neglected to sweep the approaches for mines, one of which damaged an escorted tanker in July. The incident was egg on the face of the Navy, accused of sloppy mission preparation, and embarrassed the administration, which, while presiding over an unprecedented peacetime military buildup, had only three operational ocean-going minesweepers in service. But on 21 September 1987, the military redeemed itself by conducting a successful raid involving U.S. Navy SEALS on an Iranian vessel caught laying mines. Five Iranian seamen were killed. That same week, Iran attacked a British-flagged tanker; Britain responded by shutting down Iran's London-based arms procurement office. (By this time, British, French, Belgian, Dutch and Italian warships had joined the Americans and Soviets in patrolling the gulf.) The American raid gave some senators an excuse to push for invocation of the War Powers Act; they claimed the U.S. was clearly engaged in hostilities. The law required that the president obtain congressional approval of military action extending beyond a period of 60 days. But the Senate voted 51-40 not to invoke the law.

Following the September 21 raid, Iran amassed 60 gunboats and directed the flotilla toward Khafji, a Saudi-Kuwaiti oil facility. The USS La Salle, flagship of Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, commander of the U.S. Navy Middle East Force, moved to intercept the gunboats, which turned back after being buzzed by Saudi warplanes. Another encounter involved an Iranian warship that locked fire control radar on a USN destroyer, the Kidd; warned off by the Kidd's skipper, the Iranian ship sailed away. Then, on October 8, Iranian gunboats fired at a U.S. Army helicopter, missing the target but attracting the attention of two U.S. AH-6 gunship choppers, which sank one of the gunboats and damaged two others. Iran responded by firing Silkworm missiles at the U.S.-owned Liberian supertanker Sungari and the reflagged Kuwaiti tanker Sea Isle City, damaging both vessels. There were no fatalities, though the American skipper of the Sea Isle City, Captain John Hunt, was blinded.

Few doubted the U.S. would retaliate. Two weeks later, four U.S. destroyers fired over one thousand rounds of 5-in. shells into Iran's Rashadat oil-loading platforms in the Persian Gulf -- after giving the platform crews twenty minutes to evacuate. Ninety minutes of continuous shelling left the platforms smoldering ruins; SEAL commando teams exploded the pilings and sent the rubble plunging into the sea. The Iranians answered by firing another Silkworm at Sea Island, Kuwait's deep-water oil-loading facility, destroying the loading dock. "We're not going to have a war with Iran," said President Reagan. "They're not that stupid." But it certainly seemed as though an undeclared war was already underway. A public opinion poll revealed that while 68% of Americans expected a "military exchange" between the U.S. and Iran, 60% were in favor of stronger retaliatory action against the Iranians.

The situation remained tense throughout the winter, but not until April 1988 did violence erupt once again in the Persian Gulf. Ten seamen were injured when the USN frigate Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine on April 14. Being careful to consult with Congress this time, President Reagan ordered a retaliatory strike against two Iranian oil platforms in the southern gulf -- platforms that served as bases for Iran's intelligence service. While one platform was shelled by the frigates Simpson and Bagley, Marines helicoptered to the second, seized it, planted explosive charges, and destroyed it. A few minutes later, the Simpson sank an Iranian patrol boat that had fired a missile at the USN guided-missile cruiser Wainwright. (The Wainwright defended itself by dispensing aluminum chaff in the air, which deflected the missile.) Meanwhile, near the Strait of Hormuz, two Iranian frigates and several gunboats were sunk by American warships and an F-14 Tomcat from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. During the day-long battle, a Cobra helicopter carrying two American crewmen was shot down by the Iranians.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

OK, folks, there you have it. Despite Hugh's claim, the reason why the oil supply was not disrupted during the Iran-Iraq War was because President Reagan used U.S. military force, costing U.S. lives, to keep those sea lanes open. The deterrent value of the U.S. Navy proved insufficient. Our Navy was attacked by both sides. And we retaliated against Iran.

That's one more reason why the U.S. cannot just detach from the Middle East and allow (or even encourage) the Shi'a and Sunni to slaughter each other. The oil supply depends on the stabilizing influence of U.S. military force. And, very likely, we will be forced to use that force directly against Iran and/or Iraq from disrupting the flow of oil once again. The history of the Iran-Iraq War proved that.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 5, 2006 5:59 PM

Wind, Tidal and hydrogen are worthless, the first two due to being an unpredictable, and therefore unreliable, energy source, while the latter would consume more energy in its creation.

For transportation, a combination of ethanol and biodiesel, once mass produced, would solve the problem with the bigger magnitude of cars and miles/gallon. Also, solar powered cars have been experimented with; these experiments should be driven to the next logical steps.

For commercial power requirements, a variety of sources should be employed - from coal, hydro to solar-powered and nuclear. Research into fusion should also be done, so that the issue of nuclear waste doesn't grow to unmanagable proportions. Also, ways to make coal power cleaner and safer (since WV has had a record number of mining accidents this year) should be explored, so that between all of them, the usage of Islamic energy is minimized.

However, Hugh, on global warming, I disagree with the idea that we human beings can either accelarate it or slow it down. Part of what causes it is the sun, which is why icecaps on Mars have been observed to melt, despite the lack of SUV's there. Also, the weather changes over the last several years have shown alternative cycles of warming and cooling, so I wouldn't jump on that bandwagon. But getting rid of our dependence on Islamic sources of energy so as to end the funding of dawa, is good enough for me.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 5, 2006 8:27 PM

Hydrogen can be produced by nuclear energy...

In this case it would be very useable and cheap with a large nuclear power system set up.

The real future would be nuclear power being used for electricity production and space travel. Local (earth) transportation would use a combination of hydrogen and several fossil fuels. At first a transition period would have to take place and that is where coal conversion would be used.

All this bio stuff is somewhat neat but lacks the long-term future that is needed for a growing nation and economy.

It is also possible that our understanding of the laws of physics may not be correct...things faster then light, quantum transportation, and perhaps our understanding of the nature of "energy" will be changed in the next 50 years.

See all of the neat things you can do when you mind is not cluttered with allah and mo.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at June 5, 2006 10:26 PM

James Lovelock (of Gaia fame) argues against biofuel on the long term grounds that global warming will lead to a steady reduction in cultivatable areas around the world within a few decades. At some point man will need all the farmable land avaiable just to feed himself. In a recent interview he envisaged the UK returning to a World War II situation by the end of the century, with gardens and parks being given over to food production.

Posted by: wallyUK at June 5, 2006 10:45 PM

Dhimmisoftheworldunite (whew), Tgusa,
Let us not tax JW/DW with another site. Maybe one of us can get a free website and the ones who are interested can share their experiments. I have already made bio diesel in small quantities and am testing it on different 2/4 stroke engines. So far, no problems. Now for testing it on cars. If someone makes a page, we can help each other. Until the solar/hydrogen options become viable enough.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 5, 2006 10:47 PM

"All this bio stuff is somewhat neat but lacks the long-term future that is needed for a growing nation and economy. "

I don't subscribe to the idea that we must constantly 'grow' in population size or wealth. I believe the human population is big enough, and people should make responsible decisions in this regard (as most westerners are). I also believe that I can manage on 'enough' not 'constantly more'. A big enough house, enough healthy food, adequate public transport and a car used less and less etc. Not a second house, two cars, obesity-level food etc.

Too many people just accept this idea that we need constant 'growth'. In the body, growth without corresponding death and recycling of resources is a cancer.

Posted by: Lili at June 6, 2006 12:27 AM

Lili says: "Too many people just accept this idea that we need constant 'growth'."

Lili, the naifs who go around muttering that "Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" tend to forget that growth is also the ideology of the newborn baby. A baby that doesn't grow ends up a stunted dwarf.

The population of the U.S. is continuing to increase, fueled largely by immigration. If the U.S. Growth Domestic Product (GDP) doesn't grow, then that static pie has to be divided up among an ever-growing number of people, resulting in a steadily lower per capita GDP for each one.

Zero GDP growth is only sustainable with zero population growth. That would require draconian controls on both immigration and on human behavior. China has tried to pass laws limiting families to two children each, but I doubt that would go over well here in the democratic U.S.

Posted by: Steven L. at June 6, 2006 10:59 AM

Steven L.
China has a law of only a single child. If there are more, they are taken by the red army. I read this a long time back. I could be wrong.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 6, 2006 11:29 AM

"A baby that doesn't grow ends up a stunted dwarf."

And the human whose body doesn't know when to stop growing is diseased with gigantism.

"Zero GDP growth is only sustainable with zero population growth."

My point precisely.

"That would require draconian controls on both immigration and on human behavior."

No, western people understand this and are indeed limiting their reproduction voluntarily, with more people investing more time and energy into raising one or two well-educated children.

As for immigration, the U.S. and Europe need to get used to the idea that is applied in Australia and NZ: immigration should actually benefit the host country. Where immigration is excessive, unproductive or disruptive, it is not required. It's up to the countries of origin to work out their overpopulation problems. Hint: when women gain equality and careers beyond homemaking (fine occupation though that can be), they limit reproduction to population replacement levels.

And I don't think JS Bach was much of a naif when he composed a divine melody to the prayer: "Ich habe genug."

Posted by: Lili at June 6, 2006 6:48 PM

"I don't subscribe to the idea that we must constantly 'grow' in population size or wealth."
-- from a posting above

Of course you are right. The idea of Growth as a Supreme Good, or as a Good at all, should be questioned, should be mocked, should be undone. In 1850, without any oil, and without electricity, was everyone miserable? Was nothing accomplished in the Western world before oil came along, and before Growth became King?

Posted by: Hugh at June 7, 2006 12:32 AM

Hugh Growth was king at least in England. The English econamy was growing at an annual rate of 5% fueled by cheap coal steam and the railway boom.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at June 7, 2006 5:59 AM