In Sweden they use cows entrails to power buses and trains.

Also coconut oil mixed with diesel can also power cars.

Posted by: Voltaire at October 9, 2006 6:34 AM

"Joe Kaufman, Chairman of Americans Against Hate"

I really, really hate the name of that organization. Got a problem with that Joe?

Posted by: Mr Krabs at October 9, 2006 6:35 AM

I want to make tanks that run on pig feces & urine. I'm sure you can figure out where I would like to drive them.

Posted by: americanmadestrat at October 9, 2006 7:33 AM

If possible, I buy only from Sunoco. If an electric car was available, I would buy it. I already drive a car that gets 40 mpg. I hate the Saudis and would love to nuke them. Not buying their oil is my only weapon in lieu.

Posted by: August22 at October 9, 2006 8:27 AM

Thank you for the list of companies selling oil from places that are not yet our enemies.

Every trip to the filling station now is infuriating; I rail against politicians and bureaucrats that have cozied up to the Middle East, and big business that have put aside serious research and development of alternative fuels. Electric and hybrid cars are nice, but they still run on oil and electricity is still produced in many places by oil.

In the meantime, while big business and big government finally gets serious, we should develop the new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and exploit the tar sands of Colorado and all the rest.

Posted by: Eleanor at October 9, 2006 8:44 AM

This reflects a misunderstanding about oil. It doesn't matter from what source a particular consumer, -- in this case the United States -- buys oil. As long as the oil of Muslim states can be sold, and it can, and as long as nothing is done to put pressure on the price at which it is sold, the refusal to buy "oil from the Middle East" or discussion of "energy independence" miss the point.

Oil not sold to the United States will be sold to other consumers, while non-Middle Eastern oil now being eagerly bought in the United States but formerly bought b other consumrs, will simply represent a shift, but not any diminishment, in the fantastic revenues that fund the Jihad, and which, along with the suicidal policy of permitting large numbers of Muslims into Western Europe (and in lesser numbers, North America), without any thorough understanding of the doctrine or practice of Islam, or its long-term effects on the minds of its adherents, has been the key to putting an inextinguishable and immutable doctrine -- Jihad -- into practice in the modern world.

Think of the Camp of Islam as a closed system. Total revenues to that system must be diminished. The expenses to that system must be raised. Some things can obviously be done at once. Stop the Jizyah of Foreign Aid to all Muslim states and quasi-polities, and force them to go, hat in hand, to other Arabs and Muslims for whatever aid they think they can wheedle or inveigle. This means staunching the flow of tens of billions to Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and of course the shock troops of the Lesser Jihad, that part of the local Arab population that was carefully renamed the "Palestinian people" to such great, and dangerous, effect -- in order to disguise the Lesser Jihad as merely a localized nationalist movement, lending itself to all that gush about "two tiny peoples" each "claiming a homeland" and so on

The price of oil must go up. If the Administration, or Congress, were sensible, it would take the occasion of this depleting war in Iraq, to announce a new policy: a large and steadily increasing gasoline tax, that would never go down, so that car buyers and manufacturers would understand, and make plans, on the basis of this ever-increasing cost of gasoline. It should aim for European levels. Then, in every other way, whever the use of oil has been inadvertently subsidized (as with highways), other countervailing subsidies should be given. Mass transit need not be required to pay for itself. The real cost of the use of oil to fuel cars is much highter than it seems because it does not reflect, does not internalize, the huge military costs in the Middle East, nor the costs of monitoring Muslims who are funded, often (their mosques, their madrasas, their campaigns of Da'wa, their army of Western hirelings spreading the Muslim and Arab view), by those oil revenues.

Buying non-Middle Eastern oil is merely a symbolic gesture.

And if it fosters the illusion in some that they are "dong something," and lessens their interest in doing something effective, it might even be a danger, a substitute for the kind of undertakings that would be effective, and that are necessary.

And I have not even touched the subject of global warmng, and the need, for entirely independent reasons, to force our not-very-intelligent rulers to heed what our very intelligent scientists, for whom the dangers are no longer a subject of debate (as is still reported in the popular press) tell us will happen if an entirely different set of energy policies is not put in place quickly, and not only in this country.

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2006 9:29 AM

During WW2 the US was in a major conflict on both sides of the world. It decided that a possible way to winning the war was by building an atomic bomb. Thus, the Manhattan Project was born, costing lots of money, time and effort. An atomic bomb was produced and it ended the war. The government recognized the need for a major project and went about getting it done. Today we are fighting a war against another deadly foe and more than ever we need a project to wean us off the oil that furnishes our enemies with the money they need to enslave us. When will we get a project comparable to the Manhattan Project? When the government puts its mind to it things CAN get done. It put a man on the moon in less than 10 years so what the hell are we waiting for? For sharia to enslave us all?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 9, 2006 11:53 AM

Hugh;
Your thoughts are where we must go as a nation. A few things to consider. We as a country consume A LOT of the worlds oil. If we tapped everything we can, and quit those funds going to M.E. oil companys, It would draw down the access to the easy money fo the jihad.

To say the world would step in and by the 45+ percent More oil that we no longer buy, they already get what they need. Why do you think they would buy more than they need, simply because it is avalible? Us lowering our use of M.E. oil by even 25%, would be a major hit in the funds taken into the M.E. oil countrys, make no mistake.

Also, after oil is found in the southern gulf two months ago, the price has dropped at the pump by nearly a third. I believe this is becaues of the threat of us tapping this new supply, they want us to keep buying M.E. oil! Perhaps more in this issue, but fear of OUR OIL may be driving the price down.

To think what a person can do won't matter requires a rethinking. What will you do today should be the question. It is all you can do, as a responceable consumer, to do everything you can to ease the purchase of energy.

The people can drive the industry, make the demand and industry will respond. Pushing for these other energy sources will only come from the people, that is clear as many of our leaders are too close to oil states, and work to keep us buying that oil, not to switch to other power sources.

Global warming is still in debate, we are not aware of all factors that produce the greenhouse gases they (E.Groups) state are only us, our fault. F.E, Are you aware that as the sun ages, it produces more heat? Global warming is somthing we can affect, but not stop or control.

Bottom line, only you can control what you do, take the steps to reduce energy use as much as one can.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 9, 2006 12:14 PM

Keep in mind that Venezuelan gas is hardly polically safe these days, either, with Hugo
Chavez' ties to Iran's Maumood Ahmadinijad. Venezuelan gas is largely distributed through Citgo stations.

I do agree, though, that ultimately it matters little which specific gas we buy, since it all comes from the same pool. I don't drive, myself, but of course I do use gas in other ways--for heating, transport of the goods I buy, etc.

It's interesting--by the 19th century whale products had a whole slew of uses, from manufacturing wool, leather and soap, as an ingredient in industrial paints, cosmetics, and perfumes, in street lighting, and in creating items like umbrellas and corsets. It seemed impossible to replace.

Yet when whale populations began to decline in the late 19th century, alternatives (many far superior) were found quickly by the scientic and industrial communities.

I think we're just starting to see this with alternatives to petroleum products. We'd certainly be a lot safer if we could stop funding the Jihadists.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 9, 2006 4:32 PM

"...coconut oil mixed with diesel can also power cars."

Biofuels are a sham (including ethanol and what not). Trust me. I am a scientist, and I have done the math. There in NO WAY that we can ever grow enough biofuels to replace the fossil fuels we now use. Furthermore, it has already been tried up to the 1700's: Britain started mining coal because they depleted their forests! I do endorse using biofuels as a supplement only when WASTE PRODUCTS are involved, but setting aside land for biofuels is insane.

"However a straight-up gas tax increase is a non-starter"

I agree. There is a tight correlation between the price of fuel and the state of the economy (You can look this up at the Department of Energy website). To win this war we need a healthy economy. Changing our wasteful habits without a tax will not be easy. I will take a major cultural overhaul... But we have no choice.

"... lowering our use of M.E. oil by even 25%, would be a major hit in the funds taken into the M.E. oil countrys, make no mistake."

People lament Saudi Arabia being the "swing producer" that sets the price of oil. Based on information I gleaned from the DOE website, changes in our consumption habits have a MAJOR impact on the world price of oil. Based on calculations I carred out in 2003, a 38% reduction in American oil consumption can drive the world price of oil as low as $5-$11 per barrel. Given that Saudi Arabia needs a price of $22 per gallon to make ends meet (2002 data), even a modest reduction of 15% can bring the kingdom of hate to its knees.

I challenge anyone here to check the math for themselves. Go to the DOE website yourself and look out how much the U.S. consumes and compare this the impact removing (or failing to remove) 1 million gallons of oil from the world market. I don't have time to do it now (I barely have the time to write here) and someone needs to update the math.

Gotta go. Miss you all!!!

Posted by: Pavlov's dog at October 9, 2006 5:52 PM

Pavlov:
I used to live in Brazil. Ethanol from sugar cane is used there, at least half the cars sold (if not more) are 100% ethanol/100% gas compatible. Yes, some power is lost, and yes, the government had to subsidize ethanol, but now they have enough users and economies of scale that it costs the same as regular gas.

Posted by: Galloglass at October 9, 2006 6:34 PM

Hugh

Here in CA, we have prop 87 on the ballot, which aims to raise taxes on gasoline. My only reservation about that proposition is that nowhere in its campaign does it talk about how everytime we fill up a car, we are financing the Jihad against ourselves.

However, the opposition to this proposition is making the case that this proposition would increase, rather than decrease the foreign oil coming into the US. Their precise quote:

This $4 billion oil tax would make California’s oil the highest taxed in the nation, by far. Economists report that higher production taxes on California oil would reduce the amount of oil produced in-state. California would become more dependent on foreign oil. The added costs of transporting imported oil and the added costs associated with refining imported oil to meet California’s environmental standards would all be reflected in the price of gasoline at the pump.

Are you, or anyone, aware of any analysis done that butresses this point? I was under the impression that all gasoline, not just domestic gasoline, would be taxed. How does this proposition get more foreign oil into CA?

As far as political trends go, propositions in CA tend to go down in flames, and this one isn't likely to be any different, due to the unpopularity of taxes in general. However, I was wondering whether prop 87 would put a floor on gasoline prices so that consumption stays discouraged, and that the proceeds from that proposition could fund alternative fuels, the public highway system, et al.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 9, 2006 8:02 PM

Global warming may be less affected by human activity than by natural causes having nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions. In elementary school back in the '50's, I remember reading about the Vikings, and how Viking settlements in Iceland and Greenland were established in the 900's or slightly later. These settlements were permanent and sustained by agriculture - again, this was in Greenland, mind you. Within a few generations, however, the climate grew colder and agriculture was no longer possible; the settlements were abandoned. So there was an unusually warm period in the tenth century A.D. - warm enough for crops to be grown in a region that has, for hundreds of years, been tundra, with no agriculture possible; this underscores the dynamic and changing nature of the world's climate, with or without human interference. It's remarkable that no one seems to remember about these Viking settlements, and how they relate to discussions and arguments about global warming today.

Posted by: commonsense at October 9, 2006 8:14 PM

What Pavlov's dog said.  I can't say it better.

I have also done the math on ethanol (all over the blog).  Robert Rapier has shown that Brazil's success has far less to do with ethanol than diesels, drilling and per-capita consumption 1/7 that of the USA; over 50% of Brazilian motor-fuel consumption is diesel, while ethanol only accounts for 40% of the gasoline-compatible fraction.  Brazilian consumption is about 4.2 barrels/capita/year while US consumption is 27.

The number of red herrings out there depresses me.  Ethanol?  Farm subsidy, not an energy program.  "Terror-free oil"?  Unless everyone can buy only from the non-ME suppliers, it doesn't matter.  And even the European Fuel Cell Forum has given up on hydrogen.

You can point out the important technologies by looking at the ones that are being ignored by Washington but pursued by private companies or groups.  The biggest story you haven't heard is batteries.  The Tesla roadster goes 250 miles on a charge using today's laptop-grade cells, and tomorrow's advanced chemistries will make 5-minute charges possible (already going into DeWalt power tools).  Slap enough into a Prius-equivalent to allow 40 miles or so of all-electric driving, and you can cut your motor-fuel consumption by well over 50%.

(Five years ago I'd have bet you'd never see these words from me, but...) The special interests which rule Washington don't want electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids.  They don't want you to be able to generate your own "motor fuel".  They don't want you to be able to choose between wind, nuclear and cogeneration as alternatives to what they're peddling.  They want guaranteed returns, which means they want you locked in.

Don't believe me?  Look at what happened in 2001.  One of the first actions of the incoming Bush administration was to cancel the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which was just a few years from putting ultra-high economy hybrids on Big 3 showroom floors.  These cars, like the Prius, would have been ready-made for conversion to plug-in power.  The oil interests saw this as the threat that it is, so they had it cancelled.  Instead, we got a hydrogen car program (which is again dependent on a single fuel which can only be produced cheaply from oil, coal and natural gas).

Bush is selling us out so his cronies like Halliburton and friends the Saudis can make more money.  With a few exceptions like Roscoe Bartlett, the whole GOP has gone along.  Looks like patriotism goes out the window when their campaign contributors clear their throats.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at October 9, 2006 9:06 PM

Exxon Mobil which gets its oil from the "Magic Kingdom"

James Baker III, Senior Partner in the law firm of Baker Botts, has three clients.

The Bush Family
The Saudis (for whom Baker Botts is also their lobby in DC)
Exxon Mobil.

James Baker III is an old family friend of the Bush's.

The Bin Ladens and Saudis helped George W. Bush with his first (failed) business Arbusto Oil.

James Baker III, the Bush family, Kissinger are all involved in the Carlyle Group, the Saudis were but after 9-11 they divested (err hid their involvement through a front).

But that's OK Cheney was the President of the (Islamic) Azebaijan Chamber of Commerce, and it his Haliburton Company that has gained the most from contracts in IRaq (contracts which did not deliver goods and services, but were given on a no bid basis.. and yet they overbilled and defrauded the taxpayer of billions.. and of course without any penalties, since Cheney still holds stock and receives a stipend from Haliburton.

Way to go "conservatives"..but continue to vote "moral issues" and the phoney culture war.. we will surely lose the real war with Islam, because you have bankrupted the country and alienated half of the citizenry and ALL of the rest of the world.

Posted by: Nariz at October 9, 2006 10:15 PM

Nariz,
Only a true degenerate will try to politicize Terror-Free Oil concept. Obviously, playing politics is more important for you than America’s energy independence.

Posted by: Terror-Free Oil at October 9, 2006 11:17 PM

Canola oil makes great fuel for internal combustion engines. Why not green our deserts at the same time as we bankrupt the Middle East?

Mother Ecclesiastica.
Posted by: Mother Ecclesiastica

Canola oil is also used as an industrial lubricant, especially in pneumatic nailers and the likes.. I find it cheaper to use Canola oil than buy lubricant at Home Depot.

It is made from Rape Seed, which is a weed and grows where other flora can't grow..It is a prime crop in regions of Canada which are otherwise not amenable to farming (short summers, cool temperatures) didn't know that it could grow in the desert.. cool.

BTW, if the FDA wasn't corrupt the it wouldn't have approved Canola oil, as the body cannot process the oil..but the FDA is corrupt, it was when Donald Rumsfeld was CEO of Searle Chemical that the FDA approved another poison (and an addictive one at that) called Aspartme (Nutrasweet) Well the Cola companies love it, as does Snapple because Aspartme is addictive, prolly as bad as tobacco, I don't know anyone who has been able to kick it, and Aspartme addicts drink cases of the stuff, and then (after the hypoglycemic attacks) shovel Twinkies and other high sugar junk food into their mouths.

Oh well sorry for the OT rant..

Posted by: Nariz at October 9, 2006 11:18 PM

I agree that the west is financing its own destruction by sending all those oil dollars to countries with the bulk of reserves, nearly all of which are Muslim. However, attempting to buy oil from another source is a complete waste of time. The world oil market is one. In addition, China and India are two important parts of the world that are rapidly increasing their importation and consumption of oil. The only way to much affect revenues flowing to the "oil ticks" is to vastly decrease world oil consumption. That won't happen unless & until world oil production also vastly decreases (which it may in the next few decades.) People interested in this topic should Google "Peak Oil" & read up on it. There's no easy answer here, folks, sorry.
For its own safety, the US particularly should be shifting its economy towards using less oil in all its functions, so that it will be less vulnerable to decreases in oil supply and increases in oil price. That's another issue. Many vested interests, not just the oil companies, are very much opposed to this.

Posted by: Tresho at October 9, 2006 11:34 PM

Bunratty Bill -- send any information on oil, oil markets, alternative energy sources, pricing, recapture of oligopolistic rents, and so on to me, if you wish, c/o Robert.

Posted by: Hugh at October 9, 2006 11:37 PM

To Hugh with greatest respect.
"And I have not even touched the subject of global warmng, and the need, for entirely independent reasons, to force our not-very-intelligent rulers to heed what our very intelligent scientists, for whom the dangers are no longer a subject of debate (as is still reported in the popular press) tell us will happen if an entirely different set of energy policies is not put in place quickly, and not only in this country."

I agree with your posted discussion of the problems with not buying "Arabian Oil" up to the point, where you wrote the quote entered above.

For over 30 years our Congress has sat on both thumbs when it comes to energy policy. Both Political Parties, and the American people for allowing them to do this to us, are at fault. Congress has allowed us to be in the very position we now find ourselves. Had they acted, even a little over each of those last 30 years, the pain we will eventually have to endure would be deminimus, but they haven't, so the pain is going to be extremely painful for us both economically and politically to dig ourselves out!

We do need a change in policy but not for what you call: "global warm(i)ng... for whom the dangers are no longer debatable (as is still reported in the popular press."

Just one point and several websites for you to see the issue IS STILL VERY MUCH DEBATABLE. Point: over 17,000 scientists have signed a letter to the contrary about the certainty of global warming. You will find it among the listings of the first web site I list.

www.akdart.com/warming.html
www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/acvp/gray.htm
www.co2science.org/scripts/co2scienceB2C/index.jsp

In addition from the website www.physorg.com you could have read that one of the major methods of measuring temperatures, ice cores, has come under scrutiny as being in accurate. Also, sattelite readings of surface temperatures have indicated that the earth is not warming! That data has been ignored.

If the earth's temperature is rising it is doing so as part of cycles which pre date the industrial revolution and the "bad influence it could have had on our environment". Charts of the various ice ages with the earths base temperatures and CO2 levels show that after coming off "ice ages" we warm up and then drop back into another ice age. Those readings indicate we are not any worse now than in the past!

No that debate is not over, just like the Minute Men at Columbia University, however the debate is attempting to be cut off by those who cannot win the deabte when ALL THE EVIDENCE is honestly reviewed.

Posted by: kwg1 at October 10, 2006 1:20 AM

" They don't want you to be able to generate your own "motor fuel". They don't want you to be able to choose between wind, nuclear and cogeneration as alternatives to what they're peddling. They want guaranteed returns, which means they want you locked in." posted Engineer-poet..

Agreed. Look who pushes nuclear for civilian power use, then look at the trouble it causes. Nuclear is not worth the trouble, and the ammount of fuel for fusion, fision is limited, I have seen reports of around 100 years before it is mostly gone.The dangers, the costs, the N koreans, Iran, etc, etc.

"And even the European Fuel Cell Forum has given up on hydrogen."

Thats the Europeans. Nasa has used hydrogen for decades, along with fuel cells fo electric generators. Both should be in civilian use now. I have made hydrogen on the counter top with dry cells, wire, a catch basin and salt water, and I was about fourteen at the time.

Add in Propane from gas wells, perhaps nitro methane, hydro dynamic small scale generators, electric cars, hybrids, solar, wind power, etc, etc, etc.

The fact is the "system" we now use was built in a different era, and they ( the owners of the industry) have the ear of those in power. It will not change unless the people make it.

The goal should be to drop our use of M.E. oil by , say 25%. What can you do today, to drop buying oil by 25%? The future is waiting for you to take the first step.

Take a bite out of islam.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 10, 2006 2:47 AM

Quoth Islofob IS-1:

Look who pushes nuclear for civilian power use, then look at the trouble it causes. Nuclear is not worth the trouble, and the ammount of fuel for fusion, fision is limited, I have seen reports of around 100 years before it is mostly gone.

The quotes of 100 years are based on:

1. The limited reserves available at the prices following the collapse of plant construction and the conversion of warhead material to fuel.
2. No reprocessing of spent fuel.
3. No breeder reactors.
4. No use of thorium (4x as abundant as uranium and 100% breedable to U-233).

In short, they are highly misleading.  (Although not as misleading as the "250 years" estimate for available coal in the USA - which assumes much unminable material will be available and no increase in usage!)

The dangers, the costs, the N koreans, Iran, etc, etc.

Nobody's been hurt in a US accident, the cost appears quite reasonable even without internalizing the burdens from CO2, and you may have noticed that the US's restraint in refusing to build breeders or even create a complete LWR fuel cycle didn't prevent India, Pakistan, Iraq, N. Korea, Iran and even Libya from going nuclear or attempting to.  (Military force stopped Iraq and Libya.)

Nasa has used hydrogen for decades, along with fuel cells fo electric generators. Both should be in civilian use now.

Non sequitur.  NASA uses hydrogen-oxygen engines on various rockets, but that doesn't mean they make sense for ground vehicles or even commercial aircraft.

The problem with hydrogen is that it favors fossil energy sources.  The math is irrefutable.  Dozens of people have done it and reached exactly the same conclusions.  There may be purposes, like space missions, where hydrogen's light weight make it essential, but that's not what most of us are doing.

I have made hydrogen on the counter top with dry cells, wire, a catch basin and salt water, and I was about fourteen at the time.

I've made it with sodium hydroxide and aluminum.  It's a clever trick, but far too expensive to be widely used.

Add in Propane from gas wells, perhaps nitro methane, hydro dynamic small scale generators, electric cars, hybrids, solar, wind power, etc, etc, etc.

Propane (NGL's) from gas wells?  I don't think you realize that N. American natural gas is past peak and heading downward.  And nitromethane?  Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

The goal should be to drop our use of M.E. oil by , say 25%. What can you do today, to drop buying oil by 25%?

I dropped my own direct use of oil by 33% two and a half years ago; I replaced a 26-MPG gas-burner with a 40-MPG diesel.  What I regret is that no vehicle on the market would let me do a whole lot better than that, and none would let me "fuel" with electricity.

The US should be aiming at complete replacement of imported oil, plus reduced consumption of domestic oil (which will fall anyway).  That's more than 100% of current imports.  If drivers paid all the external costs of oil (including the Iraq war), the pump price would be upwards of $8/gallon and just about every vehicle would already be able to run local trips on batteries; that could replace 80% of liquid motor fuel right there.  There are a host of possibilities for things to get the remaining 20%.

I'm willing to pay $5/gallon or more to make those possibilities attractive, to pull investment to them and make consumers clamor for them.  I WANT a stiff gas tax as an energy-security measure and a thumb in the eye of the Wahhabist entity.  Are you with me?

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at October 10, 2006 10:27 PM

Engineer Poet;
Great post and link, thanks. The use on nuclear has issues, and these are not going away. Fuel shortages, waist disposal, the building of MORE weppons. We came very close to disaster, and russia faded faster after theirs. The U.N. stated only 89 died related to Chernobl, sounds right? France has their own issues as well. Nuclear look good until IT happens, and when it falls apart people hide, mislead, die, or just move away for 500 years. NOT cost effective. Nuclear fusion has some hope, but is years away, perhaps never.

The other options sugested we just that, possible areas and future sorces of energy. The trick is to present these as where we should go, and get the bonus of not buying or using oil, mainly M.E. oil. Two birds with the one stone.

Cars can be converted to Propane, and is here now. Not perfect, but that car no longer is using M.E. oil. Solar ,here now. Wind power, here now. All these reduce use of coal, that coal is harvested using oil, and that includes M.E. oil.
Hydrogen at the link you provided was, if I scanned it right, dealt with using it to power electric motors, i was thinking along the lines
of engines, were in Japan concepts years ago, I like the idea, looks usable, can it be done?

You will find many enemys with your $5.00+ gal fuel costs, good luck with that. Stiff-ER gas tax? Looks like a open checkbook to the current leaders, don't expect it to go where it all should.

You got the right idea about how you went with your transportation, others should consider this as well. If everyone in your city/town did just that, it would make a real diffrence.

If we are to have suscess against islam, reducing the use of M.E. oil is truly needed to aid in the effort, as well as the lowering of damage to the enviroment.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 11, 2006 2:58 AM

The use on nuclear has issues, and these are not going away. Fuel shortages, waist disposal, the building of MORE weppons. We came very close to disaster, and russia faded faster after theirs.

Actually, we didn't come close to disaster.  Chernobyl's RMBK reactor was the mess it was because it was graphite-moderated, had no containment, and was operated way outside its design parameters (with the safeties shut off) by someone performing an unauthorized experiment.  When the steam explosion mixed white-hot fuel, hot graphite and air, it created the world's biggest hibachi.

None of that would be possible with US designs.  TMI Unit 2's containment held just fine, the melted fuel didn't even damage the reactor vessel, and the hydrogen explosion inside the containment didn't budge it a bit.  It's estimated that several people did die as a consequence of the accident, however; they died from the increased air pollution due to the replacement of TMI's power with coal.

The waste problem is similarly overblown.  If you separate out the elements which remain nuclear fuel (and throw them back in, like charcoal at the bottom of the fire) the actual waste becomes less radioactive than the original ore in just a few hundred years.  We might even be able to cut that time using neutron-driven transmutation to accelerate the release of energy (and derive it in a form we can use).

Not that I think nuclear is a panacea, but it's a lot less bad than lots of people still think.  Even James Lovelock is pro-nuclear now.

The other options sugested we just that, possible areas and future sorces of energy.

I didn't notice anything both big enough to do the job and not declining, save wind and solar.

Cars can be converted to Propane, and is here now. Not perfect, but that car no longer is using M.E. oil.

Propane aka LPG, Liquefied Petroleum Gas.  From the same sources as oil and natural gas, in even shorter supply, and depleting along with them.

Do you understand now why your "solution" isn't?  Why you have to look at the fundamentals and do the math?

All these reduce use of coal, that coal is harvested using oil, and that includes M.E. oil.

Several companies are working on coal-to-liquids, including Rentech.  It wouldn't take much to run all our trains on CTL diesel, and much heavy mining equipment is already electric.  The use of oil to mine coal is far from the weakest link.

Hydrogen at the link you provided was, if I scanned it right, dealt with using it to power electric motors, i was thinking along the lines of engines, were in Japan concepts years ago, I like the idea, looks usable, can it be done?

Hydrogen-burning piston engines are far less efficient than fuel cells powering motors, so that just multiplies the problem.

The auto companies are demonstrating hydrogen-burning engines for two reasons:  they get money and some kind of credit for doing stuff with hydrogen, and company conservatism and politics make it a lot easier to build a car with a fuel-burning engine than to threaten the jobs of all the people who make engines, transmissions, radiators, exhaust systems and everything else.  The fundamentals look a whole lot better with batteries or maybe EEStor's ultracapacitors.

You will find many enemys with your $5.00+ gal fuel costs, good luck with that. Stiff-ER gas tax? Looks like a open checkbook to the current leaders, don't expect it to go where it all should.

They can only divert it if they're allowed to keep any of it, and both T. Boone Pickens and I think that 100% of the tax should be sent right back to people as rebates of Social Security taxes.  Besides, if it has the intended effect, the amount of tax collected will start to shrink pretty soon.  I'm sure a pol would rather point to reduced purchases as the reason for smaller rebates, rather than self-aggrandizement!

If we are to have suscess against islam, reducing the use of M.E. oil is truly needed to aid in the effort, as well as the lowering of damage to the enviroment.

How are we going to cut our use, if we continue policies which keep it cheap (like charging the cost of the Iraq war to income taxes instead of at the pump)?  Unless the whole nation has a religious conversion overnight (HAH!), any conservation effort in a period of cheap fuel will have tens of millions of cheaters; the only way to keep everyone honest is to make it expensive to be wasteful.

I see that even you are reluctant to get on that bandwagon, and it depresses me.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at October 12, 2006 9:03 PM

Engineer-Poet;
The idea of people signing on to $5.00+ per gallon of gas is a non starter. Won't work, if anyone tried it (forgiving forces beyond the country's control), you would have a revolt beyond islam's hate for America. Try running for office on ideas to raise taxes, how often do you see it?

Good leadership can steer the effort, tax breaks for companys willing to spend funds to bring our oil online will get results, perhaps other ideas as well.

Tap our oil, everything that can be put into production. Reduce in kind the purchase of oil in the M.E. as this is brought up to speed. No help in enviro- areas, just in fighting the war, and will not add to the overall enviromental problems. Shale oil, that looks promising, and tax breaks for bringing this to the U.S. market as well. Everything to reduce the purchase of M.E. oil.

I don't like using any oil, but it is better than sending funding to M.E. oil countrys and their followers of islam.

Nuclear is not what I see as a safe, clean , sound policy. I must disagree with the Three Mile Island accident, I am not alone in how serious, or it being a close call. Nuclear is far too easy to be attacked, the waist can be used as dirty bombs if stolen. Saying "None of that would be possible with US designs" may (again may) be right, but errors can creep into any machine. God can sink any ship. Chernobyl's meltdown was caused , as you correctly described, during a test.

And they will continue to run that test for perhaps thousands of years. Too many other ways to make steam.

Not worth the risk, with the war against Islam as the focus. That one issue MUST be considered as a point of safety for the sake of all.

Harness Fuel cells, Propane( even though it is still oil based), from my info, it's use in the U.S. is from mostly domestic sources. Electric cars, hybrids with breaks to buyers & builders, solar, wind, small scale hydro dynamic , anything to lower the use of M.E. oil. As we can, reduce oil's use.

"Hydrogen-burning piston engines are far less efficient than fuel cells powering motors, so that just multiplies the problem."
Perhaps, depends on the way it burns the fuel. Inovation is needed to rethink the process of combustion. Remember, even sugar can burn.

Programs need to be funded for inovation, not saying it won't work. Make it work, everything has strength and weekness, do what can be done, and reduce the use of oil as it can be. We are in a fight for the way of life here, not going after the only, best way to do things.

Using Nasa as a point, the shuttle was built by Rockwell, and funded by congress. What came to be was NOT the best shuttle, but it works. Lots of ability, and the new designs comming along will be a downgrade compaired to the Shuttle. But, in many ways better, and cheaper, or so they claim.

My focus here is always to victory over islam, the only way this will end for this country, in everything i see and know, victory over islam ,one way or another.

I don't like raising taxes to burden the country to reach any goal, it serves only those who have access to the funds.

Clinton did not have a good economy from lowering taxes, he did raise taxes, but then cut funding to the military, along with other programs. As this source dried up, so did his economy. And, the attacks came, over and over. Sept 11, Bush found himself in a war, with a degraded military, economy damaged, and a need to fight back. I am not attacking Clinton, just that a free nation only stays free with a strong defense. His policys show a lack of belief in this.

Your tech- knowledge is considerable, I have enjoyed your answers. I am still looking into some of the areas you raised, perhaps my research will add to what I know, or think I do. Thank you for that. I have depressed a few people, am sorry to have also gave you that burden. Please keep at it, I might come around, just ain't there yet. Always that quest, for more info.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 13, 2006 3:59 AM

The idea of people signing on to $5.00+ per gallon of gas is a non starter. Won't work, if anyone tried it (forgiving forces beyond the country's control), you would have a revolt beyond islam's hate for America. Try running for office on ideas to raise taxes, how often do you see it?

Nobody's selling it as a way to make it PAY to quit using oil, so I can say that it's never been tried.

Look, the US uses about 200 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel each year.  A $2/gallon tax would yield about $400 billion.  You rebate all of that back to taxpayers on a per-capita basis.  There are about 144 million working people in the US, so figure maybe $2000/year rebate for each one (you've got to have something for retired people too).

I drive about 25,000 miles/year in a car averaging about 35-37 MPG.  That's about 700 gallons.  I'd have about $600 left in my pocket after paying the extra tax, and most people would be even better off.  It would stick it to the Middle East.  If cutting back is a patriotic duty, then benefitting from it is a GOOD thing.

If we all convert to cars that run on electricity, or make enough bio-fuel to eliminate oil, the tax revenue goes away.  This is a scheme with a built-in sunset clause.

Why do you resist this idea?  Is there something repugnant about it, or are the benefits just not clear?

Tap our oil, everything that can be put into production.

That works in Neverland, but in the USA we've been drilling like mad since the OPEC oil shocks of the 70's and our production has still been falling on a steady curve, interrupted only by the completion of the Alaska pipeline.  Everything you can think of that would work (and a lot you'd never think of) is already being done.

There are people saying we can drill our way to abundance again.  These people are either ignorant or liars.  I put the current Washington administration in the latter category, and they're financed by Saudi Arabia (a culture of liars which is hard to top).  M. King Hubbert knew the geology, and he got it right back in 1959.

Reduce in kind the purchase of oil in the M.E. as this is brought up to speed.

Why wait?  Let's get rid of Hummers and Escalades and Durangoes, which we can do with the passage of a law.

Shale oil, that looks promising, and tax breaks for bringing this to the U.S. market as well.

Shale oil looks financially unpromising, and it's an environmental disaster.

Everything to reduce the purchase of M.E. oil.

How about giving the same per-gallon-saved benefit to batteries that we give to ethanol?  At $4-5 per gallon, lots of different batteries pay off quite nicely as oil-savers.

On top of this, you actually get ENERGY SECURITY.  A plug-in hybrid car can run on either liquid fuel or electricity.  It allows us to build things like wind farms to offset oil shortages; try THAT with any other scheme!  After the 2005 hurricanes, many people on the Gulf coast were stranded because they had no fuel and deliveries were blocked.  If their cars were PHEV's and they could run a bit on self-generated energy from solar panels, wouldn't that be some great emergency preparedness?

I don't like using any oil, but it is better than sending funding to M.E. oil countrys and their followers of islam.

You're still stuck on the idea of liquid fuels; you need to spread your mental net wider.

Propane( even though it is still oil based), from my info, it's use in the U.S. is from mostly domestic sources.

Propane and propylene amount to about 6% of US usage (total gases come to about 10%).  You are clearly not going to get far trying to replace 9 million bbl/day of gasoline with 1.2 million bbl/day of propane in the same engines.  Besides, what are the former users of the LPG going to do?

These questions should have smacked you in the face before you wrote.  Think, man!

Inovation is needed to rethink the process of combustion. Remember, even sugar can burn.

"Rethinking" is going to change the combustion characteristics of fuels?  In your dreams, maybe.  I'll wait for the chemists to tell me how stuff actually works instead of listening to the energy equivalent of the Lysenkoists.

Programs need to be funded for inovation, not saying it won't work.

Programs need to be vetted for conformance to the way physics and chemistry actually work.  If you think otherwise, the place to start is in the lab (where you might get a Nobel) instead of demanding grant money to build systems that won't work because the theory on which they're based is rubbish.

Make it work, everything has strength and weekness, do what can be done, and reduce the use of oil as it can be.

Well, gee, that's exactly what I proposed:  tax the bejeesus out of oil, which means that anything that actually saves or replaces oil receives a payback.  Anything that people do or invent to save oil pays them back in reduced Energy Insecurity taxes.  It can't discriminate, except it only pays back to people who do what works.  People who do stuff that doesn't work, or nothing at all, don't benefit.

I can't see what you have against this.  I see your areas of ignorance, but beyond that I cannot see where you're coming from.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet at October 13, 2006 11:48 PM