Ethanol as a fuel is a scam....

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0507/18/0auto-250871.htm

I've seen the amazing effect on emissions first hand and now run the 10% stuff in every IC engine I own. Up here we use junk grain to produce ethanol.

I'm sure the oil companys had some say in the research. :D

All these technologies are in there infancies and aren't as great or convenient as what's established...just like the first model-Ts sucked compared to the horse.

Give it time, things will get much better. I'm willing to bet we'll see multiple fuel systems for dedicated used. My opinion is renewable fuels like bio-diesel and ethanol are best utilized in fleets where the infrastructure can be economically built and maintained, the fuel is steadily used which will lead to steady improvement.

They don't mention sugar, which is what I think Brazil uses with a fair level of success...

No amount of R&D is going to make ethanol viable, because making ethanol epends more energy than you can get out of ethanol.

Its actually true of every energy source except nuclear. The reason we get more out of oil than we put in is that the sun put the energy in over millions of years and it was then compressed and such. So we are burning off what took thousands of years to put in to the oil. With corn you have 6 mos to put all the energy you can (again, it comes from sunlight) into the corn. There's just not enough in there. You can refine the production process and spend a bunch of money trying to reduce the cost of refinement, but those costs might as well be sunk directly into fuel saving technologies for existing fuels.

All energy on the planet except for nuclear sources ultimately comes from the sun, and even that can be made a case for since radioactive elements I think are created in the cores of stars. IMO anything we use short of nuclear is a losing scenario and will eventually be depleted as long as we are using it faster than it is regenerated.

Generating electricty with windmills is the future IMO. Here we have a completely free and non-polluting energy source. I bet 100 years in the future the whole world will run off electricty generated by the wind.

Generating electricty with windmills is the future IMO. Here we have a completely free and non-polluting energy source. I bet 100 years in the future the whole world will run off electricty generated by the wind.

It's certainly the most viable of the renewable energy alternatives available today, with cost per kWh close to coal and natural gas. (Solar is still uneconomical at about 4x the cost, but it's making headway.)

Myself and others on here have been railing against the economics of ethanol for some time now. As Chris says, I just don't see any way it will ever become viable. At some point you will run into a wall put up there by physics and you won't get past it.

There's only one reason ethanol is getting any play at all: Archer Daniels Midland. Talk to your congressman; it's your tax dollars that are being wasted.

Generating electricty with windmills is the future IMO. Here we have a completely free and non-polluting energy source. I bet 100 years in the future the whole world will run off electricty generated by the wind.
That would be nice, but given the rise in demand for energy and the large amount of land and type of land (windy areas) that are required for it, I don't see it happening, maybe 20%. I think a great deal more can be had out of hydro and tidal generated power and also solar to a point.
I think it will be a long time before we totally give up on fossil and nuclear fuels.

NUCLEAR! :D

Ultimately, we are going to have to become a lot more energy efficient, and while we will probably end up getting lots of energy from wind, solar, hydro and nuclear, we will still probably have to create biofuels for things like transportation fuels and plastics.

It's hard to imagine a battery powered plane or plastics from solar power.

Another interesting alternative is thermal depolymerization. Thus far its total cost is higher than oil and it may be difficult to scale economically, but it is one way to make actual oil from biomass and other wastes.

http://www.answers.com/topic/thermal-depolymerization

NUCLEAR! :D

Yup.... a good ol' Mr. Fusion.

http://www.ketzer.com/delorean_model/delorean_model.html

Isn't George W trying to push for more nuclear plants right now?

No, just more plutonium production :)

Until we have a way to get rid of the waste, Id still say nuclear is the worst way to go.

Do you realize how little waste nuclear creates? An aircraft carrier can go 20 years on one golf ball sized piece of nuclear fuel.

We just pick a mountain, dig a big tunnel, and burry it all in there. I think Yucca mtn is already that very thing.

interesting fact- in france they actually encase spent nuclear fuel rods in huge glass blocks and it actually emmits no radiation. they even had the guy from the news station walking on top of the blocks. im not sure what type of glass it was. the only bad thing is sabatoge, i dont care what type of glass it is c4 charge in the right spot could be a disaster. hope they keep the storage place well guarded from the radical jihadist lol

Wind energy will die soon.

We have filtration units and particle sensors on a Joint venture with GE on their Wind Turbines in Europe.

Without Govt subsidies they would die. These generators are expenssiiiiiiive. Wind may be free, but these things aren't and the maintenance is high. (Think millions-billions).

Also, what they are finding in Europe is that everybody thought it was cool until the countryside starts getting littered with them. Another HUGE PROBLEM. The same people that were pushing for them are now revolting because they destroy scenery.

I agree once the world is rid of idiot muslem extremests and we can be at least halfway safe Nucluear is the only way to go. Send the radioactive material to Mars or something. heh ;)

They said in the artical that it takes more energy to produce ethanol. My question is does this energy increase equal the amount of energy demad we are at with oil if all cars ran on ehtanol? I would think that not even a 50% increase in energy required would produce the same kind of demand we have right now for oil if all cars switched over to ethenal. That is something the artical never asked.

I agree once the world is rid of idiot muslem extremests and we can be at least halfway safe Nucluear is the only way to go. Send the radioactive material to Mars or something. heh ;)
Nah, we might have use for Mars someday. ;) Drop it on Venus. A planet that's almost molten and has an atmosphere that has more in common with the inside of a pressure cooker filled with battery acid would be a fitting place to stash nuclear waste!

Nah, we might have use for Mars someday. ;) Drop it on Venus. A planet that's almost molten and has an atmosphere that has more in common with the inside of a pressure cooker filled with battery acid would be a fitting place to stash nuclear waste!


Ahh, skip shooting to another planet, send it back where it came from, the heart of a star!! And I just so happen to know where there is one realativly nearby :D

As far as using Ethenol, it sucks, some gas stations in MI use 10% ethenol, geuss what, you get 10% lower mpg when using it. Unfortunatly thanks to Miss Granholm they no longer have to have a sticker on the pump that says they put the 10% farmer subsi... I mean corn derived alcohol in their gas.

Until we have a way to get rid of the waste, Id still say nuclear is the worst way to go.

Do you realize how little waste nuclear creates? An aircraft carrier can go 20 years on one golf ball sized piece of nuclear fuel.

We just pick a mountain, dig a big tunnel, and burry it all in there. I think Yucca mtn is already that very thing.

For you guys' information, we have been replenishing spent fuel rods for several years now. The only radioactive waste coming from the Nuclear process is handling and manipuation equipment.

Old Nuke plants were designed with all the fuel rods they would ever use being embedded into the reactor... when the fuel was gone, so was the plant. We disposed of everything and shut it down.

But "new" technology (that is now over a decade old) has allowed us to replenish and reuse the fuel rods, and keep plants open until erosion and wear inside the reactor forces a rebuild or demolision.

http://www.geology.ufl.edu/Labs/TermPapersFall99-00/Cavanaugh/Description%20of%20Nuclear%20Reactor
"These fuel assemblies can be lifted into and out of the reactor mechanically, allowing fuel replenishment while the reactor is in operation."

One of the engineering firms I work with also designs and makes the fuel rod holders and mechanical manipulators that is a part of the replenishment process. Their mechanisms are pretty cool to see.

So dispell any thoughts of hauling truckloads of radioactive material from a nuke plant every day... doesn't happen any more. In fact, there is very little waste removed from a nuclear site on a routine basis anymore.

No amount of R&D is going to make ethanol viable, because making ethanol epends more energy than you can get out of ethanol.

Myself and others on here have been railing against the economics of ethanol for some time now. As Chris says, I just don't see any way it will ever become viable. At some point you will run into a wall put up there by physics and you won't get past it.

Have you guys ever studied the manufacturing process for a common dry cell battery? Do you know how much energy goes into making an alkaline "AA" battery? Just in the steel case alone, much less the man-made magnetic core inside?
Yet it typically gives off 1.5 Volts for less than 1 hour of continuous use at maximum current.

Your case for economics based solely on the "conservation of energy" is blown to smitherines with the common dry cell.
NOBODY buys dry cell batteries... :no:

Fact is, the end cost of the energy source, and the package it comes in are what will determine it's viability. WERM was spot-on with his comment about the battery-powered jetliner. Likewise, could you imagine a nuclear-powered weedeater? :no:

IMO, the situation that will drive the alternative fuel issue for cars is more likely to be environmental and convenience driven rather than purely cost driven (i.e. price of oil and gas at the pump). However, the prices may be the catalyst that makes alternative fuels more appealing to investors and ultimately drives costs down through improved manufacturing processes and the like.

Wind energy will die soon.

We have filtration units and particle sensors on a Joint venture with GE on their Wind Turbines in Europe.

Without Govt subsidies they would die. These generators are expenssiiiiiiive. Wind may be free, but these things aren't and the maintenance is high. (Think millions-billions).

Also, what they are finding in Europe is that everybody thought it was cool until the countryside starts getting littered with them. Another HUGE PROBLEM. The same people that were pushing for them are now revolting because they destroy scenery.

This guy is spot-on too.
Having spent much time in Europe in recent years, I can tell you first hand that these things are LOUD!!! People living within 500 yards of these things are complaining about the "whoof" every 3-4 seconds. It is VERY loud. There are even lawsuits being brought over it in Germany.

Also, 1 or two of these things looks pretty cool on the landscape when you first see them, but when you stack one after another after another it begins to look "busy" and cluttering on the horizon. At 350+ feet across, it's not like you are going to hide one either.

I'm all for the technology, but people need to realize that even wind-power has it's down side too.

I agree once the world is rid of idiot muslem extremests and we can be at least halfway safe Nucluear is the only way to go. Send the radioactive material to Mars or something. heh ;)Or, send it to stay with the "jihadists" and get rid of two problems at once.

;)

I'll agree that the windmills are an eyesore, especially for all those people who live in densly populated Europe. But we have the Great Plains. Perpetually windy, millions of square miles with a sparse population. Perhaps the only downside is all the severe weather, but the odds of a tornado striking a single spot is remote.

Your case for economics based solely on the "conservation of energy" is blown to smitherines with the common dry cell.
NOBODY buys dry cell batteries... :no:

Dry cell batteries are an energy carrier. We're talking about energy sources. Two very different things. Although one could make a convincing argument that ethanol (and hydrogen, BTW) are indeed energy carriers and not sources.

People buy dry cells for portability, not for a permanent, sustainable energy source.

Dry cell batteries are an energy carrier. We're talking about energy sources. Two very different things. Although one could make a convincing argument that ethanol (and hydrogen, BTW) are indeed energy carriers and not sources.

People buy dry cells for portability, not for a permanent, sustainable energy source.

Exactly. Why burn fossil fuels to store energy in ethanol when you can just burn the fossil fuels directly instead.

That'd be akin to carrying a generator on a camping trip to power a hot plate to cook on. Doesn't make as much sense as carrying a white gas stove that burns the gas directly.

Dry cell batteries are an energy carrier. We're talking about energy sources. Two very different things. Although one could make a convincing argument that ethanol (and hydrogen, BTW) are indeed energy carriers and not sources.

People buy dry cells for portability, not for a permanent, sustainable energy source.

As you said above, one could argue either way with conviction.
I am just playing devil's advocate here, because many people read a single-side of the argument and never even THINK about the other side.
I don't think ethanol is the ultimate solution either to be honest, but I do advocate the work and development simply because it may open new doors to technology we don't yet know about. We certainly need to do SOMETHING to reduce the consumption of crude/fossil fuels in combustion engines.

Interestingly enough, there's not really such a big difference between the fuel cell approach and the dry-cell battery approach to providing energy to a closed system. Bottom line in both cases is you desire portable energy to allow you to go long distances without a chord continuously attached to a wall outlet.

Developing an alternative chemical fuel is different in nature from a "battery" to be sure, but the same economics can still drive the demand, pricing, and development of the technology. All I was pointing out is that the "more energy to make it than it gives back" argument is not a 100% sound case for negating technology, and I cited an example we all would know of.

Nice response too BTW! :bow:

On a side note let's not forget this study was conducted by a University in California. I'd like to see a similar study in the agricultural midwest from like Purdue or whatnot. See what they have to say then compare. I never take one study and put complete faith in it.

They didn't even mention grain......

Have you guys ever studied the manufacturing process for a common dry cell battery? Do you know how much energy goes into making an alkaline "AA" battery? Just in the steel case alone, much less the man-made magnetic core inside?
Yet it typically gives off 1.5 Volts for less than 1 hour of continuous use at maximum current.

Your case for economics based solely on the "conservation of energy" is blown to smitherines with the common dry cell.
NOBODY buys dry cell batteries... :no:

Fact is, the end cost of the energy source, and the package it comes in are what will determine it's viability. WERM was spot-on with his comment about the battery-powered jetliner. Likewise, could you imagine a nuclear-powered weedeater? :no:

IMO, the situation that will drive the alternative fuel issue for cars is more likely to be environmental and convenience driven rather than purely cost driven (i.e. price of oil and gas at the pump). However, the prices may be the catalyst that makes alternative fuels more appealing to investors and ultimately drives costs down through improved manufacturing processes and the like.


You're wrong, you're way wrong. I'm not sure how to explain this but its very simple.

If we end oil use today and start producing 100% ethanol, and we lose energy in every production cycle, at some point you run out of ethanol to run tractors and equipment before you can create more to run the next cycle on. The whole point is that all energy sources on earth are simply ways of harvesting stored energy. You're going to grow a crop for 6 mos and expect it to release as much chemical energy as sludge that's been compressed under the earth's crust for millions of years? Like I said, except for energy from the sun, every "source" on earth isn't an energy producer, it is like you said an energy carrier. I would think the law of entropy would dictate that you can never get as much energy out of a cycle as you put in, hence why even the sun will eventually burn itself out.

If we end oil use and go 100% ethanol, where's the extra energy going to come from we have to put into each cycle in order to come out = ? Electricity from nuclear you say? Well then K.I.S.S. why not just go directly to =100% electric cars and skip the complex added step of changing electricity into chemical energy in the form of Ethanol?

It takes time for any newer product to be developed to the point where it is thoroughly viable. The thing about ethanol is that it can't be exhausted as a resource like fossil fuels can. And there aren't foreigners playing with the supply and causing havoc in your economy.

As time goes on ethanol will become more and more economically viable.

Bah....corn is only good for whiskey!

I skimmed the article and it didn't seem to mention anywhere how much land would have to be used to provide enough ethanol for the US fleet? Last time I read something about ethanol as a Fuel source it required everybody in the US becoming a corn farmer and then mowing down the rest of the planet for corn fields and still not having enough ethanol.

It takes time for any newer product to be developed to the point where it is thoroughly viable. The thing about ethanol is that it can't be exhausted as a resource like fossil fuels can. And there aren't foreigners playing with the supply and causing havoc in your economy.

As time goes on ethanol will become more and more economically viable.

They've been trying to get a net energy gain out of ethanol for over 100 years. Still waiting........................

Its not "new" technology by any stretch.

It renewable but if its your only source of energy you'll dwindle in each cycle until you are at zero, then you're screwed. Something else has to donate energy to the production process, and that would have to be either coal, oil, nuclear fuel, whether directly or through electricity production.

Ahh, skip shooting to another planet, send it back where it came from, the heart of a star!! And I just so happen to know where there is one realativly nearby :D

There is no uranium or plutonium at the heart of our sun, only iron left over from lighter elements combining together in nuclear fusion. Probably other trace elements too, but nothing nearly as heavy as plutonium.

Doesn't mean we still couldn't just send the crap to the sun anyway. Not like its gonna hurt anything over there, for those last few seconds it would stay solid matter.

Doesn't mean we still couldn't just send the crap to the sun anyway. Not like its gonna hurt anything over there, for those last few seconds it would stay solid matter.
Nothing wrong with sending it to the sun ... provided you can get it off the planet safely. Rocket launches aren't exactly the most reliable things going and the consequences of failure are pretty stiff.

Nothing wrong with sending it to the sun ... provided you can get it off the planet safely. Rocket launches aren't exactly the most reliable things going and the consequences of failure are pretty stiff.

Yup. One rocket failure while the payload was in the upper atmosphere could ruin the entire planet pretty easily. Look at the fall-out from chernobyl, and that was a ground level explosion within a somewhat fortified reactor. Imagine blowing up the waste from a few reactors a mile or more up.

They've been trying to get a net energy gain out of ethanol for over 100 years. Still waiting........................

Its not "new" technology by any stretch.

It renewable but if its your only source of energy you'll dwindle in each cycle until you are at zero, then you're screwed. Something else has to donate energy to the production process, and that would have to be either coal, oil, nuclear fuel, whether directly or through electricity production.


No, ethanol is not "new" at all. But the mass production of it for automobiles has only began in the last 10 years. There's a big difference between the volumes needed for gas line antifreeze and what's necessary for filling tanks daily. It took 100 years to get to where we are with fossil fuels and we still can barely refine enough. How much energy do you think it takes to cross the ocean with the oil and refine it into gasoline?

And refining ethanol doesn't have to require fossil based energy. They can use other types of energy in the future. The point of the whole exercise is that fossil fuels won't last. The Chinese are driving up demand for fossil fuels and there simply isn't enough.

So, either save for a hydrogen car or get on the ethanol bandwagon.

The Chinese are driving up demand for fossil fuels and there simply isn't enough.
Another overblown assertion that is parrotted time and again without regards to facts.

I'll repeat here what I said in a previous thread over concern about China's appetite for oil. What ulitmately matters is not Chinese consumption, but rather global consumption, and that grew at about a 3% rate last year. That's a bit higher than it has been recently, but hardly alarming.

However if you want to worry about China, their oil consumption is growing at a rate of about 7% per year, which is almost exactly the amount their economy grows. In other words, their oil demand will grow in lockstep with their economy. The Chinese government is already worried about their economy overheating and so it's highly unlikely that their economy, and thus their oil consumption, will ever grow at a rate approaching 10%. When averaged out over the entire global demand, it is a very manageable increase.

As to the concern about oil being a non-renewable resource and we'd better do something now, dammit: well, I don't buy that one either. For the past few years our known and recoverable reserves have increased by more than we consumed. Ever since the dawn of the automobile (and maybe even before), people have been predicting the end of our oil supplies. I think back in the 1920s some scientists said we'd run out in precisely 10 years (from that point). Obviously it never happened, and we never seem to be getting anywhere near the end of our reserves even though our consumption is steadily increasing. No doubt at some point technology and exploration won't be able to uncover any more usable oil and we will indeed start using up the last of the world's reserves. But I'm quite that certain no one reading this forum willl ever see that day.

A lot of people are refuting the Dino Oil theory. There is a theory about oil being created INSIDE the earth. Do a search it's out there. (Has to do w/ methanol I believe - gaining momentum especially since expelled reserves are filling miraculously back up).

I don't buy the oil is gonna dry up tomorow theory either.

And refining ethanol doesn't have to require fossil based energy. They can use other types of energy in the future. The point of the whole exercise is that fossil fuels won't last. The Chinese are driving up demand for fossil fuels and there simply isn't enough.

So, either save for a hydrogen car or get on the ethanol bandwagon.

That's my whole point? Why not make cars that run directly on that "other" source rather than adding in another step where energy is wasted?

A lot of people are refuting the Dino Oil theory. There is a theory about oil being created INSIDE the earth. Do a search it's out there. (Has to do w/ methanol I believe - gaining momentum especially since expelled reserves are filling miraculously back up).

I don't buy the oil is gonna dry up tomorow theory either.
I think gaining momentum is a little generous, but I also think the idea is interesting nonetheless.

You're wrong, you're way wrong. I'm not sure how to explain this but its very simple.

Are you going Freudian on me here or what?

You can't explain "simple" things?
Me no understand. :confused:

Are you going Freudian on me here or what?

You can't explain "simple" things?
Me no understand. :confused:


It's very simple dude: Created in the darkest depths of Moria, oil is actually a byproduct of Balrog dung. Except down there the toilets are upside down and everything flows upwards. So when we have an earthquake, cracks are created which makes this "dung" flow upwards and out of oil wells.

There's really no oil shortage. Balrogs will be ****ting forever. It's no fairy tale. Honest.

You're wrong, you're way wrong. I'm not sure how to explain this but its very simple.

If we end oil use today and start producing 100% ethanol, and we lose energy in every production cycle, at some point you run out of ethanol to run tractors and equipment before you can create more to run the next cycle on. The whole point is that all energy sources on earth are simply ways of harvesting stored energy. You're going to grow a crop for 6 mos and expect it to release as much chemical energy as sludge that's been compressed under the earth's crust for millions of years? Like I said, except for energy from the sun, every "source" on earth isn't an energy producer, it is like you said an energy carrier. I would think the law of entropy would dictate that you can never get as much energy out of a cycle as you put in, hence why even the sun will eventually burn itself out.

If we end oil use and go 100% ethanol, where's the extra energy going to come from we have to put into each cycle in order to come out = ? Electricity from nuclear you say? Well then K.I.S.S. why not just go directly to =100% electric cars and skip the complex added step of changing electricity into chemical energy in the form of Ethanol?

No, no, no. Who said anything about ending oil use and going 100% ethanol? :confused:
You stated that TWICE in your reply... is that really your frame of mind with this?
Why must folks take a comment to the extreme all the time?
Going to a 15-40% mix of gas and ethanol or alcohol is hardly ending our oil use, nor is it 100% ethanol for all cars. I digress here.

By your same argument above though, we must stop using coal, oil, and batteries too, because all of them require energy to make them usable sources themselves.
Crude doesn't jump out of the ground, transform into gas, and fall into your tank without energy being put into it. It takes oil rigs, drills, pumps, and pipes to get crude to a refinery. Then there's the energy to refine (more pumping, heating, filtration, etc.). Then as someone else said, how efficient are the tankers that are used to move the crude or refined fuel across an entire ocean to a distribution facility? Pump it into holding tanks, then pump it into tanker trucks for delivery to gas stations, then pump it into your personal gas tank... for final use.

Mining equipment used to strip mine coal is NOT fuel efficient either. Huge diesel trucks get 2 gallons/mile hauling 10 metric tons of coal from the pit to a rail car facility. Excavators suck diesel at huge rates while loading the rail cars. Diesel-powered conveyor belts move the coal from yards to furnaces. Deep- or Pit-mining for coal is even worse economically than strip-mining, but tree-huggers have made strip-mining a no-no in most cases, so we have to pay more and go underground and leave the trees alone. Diesel-powered locomotives are used to pull coal out of the mountains of W.Va. and Pennsylvania - not very fuel efficient either.
Yet there is a coal-fired power plant right above my house (Belews Creek Powerstation of Duke Energy) that supplies power in the Winston-Salem/Greensboro area of central NC, and the coal comes from W.Va.
They dam up a river to make a heatsink/water supply for the steam turbines in the plant, then railroad in coal from 400 miles away to power it... genius. :rolleyes:

The secret to perpetual energy consumption is to perfect the method of energy transfer - NOT energy creation. We cannot create energy per se, we can only manipulate and transfer the energy already available to us here and now. Solar is the only energy that is being added to our closed-system here on earth - everything else is already here in some shape or form. It is up to us to manage it for optimal use.

You are correct about entropy. Things tend towards equilibrium and some "dissaray" when left to natural forces, and it requires energy to organize "things" into specific order, energy included. We are in persuit of "organized energy", meaning energy that we can pump, drop, carry, or use in some way that is convenient and safe, so we must accept that it will "cost" us energy to achieve organized energy.

Minimizing the entropy of all potential fuel/power supply systems should be our goal, but in many cases the economics don't (or can't) justify the best solution available by the laws of physics. You see, the laws of physics don't give a rat'sass about the money involved in a process, so the most viable solution to powering a car may be totally unjustifyable because of the cost.
There must be some happy medium-ground that complies to both the laws of physic (and thermodynamics) and the laws of economics. THAT is where I stand up and promote that the research and development of gasohol should be supported. Even though I don't think it is the end-all solution to the fuel problem, I think it is a worthwhile step that offers short-term benefits to farmers, researchers, and ultimately consumers, and I also think it will open new doors to technology that we currently don't know squat about.
It's like walking before you run.
Also, I would love to see the government stop paying subsidies to farmers to NOT grow corn and grains on US farmland. Let the farmers grow the crops and earn monies, pay taxes, etc. Let's redirect the governmental subsidy money to pay for research instead of paying to let fields sit and grow useless weeds. Get money into the universities and get the kids some projects to do. Get development of new cars and trucks underway to use new alternative fuels more efficiently. Educate. Employ. AND, we help to remove ourselves - just a tiny bit - from the dependency on foreign oil.
These are NOT bad things IMO.

(What would anybody in the entire world want from Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Tajikistan, or any other middle-eastern nation if it weren't for the oil? We sure won't be there harvesting trees for lumber or bottling their water. :rolleyes: )

It's very simple dude: Created in the darkest depths of Moria, oil is actually a byproduct of Balrog dung. Except down there the toilets are upside down and everything flows upwards. So when we have an earthquake, cracks are created which makes this "dung" flow upwards and out of oil wells.

There's really no oil shortage. Balrogs will be ****ting forever. It's no fairy tale. Honest.

ROTFLMAO!!! :D
Awesome post!!!

I needed a little laugh this morning. :thumb:

It takes time for any newer product to be developed to the point where it is thoroughly viable. The thing about ethanol is that it can't be exhausted as a resource like fossil fuels can. And there aren't foreigners playing with the supply and causing havoc in your economy.

As time goes on ethanol will become more and more economically viable.

I agree - at least in the short-term (like 10-25 years).

The other point, which I made in another thread like a year ago, is that we have no idea what other uses we can develop for crude or "fossil" fuels in the future.

Who would have thought, just 100 years ago, that plastics would exist, much less be as prevailent in our lives as they are today? Most plastics are petroleum-based materials, so we are basically consuming our future supply of "plastic" as we put gasoline in our cars.

What if we discover 50 years from now that petroleum-based chemical can cure cancer? Or be used for other humanitarian benefit? With 7% annual growth in China, increasing air travel globally, and all the growth in the industrialized nations over the next 50 years... will there be enough left to do anything about it then?

Let's assume that a new fuel could be burned passively in any car being made today with no mods to the vehicle...
Given the scale of consumption we are talking about here, even a 10% reduction in global consumption of crude makes a HUGE difference, and I'd like to bank those resources for a rainy day, or leave them for my children to use, if I don't have to use them now. DK's indication about foreign influence on my economy is paramount as well - another good point.
That's just my humble opinion.

Good Post ProudPony, completely agree.

As far as how much it cost for the tankers to move oil across the oceans, it is costs ~.02 per barrel.

It should be noted that it was interesting that the artical suggests increases in cost for refinery processes while there will be a decrease in price per gallon. I'm sure that the oil companies would be against that.