The World Thru My Eyes - I speak my mind and man does it like to talk.
The good and the bad, why can't it be easier?
Published on July 20, 2007 By CharlesCS In The Environment
One of the issues that has been talked a lot about in the Gov’t and here in JU has been about alternative fuels. How we need to lower our dependency of foreign oil or all oil for that matter. Some will argue that our dependency on foreign oil finances these tyrannical dictatorships such as Venezuela, Iran and, at one point, Iraq (not today, not now anyways). Others will argue that the constant use of oil while driving is causing or adding to the Global Warming phenomenon that is believed to be taking place (believed cause it has not been scientifically proven so far). We also have our animal and environmental activists who feel that the drilling for oil puts the ecosystems in danger and many animals and plants have or can die because of it. There are even those that would argue that eventually oil will run out. The interesting part is that they are all correct.

Countries like Iran who are known to finance terrorist groups, supply them with weapons and even under prohibition to continue, research nuclear power; this while promising the complete destruction of Israel. Then there’s Venezuela and their president Chavez, a man who little by little has been oppressing and taking away the few freedoms the people from Venezuela have left. Not to mention how often he insults our country. Talk about bad for business.

Global Warming is another issue. According to some scientist, the CO2 created when burning gas raises up and gets caught in our atmosphere. At the same time the Sun’s rays reach the planet surface and turn into heat. Some of this heat is reflected back into space. The theory is, according to these scientist, the CO2 trapped in the atmosphere retains some of this heat that is reflected back into space and little by little begin to warm the planet more than it was suppose to and possible melting the polar caps making the ocean levels rise and resulting in something similar to the movie The Day After Tomorrow thus creating the Global Warming phenomenon.

Many times thru out the years drilling for oil have had its disasters. Oil spills resulting by mistakes and ignorance have cause the death and destruction of many animals, plants and even entire ecosystems. To add to this tragedy, even the transportation of the oil has had its problems such as spills from tanker trucks that get into accidents causing terrible pollution to the area and accidents in the ocean with tankers that destroy beaches and kill animals and plant life across miles and miles of coast line.

And last but not least the big what if it runs out. I mean at the rate we consume oil, chances are we will use it all up way before it can replenish itself. Besides last I check there were no dinosaurs roaming about. Sure it’s not gonna happen anytime soon, but then one never really knows right? Some believe we will be out of the slimmy black stuff in less than 100 years. I’m sure at one time 100 years sounded like a lot of time, but in this day in age where people expect to have a Quarter ponder with cheese, large fries and a coke by the time the cash register closes, 100 years is nothing more than watching your kids grow up and have grand children. Hell, we are even trying to extend life expectancy way beyond 100 years cause some just don’t think that is enough time to enjoy our lives. I for one would not want someone like Osama Bin Laden, Rosie O’Donnell or Will Farrell being around for 200 years either making our lives miserable, blabbering their lips 24 on TV or making bad movies.

Well, now that I have pointed out all the good reasons for moving away from our oil dependency now it’s time for me to point out some of the repercussions that can occur of we chose to leave oil behind for good. Let’s just say that the world would probably be a very, very different place if we chose to do so. Then again the chances of removing oil (for all the right reasons) from our lifestyle all together may never actually be possible.

Here is a small list of some of the uses for oil in today’s world:

1) Car, trucks, boats, planes and many other modes of transportation use it to move around, get from point A to point B, transports products, materials and people. And in most situations for convenience and entertainment.

2) Plastics are an oil by-product. The milk bottle, the plastic bag for your groceries, parts for you car, the toys for our children, electronics for our cars and homes, hell even our favorite, can’t live without, don’t leave home without it item; the credit card is a by-product of oil.

3) Many factories depend on oil to run that machines, their vehicles and even to maintain the equipment.

4) Roads are another by-product of oil. The tar used to make roads comes from oil.

5) Tires are also made from oil.

6) There are many power plants that use oil to generate electricity.

7) Fertilizer and pesticides are also by-products of oil that help grow and protect the food we eat.

8) But one major thing that is very important to the average person that comes from oil, jobs. All these by-products, all these vehicles, all these factories can not be made, driven or function without the workers.

Now imagine that we started looking for new alternative fuels because we feel that the problems I described at the beginning of this article were (and are) considered so important to us. While there are several ideas for fuel alternatives, they are mostly in testing or experimental stages. Though some will argue that this is because the Big Oil Industry has a chock hold on the creation of a new fuel or idea that could spell disaster for their ginourmous quarterly profits. I tend to agree. Still even if we could come up with an alternative fuel by, say, next year; imagine how long it would take to convert everything over.

How many people do you know have brand new cars? How many people you know can afford to by a brand new car at any given moment? How many people you know drive used, very used cars? How many times have you seen an owner of a used car trade it, sell it or junk it and get another used car? In this case even the concept of the CAFE Standards would be pointless. This would require every single vehicle owner (car, truck, 18 wheeler, motorcycle, etc.) to get rid of their current vehicles in order to get an alternative fuel operated vehicle. Either that or spend thousands more converting their current vehicles (which would be a waste of time). Not to mention what would you do with all of these useless vehicles now? We can barely get rid of them now, even with people buying them nearly held together by duck tape. Sure the process of switching over will be long and will allow for the disposal or recycling of the old gas driven vehicles to be smoother. But I have to wonder where will all the money, the average not so rich Joe will need, come from to buy these new alternative fuel vehicles (because I have never heard of a factory making used cares before) when they can barely afford to by a used car, let alone a new one? And what makes you think that in a capitalist world like planet earth or even in a capitalist country like the US will these new vehicles cost cheap? This is only the impact an overnight (as some here seem to make it sound like is what they want) conversion from oil to an alternative fuel will have on vehicles. Imagine the factories that will have to switch from oil to alternatives fuels, imagine the airline industry having to modify thousands of airliners to use an alternative fuel (if it is even possible), imagine all the by-products that can be lost because we wish to move away from oil all together.

I’m sure there are some of you right now thinking “we are not saying get rid of oil completely”. Sure you’re not. Not yet anyways. That’s how it always starts, first you stop using for vehicles, then you get factories to stop using them, then you convince the people that the oil by-products are still causing damages like garbage that takes too long to decompose, animals that die due to plastics, the never ending piles of used and worn out tires, pollution of water and soil, etc. This would only be the beginning, soon people against oil activist will be formed; constant walks, protest and even civil disobedience will begin. It’s what is called a vicious cycle that never ends.

Think of all the factories that would shut down because they can’t afford the upgrades, all the gas stations that will go out of business because they can’t switch over and worst of all, all the jobless, carless people. And we are worried about how many unemployed and underpaid people we have today or how bad the economy is now.

My conclusion? I am all for changes in the problems stated at the beginning of this article. Taking one form of funding away from terrorist organizations and tyrannical dictators is a plus for me. I also don’t want to find out the hard way if Global Warming is happening and is our fault. I definitely don’t want to destroy or be responsible in a sense of the destruction of entire ecosystems on this planet. But more than anything, I would hate to see what would happen as we get closer to a shortage in oil underground, the gas prices will be so mind boggling Ferrari Shoes will be the next best thing. Can’t drive a Ferrari? Wear Ferrari shoes while you walk.

But let’s be realistic. Neither George W. Bush, Congress, the Senate or any other politician today can solve this problem any time soon. To be honest I don’t see large scale solution any time in my lifetime. The damage would be higher than the benefits, considering how today lifestyle is is here in the US of course. But that’s just my opinion. I think it would take a long time to find an alternative fuel source plentiful enough to move away from oil completely or even partially. Then the process of switching over, changing vehicles and machinery, retraining of employees, etc. will be even long of a process. Not to mention the outrageous amount of money that will be spent, the companies that will go bye-bye due to the inability to afford the changes, the people that will lose their jobs due to this. I don’t know, even in the long run this will be one of those “it will get worse before it gets better” situation. And judging by how we love our lifestyle in this country, the will be more steps backwards then forward before this ever comes true, or partially true anyways. That’s what I think.

Comments
on Jul 20, 2007
A couple of points:

1. Cars don't last forever. Eventually every car that is on the road today will be replaced. Increasing CAFE standards is a long term solution -- I have heard no one saying that everyone would need to go out and buy new cars immediately. Additionally, a CAFE standard would increase the MPG of a car -- not change the type of fuel that it used to make the car run.

2. The same by-products of oil can be made through a bio-refining process. You are using a carbohydrate rather than a hydrocarbon, but the same products can be made.

3. 18 wheelers use diesel -- no upgrades are required for biodiesel to be used in these vehicles today. In fact, may school districts around the country have already begun to use a 20% blend of biodiesel in its fleets.

4. Similarly, a lot of the country (if not all) is already using 10% ethanol in its gasoline blends. As the percentage of ethanol in the gasoline increases, cars will need to be designed to operate efficiently on these higher percentages. However, this already happens in Brazil (with the same car companies that sell in the US) since Brazil mandates at least a 25% ethanol blend.

5. Jet fuel is its own ball of wax and I'm not aware of any current legislation that is seeking to make it renewable.
on Jul 20, 2007

Additionally, a CAFE standard would increase the MPG of a car

And increase deaths on highways

The same by-products of oil can be made through a bio-refining process. You are using a carbohydrate rather than a hydrocarbon, but the same products can be made.

And people starve in other nations since the cost of those bio alternatives drive up the price of food staples.

18 wheelers use diesel -- no upgrades are required for biodiesel to be used in these vehicles today. In fact, may school districts around the country have already begun to use a 20% blend of biodiesel in its fleets.

If no conversion is necessary, why not 100%? (See above)

Similarly, a lot of the country (if not all) is already using 10% ethanol in its gasoline blends. As the percentage of ethanol in the gasoline increases, cars will need to be designed to operate efficiently on these higher percentages. However, this already happens in Brazil (with the same car companies that sell in the US) since Brazil mandates at least a 25% ethanol blend.

The bottom line is oil is more efficient, so if you increase the efficiency of cars, Gas still is the better fuel energy conversion wise.

 

on Jul 20, 2007
And increase deaths on highways


How does increasing the miles per gallon of cars increase deaths on the highway?

And people starve in other nations since the cost of those bio alternatives drive up the price of food staples.


Not in all cases, Dr. Guy. Have you heard of cellulose ethanol? If not you should check it out -- it's a very interesting and viable alternative.

If no conversion is necessary, why not 100%? (See above)


My understanding is that currently biodiesel costs more. Additionally, it is always difficult to convince folks to try something new.

The bottom line is oil is more efficient


I'm not going to argue that gas isn't more efficient. The questions is how much do you want to depend on other nations to sustain our lifestyle.



on Jul 20, 2007
And people starve in other nations since the cost of those bio alternatives drive up the price of food staples.


PS. This has been refuted. The rising price of food at the moment is connected to the rising price of gasoline, not the increased used of crops for fuel.

U.S. food consumer prices, as measured by the government's Consumer Price Index, have risen from a year-over-year rate of 2.5 percent in September 2006 to 3.7 percent this past April. The RFA-funded study found a $1.00 increase in the price of gasoline will result in a 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent increase in consumer food prices, compared a 0.3 percent jump resulting from a $1.00 per bushel rise in the price of corn. Source: CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/economy/bc.ethanol.foodprices.study.reut/index.htm
on Jul 20, 2007
How does increasing the miles per gallon of cars increase deaths on the highway?


How do you make cars more fuel efficient (at least in practice)?

PS. This has been refuted. The rising price of food at the moment is connected to the rising price of gasoline, not the increased used of crops for fuel.


PPS - You cannot refute what has not been stated. I never stated it HAS done it only that it WILL do it. And unless you want to contradict the law of supply and demand, you cannot refute it.

Not in all cases, Dr. Guy. Have you heard of cellulose ethanol? If not you should check it out -- it's a very interesting and viable alternative.


I did an article on it. Unfortunately, that does not address point 4, nor explain how to replace the current oil potential energy with bio potential energy when the latter is very inefficient in the conversion process. Requiring much more energy to produce, and giving off much less energy after refinement.
on Jul 21, 2007
And increase deaths on highways


How does increasing the miles per gallon of cars increase deaths on the highway?


Because to make any serious increase of MPG, would require making the vehicle a lot smaller and lighter just for starters. Along with the accompanying engine rethink. Which car would you rather be in during an accident? A full size SUV or a Geo Metro? The answer for me is a no brainer...the SUV.

I've been in 2 car accidents in my life. One was in a 1989 Cadillac Coupe DeVille @ 12MPG (I walked away with a few bruises). The other was in a 2001 Toyota Tercel @ 30MPG ( I spent 2 1/2 months in a hospital recouperating). Both accidents were "side" impacts and both happened at about the same speed. The pick-up truck that hit us in the Caddy was a Nissan Hard Body. The one that hit the Tercel was a lousy Geo Metro. I think you can figure out why I would prefer the SUV. It's called more metal, more mass, more able to absorb the impact. Less metal, less mass, less able to absorb impact. Both vehicles were totaled. The responding EMS told me I was a lucky man to be alive. The Tercel crumpled up like tissue paper. The Caddy was a T-Bone and suffered a bent frame. We opened the Caddys door and got out. We had to be cut from the Tercel. That's the main reason the bigger cars and SUV's are making a "strong" comeback.
on Jul 21, 2007
The bottom line is oil is more efficient


I'm not going to argue that gas isn't more efficient. The questions is how much do you want to depend on other nations to sustain our lifestyle.


We wouldn't have to, if the Greenies and Congress would just let us drill for oil here in our country. Say like the gulf coast, off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida and that piece of property up north (whose name escapes me for the moment).
on Jul 21, 2007
And people starve in other nations since the cost of those bio alternatives drive up the price of food staples.


PS. This has been refuted. The rising price of food at the moment is connected to the rising price of gasoline, not the increased used of crops for fuel.


No it has not been refuted. It has been proven that rising price of food in smaller nations, particularly corn based food staples (which is the main ingredient in ethanol) is directly tied to the bio alternative, ethanol. One of our "biggest" exports to these smaller nations is ....you guessed it, "corn". Which is why the food price is rising. Because we are shipping less and keeping more to make the ethanol. Ethanol also takes more energy to produce one gallon of fuel than it does to make 1 gallon of gasoline. The last part alone makes ethanol not such a good alternative. These are the things the media is conveniently leaving out of their campaign.


U.S. food consumer prices, as measured by the government's Consumer Price Index, have risen from a year-over-year rate of 2.5 percent in September 2006 to 3.7 percent this past April. The RFA-funded study found a $1.00 increase in the price of gasoline will result in a 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent increase in consumer food prices, compared a 0.3 percent jump resulting from a $1.00 per bushel rise in the price of corn. Source: CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/14/news/economy/bc.ethanol.foodprices.study.reut/index.htm


He did say "other" countries....NOT the US!
on Jul 21, 2007

No it has not been refuted. It has been proven that rising price of food in smaller nations,


then why is mexico crying that the price of tortias in mexico is going up. becouse the usa is using it's corn to make bio fuel
on Jul 22, 2007
He did say "other" countries....NOT the US!


I said others since they have less capacity to endure price increases and will thus be faster and more severly impacted. It will happen in the US as well. Once the greens decide to make us use ethanol without thought to reprecussions.
on Jul 24, 2007
Wow, I forgot about this article. Guess been a bit busy.

1. Cars don't last forever. Eventually every car that is on the road today will be replaced. Increasing CAFE standards is a long term solution -- I have heard no one saying that everyone would need to go out and buy new cars immediately. Additionally, a CAFE standard would increase the MPG of a car -- not change the type of fuel that it used to make the car run.


Really? Tell that to my 92' Ford Explorer, of the 69' Camaro parked outside. You don't seem to know the passion that people have for cars and how expensive and sometimes worthless it is to buy a car now a days that it's easier to buy a used old car and maintain it. Do you really think that people will just eventually buy a new car and that CAFE standards will become common? How long is long term? It is said that gas supplies will end in about 50 years, what will be the point of CAFE standards if by then we will have ahd to create a new alternative one way or the other? Besides, whats the point of raising MPG if you still gonna pollute the planet?

2. The same by-products of oil can be made through a bio-refining process. You are using a carbohydrate rather than a hydrocarbon, but the same products can be made.


Yea, and tell me how many businesses and factories have the money to just switch over and replace every single gallon of milk currently out there? Another long term program? We need results and we need them now, not 20 or 30 years from now. You make it seem as if these changes cost nothing, that they will simply go "OK, let's do it". Can you imagine how many jobs will be lost just so factories can afford to upgrade? Man people like you seem to have a hard time looking at all the consequences while not having a problem looking at the good side of it.

3. 18 wheelers use diesel -- no upgrades are required for biodiesel to be used in these vehicles today. In fact, may school districts around the country have already begun to use a 20% blend of biodiesel in its fleets.


As DrGuy said if there is no need to upgrade required why only 20%? Why not 100%? I love it when there is an alternative but we make excuses as to why we don't use it. "It's too expensive, blah blah, blah."

4. Similarly, a lot of the country (if not all) is already using 10% ethanol in its gasoline blends. As the percentage of ethanol in the gasoline increases, cars will need to be designed to operate efficiently on these higher percentages. However, this already happens in Brazil (with the same car companies that sell in the US) since Brazil mandates at least a 25% ethanol blend.


OK and what cars do you think will be designed to operate more efficiently? Tada, new cars. And people don't always buy new cars. Here's a good example as too why:



To go even farther MSNBC has an article called 5 Reasons to Buy a Used Car Link which would make the average person think more of not getting a new car.

5. Jet fuel is its own ball of wax and I'm not aware of any current legislation that is seeking to make it renewable.


It's only a matter of time. People don't care ATM because not everyone uses this type of full on a daily basis.

These solutions are long term as you said. They would take a long time to develop and actually make a difference, by then we will need a new source of energy. We need to stay away from oil related energy, that's the point. If we wish to stop financing terrorist groups thru oil, if we wish to slow down Global Warming, if we wish stop the senseless death of animals and ecosystems and avoid creating oil by-products we need to find new alternatives that will not depend on it completely. Not these small solutions that only make 25% difference here and there.