Means less handling for the controllers, this way they can treat every departure the same. Keeps everyone in a corridor.

[quote=402DRVR;338932]I wonder how many ppl will get killed driving these hybrids? Anyone seen crash test involving hybrids?Bus vs hybrid hmmmmmmmmmmm i wonder who wins that?Besides those cars are damn ugly kind of like the 380.



Taxi,s slower than comair!

[quote=DYNASTY HVY;338969]I don't know if you are kidding or just ignorant. Try reading a little about the subject before you post and make yourself look dumb. Most hybrids are actually traditional production model vehicles which simply have different engine setups and drive trains.

All vehicles still have to live up to Federal Highway Safety Standards. Too bad this obtuse line of thinking is one reason people buy their huge SUVs when they do not all really need a vehicle so huge. Maybe they like getting 12 mpg as opposed to 40.

But think about this, in a supply and demand world. One where demand is driving the price ever higher, does it not make sense that a decrease in demand I.E. a higher mileage vehicle (hybrid or conventional) would help with demand going down? Thereby at least slowing the price increase.

Who are you to make a determination as to what people should be driving? I own a large pick-up truck that I drive around. Do I need something that big? No. Do I want something that big? Yes.

A lot of the time it has to do more with want versus need. My truck gets 15 mpg, but it's also paid for. Even with gas prices hovering around $4.00 per gallon, it is still much more economical for me to keep my truck than it is to buy something newer with better gas mileage.

Besides, I have no interest in purchasing a hybrid.

Or on something.

Actually I am not trying to tell you what you should or should not drive. I am simply presenting an alternative. You could also say the same for me I don't need to drive, I want to. I could ride my bicycle everywhere and burn no gas at all. Bottom line we are going to have to change the way we think and what we want. If you are happy paying so much for gas then knock yourself out. But, you have to accept that so many people wanting to guzzle gas only drives demand higher and higher. So either America changes or quits its wining about high gas prices. Unfortunately the me, me , me attitude that runs rampant in our society is going to put us in a real bad situation here real soon.

I can afford $4.00 gas. I can even afford the cost of heating my house for now. But how many people out there are not as well off as a lot of the people posting here? Sooner or later we either change or a lot of people are going to suffer.

If it is more economical to keep your truck go for it. Our other vehicle is a pick-up. I use it and the attributes it has quite frequently. I am not about to simply sell it and buy another hybrid just for the sake of buying a hybrid car and I do not propse that you do the same. I do however, think people could educate themselves and think about their next purchase when that time comes.

Make the best economic decision for yourself. Obviously high gas prices are nothing compared to a brand new car payment. But at some time I will have to replace my truck and when that time comes I will at least consider my genuine needs compared to the economics of paying a lot for gas and getting a mileage I can live with.

If our infrastructure were more bicycle friendly I would do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately a lot of city planners consider the shoulder of a busy highway to suffice as as a bike path.

Oil is expensive. Calories are cheap and in far greater supply. :)

I don't think we really disagree but using your earlier argument who has the right to tell me what to do with my many excess calories?:)

Good point! :)

The nice part about continuously rising oil prices is it will affect certain people more than others. High oil prices hurt everyone, but they hurt some people way more.
They hurt people who are driving their V8 F350's that get 12MPG.
They hurt people who have old, inefficient appliances
They hurt people who won't invest a few bucks in energy efficient windows
They hurt people who refuse to by hybrid and/or plug in hybrid cars because they are afraid
They hurt airlines that are still flying around old, inefficient aircraft

They hurt people who refuse to cut their oil consumption a lot more than those of us who have spent a few bucks on making their lives more energy efficient.

The price of oil is only going to go up and up and up. Nothing will stop this overall trend until we switch to alternative energy. Maybe it is time to rethink your old, wasteful ways. Remember high oil prices affect certain people more than others.

I think it's GM (not sure) that just unveiled the new hydrogen car, unlimited resource. How would you like to carry 10000lbs of water that isn't flammable?? In 50 years people will think we were crazy for using gasoline!

You are a hypocrite. You preach the "green sermon" with an emphasis on alternative fuel, but yet your avatar shows you gleefully smiling in the cockpit of an airliner and your profile shows you as a Cessna pilot. Do either of those use alternative fuel?

Wait.... what???? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Unless it's a glider using winds aloft, etc for lift, there is no such thing as alternative fuel.... eventually there will be, I wish that day would come as soon as possible so we can get our economy back in line (it's not THE reason, it would help though!!!).

Most people who drive an F-350 do so because of their work. i.e., farming, construction, small business, etc. Do you take pleasure in seeing the welfare of one's well being in question? Sure seems like it.

Not everybody out there can afford the latest and greatest appliances. So not only are they struggling with a higher cost of living, but punks such as yourself are happy to see that cost increase affect peoples' lives.

You obviously do not own a home, do you? Windows are a lot more than just a "few bucks". I'm sure some people would love to invest in more efficient windows, but they lack the funds to do so. Would like to foot the bill for them?

I refuse to buy one. Am I afraid? Nope. Do higher gas prices hurt me? Nope. Unless you live in a very crowded metropolitan area, hybrids aren't going to save you any money. Also, hybrids aren't cheap either. The average American is in debt with credit cards and mortgages and the last thing they need to do is purchase a new car.

Not true. There is a reason why there are still many DC-8's and DC-9's flying around: they are paid for and they generate revenues and a lot of profit. Some of the airlines have fleets consisting of newer, more fuel efficient aircraft and are still affected by higher fuel costs.

Maybe you should stop flying airplanes and give up on your aspirations to become a pilot - think of all the fuel you won't be using. It's obvious by your posts that you have a far left, environmental agenda and won't be happy until everyone stops and hugs a tree.

Let's Talk Alternative Fuels
 

Gents:

In addition to being a military and airline pilot, I'm also a Mechanical Engineer, and a scientist at heart.

Hydrogen as a fuel source: Politicians love to tout this, but where do you get it?

Well, their answer is always easy: Water!!

Question: how do you get the hydrogen out of the water?

Answer: by putting a lot of electrical current in to the water to break the atomic bonds through electrolysis.

Sad fact: it takes about the same amount of electrical energy to break down the water into Hydrogen and oxygen as you can get if you burn it in a 100% thermal-efficient device.

Problem is, vehicles are never 100% thermally efficient.

I had this discussion with an idiot Capt I had the misfortune of flying with for a couple of months. She then touted solar cells.

Problem: solar cells take a lot of energy to manufacture, and produce very little power. One cell can produce about a volt, but it is the current times voltage that produces POWER (P=I x V). Photovoltaic cells can typically only produce about one-tenth to one one-hundredth of a Watt. This means you would need 1000 to 10000 of them to power one 100-watt light bulb. For the size of that solar array, you could just have a small window to let in sunlight to read.

What about wind power? Europe has a fair amount of wind farms, but they all have back-up generators as winds are never continuous. Additionally, since they are aerodynamic structures, usually made by aerospace companies, they cost so much to build, erect, and maintain, that one estimate was they take 15 years to BREAK-EVEN on the value of electricity produced vs the cost of building the windmill!

Biofuel:

Sir Richard's flight was a stunt, pure and simple. I could probably fly the 747-400 with extra-virgin olive oil, but good God, olive oil costs $28.00 a gallon!! Converting coconut oil isn't any cheaper, and has anyone done the math to figure out how many coconuts (or palm trees) it would take to produce the jet fuel for one year? The 747-400 holds 386,000 lbs of fuel, or about 62,000 gallons---that is a lot of coconuts.

Ethanol: Ethanol is just like hydrogen--takes about the same energy to make it as you can get out of it--it is energy neutral. Existing infrastructure makes the national petroleum pipeline system useless--it corrodes the pipes. So, it has to be TRUCKED or sent by rail. Both of these INCREASE our dependence on combustible fuels--ironic, no?

Ethanol has three unfortunate side-effects:

1. Makes grains for your bread and breakfast cereal more scarce, so food prices go UP. US export of surplus grain for starving, mis-managed 3rd-world countries diminishes--more people die.

2. The vast majority of grain production in the US is not for direct consumption by people--it is for use as livestock feed. Since these same grains will be more expensive as feed, the meat products that come from them will also be more expensive.

3. Increased corn production requires lots of WATER. The midwest aquifir system has been overdrawn for about 4 decades, ie, more water is being pumped out than ever gets back in (especially true in CO and other high-n-dry climates). This is shown as the water table keeps dropping, year after year.

Ethanol production has substantially increased the pumping rates. There is now a danger that the water levels will fall so much that major midwest cities may run out of water for PEOPLE. Sounds far-fetched, but Atlanta came close this summer--and they use lakes. Most of the midwest uses wells.

So ethanol saves you gas, but you run out of water.

Fuel cells: who knows how a fuel-cell works? I do!! I didn't so I researched it:

The fuel cell is essentially an internal combustion Battery with no moving parts. Hydrogen is "burned" (combined chemically with oxygen) in a process that produces electric current. The waste products, as is always true of burning hydrogen, is water vapor.


Problems:

1. Still have to get hydrogen somehow--it doesn't just come out of the ground. Damn, you have to use ELECTRICITY to get it!!

2. Fuel cells have a critical and expensive component, an osmotic membrane, that allows the whole thing to work. Problem is, it is only good for about 500-1000 hours of operation before it must be replaced.

Currently, the cost of the cell is $25,000. The car manufacturers hope to reduce that in half--to $12k.

So, here's your "enviro-friendly" car of the future: you have a 1500-lb fuel cell under the trunk where you used to have a 120 lb gas tank. Vehicle handles poorly, accelerates like a 727 on one engine. Needs a bigger engine.

About once a year (maybe two), you have to shell out 12k+ to get a new fuel tank system.

Neat.


25-30 years ago, McDonnell-Douglas did a paper study to see if an airliner could be made to fly on hydrogen.

Answer: Using a DC-10 as the baseline, they found it could be done.

1. Liquid hydrogen must be stored in spherical cryogenic tanks. It is impractical to put various sized small tanks in the wings, so they put them (two, I believe) in the fuselage. It occupied HALF of the total fuselage volume.

2. Total pax, all coach, was 90-100. In a DC-10.

3. It had a range of 600 miles.

Now, if you crash, you either die from hydrogen flames in the fuselage (which burns invisibly), or you get frozen by liquid hydrogen like that Russian computer nerd in the James Bond flick.

Bottom line: there is simply no economical alternative to fossil fuels, especially for aircraft. Jet aircraft will always need jet fuel. You may get alternatives for land-based transportation.

If we really want thermodynamic efficiency, we would have to trade down, and everyone would fly turboprops, or really, piston-props.

Biomass fuels will become viable when they use prolific weeds, like sawgrass, that do not require water, grow anywhere, and where the entire PLANT is converted to fuel, not just the seeds.

Wave power, Geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric all have their place--but none will eliminate our fossil-fuel dependence, just reduce it. (15% tops).

Fact: as long as the economy of China and India continue to grow, there will be an increasing shortage of fossil fuels.

I'm not a Dale Gribble conspiracy nut. Look up "Peak Oil," either on Google, or Wikipedia. Draw your own conclusions.

OK, but what about all the energy it takes to convert crude oil into gasoline? That should be no different than what it takes to produce ethanol or hydrogen.

Laws of Thermodynamics
 

Led Zep:

There are three important laws of thermo, but the 1st Law is the one that needs to be invoked here:

"In any system, the total amount of energy remains constant."

Put another way:

"In any system, Total energy In = Total Work + Energy Out."

To convert Crude Oil into refined fuels takes heat and time. I don't know the exact figures, but I would guess 5-7% of a barrel of oil is used to refine it into various fuels.

Let's talk energy density:

Energy density is the amount of energy, usually expressed as Heat, in a given amount of fuel. Example: Gasoline has about 20,000 BTU (British Thermal Units) per lb.

No other fuel has that kind of density. Ethanol is on the order of 17,000.

Hydrogen is about the same--somewhere between 15,000 and 17,000.
(Sorry, my thermo book is in the attic, so I can't look up the exact figures right now).

Let's say you want to make 20,000 BTU of Hydrogen:

You take water, and start running DC current through it. Doesn't have to be high voltage, but it does have to be DC. Hydrogen forms at one electrode, and Oxygen at the other (can't remember if H goes to Cathode, and O to anode, but I think that's right).

You collect 1.4 lb of Hydrogen, at room temperature, which is a BIG tank. You run it through a compressor, it gets hot, you run it through a refrigeration unit...and another...and another...until it is cryogenic.

There..you have 20,000 BTU stored in your cryotank, where it can sit for a few days before it all boils-off.

You get your electric bill, and discover the total cost for all your electrical work is 24,000 BTU.

Where did the extra 4000 BTU go?

Heat losses. Whether it was friction (heat) in the compressor, or the slow heating of the water due to electric current flowing through it, some energy was dissipated as heat.

But due to the 1st law of thermo, the total In = Total out. The useful "work" out was stored energy in the Hydrogen fuel.

The remainder was lost in the mechanical process.


More understandable example:

If you have a car with a 200 HP engine, only 1/3 of the total work-energy in the gas is used to power the vehicle (and overcome internal engine-friction, transmission-friction, aerodynamic drag, and tire-friction).

1/3 goes out the radiator as "waste" heat.

The remaining 1/3 went out the tailpipe as "waste" heat.

This was one of the biggest revelations to me in thermo--that in order to have an engine be 100% thermodynamically efficient, the engine must operate with no heat loss, and the exhaust products must have no heat.

In other words, the engine and the exhaust must be at absolute zero. Not easy to obtain in city traffic.

Hydrogen has been described as energy-neutral and a transport-medium--good terms. We can't GET energy from Hydrogen; we can only use it to transport it---and its density is low, with cryogenic requirements, which makes it a poor choice for aircraft, or for that matter, the average American in his car.

"Hey Ethel---watch me freeze the cat!!"

I actually do fly gliders that require almost no gas for a 3 hour flight...


My comment was directed towards people who are more well off but for some strange reason they refuse to cut their energy usage. The nice part about high energy prices is it makes much more economic sense to start buying hybrids, to start conserving electricity, to start grounding DC-8's and DC-9's and start flying next generation 737's. And this is GOOD for us as a nation in so many ways!


I don't have a far left environmental agenda. I voted republican in 2004, and my vote in 2008 is going to be based upon whoever has the best stance on getting the US off of oil. Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
And my agenda is I want the United States to be as well off as possible. That requires us to:
1. Stop using foreign oil
2. Cut back on our energy usage (by buying more efficient things)
3. Start using alternative energy
4. Then stop using oil... PERIOD!!
This honestly solves almost every big problem facing the United States. That is why I am so adament about this topic.

Why is our economy taking a nose dive right now? High energy prices.
Why is the value of the dollar about 50% lower than it was recently? High energy prices
Why does the federal reserve continue to cut interest rates when he have a "credit crisis"? High energy prices
Why did the government issue hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts when we are trillions of dollars in debt? High energy prices.
What is one major cause of inflation? High energy prices
Why is our trade deficit in the hundreds of billions of dollars? High energy prices.
Why are airlines slowing down/stopping hiring? High energy prices.
Why are we destroying our environment? Because we use oil.
Why are we sending BILLIONS of dollars to nations we hate (Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc..)? Because we use oil
Why do our enemies (OPEC and others) have our national well being and our economy by the balls? Because we use oil.

If we switch to alternative energy, we extremely help the biggest problems facing our nation (bad economy, national security, the environment, trade defecit, fighting wars in countries we don't give a crap about (Iraq), devaluation of the dollar, inflation, budget deficit, you name it!!)


I don't mind high energy prices because I know it is ultimately leading to a better outcome... It will help free the United States from foreign oil, and eventually oil altogether. A little economic pressure to get people to change bad habits (buying inefficient stuff) is going to sting temporarily, but I believe it will lead to a better outcome soon enough. Does the end sometimes justify the means?

The price of oil is only going to go up and up and up. Until we switch to alternative energy, nothing can stop this trend.

apparently this has already been thought through - do it the other way backwards and don't make FIRE with the gas, make electric!

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/wire...ars/index.html

Good question.

Answer: It's not even close. The technical term is EROEI . . End Return On Energy Input. It asks and answers the question "What useful amount of energy is left after we subtract the amount of energy needed to extract/produce/refine it?"

Oil is unique in that the EROEI is exceptionally high -- much higher than any other comparable fuel. There are even grades of oil that are better (easier to refine).. .which is why "light, sweet crude" is better than "heavy, bitter oil".

The problem with alternative fuels like ethanol (esp corn ethanol) is that after you:

You actually use more energy producing it than you extract! It's a net loss, and you'd be better off "energy wise" if you never did it in the first place. "What if you use ethanol powered farm equipment and transport?" you ask? It's even worse . . a gallon of ethanol only produces about 2/3rds the energy of an equivalent gallon of gasoline.

There's a large and rapidly growing catalog of books on the subjects of peak oil, energy policy, and alternatives. They boil down to this: no one fuel solution will suffice, an integrated policy will be necessary, and it is highly unlikely that a replacement fuel as good or as cheap as oil will be available in our lifetimes.

It's interesting (and a bit scary) stuff to read about. I highly recommend doing a bit of your own research though.

Oh yes the rantings of a college student who apparently has no clue as to what real life is like. The rising cost of oil sure does affect some people more than others. Like the guy who still drives his chevell to work because he can't afford a new car and soon won't be able to afford gas for his old beater, or the family on minimum wage and welfare who have to pay increasing rents because the cost to heat their homes is going up. Or how about the people who already strapped for cash now have to pay so much more for food and the other necessities in life which are all getting more expensive as a result of increased oil costs.

Don;t for a minute think that the people who can afford the Cadillac Escalade is going to worry about expensive gas. As is common in our history the first to suffer are not the ones who are in the positions to truly affect change.

So three cheers for cutting off oil tomorrow. Too bad for those who will freeze and starve as a result.

I'd recommend heading to the library and checking out:

"Gusher of Lies" . . by Robert Bryce.

My heart agrees with you, but my head knows otherwise. There is no "foreign oil" . . . its a commodity that trades at a single world price. There is no short or even long term replacement for it either. Ethanol may just be the biggest fraud perpetrated on the taxpayer in a long time. And so on, and so forth. This is really a great book that goes into the problem in detail . . there are no easy solutions, and economic isolationism won't solve anything.

Bottom line: Energy independence is a myth, especially in the global economy.

The long posts on this subject are testament that this is not a simple topic to discuss in this kind of format.

Planting and harvesting corn seems alot cheaper to me than the cost of drilling for oil. Seeds, a farmer, and a combine are cheaper than a dozen workers and multi-million dollar oil rigs.

Transporting oil by huge tankers from half-way around the world has to be more expensive than across the US.

Refine the ethanol or gas using electricity from nuclear power plants! Not oil or coal.

Then get the product to the consumer.

Wrong for two reasons. First, while the economy isn't smokin' hot at the moment, it is far from a nose dive. Second, although high energy prices do not help the stagnant economy, it is not the direct cause of it - the mortgage crisis is. And the mortgage crisis was triggered by people making poor decisions to buy more than they can afford and borrowing to finance it.

Nope. It is because someone is willing to do the job for dollars per day instead of dollars per hour.

Nope. It is because the airline industry is a cyclical industry. This is NOT the first time in history that the airlines have slowed/stopped hiring.

Wrong. In fact, quite the opposite could be said. The economy is being destroyed because some choose to save the environment instead.

Wrong. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth. Less taxes equate to more money in people's pocket books which equates to more cash being infused into the economy by the consumer. This in turn spurs greater demand for goods and services which leads to businesses expanding and hiring. That in turn leads to more employment opportunities thus generating more tax base as well as more income flowing into people's bank accounts. The answer is not more taxes, but rather more tax payers.

This is wishful thinking. If there were a viable alternative to oil it would have surfaced by now. Unless we go back to horse-driven carriages and steam powered locomotives, there is no viable alternative to oil.

This is wishful thinking. If there were a viable alternative to oil it would have surfaced by now. Unless we go back to horse-driven carriages and steam powered locomotives, there is no viable alternative to oil.[/quote]


Totally agree with everything except this part. There is no single viable alternative for the production of adequate electricity. However, a combination can supplement. Complete replacement will take a long time.

As far as saying it would have surfaced by now imagine if the Wright brothers had said that about flying. We would all have better, potentially more satisfying, and certainly more stable jobs.:)

You can't limit human ingenuity. Someday something will replace oil. I just wonder if any of us will be around to see it.

Believe me, I wish you were right. The easiest way to briefly explain why this doesn't work is that 1 gallon ethanol DOES NOT equal 1 gallon of oil. Ethanol has significantly less energy than oil once refined, and the growing, transportation, refining, and re-distribution of ethanol is significantly more expensive than pumping/refining a better and almost ready-to-use product like oil right out of the ground.

And since ethanol does not = oil/gas, you have to produce more of it to get the same amount of energy return. If you converted EVERY scrap of arable farmland in the US to ethanol production, you'd still only supply a small portion of the transportation fuel the US needs. (And you're left with the small problem of having nothing left to eat)

Transporting oil around the world IS relatively cheap --- supertankers are huge, and much like say, a train, the per-unit cost of transporting in bulk makes it cheap. But that's a red herring . . . the US gets something like 80% of it's oil from Canada and Mexico via pipelines anyway.

As for nuclear power to power refineries . . . the reality is COAL provides almost all the electricity in the US, and that's unlikely to change anytime soon. While coal is cheap, it is also dirty, and therefore not "green friendly." Do you really want to build another 1,000 coal fired electric plants to refine ethanol?

It won't be nuclear power anytime soon . . . the last plant was built in the 1980's, and if the US wanted to replace EVERY coal fired plant in the US with nuclear power, they'd need something like 10,000 full sized nuke plants to do it. Oh . . and proven world uranium reserves are currently good for 20-50 years of nuke power at current world electric generation rates, depending on who you believe. Coal, I'm afraid, is the future of electric power. (Carbon sequestration of the CO2 might make coal-fired electric plants clean someday, but for now, it's way too expensive)

Like I said . . . it's a very complicated problem, and there is no "silver bullet". Don't take my word for it . . . do some research (Books! NOT Wikipedia) and get ready for a wild ride.

Trade deficit
We import 3.67 billion barrels of oil a year. At $100/barrel, that is $367 billion US dollars that goes overseas. Sounds like our trade deficit is hugely due to importing oil.

Airlines slowing down hiring
Yes, aviation is very cyclical. But the fact is that $100+ a barrel oil is the primary, absolute biggest reason why airlines are not growing as much as they should. Why hiring has slowed down. Why pilots are not getting year 2000 type contracts. Ask Expressjet. Ask Skywest. Ask the majors like United, who, for every $1 a barrel increase in the price of oil costs them $45 million dollars a year in revenue (so $40/barrel rise in 12 months means $1.8 BILLION dollars a year). The airlines can't raise fares fast enough because it will scare away some passengers. Why won't passengers pay extra for their tickets?? Because the economy is hurting due to... high energy prices.

Economy
Of course high oil prices are slowing down the economy. I don't even feel like I need to argue that one.

Tax Cuts
You are right. Tax cuts do stimulate the economy. But why does the economy have to be stimulated??? High energy prices. I would rather see lower energy prices stimulating the economy and tax money lowering the US budget deficit.

The fact is that high energy prices hurt the United States so much. You just have to think about it.

Gee, I thought he was connecting nationalized health care with the high VAT, not energy taxes,

"Remember though, you want Nationalized healthcare and such that has to come from somewhere! There's a reason why there's a 40% VAT (Value Added Tax) on everything over there! "

Not really. It was triggered by greedy banks and other lending institutions making very poor decisions to lend money to people making poor decisions to buy more than they can afford and borrowing to finance it.

Who's dumber the people borrowing the money or those lending it to someone who cannot pay it back??

Oh and everyone come up to Canada where I am already paying $4.30 for a gallon of gas (and rising);) Thank God I got rid of my SUV in favour of a Honda Civic.

Please tell me what we do when there's a huge drought like there was last year in the midwest? What wasn't wiped out by flooding during June and July was worthless by September. Corn is an extremely high-maintenence crop compared to soybeans but in either case you're tapping into our food supply to replace our oil supply. I don't think that it's a viable answer because of this reason. As the price of corn rises and it's distributed outside of its current uses we'll see even bigger problems than $110 barrels of oil.

Ethanol is also very energy intensive to produce right now. It currently takes about 3 gallons of water to produce one gallon of E-85.

Get A grip .
 

Hey 402 what I wrote was meant in jest ,some of you guys need to loosen up the tie a bit .
Have a beer and relax!

Wheels on the plane go round and round lol!

My solution was similar - buy a Corolla that gets 42 mpg at 80 mph :cool:

A couple of you guys seem to know quite a bit about Ethanol. Sounds like corn is a lousy option. What would you say about ethanol from switchgrass? I have heard that has a much higher energy yield, and does not use up a lot of land, and grows in fairly arid regions.

Ah, well, let's seeee...I started out by betting that gas was higher in Europe due to higher taxes at the pump. Then BalloonChaser came on and agreed, and added the VAT to the discussion, but in the next sentence. Then Capt'nCrunch weighed in and said it was interresting that BalloonChaser had tied higher oil prices to national health care but couldn't get the connection, at which point I returned and said that he was connecting the necessity for higher TAXES, not oil prices, in order to pay for the socialized medicine, which in part was true, but I forgot to mention the VAT. Then you arrived and said that you thought BalloonChaser was connecting health care with the VAT which is also, in part true, but you confused me because you quoted Capt'nCruch's post instead of mine when you pointed out my omission but I still recognized my origional argument, so I had to go back and check out all these old posts but that's ok.

BalloonChaser and I agree that both higher gas taxes at the pumps in Europe and the VAT all go towards the European government's subsidized social programs, including socialized medicine. I'm not sure how Capt'nCrunch feels now.

What's your opinion?

I believe that if you want the US to be as well off as possible, then, frankly, we probably need to get our priorities in order really! Not sure "oil" is the root of all evil in this country!? I think "we" as American's do have a bit of skewed logic when it comes to how we focus our attention! As I wrote earlier, My point about the latte's and water were pretty much on the mark with Waflyboy's follow-up comment -

I'm simply just trying to say that while many focus on "oil" as the (current) problem for the state of our economy and the "dire" straits facing this country, there's much more to it than that. That's like taking OZ at face value "before" you've realized there was a curtain to look behind. There's so many other factors affecting the economy in our country. (Many of which have already been dropped in posts on this thread, housing, over-extended credit, etc to name a couple!?.)

My point is, I just find it fascinating that while people are upset about the price of "oil" - subsequently leading to the prices at the pumps - it is odd that we "as American's" still buy many theings that are much less a bargain and continually pump billions into "luxury" industries that for the most part do neither to strengthen our country or help us maintain a forward economic stance in the world! Video games, movies, TV, sports - all of these are multi-billion dollar industries annually (and many get my money regularly) yet, people will drop hundreds/thousands of dollars on these types of activities annually with nary a word on the cost and yet, complain about the price of gas! I know I may be going out on a limb here but seems like our priorities might be a bit skewed when an individual who throws, catches, or kicks a ball can make $25,000,000/year but the people who keep us healthy, protect us, teach oir kids and serve our country make less than $50,000 - there's definitely a problem! Problem is people "want" (games, movies, etc.) all of their cake AND they feel that they have a "right" (low taxes, cheap gas, safety, free education) to eat it too!

Maybe if they realize that the dollar is low, (thus oil cost is high) and try keeping your $60 bucks instead of going to that game, buy a $45 tank of gas, give your kid's teacher a $10 Target card (say thanks), put the other $5 bucks in the piggy-bank and watch the game (for free - with rabbit ears!) at home, we all might see a little uptake in the economy and maybe gas at $3.50/gallon may not seem like the "burden" it's been built into andw e can focus on some real issues!?.. It's all about priorities luxury vs. necessity, want vs. need - not the price of a barrel of oil! - Don't get me wrong, I do buy things I "want" but I also don't complain about the price of gas (something I need! - I too drive a gas-guzzing beast with the carbon footprint of a Brontosaurus - but hey I only drive it 5000 miles/year so I'm not a "major" contributor!) Just another two cents. Sorry if I strayed/ranted from the thread a bit! Too many $3 dollar lattes and $2 coffees today I guess! :eek:

PS. FWIW, I've lived in Europe and I've seen it first-hand - Our gas is still quite a bargain compared to most of the world (even if it hit's $5/gallon!) Of course we're not a socialist society!?...

Jet,Wafly and FDX - cheers!

Maybe when it costs $200 to fill-up your SUV, Hummer or Soccer-mom van, maybe-just-maybe our consumer habits and our consumption patterns will change ?

FF

The Ethanol Fallacy
 

The Feb 2008 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine had an article on Ethanol and the fallacy that goes with it. Although corn looks like a good substitute it apparently is not at all. Once again the federal government gets involved and just jumped all over Ethanol as the solution instead of looking for other options such as hydrogen, plug-in hybrids, cellulosic ethanol (non-foodgroup crops like switchgrass). Now non of these might be the right answer but we won't know since it seems politicians on both sides want to declare ethanol the winner. This course of action will probably give us the worst of both worlds: an "alternative" energy that is enormously expensive yet barely saves a gallon of oil.

Here are the math stats according to the article:

I'll spare you all (and my typing fingers :)) the 4 paragraphs that talk about what it takes to refine corn into fuel.

1. Converting corn to oil currently takes 1.3 gallons of oil to make 1 gallon of ethanol!

2. It would take 450 pounds of corn to fill the tank of one SUV.

3. Producing enough ethanol to replace America's imported oil alone would require putting nearly 900 million acres under cultivation--or roughly 95% of the active farmland in the United States!

Remember when President Carter tried to get involved? His administration jumped all over "synfuels" - refined from oil shale deposits. OOPS! It took years to kill that idea, the last of the multi-billion dollar tax credits for it just expired in 2007! Corn very well maybe the answer someday, but right now it would be a huge mistake to just jump on that bandwagon. We need more R&D with incentives to find better alternatives that much of you have already elaborated on.

I thought Ethanol was pushed because it was a replacement for MTBE (or similar, can't remember exact name). It was a chemical added to gasoline to cut emissions (?) and I believe California opened up lawsuits toward the oil companies by allowing consumers to sue after a certain time frame if they hadn't transitioned away from it. Anyway I might be way off but that's what I remember and I'm too lazy to Google.

I don't think it was ever thought to be a complete replacement for gas using corn...but other products used to make ethanol seem a bit more promising. Brazil uses sugar cane to make ethanol but it has something like 10x the energy value of corn.

I'm optimistic that there are people out there working on this, the potential market is too big to not be looking at alternative fuels.

As oil becomes economically unfeasable it will price itself out of the market. Now that the price is going up, it makes more sense to start looking for true alternatives.

What amazes me is how this seems to happen every 20-30 years. Think about how small and efficient cars became after the oil embargo.