future of gas.

[kombolcha]

before i continue, this thread is NOT about the current gas prices issues or about the hurricane.

i was doing some thinking and lately there has been a lot of talk about the future of what will be powering our cars. is it hydrogen? is it ethonal? magic?

recently, there have been changes in the auto industry, there will be more cars in the coming two years with hybrid options. like the Altima Hybrid and Chevrolet's line up trucks and SUV's. even their vehicles like the Impala SS is achieving 22MPG.

thats good for now, but has it been decided in the future what it is we will use for fuel?

and say that we change to ethonal, can our current cars take it? or will we all be forced to buy new cars? i know for sure this is something that is impossible for me to do.

or will there be some kind of government program where they will assist in the changes or car companies just simply switch the engines at a very low cost?

i also see a lot of commercials from Shell, Chevron, and BP.. about the amount of money they are putting into research, what does that mean exactly?

ford and BMW seem to be the leading companies doing research in fuel alternatives and technology, and most ford cars have the green leaf badge on the side of their cars which means they can take another type of fuel, if i'm not mistaken, its ethonal. will car companies decide? or is it, what it seems to me, the oil companies are going to set the future of fuel.

or maybe there is something out there and its in the works and i just don't know about it.

[Aaron Veteran]

From the things I have read on this topic, I like:

1. Ethanol since we can derive it from corn and we are a major producer of corn. Aside from environmental and economic gains, it could greatly shift back political power as we become less dependent on foreign oil and become suppliers of ethanol (to those able to support it).

2. Biodiesel as it is easily adapted to existing diesel engines and would not require too much conversions. Also, who doesn't like the smell of cooking french fries? :D

[aldo]

From the things I have read on this topic, I like:

1.  Ethanol since we can derive it from corn and we are a major producer of corn.  Aside from environmental and economic gains, it could greatly shift back political power as we become less dependent on foreign oil and become suppliers of ethanol (to those able to support it).

2.  Biodiesel as it is easily adapted to existing diesel engines and would not require too much conversions.  Also, who doesn't like the smell of cooking french fries?  :D

586465139[/snapback]

Neither fuels are viable options.

Ethanol takes nearly as much energy to grow and process as you do getting out of it. The only country that does this, Brazil, gets it from sugar and they have a massive surplus of sugar. To keep prices on the world market sane they forcce farmers to sell a certain %age back to the government at a low price which is then put into the fuel. It's really not a long term solution whatsoever.

Biodiesel is a joke. You'd need approx. 70% of the area that is grown for growing crops at the moment to supply the current US demand for Oil. So there is the choice: biodiesel or eating. I think I know which one I'll choose.

Not to mention that the US is in a very lucky situation having masses of land for crops. The rest of the world doesn't.

Hydrogen is another non-solution that won't work until we get nuclear fusion or some other way of producing masses of electricity at very low prices. Which is unlikely to happen for a long time.

The only way to solve the gas problem is to tax it more in the US. The US uses 5x as much oil per capita than any other country. This is mainly due to people thinking it's acceptable to drive SUVs on a 60 mile commute every day. If gas was taxed at reasonable, rest-of-the-world style levels only people who need SUVs or trucks would drive them.

This would hold off for a while while more research can be done.

But unfortunately, (as the responses to this post will probably prove) the feeling of many Americans is that they should invade more countries to get cheap oil, who cares how many people die as long as I can drive my SUV. (of course that doesn't work whatsoever since oil production drops dramatically when there is a war - iraq's production has dropped hugely after the US/UK invaded.

[Aaron Veteran]

Neither fuels are viable options.

Ethanol takes nearly as much energy to grow and process as you do getting out of it. The only country that does this, Brazil, gets it from sugar and they have a massive surplus of sugar. To keep prices on the world market sane they forcce farmers to sell a certain %age back to the government at a low price which is then put into the fuel. It's really not a long term solution whatsoever.

Biodiesel is a joke. You'd need approx. 70% of the area that is grown for growing crops at the moment to supply the current US demand for Oil. So there is the choice: biodiesel or eating. I think I know which one I'll choose.

Not to mention that the US is in a very lucky situation having masses of land for crops. The rest of the world doesn't.

Hydrogen is another non-solution that won't work until we get nuclear fusion or some other way of producing masses of electricity at very low prices. Which is unlikely to happen for a long time.

The only way to solve the gas problem is to tax it more in the US. The US uses 5x as much oil per capita than any other country. This is mainly due to people thinking it's acceptable to drive SUVs on a 60 mile commute every day. If gas was taxed at reasonable, rest-of-the-world style levels only people who need SUVs or trucks would drive them.

This would hold off for a while while more research can be done.

But unfortunately, (as the responses to this post will probably prove) the feeling of many Americans is that they should invade more countries to get cheap oil, who cares how many people die as long as I can drive my SUV. (of course that doesn't work whatsoever since oil production drops dramatically when there is a war - iraq's production has dropped hugely after the US/UK invaded.

586465697[/snapback]

You are supposing a 100% transition, but in reality it would only take a small % of change to make a big difference. Most biodiesel options are blends anyway not 100%, same for ethanol.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/wh..._biodiesel.html

http://www.nbb.org/resources/faqs/default.shtm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/blends/ethanol.html

[aldo]

You are supposing a 100% transition, but in reality it would only take a small % of change to make a big difference.  Most biodiesel options are blends anyway not 100%, same for ethanol.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/altfuel/wh..._biodiesel.html

http://www.nbb.org/resources/faqs/default.shtm

http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/blends/ethanol.html

586465736[/snapback]

So say there was a transition to a 50:50 blend. Where do we get the other 50% oil from? God?

It wouldn't make a huge difference. All it would do is have gas prices go down temporarily, everyone would think 'ah, high gas prices was just a temporary thing... better go buy that new hummer i've been thinking about' and what do you know, demand is far higher than it was before and you've driven the cost of food up massively as well since you have less supply on that front.

[Shibby]

I'm not that knowledable when it comes to the making of gas.

Are we running out or we just can't get at it any more?

What about LPG? or is that from the same crude oil

I read in a auto mag that in the USA a test showed that they where able to reduce car emminsions down using alchol? true

I also heard over here in england that a bus company where doing test in putting sheeps wee wee in to help reduce the emisions as well!

[Aaron Veteran]

So say there was a transition to a 50:50 blend. Where do we get the other 50% oil from? God?

It wouldn't make a huge difference. All it would do is have gas prices go down temporarily, everyone would think 'ah, high gas prices was just a temporary thing... better go buy that new hummer i've been thinking about' and what do you know, demand is far higher than it was before and you've driven the cost of food up massively as well since you have less supply on that front.

586465776[/snapback]

Finacial benefits aren't the only benefit. The environmental impact could be seen with a blend of only 15% (of either ethanol or biodiesel).

Even then we could cut our dependence on oil imports by 15% and that would make an impact on overall prices as supply would be cut which could drive prices down. I've never seen a serious proposal of a 50-50 split, most are much more conservative in the transition.

[aldo]

I'm not that knowledable when it comes to the making of gas.

Are we running out or we just can't get at it any more?

What about LPG? or is that from the same crude oil

I read in a auto mag that in the USA a test showed that they where able to reduce car emminsions down using alchol? true

I also heard over here in england that a bus company where doing test in putting sheeps wee wee in to help reduce the emisions as well!

586465929[/snapback]

The problem isn't the running out (at least for the moment). The problem is that there isn't enough capcity (both pumping the crude oil, and refining it into gas) to supply the demand for the product.

LPG is just the same stuff. It's basically a different mix but it's of a much higher quality than normal petrol. This makes it good for the environment (less sulphur etc) but really doesn't solve any supply/demand issues.

Finacial benefits aren't the only benefit.  The environmental impact could be seen with a blend of only 15% (of either ethanol or biodiesel).

Even then we could cut our dependence on oil imports by 15% and that would make an impact on overall prices as supply would be cut which could drive prices down.  I've never seen a serious proposal of a 50-50 split, most are much more conservative in the transition.

586466663[/snapback]

Ok. So you still have to get 85% oil. Now, considering US demand is rising at 3-5% year on year, it'd take less than 5 years to be back at the same place. Not to mention India and China would buy the rest of the supply that the US would temporarily free up.

Not only that, but biodiesel has many more supply risks than oil. Pretty much the only thing that will stop oil being produced is a huge natural disaster. But a bad harvest would slam biodiesel production for months and have the price shoot up.

The US imports nearly 70% of its oil now. Supply from domestic fields is dropping year on year and exploration is going no-where. Even the Alaskan oil fields would last less than 6 months at current US consumption.

This is the problem: whatever supply changes you will do, the US + the rest of the world will mop it up with more demand. Until supply can be fixed, it's only a temporary stopgap measure.

[El Bourricot]

But unfortunately, (as the responses to this post will probably prove) the feeling of many Americans is that they should invade more countries to get cheap oil, who cares how many people die as long as I can drive my SUV. (of course that doesn't work whatsoever since oil production drops dramatically when there is a war - iraq's production has dropped hugely after the US/UK invaded.

586465697[/snapback]

Not only do they drive SUVs, they drive crappy-built SUVs which are extremely inefficient and usually have supersized engines (e.g. Ford Lightning with a 5l engine!).

I hold Ford responsible for much of the emission problems of the States. Say what you might, as a company it has a duty to produce vehicles which are well-built and efficient, not bricks with a massive engine chucked in a bit randomly.

[stanneh]

Not only do they drive SUVs, they drive crappy-built SUVs which are extremely inefficient and usually have supersized engines (e.g. Ford Lightning with a 5l engine!).

I hold Ford responsible for much of the emission problems of the States. Say what you might, as a company it has a duty to produce vehicles which are well-built and efficient, not bricks with a massive engine chucked in a bit randomly.

586472013[/snapback]

another example is the hummer how on earth was that ever allowed to be sold to the public on Top gear in a road test it done less than 0 miles to the gallon how can that be its a joke i believe the hummer 2 is a ford van so ford are pretty irresponsible.

[Acezo]

another example is the hummer how on earth was that ever allowed to be sold to the public on Top gear in a road test it done less than 0 miles to the gallon how can that be its a joke i believe the hummer 2 is a ford van so ford are pretty irresponsible.

586472058[/snapback]

Hummer is GM's, not Ford's. The Hummer H1 and H2 weigh over 8500 lbs so they aren't required to meet efficiency standards.

[aldo]

Hummer is GM's, not Ford's. The Hummer H1 and H2 weigh over 8500 lbs so they aren't required to meet efficiency standards.

586472381[/snapback]

Exactly.

This is a real loophole - SUVs over a certain weight get massive tax breaks as they can be put against tax bills as an investment.

What does this cause GM/Ford to do? That's right, increase the weight however they can (at the expense of efficency) to get over the weight limit.

This stupidty needs to be ended. It is simply unbelivable that in this day and age of energy volitatility and massive budget deficits that the US federal government is giving people SUVs for free (or almost, since individuals/businesses would be paying that money in tax if they didn't).