I posted a thread that was along the same lines as this one, but I said that SUV's do support terror. OK, a little more thought has been put into that, along with the considerations of opinions expressed in this forum.
I willingly concede that to to say SUV's support terrorism is a falsehood. I should have thought a little bit more about that one, and instead declared that:
"SUV'S SUPPORT OIL COMPANIES." Now, that is a true statement, argue all you want.
Moving forward, is there anybody here who has done research into the types of things the oil companies have done to rape this country? They have legislated and lobbied their way along, and now it's impossible to power ANYTHING without the use of oil (even natural gas power comes to us from the oil companies.) Hemp biomass diesel and distillates, corn-based ethanol, biomass produced methane and methanol, agricultural biomass solid matter fuels, diesels and distillates. I could list even more alternative fuel sources that could power cars (and SUV's). All of those options I have listed are sequestered by the oil companies, because they are either illegal, or their production processes are protected by the oil industry from development. In most cases it's illegal for a farmer to make diesel out of his biomass waste to power his truck, because of legislation passed with the support of oil companies.
OK, so everybody has to drive a car, I wont make an assertion to the contrary. IF YOU ARE USING MORE FUEL THAN YOU NEED TO BE YOU ARE WASTING IT. If you are packing your SUV with cappucinos and driving 50 miles a day commuting, you are not only wasting your own money, but you are wasting a resource. And that money you are throwing away is going to the oil companies, who are nothing better than domestic, ecological terrorists. Heck, we even fought a war for these guys in '91.
It's true that many cars get poor gas mileage. Those cars are no better than SUV's. "It's a free country, I can choose what I want to drive." you say. True, as long as it's a petroleum powered unit, because the oil companies put the kibosh on the options 50 years ago. Your freedom of choice has been terrorized by oil giants who won't let you drive a car that's powered by anything but petroleum.
"OIL COMPANIES DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM. THEY DON'T LIKE THAT KIND OF COMPETITION."
BDV

 

If you watched Fox News this week, you would've seen this guy on it. He was asked what type of vehicle he drove, Mercedes. Then was ripped on for driving a gass guzzler himself.

Figures they'd attack SUVs, what about the Ice cream trucks, UPS, school buses, 18 wheelers, Delta 88s (lol, had to throw that in).

We ALL use oil, gas. They need to shut their trap, since it was probably used before this twits time!

Bill O'Reilly for President!!
I love a mean guy that will attack the real CROOKS!

 

>On the pricing side of supply vs. demand, SUV's are keeping
>gas prices lower. Think about it, if everybody drove a
>little car that on a bad day got 40mpg, the price of gas
>would go through the roof. Why? Simply because the
>companies wouldn't be able to keep their profit margins at
>that low of a consumption rate. I say drive your SUV, I'll
>drive my gas-hog truck, and we can all enjoy low gas prices.
>
>Jared

Jared: Think about what you are saying here. You can't be serious with your economic theory. You have it backwards. When supplies expand, prices decline. What would happen in your scenario would be that suppliers would cut the amount of supply in order to stabilize the price. Keep in mind when you increase demand, you will increase prices through tighter supply, given the same amount of production.
When oil is in greater supply, the prices decline, and the producers cut back on production.

The more pressure upon the supply, the tighter it becomes, pushing up prices. Oil conservation is a very intelligent idea, but Detroit and the oil suppliers will have nothing to do with it. We could have SUV vehicles that move on alternative blends, but there is no incentive. Detroit does not see the demand, so it does produce the vehicle. It will not be until $4.00 per gallon gas that we will see serious conservation because the average American will then demand it. Make no mistake, we will see $4.00 gas in the future, unless we see serious conservation measures before prices rise to that level. Of course, if production levels increase, and refining capabilities increase, then prices will stabilize, and may even decrease.

I doubt that oil production and refining will greatly increase. Therefore, I think the future is in blending until a serious alternative to oil can be put into widespread use.

Oil conservation is responsible and intelligent, but the Americans require a reason to accomplish this. Americans don't usually respond until there is a crisis, then they get moving big time. America needs to get moving big time, and develop alternative blends of fuel, with the goal of developing the non petroleum based fuel from which we can replace our intoxicated dependence upon the Arab world for a lifestyle so important to our freedom.

 

Brien is my hero.
There are tons of ways to produce power. We have millions of tons of potential fuel rotting away in landfills, producing clean burning Methane. There is a glut of agricultural organic by-product left behind after every harvest that can be broken down using pyrolisis and enzymatic decomposition into everything from diesel to methanol to hydrogen gas. These fuels can be made safely and cleanly on a local level.
But the oil companies, along with companies like DuPont, 3M, and the entire automobile industry, keep research from being done and facilities from being built to produce these kinds of fuels. It's a shame, we don't need to use petroleum exclusively, but we do it anyway because we aren't being offered a viable alternative.
The Hybrid cars that have been coming out recently are really just a front, in my mind, by the auto industry to convince us that they are trying to develop an alternative fuels program. They aren't. And they are asking disgusting prices for these cars...it's a joke.
I am going to sink a steel cistern in my backyard and start stockpiling gasoline so I can afford to drive my truck...
BDV

 

I think it would be cool to reproduce the Stanley Steamer, although Back to the Future II had a great Delorean that ran on garbage. In all seriousness, one just can't tinker in the garage anymore to produce a auto that runs on alternative fuel. Although there are people that can convert diesel engines to run on vegetable oil. I suppose one can make their own diffence in that respect.

On a mass production scale, it must come from the automakers that are driven by market forces. Obviously the market forces will have to come together to demand the alternative fuel driven car in order to have it produced. Then when it is produced, it has to be enthusiastically supported by the public. Kind of like when the PT Cruiser was introduced. Waiting time for delivery was 6 months.

 

Brien, you are absolutely right about the market demand element. I offer you this, though: I don't think there is a farmer or rancher out there that wouldn't want to be able to buy fuel produced by his local energy co-op. If you figure in the number of diesel powered farm vehicles, the amount of fuel used would justify the production of biomass diesel. Beyond that, if that same co-op was producing methane and making it available for rural communities to buy, and also burning it to produce electricity, the savings to the consumer would be decent, if not great. Is it cost effective to operate a facility such as this? Yes; the hardest part would be getting the funds to actually build it, and getting authorization by the Public Utilities Commission, which is in the pockets of the petroleum and coal industries. The power and oil companies are the only thing standing in the way of this type of energy production, even though it would be to their advantage to make an effort towards developing this technology.
Any carbon-based biodegradable material can be used to produce these alternative fuels, from banana peels to wood pulp to agricultural biomass, like corn stalks and hurds from the retting of fiberous plants like HEMP.
Gotta get back to work, lunchtime's over...
BDV

 

BDV: You know there is actually the engineering for trash to energy going on right now. There are several plants operating in the US. My trucks haul many of the component parts. Simply put, you dump in the garbage, it burns to produce steam, that inturn spins turbines to produce electricity. The nasty stuff that goes up the stack is cleaned by scrubbers, and all you see in the discharge is excess steam. Excellent technology. I am waiting for it to be modified for vehicles.


Brien

 

The waste powered plants are a great start, but they represent a small portion of the plants in the country. I realize though, that there is an entire infrastructure necessary to fuel the system, and that's a major consideration, also. If it costs too much to transport the garbage then it wouldn't be cost effective...perhaps erecting these plants adjacent to landfills would make it more feasable.
At any rate, these types of power generation are going to become absolutely necessary in the near future, especially if we involve ourselves in a protracted conflict in the Middle East.
As far as conversion to vehicular power, the best way to convert the waste matter into energy is to break it down with enzymes, which produces hydrogen. The great thing about hydrogen is that the only by-product of combustion is water. The bad thing is, it's very explosive and difficult to transport safely.
Fossil Fuels are going to run out eventually. But the atmosphere will run out sooner. That's the biggest issue for me; it's stupid to keep using petroleum like we do. We will never be free from it because it will always have it's place (can't fly a plane with hydrogen or diesel), but it needs to be phased out as a fuel as soon as possible.
That means that the oil companies and the auto companies are going to have to take some risks and spend some money researching this and implementing it if they want to stay competitive. The market will eventually demand it, and when it does, Iraq wont be a problem anymore.

 

>I posted a thread that was along the same lines as this one,
>but I said that SUV's do support terror. OK, a little more
>thought has been put into that, along with the
>considerations of opinions expressed in this forum.
>I willingly concede that to to say SUV's support terrorism
>is a falsehood.

Takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

I should have thought a little bit more
>about that one, and instead declared that:
>"SUV'S SUPPORT OIL COMPANIES." Now, that is a true
>statement, argue all you want.

Yep. No arguing that. So do Chevy sprints, heating your house, and buying just about any product that contains plastic or polymers.

>Moving forward, is there anybody here who has done research
>into the types of things the oil companies have done to rape
>this country?

After reading the rest of your post, it's obvious you haven't.


>They have legislated and lobbied their way
>along, and now it's impossible to power ANYTHING without the
>use of oil (even natural gas power comes to us from the oil
>companies.)

Would you rather we still burned wood or coal? Hydro-electric sounds real good too, ever research the damage that damming rivers and flooding entire eco-systems does? Nuclear is by far the cleanest and most efficient means we have of producing electricity, but public outcry prevents it's widespread use. Guess what's left? Clean burning natural gas.

>Hemp biomass diesel and distillates, corn-based
>ethanol, biomass produced methane and methanol, agricultural
>biomass solid matter fuels, diesels and distillates. I could
>list even more alternative fuel sources that could power
>cars (and SUV's). All of those options I have listed are
>sequestered by the oil companies, because they are either
>illegal, or their production processes are protected by the
>oil industry from development. In most cases it's illegal
>for a farmer to make diesel out of his biomass waste to
>power his truck, because of legislation passed with the
>support of oil companies.

You should do a little research on these alternative fuels before you tout them as being a better alternative. Where do you think the energy required to produce this biomass material comes from? From the planting and harvesting to the refining process itself, massive amounts of energy have to be put in to get a relatively small output. Biomass petroleum is simply not an economically or environmentally friendly solution, especially on a large scale.

>OK, so everybody has to drive a car, I wont make an
>assertion to the contrary. IF YOU ARE USING MORE FUEL THAN
>YOU NEED TO BE YOU ARE WASTING IT. If you are packing your
>SUV with cappucinos and driving 50 miles a day commuting,
>you are not only wasting your own money, but you are wasting
>a resource. And that money you are throwing away is going to
>the oil companies, who are nothing better than domestic,
>ecological terrorists. Heck, we even fought a war for these
>guys in '91.

You use very strong language, to make a point I know, but labelling people who drive an SUV to work terrorists is extreme and reckless. Have you taken any commercial airline flights recently? How much plastic do you use/throw away? Is your home more than 1 or 2 rooms? Do you go to the supermarket or a fast food joint and get yourself a nice meal? All of these things use massive amounts of energy, and are not "needed". Let he who waste's no energy cast the first stone. I'd be shocked if you were the first to chuck a rock.

>It's true that many cars get poor gas mileage. Those cars
>are no better than SUV's. "It's a free country, I can choose
>what I want to drive." you say. True, as long as it's a
>petroleum powered unit, because the oil companies put the
>kibosh on the options 50 years ago. Your freedom of choice
>has been terrorized by oil giants who won't let you drive a
>car that's powered by anything but petroleum.

The vehicle manufacturers are in the business of selling vehicles, if you want a biomass pwered vehicle bas enough, they'll build one. It's easy to blame the oil companies for the apathy of the US when it comes to the environment.

Waxy

 

>Brien is my hero.
>There are tons of ways to produce power. We have millions of
>tons of potential fuel rotting away in landfills, producing
>clean burning Methane.

How do landfills create commercially viable amounts of methane? Patent that one and you'll be the next Rockefeller. The amount of methane being produced by your average land fill is what's know as a drop in the ocean when compared to the demand for energy.

>There is a glut of agricultural
>organic by-product left behind after every harvest that can
>be broken down using pyrolisis and enzymatic decomposition
>into everything from diesel to methanol to hydrogen gas.
>These fuels can be made safely and cleanly on a local level.
>But the oil companies, along with companies like DuPont, 3M,
>and the entire automobile industry, keep research from being
>done and facilities from being built to produce these kinds
>of fuels.

This is utter non-sense. Companies like the others you've mentioned all have active alternative fuel research departments, think about it, if they can't make money on oil, they better get in on the ground floor of the next product, these people aren't dumb.

ECONOMICS prevent these facilities from being built, not oil companies. Currently the cost to produce a gallon of bio-petroleum exceeds the cost of a gallon of petroleum at the pumps. No company is going to go intot he business of losing money. The few bio-fuel business out there are heavily subsidized, or they wouldn't exist either. Until consumers are willing to pay EXTRA for an inferior product, or the world's petroleum supply dries up, (a long time from now), bio-fuels will not become viable.

Hydrogen? You've got to be kidding. The amount of FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCED energy that is required to produce hydrogen, along with its inherent instability, make it completely unviable with today's technology.

It's a shame, we don't need to use petroleum
>exclusively, but we do it anyway because we aren't being
>offered a viable alternative.
>The Hybrid cars that have been coming out recently are
>really just a front, in my mind, by the auto industry to
>convince us that they are trying to develop an alternative
>fuels program. They aren't. And they are asking disgusting
>prices for these cars...it's a joke.
>I am going to sink a steel cistern in my backyard and start
>stockpiling gasoline so I can afford to drive my truck...

Or you could get yourself a 3 cyclinder Chevy Sprint and quit "wasting" fuel.

Waxy

 

BDV Stated:
"Fossil Fuels are going to run out eventually. But the atmosphere will run out sooner. That's the biggest issue for me; it's stupid to
keep using petroleum like we do. We will never be free from it because it will always have it's place (can't fly a plane with hydrogen or diesel), but it needs to be phased out as a fuel as soon as possible."

Maybe. Course we ran out of whale oil too and that didn't stop the industrial revolution. I'd like to explain something about reserve estimates. When you hear that there is 5 or 10 or 20 years of oil left in the oil fields what they mean is that amount of oil at current prices. As oil gets used up other wells that aren't currently commercially viable come on line. IE if it costs $3.00 to produce and process oil from one well and current prices are $1.50 then that well isn't in production and not counted in the estimate. OPEC has run into this very thing. They try to decrease production to increase cost and as the price goes up the supply increases because other wells can come on-line. If we ever do run out of oil the cost of energy will increase to the point that alternative methods become viable. AND we have the inginuity to make it happen when it is time. There is also the theory that oil is not dead dinos but just something that the earth makes. I don't know if I believe it or not but the depths at which we seem to be finding oil might indicate that it wasn't something that died and was then buried by years of sediment.

Atmosphere run out, yeah right.

Can't fly a plane with diesel? Um.... yes, you can. Diesel is not much different from jet fuel. My dad landed the first C-130 on Easter Island. To return they had to burn lantern kerosene in the turbo-props. It was approved in the tech order as appropriate fuel along with several other light oils. Try walking around an airport sometime and take a big whiff. Smells just like a truck yard or farm. Heck even the plane exhuast smells like a truck.

'Course they did try flying with hydrogen once.....

 

You know, you guys can argue this till the cows come home, methane and all. But the fact remains, all of humanity will run out of fossil fuels eventually. So alternative fuels will have to be developed and used somtime in the future. I don't care if it is 100, or 200 years, but it is coming. I further believe it will be the capitalist system that will produce them. It will be a market driven need, not an eviornmentalist requirement as legislated by law. :-)

 

>You know, you guys can argue this till the cows come home,
>methane and all. But the fact remains, all of
>humanity will run out of fossil fuels eventually. So
>alternative fuels will have to be developed and used somtime
>in the future. I don't care if it is 100, or 200 years, but
>it is coming. I further believe it will be the capitalist
>system that will produce them. It will be a market driven
>need, not an eviornmentalist requirement as legislated by
>law. :-)


EXACTLY.

Waxy

 

I agree with that, and as long as the cows come home eventually, there will be cow poop to dry and burn in our stoves to heat our houses.
Yes, the market will demand it, if there is a market around when that time comes. POLLUTION is my biggest concern involving fossil fuels. There is no clean way for a car or truck to burn it. Sure, we have come a LONG way since the 70's as far as emissions goes, but that doesn't mean anything...we are still pumping sulfur dioxide and ozone into the atmosphere, along with the hydrocarbons, flourocarbons, nitrates and nitrites and other garbage that aren't naturally introduced into the atmosphere. That's a problem NOW, and it will be a much much bigger problem later if we dont act. You can take the cleanest burning engine and still get more emissions out of it than 3 engines run on biomass diesel. Diesel, you say? Yes, even though it is still a straight chain of hydrocarbons, it doesn't contain the Toluene and Benzene and other hydrocarbon additives that gasoline does. And it is cleaner burning than petroleum diesel because it doesn't carry the nitrites and flourocarbons...
Let the market dictate the demand for petroleum, and it will dictate us straight into the crapper. I agree that there will eventually be a need and demand for these types of Alterntive Fuel vehicles, but the price will already have been paid...
Cough Cough Cough Wheeze!
BDV

 

See "People who don't understand big trucks" under the poll about "What Annoys you most part 2." I think you'll get a kick out of it.

Al