America has all the oil it needs

[Didacus]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Sep 8 2005, 12:14 PM']Ethanol actually produces 3/4 as much energy as crude... and I didn't say everyone should just switch over, just that we need to put money into exploring alternative energy sources.  If we're just going to dismiss all possibilities because its not presently viable, then we might as well go back to watching movies on Beta, listening to our 8-Tracks, and taking ships across the ocean.
[right][snapback]715732[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well said. Do a little research and I am certain you will find that a vast majority of alternative fuels are being explored, but none thus far have found to be competitive with oil; except arguably nuclear power.

I've read an article where scientist made 'fuel' out of orange peels. Antoher where one is trying to produce electricty from kites (since kites can reach formidable heights where winds are far stronger than on earth, there exsit great potential there). Wave energy from the ocean is being tested in California in certain places. And of course, the fabled fusion Reaction that has by far the greatest potential of them all, but remains far too far out of reach (hence why you often hear the term 'bridge fuel', a fuel that will make a 'bridge' from oil to nuclear fusion and thus avert a potential economic disaster).

countless alternatives are being explored, but none are panning out, and it isn't because attempts are not being made.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Sep 8 2005, 12:29 PM']No, Mexico!  didn't you read the article?
[right][snapback]715748[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

OK that's it. No T-shirts today.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Sep 8 2005, 02:26 PM']Of corse one can argue that producing these alternate fuels 'consumes' as much CO2 thus the net addition is nothing to the environment.  However, this would occur weather the crops prodcued ethanol, or wheat, or simply was used to grow trees.  No extra effort required.  Thus this argument is empty.
  Never thought Id use this smiley around here... lol
[right][snapback]715742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I would say that arguement is not empty. Fossil fuels take carbon from deep down in the earth where it is not active in the Earth's carbon cycles and make it active. Crops such as soybeans and corn use carbon that is already active in carbon cycles. The carbon (CO2 specifically) consumed by growing crops, trees, and other plants is released back into the atmosphere when they die and decompose, or are eaten by animals who breathe out CO2. Of course there are some plants in swamps and other areas that do not release carbon but are beginning the long process of becoming coal and oil, but this happens at such a slow rate the difference is neglegible.


[img]http://www.esd.ornl.gov/iab/iab2-2.gif[/img]

Edited September 8, 2005 by morostheos

[Fidei Defensor]

We just need to build more refineries. There hasnt been a new one built in a long time, here in the U.S.

[Didacus]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:19 PM']I would say that arguement is not empty.  Fossil fuels take carbon from deep down in the earth where it is not active in the Earth's carbon cycles and make it active.  [snip]
[right][snapback]716110[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

From that perspective then the earth, by burning the oil, is simply returning to a balance it once had as far as the carbon cycle is concerned. In this sense, CO2 is not pollution at all!

But good point though. Not to play devil's advocate, I must admit your logic is accurate.

One has to think outside the box and not just at the tail pipe of a car.

[Didacus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:48 PM']We just need to build more refineries.  There hasnt been a new one built in a long time, here in the U.S.
[right][snapback]716170[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The economic tendencies show it to be unfeasable to preserve exploration on US soil. Most US exploration for oil in the past 5 years have been offshore or in Alaska.

Looking at the big picture, some experts contend that it is not economically feasable to build additional refineris on US soil for the simple reason that oil will not be around long enough for them to pay off.
(a refinery probably has an economic life of 25-40 years).

One thing is very certain to me, we all will one day be talking to our grand-kids telling stories of how gas vehicles where everywhere in the streets when we where their age.

[shelly_freak]

Politics my friend, politics.