Decreasing "Dependence on Foreign Oil"

[jeff88]

I agree that many people who have electric cars and plug in at home are using FF based electricity and that even "renewable" resources are FF based, but where does the ancestry end? My solar panel was made by a factory powered by solar panels, but those panels were manufactured using a FF. So does that mean my solar panel is no good, because it has a FF based production history?

At some point, we have to take what we have, improve upon it and forget about where it came from way back when.

As far as plastics go, yes most are made from oil, but there are many that are made from a renewable oil (like corn, i.e. ethanol), and they are already in production vehicles (look at a ford escape hybrid).

[Sean.Heihn]

I wasn't criticizing you, I was just pointing out almost everything is connected to fossil fuels in some way.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Why does it cost so much to convert an existing car or truck to use CNG? Think EPA.

I have looked into doing it with out the EPAs consent or input and all the money was going into buying the tanks and home filling station.
Its a lot of hardware cost. I don't know what effect EPA involvement has.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

That red splotch represents billions of cubic feet of natural gas being flared off as a safety measure to prevent well blow-outs (BP oil spill type accidents).

Why is it so difficult to build pipelines to carry this gas to centers of usage where it could be refined, compressed and used as motor fuel? Think Keystone XL.

One of our major political parties believes that not building the pipeline will some how save the earth.
They tend to be often wrong but never in doubt when it comes to matters involving energy, money or anything thing else that involves numbers.

[Allch Chcar]

Liquid fuels are just a storage medium. They're much cheaper, space efficient, and easier to use than gaseous or solid fuels. But the results are always net energy negative due to conversion losses. CNG and Coal are less desirable than either Petroleum or Ethanol due to the fact that they need to be converted to a liquid state to be space efficient for transportation. In cars and light trucks, space is at a premium and liquid fuels are far more compact. Don't forget to add in the cost of new infrastructure.

Ethanol can be grown and distilled from mostly domestic energy sources such as Coal and Natural Gas instead of largely imported Petroleum. Per unit of energy it reduces Petroleum Consumption by ~75%. Some lobbyists have wanted to use Methanol too. Since Methanol is mostly made from Natural Gas and even cheaper than Ethanol. But they never had near the support compared to Ethanol.

Originally Posted by E.Roy

Ethanol, so I have heard, requires .6 gal of diesel to make 1 gallon. YET, THEY HAVE APPROX THE SAME ENERGY CONTENT. It seems to me such a pointless endeavor.

GREET is the currently standard on energy inputs
Argonne GREET Sample Results
As you can see there is a huge input of Renewable energy into Ethanol but a much smaller amount of Fossil Fuel and a fraction of the Petroleum. The only reason Ethanol is cost effective is that it can be made using Natural Gas, Diesel, and Coal. Which are heavily subsidized BTW.

Originally Posted by E.Roy

So why hasn't improvements to traffic patterns been sought for REAL reduction in oil dependency.

It's really hard to change anything in the US. Things take longer than most people expect due to our Conservative form of Government. This isn't a full fledged Democracy or a Dictatorship. I have heard a few new developments but money for basic maintenance has been tight this last decade.

[jeff88]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

One of our major political parties believes that not building the pipeline will some how save the earth.
They tend to be often wrong but never in doubt when it comes to matters involving energy, money or anything thing else that involves numbers.

Not building the pipeline has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'. There are major environmental impacts with a cross country pipeline. Major migration patterns can be severed by a pipeline, leading to a less diverse animal population. This is evidenced in Alaska where deer are afraid of the pipe and won't go anywhere near it, let alone cross it if they could. That doesn't matter? It will to hunters. Try hunting a deer whose population is dwindling. Even if the government gives licensing permissions to hunt that breed, it won't mean you'll find healthy prey. Want a 12 point buck? Good luck. Want a deer with decent meat for food, not containing diseases? Good luck.

We have to look at things holistically. It doesn't make sense financially to not do it? Does it makes sense financially when a pipe bursts, spewing crude into the soil, watershed and whatever else? How about an on-land Deep Horizon type spill? I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen, I'm saying it must be accounted for. Don't think it would happen? How many spills have we had, major and minor? Google 'PG&E San Bruno' and see what comes up. What happens when somebody who is supposed to maintain this pipe doesn't and the pipe erupts in a major city, rather than a small neighborhood? Who pays for that? I worked a few miles from San Bruno at the time. It could have easily burst closer to my work. Did it effect me? No. Could it have? Yes.

All I'm saying is there are many aspects to any project that must be considered and financially making sense does not always mean it makes complete sense. And political parties has nothing to do with it, lets keep that out before this gets locked.