Do we have the resolve to alienate ourselves from oil and move full ahead into alternative fuels?

Question

Do we have the resolve to alienate ourselves from oil and move full ahead into alternative fuels?

Answer 1

Are you kidding?  We don't even have the resolve to observe the speed limit, ignoring the admonitions of Sir Isaac Newton and claiming our SUVs are "tuned" and "geared" to get the best gas mileage at 65-70 MPH.

Answer 2

We'd better have the resolve.  Anyone that says differently doesn't understand the most critical point of fossil fuels-they're non-renewable.  

The internal combustion engine as we know it today-the gasoline engine, which led to the widespread use of oil-is just over 145 years old, when the world population wasn't much higher than 1 billion. To keep things simple when thinking about the rate of fuel consumption assume that it was immediately as prominent as it is today.  (It wasn't-it was almost 50 years before antitrust legislation was passed against Standard Oil, oil having taken close to that long to be able to act like a trust)

80 years ago the world's population reached 2 billion, about the same time that the internal combustion engine reached a level of use approximating current levels.  Today the world population is around 6.5 billion and should double in around 60 years.  

In less than 20 years (maybe as litle as 4)half the world's total oil reserves-every bit that has ever existed-will be exhausted (this includes deep sea oil, sand oil and other sources that are difficult to find and/or extract--more than half of the stuff that's easy to get is already gone).  By that time (20 years) the world's population will be well past 7 billion, and may have reached 8 billion.  Given current consumption levels the total oil reserves will be exhausted well before the world's population doubles.

The reason world population has grown so much in the past 80 years is an incredibly expanded ability to grow food.  The reason the food supply has grown is oil.

People that pay attention to these things anticipate massive stockpiling once it's confirmed that the world's reserves drop below 50%, which will be reflected in gas prices blowing past 20$/gallon.  On top of that obvious cost, we'll be unable to grow food at anything near today's levels, and the potential for massive starvation could easily become quite real.  Before the widespread use of oil the world was able to grow enough food to feed less than 2 billion people.  Our food production capabilities will fall to that same level, if not lower, if food production remains hugely dependent on oil.

Unfortunately some people actually believe 'necessity is the mother of invention.' Necessity has led to next to nothing.  It's more like the deadbeat dad.

Answer 3

I don't know.  Most of the alternative fuel cars are just kind of crappy.  I mean we could be driving electric cars, but then we have to build more coal fired electric plants and then we have more pollution.  That doesn't solve much.  Call me crazy.

Answer 4

Of course not. And, "we" won't have that resolve, until Big Oil spends as much $$$ to develop those alternate fuels as they do finding new oil fields.

Answer 5

We have had the technology for years. We have had the knowledge for years. We haven't done sh*t yet. So, probably not.

Answer 6

What will be essential is for alternative-fuel vehicles to be BETTER than regular vehicles.

Americans won't accept a worse car, and fortunately they don't have to.  We have the engineering know-how to make better cars using alternative technologies, and to show the world how to as well.  

Just a tiny example: The Silverado hybrid full-size pickup includes a big 2500 watt inverter powered off the main battery pack, so you can run your jobsite or campsite directly off the truck. That means no $$$ or hassles for a power company drop or Honda generator.  That's a great example of "Better".

Answer 7

The best way to make alternative energy economically feasible is to make gasoline economically unattractive.  The best way to do that is to tax the daylights out of it.  If a person wants to drive an Expedition or a Hummer, he certainly should be able to, if he can afford the gas.  Using taxes to force social change is nothing new.  The US wanted to encourage home ownership, so they allowed homebuyers to deduct interest on mortgages.  Government-mandated fuel efficiency standards on auto manufacturers is dumb, because the manufacturers don't buy the cars, they sell them.  Europe and Japan have substantial gas taxes, and they use much less gasoline per capita than we do.  A tax on gasoline doesn't have to be a tax increase - it can be "revenue neutral", by decreasing the income tax taken from individuals.  That way, a person who uses a less than average amount of fuel will actually pay less taxes than he/she does now.  Once America gets serious about conserving gas (through taxation), we will be able to pursue alternate energy sources.  By the way, ultimately, the best source of energy will be advanced battery technology, not ethanol, hydrogen, biomass, natural gas, etc.

Answer 8

No, we don't.  Because it would mean a substantial decrease in the availablity of fuel, most vehicles would become worthless overnight, and we would have lines waiting for these alternative fuels which we CANNOT produce enough of, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise.

Oh, and it would be far more expensive.

Answer 9

politicians and big business stand in the way.

Answer 10

Definitely, I don't think it is in our politicians best interests to let down their best charitable contributors though.

Answer 11

The resolve does seems to be gaining momentum.  I also see general acceptance that global warming is occuring, but claiming that its not our fault.  We will continue to be oil dependent for the next 10 or 20 years at least.  There is resolve to be less dependant.  Your term "alienate" I take it to mean complete going away from oil.  I don't see that happening anytime soon.