Oil/Gas is irrelevant.

I'm not going to hear about oil or gas or petroleum from anyone as a reason to war or as an economic impetious to do anything. We've had the technology and ability in the United States and Japan (at least) to move from such an archaic fuel source to hydrogen for at least 15 years. Mind you, back then cost efficiency in the original systems wasn't much better than what we have now in our gas guzzlers. But with the strategic reserve in the states (which at that time was estimated by the car and fuel industry to last 75 years if we had to rely on it soley) would have supplied anyone who couldn't make an immediate change to the new system, and still could. If anything, the reserve is far bigger today than it ever was.

It's been at least a good 5-7 years since the first compact hydrogen powered car was perfected. They look like any other car out there on the road, even have a tailpipe. You wouldn't notice em except for the occasional water drip. But you might see that on a regular vehicle anyway. More interestingly, in the last 5 years, completely enclosed systems do away with a tailpipe and are more cost efficient than the fuel we pay for today. Further the technology involved in these cars involves less overall moving parts that need to be oiled, lubricated or otherwise maintained. They use electric motors, which have come an incredibly long way. You could use them efficiently on airplanes as well.

Another interesting innovation nobody talks about are plastic rechargeable lithium batteries. They can be molded, rolled or stuck anywhere. No bulky fuel tanks or storage space required when you can craft a bucket seat out of your energy storage device.

So given all this, wtf. These aren't new technologies. They're tested and proven and would actually be cheaper to manufacture and use. Also we have plenty of old electric car technologies on the books that can make use of updated engines, batteries, regenerators, solar cell coatings and so on even if we don't want to move to hydrogen. (hydrogen cars are just electric cars with a hydrogen powered electric generator anyway).

A few things:

If you're talking about THE Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it lasts nowhere near that long. It's more like 30-35 days depending on how full it is (Bush added or has been trying to add a few more days onto it... not that it really helps.) If you're talking about Texas, Alaska, etc... even if the oil supply is there, supply and production are two different things. It'd take probably 15+ years to see any significant increase in production from Alaska, etc.

I do kinda shrug when I hear about the battery power stuff... it's not as beneficial as hydrogen or some other fuel source. It only helps fight pollution directly created by cars, the energy still has to come from somewhere and that source is probably not going to be pollution free.

But anyway I mostly agree and it pisses me off that it's taking so long for these new technologies to take off. Interestingly I think the administration has actually been pretty supportive of these new technologies because they get us away from our oil dependency, which is obviously a good thing from a national security standpoint and an economic standpoint.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the strategic reserve is equivalent to our national oil reserve (which is the estimated total of how much more oil America can pull out of the ground). Admittedly we can not pull much more oil out of the ground, but we have been buying and storing it for decades for the contingency that we will one day need to use it because for some reason our inflow of oil is cut off. Also our capacity for refinement is another matter entirely. Further, the government could always seize corporate owned oil and refinement in such a national crisis situation that would require them to open the strategic reserve (adding yet more to the total available).

Energy for batteries can be produced cheaply and without hurting the environment. We have a number of proven technologies that do so. Wind farms, Solar technologies, Water/gravity technologies, Thermal technologies, and Nuclear technologies. Although the waste from the last is nearly as troublesome as any coal, oil, or gas based technology, it is still incredibly efficient.

Much of my frustration stems from the fact that our car industry is failing so badly, yet could succeed so greatly simply by introducing a new archetype and every last one of them fully has the means to do so and has had the means to do so for awhile now. And cutting down more forests and digging up Alaska isn't going to solve anything.

The term you used was ambiguous-- I assumed you meant the actual emergency reserve (referred to as strategic reserve) as opposed to all reserve supply that we have access to. You didn't say "national oil reserve" in the first post.

I mostly agree with you really, but battery powered cars are still of limited use in the short term. Sure they CAN be powered through alternate clean means, but since we don't even come close to meeting current electricity needs with those types of power sources it's a moot point. Bottom line is, we mainly need better energy SOURCES, not just another means of storing or using the energy (although it may help some).

Unfortuantely, the second biggest obstacle to adoption to any new energy medium or technologies is the consumer. During the last decade, the US abandoned its mpg conscious ways and started thinking big. The gas guzzling muscle cars started to disappear, only to be replaced with Canyonero class SUVs which burned even more gas than the muscle cars. Gas was cheap and we didn't care if we got highway milage in the teens.

US automakers decided bigger was better, and ramped up production of bigger trucks and SUVs. Even the US milage leader Chrysler started making passenger cars with V8 engines again. At the time, none of this seemed foolish because gas was cheap, and America wanted big vehicles. Even the big 3 automakers from Japan caught on, and started producing bigger cars, trucks and SUVs. If you compare the American built Honda Accord to the models built for the European and Asian markets, the American model is clearly bigger.

The Europeans have been more open to different technologies. Unlike the US, there is a big demand for fuel efficient diesel cars. GM tried to sell diesel cars in the US back in the 80's, but their efforts failed, largely due to the crude diesel engines they used. That, and the notion that someone would actually buy a diesel Chevette. What were they thinking?

This year, two of the Big 3 American auto manufacturers had their stocks reduced to junk status. In my opinion (and I could be very wrong about this), GM and Ford are paying the price for betting their futures on big, gas burning SUVs. Neither manufactures many choices for smaller, fuel efficient vehicles. Both added more SUV models. When the price of gas goes up, buyers start looking elsewhere.

And now, the irony. GM is reporting a rise in vehicle sales last month. That GM employee's discount for everyone program seems to be working. The biggest gain was in sales of large SUVs. Go figure. Clearly, some of us Americans like giving buckets of money to Exxon/Mobil.

The greatest non-fossil fuel technology could come tomorrow, and it would still be a tough sell. We all love our cars, and blow piles of money on them. The latest hydrogen and electric technologies are kinda pricy, and its going to take big incentives to make us want give up our gas guzzlers. With GM and Ford trying to stay afloat, I can't see either taking the big risk Toyota is taking with the Prius. Toyota sells each Prius at a loss. On the other hand, no one can easily get one at cost.

My point? Adoption of new energy technoligies for automobiles isn't going to happen overnight. We've been burning gasoline for about a century now. It will take time for public opinion to shift away from fossil fuels. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. People will demand that the new technologies be as easy to use as the old technologies. They don't want to go ar 60mph for 80 miles. They don't want to plug it in overnight. Convincing such a crowd to convert will probably take decades. I think we will eventually move away from our dependence on oil, but I'll probably be very old when that happens.

Our dependence on oil is unfortunately fed by both political parties and will not likely change in the near future.

Republicans are in with the oil and energy companies. Democrats are in with the unions.

Change will happen, but not without both sides kicking and screaming.

There is a practical aspect to the things you say that you don;t realize. Electric vehicles suck to no end and I speak from the viewpoint of a mechanic who has worked on them. Batteries, no matter what flavor of the month you are talking about do not last and you are talking about thousands of dollars every 2-3 years. What that means is 3 years into your $40,000 car loan you have to dish out another $3000- $5000 all at once because the vehicle is scrap metal otherwise. It isn't a maybe thing like a car engine, it is a guaranteed expense even if you don't use the vehicle all that much.

The second thing and it is probably the most damning thing is the unreliability of electric vehicles in general. Corrosion is the principle problem and it can nickle and dime you to death and strand you. A corroded terminal, a burnt wire, a failed relay module. Kinda like having to pop the hood of a normal car and cleaning the battery terminals every time you start the vehicle. Fuel cell vehicles have the same problems where ever there is electric motors and wiring.

Hydrogen is a great idea and it is workable as long as you have a cheap and clean way of making electricity like geothermal or nuclear. Another problem is power density. Hydrogen is very explosive but as a gas it is more flash than bang therefore to make a 200hp hydrogen vehicle engine it has to be bigger and heavier. Then you run into the problem of hydrogen not having any lubrication properties like gasoline, the piston, rings, valves all have to be made from stronger, more exotic alloys just so the engine will run without eating itself.

What is most daunting about hydrogen technology it the fact that the most promising storage techniques are , you guessed it, being bought up by oil companies so if you think you are going to see inexpensive hydrogen vehicles anytime soon, don't bet on it.

And another thing about oil and gas, everyone remembers the oil crisis of the 1970's but almost no one remembers the lawsuits and fines against the oil companies in the eighties for artificially creating the "crisis". Unfortunatly the fines were only a drop in the bucket compared with the billions they raked in and it was simply a cost of doing business. It is far cheaper to pay fines than it is to sink wells per dollar earned.

The first year the Prius was release, in Japan, it sold at a price that was a loss as far as the expense of the vehicle. Toyota did this as much for publicity as to force introduction of hybrid vehicles. Since then, every year, Toyota has made money on their matured hybrid vehicle lines which include the Prius and several other models (including a luxury and sports car variety) in Japan. In America they have never had to deal with losses as they already had matured hybrid technology in Japan before they started selling it here. They are also partnered with an American car company which should have released a car, truck or suv by now, but is sitting on it's hands. Honda also has a similiar arrangement with an American company that is also just sitting on it (despite the cost of doing so).

Well next time someone who isn't driving a small car complains about high gas prices, remember this thread, and then tell them to stuff it.

Nothing has been perfected.

The problem is right now is that everything requires petroleum to build. Hydrogen, while interesting, requires oil or nuclear power to extract.

We need to build more nuclear stations (which we are), though that isn't all that fun though the most likely solution. Meltdowns are likely and pretty scary.

The other options are solar, wind and fusion.

Solar is the most interesting, because there is so much of it and we are advancing in that direction quite well.

Wind isn't so great because it's unreliable, and costs a lot of energy just to create the mills.

Fusion is the best of all (theoretically safer than nuclear) but no one knows for sure if it will pan out.

In the end, the most likely scenario will be nuclear. The problem with nuclear though is that it completely kills real estate prices so nobody wants it in their backyard.

Well what we really need is fusion, but who knows..

I think wind is better than you give it credit for though. The wind technology has seriously improved in big ways in recent years. I believe "going higher" gives wind more reliability btw... I think there's good wind more consistently if you go high enough. And the new generators they have now are REALLY high.

I also heard about a method some guy was researching that involved creating hydrogen practically for free, I believe by taking advantage of the fact that some kind of bacteria produces it or something. I'm not sure how much it produces or how efficent it'd be..

Actually, this is the result of Toyota's partnership with one of the Big 3. Like the Prius, they are hard as hell to find, and you will pay a premium to get one.

Ooo yeah I've seen one of those. Need them to get older so they drop to 10,000 or so. They don't look too bad either. Usually cars like that look like go-carts, or they are mandated to be uglier than sin (designed by blind people maybe?) Or maybe designed by apes...or clowns...whoever has been designing them needs to be fired. Nobody's gonna buy an ugly car.

That's a social psychological problem, easily engineered.

From the thirties through the mid-sixties, having a nuclear power plant in your backyard was regarded as desirably progressive. Radiation not regarded as a health risk, but a health benefit. (After all, it "cured" cancer and contributed to modern medical care.) Things changed in the late sixties, for reasons that had little to do with the potential safety of fission-based power. (Notice I said "potential".)

Changing people's minds is not that tough a social problem. Constructing safe fission reactors is not a tough technical problem, but it is a tough political problem, because it requires a different organizational paradigm than the current corporate-owned, government-regulated model we have today.

For a good read on this, see physicist Spencer R. Weart's Nuclear Fear: A History of Images.

I'm all for a diverse base of power generation technologies, including solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, fission, fusion, etc. One that hasn't been mentioned - and should - is coal. Clean coal catalytic energy is possible, though still more expensive than oil. Clean, efficient coal gasification is already here, and plants are being operated profitably by the DOE. And the BTU's locked in known U.S. coal reserves outstrips known world oil and gas BTU's by 1.6 to 1.

Oil and gas are of course, completely relevant.

Reguardless of alternative technologies, none of those have been implimented to the point that they make a significant difference.

Our current systems require oil.

Were alternative technologies made available, then I imagine that might change, slowly, as the older systems were replaced.

I have no idea how long it would take to change over , it is not the point. The point is right now, today, Oil equals energy which equals industry, commercialism and agriculture.

It is valid to push for a change. However, it is niave to think we could stop using Oil in the meantime.

The era of fission power ended with the tragedies of Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. "Safe" fission is a pipe-dream -- when the environmental cost of mining and refining the fuels is added to the real costs of storing wastes for millenia, plus the impact of thermal shock on rivers and streams used for cooling, the price of this "cheap" energy source soars. That's not counting the proliferation problems of increasing supplies of fissionable material, and the issue of corrupt officials allowing shoddy reactors to be built on seismically unstable fault lines. Even if the other issues were addressed, we lack the political will in the country to police the industry enough to prevent greedy executives from cutting corners and endangering public health and the environment.

Conservation is unpopular with the current regime because it takes money out of the pockets of the energy companies, but it is nonetheless our best short-term solution. In the medium term, hydrogen and bio-energy will probably displace fossil fuels as scarcity of the latter makes the former a more economical choice, with a significant role for wind, geothermal, and solar.

Long term? Who can say? Orbital solar may be one way to go, if we can find a better transmission method than microwaves. Tidal power has promise. Deep-core drilling may give us access to geothermal not limited by geography. Fusion would be great, if we jump the technical hurdle that creating a fusion reaction currently requires more energy than the reaction produces.

So far, demonstrations of hydrogen-powered cars have depended upon compressed hydrogen. Because of its low density, compressed hydrogen will not give a car as useful a range as gasoline. Moreover, a compressed hydrogen fuel tank would be at risk of developing pressure leaks either through accidents or through normal wear, and such leaks could result in explosions.

If the hydrogen is liquefied, this will give it a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter. At this density, it will require four times the volume of gasoline for a given amount of energy. Thus, a 15-gallon gas tank would equate to a 60-gallon tank of liquefied hydrogen. Beyond this, there are the difficulties of storing liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air. In test vehicles, accidents have occurred from pressure build-ups resulting from plugged valves.

Beyond this, there are the energy costs of liquefying the hydrogen and refrigerating it so that it remains in a liquid state. No studies have been done on the energy costs here, but they are sure to further decrease the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) of hydrogen fuel.

A third option is the use of powdered metals to store the hydrogen in the form of metal hydrides. In this case, the storage volume would be little more than the volume of the metals themselves. Moreover, stored in this form, hydrogen would be far less reactive. However, as you can imagine, the weight of the metals will make the storage tank very heavy.

Now we come to the production of hydrogen. Hydrogen does not freely occur in nature in useful quantities, therefore hydrogen must be split from molecules, either molecules of methane derived from fossil fuels or from water.

Currently, most hydrogen is produced by the treatment of methane with steam, following the formula: CH4 (g) + H2O + e > 3H2(g) + CO(g). The CO(g) in this equation is carbon monoxide gas, which is a byproduct of the reaction.

Not entered into this formula is the energy required to produce the steam, which usually comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

For this reason, we do not escape the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We simply transfer the generation of this pollution to the hydrogen production plants. This procedure of hydrogen production also results in a severe energy loss. First we have the production of the feedstock methanol from natural gas or coal at a 32 percent to 44 percent net energy loss. Then the steam treatment process to procure the hydrogen will result in a further 35 percent energy loss.

It has often been pointed out that we have an inexhaustible supply of water from which to derive hydrogen. However, this reaction, 2H2O + e = 2H2(g) + O2(g), requires a substantial energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole). This energy investment is required by elementary principles of chemistry and can never be reduced.

Several processes are being explored to derive hydrogen from water, most notably electrolysis of water and thermal decomposition of water. But the basic chemistry mentioned above requires major energy investments from all of these processes, rendering them unprofitable in terms of EROEI.

Much thought has been given to harnessing sunlight through photovoltaic cells and using the resulting energy to split water in order to derive hydrogen. The energy required to produce 1 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of hydrogen is 1.3 billion kWh of electricity. Even with recent advances in photovoltaic technology, the solar cell arrays would be enormous, and would have to be placed in areas with adequate sunlight.

Likewise, the amount of water required to generate this hydrogen would be equivalent to 5 percent of the flow of the Mississippi River. As an example of a solar-to-hydrogen set up, were Europe to consider such a transition, their best hope would lie in erecting massive solar collectors in the Saharan desert of nearby Africa. Using present technology, only 5 percent of the energy collected at the Sahara solar plants would be delivered to Europe. Such a solar plant would probably cost 50 times as much as a coal fired plant, and would deliver an equal amount of energy.

The basic problem of hydrogen fuel cells is that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen. The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not.

In reality, hydrogen fuel cells are a storage battery for energy derived from other sources. In a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are fed to the anode and cathode, respectively, of each cell. Electrons stripped from the hydrogen produce direct current electricity which can be used in a DC electric motor or converted to alternating current.

Because of the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel cells will always have a bad EROEI. If fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, either through the Methane-Steam method or through Electrolysis of Water, there will be no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. The use of hydrogen as an intermediate form of energy storage is justified only when there is some reason for not using the primary source directly. For this reason, a hydrogen-based economy must depend on large-scale development of nuclear power or solar electricity.

Therefore, the development of a hydrogen economy will require major investments in fuel cell technology research and nuclear or solar power plant construction. On top of this, there is the cost of converting all of our existing technology and machinery to hydrogen fuel cells. And all of this will have to be accomplished under the economic and energy conditions of post-peak fossil fuel production.

You will see a few token hydrogen cars but you will never see mass production....it's a pipe dream at best.

Propane Vehicles
Tree-Hugging Factor: 5 out of 5 trees

Can cars really run on propane … just like your gas grill? You bet. In fact, propane-powered vehicles have actually been around for nearly 60 years. Many taxis, buses, and other high-mileage vehicles in major cities are powered by propane.

Propane, or Liqufied Petroleum Gas (LPG), is a by-product of natural gas processing and petroleum refining. In use, it emits far less pollution than regular gas. And, there's tons of it available right here in the U.S.

Propane vehicles get about the same mileage as conventional cars and propane is actually less expensive than regular gas. There's also less wear and tear on propane engines -- lousy news for mechanics everywhere.

There are a number of factory-produced propane vehicles, including Dodge Ram trucks, Ford Crown Victorias, Toyota Camrys, Chevy Caviliers, and Ford's F-150 Series Pickup. Some of these vehicles are even "bi-fuel," meaning they have two separate gas tanks, and will run on propane or conventional gas.

There are over 10,000 propane filling stations throughout the U.S. and Canada so, if you do ever decide to go for it and get a propane-powered vehicle, you shouldn't have too much of a problem filling it up. And, if worse come to worse, you can always tap into your neighbor's gas grill (( that is what happend to all my gas!!)).

Natural Gas Vehicles

Tree-Hugging Factor: 5 out of 5 trees


Natural gas vehicles have actually been around since the 1930s. For the eco-correct, there are several upsides. Natural gas adds fewer pollutants to the air, costs less than regular gas, and is non-toxic. Because it burns more cleanly than regular gas, natural gas also reduces wear and tear on vehicles. And, if you've ever visited our garage after a stop from the Ralph's lunch truck, you know that there's no shortage of natural gas right here in the U.S.

How does a natural gas powered vehicle work? The gas is stored in cylinders installed in the rear, under carriage, or on the roof of the vehicle. Inside the cylinders, the gas is under high pressure -- between 3,000 and 3,600 pounds per square inch. When gas is required, it travels through a fuel regulator located in the engine compartment and is then injected through a specially designed mixer, to get the correct air-to-gas mixture.

There are about a million natural gas vehicles in use world wide (not counting Tommy on his bike), and about 30,000 currently in use in the United States.

There are several downsides. First, the driving range is less than one half of a gasoline-powered vehicle. Second, fuel stations are less common, although the number is growing -- there are currently more than 1,300.

There are a number of natural gas vehicles available now, including the Honda Civic GX, Dodge Caravan, Ford Crown Victoria and Contour, most GM pickups, Chevrolet Cavalier, Toyota Camry, and the Volvo S70 and V70. Many of these models are also available in a bi-fuel configuration, which can run on either natural gas or gasoline. New natural gas vehicles cost $3,500 to $7,000 more than gasoline vehicles. The good news is that natural gas costs significantly less than gasoline or diesel. For many consumers, the upfront costs can be recovered over the life of the vehicle.

Regular, gasoline-powered vehicles can also be converted to run on natural gas. The typical cost to convert a vehicle ranges from $3,000 to $5,000.

The bottom line here is the money is on the wrong side of the equation.

Methane, aka natural gas, is also renewable. The decay of any organic material can produce it at little cost. In fact, garbage dumps often need to be equipped to dispose of what decaying trash generates normally.

Methanol (wood alcohol) isn't quite a clean as methane, but it has the advantage of being a liquid. You do need a bigger tank (it doesn't pack the oomph of octane), and standard engines need significant tweaking to run pure methanol (it tends to eat seals, lines, etc).

Ethanol (grain alcohol) has more punch than methanol. Gasohol is a mixture of ethanol and gasoline. The only real barrier to seeing it in wider use is price. If gas prices continue to rise, I would anticipate seeing alcohol and gas/alcohol mixtures become more and more popular.

I'm liable to see a lot of flaming for this, but...


In a perfect world, the right answer would have been to:

1) Slowly phase out Big Oil over the next decade or two.
2) NOT invade other countries to fuel our gas-guzzlers under false pretenses.
3) Offer tax incentives and information campaigns for Eco-friendly vehicles and methods.


Instead, the Environment (TM) has been largely used as a buzzword in political campaigns and even Big Oil itself in marketing campaigns, when realistically the issue hasn't seen much movement.

I cringe every time I see the "Ecomagination" ads, because I know that's nothing more than brainwash for the masses.


I think, however, that as prices keep rising and approval ratings do the reverse, we might see some changes. But my guess is it will take a real crash before some people open their eyes.

Me? I carpool. I'm considering buying an Eco-friendly and/or smaller vehicle.

You're repeating a political and social argument, not a design or engineering reality. Your characterization of "safe fission" is wrong.

In reality, each of the problems you've stated has a technical solution. However, those technical solutions may create further social and political issues. There are huge problems with solar, wind, fusion, hydrogen and other alternatives, each which has a technical solution, and all which may lead to other social and political problems. Fission - modern fission technology, not the kind that proliferated back in the fifties through the early seventies - is no different from alternative energy sources in that regard, except that it currently has a bad reputation.

My point is this: There needs to be a differentiation between technical and social or political issues. Otherwise, good energy policy-making will be very difficult.

You're repeating a political and social argument, not a design or engineering reality. Your characterization of "safe fission" is wrong.

In reality, each of the problems you've stated has a technical solution. However, those technical solutions may create further social and political issues. There are huge problems with solar, wind, fusion, hydrogen and other alternatives, each which has a technical solution, and all which may lead to other social and political problems. Fission - modern fission technology, not the kind that proliferated back in the fifties through the early seventies - is no different from alternative energy sources in that regard, except that it currently has a bad reputation.

My point is this: There needs to be a differentiation between technical and social or political issues. Otherwise, good energy policy-making will be very difficult.

Again - coal gasification and clean catalytic burning are good stopgap measures for augmenting oil and gas for at least several decades - until the technology of other alternatives mature.