Jon, well said.
Rascal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
jon@dakota-truck.net
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:12 AM
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: DML Gas Prices
"Garret Lewis" <ladysmithgwl@1bigred.com> wrote:
: Well, I think we as American's have contributed to the problem because
many
: times we look for the cheapest solution.
This isn't something unique to Americans - its human nature to want
the most for the least; the best bang for the buck, the most return on
investment. Its the reason why capitalism works and socialism doesn't.
: So far, oil has been the cheapest
: solution compared to other fuel alternatives. There isn't a whole lot of
: engine converting necessary to start running renewable fuels in our
current
: vehicles. I've been running biodiesel (made from soy beans, renewable,
grow
: more) in my VW TDI Jett. About a year ago, it was about 50-75 cents more
: per gallon than regular diesel. However, I bought some biodiesel last
week
: and it was about 30 cents LESS than regular diesel. For the gasoline side
: of things there is ethanol (made with corn). I actually ran some ethanol
: fuel back in the early 80's when there was a gas "crunch". So, I'm for
: developing renewable fuels where we depend on ourselves and don't rely on
: imports. But, like I said, these have been the higher cost alternatives;
: so, may people haven't looked to the long term, they have just looked at
the
: short term and saw that it was going to cost more. Well, the long term
: looks like it might be here and the cheap solution is now going to cost.
Unfortunately, bio fuels aren't (yet) the answer. It has been well
known for a few decades now that it takes more energy to create biodiesel
and ethanol than you can get out of it when you burn it. For example (using
made-up numbers for clarity), in order to create one gallon of ethanol,
you might have to burn 1.5 gallons of fossil fuels by the time it is grown,
harvested, processed, etc. If you are able to convert all of the processing
equipment (tractors, etc.) to biofuels, you are still left with the problem
of burning 1.5 gallons of biofuel to create 1 gallon of biofuel. Naturally,
this is not a sustainable solution.
I'm all for research into alternative fuels. I would love it if
there were competing technologies to drive the price of oil down,
but where I draw the line is when the govenment gets involved and
starts interfering with the free market, trying to force people to
adopt these impractical technologies. The US gov't is pouring billions
of dollars per year into ethanol subsidies, which not only wastes
our money, but is actually resulting in more fossil fuels being burned
than if plain ol' petroleum based fuels were used. It may be that
through technological innovation and research, bio fuels will one day
be feasable, but we are still a long way from that point.
This is probably the last thing that many people want to hear,
but those folks who are burning biofuel in an attempt to either save
the environment, or promote an alternative to fossil fuels are
actually responsible for burning *more* fossil fuel than the rest
of us, resulting in increased pollution, diminishing reserves, or
basically the opposite of whatever they were attempting to accomplish
in the first place. :-(
--
-Jon-
.-- Jon Steiger --- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --.
| '70 Barracuda, '90 Dakota Convertible, '92 Ram 4x4, '96 Dakota |
| '96 Intruder, '96 Kolb FireFly, '99 Cherokee, '01 Ram 3500 |
`----------------------------------- http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 12:50:23 EDT