quote Originally posted by ghost187x: so how about ethanol? brazil is doing it.

Ethanol sounds nice on the surface but it really won't work. If the US used 100% of it's corn for ethanol production (no food), that amount of ethanol would only replace approximately 15% of the gas we use every day. On top of that, if we actually diverted all corn to ethanol production you'd see some serious problems with food prices. Furthermore, and this point is pretty much moot because of the first point I made, lets not forget that current ethanol production is heavily subsidized by the government because, on their own, the can't make a profit. Of course if gas goes over $5 a gallon it may actually become profitable, but even if that happened, see point #1.

I honestly don't foresee any alternative liquid fuel being cheaper than gasoline. I forget the exact numbers, but here ethanol is like $3/gal and gas is $3.50/gal. With the lower gas mileage received on ethanol, it's more expensive to run. If gas hit $5/gal, ethanol would be cheaper per BTU - but I can guarantee that with $5 gas, ethanol will probably be $4.50 - eliminating all potential savings.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I honestly don't foresee any alternative liquid fuel being cheaper than gasoline. I forget the exact numbers, but here ethanol is like $3/gal and gas is $3.50/gal. With the lower gas mileage received on ethanol, it's more expensive to run. If gas hit $5/gal, ethanol would be cheaper per BTU - but I can guarantee that with $5 gas, ethanol will probably be $4.50 - eliminating all potential savings.

Yeah, that's another thing about ethanol. It's only about 85% as efficient as gas, so people who can run it buy it thinking they're saving money, but this is usually not the case. Take the numbers from above: if gas is $3.50 and ethanol is $3, apply the 85% efficiency of ethanol to the price so you can directly compare the two fuels..... ethanol is actually costing you $3.53/gallon to drive the same distance as $3.50/gallon gas

That is why methonal is a better alternitive.

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: That is why methonal is a better alternitive.

I personally don't know much about methanol as an alternative, will have to check that out. I do have a quick question for you though. You said:

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: natural gas is a renewable resorce, it is not a fossil fuel..

All the natural gas that I'm aware of comes from oil fields, some active with oil, others where the oil had enough time to completely break down into methane (natural gas). Underground oil ultimately breaks down to natural gas over time aided of course by the high temperatures and/or pressures. So, with that in mind, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

My question to you is this: what are the non-fossil fuel sources of natural gas you're referring to?

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 03-16-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ditch: My question to you is this: what are the non-fossil fuel sources of natural gas you're referring to?

Natural gas is created by methanogenic organisms

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: Everybody is saying the way to go is electric to get us off of oil dependance. The best way to go in my opinon is methanol from natural gas. We have enough natural gas to meet the demands and natural gas is a renewable resorce, it is not a fossil fuel. We already have the infrastructure in place the only thing we need to do is revamp the IC engine to be more efficent with methonal as a fuel sorce. Methonal also does not compete for valuable food sorce resorces.

That's China's plan.

http://www.marketwatch.com/...stry-grow-2010-03-15
http://www.theenergydaily.c...sportation_5351.html

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: Everybody is saying the way to go is electric to get us off of oil dependance. The best way to go in my opinon is methanol from natural gas. We have enough natural gas to meet the demands and natural gas is a renewable resorce, it is not a fossil fuel. We already have the infrastructure in place the only thing we need to do is revamp the IC engine to be more efficent with methonal as a fuel sorce. Methonal also does not compete for valuable food sorce resorces.

With the exception of small amounts produced as biogas from waste, natural gas is a fossil fuel. Not only that, but it's already in high enough demand/low enough availability that market commodity pricing is almost as high as it ever has been.

------------------
Bring back civility and decorum!

It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: Natural gas is created by methanogenic organisms

Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Sure, some methane is generated by organisms, but do you see every energy company going out and getting their natural gas this way? By collecting the burp/fart gases from animals? Putting domes over swamps to collect the little methane that is produced there? Growing large pools of algae and collecting the gases that come off? How efficient and cost effective is that? Is what can be collected this way going to put even a small dent in the amount of natural gas we use every day? Doubt it.

Gas companies get the natural gas that we all use every day from currently/formerly active oil fields where it was made from organic matter undergoing high pressure/temperature....fossil fuels, because that's where it's all at with the exception of that little bit coming from the source you mentioned.. Give this a read:

http://www.low-cost-gas.org...ral-gas-sources.html

Whether or not using bacteria to economically produce natural gas as a viable supplement/replacement to our current fossil fuel source may be an interesting discussion topic, but it doesn't take away from the fact that natural gas is indeed a fossil fuel. Just because it can be generated in other ways doesn't take away that fact. We generate motor oil in labs (synthetic) but that alternative way to make it doesn't take oil off the fossil fuel list.

[This message has been edited by ditch (edited 03-16-2011).]

Doesn't matter if it is a fossil fuel or not. Methanol is still a viable solution to getting away from petrolium. North America has enough natural gas to support our economy without having to import. arguing where it comes from does not further the discussion.

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: Doesn't matter if it is a fossil fuel or not. Methanol is still a viable solution to getting away from petrolium. North America has enough natural gas to support our economy without having to import. arguing where it comes from does not further the discussion.

Not trying to argue, just pointing out a false statement you made. I would appreciate anyone do the same for me should I make an incorrect statement.

See earlier post.

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: UA Hydrologist Studies Huge Natural Gas Reserves Created By Microbes Some of the largest natural gas reserves in the world are biogenic, which means they’re being created by microbes today and could potentially be a renewable resource. http://www.innovations-repo...n/bericht-83315.html

yep, organic material deep underground, shales and coal beds created 300+ million years ago, all being converted to natural gas......that would be a fossil fuel by definition

....and renewable how? They throw out the word renewable in the beginning, but no mention of it again. The organic material gets used up, so how can it be renewed? Like all fossil fuels, once it's used up, you're done

Renewable as used in the energy infrastructure business implies that the supply isn't affected by usage, in the sense that the supply is replenished as quickly as it is being consumed. Fossil fuels by definition can't meed that standard. There are no planned or contemplated or likely scenarios or technology where natural gas will be produced at rates as fast as or exceeding what is being used today for non-mobile applications, let alone enough to replace gasoline in mobile applications. Sure, there are processes where new methane is being generated, such as underground bacteria, but the rate of regeneration is millions of times slower than consumption so though the supply cannot be considered renewable in any useful sense of the word.

Besides, methanol as a combustion fuel has many problems, not least of which is that it's directly poisonous from skin contact with no treatment available.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Besides, methanol as a combustion fuel has many problems, not least of which is that it's directly poisonous from skin contact with no treatment available.

I think the other poster(s) meant to say "methane"--not "methanol".

There's a big difference!

I've driven the Volt, it's a great car. It's made for the majority of the people, those that drive less than 40 miles a day, that's about 15,000 miles a year. They can drive it forever and not burn a drop of gas. If they decide to go to grandmas house a thousand miles away, they have the option of taking the volt. You could do that in a Leaf, but it would take ten days recharging it every 100 miles.

2 and a half weeks of discussion... GM is still around. That death nail must be moving slower than first thought.

quote Originally posted by newf: Disagree all you like but their not my numbers they are what was reported. I also notice how many people that seem to rail against GM somehow let the banking system off without a second thought. Who would you say had more employees that would suffer if they were allowed to go bankrupt? How many vendors and suppliers would have been lost as well in a time of massive uneployment? How would the car industry in America do with only one manufacturer? If GM does well who benefits? If the banks and Wall Streeters do good who does? But hey hate GM they are the evil ones and ignore the banking system and Wall Street, they got bailed out AND were allowed to go back to normal without the checks and balances needed setting up basically exactly the same system as before. I keep hearing how wall Street are back to levels that they would have projected to be before the Financial Crisis yet where are the jobs they provide? Same with the tax cuts for the rich, weren't there supposed to be an influx of jobs when that went through? Still waiting....

newf,

I do not want to sound as if I am disrespecting you, but what you said above is ignorant. I am not saying you are stupid per se, just ignorant of facts---as always. The banking system in the USA is, and has become, a global entity. It is base upon, and understood, as having the full trust of the Federal Reserve of the United States to repay all debts foreign and domestic. This trust is based upon our ability to print and tax our citizens to make that repayment. The Wall Street banking system is made up of primarily liberal leaning Democrats. What they do is lend money in hopes of getting back more money than they gave out. The trick is to do it without losing more money than you lent over a set period of time. The "street" consist of people who provide companies the ability to hire. WIthout this entity of free market and capitalism, the USA would not exist as the beacon of global resolve as it is today. How do I know? How can I say such things? I traded on Wall Street! So, if you have a question on how the tax system works or how to generate more employment, let me know, I would be happy to educate you.

Cordially,
Kevin

It took 100 years to put them out of business the first time. After getting bailed out, I dont forsee them doing that again....

quote Originally posted by fierogt_87: I've driven the Volt, it's a great car. It's made for the majority of the people, those that drive less than 40 miles a day, that's about 15,000 miles a year. They can drive it forever and not burn a drop of gas. If they decide to go to grandmas house a thousand miles away, they have the option of taking the volt. You could do that in a Leaf, but it would take ten days recharging it every 100 miles.

BUT...the vast majority cant afford a $40,000 car. And its already been proven in the real world if you drive 40 miles a day, half the time its running on gas. Unless of course you dont turn on heat/ air conditioner, lights, stereo, windshield washers, GPS, and all the other little electronic goodies we all put in our car. Most reports Ive seen say in reality, if we use them like we do our other cars, they get 16-20 miles on electric. I can do that with a golf cart. Like Ive said, if you can afford to buy it, and live very close to everything you do, its a viable alternative. And dont forget that $2-3 in electric you pay a day to recharge it. I get a lot of stuff from a specialty store on the opposite side of town. It would take a full charge to get there on the other side of town, and Id be running on the gas coming back. For the same trip in my gas car, i can do the same trip for almost the same cost, if not cheaper. (gallon of gas+$3 charge vs 1 1/2 gallons of gas) and I dont have a $500 @ month payment.

Wow Kevin, talk about drinking from the Wall Street Koolaid! What did Wall Street do for us, they took money that WASN’T THEIRS meant to be used to loan out to help get the economy going, paid out obscene bonus’s to exec’s that made from questionable to practically illegal deals that screwed up things in the first place, half a million dollar mortgages on $100,000 properties with no proof of the borrower’s ability to qualify for them just for starters. This practice fueled the inflation of home prices that caused the bubble that burst in the housing market. The rest of the money was either used to buy each other out or stuffed in a box and sat on. Many in the financial field should be in jail for the things they did.
I agree with Newf, if GM and Chrysler had gone under, the job losses across the country would have been in the millions. Between direct employees, suppliers and all the places that these workers spend their money, not to mention all the retirees that would be affected, it would have been catastrophic.
You think car prices are high now, what do you think would happen if there was no domestic competition, just look at what has happened in England, high prices and the foreigners starting to close factories. You don’t think they would keep the jobs here, do you? Japan has record unemployment right now, of course their record unemployment is about five percent. You’re not really naïve enough to think the jobs would stay here.

I guess they have one more left?

quote Originally posted by kevin: newf, I do not want to sound as if I am disrespecting you, but what you said above is ignorant. I am not saying you are stupid per se, just ignorant of facts---as always. The banking system in the USA is, and has become, a global entity. It is base upon, and understood, as having the full trust of the Federal Reserve of the United States to repay all debts foreign and domestic. This trust is based upon our ability to print and tax our citizens to make that repayment. The Wall Street banking system is made up of primarily liberal leaning Democrats. What they do is lend money in hopes of getting back more money than they gave out. The trick is to do it without losing more money than you lent over a set period of time. The "street" consist of people who provide companies the ability to hire. WIthout this entity of free market and capitalism, the USA would not exist as the beacon of global resolve as it is today. How do I know? How can I say such things? I traded on Wall Street! So, if you have a question on how the tax system works or how to generate more employment, let me know, I would be happy to educate you. Cordially, Kevin

Way to promote civility and decorum there, Kevin. Calling him "ignorant", .."as always".., throwing in a little political democrat-bashing by using "liberal" as a negative adjective, etc. The tone of your response was fairly derogatory and demeaning, though you did it "cordially".

Note, I'm not commenting on what you said, just how you chose to say it.