Fuel prices....thank a Republican.

[Useless]

Land+Seed+Good Growing Conditions+Fertilizer+herbicide+pesticide= Corn


large amount of energy must be spent in the process of getting seeds turned into more seeds. Then more energy must be spent getting these seeds to a facility that can turn them into biodiesel

And I suppose that no energy, or very little energy is required to drill for oil, transport it to a refinery, and then refine it??

I would like to know if biodiesel is really as efficient as diesel

[rjt030]

I agree that it does take alot of energy to produce, transport and refine oil. Anything we do takes energy.

I just wanted to see if anyone could tell me yes or no whether biodiesel was more efficient than diesel

[One]

Search the internet for biodiesel! I found lots of sites just in the US that list Pros and Cons and even supply manuals on how to make it at home!!!
Biodiesel can be make from a variety of stuff that may otherwise go to a landfill...
The question is: If we need lots of acrage of farmland to grow plants that yield a good amount of vegetable oil, will that be a good thing or not? I know I would rather be a farmer than a truck driver and im sure a lot of other people including farmers that have given up their farms will be very happy to start growing such a crop!!! it will give us jobs that wont go overseas, reduce the trade deficit by reducing the amount of oil imported from overseas and remove some of the funding to shady countries! it will lower the demand for oil, lowering the price!!
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel.html
http://www.biodieselnow.com/
If you take the 5 mins to look at just those 2 sites, you will realize how many problems this will solve!!!!

[MrVain]

I would personally like to thank all of the people who voted for George Bush. Thank you for the high gas prices! Hopefully they double again before he leaves office. When gas finally reachs $8 to $10 a gal maybe then the american public will wake up and have an intervention for our addiction to foreign oil.

Theres many reasons why the price of oil is rising. There are two ways to begin to solve the problem.

1. An Apollo type project spearheaded by government leadership. It's a funny thought with this administration but might be possible in 2008.

2. Gas prices of $10 a gal within the next two years. Public leverage on private business and political leadership will spawn investment in alternatives.

Again...thank you George Bush and your oil cabinet! Were 1/3 of way to our goal! Keep up the great work in the New American Century!

You are a blithering idiot!

[Useless]

I agree that it does take alot of energy to produce, transport and refine oil. Anything we do takes energy.

I just wanted to see if anyone could tell me yes or no whether biodiesel was more efficient than diesel

Efficiency is an issue, but only to a certain extent. If alternative fuels are cleaner to produce and they burn cleaner, and there is a relatively stable and plentiful supply of corn or hemp needed to produce them, and if the supply is not controlled by Cartels that are hostile to American interests, then efficiency becomes a secondary issue.

Bear in mind that oil is now above $70.00 per barrel and the price per barrel will most likely continue to rise; we have an upcoming hurricane season that meteorologists and scientists are predicting could rival last year's season in terms of numbers and severity. The troubles in the Middle East are continuing to compound and intensify, and our economy hinges upon the circumstances and events that prevail in a part of the world that has never known a days worth of peace.

Irrespective of your political views, be you conservative, moderate, or liberal, or a card carrying member of the Republican, Libertarian, Democratic, or Green Party, or a member of the Reformed Left Handed Dyslexic Druid Movementarian Party(BTW, that is MY Party of Choice!! 8) ), the problems and events that unfold over in The Middle East have a tremendous impact upon the stability of our economy. The ability of ANY U.S. President, Republican or Democrat, to control our economy is in reality, rather limited. That is not to suggest that a President's economic policy can not have an effect upon our economy as a whole; clearly, it can, but the external events that affect our economic stability are frequently out of the hands of any President..

But NO President of ANY political party can keep the problems in the Middle East from escalating, nor can any President keep a hurricane from striking, nor can any President keep China's demands for fossil fuels from growing exponentially.

As difficult as it may be for many people to understand, the price of energy is not nearly as big of a problem for our economy as is the lack of stability in pricing. In economic terms, whatever the price of oil reaches, our economy has the ability to adjust to it as long as prices remain stable. If this premise was not valid, then the housing market would have collapsed a decade ago!! It is the unstable nature of the politics and economics of fossil fuel availability, sources, and prices that are hurting us more than anything else, and America is woefully behind the curve when it comes to developing alternative fuel sources.

This is where battles are needlessly being waged in the political realm. The objectives of economic concerns, stability of supplies, the breaking up of the control that The Oil Cartels have over oil prices, the effects of the political instability of The Middle East, China's ever increasing energy demands, and protection of our environment, as well as water quality and air quality issues can all be successfully addressed through the development of alternative fuels and energy sources. The objectives of both political parties (excluding selfish economic interests) can be met without being at odds or in conflict with one another. In the end, The American People would be the ultimate winners!!

Just My Thoughts,
Useless

[whodat54321]

a note about china's increasing demands.
how?

because WE sent our jobs there in exchange for their cheap labor, like the
rest of the world. turns out 'just ship it somewhere else' isn't going to be
a long term cost-effective solution for the price of living. oil gets too high
in price, the profit margins are lost in the cost of transporting goods.

i mentioned some time ago that some forward thinking companies (small
and medium sized manufacturers) are already thinking that outsourcing
has peaked and higher costs of labor here will be less of an impact than the
cost of shipping within the next decade.

[Useless]

With or without us, China's economic development will continue, as will their energy requirements.

While I have been a very vocal opponent of shipping American Jobs overseas, that in itself would not significantly alter the world-wide demand for oil. If those manufacturing jobs were still in the U.S., (where I believe they SHOULD be!!) the increased demand for fossil fuels would still be a problem, but our demand here in the U.S. would increase even more than it is increasing now.

In any event, the lack of a cohesive energy policy (or, in practical terms, ANY meaningful energy policy!!) and our lack of fortitude and vision in developing alternative fuel sources is what is hurting us more than anything else.

With alternative fuel and energy sources, the American People would be the winners, which is a good part of the reason that the political leaders on BOTH sides of the aisle, and the corporate fat cats are going to do everything in their power to keep them from being developed.

[druid2874]

Well where to start??Lets see 1st the oil problem is sort of like a very over weight person. You did not get that way over night. Thus this problem will not get fixed over night. The 1st big speech about oil and that we need to get away from it was in Nixon?s term in1974 He said "Let this be our national goal: At the end of this decade, in the year 1980, the United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." And he also said "I am inaugurating a program to marshal both government and private research with the goal of producing an unconventionally powered virtually pollution free automobile within five years."

Then came the only president that was not elected Ford which set back the above statements 5 years to 1985.

Then Mr. Jimmy Carter THE WORST PRESIDENT WE HAD. On April 18 1977 he said these words that achieving energy independence was the ?Moral equivalent of war? And then he started United States Department of Energy He also said in 1978 "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977?never," lol lol sorry

Reagan will put him last

Next President George H.W Naturally one of his strategy's guiding principles was "reducing our dependence on foreign oil." Which never happened

Then President Bill Clinton
In 1992, President Bill Clinton proposed a BTU tax on fossil fuels to raise money to reduce the deficit. Clinton's tax proposal would have put a levy on natural gas, coal, and nuclear power of 25.7 cents per million British thermal units. Crude oil would have been taxed at 59.9 cents per million BTU to discourage dependence on foreign oil. The crude oil BTU tax would have raised the price of a barrel of oil by about $3.50, and would have cost the average family between $200 to $400 annually. In 1996, Clinton proposed a comprehensive energy plan that was completely ignored by the Republican-controlled Congress

Reagan was the smart one but still did not help the USA out that much but he did something In December 1985, Reagan signed legislation dismantling the U.S. Synthetic Fuels Corp. What happened when all these government attempts to manage our energy supply were cruelly killed? Oil prices dropped from their peak of $37 per barrel in 1981 to less than $14 per barrel in 1986.

So folks the less government puts its fingers in stuff the better it is for us.

[druid2874]

Also whodat

We do export a lot of jobs out. But we do have a lot of foreign companies come here I.E Toyota, Nissan, Bmw and the like plus many others. And the ones that get imported to here are Higher paying jobs, then the ones that are typically exported. But it seems the latter is never talked about hmmm wonder why.

[One]

Nissan, BMW, Toyota...lets add monorail and most other new tech. to that list...why? Because we are way behind the ball at a lot of high tech stuff... maybe weapon tech but i dont know anything about that...the reason why those companies are here is because they make a better product!

[GMAN]

You all make some good points. Until there is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, we are going to be at the mercy of who ever controls the flow of oil. As we have seen in the freight business, competition keeps prices lower. Competition also makes companies operate at a more efficient level. They have to be efficient in order to be competitive. 8)

[Useless]

I had read an article about that, the amount of energy it takes to make bio-diesel. To grow and plant the seeds, harvest the product, create more seeds, then refine the product to make bio-diesel.

The article said it takes more energy to make bio-diesel than what energy can be created from the bio-diesel its self. If that is the case and demand is high on bio-diesel would'nt we see the prices just as high as standard diesel? And then what affect will that have on the price of gasoline?

Okay, the article "says"???

Here is the problem with that. Who, or what is the source of that information?? Unfortunately, many of the people who write supposedly "scientific" articles are less concerned about proper dissemination of information, and more concerned with promoting an economic or political agenda. Also remember that those figures are compiled based upon the energy production infrastructure as it is now, not as it could be. Consequently, I consider whatever numbers are being tossed about as being rather suspect.

Now, if gasoline was still $1.25 per gallon, then economic viability could be an issue in the short term, but we are now at a point where $100.00 per barrel oil is not at all an unrealistic possibility.

To answer the second part of your question:

Common logic would seem to indicate that the dramatic increases in fuel prices would have a crippling effect upon our economy. So far, our economy has absorbed and digested them, and is continuing to grow, although I do not personally believe that it is growing as well as many of the so-called "experts" would have you believe. There are still some very serious issues to be addressed, and there are some MAJOR problems facing us in the short term.

What you have to remember is that when indexed for inflation, fuel costs have not risen any faster than the cost of housing over the past thirty to fourty years; what HAS happened is that these fuel price increases have been rather drastic, and the price fluctuations have occurred in relatively
short period of time; thus, the impact has been more painful.

Even if hempoline or biodiesel wound up costing as much as fossil fuel based gas or diesel, there would still be much more satbility in terms of supply, the Oil Cartels (and terrorist groups) would have a large source of their revenue decreased, environmental concerns, including water and air quality would be addressed, and the price fluctuations over time would be dramatically reduced.

[Ardmore Farms Forever]

but if we spent what we spend to kidnapp suspected terrorists in Europe, we could surely build a small Bio-refinery.

I'm not quite familiar with the terrorist we have kidnapped............please enlighten us a little bit.

[One]

sure, my friend, here are some articles i found just by searching the internet... im not terribly happy with these, but from the amount of reports we can be pretty certain that such things go on....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...oryID=12017793
audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4563352

[Toothpick]

sure, my friend, here are some articles i found just by searching the internet... im not terribly happy with these, but from the amount of reports we can be pretty certain that such things go on....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...oryID=12017793
audio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4563352

Why am I not surprised, every one of your links are to sites that specialize in anti-Americanism and demonizing America, and Israel I might add, every opportunity they get. Moreover, the reports noted that they were preliminary. In other words, it was pure leftist propaganda meant only to supplant the allegations in your mind. A very effective leftist propaganda technique used to expolit the ignorance's and emotions of the masses. In leftist propaganda, the allegations are far more important than the truth. Therefore, the strategy is to bombard your opponent with spurious allegations. Send over a constant barrage, as we have seen both with respect to the war in Iraq and the President.

The NY Times, a very leftist and propagandistic anti-American newpaper in their own right, had to suck it up recently and run a story reporting that all those investigations in Europe conducted by the different EU commissions with respect to allegations of tortue by the American government at hidden locations all came up empty as I expected. Never mind the fact that just detaining terrorists is many times considered tortue in their delusional eyes. However, the problem with all you delusional leftists is the allegations become more important than the truth, and you would rather believe a leftist politically motivated CIA mole and traitor than you would your own government who is only trying to do its level best to protect you and ensure your safety.

My advice, lay off the sites that specialize in demonizing America and otherwise corrupting your mind and learn to think with your mind instead of your emotions. It will only help you to view the world much more sanely and productively in the long run and to learn that America isn't always the monster it's made out to be.

[One]

Toothpick, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about! BBC, Reuters and Npr are some of the most respected and objective news-agencies on the face of this planet! Leftist propaganda?? Anti-american? WTF r u talking about? read the article! what does the iraq war have to do with anything? and Bush? they are not the subject of those articles!

[One]

Surely the Washington Post is a 'leftist propaganda' page too in your eyes
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artm...ew.cgi/37/9593

[yoopr]

NPR?
Yeah right

[Useless]

NPR?
Yeah right

On this count, I must agree with Yoopr!!
I'm way too Liberal to be called a Conservative, and way too Conservative to be called a Liberal. Having said that I listen to both conservative talk radio stations, and liberal venues as well.

I listen to NPR.

Do they often present perspectives and ideas that are outside the mainstream??
Yes!!

Can you learn something by listening to NPR??
Yes!!

Does NPR have a balanced or objective format for reporting news??
NOT EVEN!!

I think that listening to both sides of an issue, and hearing argument from both sides of the political spectrum is wise and prudent. I also think that pretending that objectivity exists where it clearly does not is unwise and foolish!!

Just Another "Useless" Observation!!

[GMAN]

I have yet to talk to a journalist who thinks of himself as being biased when reporting a story. I have also yet to see one who isn't biased in their reporting. I am sure that some try to remain unbiased, but we all have our own view point and it is impossible to remain totally unbiased when relating a story. It is just human nature.

I like to hear both sides of an issue. Some are really out there, but it is certainly more interesting to hear views other than your own. I am conservative, but still enjoy listening to NPR and the BBC. If everyone agreed all the time, life would really be boring. :P