Cellulosic Biofuel Finally Ready For the Road

wdebruij writes "After years of research, promises, and plenty of discussion here, biofuel from inedible greens such as switchgrass — and even from corn cobs — may finally be getting economically viable. Two enzyme producers, Novozyme and Genencor, have both announced that they can now produce fuel at prices competitive with current corn and petrol-based methods. This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."

Comments

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[AshtangiMan]

Nice. 300 mpg is pretty sweet indeed. Wait, why are you upset?

Late to the party?

[sjs132]

This is particularly good news in the wake of another report that food-based biofuels could cause hunger."

They JUST figured this out!!!????

This is the problem with the green lords... they don't think ahead of the unintended consequences!

I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE! NOT a major food source!

Glad someone is finally waking up.

Re:Late to the party?

[russotto]

I've HATED Corn based ethanol for YEARS... Everyone would point to some country in South America (Brazil?) about how good Ethanol was and the amount of fuel created etc... But that was end of process SUGAR CANE! NOT a major food source!

Sugar cane is even MORE vital. It's a major potable alcohol source (rum). Definitely not something we need to waste in cars.

Re:Late to the party?

[ThiagoHP]

Brazil has been using sugar cane ethanol since the 70s and we never had any food price surges because of it. Most of our car production comes with engines that can use any mixture of ethanol and gas, so you can choose the best one by cost or by ecofriendliness or any other reason. Even if the sugar price raised, we could see it as a good consequence: people would eat less sugar, less calories, maybe even eating more fruit! :-) Corn-based ethanol and the US tax in Brazilian ethanol is a something completely anti-free-market in the land that people love to quote the "invisible hand of the market" as the solution to almost anything. Go figure.

Re:Late to the party?

[Trepidity]

The people who were most strongly pushing corn-based ethanol were corn farmers and farm-state politicians, for whom an increase in the price of corn was most definitely not an unintended consequence.

Re:Late to the party?

[erroneus]

In case you haven't figured it out, the market in the U.S. is rather stupid and [over-]reactionary. The moment something bad happens in the middle east, fuel prices surge. The moment demand on corn based ethanol is even discussed, the price on corn related commodities shoots up creating all sorts of problems with supply.

We haven't had an active invisible hand in the U.S. for decades while we have farmers getting paid for not producing and all manner of nonsense like that.

Re:Late to the party?

[Hadlock]

It helps that 90% of Brazil is in sugarcane's growing area, and that when Brazil needs more farmland, they just burn down more forest. The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest). Unchecked, yes, Brazil will have no problem feeding their population... for now. In 20, 30, 40 years Brazil is going to start running out of forest to burn for more farmland and you will see prices begin to skyrocket when the soil becomes as fertile as north africa's.

Re:Late to the party?

[Lehk228]

don't blame the environmental movement. corn ethanol gas was a republican corporate welfare program for the farm corporations.

Re:Late to the party?

[Qzukk]

Did you happen to miss how in the early 80's or so several popular products switched to using corn syrup as a sweetener?

That's because of our sugar tariffs keeping cheap foreign sugar out, not because Brazil burning sugar made it that much more expensive.
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o

Re:Late to the party?

[RingDev]

I would argue just the opposite.

The best way for 3rd world/developing countries to make the transition to a developed nation is through agriculture.

The US, with an extremely keen interest on controlling food prices and availability has heavily subsidized farmers across the US. So much so, that it has distorted the global market and significantly limited the introduction of new agricultural markets. By reducing the amount of corn that the US exports, we would actually create a financial advantage for investment in agriculture in 3rd world countries. Thus resulting in no net change in world wide food availability.

Most of the articles I've seen that claim corn based ethanol would lead to food shortages take an absurd view of fuels. Sure, if every single car that is currently running on gasoline today were replaced with a comparable car that ran on ethanol, yes, there would be a huge impact. But lets be realistic, no serious studies have ever pointed to a 100% replacement of gasoline with ethanol, and the idea that every car would be converted on a single day is ludicrous.

No single fuel will be the answer to our transportation problems. Petrol, bio-diesel, algae, ethanol, butane/propane/natural gas, electric, hybrids, etc... A blend of all will make up the future fuel markets. And as any one becomes more expensive, the others will become more popular.

Assuming ethanol takes off to the point that it impacts food availability, a number of things will likely happen:
1) The Feds will reduce subsidies for growing fuel-corn
2) The Feds will increase subsidies for growing consumable corn
3) The price of imported corn would be lower than local corn and investment in international agriculture would rise.

By all means, tear down the Ethanol arguments using valid arguments, like water contamination, transportation issues, and the horrible efficiencies of "flex-fuel" vehicles. Not to mention the agricultural impacts of requiring nitrogen based fertilizers and the relatively low yield per acre. But leave the food argument buried, it's just silly.

-Rick

Re:Late to the party?

[hardburn]

There is a fallacy hidden in there: that world hunger is due to not producing enough food.

Here's the production of the top four biggest US corn producing states, as of 2006, in thousands of bushels:

• IA: 2,244,400
• IL: 2,088,000
• NE: 1,319,700
• MN: 1,120,950

Total: 6,773,050 thousand bushels

A blog comment cites 134,400 calories per bushel (couldn't find a better source for this). So the total calories produce from all the corn above is:

6,773,050 * 1000 * 134,400 = 910,298,592,000,000 calories

On a 2000 calorie / day diet, a person eats 2000 * 365 = 730,000 calories / year

Production of just those 4 states can therefore feed a population of about 1.2 billion people. Of course, you'll be nutrient deficient on a corn-only diet, but hopefully the rest of the planet can pick up the slack for that and the remaining 5.3 billion people. And it's not like those states are only corn producers, anyway.

If production isn't the underling problem, then we need to look elsewhere or else we'll accomplish nothing in solving the problem. One of the prime places to look is how the food often gets stopped in harbor because the right palms aren't being greased, or how local warlords hijack shipments and use food as a weapon.

For certain, corn ethanol was never going to cover even 10% of US energy needs. But the hunger argument isn't a very good one.

Re:Late to the party?

[Patch86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed

Re:Late to the party?

[twidarkling]

rapeseed is also known as "canola."

Re:Late to the party?

[budgenator]

The Problem is that the majority of Brazil's soil is actually quite poor and loses it's sustainability as arable soil after 2-3 seasons (which is why they keep burning more and more forest).

Well the answer there is "terra preta do indios", or "black earth of the Indians"

The black earth areas, about twice the size of Great Britain, possibly as large as France together had supported as many as three million people - more than had been believed to have ever inhabited the entire Western Hemisphere at any one time. They had realized that the black earth was fertile, but had never imagined that the Amazon basin could be so hugely productive. Saving The Planet While Saving The Farm

Terra petra is fantastically fertile, the Brazilians actually mine this earth for use as potting soil, which is amazing considering most of it's age is measured in millennia not years! Also growing sugarcane doesn't necessarily deplete the soil if the cane field is burned and the char left on the ground, some varieties are even nitrogen fixing.
Additionally converting biomass to char produces distillates that are useful as fuel creating a win-win situation.

Re:Late to the party?

[c6gunner]

The food, and more generally, resource shortage is a MYTH .... There is only a resource shortage if every country needed to consume resources at the rate as the United States. If countries could be more frugal with their resources then we'd all be fine and dandy. All 6 billion of us, and our kids.

Ok, so you admit that there's a shortage. What exactly are you trying to say, then?

Instead, life expectancy is pretty far down the list, health care is a joke compared even to Cuba, depression, suicide and mental health issues are epidemic, and the rest of the world hates you.

Ohhhh, I see. You're one of those ideology-trumps-reality guys. Wow, that sucks. Is there anything I can do to help?

Re:Late to the party?

[RajivSLK]

I don't know which rock you (and the mods who modded you up) have been living under for the past few years but this has already happened. Ethanol induced food shortages were front page news in 2008 when oil prices skyrocketed and ethanol production increased. I know it's easy to forget these things when they doesn't affect you but the billions of people world wide who went hungry (and the many who died) definitely haven't forgotten. This all occurred very quickly in response to a rather small increase in ethanol production.

Here are a few articles I found for your reference...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/23/earlyshow/main4036816.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/06/04/un_warns_of_food_shortage_and_unrest/?page=full3

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article678698.ece

Re:Late to the party?

[TheLink]

> That's just the way markets are. Speculation is part of an efficient market.

Yes. But it stops being so efficient when the costs of speculation get really high.

I think the costs have got too high already and perhaps there should be a bailout tax on speculators and their friends so that they can at least pay their share - the tax money goes solely to a fund for bailing out financial disasters resulting from speculation (and "legal financial fraud" e.g. packaging of crap as "AAA" grade).

Water

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone done anything about the huge water requirements of ethanol production? In Chester, South Carolina there have been voices screaming about the proposed ethanol plant. One side is desperate for the jobs, the other side is desperate to protect the Catawba River.

Re:Water

[slashtivus]

I'm pretty sure GP meant "plant" with the meaning of "manufacturing facility". That would be water used in addition to any local farming they are doing.

Finally!

[Bangmaker]

Maybe now I'll have a way to make money off all the weeds in my front yard. I'll finally be able to prove to the neighbors that an unkempt yard is actually worth something.

Biofuels

[Chris Lawrence]

The main issue with biofuels isn't really food or cost. It's about land use, energy efficiency and sustainability. Brazil is usually given as a great example, but they have only 8 million cars, which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel, the rest is still gasoline or diesel. And Brazil is one of the countries that is deforesting the fastest in the world. The US has 250 million cars. There's not enough land left in the world to clear to make enough biofuels for that.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/01/biofuels.html

Re:Biofuels

[Trepidity]

which use a maximum of 25 percent biofuel

The standard gasoline blend (i.e. what you get if you buy "normal" gasoline) is 20-25% ethanol in Brazil, but there is also pure ethanol available, and >80% of new cars are able to use either the E25 or E100 fuel. Some details here.

Re:Biofuels

[Amorymeltzer]

When a study shows that switchgrass produces 540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed, yeah, I'd say it's a little about efficiency.

Re:Biofuels

[Chris Lawrence]

That's when you convert farmland. Do the same calculations when you convert natural habitat, such as forest or wetlands, to grow this stuff. Again, you're going to be behind with respect to carbon emissions, probably by an order of magnitude, and you also destroyed more of the natural environment and threatened more species.

Re:Biofuels

[bunratty]

It would be misguided to cut down forests to grow switchgrass. We should use degraded or barren land or land that switchgrass already grows on.

Biofuels dont cause hunger

[Benaiah]

Poor market management, lack of planning or agricultural investment and war cause famine, not biofuels. Zimbabwe is host to some of Africa's best ariable land and yet there are thousands who are starving. If the people hadn't let all the farms fall into disrepair after the revolution they would have so much food they could be exporting to other regions.

There is enough farmland available to grow enough food for all the world. Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.

Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger

[Angst Badger]

Better prices for biofuel stock might drive up prices short term, but will lead to greater investment and supply long term.

Ah yes, the inevitable claim that magic market pixies will fix everything.

The fact is that world food production -- never mind potential production -- is already more than adequate to feed everyone. Market economics alone, however, is inadequate to distribute the food. People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because they can't afford to buy food. There's no profit to be had in giving food to people who can't pay for it, so they go without.

I wish free market ideologues would figure out that the market is very good at doing things that are profitable, but not everything worth doing is profitable. The market is amoral and devoid of compassion. That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but it becomes so when we surrender every ethical obligation to the test of profitability.

Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger

[rahvin112]

People aren't starving because they can't buy food, there is plenty of food aid in the world, hell the US spends billions subsidizing US wheat producers so they can export it as US AID, the problem isn't production or even money, starvation is ALWAYS the result of political issues mostly dealing with war. Somalia doesn't starve because of no money, they starve because droughts dry up local production and food can't be imported because it's not safe to do so, not because they can't pay for it. This has been true of almost every famine in the 20th century.

Don't blame the economy for food shortages because the western governments are more than happy to hand out billions of tons of wheat and other staples just to get rid of it. It's one of the prime benefits of the wheat subsidies in the US is that the federal government buys all the surplus then gives it away to those that need it worldwide. I don't like the subsidy on principle and many nations complain about it (Australia is the biggest complainer) but the mostly unknown fact of the US wheat subsidies is that the excess production is purchased by the Federal government at market rates then given away as US food aid. It costs the US citizen a couple bucks a year and feeds millions. Eliminate of the subsidy would likely lead to less food aid but nothing is certain.

Re:Biofuels dont cause hunger

[ChrisMaple]

People aren't starving because there isn't enough food, they're starving because they can't afford to buy food.

False alternative. Generally, people starve because of tyrants starving them, either deliberately or because allowing the poor to get food is less important to the tyrant than whatever his goals are. Very few people are so incompetent that they couldn't get enough food to survive in the absence of a vile government.

Food is very cheap in comparison to the value of a person's labor. The number of capitalists that could feed, clothe, and house people well for the price of their labor in the absence of government interference is vast.

I have no moral or ethical obligation to feed a stranger who is unwilling to give anything in exchange. I do have a moral obligation to prevent someone from stealing from me, a moral obligation to oppose a government that steals from me in the name of the poor, and a moral obligation to refute someone like you who attempts to persuade me that my life is the property of someone else.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Monkeedude1212]

Hey - are you paying for gas? Then its reasonable. When its unreasonable, you DON'T pay for gas. Thats the way it works.

If you haven't stopped driving your car because you couldn't afford fuel prices - then you really don't have much to complain about. Cars are a luxury item, if you live in the kind of town where driving a car is necessary to get to work, you also live in a town that has a transit system that can get you within walking distance.

Nothing about the fuel itself...

[BobMcD]

I see speculation on the cost of the fuel, but nothing whatsoever on the performance of it. This makes my suspicion meter go into alarm mode...

Though, to be fair, ethanol suffers from the same issue.

Looking at the 2010 Town and Country (a similar vehicle to my own Flex-Fuel van), I see these ratings:

E85 - 17mpg

Gas - 24mpg

Adjusted into dollars-per-hundred-miles, using these prices, that's something like:

E85 - $14.13 ($2.403/g)

Gas - $10.87 ($2.610/g)

So even though the price at the pump is less, I'd be a fool to run E85 in even a new vehicle of this class.

Unless this new fuel is better than E85, I can't see how getting it down to a comparable price at the pump is doing us any favors. Now if it is somehow better than E85, then that would be some good news. Alas, the story is mute on this topic.

Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...

[Krannert IT]

I read an interesting article about how ethanol really can be similar to gas, parituclar in an engine designed for gas. http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/papers/fuel.htm

It seems as if ethanol is actually a good fuel when an engine is tuned properly. It is used for racing already, most motorsports use pure ethanol as it has a higher octane rating which allows the production of more horsepower. If you tune and gear an engine properly you should easily be able to get similar mileage. The problem with flex fuel cars is that they are still tuned for their main source of fuel, traditional gas.

Ethonol also eliminates the need for a catalytic converter to eliminate engine knocking. If it can be produced using land which is inefficent for other agriculural uses such as west texas ranch land where hundres of acres are need per cow or argicultural byproducts such as corn cobs it is a great alternative to traditional petrolium based fuel. I never drank the corn based ethanol Koolaid, but an economical cellulosic based ethanol sounds very promising.

Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...

[FishTankX]

usually to efficently leverage ethanol you have to have an engine designed for it. You can utilize VASTLY higher compression ratios with ethanol, because of it's massive antiknock rating. So you use a turbo, superhigh compression ratios, and boom, ethanol comes within 10-20% as efficent as gasoline. This allows you to use a smaller engine, and hence less pumping losses, opening the door for ethanol engines to surpass gasoline engines in MPG efficency. How about using ethanol in combination with gasoline to drastically boost normal fuel efficency by achieving higher compression ratios than normally possible? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html This MIT engine uses ethanol injection to keep an engine from knocking, delivering significantly higher compression ratios. About 1 gallon of ethanol to 20 galons of gasoline used. And the result? Engine output per liter jumped nearly 2x. Thus, overall fuel efficency gains were in the neighborhood of 20-30%, and I doubt it'd be that much more expensive than a hybrid system. Combined with a hybrid system, this could allow stratospheric mileages easily toppling diesel in 1st place. I think so far this is only on simulations, but if it were to break into the market, Ethanol could find it's home not only as an alternative fuel, but more importantly boosting the efficency of all of the other straight gasoline engines out there. All it takes is customized design for the fuel application.

Re:Nothing about the fuel itself...

[gmhowell]

The other reason to use ethanol is that, IIRC, it has less energy than octane. Ethanol is used in high power (racing) applications for a few reasons, including some related to this. In addition to pre-ignition resistance, the cooler temperature prevents the head and exhaust valves from heating up (throwing off tight clearances as well as increasing pre-igition), is less dangerous in the event of a catastrophe (although the flames are harder to see), blocks and stress parts can be lightened considerably (no need for massive amounts of metal to dissipate heat that isn't generated), cooling systems can be smaller than for a gasoline engine of similar output, etc.

Now, again, IIRC, one problem with ethanol, particularly in cooler climates is a lack of waste heat for creature comforts, and a correspondingly longer time to heat engine parts and lubricants to ideal operating temps.

Doesn't anyone realize that

[Aphex Junkie]

Maybe the solution is to reduce the number of cars instead of trying to figure out a way to power them (in an unsustainable manner)

Regarding massive land use changes

[jbezorg]

What about algae farms on the ocean? Seaweed farms? Who says the biomass has to come from corn or any other land based crop? The farms could be right next to the data centers.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Cryacin]

So I guess the term gas, grass or ass nobody rides for free will have a redundant term in it then?

Re:Ethanol is BAD for engines!

[mpoulton]

Even in the 10% mixture we are currently seeing, ethanol in engines meant for gasoline is bad! It causes all manner of problems in the long term.

Running pure ethanol will simply require a complete change in the engine to work well. Has there been much discussion of that? I fear there hasn't been any.

Citation? Every report in the last 15-20 years has said the exact opposite. In fact, all current production vehicles are designed specifically for 10% mixtures, and many new vehicles are designed for E85 right out of the factory. What sort of engine re-design do you contemplate that hasn't already been done? The problems reported years ago were due to material incompatibility (no longer an issue at all) and lack of lubricity (also no longer a problem).

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Anonymous Coward]

What the heck are you smoking? Transit system? Transit system? Where the hell is that? I (and MANY others) that live in California but NOT in San Francisco - commute a long way where no transit system exists. I drive 38 miles each way. This is so that I can actually own a house and not bring up my kids in some silly apartment (which is all we could afford if we lived right by work). There is something close to a transit system. I can drive my car about 7 miles to the "park and rob" (no doubt: cars are always vandalized and burglarized there), catch a bus from there (it is the first stop, so it stops all over the damn city), then it goes to a train, which stops all over, then to a bus which gets within 2 miles of work (which I admit is indeed walking distance). Total time on this "transit system" is just over 2 hours (yes, I have done it) whereas driving is about 45 minutes. Transit System... The price of gas would have to triple to get me to consider wasting that much more time per day getting to and from work.

Duckweed Perhaps

[Yergle143]

I've been following the biofuels industry pretty closely. How about Duckweed? Like algae it does not compete with cropland, it grows fast and unlike algae, it is easy to harvest (just skim off the top rather than concentrating water). Also easier to deal with "weeds" (algae ponds get contaminated by other species and this is hard to control). Duckweed is mostly cellulose and so fits into a feedstream amenable to the fermentation described by the article.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Monkeedude1212]

Managed to go through LA, San Fran, Salt Lake City, and a handful of other cities using nothing but municipal transit.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[poetmatt]

I live in one of the best transit systems in the us - right outside of chicago - and I still don't have a train that takes me remotely close to my work. Trust me, I'd take one in a heartbeat over using my car, but it's simply not realistic.

Almost there!

[FatdogHaiku]

Let me know when they can make fuel from cellulite, that should solve America's dependence on foreign fuel supplies for quite some time.... I'll do my part, converting potatoes into fuel one delicious french fry at a time

Try New Texaco Green, It's People!

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Monkey_Genius]

Going 'through' any large city in SoCal is possible using public transit. Getting around 'inside' one is nearly impossible.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Chruisan]

In addition, not everyone works during daylight hours. Try working second or third shift and hoofing it or utilizing public transportation. The schedules are reduced, the weather is awful, you'll get mugged, or any number of not so pleasant consequences.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[mirkob]

your gas price IS quite reasonable!

here in italy you currently pay about 1.3 euros/liter

considering 1 euros about 1.33 dollar and 1 liter about 1/3.8 gallon

so its about 2 dollar for 1/3.8 gallon or about than 7.5 dollar/gallon

and it has gone higher...

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Martin Blank]

Having used the mass transit in the Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York/Newark areas, I dare say that you either got very luck with where you were going in the LA area, or you never left the downtown area. In a week in Chicago, I was able to get almost everywhere except for the Navy Pier and the Museum of Science & Technology via mass transit, and over a week in New York/Newark, I only rode in a car when going out to rural areas not reached by New Jersey's trains. Even when reaching a relatively rural area on Long Island, it took only about 30 minutes from Penn Station. Compare this to the local bus for me (closest train station is several miles and runs perpendicular to the route I would need to take): In the center of the main population mass of Orange County, the path from the closest bus stop to work runs just under eight miles, and takes just over an hour. This is one bus going straight down one street, no turns.

All of the rail systems in the LA/Orange County area combine for just under 600 miles of track to provide for around 5000 square miles of land. Chicago has 600 miles of track providing for around a thousand square miles, and New York has more than 900 miles of track for only a few hundred square miles of land. It's going to take a lot of billions to get anywhere close to those.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Anonymous Coward]

First post!

And since this stuff is finally going to be hitting the road, when will my gas prices become reasonable (for the US) again? I'm tired of $2.96 a gallon and only getting 300 miles out of it.

Poor bastard ! Here in Australia on cheap petrol day we can get ours for $1.22/lt which works out to over $4.60 per Gallon.
Check out this page to see how good you have it.

Who's the real 40,000 Ton Metallic Monster?

[CorporateSuit]

I had a good friend who happened to also be an exiled member of Liberia's parliament. He said the major problem they were having were as follows:

Due to the currency trade, it costs about 1 million dollars (adjusted) for them to buy a tractor to farm their lands. Is that unreachable? No. Is it ridiculously overpriced? Yes. Do multiple families have to pull together in order to purchase a single tractor? Obviously.

Once the people have a tractor, and something breaks on it, they have to hire help, and that help has to purchase parts from out of the country -- which screws them again on their currency trade. This maladjusted currency business affects them on their importans and it affects them on their exports.

"Well, what if a kind, European business decided to dump a bunch of tractors on the people and buy up their farmland and run a business from it?" you may ask. That sounds like a good idea, until the business sees that every Euro they make doing business with the Liberians could be 10 Euros if they turned around and sold their produce to their own countries!

In this case, the tyrant is the European Union and their currency exchange rates with the African nations, moreso than dictators who can afford to feed themselves, but stare at a steep wall when it comes to the international commerce they would need in order to supply their own agricultural revolutions.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[MidnightBrewer]

Americans have always been incredibly spoiled by their gas prices, which are still far below what pretty much every other country has to pay to fill up (as much as half the price). I say deal with it and count yourself lucky that it's not higher. Cheaper prices are just going to encourage more waste at this point; the casual driving era is becoming a relic of the past, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing (especially for the fattest nation on earth).

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[ls671]

I guess we have to keep the hope alive in order to make the population believe that it will be business as usual in the future and avoid some type of revolution as oil runs out.

The idea is to make people believe that we will find a way to replace oil while maintaining the present sale price in our highly dependent oil dependent economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[bill_mcgonigle]

your gas price IS quite reasonable ... or about than 7.5 dollar/gallon

You're not paying $7.50 for gas, you're paying $2 for gas and $5.50 for socialism (by the gallon).

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Fred_A]

the car stopped being seen as an object by the majority and was now seen as a service

(that was in France, should have specified, sorry)

The US has basically always had "free" petrol. Whereas every other country has always taxed it to compensate for the huge amount of damage cars/vehicles make to infrastructure and environment.

It was presumably a political choice since pretty much all other alternatives have long since vanished or been marginalized in the US.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[mangu]

This is so that I can actually own a house and not bring up my kids in some silly apartment (which is all we could afford if we lived right by work).

If you aren't satisfied with the current setup, then your children have something in common with crack babies: they were born of parents who couldn't afford parenthood.

The writing was on the wall long ago, much before anyone who is a child today was born. Oil will end. If you bet that oil prices wouldn't start rising until after your children were grown up, you bet wrong.

Not having adequate living conditions in locations served by mass transit and not having mass transit in places with adequate living conditions only means too many people like you chose to disregard the inevitable future.

 

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[Obfiscator]

I happen to live in Helsinki at the moment, where it seems like a lot of families raise their kids in "silly" apartments. Works pretty well for them, too, and I don't understand why American families think this is an unreasonable option.

Now, if you told me that the school system was crap near your work and that's why you chose to buy a house almost 40 miles away...well, I'd be more willing to accept that. But the fact that you didn't want to raise your kids in an apartment seems like a bad reason to add 35+ miles to your daily commute.

Re:First (cheap gas?)

[CompMD]

Spoiled by low gas prices, yeah, while we are forced oversized, underpowered, inefficient engines, and screwed over by having diesel powered cars basically legislated away. If most of my fellow Americans knew that the best American cars *aren't sold in America* maybe things would change.

Example: Ford Fusion Hybrid: overpriced, overcomplicated, in global comparisons not very efficient. Give me a Ford Mondeo TDCI instead, it gets 50-60% better economy out of a simpler design and has every feature the Fusion has. Oh wait, I CAN'T HAVE ONE IN THE US.

America basically gets free gas

[Colin Smith]

Whereas every other country has always taxed it to compensate for the huge amount of damage cars/vehicles make to infrastructure and environment.

Actually, it's worse than that, and it isn't just damage, it's economics. Oil is paid for in dollars. US dollars. You want oil? You buy US dollars first.

See the trick? America gets paid for Saudi oil before the Saudis do. It gives the US a huge advantage economically. The US gets to export a significant proportion of it's inflation to the rest of the world and gets real value for it. Print a trillion dollars here, the price of oil goes up, everybody buys those fresh new bills cos they still need oil. Oil purchases for the rest of the world export value to the US.