English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

...every single drop of that fuel came from the United States, be it ethanol or some other alternative to gasoline?

And we would NEVER, EVER, EVER, have to deal with the Saudi's
or Chavez anymore.

2007-01-10 01:50:58 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Civic Participation

13 answers

In a heartbeat.
We could have the price lower too if we decide to start using all the alternatives instead of using just 1 as a solution to all our problems.
If we put solar collectors on the roofs of houses.
Get rid of all the old cars and make the show pieces. They are <1% of cars on the road and cause about 90% off the pollution.
Encourage more train travel than air travel more bullet trains.
More nuclear plants.
Use the oil fields that are here already.

You bet I go for 3 bucks a gallon. At 3 bucks we found out that people will drive less less gas burn will keep the global warming nuts happy.
Watch countries like Iran, Saudia Arbia, etc choke on their sand and oil. With out all that money the couldn't fund terrorism on the scale they do now.

Please tell me if there is down side to this.

2007-01-10 02:01:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Good question. Yes I would pay $3 for a gallon of ethanol. If I could put it in my truck. That would help American Farmers and cut off the funding for terrorist all over the world by the Saudis. BTW, did you know Chavez donated home heating oil in 2004 to the Eastern part of the USA? He also agreed to sell it at a loss to some USA States. This angered Bush and the big oil in the USA and Bush Saudi backers. I paid $2.29 per gallon today. I get about 26 mpg city with my truck. I would never buy a Hummer or drive a SUV. That supports terrorist all over the world. The problem in America is not supply, it's demand. In the 5 State area around Ohio over 20,000 wells have been capped by big oil.
This is done by big oil to hold down supply while demand goes even higher. Big oil also also stopped most mass transit in the same 5 State area. I prefer the hydrogen power, big oil also stoped that research in the same 5 State area. Hydrogen comes from water and has no pollution, it's by product is oxygen.
BTW, for the brain dead, Synthetic oil as a lubricant has been sold for over 10 years, I use it now in my truck.

2007-01-10 10:41:17 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1 0

We pay about that now....

Open ANWR! It would buy us about 10 years to develop a REAL alternative and it IS what most Alaskans want. Before you have a knee-jerk reaction and say NO NO NO, consider this....99% of Alaskan land is off-limits to development. NINETY NINE PERCENT!! Now, imagine how pissed off we are to be told by a bunch of outsiders that they won't let us use a very very small part of that 99% - just so that they'll feel better about themselves.

Chavez tried to give heating oil to some Alaskan villages - we're talking people who don't live on the road system and the cost of importing fuel is OUTRAGEOUS.....quite a few villages told him to shove it. Why? Because they are proud Americans. They'd rather figure it out themselves than take help from a dictator who slams our President in our own country. You guys have *no* idea the conditions these villagers live under...and some pansies from the east coast took him up on it? No wonder so many people here talk longingly about secession. (Yes, they do - it was a pretty serious movement about 20 yrs ago and it's come up again.)

2007-01-10 12:21:25 · answer #3 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1 0

The question should be, would you pay $3/gallon for Ethanol knowing that you'll only get about 50%-60% of the gas milage you do with real gas. Develop a real alternative first. It takes so much energy to produce Ethanol in the first place, it's not even worth it. They wouldn't even be doing it if it wasn't for the wasting of government subsidies. Time to find a real alternative like fuel cells with a catalytic converter that will be able to use gasoline as we know it today or hydrogen.

2007-01-10 10:06:29 · answer #4 · answered by Geoff S 6 · 3 1

It's easy to say yes, but a lot of people will feel the pinch in their wallet. With the salary being status quo, no one will be able to pay that kinda price for oil. Also US does not have that much oil in it's own land. The US uses 70 to 80 % of all the oil in the world. That is just not doable. Also with what nano has said up there, it's a nice philosophy but it's not very realistic. Can you imagine paying that price with your monthly salary?.

2007-01-10 10:06:47 · answer #5 · answered by SIVA 4 · 1 0

Yes

2007-01-10 09:59:40 · answer #6 · answered by elliebear 7 · 2 0

We would still need oil! What are you going to use to lubricate the engines of cars? How about industrial equipment? For 18 wheel trucks and diesel locamotives that deliver all our goods, and they use mass quantities of oil for lubrication!

2007-01-10 10:01:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

They're already getting over $3 a gallon in some parts of the country.

Alternative energy is here, now - oil companies just don't want you to know about it, until they own the patent rights.

2007-01-10 09:58:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I'd pay whatever it takes not to have to deal with anyone else. if we kept all of the revenue here, can u imagine how rich our country would be? not just monetarily, either.

2007-01-10 10:55:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I would. I've already paid that for gas from God knows where, so why not. Plus it would employ Americans to refine that fuel!

2007-01-10 09:57:11 · answer #10 · answered by Jessie P 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers