Isn't aternative fuel development the ONLY thing that will end this war for oil?

Question

Isn't fossil fuel an exhaustible resource?

Why even continue this quest of who controls the oil and just take the necessary steps to eradicate the need for oil?

It's time to step into the future!

We don't need fossil fuel. We have the technology to move beyond it.

It's going to happen eventually anyway!

Answer 1

Neither side of the aisle has tackled the problem of economic viability. The environmentalist leave out ALL capital cost of the cost of Renewable Energy to come up with the numbers saying they can directly compete with fossil fuels. The 2 main cost of renewable is the cost of energy to create them & the cost of land they sit on.

As of 2000 the theoretical maximum conversion rate of solar cells was 27%. At that time the University of New South Wales at Sydney had reach the level of 24%. With only 3% left for technology to improve the conversion rate little can come from there.

We have to start off the discussion from the point of view that renewables can't directly compete & they still must come about to save the 1st world's economy. All moneys that come from the government 1st comes from the economy. Those funds have bureaucrats administering them. Therefore any dollars coming from the government are more expensive than dollars coming from the private sector.

Since the government has been silent on the fact that renewables are more expensive than present fossil fuels the governments role most show the invertors, why it is in their interest to invest in renewable energy at a level that will replace the energy short fall from dwindling fossil fuels. This action most be large enough for the private investors to sit up and take notice while of small enough value for their constituencies to allow it.

The design of the utility must create what the public has shown a willingness to pay a premium for. In a quantity that can subsidize the cost of the infrastructure.

Answer 2

marvelous, you ignored bio gas seeing it is an entire different debate in itself, and there is an opposing factor with pages of arguments, maximum of them stretched, incorrect or lies. yet that did no longer stop different deniers from turning the question marvelous lower back to bio gas besides, and not even touching wind, photograph voltaic, tidal or geothermal. despite. Bio gas is the place their speaking factors are so because it is might desire to be anticipated, it truly is purely what they do. And why are such incredibly some deniers so prepared on algae oil on the instant. Is there oil funded study on that? Did bill O'reilly communicate approximately it? the only reason i will think of is that it remains years removed from being potential, as quickly as we've potential suggestions now. So of direction, oil companies might push for the non potential option. It has great ability nevertheless. yet another one is ethanol from cellulose, and methane from bio mass. A brewing operation like that should initiate with the waste from nutrients, farming, paper, lumbar, waste disposal, and incredibly some different industries. they might produce gas and soil. no one opposes that, they oppose ethanol from corn sugar, when you consider that's what they know, yet while there have been government subsidies for ethanol from cellulose, deniers might oppose that too. except of direction republicans have been in capability on the time it replaced into backed, then they could be throughout it. And we gained't assume any of the suggestions to compete with fossil fuels contained available place. Fossil fuels have an unfair benefit, it truly is densely packed capability that truly spews up from the floor. it truly is filthy and poisonous, even nevertheless it truly is inexpensive. each little thing else demands slightly greater artwork, it is all. yet that may not a valid reason to oppose it. so the justifications are: a million) they have a decrease income margin then fossil fuels. and that's it. it is all there is.

Answer 3

No, if you immediately stopped using Middle East oil, then you would have a war about oil. How will the Middle East get money if we have an alternative fuel? Hugo Chavas will go crazy as well.

Let us drill for oil in our own country, bring the price down and give the alternative fuel time to become more economical in making and develop the infrastructure to deliver it.

Answer 4

While I don't agree that the war is for oil (if it were, we should invade Canada which is much closer and has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world), I do agree that if we worked on developing alternative fuels would virtually wipe out the Arab world's ability to command our attention. I think some of them are realizing that as well and that is why they are bent on becoming nuclear powers before the cash cow moves to other pastures.

Answer 5

The answer for you is similar to when you ranted about "slave labor" in other countries. In that case, I challenged *YOU* to go over there and create a new business...and BE SURE TO PAY THEM TOP WAGE!

Now, you come with your new zeal, alternative fuels.

You can rant about it, or you can DO SOMETHING!

Go to school, get a Masters in Chemistry, and design your alternative fuel...do it cheaply so that people will buy it...and DO IT NOW!!!

But...you won't, cuz you are not that smart...you just want to rant here and make yourself think that you are smart.

By the way...your premise that the war is about oil...is patent nonsense...do some reading about the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate.

Answer 6

Oil COULD be considered one of the elements that lead to the disparity that is the basis for the justification used by the terrorists. But it is not the only one.
Even if we used no, zip, none oil , they would still persist in trying to attack us.
I post a ludicrous link to Islamic toilet methods, just to illuminate how defined and prescribed their lives are. Ours are much more loose. That difference in philosophical approach to seeing reality, is the basis, not oil.
Alternative fuels would be good, but won't stop the war. It may move it back to our shores.

Answer 7

Good question. The only problems I see with your idea are that,
1. The terrorists want the oil, but that isn't why they're fighting us.
2. We don't want the terrorists to get the oil, but that isn't why we're fighting them.

And I agree that alternative fuel sources are a priority.

Answer 8

Nobody's against development of alternative fuels.

Plenty of companies are doing that now.

It's not commercially viable right now on a large scale.

It's viable only with government assistance - i.e., forcing people to pay more for the alternative than for what they're using now.

Some of us don't think it's a function of government to step into the market and override the consumers' decisions.

Answer 9

What war for oil? Where is it being fought? Who is fighting it? Can you give some evidence that the Democrats who control Congress are calling any fighting that we might be doing a " War for oil"?

Answer 10

You would not hear a peep out of the middle east if we didn't need their oil, that's for sure.

Bush/Cheney are in bed with the oil companies and Big oil lobbyists fund the Republicans political campaigns, so I would not look for alternative fuels gaining speed for a while!!!!!