RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
...and neither did you, douchebag, so don't get uppity.Talking about yourself in the third person again, Mr Horseshit?Class, for the near-sighted kid sitting in the back corner with the dunce cap....be nice to him- he's dragging down the grade curve for the rest of you...
Yeah? So what? Everybody knows that petroleum makes a great feed stock for all kinds of great plastics and other non-fuel products. But that's not what we debating here, dingbat. We specifically comparing the advantages/disadvantages of alcohol fuels compared to fossil fuels in the context of a thread about the development of genetically engineered bacteria that are capable of converting into something fermentable, the sugars in what is practically free, easily available worldwide and otherwise unused seaweed, grown naturally on the ocean so not taking up cropland, and this development could potentially lower the price of alcohol fuel considerable. So your supposed 'argument' about how so much "more groovy things" can be made from petroleum over alcohol is specious and pointless. The people making and using bio-fuels aren't trying to make "more groovy things" from it; they just want to simply use it for fuel, mostly in vehicles and electrical power plants. As the Brazilians have demonstrated, this is both practical and economical. This new development with the genetically engineered bacteria will almost certainly make alcohol fuel production in coastal areas even more economical and thus make alcohol fuels a lot cheaper and more competitive with fossil fuels.
In general, fossil fuels are just going to get more and more expensive as the years go by and the supplies dwindle but the new alternative energy sources, like bio-fuels, hydrogen and electricity will continue to get cheaper and cheaper as the technology matures and new developments like this come along.
If we're talking about the oil that winds up fueling our vehicles and power plants, then your statement is idiotic nonsense. I strongly doubt that USA will even try to replace all of the fossil fuel energy we use with bio-fuels when there are other, even better alternative energy sources in use and in development. We will probably replace most of the oil with energy from the sun and wind and ocean currents, tides and waves. There are some new developments that make hydrogen production a lot cheaper and exclusively and directly solar powered so that may promote hydrogen powered vehicle development. In any case, alcohol fuel production and use will continue to play a part in the worldwide transition off of fossil fuels and into renewables, particularly in the tropical areas and now along the sea coasts.And ethanol could never ever supplant the 20 million barrels of crude that we use each day in the U.S.
You didn't start this thread, numbnuts,
The topic of the thread is set by the OP, but you are just too stupid to understand what is going on so you wander off-topic in your futile attempts to defend your braindead claims.and you sure as hell don't set the agenda.
Deny reality all you want, dufus, but fossil fuels will rapidly lose market share in the next few decades as the alternatives get cheaper and cheaper. In addition, there will be increasing public pressure to convert to green energy sources as the negative consequences of AGW/CC becomes ever more obvious to the world public. This pressure will probably manifest as the ending of public subsidies for fossil fuels and the increasing inclusion in the price of fossil fuels of the external costs to the public arising from fossil fuel use, like health and environmental problems. If fossil fuels were priced fairly according to their true costs, they wouldn't be at all competitive with the alternatives, even now in the relatively early stages of their development.Dream all you want, but non-hydrocarbon fuels will make little more than a fractional contribution to the energy mix well into the foreseeable future.