Getting off oil as a strategic move

I'm no friend of Greenpeace, but after all the crap we've been through with the middle-east I'm convinced more than ever that we need to get off of our oil addiction.

In my mind the cost/benefit questions come down to this- Will it cost more to swtich from oil to alternatives (most likely hydrgoen based) than it cost us to wage the gulf war, the current war, and the future wars that must inevitably occur when you give immature, societies enormous wealth? And even if it would cost more, how much more would it have to cost to negate the benefits of neutralizing the middle east?

Seriously, if anyone thinks they have some idea of the numbers involved here, pipe in.

Perhaps I'm too much of a techno-optomist, but it would seem that the technology is ready to go. Sure, fuel cell cars will take a little more development, but consider this... I think I read once that we could put enough wind turbines in a few hundred square miles of the Nevada desert alone to supply the entire country's stationary power needs. Next, we put a threshold tax on gas, keeping it at say $1 or above, so that OPEC can't bribe us back with cheap oil, and have all the funds go to developing a hydrogen distribution infrastructure and fuel cell cars.

Wow, here I expect to be accused of being some unrealistic tree-hugger and every single response seems to be in support.

I'd still welcome any good arguments for why we should continue to support the middle east through oil purchases, but barring that I suppose the next question is why aren't we getting off oil? It would seem that public disgust with the middle east is so high that even a conservative like Bush could successfully sell a moon-mission style project for converting to alternative energy. So why isn't it happening and how do you think it will happen?

[quote]Originally posted by Outsider
<strong>
We can use fuels made from corn (ethanol) and we know we have a huge supply of that. How much better for the environment is harvesting corn than making an oil well. And the middle east would do well to use all that empty space to grow some crops to not only compete but feed their people! But corn is only one way to produce ethanol or methanol for fuel cells. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think the benefits of ethanol are a little more debatable. I live in Iowa where ethanol is very popular, but I seem to recall some stats about how it takes more energy to make ethanol than it provides. I think the only reason it makes fiscal sense is because we make too much corn due to farm subsidies (which don't make fiscal sense in the first place).


[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
Let's say your H2 "tank" ruptures. Where does the hydrogen go? Floats right up into the air faster than any other gas. If your gas tank ruptures where does the gas go? On the ground under your car. I think I like the first one better.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Right you are Scott, I've even seen some people seriously talk about converting commercial airliners over to hyrdogren. The advantages? - 1. If the planes that hit the WTC had been this way the hydrogen would have burned away so quickly it wouldn't have had time to melt the structure and 2. Spilling hydrogen has exactly zero effect on the environment as opposed to spilling jet fuel.

[quote]Originally posted by Moogs :
<strong>
If Bush is smart he'll realize that investing R&D in this problem is actually more important than whatever missile shields, advanced aircraft and other military programs are on the make. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I think there are several ways to view Bush's (or more broadly the Republican's) appearant resistance to alternative energies.

Giving them some credit...

1. They believe that the technology just isn't there and that the best approach is just to keep the economy working at full steam to ensure that R&D in the private sector proceeds as quickly as possible.

not giving them credit...

2. They know we could switch the majority of our energy demands to alternative energies, but the costs (even though less than the military costs in maintaining oil dependency) are too politcally expensive in the short term.

or the conspiracy theory...

3. They are owned by big oil interests who (as businesses properly should) are only concerned about maintaining their profits and have no concern about fighting future wars.

One can blend aspects of the above together, but I tend to believe that #2 is more accurate. Of course, I don't give the dems much credit either, it just so happens that they have less to lose politically by promoting alternative energies because they've cultivated the tree-hugging crowd into their voting base (not so much now that the green party has come along).

In response to some of Scott H's points- I admit that the fuel cell thing is gonna take some work, but that doesn't mean that we can't already switch to alternatives in supplying stationary power demands. Europe is certainly less dependent on oil in these areas because they pursued nuclear power a lot more than we did. I'm not a big fan of nuclear simply because wind tech seems to beat it out when the additional costs of disposal are factored in, but I'd still welcome nuclear over oil.

I think the second step (weaning mobile energy demands off of oil) would take a lot more political will. The less oil is needed, the cheaper it would become. And putting a threshold tax on it would be a constant political football. Everytime the economy dipped their would be calls for lowering the gas tax. Keeping the gas tax revenue dedicated to fuel cell development would require even more political willpower and then, once fuel cells arrived their would be arguments about whether we should regulate car makers into providing cheap fuel cell cars or, instead, give them tax credits.

I'm a bit of a politcal pessimist in that I don't think either dems or pubs think about anything other than getting elected. I suspect our citizens will also quickly forget about the consequences of oil dependency once the current crisis has died down.

[quote]<strong>
The less we have to interact with any of them (Israel included) the better off we'll be. The cultural barriers are far to great IMO to be overcome by simple diplomacy or student exchange programs or whatever other tired ideas the politicians might have.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs, I totally agree. Without oil the average middle-eastern society would be indistinguishable from the bare-footed tribes featured on National Geographic. They need another century or two to catch up with the rest of the world. Just as with a spoiled, rich brat a little "tough love" is needed (even with Isreal).