Gas prices are getting high, and pollution is driving people to try to discover alternate types of power, especially for cars. Experts say oil has reached it's peak and is getting harder and harder to extract from the earth. We're literally running out of oil and natual gases.

So what have people responded with? Alternative fuels including Hydrogen and Ethonal are trying be named the fuel of the future. They are supposed to be clean burning, efficient, types of power that will save our lives when the time comes. But in reality, these options are even worse and less practical than what we are using now.

See, people think that these fuels are perfect because when they run the the engine of a car and out the exhaust pipe, there is little to no pollution. But the thing is, how these fuels are made require more oil and power than we are using now. It takes energy to make energy. To make one calorie of ethonal fuel, it takes ten calories of oil. To make Hydrogen you need water, and electricity. Where does the electricity come from? Power plants using dwindling oil and natural gas to generate power. This also throws electric cars out the window seeing as you need oil produced electricity to charge the car.

Pretty much what I'm saying is cars that use electricity, hydrogen, ethonal, and any other alternative fuel actually require more of what we're trying to stop using. Oil. We're pretty much royaly screwed and some smart people need to think of something real fast.

Yeah.. I just felt like typing and telling you guys some facts. Hope you enjoyed. Heh.

I'm no treehugger, and I dont really believe in a lot of this alternate crap. that said, I feel the need to play devils advocate. First, They have figured out new ways of getting oil that was previously unobtainable. like the oil sands. and there is a huge amount of oil that we couldnt ever get that is now at our disposal. and even in the traditional fields, there really is still no shortage. The issue is that we know that we will eventually run out. estimates vary so wildly that the only conclusion we can draw is that we have no idea when that will be. every new solution will bring another problem with it. Hybrid cars are a big step forward, but wait, anyone ever see the mines that they pull the material for the nickel-metal-hydride batteries from? yeah. nasty way to mine. but without those batteries, hybrids arent feasible. how about compact flourescent lights? yeah, they contain mercury. only a bit of toxic metal that causes all sorts of stuff from birth defects to death. we use oil by-products to fertilize the soil that corn is grown in, so there is one of your ethanol dilemmas. and the hydrogen is actually one of the more feasible ones. yeah it takes electricity to make, but the more we move to renewable resources for our power grids, the less pollution that the power grid would produce. wind, hydro, and solar powers are in my opinion, our best long-term hope. if we create clean energy to use to store either electrically (in batteries in your car) or chemically (as in hydrogen fuel cells), then we can produce a net loss in pollution.

Belive me, I'm not saying that I'm a treehugger, either. Pave the rainforest for all I care. I'm just saying that oil will eventually run out. The way it looks now, sooner than later.. And when oil is gone or too difficult to produce, the way will live will drastically be changed.

1. power grid moves away from oil burning plants
2. electric cars becomes practical and affordable!
3. we get to enjoy the instant torque without the CRUSHING GUILT OF DESTROYING THE UNIVERSE, or at least without paying $4 for a gallon of gas

but ofcourse...

4. electric companies decide to be assholes and charge more than $4 per gallon of electrons

You make some very good points, Gonzo. I love it when folks talk about how they are going to get a cheap running electric car. The electricity has to come from somewhere, and a lot of it comes from natural gas and oil. If we start using more electricity, most of the new plants will need gas and oil. Where are we going to put all the new plants? How much will they cost? How much will the new distribution system to beef up the current system cost? There are a lot of unanswered questions no one seems to be talking about.

The use of corn for ethanol has already tripled the price of corn and is causing food shortages, and we have just started using it for fuel. Not good.

What happens when1 billion chinese all decide they want one car per person like we do? The Iraq War is going to seem like a minor skirmish in a few short years. A PBS program last night said that 25% of all the oil ever used was used in the last ten years. thats a lot of oil, and the demand is only going to rise.

^ holly crap that is a lot of oil they are going to have to find some alternative some time if its possible

ORIGINAL: Gene J


The use of corn for ethanol has already tripled the price of corn and is causing food shortages, and we have just started using it for fuel. Not good.


and there are only a few places that you can actually get the E85 crap. and apparently GMs almighty Flexfuel, at least the first generation (supposed to change on the next go-round) you have to get the damn ecu reprogrammed at the dealer to change fuels. so if you happen to see an E-85 station, you still cant use it. poor Mexico. we are killing their economy too, since they rely heavily on corn for their food supply, and their prices were affected too.

The car you drive today is a result of nearly 100 years of automotive innovation. If people 100 years ago said "We can't do any better than this" today you would be driving a model T cranking the engine over by hand. The Hydrogen Fuel cell is a very new technology, about 10 years old. It took nearly 100 years to make cars that get 30+ MPG. It didn't happen overnight, and for anyone to expect that is simply foolish. Alternative fuels need to be researched and developed. Hydrogen fuel cells do not get enough funding. We need to be funding the hydrogen fuel, but of course the oil companies won't stand for that. The government gives a little money towards research, but not nearly what they should. It is a viable alternative once someone figures out how to refine it. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. I don't think Ethanol is the answer. Ethanol is made from corn. People eat corn. Using ethanol to make fuel will mean there is less corn to eat and will therefore raise food costs and further hurt the economy. The way to go in my opinion is hydrogen. Electricity is not made eclusivley by oil and gas, it is also made by wind, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear sources. We need to move the production of electricity away from petroleum based fossil fuels into renewable sources.

What we need is safe nuclear power plants and a way to eject nucler waste somewhere...like the moon which nobody cares about.

Roto: there have been 2 major nuclear meltdowns at power plants ever. There have been 8 minor ones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdowns_that_have_occurred

Chernobyl was a very bad meltdown, but the damage was caused by skimping on the construction of the reactors. About ejecting waste into space...if you're worried about radiation contaminating ground water, then how would you feel about a rocket filled with uranium exploding in our atmosphere? That would have a much larger scale effect than a dump site radiating the local soil. Personally, I'm all for nuclear power, just not launching nuclear waste into space.



The rising food prices are really rising grain and rice prices. I think there's plenty of reasons, and I think that ethanol demand is a very insignificant part of them. In the last year, there were severe droughts and floods in China and southeast asia, cutting that regions rice production by a significant amount. The price of oil is well over $100 a barrel, which affects more than just commuters. It takes fuel to deliver food from farms to grocery stores. In the event that larger quantities of food need to be exported, it also takes a significant amount of fuel to move food around the world.

Now all that said, I haven't seen news articles about food supply shortages, corn especially. Prices are up, but if the world really needed more food, demand for corn would curb high fructose corn syrup production. Consider that in 2007, the per-capita high fructose corn syrup consumption was 40.1 pounds per year (source (http://www.hfcsfacts.com/PerCapitaConsumption.html)). With our population around 300 million, that means that america consumed about 1.2 billion pounds of sweetener made from corn. 1 pound of corn does not produce 1 pound of high fructose corn syrup, so there's well over 1.2 billion pounds of food that's being made just to be a sweetener.

Then there's the issue of the declining value of the American dollar. Many countries set their currency value relative to the dollar. When our dollar falls, their currency falls as well. This can also account for the food price increase. Perhaps there's sufficient supply, but everything is going to cost more when the value of your currency drops.

I love playing devil's advocate, so just reading your opinions made me look that stuff up :D It does seem to me that the recent food and oil prices are much higher than they should be because of speculation, though I admit that the supply/demand ratio is probably lower than it has been in the last few years.

EDIT: (to roto) also note that there haven't been any meltdowns in the last 20 years. The last 25 excluding Chernobyl, which was constructed by a declining Soviet Union

believe me, Gene (roto) knows all about chernobyl

ORIGINAL: AgentofDarkness
I don't think Ethanol is the answer. Ethanol is made from corn. People eat corn. Using ethanol to make fuel will mean there is less corn to eat and will therefore raise food costs and further hurt the economy.


^+1!

Additionally - how pathetic is it that; with all of the starving people in this world; we are trying to use food as fuel.


ORIGINAL: Roto
What we need is safe nuclear power plants and a way to eject nucler waste somewhere...like the moon which nobody cares about.


Hahaha - hilarious! We've spent enough years not caring about the earth, why not put our waste elsewhere now?

As far as I'm concerned, the answer is about a) alternate fuel sources, but (MUCH more importantly) b) CONSERVATION. The days of gas guzzling Humscalades need to come to an end!

Well....I think the main problem with oil and all this is the fact that all the people in automotive industry own oil stock, all the people in the oil industry own automotive stock, and people of the air resource board own stock in both. Its a huge circle that keeps feeding it self. My geology teacher said about 1/2 of the worlds oil supply is still left and there is still a trillion dollars to be made in oil. I belive that. The problem right now with oil in the US is is that our dollar is falling there for imported oil is going up. Kinda sux.

Just falls back to our government. Im ready for a new president.

ORIGINAL: AgentofDarkness

Electricity is not made eclusivley by oil and gas, it is also made by wind, hydroelectric, solar and nuclear sources. We need to move the production of electricity away from petroleum based fossil fuels into renewable sources.



While it is true not all electricity comes from oil and gas,those types of generators are the only ones that can supply electricity on demand and then shut down until needed again.Hydroelectric and nuclear are about tapped out for now, unless you want a nuclear plant next to your house and are willing to bury the waste in your yard.Wind and solar are not dependable enough for on demand use, but can supply to the grid to help.

The reason grain prices are rising is still related to corn. As American farmers convert acreage to corn to make more money, there is less other grain being grown, thus raising their prices as well. An example being soybeans. Most soybeans are now being grown in Argentina and Brazil where large chunks of the Amazon are being cut down to grow beans destined for the US.

ORIGINAL: Hailchristian

Well....I think the main problem with oil and all this is the fact that all the people in automotive industry own oil stock, all the people in the oil industry own automotive stock, and people of the air resource board own stock in both. Its a huge circle that keeps feeding it self. My geology teacher said about 1/2 of the worlds oil supply is still left and there is still a trillion dollars to be made in oil. I belive that. The problem right now with oil in the US is is that our dollar is falling there for imported oil is going up. Kinda sux.

Just falls back to our government. Im ready for a new president.



Agreed. The price of oil is far from a supply/demand relationship. (http://oilmoney.priceofoil.org/federalRaceGraph.php)

ORIGINAL: Gene J

While it is true not all electricity comes from oil and gas,those types of generators are the only ones that can supply electricity on demand and then shut down until needed again.Hydroelectric and nuclear are about tapped out for now, unless you want a nuclear plant next to your house and are willing to bury the waste in your yard.Wind and solar are not dependable enough for on demand use, but can supply to the grid to help.

The reason grain prices are rising is still related to corn. As American farmers convert acreage to corn to make more money, there is less other grain being grown, thus raising their prices as well. An example being soybeans. Most soybeans are now being grown in Argentina and Brazil where large chunks of the Amazon are being cut down to grow beans destined for the US.


Nuclear power isn't tapped out. You really exaggerated about nuclear power plants. I don't know any city (in california) that even has a fossil fuel power plant next to it. You don't want to live next to a power plant no matter what it uses to produce fuel. That goes for solar and wind, as well. It'll be windy or otherwise very hot.

Nuclear power plants absolutely can supply electricity on demand. They must control the nuclear reactions, and there's several different ways to achieve this (which accounts for some of the different types of nuclear reactors). An unmoderated nuclear reaction is only used in nuclear warheads.

As far as nuclear waste goes, that's a somewhat valid concern. You're not going to be burying it near any city. If you'll recall, Bush signed a measure in 2002 opening up the Yucca Mountains as a storage area for nuclear waste.

You're also forgetting about another power source--coal. Last I checked, coal produces more electricity than any other type of energy in America. America also has very large natural coal reserves, and with clean coal burning techniques, you can clean up the pollution output quite a bit.

ORIGINAL: jamned

ORIGINAL: Gene J

While it is true not all electricity comes from oil and gas,those types of generators are the only ones that can supply electricity on demand and then shut down until needed again.Hydroelectric and nuclear are about tapped out for now, unless you want a nuclear plant next to your house and are willing to bury the waste in your yard.Wind and solar are not dependable enough for on demand use, but can supply to the grid to help.

The reason grain prices are rising is still related to corn. As American farmers convert acreage to corn to make more money, there is less other grain being grown, thus raising their prices as well. An example being soybeans. Most soybeans are now being grown in Argentina and Brazil where large chunks of the Amazon are being cut down to grow beans destined for the US.


Nuclear power isn't tapped out. You really exaggerated about nuclear power plants. I don't know any city (in california) that even has a fossil fuel power plant next to it. You don't want to live next to a power plant no matter what it uses to produce fuel. That goes for solar and wind, as well. It'll be windy or otherwise very hot.

Nuclear power plants absolutely can supply electricity on demand. They must control the nuclear reactions, and there's several different ways to achieve this (which accounts for some of the different types of nuclear reactors). An unmoderated nuclear reaction is only used in nuclear warheads.

As far as nuclear waste goes, that's a somewhat valid concern. You're not going to be burying it near any city. If you'll recall, Bush signed a measure in 2002 opening up the Yucca Mountains as a storage area for nuclear waste.

You're also forgetting about another power source--coal. Last I checked, coal produces more electricity than any other type of energy in America. America also has very large natural coal reserves, and with clean coal burning techniques, you can clean up the pollution output quite a bit.



Either you have not done your home work, or you are purposely misinterpreting my comments.The president mentioned in your post will be out of office shortly. Only then will some meaningful work be done to solve our energy problem.

I'm pretty sure the oil has some regenerating form. There's oil in the US, but it's never touched and as long as the mantle inside the earth is normal, we'll always have oil, although we may need to go to new locations to get it.

but until there's an alternate method of fuel or when God strikes down everyone involved in the rediculous gas prices, they'll go up and people will be forced to sell their gas guzzlers, buy a bike or motorcycle.

ORIGINAL: Gene J
Either you have not done your home work, or you are purposely misinterpreting my comments.The president mentioned in your post will be out of office shortly. Only then will some meaningful work be done to solve our energy problem.


Well, I agree that Bush isn't going to help our fuel problems. My main point was that your statement about generators is incorrect--see below.


ORIGINAL: Gene J
While it is true not all electricity comes from oil and gas,those types of generators are the only ones that can supply electricity on demand and then shut down until needed again.


Again, coal and nuclear power plants can both supply electricity on demand and shut down some systems until necessary again. Nuclear power plants alter the uranium or plutonium fission rate with control rods, which absorb neutrons that would otherwise contribute to more fission reactions. When demand increases, control rods can be removed from reactor cores to increase the number of neutrons available in the reactor. This increases the rate of fission reactions.

ORIGINAL: Gene J
Hydroelectric and nuclear are about tapped out for now, unless you want a nuclear plant next to your house and are willing to bury the waste in your yard.


I guess I read this comment too literally. My original question still stands, though. Given the pollution output of any fossil fuel power plant, who would want to live near any of these kinds of power plants? If you want electricity, you have to accept some form of pollution in your area, unless you happen to live near a viable site for for renewable energy. This doesn't mean burying nuclear waste in the soil near you. That isn't practiced in America (though if you have proof, I'd be interested in seeing it).

ORIGINAL: jamned

Roto: there have been 2 major nuclear meltdowns at power plants ever. There have been 8 minor ones


Don'ttell me about nuclear meltdowns. I possibly know more about them than you ever could find out :D Not to mention the fact that I lived driving distance from Chornobyl for many years and I will be going to survey the site next year...

ORIGINAL: PirateX

[
ORIGINAL: Roto
What we need is safe nuclear power plants and a way to eject nucler waste somewhere...like the moon which nobody cares about.


Hahaha - hilarious! We've spent enough years not caring about the earth, why not put our waste elsewhere now?


Why not? There's absolutely no reason not to do it. If it was me I'd go as far as burning the stuff in the sun.... no harm there.

ORIGINAL: Roto
Don'ttell me about nuclear meltdowns. I possibly know more about them than you ever could find out :D Not to mention the fact that I lived driving distance from Chornobyl for many years and I will be going to survey the site next year...


Interesting, are you an inspector? (That's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious)

I'm not claiming to know that much about nuclear reactors, though in statistics they appear to be pretty safe with a very low rate of accidents.

ORIGINAL: jamned

ORIGINAL: Roto
Don'ttell me about nuclear meltdowns. I possibly know more about them than you ever could find out :D Not to mention the fact that I lived driving distance from Chornobyl for many years and I will be going to survey the site next year...


Interesting, are you an inspector? (That's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious)

I'm not claiming to know that much about nuclear reactors, though in statistics they appear to be pretty safe with a very low rate of accidents.


Chornobly blew up because it was built by russians:D.... lol. j/k, ....although my german nuclear chem professor always did mention in class that russians scientist would always do a crappy job[&:]

ORIGINAL: Gonzo

Belive me, I'm not saying that I'm a treehugger, either. Pave the rainforest for all I care. I'm just saying that oil will eventually run out. The way it looks now, sooner than later.. And when oil is gone or too difficult to produce, the way will live will drastically be changed.



I don't know if anyone has heard of the oil embargo of 1973 (killed the musclecars) but it was estimated that the U.S would use up most of their oil by the 80's and then all of a sudden we had enough to waste. I'm not saying we are not in trouble, but i don't think it's as bad as they say it is. We can't get the oil we would like to from the middle east and the oil from the U.S is drying up, but there is still the oilsands in Alberta, Canada. Saskatchewan is supposed to surpass Alberta in a decade for oil sands production. Plus they have sea bed oil, like Hibernia oil fields off of the Newfoundland coast. It's not gonna dry up in our lifetime. I think they are just trying to scare us into investing in alternative fuels. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not the solution.

Hydrogen is still in it's early stages and they have to figure out a way to make it safe in a collision (explosion!). I think that for the mean time, diesel is an effective solution. Everywhere but the US and Canada, car companies have been thriving off of diesel engine productions, even BMW's and Mercedes Benz's have multiple diesel engine options. Even our own beloved Honda has created numerous diesel engine options for their entire line-up. It doesn't cure our dependency for fossil fuel, but it reduces it dramatically. Who cares if it's a little louder, rougher and stinks. Try driving a diesel and see for yourself, you would be pleasantly suprised by the output and peppiness of the compression ignition engine. Even better is the fuel consumption, which is easy to achieve numbers in excess of 50mpg in a compact car with no special tricks or driving habit changes (plus the homebrew of bio diesel). North America needs to open up their eyes to the global stage and see what works. Keep the alternative fuels in development but start creating more deisel options for the modern consumer, cuz it ain't just for hippies anymore.

ORIGINAL: koots

ORIGINAL: Gonzo

Belive me, I'm not saying that I'm a treehugger, either. Pave the rainforest for all I care. I'm just saying that oil will eventually run out. The way it looks now, sooner than later.. And when oil is gone or too difficult to produce, the way will live will drastically be changed.



Hydrogen is still in it's early stages and they have to figure out a way to make it safe in a collision (explosion!). I think that for the mean time, diesel is an effective solution. Everywhere but the US and Canada, car companies have been thriving off of diesel engine productions, even BMW's and Mercedes Benz's have multiple diesel engine options. Even our own beloved Honda has created numerous diesel engine options for their entire line-up. It doesn't cure our dependency for fossil fuel, but it reduces it dramatically. Who cares if it's a little louder, rougher and stinks. Try driving a diesel and see for yourself, you would be pleasantly suprised by the output and peppiness of the compression ignition engine. Even better is the fuel consumption, which is easy to achieve numbers in excess of 50mpg in a compact car with no special tricks or driving habit changes (plus the homebrew of bio diesel). North America needs to open up their eyes to the global stage and see what works. Keep the alternative fuels in development but start creating more deisel options for the modern consumer, cuz it ain't just for hippies anymore.


In the bay area, diesel is way more expensive than premium gasonline. It's almost at $5.00 a gallon.[&:]

It's like that everywhere, but the fuel consumption part is what makes it so great. No matter what the chassis or vehicle class you put diesels in, it will deliver more torque and fuel economy compared to the gasoline counterparts. In some cases it can give you great off the line performance due to the low torque peakinherent inthe diesel engine. It's not the solution, like i said, but it's more economically viable for the masses as of right now. If you use ethanol it creates less heat energy than gas or diesel, which will hurt performance and fuel mileage, plus it costs alot to manufacture. I just don't see it as the bright shining light at the end of the tunnel. Electric cars have some merit but i don't think they could work for everyones needs, neither will any of the future fuels in development. I would like to have hydrogen be the way of the future, but until it becomes safe and economical, i will vote against it.

ORIGINAL: jamned

ORIGINAL: Roto
Don'ttell me about nuclear meltdowns. I possibly know more about them than you ever could find out :D Not to mention the fact that I lived driving distance from Chornobyl for many years and I will be going to survey the site next year...


Interesting, are you an inspector? (That's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious)

I'm not claiming to know that much about nuclear reactors, though in statistics they appear to be pretty safe with a very low rate of accidents.



I'm not an inspector. I'm just part of a small group that is interested in monitoring the migration of the so called "active particles"around the Chornobyl zone...also we monitor the amount of radioactive crap that leaves the zone. You have no clue how many units of machinery have left the zone that are highly radioactive... Also some morans made a business of reselling things like bathtubs and other commonly used materials from the zone. The reason I'm for nuclear is because most seriousaccidents are now over 20 years old...more than enough time to learn the lessons and build better power plants.

Does this mean youre gonna be growin a second head gene?

ORIGINAL: GReddy_Civic

Does this mean youre gonna be growin a second head gene?


I already got four hands and I'm going after you, Trent... beware the rage of glowing commie...

im more worried about that hammer

Just through my classes I've learned that Nuclear Energy production isn't nearly as dangerous as it's made out to be, especially when compared to others such as coal degasification. Since it's such a rare occurance, the media jumps all over it and sensationalizes it.

Today, the best band-aid (not solution) is to increase the production of electric/gas hybrids until other technologies can be improved upon. To further this, the cost of purchasing of these vehicles must go down too.



On a side note, referenced to the people throwing statistics out here, please keep them accurate and complete. The main reason I say this is stats that are true but leave out vital information are as good as false stats. You can say things like:

To make one calorie of ethonal fuel, it takes ten calories of oil.

Sure, I know that the ten calories of oil are ten calories of crude oil. But not everyone knows that. Furthermore, the unit calorie is only used to deceive. A calorie is a unit of energy which is NOT a unit a volume such as gallon or Liter. How often does the everyday person measure the calories in things (other than food)? I know that I don't go strutting around saying "My engine puts out 3,000,000 calories, VTEC VTEC!!" Why don't I? Because most people can put that into perspective. Like, whoa, that's 100,000 Twix candy bars!! Cool!!!


For a real statistic though, say you have 42 gallons of CRUDE oil (which is unrefined oil). After refining, that 42 gallons only makes 19.5 gallons of useable gasoline. Of course this stat is dependant on several different factors, such as, refining efficiency, product mix desired by the refiner, and quality of the crude oil to name a few.

ORIGINAL: koots

I don't know if anyone has heard of the oil embargo of 1973 (killed the musclecars) but it was estimated that the U.S would use up most of their oil by the 80's and then all of a sudden we had enough to waste. I'm not saying we are not in trouble, but i don't think it's as bad as they say it is. We can't get the oil we would like to from the middle east and the oil from the U.S is drying up, but there is still the oilsands in Alberta, Canada. Saskatchewan is supposed to surpass Alberta in a decade for oil sands production. Plus they have sea bed oil, like Hibernia oil fields off of the Newfoundland coast. It's not gonna dry up in our lifetime. I think they are just trying to scare us into investing in alternative fuels. Which isn't a bad thing, but it's not the solution.

Hydrogen is still in it's early stages and they have to figure out a way to make it safe in a collision (explosion!). I think that for the mean time, diesel is an effective solution. Everywhere but the US and Canada, car companies have been thriving off of diesel engine productions, even BMW's and Mercedes Benz's have multiple diesel engine options. Even our own beloved Honda has created numerous diesel engine options for their entire line-up. It doesn't cure our dependency for fossil fuel, but it reduces it dramatically. Who cares if it's a little louder, rougher and stinks. Try driving a diesel and see for yourself, you would be pleasantly suprised by the output and peppiness of the compression ignition engine. Even better is the fuel consumption, which is easy to achieve numbers in excess of 50mpg in a compact car with no special tricks or driving habit changes (plus the homebrew of bio diesel). North America needs to open up their eyes to the global stage and see what works. Keep the alternative fuels in development but start creating more deisel options for the modern consumer, cuz it ain't just for hippies anymore.


koots, the diesel combustion process produces much more NOx than gasoline combustion does. One solution commonly implemented in European diesel cars is to use a liquid catalyst to neutralize the NOx before it leaves the car. The liquid catalyst gets consumed and so it needs to be refilled on a regular basis. If you don't do that, the car will feel the same and won't get damaged, but you'll be polluting significantly more. In my opinion, there's a very valid concern that many Americans won't perform this maintenance. (ODBII is meant to throw a code when you have an engine problem OR there's an emissions problem. How many people do you know who drive with their check engine light on?)

California doesn't allow for the sale of any diesel passenger car which requires a catalyst to be replenished regularly. Honda's new diesel engine is the only one I know of that will be sold new in California, as it uses some more advanced combustion techniques to reduce NOx without using a liquid catalyst. (Some people "grey market" other diesel passenger cars to Ca from other states, but they're relatively few in number).

Another concern I'd have about diesel becoming a mass fuel is the price right now. Diesel's already used for most or all freight trucks. If many people started using it for their commuter cars, they would represent a big jump in demand. Diesel prices would go up even further to match that. I could see that almost all consumer goods would also see a price jump, as the cost to move them increases. Diesel isn't a replacement for gas in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: danomatic93
Sure, I know that the ten calories of oil are ten calories of crude oil. But not everyone knows that. Furthermore, the unit calorie is only used to deceive. A calorie is a unit of energy which is NOT a unit a volume such as gallon or Liter.

Interesting point, I always neglected the units. The "calorie" statement is some great spin on the part of the anti-ethanol (oil industry) camp.