In 1972, the USA paid $4 billion for oil imports, an amount equal to 1.2 percent of the US defense budget at that time.

In 2006, the USA paid $260 billion — about half of what was paid for national defense. Over the same period, Saudi oil revenues have grown in direct parallel: from $2.7 billion in 1972 to $200 billion in 2006 and they will likely exceed $300 billion this year.

Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are calling for prices of $200 per barrel. If Chávez and Amadinejad have their way, the US economy will soon be drained at a rate of nearly $900 billion per year, an economic de-stimulus tax package six times as large as anything Congress has put on the table to push the other way.

All the above is taken from this article by some one called Robert Zubrin. It an interesting read since Zubrin goes on to advocate the introduction of flex-fuel vehicles over the course of the next few years as the best and fastest way to wean America, and thus the rest of the western world, off oil dependency and away from the negative impact of Saudi Arabian influence.

My questions to you Americans are, could America kick the oil habit and free itself of Saudi Arabian influence or does lobbyism always prevail over common sense?

Would flex-fuel vehicles actually be economically viable for the common American family?

My questions to you Americans are, could America kick the oil habit and free itself of Saudi Arabian influence or does lobbyism always prevail over common sense?

Would flex-fuel vehicles actually be economically viable for the common American family?

These are good questions, Moif. America has been attempting to come up with some sort of a "national energy policy" since the early 1970's when the Arab oil embargo happened. We've really never been able to accomplish anything, at least not on a national policy scale. There are so many special interests across a wide spectrum fighting against virtually any plan proposed. Enviornmentalists don't want us drilling for new oil, anywhere, or developing nuclear power. Car makers don't want to have to re-tool their production plants for new technology cars, labor unions are afraid new technology development might cost their members some jobs. Oil companies profit as oil prices go up. Rich people don't want wind farms to ruin their view off the coast of Cape Cod, and the list goes on and on. I am convinced that the concept of some sort of cohesive national energy policy to wean us off dependance on foreign oil is impossible in the political arena.

But, there is a silver lining to this dark cloud. I once again in my despair turn to the words of Ronald Reagan.



So, government isn't going to solve this problem, but the American people can. Despite what some may say, we have a lot of really smart and innovative people in this country. Some of them make movies like Field of Dreams where they tell us...



That's a true statement, and right now the market for new ideas and innovation is wide open in the energy field. It is screaming for smart people to fill the void with new ideas and new technology. And, there's not just one answer to all problems, rather there are many answers to each problem. I have confidence that the American people, not the American government will find those answers, and I hope sooner rather than later. If there's a market for it and there is, someone will fill that market and get rich in the process.

As a very simple anecdotal example, I myself did rather well filling one void.......

Last summer when temperatures and prices for electricity sky-rocketed in Southern California, I went over to the local Home Depot to see if I could find an attic fan to cut back on my $1000+ electrical bill. I thought I'd end up having to buy something that I'd need an electrical contractor to hook up, but instead I came across a solar powered attic fan. Little solar panel that you screw into the roof, run a wire to the fan mounted in the vent in the roof gable.

Cost - $110.00
Time to install it myself - 45 minutes
Cost savings on my electric bill - $600+ per MONTH in the heat of summer

So, I went back to Home Depot and bought the last 10 of the systems they had and went around showing my neighbors my electric bills before and after. I sold out and installed all 10 in 2 days, at a modest profit of course.

Small time example for sure, but that's the way this country is finally going to answer the energy question.



And, I think we will.


Aquilla

Nailed it. not only are the answers out there and waiting so are new jobs and investment opportunities.

Want to save the world--start a business or invest in the start up of one.
If you build it not only will they come but they will also buy one in each available color--except for orange and lime green, i mean really!

Here are some neat ideas alone for just wind power--one of many many.
Combining the best of green tech and ecology, GROW draws inspiration from ivy growing on the side of a building - resulting in a hybrid energy delivery device of flexible, ivy-like fluttering solar leaves that provide power via both sun and wind.

Microwind

http://www.humdingerwind.com/

Most are small not off the ground but the number of these for all Alt Energy ideas are countless and waiting. The Microsoft of the alt energy world hasn't been born yet. I think private investment groups made up of interested and concerned citizens who either want to save the world or make a profit--or both, set up as VCs would be FAR more effective than any government program ever could be. Offering MASSIVE tax breaks to start up companies with real potential is about the only thing government could do that would truly benefit anyone.

Worried about the world then take your profits and either donate it to causes, use it as micro loans to the poor and needy or invest in what you believe the world needs.

Only then, with actually viable alternatives could the power of any lobbying group be broken. Til, then second verse same as the first, Im Prince Adbul the Saudi I am.

My questions to you Americans are, could America kick the oil habit and free itself of Saudi Arabian influence or does lobbyism always prevail over common sense?

Sure could. America could also pass a Constitutional amendment renaming itself "The United States of Ultimatejoe." I'm not holding my breath on either. While Aquilla's anecdote makes a persuasive argument, it only further illustrates that economic interests are far-and-away the largest impetus for development and change. You can toss around numbers like $900 billion, but when measured against the economic activity that Petrochemicals generate, it's still just a drop in the bucket. As long as the cost to move away from oil is less than the cost of sticking with it, the "habit" will remain.

Would flex-fuel vehicles actually be economically viable for the common American family?

For about fifteen years; until the supply of corn drops and farms have to rotate away from it.

That is precisely my point. Only the market forces that force the change have to come from the "bottom up" .ie. the consumers. That's how a free market economy works. When something gets too expensive, a new market for something less expensive opens up. It becomes an opportunity for someone with a better idea. I didn't install my attic fan because I was worried about the green house gases or carbon footprints or because Algore told me I would be a better person for it. I installed it because I didn't want to spend so much money cooling my house on a hot summer day. I've been re-cycling cans for decades and that's not because I want to "Save the whales" (nothing against whales, I like them), but because I can make money re-cycling cans. And, I'm considering buying some sort of a hybrid car when I move to my new home in the midwest, not to save the air for my children, but to save money on gas. At some point, and I don't know where it is, the price of gasoline is going to reach a threshold where people are just simply not going to be able to afford it anymore. I don't know where that point is exactly, but I'm thinking it's gonna be here before too long. When that threshold is reached, it isn't going to be the government telling people what to do that will make the change. It will be people demanding a new market for that change and the innovators will be more than happy to fill that market. I think that's the only way things are going to change.


Aquilla

The 110/barrel oil price is a wakeup call but if we look back to the 70s – when the price drops the idiots in the Congress just cancel all the “funding” for alternatives and we go right back to sleep.

I have ZERO confidence in the Congress to get anything done. What we need is a country like Germany to take the lead and develop a more efficient vehicle/fuel combination.




Its all about the “fuel”. We have gas and coal in abundance. How to get that into vehicles for fuel is the question. The most promising technology is using “switch grass” NOT corn to make ethanol. We should have a “Manhattan Project” type program to get this done here – but we all know it will never happen until some of the big special interests get on board. The Congress is far to stupid to move it forward.

Naturally nuclear power for electric cars would be great – but again never happen with the morons we have in Congress – and $$ is not the problem. Inaction is and has been the problem for DECADES.

Nixon said he would get us off foreign oil!

We also have WIND we could use to make electricity – if you have any doubt about the stupidity of the Congress look at the Cape Wind project on the other thread I started. Sitting there dead since 2001.

This isn’t just about Party politics this is about a level of incompetence in Congress regarding long term energy security that is staggering. And nothing is going to change unless and until we all start badgering the Congress on a very regular basis.



Whichever Party is elected – their friends will get the “green energy” money.

That is why we can't depend on government to solve the problem. The solution comes from the private sector, people with good ideas who want to make money from those good ideas. Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, Corn or switchgrass aside. The largest natural resource America has is it's people and their innovation. The best "energy policy" the government could adopt right now is to just stay the HELL out of the way and let the people solve the problem.


Aquilla

I tend to agree but with R&D funding down we will wait too damn long for a solution. I don’t want government to pick winners and losers – I want them to help fund research that can then be commercialized.

I want theses morons to approve nuclear power plants and allow drilling for OUR OIL off the coasts and in the Alaskan oil reserve (ANWAR). And I am dreaming because the idiots are far too busy with earmarks that reward their friends than with the good of the nation as a whole.

1) Sure. Take all of our imported oil from Iraq until Iraq runs dry. That should have been the deal we cut with the Kuwaiti royals in exchange for a return of their throne.

2) Flex fuel is not the answer. Our corn ethanol is going to ruin our food supply--we bought wheat from Russia this year, for Chrissakes! All power should come from nukes within 8-10 years, and then we either run elec cars with small, onboard fueled backup generators (akin to Chevy's new Volt) or cars run from fuel oil converted from our abundant coal supply. Hydrogen may be an answer, but it will require even more new infrastructure than the fuel oil conversion process.

Let's get on with the Manhattan Project, part II.

I'm hoping that my next car is either powered by Hydrogen or electric.

BMW Hydrogen 7



Tesla Roadster



The Tesla goes from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds, with an electric engine and no gears or transmission. That would be so cool. It delivers 100% of available torque at all times, without shifting.

All of the big cpys have a hydrogen platform--GM, Honda; but without nuclear power to provide the huge amts of elec needed to produce the insane amts of hydrogen needed; and a complete refitting of 12,000 gas stations coast to coast; hydrogen is dead in the USA. It is too big a jump.

Tesla is cool, but still needs 4-plus hours to recharge. The Chevy Volt concept makes much better sense, as it can run from an onboard generator if all elec storage juice goes out.

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

Certainly large ventures like opening up areas for oil exploration and building new nuclear power plants is going to take government attention. Whether we like it or not. But a lot of other things don't and won't and to be honest with you, that's where the real money is, and I think the real solution is. There are venture capital companies all over the place looking for places to invest. If you come up with a really great idea that meets a market demand, trust me, they'll be all over you like white on rice wanting a piece of the action. To be honest, I'd rather deal with them than with the government for funding. They have the same goal as I do - making money. The hell with saving the whales (and I will once again remind everyone here I like whales - watched Free Willy four times), but business is business. Right now, the market is hot for affordable energy and that market isn't going to cool down anytime soon. People that come up with ways to generate and deliver that energy are going to make a very handsome living. And, it isn't going to take the government for them to do that. Look at what Google and Apple and Microsoft did with a great idea by a couple of guys.


Aquilla

Aquilla, I agree with you. This *is* only something the private sector can solve. However, the government does play a role by instituting policies to help foster innovations in the energy sector. More importantly, government must re-evaluate and withdraw its anti-innovation policies. For example, government is biased towards extraction-based technologies like providing cheap (sometimes free) coal & natural gas mining rights on public lands. It also uses eminent domain to allow pipelines and roads to be built. Now, I'm not saying that these are bad things to do; I'm saying that such policies in effect discourage innovation in other technologies by lowering the barrier to entry for current technologies. We want an even playing field, right?

The biggest problem with alternative fuel systems for automobiles is simply that our current infrastructure is geared towards petroleum. What if you have a car that runs on electricity: how will you recharge when taking, say, a road trip? Sames goes for hydrogen cars. As a result, most of the dialog for alternative fuels has centered around "tweaks" to the current infrastructure. But, even this isn't enough. Service station would still need to retool to pump ethanol or even biodiesel. And the trucks/pipelines that deliver those fuels to depots and/or service stations must support these new fuels as well. AND, of course, we would need to produce these fuels in large enough quantities for customers to use at scale and service stations to provide at scale.

I do feel more optimistic on the home energy front. I think, Aquilla, you bring up an excellent point that economics is the best motivator for change. Conservation technologies, such as your roof fan, are often the cheapest to implement. If more folks start thinking about the money they save by installing roof fans, energy efficient appliances and programmatic thermostats, a tremendous amount of wasted energy (and thus $$$) will be saved.

Also, on the home energy front, people can start using their homes as miniature power plants. Install solar panels or wind generators or what have you. Then, dump any excess energy into the power grid. Your meter runs backwards and you make money. Note that it's still unfair, because energy you generate and add to the grid, is also money the power company makes.

The problem this is the 1970s all over again. And I am sure OPEC has not missed our stupidity. Just as we pouring private and government money into alternatives they turned on the spigot and tanked the price – killing the effort. Naturally the idiots in Congress and Carter did the same thing and here we are 35 years later with squat – at the mercy of the ME. We will never ever get past it without some big risks being taken – perhaps even more than private funding will support – esp if the payoff id a decade out. But we need to pull all the stops and then stop the Congress from doing a repeat in 1975.



Forget it. Takes LOTS of power to make it and without nukes its out of the question. And the idiots in Congress are too busy with the earmarks to approve nuclear plants.

Only chance are things like this:
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Probably a decade away.

You're right on one front, a complete changeover in infrastructure would be costly and take time to implement. So, if we want to do something about that and make some money, we're going to have to be more clever aren't we. How can we use the existing infrastructure to make more efficient use of new technology?

How about this. We make a re-chargeable hybrid car that can be plugged into an electrical outlet to be re-charged and run say 50 miles without the gasoline engine having to kick in. So, say if all you're going to do is drive to the grocery store a few miles away and back, you can plug it in when you get home never use an ounce of gas. So, let's do a business plan for this car. We study the data on how far the average trip in a car is and size our battery to cover that distance. Maybe we find out as a result of our research that 75% of the average person's car mileage is accrued on "sorties" (military term) of 25 miles or less. So, if we make a car that can run on pure electric for more than 25 miles at a time, we can save the owner 75% of their gasoline costs. (Higher electric, but we'll work on that after our first billion on this one). And indeed there are cars like the one described in development. That's the kind of progressive innovation that I think is going to solve the problem.


Aquilla

Yep, good idea. And, yes, this technology exists (the whole plug-in hybrid aftermarket). Of course, the big US car manufacturers didn't believe there were customers for hybrid technology. I suppose this one of the many reasons they're dying.

You and I are in absolute agreement that we need to *evolve* towards an alternative energy infrastructure. However, I don't believe this can done without government policies that help foster innovation AND scrapping those government policies that inhibit innovation -- those that create an uneven playing field. If nothing else, government should just step out of the way entirely.

Wonderful idea except me and millions of others would never do it because the cost of the electricity to do this is still higher (and will always be until we have 100s of nuke plants etc.) than gas. So the vehicles will never be produced since it would add cost and would be never used after the first electric bill.

I don't know about that. I'm not sure just how much electricity one of these cars takes to charge up. I do know my old company (Disney) used to provide parking spaces with charging stations for electric cars, and I've seen some of those kinds of spaces at the Burbank airport as well. But, here's another business opportunity for people. Let's say you own a store where you want people to shop and buy things. So, you set up some charging stations in your parking lot to lure people in. They can park and charge their car while they shop and charge their credit cards in your store. You pick up the dime for their use of electricity, they pick up the dollar for their purchase of widgets.


Edited to add additional information......


Did a quick search on the Internet and found this site. This guy built his own electric car so it might not be the highest tech thing on the planet, but he does have some interesting numbers relating to the cost of charging compared to gas.....



Gas in LA is approaching $4 a gallon........

Aquilla

With regards to state sponsorship of alternative energy sources, here in Denmark, the government originally sponsored much of our original windmill research and the establishment of industry standards from as far back as the 1950's. Subsequently Denmark is now the world leader in windmill manufacture having some 38% of the global market.

Denmark currently receives about 19% of its electricity from wind power, but unfortunatly, our current conservative government has cut all ties with the industry and the percentage of electricity farmed from the wind has stagnated as a result.

I don't believe industry, or private individuals can establish such industry's by themselves any more. Former industries and established energy providers, such as Saudi Arabia, act against innovation and the development of new idea's. It takes state backing to provide the balance needed for new technologiues to be developed into viable alternatives.

That's cause you live in one of those damn socialist European countries. Moif. Just can't do anything without the government telling you to do it. Tell you what my friend. Want a solar powered attic fan for your house? I'll get you one for cost and install it for free if you pay for my airline ticket to Denmark..... First class of course.

Edited to add,,,,


I tease Moif because he and I are long time friends who have on many occasions agreed to disagree on lots of things. But on a more serious and germane to this thread note, I have to ask him "What happened to Denmark?" Denmark has a long and rich history of producing some of the finest minds the world has ever known. That has been their heritage, their culture. Denmark has a smaller population than the City of Los Angeles, yet they're ranked 10th among countries in the number of Nobel Prize winners. That's an indication of a pretty smart group of people and history has shown that they've always been that way. Innovators, scientists, explorers leading the way for what at the time was the new world we now know as America. So what happened? Have people in Denmark become so accustomed to their government telling them what to do that they've forgotten to think for themselves? I know Moif and his fellow countrymen can think for themselves, he has proven it here and his nation has proven it over history, so what happened? Did government get in the way and stifle the creative heritage that is Denmark? These are serious questions to consider in the context of this debate.


Aquilla

This from 2007 and CA. And it would be worse in other states like MA where I live.

"If PHEV owners bought electricity according to this tariff, they would not save money by charging at peak hours unless gasoline cost more than $3.73 per gallon. And they would want to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours as long as gasoline prices remained above $1.96 per gallon or they were using more than twice their baseline allowance and so paying more than $0.149/kWh. PG&E's experimental EV tariff would likely deter PHEV owners from charging during summer afternoon hours, but this effect depends upon the actual adoption of such a tariff by the vehicle owner, upon the specific peak hour rates, and upon the current prices of substitutable liquid fuels."

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/10/ph...-than-gas-cars/

Unless of course gas goes to $4/gal and stays there – want to make a business plan on that bet? Not me.

NW has hydro power hand some of the lowest rates in the country. It is .16- .19/kw hr. here and rising.

Like I said earlier, many solutions for each problem and they may not all work across the country. That's a part of the folly of the typical government "one size fits all" kind of "fix". Solar is great where the sun shines, wind is great where it's windy and geo-thermal is great where there's geo and thermal. My business plan might not work for the entire country, but if it worked only in California, Oregon and Washington, I'd be a happy camper. Only I wouldn't be camping, I'd be sleeping on my G5 on it's way for an extended stay at my estate on Kauai.


Aloha!


Aquilla

My point is that government, both state and federal, has the responsibility to drive the bus in reducing our dependence on foreign oil by passing regulations that will drive the creation of better efficiencies everywhere. Without picking winners and losers or specifying methods.

We have “Energy Star” appliances and finally we have an increase in the CAFÉ mileage standards – long overdue. But who is looking at the ‘gas mileage” of the thousands of homes built weekly in this country? No one. We still allow homes to be insulated as they were 50 years ago. So, both summer and winter, we waste millions of barrels of oil a day heating and cooling – and this will continue because the policy makers in this country are brain dead on the subject.

And that is precisely why we can't depend on government for the solution. Once they start writing "policies" and "regulating" things, innovation is stifled. If some smart guy out there comes up with a new way to insulate homes that isn't on the "approved" list, he's screwed. He'll have to go through all the red tape and bureaucracy, probably hire a lawyer just to do the paperwork and wait three years for "approval". So, why bother?

Now if government wants to do things like grant tax credits or rebates for things like solar power, great! I'm all in favor of government giving back as much money as possible to the people they took it from in the first place. Otherwise, stay the hell out of the way.

If some guy wants to build a car that gets 2 mpg, fine let him. See how many of them he sells. If another guy builds a car that gets 200 mpg, I think his car is going to sell more. Let the market handle and just keep government out of it.

Aquilla

Why does the government have the responsibility? Wouldn't homeowners drive demand themselves? There is a lot of incentive to cut down on heating/cooling costs, and that incentive just increases as fuel costs rise. So, if its continuing, it's just as much the fault of the consumers as it is the government. There used to be lots of incentives for solar power, yet few takers. The government can lead us to water, essentially, but it can't make us drink. On the other hand, if demand for a certain technology to improve efficiency exists, there will be a stampede of companies looking to supply it--all without any government involvement at all.

That said, I am not against continued and increased government incentives to speed adoption of these technologies. I just disagree that it's all the government's responsibility. In fact, in a capitalist system, its not their responsiblity at all.

I believe most new houses are offered by “builders” who follow state and federal building codes. My point is that “house insulation” is much like the CAFÉ mileage standard. As we have seen with autos consumers buy what is available and manufacturers will build what makes them the biggest profits and meets existing standards. Raise the CAFÉ and mileage goes up. Raise insulation requirements for house walls and roofs and they will go up.

Well no one, to my knowledge, has raised the requirement for house walls and room insulation for decades. Most new houses have walls and roofs at R-11. Certainly you can then add insulation to your attic to improve the roof rating but you are stuck with the walls without spending a lot of money.

I believe that the government should raise the insulation requirements for houses (R value) – without, of course, telling builders how to do it.

I built a house with R-30 walls and roof and my energy us is less than ½ that of traditional house designs.

So, would you agree with this government approach?

Why did you put R-30 insulation in your house, Ted? The government didn't tell you to do that. Was it perhaps a market decision on your part?


Aquilla

No way no how. I am speaking about specifications.



Simple – I can calculate that it will have a payback – which just got a lot shorter with rising energy costs.

The problem is that builders will not often “offer” this because the cost would cost them sales and not everyone thinks about the issue.

But for the “country” this is an important issue – heating and cooling use a high % of out energy (and oil) and I don’t see why, if we want to reduce energy use, we don’t increase the wall insulation requirements for houses.

Thus the government creates the “level playing field” that also benefits the nation as a whole – as the CAFÉ standards do.

So you're saying the government needs to protect us against ourselves because "not everyone thinks about the issue"? Hate to break this to you, Ted, but that comes right out of the "How to be a big government liberal" 101 textbook.


Aquilla

I don't think Ted is saying that at all. We already have standards for building construction AND we have building inspectors solving the problem of shoddy construction, fire hazards and so on. A true free market system would get rid both the standards and the inspectors but at great risk to both the owner as well as other property owners in the neighborhood. How would you deal with graft in this case?

The government can play a role here to encourage energy efficient construction or even discourage energy inefficient construction. It doesn't need to be heavy handed. Something like: tax credits for higher efficiency. Nevertheless, Aquilla, I take your point quite well. Government should not stand in the way of innovation and market forces should always be a primary motivation.

I certainly agree with you. Logo, in that government does have a role in writing building codes and standards for the general purpose of public safety. However, I don't see how mandating specific energy requirements falls under that category.

Aquilla

It already has mandated energy standards: energy star appliances, for example. And state and local governments often have codes requiring a certain insulation level. Upping the insulation level requirements wouldn't be particularly egregious in this case.

There are things the government can encourage at a community scale that market forces don't act on very well. This is because a pure market-based strategy requires the consumer to have complete knowledge of all their choices. Unfortunately, people often don't have the time or inclination (and sometimes capacity) to research all their choices. They could hire experts to do this for them but then it requires them to front money for an uncertain payoff at the time of hire. Government offers a pool of resources (yes, paid for by taxpayers) to do things that are in the interest of the community at large. And this can be a good thing...

You (and I) have a strong distaste for government mandates when the government gets in the way of innovation. Nevertheless, government may have an interest in a new lighting system or insulation system or what not because of the risk of fire, health, etc. on the community at large. Sometimes there isn't a clear delineation.

I'm not sure that Energy Star appliances are mandated, but they are encouraged, and I don't have a problem with that. And, I don't have a problem with taxpayer money being used to encourage manufacturers to make more efficient appliances or educate the people about those appliances with something like the Energy Star program. I do have a problem with the government attempting to mandate things through legislation that could end up stifling new ideas. Things the politicians never thought of before. (They aren't the most creative people on the face of the planet after all)


Aquilla

They have standards now. You cannot build an “un insulated” house – R-11 is the minimum in most states. All I am saying is this number needs to be higher if we want to use less oil. I have no problem with standards – they are all over and setting them is the proper function of state and federal government – and like you I believe they should do very little else.

This is in the national interest - and a national security interest as well.

Dang. Did "up" become "down" or something? I find myself in complete agreement with Ted... again.

That probably bothers Ted as much as it does you.

Aquilla

Hey – nice to agree with you for a change – and this is an important subject. Why beat the snot out of cars for gas mileage increases while at the same time pouring the energy we save through the walls of our homes?

We need to work on creating energy without using oil – and at the same time cut our use of oil in every possible way.

My questions to you Americans are, could America kick the oil habit and free itself of Saudi Arabian influence or does lobbyism always prevail over common sense?

moif, I am sorry to say it, but the basis of your question is deeply flawed. First of all, everyone seems to think that kicking the oil habit is a good thing for America or even that it is a necessity. This assumption is based on the fact that the rising cost of oil is basically holding America hostage and that we have no choice but to pay whatever pricethe Saudis or other oil-rich nations dictate. This a superficial way of looking at the situation. The actual problem in this instance, and in many of our current economic troubles, is the devaluation of the dollar. The supply and the demand has remained constant, but the dollar has depreciated making prices go up. There would not be an oil crisis if the dollar was stronger and if the government quit creating all of this inflation. It is conventional economic theory that when the value of currencies go down, that the value of commodities rise because people want to put their money into safer investments that are determined by the market, not by central planners. In the end, if the price of oil gets too high then i believe that the free market will provide an alternative. But if it gets to that point, we will be in a lot of trouble because it means that the value of the dollar is incredibly weak.

My questions to you Americans are, could America kick the oil habit and free itself of Saudi Arabian influence or does lobbyism always prevail over common sense?

Would flex-fuel vehicles actually be economically viable for the common American family?
here is what I would consider one of the best alternatives I have seen, this from my neck of the woods. Driven by it many times, very impressive. when you drive by it and see how small it is and then you realize the potential, we have so many square miles of desert here that could be used.

The potential will come from mass production. Right now I have read there are two factories being constructed in the USA to produce the various components. In my book the US gov should be funding this in a big big way. This is a system developed in Spain.

As far as the lobbyism goes, war is certainly a more profitable endeavor for the elite than peace... But I bet that was not the lobby you were specifying. Mankind would never go to war over energy issues would we?

here is how we feed flex-fuel vehicles.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/nevada_solar_on.php


here is a major benifit it matches the peak demand times of energy usage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business...amp;oref=slogin



here is how the tax breaks encourage even building.
http://www.thestar.com/Travel/article/356799

Leder, I think that the are tied together. Inflation is caused by the trade deficit. As we import more than we export, countries have to loan to or invest money in the US. In our case, personal investment coming in and going out are about equal so it's the US government that fills the gap. As they issue more paper loans, it basically increases the amount of $$ out there and drops the value of $$'s already on hand. You seem to get all of that. This ties to oil in the sense that oil is our #1 import. It makes up half of our trade deficit with Mexico for example. Without such a dependence on oil, are trade deficit drops and the dollar strengthens.