Would it really matter which fuel is used for passenger cars?

[ColbertWatcher]

Poll question: Would it really matter which fuel is used for passenger cars?

I've been thinking about this lately.

The national conversation seems to be centered around where we get the oil from, not so much whether we should be using petroleum-based products, but country of origin. Certainly there have been some who want to expand the conversation to include alternative sources for fuel, but with the "drill at all costs" crowd buried up to their necks in tar sands the conversation does not stray far from the emotional talking points that remind people of Middle Eastern terrorists.

The most common sources for non-petroleum-based fuels are electricity, some form of biofuel, something compressed like CNG or air and hydrogen.

I'm from California so electricity is completely out of the question--the imaginary Enron-created "crisis" is still fresh in my memory. Which makes me wonder if the kind of market manipulation that Enron pulled with electricity in California in 2000 would simply be repeated for any other fuel source?

Does it even matter which fuel is used when the suppliers can play the same game Enron did no matter which fuel is on the market?

[ContinentalOp]

1. Electricity is not out of the question.

Home solar is the solution. But yes, that kind of market manipulation can apply to anything. Like the banking industry for example.

Of course it still matters which fuels we use. It's just just about price. It's about emissions, sustainability, local sources of energy, etc.

[ColbertWatcher]

3. Okay, maybe not completely out of the question.

But, I can totally see the price of solar panels being manipulated too.

[ContinentalOp]

Hopefully things will play out more like the tech industry.

Solar panels should be less decentralized and therefore more difficult to manipulate. It's not like oil production where there is a whole complex infrastructure of refineries, pipelines, and drilling platforms all over the world, controlled by various governments and powerful corporations.

I think it's more like chip manufacturing where a big solar boom would lead to many different plants in competition with each other, leading to ever downward spiraling prices and improving technology.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. I hope you're right.

I guess I've become very cynical after so many years under so many criminal GOP policies.

[ThomWV]

7. Home solar can never be the answer

Put the house in some sort of average place in the country, one where it rains a good bit, snows some times, gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter. Make your transportation needs minimal, but don't claim they are non-existent. Within reason I don't care how big your home is it still won't be able to supply your heating and transportation needs, even if the panels were 100% efficient and you had the room for perfect and unlimited storage. Now try it with an apartment building with just one roof for hundreds of people. It just doesn't work, in fact it doesn't even approach working.

[wuushew]

11. Who said each household needed to generate 100%?

Isn't the advantage of being tied into a grid the ability to buy and sell electricity as needed? The average American roof area is 2,000 square feet and unless alreading generating solar power, is serving little or no function to the homeowner.

[Ian David]

2. I say we render the fat from Republicans and convert it to biodiesel. n/t

[ContinentalOp]

5. God, can you imagine the emissions though?

Eeeew.

[izquierdista]

4. Don't forget butanol

A long time ago (circa World War I), there were fermentation processes to convert biomass into butanol which could then be used as a straight substitute for gasoline. Much of the technology was forgotten with cheap crude oil, but it is a technology that can and should be revived. Learn more at www.butanol.com

That is, of course, after we render the fat from fat-cat Republicans and turn it into biodiesel. :-)

[ColbertWatcher]

6. We can do both! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. It's not so much the finite/infinite problem, but the carbon emissions

A fuel that does not add net carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we need.

[ColbertWatcher]

10. Would it still be okay for corporations to manipulate the price for clean fuels? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It wouldn't be the end of the world; whereas global warming might be

Certainly, stopping price manipulation is a small detail that just needs a bit of legislation, in comparison to the huge problem of trashing the entire world environment.

[surrealAmerican]

13. Thank you.

The price to the consumer pales in comparison to the price to the environment. Regardless of weather we can drive to work, we still need to eat and breathe.

[hootinholler]

14. IF (note big if) we could somehow centralize the emissions to a number of points

Then we can deal with emissions there instead of spewing them all over. Cleaner cities, yadda yadda. There are few power sources that will allow for that, electricity is one.

-Hoot