Editorial captures logic of fuel economy and biodiesel well

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
I don't know if this is the best place to put this article, but it was too good to miss:

Editorial

"Clearly, becoming less dependent on foreign sources should be among the West's - and most especially America's - most urgent priorities. But not in the way that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney seem to prefer, which is to try to drill our way out of dependency - an utterly impossible task for a country that uses one-fourth of the world's oil while possessing only 3 percent of its reserves, and whose once-abundant supplies of natural gas are now severely stressed. A much better answer would be a national commitment to more efficient vehicles and to the rapid deployment of new energy sources like biofuels.

America cannot win President Bush's much-vaunted war on terrorism as long as it is sending billions of dollars abroad for oil purchases every day. It cannot establish democracy in the Middle East because governments rich in oil revenue do not want democracy. And it will never have the geopolitical leverage it needs as long as it is dependent on unstable foreign sources for fuel. "

Nothing new to most of us on this board. Just thought it would be nice to hear it from the print media in such a concise and accurate fashion.

TM
 

DrStink

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Location
Providence RI
TDI
2003 Jetta GL - Platinum Grey
Tin Man said:
I don't know if this is the best place to put this article, but it was too good to miss:

Editorial

Nothing new to most of us on this board. Just thought it would be nice to hear it from the print media in such a concise and accurate fashion.

TM
TM - What the heck are you doing reading a leebrul rag like the Times? ;)

But seriously, it's great to see a major newspaper editorial board lay it out in such a clear manner.

They also had a nice article on ethanol (sans Pimentel) this morning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/16/national/16ethanol.html
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
Yeah, at least in the ethanol article they mention potential competition with the food industry and possible rise in prices.

Biofuels should be put on the front burner as part of the war effort, IMO. Just don't know how it will play in Beijing and Delhi. If we cut our use of oil imports, perhaps they will do the same or at least be less dependent on the terrorist states for oil.

TM
 

BeetleGo

TDIClub Enthusiast, Pre-Forum Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 1998
Location
Cambridge, MA
TDI
5-door, 5-speed Golf GLS replaced BeetleGo.
Funny, the Wall Street Journal isn't the last bastion of liberal thinking and only recently they had a front page article that said basically the same thing - namely, that biofuels and biodiesel in particular are the best bet we have to move beyond what we're doing now and move toward an environmentally correct energy solution and a political back door out of our mess in the Middle East.

Given the fact that I hadn't even heard of biodiesel before 2002, it sure seems like an aweful lot has already changed in 4 years time. Let's see what another wild hurricane season, continued rapid economic expansion in China/India, and a continued stream of body bags coming back from Iraq/Afganistan do to the equation this year. Oh, and let's not forget if Iran decides to withhold it's 2 million bpd production from the western market....

Biodiesel could start to look like a bargain.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
The environmental impact and reasons for us being in Iraq have been discussed ad nauseum already, so lets just say we need to stop giving the Mullahs so much of our oil money. When Iran attacks Israel, our presence in Iraq may even be considered an advantage, IMO.

TM
 

OdinsRageSS

Banned
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Tin Man said:
The environmental impact and reasons for us being in Iraq have been discussed ad nauseum already, so lets just say we need to stop giving the Mullahs so much of our oil money. When Iran attacks Israel, our presence in Iraq may even be considered an advantage, IMO.

TM
gee if it isnt about the oil its about the zionism and its stranglehold on our government
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Slightly off-topic but very relevant: have any of you seen Syriana yet? There's a scene where Matt Damon's character tells the presumed next-in-line prince of Saudi Arabia what his country's oil problem is and how to fix it.

And, it is spot freaking on. The whole reason we are in a mess is because we have restricted ourselves to gunboat diplomacy, wars of folly, strong-arming, and bribing viz oil and the Suez canal--the world's economic carotid artery. THAT is why we support ****ty dictatorships, harsh regimes and get in all sorts of muck-trouble all the time....notice all the countries we seem to have the most trouble with are east of the Suez canal??? Notice how we pay off/bribe a country more the closer it is to the canal? See how practically all US oil policy is dictated by that super critical economic artery and the concurrent (highly related) petrodollar* hedgemoney?

Biofuels alone won't save us from the consequences we will reap from 60 years of misguided, heavy-handed and myopic policy, but it sure will mitigate the impacts to us individually and personally. Biofuels will be a salve for some of our wounds, but it will not match world demand for energy. We are going to need distributed-redundant, diverse and very 'green' technologies to even hope to get past the next 50 years on this planet with any kinds of expectations of having any kind of lifestyle remotely (as in ~ 1/10 as nice) like what we (developed western world) are accustomed to.

The stranglehold mentioned in the above post is wrongfully attributed! It is US putting the stranglehold on ourselves through massive over-consumption, ridiculous, foolish policy viz the world's economic carotid artery (Suez) and its relationship to oil and petrodollars*







*petroleum-dollar-fractional reserve banking triad of stupidity.
 
Last edited:

overbite

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Location
Eagle Lake, MN
TDI
1996 passat
Nick,

How much old comes thourgh the cananl? I was under the impression (meaning I read somewhere sorry no source and I don't claim to be right) that most oil companies avoid the canal becuase of it political instability. And the fact that they run larger ships that don't fit in the canal around the Horn of Aferica. I should do some looking into that but I didn't think that the Suez was all that imporant any more. If I am wrong, tell me. I am not trying to troll or flame or whatever the right term is. Just some conflicts with my base knowlage.
 

overbite

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Location
Eagle Lake, MN
TDI
1996 passat
Nick,

How much old comes thourgh the cananl? I was under the impression (meaning I read somewhere sorry no source and I don't claim to be right) that most oil companies avoid the canal becuase of it political instability. And the fact that they run larger ships that don't fit in the canal around the Horn of Aferica. I should do some looking into that but I didn't think that the Suez was all that imporant any more. If I am wrong, tell me. I am not trying to troll or flame or whatever the right term is. Just some conflicts with my base knowlage.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
nicklockard said:
The stranglehold mentioned in the above post is wrongfully attributed! It is US putting the stranglehold on ourselves through massive over-consumption, ridiculous, foolish policy viz the world's economic carotid artery (Suez) and its relationship to oil and petrodollars*

*petroleum-dollar-fractional reserve banking triad of stupidity.
Well, I guess our own "stupidity" can be gauged from the cheap price of oil for several decades and the nature of our economic system.

I'd like to see alternatives to commuting by car, but they are likely more expensive, as will be switching over to biofuels and such.

The Bushes have long been senstitive to Israeli demands, whether righteous or not. I still think that if it was just oil, they would have said "fine, we don't care who we buy it from" and would leave things the way they were, since the open market would take care of prices and availability, thank you.

It would be "smart" of us to develop low energy consuming transport. I for one would like to see more bicycle lanes to help Americans be less fat! The economy would recover from new high priced train routes by the cost of real estate, which seems extremely high in areas that have access to them. This would only work well if we started in the most congested areas first.

Finally, our myopia as to using nuclear and other non oil or coal based energy sources should be fixed too.

Then we can stop counting how many "body-bags per gallon" our cars get!

TM
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
Sorry, that should be "body-bags per mile" to make it correct.

TM
 

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Tin Man said:
Well, I guess our own "stupidity" can be gauged from the cheap price of oil for several decades and the nature of our economic system.
...let's just say I respectfully disagree. I don't think past cheap oil proves anything...in the end we are all going to pay for that cheap oil, one way or another.:(

Tin Man said:
I'd like to see alternatives to commuting by car, but they are likely more expensive, as will be switching over to biofuels and such.
Better city design and a fuel price that reflects the true price...shouldn't have to commute. That's one mistake our society made...heading for the burbs.


Tin Man said:
It would be "smart" of us to develop low energy consuming transport. I for one would like to see more bicycle lanes to help Americans be less fat!
A-freaking-men! Even in supposedly 'bicycle friendly capitol of the world' Eugene, Oregon, there is a terrible lack of bike paths...actually where there are paths they are worn, rutted, potholed, unmaintained...AND the kicker is you can have one to two mile GAPS in the path through residential areas...forcing you to ride on the road (no shoulders) or on light-commercial areas where the shoulders have more glass/debris than pavement:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


It's all lip-service these days. No one has any real commitment to goals anymore. Have Americans given up on the future? There's no more investment for living, for bridges, for roads, for rail, for energy; what gives? Is everyone just cashing out or what's the deal?


Tin Man said:
Finally, our myopia as to using nuclear and other non oil or coal based energy sources should be fixed too.

Then we can stop counting how many "body-bags per mile" our cars get!

TM
Another hearty amen...we NEED nukes, CTL, everything in the arsenal...**opens up bag of king-sized worms*...well, we've gone down this road of discussion before. We all kinda know where our hearts are...
 
Last edited:

eyetdiman

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2004
Location
Wilmette, IL
TDI
'04 Passat TDI Sedan
The reasons I feel better running biodiesel is it's one here and now practical thing I can do to reduce my part in the poluting of our air, in addition to our having to arm our nation to the teeth to protect "our" oil interests in the name of national security. Also biodiesel is grown here in the USA, providing jobs to all those involved in the growing-supply-distrubition process of providing this alternative fuel.

Finally, and probably not lastly, my car runs much better on it...so it's a good thing all the way around. While I don't like it, I am willing to pay more for it than premium diesel if I have to, again for all of the above referenced reasons.

And to think we had the opportunity to have resolved "all" of these issues in the early 70's, but greed, arrogance, naivete and_________(fill in the blanks), have placed us into this current situation.

Can we get ourselves out of this perdicament? Possibly, but only if we readjust our priorities, current way of thinking and acting in the world.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of rocks. Let's not have the oil age end because we ran out of oil. Better heads and body politic must prevail.
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
One more fly in the ointment: the previous low price for oil may have been from "agreements" by oil producers to offer a lower price to the US than to other consumers. This was my impression at one time and maybe has some validity. That would make the argument for "appropriately" priced fuel that much more supportive of alternative fuels.

TM
 

Tin Man

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Location
Coastal Empire
TDI
Daughter's: 2004 NB TDI PD GLS DSG (gone to pasture)
nicklockard said:
...let's just say I respectfully disagree. I don't think past cheap oil proves anything...in the end we are all going to pay for that cheap oil, one way or another.:(
Huh? Your statement sounds very erudite, but doesn't make any sense. Be more clear, please

Better city design and a fuel price that reflects the true price...shouldn't have to commute. That's one mistake our society made...heading for the burbs.
So, you are saying that.... what? People should not have moved out of cities.... for what reason?? I don't like the path of your logic, ye who art holier than others....

A-freaking-men! Even in supposedly 'bicycle friendly capitol of the world' Eugene, Oregon, there is a terrible lack of bike paths...actually where there are paths they are worn, rutted, potholed, unmaintained...AND the kicker is you can have one to two mile GAPS in the path through residential areas...forcing you to ride on the road (no shoulders) or on light-commercial areas where the shoulders have more glass/debris than pavement:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I guess the argument you make may sound like: "If fuel was more expensive, then we might have done more to produce alternatives, and perhaps not moved out to the suburbs as much." I think this is treading very thin ice for reasoning. The move to the suburbs is a universal phenomenon among advanced economies. Adding the so-called "true cost" of petroleum was calculated in another thread and it didn't amount to much. The recent rise in oil prices was more than that but didn't help much with the drive toward energy independence, did it?

Sure, political appointees ideally should have forseen trends and consequences, but this is a democratic West you are talking about, not the Politburo totalitarian "more efficient" centrally planned-type of government.

It's all lip-service these days. No one has any real commitment to goals anymore. Have Americans given up on the future? There's no more investment for living, for bridges, for roads, for rail, for energy; what gives? Is everyone just cashing out or what's the deal?
Maybe this is another victim of our "what have you done for me lately?" "consumer" "health-care inflating" culture, or some other reason. Frustrating, yes.

Another hearty amen...we NEED nukes, CTL, everything in the arsenal...**opens up bag of king-sized worms*...well, we've gone down this road of discussion before. We all kinda know where our hearts are...
Thanks. I think its time for the US to wake up and see the raspberries: 9/11 should have done this, but I guess we are not there yet.

Regards,

TM
 
Last edited:

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
Tin Man said:
Huh? Your statement sounds very erudite, but doesn't make any sense. Be more clear, please
I thought of talking about blood cost and time-averaged total costs, but honestly...Either you get it or you don't.



Tin Man said:
So, you are saying that.... what? People should not have moved out of cities.... for what reason?? I don't like the path of your logic, ye who art holier than others....
Tin Man, ye have Angry-Young-Man's syndrome (AYMS)...always the chip on the shoulder.



Tin Man said:
I guess the argument you make may sound like: "If fuel was more expensive, then we might have done more to produce alternatives, and perhaps not moved out to the suburbs as much." I think this is treading very thin ice for reasoning. The move to the suburbs is a universal phenomenon among advanced economies.
Really? I call BS. I doubt the usefulness of hashing over semantics of what you mean by "advanced economies"; it'll get nowhere.


Tin Man said:
Adding the so-called "true cost" of petroleum was calculated in another thread and it didn't amount to much. The
Oh really? According to who, you?

Tin Man said:
recent rise in oil prices was more than that but didn't help much with the drive toward energy independence, did it?
According to our more faithful free-marketist friends, demand-supply inelesticity will eventually give way in the long term: people will choose smaller houses, cars, etc under sustained financial burden imposed by high energy costs. It's probably right, but I'll hide and watch with scepticism.

Angry-Young-Man Syndrom Poster Boiiiiii said:
Sure, political appointees ideally should have forseen trends and consequences, but this is a democratic West you are talking about, not the Politburo totalitarian "more efficient" centrally planned-type of government.
If you really, really, REALLY need me to be your big, bad, LIBERAL BOOGEYMAN...well, okay why the **** not? Hey, just keep throwing out some of that grade-A Staw-Man red meat to us once in a while though. Us boogeymen have quite an appetite! Per your ending comment in that petroleum cost thread: nah, you're not a neo-anything. You're just a plain, old-fashioned anarchist, pure and simple: always wanting everything for nothing.
 
Last edited:

nicklockard

Torque Dorque
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Location
Arizona
TDI
SOLD 2010 Touareg Tdi w/factory Tow PCKG
overbite said:
Nick,

How much old comes thourgh the cananl? I was under the impression (meaning I read somewhere sorry no source and I don't claim to be right) that most oil companies avoid the canal becuase of it political instability. And the fact that they run larger ships that don't fit in the canal around the Horn of Aferica. I should do some looking into that but I didn't think that the Suez was all that imporant any more. If I am wrong, tell me. I am not trying to troll or flame or whatever the right term is. Just some conflicts with my base knowlage.
Hi, no problem :)


This_Suez_Canal_informational_link said:
Link


3. The Suez Canal
The Suez Canal is an artificial waterway of about 163 km in length running across the Isthmus of Suez in northeastern Egypt which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez, an arm of the Red Sea. It has no locks, because the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez have roughly the same water level. It acts as a shortcut for ships between both European and American ports and ports located in southern Asia, eastern Africa, and Oceania. Because of obvious geographical considerations, the maritime route from Europe to the Indian and Pacific oceans must contour the Cape of Good Hope at the southernmost point of the African continent. The minimum width of the channel is 60 meters and ships of 16 meters (58 feet) draft can make the transit. The canal can accommodate ships as large as 150,000 deadweight tons fully loaded.
The first canal between the Nile River delta and the Red Sea was excavated about the 13th century BC. Its purpose was to expand trade between the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which became significant by 100 AD. During the next 1,000 years, the canal was neglected, but at different times Egyptian and Roman rulers modified it. Restoration efforts were abandoned in the 8th century AD as the Roman Empire collapsed and Mediterranean trade dropped. Transshipping the goods across the Isthmus was judged more profitable than supporting the maintenance of a canal. This situation endured until the nineteen century when powerful maritime interests saw the need to make a Mediterranean - Red Sea connection a reality again.
The Suez Canal was constructed between 1859 and 1869 by French and Egyptians interests with a cost of about 100 million dollars. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 brought forward a new era of European influence in Pacific Asia. The journey from Asia to Europe was considerably reduced by saving 6,500 km from the circum African route. In 1874, Britain bought the shares of the Suez Canal Company and became its sole owner. According to the Convention of Constantinople signed in 1888, the canal was to be open to vessels of all nations in time of peace or in war. However, Great Britain claimed the need to control the area to maintain its maritime power and colonial interests (namely in South Asia). In 1936, it acquired the right to maintain defense forces along the Suez Canal, which turned out to be of strategic importance during World War II to uphold Asia-Europe supply routes for the Allies.
The second half of the 20th century saw renewed geopolitical instability in the region with the end of colonialism and the emergence of Middle Eastern nationalisms. In 1954 Egypt and Great Britain signed an agreement that superseded the 1936 treaty and provided for the gradual withdrawal of all British troops from the zone. All the British troops were gone by June 1956 as the canal was nationalized by Egypt. This triggered problems with Israel, as Israeli ships were not permitted to cross the canal. This threat was also extended to France and Britain, the former owners of the canal because they refused to help finance the Aswan High Dam project, as initially promised. Israel, France and Britain thus invaded Egypt in 1956. Egypt responded by sinking ships in the canal effectively closing it between 1956 and 1957. An agreement about the usage of the canal was then reached.
However, geopolitical problems persisted as tensions between Israel and Arab nations increased in the 1960s. The Six Days War between Israel and Egypt and the invasion of the Sinai Peninsula by Israel caused the closure of the Suez Canal between 1967 and 1975. This event significantly destabilized international transportation and favored the development of ever larger tankers to use the long circum Africa route. The canal was finally re-opened in 1975 as Egypt agreed to let Israel use it. Significant improvements were made between 1976 and 1980, mainly the widening of the canal to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCC) of 200,000 tons supporting the oil trade between Europe and the Middle East. The minimum width of the channel is 60 meters and ships of up to 16 meters (58 feet) of draft can make the transit. This means that ultra large crude carriers (ULCC; tankers of more than 300,000 tons) cannot pass through the Canal when fully loaded. A common practice is to unload parts of Mediterranean bound ships and use Sumed pipeline. With additional deepening and widening projects, the depth of the canal is expected to reach 22 meters by 2010.
The canal has the capacity to accommodate up to 25,000 ships per year, but handles about 14,000, on average 38 ships per day, which roughly account for 14% of the global trade. Since the canal can only handle unidirectional traffic, crossings must be organized into convoys of about 10-15 ships. Three convoys per day, two southbound and one northbound, are organized. Missing a convoy involves supplementary delays to the point that many maritime companies (particularly containers) will skip a port call to insure that their ships arrive on time at the Suez Canal to be part of a specific convoy. A rail line also runs parallel to the canal.
Controlling access to the Suez Canal is the Strait of Bab el-Mandab, a strategic link between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. It has between 48 and 80 km of width, but navigation is limited to two 3 km wide channels for inbound and outbound traffic. The sizable amount of tanker traffic makes navigation difficult along the narrow channels. A closing of this strait would have serious consequences, forcing a detour around the Cape of Good Hope and in the process demanding additional tanker space. *
Of course on the other side of the canal (to the east) is the Straights-of-Hormuz, bordered by our friends the Iranians...also a slightly important, geo-politically strategic waterway...maybe the femoral artery of the world's economy.

*Not to mention, but I'm sure the insurance charges would skyrocket if that traffic was diverted around the cape Horn. It's a much more dangerous passage and also takes more time (read: fuel) to navigate--A lot more.

More links: importance of Suez to world economy/petroleum distribution. I'll leave it as an excercise for ya'll to google and look at importance of Egypt too: the reciever of the most USA foreign aid largesse.
 
Last edited:

overbite

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Location
Eagle Lake, MN
TDI
1996 passat
Thank Nick. I see that my information was incorrect. I knew that it had been closed a couple of times, and that some tankers couldn't make it. I didn't realize that it was quite a big as it is. Though I do know that Nemitz (sp) class carries can navigate it so I should have surmised that crude carries should have been able too also . I guess it is time for us to really step up some non-middle eastern sources of enegry now. I will do a little more research on that.
 
Top