Why do you let SnoMan get to you? We all know he is full of sh.t. Biodiesel
/may/ not be more than a crutch to get us to the next step, but I'm standing
quite firmly on that crutch right now. I make it for just over $1.00 a
gallon using a WASTE product that REDUCES greenhouse gasses. So, SnoMan,
f.ck off. Enjoy your $2.00 a gallon gasoline.

Again narrow minded and not looking at big picture

YOur realy are clueless, tree will not do it not only because we male
far more on it than they can remove but there are less of them every
year as they are cut down for building materail and rain forest is
being cleared away at record rates. I can see you are one of these
head in the sansd guys that does not beleive that man is the cause or
that there is a seriuos problem. I gues California is full of S$!% to
because they passed alaw a while back limiting CO2 emissions for
industry and vehicles and other states are considering them too.
Detriot is fighting it vigorously (they will loose) because it will
mean a end to the HP wars and force them to make vehicles truely more
efficent and kinder to environment. If it was left to short sighted
people such as you it would get even worse. THe reality is we are slow
cooking ourslfs and even if we stop making CO2 today it will take 20
or 30 years for it to start to decline but but limiting it today we
can slow the rate of rise and lessen the peak impact it will have over
time or we can do it your way and rape and burn the earth.

Again classic head in the sand. You talk before you read the fine
print . If all the oil on the north slope could be used as once there
is about a 6 month supply of it for US needs, that is it period. With
the gulf it is likely even less than that. Se politicains and oil
companies that promote this as a solution for people such as yourself
never tell you what it equals in days of potentail oil supply. To
someone such as yourself a find of even a potenail one billion berrels
sound like a answer to our need but the reality is that this is less
than a years supply at current need levels because oil is not
converted to usable fuel gallon for gallon and a lot is converted to
other products such as fertilized and plastics and such that we use
daily. John Q Public does not want to here this though so it is nver
talked about.

Our domestic source are long passed their peak capacity and are in
decline because of our thirst for oil we have wasted a lot of it. The
US has less than 5% of the world population but uses more than 25% of
the oil in the world) Also the US has the "honor" of being the only
major power in the world that uses far more oil than we produce. THe
real reason we went into Iraq was for the oil, make no mistake about
it because Iraq is basically tied with Russia for the second largest
proven reserves of oil in the world with Saudi Arabia first. Had there
been no oil we would not have been there but current admin will never
tell you that.

It is not that simple because everything you use will have impact for
animal feed to fertilers to compost and much to grow food. If you
change this balance there will be trouble down the road. The answer
lies in serious conservation efforts starting today not trying to
bandaid fix it.

Not at all. Current admin pushed for new oil and natural gass fired
power plants, not coal because of oil lobby, The reality is that 10
pounds of caol has same approx BTU content as a gallon of crude and
today  while one ton of coal is trading for $40.50 that same amount of
energy in crude is about $265! Again, they never bother to tell you
that either. The less the public knows about true energy costs and
limitation the better with current admin

YEs and no because they are going to have to use some brute force
methods of like urea injection to combine with high NOx levels to
redure them inert but that also means they want less to start with to
remove which means lower boosts levels on diesels (the higher the
boost, the more NOx) and they will want fuels that produce lowest
possible NOx when burned which is not Biodiesel

Agreed but it goes with th philospy that we can "grow" our way out of
this when we cannot and like Biodiesel adds to NOx problems ethanol
adds to CO2 problem which the promotoers of either NEVER talk about

I used to drag cars with Methanol 20 years ago but we used a LOT more
of it in a quarter maile than with did with gas because it has a far
lower heat content abd it requires a A/F ratio of around 4 or 5 to 1
WOT to make best power verse 10 to 12 to one for hioctane or other
exotic petro based fuels, Achol does well in a drag car because of
octane and  the amount it cools mixture to make it denser (largely due
in part to the much large amount of it needed and higher cooling
properties when it evaporates) but it stll take a lot more fuel. THey
could make achol a more viable fuel for cars if they would remove
compatabilty with gas completely and use much higher CR's that alchol
would permitt (12 or 13 to 1) which would extract more energy from
fuel during expansion and inprove MPG and lower CO2 because less fuel
would be needed to do work. I do not see this happening though because
of americas love for 87 octane gas as the cure all. Same with propane
(which is the closest  thing to a purfect motor fuel today with very
low emissions without any exotic control) as it could allow for us of
CR's of 13 to 1 and more and better MPG too. Today dual fuel cars that
use gas or propane are far from extracting the tru potenail of propane
as a motor fuel because it is used in engine designed for gas and not
from ground up for propane, Granted propane need a heavier tank than
gas but fuel weight about 4 lbs a gallon vs gas weighs around 6.5
(depending on tempature) and achol over 8 lbs /gal. In BTU contant per
lb of fuel, Propane is higher than gas and even slighter better than
diesel but this is not exploted at all. TOne of the reason the diesel
get better MPG as a rule is because the very high CR's that they
require to run extract more energy from expanding gas. Us a higher
octane fuel in a IC engine (like 12 to 1 and more) with proper fuel
and you will see a big imptovement in "gas" MPG but again the love
affair with 87 octane prevents this.

Not really, it has been rising since 1800's when records have been
kept and is rising even faster. It is pretty nieve to think that you
can dump more and more of it into the atmosphere and nature will take
it out. Man has upset the balance in about 100 years that nature took
millions of years to achieve

Not that simple but it plays well to head in the sand crowd.

No, I like to read and learn. I have a engineering back ground and
kids in college that are open minded to and "dad" has to beable to
help answer questions they may have or that are debated in some
classes they take so I make it a point to kept well informed. I do not
consider myself a treehugger or a Al Gore flucky but rather a realist
that does not take things at face value  and understnads that the
environemt on aits resource are complex and limited and we have two
choice to evolve and adapt to live in harmony with it or keep our head
in the sand and hope it will go away. Make no mistake it will catchup
with us and force a terible price on us if it is ignored. At this
stage we can only try to mitigate the damage and lesen the peak impact
or choose ignorance with head in the sand and one day see a complete
collapse of ecosystem on planet earth. There is no avoiding this beast
and its "anger" to be tamed when it shows itself will be determined by
how much we try to appease it or ignore it now.  

There is not question at all that you really have no understanding of
the bigger picture here (you would do well with current admin on there
energy policy staff) and that you are only looking for a very short
term answer that looks good on surface and tells you want you want to
hear without reading the fine print to keep your big iron viable
regardless of long term impact on our children and their children. One
day you are going to be force to take off the rose color glasses and
see the truth or you can take them off know and adapt sooner over time
and watch others that kept head in sand pay a bigger price because
they were not "ready" for it.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com