With oil at $75 dollars a barrel, alternatives fuels sound better and better. A plan is in the works to build possibly hundreds of coal liquification plants in the US. The CEO of Jet Blue is behind this plan. He is seeking government guarantees for these plants and claims that they will make the US energy independent within ten years.
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/jbluctl.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/Co...06-20%20_2_.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/2006ads/2006harrison_barna.pdf
http://www.glennbeck.com/home/index.shtml
These links are all from the Glenn Beck show. He apparently goes to church with the CEO of Jet Blue and he has chosen this show to promote the plan. There is also an audio file of an interview with this guy.

Looks like other countries will have reason to invade us. ;) This seems like a good idea. Would car engines need to be modified to run on this energy source? What are the cons for employing this energy source?

"Alternative Energy Source" is my favorite euphamism right now. Why can't we call them "More Expensive Energy Sources"? Until these processes mature, right now oil is the most reasonable energy source. Once it become expensive enough the market will put pressure into other items (as this thread implies), and then we should adopt them.

The best way to fix the problems in the Middle East, and the most rational energy policy right now, is to use and consume as much oil as humanly possible. Every drop of oil that we use from the Middle East (which isn't even close to being where we get most of our oil, btw) is a drop that they will not have to fuel their lazy economies. And lazy economies brew strife and turmoil. Also, every drop we use now, while it is cheap, is a drop that our competitors worldwide can not use.

If we develop an alternative source of energy, all it will mean is cheaper oil for India, China, and the former USSR. And cheaper adoption of alternatives for them down the road.

What is the big fear here? That we will run out of oil all at once? Impossible. First one area will dry up, and then another, and then another. Most likely with many years inbetween. The notion that it will all disappear with any rapidity is just ludicrous. It defies statistics.

Are we worried about cost? Everything else is still more expensive. As soon as it is cheaper, we will adobt it.

Are we worried about the environment? Our environment is cleaner now, with greater production, than it was in the 70's. And we can discuss why global warming is not a problem in another thread if we like.

Are we worried about supporting terrorist nations? Let's use up all of their oil, fill massive reserves here, if necessary, in order to rob them of their easy money source. Right now we mainly produce our own oil, and get most of our imports from this hemisphere. We should flip that... stop pumping our own oil, and ONLY import from the Middle East. Let's keep our own oil, and the oil in Alaska, as a massive reserve of oil, for when it really is like liquid gold. This is just sound economics... use other people's resources while it is cheap, and hoard your own for the obvious increase in price that looms.

And yes, I understand that this method would immediately jack fuel prices up to $6 a gallon or so. Less prosporous countries already cope with this price. $3 a gallon is much, much, much too cheap for gasoline. (I say this having lived outside of the country and consumed at a much higher rate, often purchasing 3,000 gallons of diesel fuel at a time at a cost of $5/gallon)

"Alternative Energy Source" is my favorite euphamism right now. Why can't we call them "More Expensive Energy Sources"?
I've made this same argument many times, and still agree with much of what you said. Still, coal liquification is profitable when oil gets to $35 a barrel. We're way past that and I doubt we'll be heading back.

Regarding hoarding our energy supplies and only using middle east oil, it has a certain appeal. But what about the billions upon billions of dollars we'll be pumping into the middle east while we use up their oil? What about the damage to the US economy due to increased energy costs? What if we end up in a third world war and can't get oil from the middle east? Would we have time to build up the infrastructure to produce our own via drilling in Alaska, coal liquification, or whatever?

PS Welcome to Sciforums.

I've made this same argument many times, and still agree with much of what you said. Still, coal liquification is profitable when oil gets to $35 a barrel. We're way past that and I doubt we'll be heading back.

Regarding hoarding our energy supplies and only using middle east oil, it has a certain appeal. But what about the billions upon billions of dollars we'll be pumping into the middle east while we use up their oil? What about the damage to the US economy due to increased energy costs? What if we end up in a third world war and can't get oil from the middle east? Would we have time to build up the infrastructure to produce our own via drilling in Alaska, coal liquification, or whatever?

PS Welcome to Sciforums.

First, thanks for the welcome. I love it here.

I agree that coal liquification is profitable at $35, but that supposes the same maturity of infrastructure. Liquification has a lot of catching up to do. There are companies out there trying to do just this, which will bring welcome competitors into the market. It could make Canada the oil leader one day. However, if it was really cheaper right now, it would be in a frenzy, and the price of crude oil would be dropping. That is what competition does.

Oil is a funny commodity. It is seemingly limitless, and very useful. This spells disaster on free markets. When the first oil was being pumped in Pennsylvania, the producers were killing themselves and each other by pumping as fast as they could. It was like an arms race (or a Red Queen scenario if you prefer Lewis Carrol). They would pump so fast that they would dry up wells prematurely. And prices would plummet. I know people love to hate on OPEC, but I don't know of a solution other than cartelization with something like oil.

What knocks my funnybone around are the people that scream for alternative sources of energy AND cheaper gas prices. Why would they want the former if they can have the latter? And if they really want the former, don't they understand that the latter prevents it? We should teach economic principles in grade school, while the brain is still receptive to logical, simple ideas. When we wait until college, we have already lost them...