Even more reasons to stop importing oil...

Tonight, there was a show on PBS about nuclear proliferation. It gave a history of the use of nuclear weapons and a list of all of the countries that either have the weapon (like North Korea) or are very much trying to get it (like Iran).

The show made the point of how mideast oil wealth is being used to try to buy uranium and nuclear technology to create the weapon. The Department Of Energy estimates that in the last 30 years, imported oil has resulted in a loss of $3.4 trillion to the U.S. economy. That HUGE number of dollars went some where. A bunch of it ended up in the mideast controlled by a few repressive regimes; not where the wealth is benefiting the people but where the wealth is being used to promote personal power.

So...as of last week, I have switched to using biodiesel (made in America) in my VW Golf TDI. It does cost me more money. I pay $2.50/gal for biodiesel. I figure I will spend about $15-20/month more than what it used to cost me for gasoline in my Honda Civic. For this small premium, I can stop worrying about:


My fuel dollars going to fund terrorism.
My trips to the mall increasing global climate disruption.
Using up a finite supply of fuel...stealing from our children.
Super-tankers rupturing on a reef destroying ocean habitat.
My actions causing americans to die, defending the flow of oil.
My fuel dollars going to fund nuclear proliferation.

If I ever feel like I can't afford that premium, I can always make my own biodiesel in my garage for about 40 cents/gallon and start saving money in addition to being able to sleep well at night. I wouldn't have to use biodiesel to stop importing oil...I could get an EV (if I could buy one). My choice, at this time, is biodiesel.

My choice, at this time, is high octane.

Ikendu, well said.

So are you going to TDI fest in Toronto this fall?

Ikendu, I agree with you that biodiesel is a good idea. It's got some problems (inadequate resources, doesn't work below 35 degrees, and lack of manufacturing plants seem to be the big 3), but it can replace a lot of the oil we currently use.
But even if we could magically reduce our mineral oil usage by 50%, it wouldn't effect the middle east all that much. I don't have the exact number handy, but only about 1/8th of US oil comes from the middle east.

Brock said: So are you going to TDI fest in Toronto this fall?

I've thought about it. Never been to Toronto...might be fun!

The Germans were against the war. There are indications they may have complicity with Iraq. You drive a German car. Are you sure you aren't funding terrorism?

Actually I am kidding. I am a biodiesel and VW fan myself.

I believe the Terrorism issue is more complicated than just oil. For example, Syria imports oil and sponsors terrorism.

Bill.H said: biodiesel is a good idea. It's got some problems:
inadequate resources

Not quite sure what you mean here... there are 3 billion gallons of waste fryer oil waiting to be converted to biodiesel every year. That amount would decrease the money leaving the U.S. by a quite LARGE amount.

Bill.H said: doesn't work below 35 degrees

Yes, the "early gelling" of biodiesel means that today you can only run B100 (100% straight biodiesel) when the temperature is warmer...in the winter people run a B20 mix (80% dino diesel) and use it successfully down to 28 degrees below zero (reported from Minnesota - it greatly reduces emissions even at the B20 ratio). Still...even with B100 when it's warm and B20 the rest of the time, it'd make a huge dent in our U.S. trade balance of payments. And...scientists are working on B100 formulations to solve the cold temperature gelling point.

Bill.H said: lack of manufacturing plants

There are more plants being built all the time. The chemistry is simple (after all, people are doing this in their garages in a tub) and the mfg. plants un-complicated. Hugely less complicated and expensive than building a new petroleum refinery.

Bill.H said: even if we could magically reduce our mineral oil usage by 50%, it wouldn't effect the middle east all that much. I don't have the exact number handy, but only about 1/8th of US oil comes from the middle east.

Hmmm. Yes. The numbers I've seen are that about 25% of U.S. imported oil comes from the Mideast (that has 50% of the world's oil reserves). The Department Of Energy projects that as other world oil deposits decline, the mideast share will only get larger and larger. This means that the contention for that shrinking pool of oil will only get more and more dangerous (unless we begin to get off of imported oil). Also, the world energy market is truly global. As we reduce our usage of imported oil...the price should drop everywhere. The reverse is true if we continue our big increases in the use of imported oil...the price will go up everywhere.

So...if we do our part to get off of imported oil (as many in Europe are doing already)...we will use less and less globally. I will say though...I can't affect what others in the world do...I just have my own choices to make. We've just engaged in TWO Persian Gulf wars in the span of only 12 years; at least partly driven by the need to keep the oil flowing and dealing with the consequences of massive amounts of cash flowing to gov'ts that want weapons of mass destruction. I really don't want to personally contribute to more wars like this. So...what I do may not stop those future wars...but it is what I can do.

DieselDave said: I believe the Terrorism issue is more complicated than just oil. For example, Syria imports oil and sponsors terrorism.

Dave, that is absolutely true. Although I am focused on the OIL MONEY aspect of this...it certainly is not the whole deal regarding terrorism. There are a lot of other factors at work here.

For me it's just that from my little town in Iowa, I'm not sure I can have any affect on many of those other aspects. I can make a personal choice about where my fuel dollars go. So...I'm focused on something that I can control.

That show on PBS about oil dollars funding nuclear proliferation was pretty sobering too.

BTW...I'd love to get a high mileage diesel from an American manufacturer...there just aren't any at this time. Ford makes a diesel version of the Focus...in Europe. They are considering bringing it here too. Let's hope! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ikendu,
Good points and anything diesel gets my vote.

DieselDave said: Ikendu, Good points and anything diesel gets my vote.

Hey Dave, ever hear how the diesel engine got invented? Here is a piece of an article on that:

German engineer Rudolph Diesel was traveling in Northern Africa in the late 1800s when he saw people starting fires in a way he'd never seen before. The people placed a small bit of wood in the bottom of a tube and then rammed a plunger into it. The ramming action increased the temperature and pressure, which caused the wood to smolder, then burn. Using this principle, Diesel worked on a way to build a more efficient engine ...

Edmunds article on Diesel Developments

Ikendu we weren't sure if we were going or not, but Heidi wants to see Niagara Falls so we can do both at the same time. And then we get to see all those TDI's in one place /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I think someone was trying to get B100 there for everyone to purchase.

Brock said: ...to see Niagara Falls...someone was trying to get B100 there for everyone to purchase.

My wife and I saw the falls about 25 years ago...definitely a pretty cool sight! Being an "engineer nerd" kind of guy, it really got me thinking about the cycle of rain, evaporation and rain again that can create such an enormous amount of water continually falling over the edge! (this is the kind of "in your head" craziness my poor wife has had to put up with for 30 years! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

I see that my Golf can hold 4 Blitz 5-gallon diesel cans in the back with no problem. That 20 gallons + the 14.5 gallons the tank holds should be good for around 1600 miles until I have to find another source of biodiesel /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif . Mapquest says that it is about 1500 miles round trip from eastern Iowa to Toronto. I suppose I could throw in one extra Blitz can if I had to. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or...I could use the fuel locator on BioDiesel.Org to find a spot along the way (if no B100 is arranged for at the event).

Is there any natural right to have or not to have nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction ?

why are the US, GB, F, RUS, ISRAEL! ,Pakistan, India ,China etc are allowed to have and use them ?

are people of this countries any better as the rest of the world ?
Who decides who can have these weapons ? The US ? God ? (oh i forgot god = US because of "gods own country")

Nuklear weapons and other WMD are a life insurance for
Countries like North Korea and Iran (see Israel).

Now terrorism is the only weapon of the "arab-world".
if Iran or Palastine or the "arab world" would have a nuke bomb there would not be any more terrorism from the "arab world". then problems have to be solved, in peace or with nukes. i hope in peace.
---------------------------------------------------------

What do you think who gets more money on the arab oil ? the 7 sisters (these are 5 US and 2 GB OIL Companys) or the Country/people where the oil is from ?

I don't think giving those countries nuclear weapons would be a good idea actually. The problem is that those countries might be willing to use them once they have them. The US isn't going to use them because a retaliation would result in unacceptable losses, but only because the US considers it's population as valuable. If you're going to give nuclear weapons to a country which places theological values and fundamentalism over human lives, then they are going to be willing to use them, because a counter attack will kill people, but not beliefs. The MAD principle of mutually assured destruction only works as long as the government of those countries isn't willing to die for their beliefs. It's the ones who are willing to sacrifice themselves which are dangerous, because there is no stopping them once they have the means.

That said, I don't think Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and I would have preferred the UN to play cat and mouse with Saddam a little longer. The US is good at fighting, but how good will they be at keeping the peace in Iraq? I doubt Bush is willing to let his soldiers serve as police.

My personal favorite still is Clinton, the US seemed to be much friendlier during his reign.

artar... A lot of ideas for consideration.

I think rather than go into all of them at this time, I'll just say this... Nuclear weapons are so dangerous that we should have the fewest of them possible. The more we have...the greater the risk of accidental or unintended usage. Are Pakistan and India better off now that they have nuclear weapons? I don't think so. They came VERY close to actually using them in 1999. It would have been better if India never developed them...because once they did, Pakistan almost had to have them too (and now they do).

If a nuclear exchange ever takes place between India & Pakistan...many, many people will die horribly and...many, many people from both countries will wish they never had those weapons.

look for the article in this month's Discover about oil made from turkey fat...

Bob