Why does the US seem to be the last country on earth that hasn't figured we DONT need oil for fuel?

I'm scratching my head on this one. Any thoughts?

16 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I don't know if we're the last to figure it out or if those who squeak the loudest insist there are no alternatives.

    Wind is plentiful and, though the pay-off time for turbines is still measured in years (but not decades), they're producing electricity that can be sold profitably at $0.03 [three CENTS] per kilowatt hour. I'm paying 12 cents, now (approx).

    Ethanol was given a bad rap because we used CORN as a feedstock. The up-side there is that the ethanol production infrastructure has begun to be built. Down-side: CORN has better uses and is mediocre (at best) as an ethanol feedstock. Switchgrass is much better, grows on land where high-profit, high-cost crops like corn will NOT grow and can yield the necessary sugars by standard malting and mashing prior to fermentation.

    A recent article discussed exploitation of a gawd-awfully HUGE power-source in the Atlantic (name escapes me but it's basically a constant current of water - kind of like the sub-oceanic equivalent of the jet-stream).

    Algae is always making new in-roads as a fuel feedstock, particularly for SVO (straight veggie oil) and/or biodiesel. It produces hundreds times more oil per acre than corn.

    The U.S. leads the world in "tri-gen" technology - one system generates 3 sources of power: heat, electricity and cold.

    In the end, I believe geo-thermal offers the best hope, and the U.S. is disproportionately gifted there, as well, with huge areas of shallow-crust regions where thermal vents are venting as we speak, ready for exploitation. But, of course, the "slightly out there" prospects such as digging a geothermal well affordably using solar-powered lasers is gaining credibility.

    Look for a combination of solutions as opposed to a single, catch-all cure for all our energy needs.

    I think we're doin' alright if we just stay upbeat and charm the nay-sayers who insist we remain enslaved to the only thing we know.


  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well, unfortunately USA is the largest consumer of oil in the world and it will be problematic to make a quick transition to another fuel alternative. The development of other sources of energy will take years before they will be able to replace oil. But the first steps in this direction have been made with an introduction of hybrid cars that help to reduce oil consumption and air pollution. Oil industry is still one of the fastest growing industries due to the high demand of oil.

  • 1 decade ago

    Golly gee whiz. I guess all the other countries on this planet that use oil for a fuel source don't count? If you've got the magic formula to do away with petroleum RIGHT NOW, let's hear it. Don't keep it to yourself, pass it on to the rest of the world. I know there are alternative sources, but none that are ready to plug in RIGHT NOW, and totally take over.

    Keep scratching.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well....we do. We have a whole set-up based on Oil. Even if everyone wanted to move to a different energy..it would take years. After all we did not use Oil overnight, and we can't stop overnight.

    And, other then Nuclear Power, there is not another fuel that can give us all the power we use now.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    we can't discover an "option gas" source by using fact the only such gas it relatively is achievable is nuclear ability and that's the only one the vegetables refuse to enable each physique use. If we ever do discover that phantom "option gas" that the vegetables absurdly have faith to exist, the bleeding heart liberals would be begging us to deliver distant places help to the middle East by using fact maximum folk of the international places interior the middle East prepare Socialism and consequently won't be able to have a rich financial gadget (Iran, case in point).

  • 1 decade ago

    You know, I have to give you kudos that at least you didn't ask a loaded question with a biased twist on it. I would think that if Saddam was causing the problem with food, and Saddam is obviously gone, then shouldn't it be all doors open to production of whatever?

    I don't know all of the gritty details of the oil-for-food deal, but to me it would seem that we replaced the antagonist, so shouldn't this stuff kind of take care of itself?

  • 1 decade ago

    That's odd, considering that Europe and Japan are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the United States is.

  • x2000
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    So what do you propose that we use in our cars? Ethanol? Sorry, not even close to covering what we need, yet they still get subsidies. Electric powered cars? This is a start.

    I would really like to know what viable alternatives there are for all of our energy needs.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Sorry, you're not smarter than the US.

    There is no energy source that can replace oil, no matter how much of it you have.

    Get your facts straight.

    Or move to another country (that could work).

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don`t think we need fuel for cars but it takes oil to make solar panels and wind turbines and to process that crappy food we eat.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.