Other solar-energy-to-vehicular-motion techniques are available. One of them is called the 'horse':

Trouble is their off-gas of methane is more detrimental to the atmosphere than the off-gas of CO2 from cars.

No big deal around here. We already have E30 pumps up and running.

If the price is right I already put it in my vehicles.

After the change of the NSW state government here in Oz, there was a repeal of the onerous "E fuel" legislation. Part of which was to demand a minimum percentage of E10 fuel sales. With further plans to adulterate all petroleum products even Avgas!

The repeal was in response to the motoring public who weren't convinced of the "benefits" and migrated to using premium 95/98 unadulterated fuels instead, just like what happened in Germany.

Now both 91 and E10 are available, with mechanics (or Automotive Technicians as they are now want to be known as) warning customers not to use E10 if they can avoid it.

Owning Euro cars I run 95, or 98 if its cheap enough. I've done my "experiments with E10, Poor value for money even at the discount of 9-12cpl on the price of 95.

Fortunately it was just in a single state not a Federal mandated issue but it could of been. I was looking to replace my fleet with diesel power if that was the case.

A long while back I was a fuel technician and studied all types of carbon-based fuels. I remember at that time looking at the potential use of ethanol fuel additions. As the real issue associated with fuel consumption is energy availability, I looked at how much additional fuel one would need to consume with ethanol-based additions to gasoline to achieve the same energy content. At that time, it was determined that fuel prices for these products which were on the market at that time were basically tagged to the revised amount of fuel that would be consumed (ie: the energy content); so unless the oil producers are trying to lower their profitability, there will be no benefit to the consumer regardless of the ethanol content. Oh, BTW, the same goes for the coal-to-gasoline route; SASOL has demonstrated that it is possible to fly a commercial jet on coal-based aviation fuel, but I suspect that coal-based fuels wont be marketed for IC or aviation use very soon even though Big Oil bought up large tracts of coal properties in the late 70's and early 80's just in case it would happen that they would be pushed by the government to produce coal gasoline.

Unfortunately for us in NSW Oz, the "decision" wasn't so much about the economy or science but more about political favours. The powers that were, had it in mind to ensure their own ongoing prosperity as distinct from actually benefitting the wider community.

Yes we also have had furtive exploitation of Shale oil, unfortunately a lot of the shale deposits seem to be in national park preserves guarded by "drop bears".

While the greentards are trying to shut down all of the coal mines....

This could potentially solve a lot of the problems associated with ethanol being added to gasoline...With motors engineered to run on this mixture the performance and efficiency could be increased to actually make this something to be desired....The problem we have now is that the compression ratio's can't be increased to take advantage of the ethanol's increased octane because of the weak mix....Engines could be made smaller with higher output and less weight, all acting together to increase milage and performance....How do we get there from here? , now that's the problem...

Sure if the compression ratio were increased, and the engines tuned for it, performance and mileage would go up but, only compared to running E30 without the mods. Your net fuel economy WILL go down.

It comes down to energy content. Gasoline has 111,000 to 116,000 Btu per gallon, depending on blend. Ethanol is closer to 76,000 Btu per gallon. Its simple physics. You go less on a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas.

That's all fine as long as the gasoline supply holds out....what about when it runs out?...or becomes prohibitively expensive?..It won't last forever, and it's going to continue to get more expensive as supply dwindles.....remember the long lines at the gas pumps in the 80's?...I do....

Supply and demand tend to regulate price - in a real free market.

When you historically look at what actually drove shortages and price increases you find the that those drivers were; geopolitical events, refinery operational changes, state and local blend regulations, and federal regulations.

What is conspicuously absent from that list is geological supply. Never in our history has the source for oil dried up and it won't within our lifetimes.

As I write, the next oil rush is taking place in the Arctic. Recent surveys show approximately 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil using today's technology. We have seen rapid advances in technology in the last decade that has extended our reach far beyond what many political scientists had predicted just 10 to 20 years ago. Expect that figure to rise as more reserves are discovered and our technological reach extends even further in the coming years.

The concept of the arrival of 'Peak Oil' has quietly slipped into some forgotten corner, dashing the hopes of environmentalists and politicians eager to force their populations into the alternative energy world - at any price.

The truth is that oil is going to be around for a long time to come along with the consequences of environmental impacts and geopolitical wars.

Well I'm not saying we're going to run out of oil anytime soon, but that demand will outgrow supply....That will lead to a price spike....How much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas? $8? $10? $20? Then you can imagine a lot of people will not be able to afford gas, at least at the rate they are using it now.....and shortages will occur....The only reason this hasn't happened yet is because of the efforts to avert this by increasing milage in cars, changing from oil to natural gas, hybrid and electric vehicles and boats, and tapping oil reserves in deeper locations at sea....But a lot of people think that 85 mbpd is or was peak production, and even with new drilling techniques and new wells coming on the line, they can only keep pace with declining production from existing wells...

"Oil depletion occurs in the second half of the production curve of an oil well, oil field, or the average of total world oilproduction.^{[citation needed]} The Hubbert peak theory makes predictions of production rates based on prior discovery rates and anticipated production rates. Hubbert curves predict that the production curves of non-renewing resources approximate a bell curve. Thus, when the peak of production is passed, production rates enter an exponential decline.^[3][4]

The American Petroleum Institute estimated in 1999 the world's oil supply would be depleted between 2062 and 2094, assuming total world oil reserves at between 1.4 and 2 trillion barrels (220 and 320 km³) and consumption at 80 million barrels per day (13,000,000 m³/d).^{[citation needed]} In 2004, total world reserves were estimated^[who?] to be 1.25 trillion barrels (199 km³) and daily consumption was about 85 million barrels (13,500,000 m³), shifting the estimated oil depletion year to 2057.^{[1][not in citation given]} A study published in the journal Energy Policy by researchers from Oxford University, however, predicted demand would surpass supply by 2015 (unless constrained by strong recession pressures caused by reduced supply or government intervention).^[5]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion

With oil demand growing around the world, and especially in China and India, we cannot develop oil fields fast enough, even if they existed, to meet the demand....The only way is to develop technologies and strategies to reduce per capita usage....
http://futurepredictions.com/2012/03/predictions-world-oil-supply-debate-suggests-that-without-implemented-plans-gas-lines-by-2015-at-any-price-statistics-conclude/

Ah the old peak oil debate.

That reminded me of this thread where Abiotic oil production got discussed. Not Another Fracking Thread.

In my region as most know we are in the early stages of an oil boom of which loads of new high tech deep formation mapping tech is being used and refined and due to this every month there is a new local release of geology reports putting our oil reserves here ever higher.

A year ago 500 billion BBls was the rough estimate of what should be recoverable over the next 50 years given our present recovery tech, which in itself is running at 1+ million BBls a day and still well less than 10% of estimated target capacity. This year that bulk reserve estimate has nearly doubled again and the local rumors is that they are leaning very heavily on the conservative end with their numbers.

What all this means around here is the how and where exactly did all of this oil come from in the first place and being the deeper they look the more they find has a lot of speculation strongly favoring the super deep abiotic oil formation theory.

To the present all of the super deep mapping seems to indicate what appears to be more oil going down as much as ~7 miles and if so those mapping anomalies, if they are oil, could be reserves to be measured in the 100's of trillions of BBls levels.

Yeah but how much is recoverable...the majority of oil that has been discovered is still in the ground, too thick to be pumped out....They pump off the liquid portion and the rest is deemed non-recoverable....

So your fields there are producing 1 mbpd and we are using 20 mbpd, and growing....The rest of the oil wells in this country, and around the world in fact, are in decline...the most we can hope for is to keep production steady, until alternative means of fueling transportation can be phased in....

China is currently using about 9 mbpd and if they continue on their current path of growth will equal our consumption in maybe 5 or 6 years, add India to that and you can see that your 1mbpd is insignificant in the big picture....

The amount of oil that is recoverable is not a static number, as was my original point.

Two primary factors that drive that are cost and technology.

Oil considered not recoverable may become recoverable if the costs to recover it and refine it are lower than the market value. Again, the market value is also dynamic. At some point world oil prices may rise to a point where previously unrecoverable oil is now profitable.

The second factor is technology, which is also not static. Technology improves the ability to recover things that were considered impossible years ago. Necessity will drive innovation to do that in ways we can't imagine now.

A third factor would be discovery of new sources that were previously unknown.

It is hard to know, but many of these graphs shown do not take into account these factors, or if they do, the uncertainty of those factors make the prediction problematic. Under such conditions it is easy to demonstrate whatever results you like.

Like I said, I'm not saying that we're going to run out of oil anytime soon(40 yrs), but that the ramp up of production(new wells) will do well just to keep supply at current levels....With demand worldwide increasing, oil prices will continue to increase making oil reserves considered unrecoverable because of cost, to become economically viable, but at ever increasing cost...Remember what happened when oil peaked at $145 per barrel in July 08', the world economies collapsed, oil prices fell to $30, why?, because everything stopped....It took 3 years for oil to hit $100 again...but the long term trend is up...and at some point ethanol, or methanol, or some other fuel, is going to become not only necessary but cheaper and more profitable...so ethanol has the potential to hold prices steady, by increasing the amount in gasoline.... This together with the maturation of electric and hybrid technologies, is a solution to the oil problem...Like you said, things don't change overnight, it takes time , planning and implementation...and then more time...

Crude prices for the last 12 years...+300%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_oil_market_chronology_from_2003

Yes, only if you ignore the side effects of using ethanol and its impact to food prices.

The wrapper looks good, but when you look inside the box it is not the panacea that many proclaim.

Well hopefully this will transition to cellulosic based ethanol and eventually MSW to ethanol or methanol, but it's not a perfect world, and people tend to wait until the problem is at crisis levels to act decisively...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

"So your fields there are producing 1 mbpd and we are using 20 mbpd, and growing....The rest of the oil wells in this country, and around the world in fact, are in decline...the most we can hope for is to keep production steady, until alternative means of fueling transportation can be phased in....

China is currently using about 9 mbpd and if they continue on their current path of growth will equal our consumption in maybe 5 or 6 years, add India to that and you can see that your 1mbpd is insignificant in the big picture...."

We have yet to get our oil industry infrastructure in place and we are already currently supplying 4 - 5% of the US oil with the goal in ten years to have the capacities capable of supplying upward around 50% or more of our US oil for the next 50+ years.

I am not sure how you factor 1 MBPD as being insignificant but world wide thats still a measurable percentage of world production plus that is 1 MBPD that is not coming to our shores from foreign lands.

To me what we produce here in ND is our oil that keeps our money in our country and the source of that oil under our control.

Now as far as the argument against ethanol goes well I live in an agriculture industry based part of our country and to the people I know who raise corn crops ethanol is a good thing being it drives up the value of what their crops are worth!

We largely like ethanol around here because it brings more money to our communities and tables.

"We have yet to get our oil industry infrastructure in place and we are already currently supplying 4 - 5% of the US oil with the goal in ten years to have the capacities capable of supplying upward around 50% or more of our US oil for the next 50+ years. "

Look at that graph that depicts falling production from around the world....You may think that you are supplying oil to the US exclusively, you are not...Oil companies are multinational, and you are supplying the world market....If China is willing to pay more than the US, that oil goes to China, or in fact, the highest bidder....So if world supply is at 85 mbpd, and other wells are declining in output, you guys have to do what you're doing just to keep the supply at it's current level....and , in fact, I think we can assume that demand will increase over the next 10 years, probably at a rate greater than 1 mbpd, maybe even twice or three times that....so you see the impact you are envisioning is not likely to be as dramatic....but of course we could see hybrid technology take some leaps and demand could be slowed, and with additional ethanol output, we could see demand perhaps grow slower than anticipated....In any case I think oil will continue to be an issue from now on....

This is from the Wiki...

"The top three oil producing countries are Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United States.^[51] About 80 per cent of the world's readily accessible reserves are located in the Middle East, with 62.5 per cent coming from the Arab 5: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Qatar and Kuwait. A large portion of the world's total oil exists as unconventional sources, such as bitumen in Canada andoil shale in Venezuela. While significant volumes of oil are extracted from oil sands, particularly in Canada, logistical and technical hurdles remain, as oil extraction requires large amounts of heat and water, making its net energy content quite low relative to conventional crude oil. Thus, Canada's oil sands are not expected to provide more than a few million barrels per day in the foreseeable future.

Conventional crude oil production, those having Net Energy Gain above 10 stopped growing in 2005 at about 74 million barrels per day (11,800,000 m³/d). The International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2010 World Energy Outlook estimated that conventional crude oil production has peaked and is depleting at 6.8 per cent per year^{[citation needed]}. US Joint Forces Command's Joint Operating Environment 2010 issued this warning to all US military commands "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Canada is actually set for an oil renaissance.

Since 2000, Canada's crude oil production has risen from 2 mbpd (million barrels per day) to 3.5 mbpd, nearly doubling.

By 2020 Canada expects those production numbers to be 5.5 mbpd and 3.5 mbpd would come from oil sands.

Canada's main road block is that the US lacks a good pipeline infrastructure to take advantage of that supply. Canada currently sells that crude at about 25% below the equivalent cost for the going rate on the world market.

To circumnavigate the lack of US pipelines, Canada is working on an infrastructure to move that oil to its British Columbia coast and export that oil to other countries.

This may have two effects. First, it provides a mechanism to sell these resources and second, it reduces Canada's reliance on the US as the main importer of that oil.

"Look at that graph that depicts falling production from around the world....You may think that you are supplying oil to the US exclusively, you are not...Oil companies are multinational, and you are supplying the world market..."

Nope.

You have understand that I worked in the rail yard as a locomotive fuel tech and I got to see the daily train routing manifests for every outgoing train of oil. I know for a fact every one we fueled was going directly to oil refineries in the central US or coming back from one. None were ever headed for or returning from sea port destinations.

Our ND oil gets processed in the US.

As far as where it goes world wide to be honest most of us here don't really care. We as a state get paid the same per Bbl regardless of whom is buying it and that money is what is making our lives better and our economy grow!

A MBPD may not mean much to you but to us its big deal. Especially when you factor that we as a state only have some 650,000 people. So for us thats more than a Bbls market value of money coming into our state for every single person!

You're talking about MPG, you should be talking about miles per dollar....If you're getting less mpg's and the ethanol costs 30% less , then it stands to reason you're getting more miles per dollar, which is the bottom line and a true measure of cost....Ethanol is coming down in price, while gasoline is going up in price....As cellulosic ethanol technologies mature, the price will continue to drop for ethanol, as oil becomes more scarce, gasoline will continue to go up in price...

I see the larger issue of E30 jelling of the fuel mix that creates more issues than you can handle. I own a car with a high compression engine, and anything over 15 percent becomes a risk, especially in cold weather. It has the same downside as diesel fuel. Why would I want to risk an engine that costs more money that most production cars because EPA says so. With cats on both exhaust pipes, four 02 sensors, and always premium fuel, well below range on emission testing, why muck it up? Both Cadillac and Jaguar have warnings about any percent higher than 15. They both must know something that EPA ignores, which does not surprise me at all. Jell the fluid in the filter, and hello very expensive work at the dealership.

The EPA really does not give a rat's arse about your expensive toy. In fact, many feel you should be punished for earning the kind of money it takes to buy such a car as well as the gall of actually purchasing one in the first place.

You could, however, redeem yourself by immediately junking your in an environmentally friendly way (i.e., Cash for Clunkers Program), buying a GM Volt (the People's Car), and attaching a bicycle and bicycle rack to the back (necessary for the frequent emergencies when you over extend yourself). :)

That mantra tickles me to no end. I guess if it was a NASCAR engine all would be just fine, but I don't have to answer to others opinions, as I paid for what I have without help from a bank, thank you very much. Still doesn't change the issue, being damage to the engine and fuel systems. But then that would require thinking.

Odd. Around here its common to use the higher E30 blends every now and then in the winter to help keep ice particles from clogging the fuel system up in the winter.

Apparently there is a difference between the common mans Ford or chevy and your high end toy?

It depends on your perspective. I was pretty pissed when I had to buy a new carburetor for my lawn tractor, not once, but twice in as many years after the switch to E10.

However, like Curious123's position, if my $35,000 high end "toy's" motor grenades over some twisted attempt to force E30 ethanol into my tank, I will be even more pissed.

I bought, paid for, and insure my property and expect to have this car long into the future as is my right to do so.

I think it is simply unreasonable to expect 255 million registered cars be subject to conditions that may exceed manufactures' recommendations at the stroke of a pen. It doesn't matter the cost of the car or toy as even a $1,000 lawn mower can be a princely sum to many people.

To each his own.

I know how to adapt to make my equipment work with unconventional fuels as is so for me this is not the least bit of an inconvenience. If anything I find it just that much more of an encouragement to keep doing what I do!

The real problem is that I get tired of replacing Walbro carburetors and fuel lines in my gasoline powered equipment. Someday, they may come with 'soft goods' that can stand up to the ethanol.

I have a flex-fuel Suburban, but the mileage is horrible on E-85 for the same price per gallon of 87 unleaded regular.

I will probably need to buy 100 lo-lead avgas for my power equipment. The ethanol keeps destroying carburetors and fuel lines. It's maddening.

That is why I gave up mowing my lawn and contact someone to do it.

GM and German auto manufacturers have known about this for a long time, if you choose to play ostrich and ignore, that is on you. As a side note to your comment, I like my Jag, and don't give a tinkers damn whether you do or not. I didn't need your permission or anybody else's to enjoy the freedom I fought for in Vietnam. One of those freedoms is to ignore morons.

Wow! Am am not even sure where to begin with that one?

I do see you are apparently far better than me at reading between the lines to find what you want to find!

My comment was simply that around here it is a common thing to use fuels with higher levels of ethanol or other alcohol additives to keep ice crystals from causing problems in the winter time. That was it.

Now if you feel your jag makes you a better person than me or anyone else who drives a common man's vehicle good for you. Personally we don't really have any jag owners here being they apparently suck as winter vehicles.

So what's with the Vietnam comment? Was that your high point in life that justifies you having a pretentious attitude that everyone else should be thankful you still exist?

Sorry but around here military vets (Well the good ones anyway) don't use their combat experiences as a justification to snub civilians or anyone else for that matter. It's seen as shallow, rude, undignified, and largely it just gives the wrong impression of what military honor and duty stand for.

But then I am just trying my hand at reading between the lines.

Being in the oil patch, I am somewhat confused about your train of thought. I own three producing wells, and since 1982 there has been no noticeable drop in production. In the shale fields, the geology is quite different than West Texas, or the Canadian fields. To state that we cannot be self sufficient, is absolutely silly. You may very well live in the producing area, do not even have to read between the lines as you say, to see you have little or no insight as to what is going on. Production is not based on the whim of the producer, but the government and buyers. To stay in line with refining capacity, for want of a better word, oil is produced on capacity at the refinery. As no new refineries have been built in decades, not much wiggle room. Proven reserves in the U.S. completely overshadows anywhere else in the world. One of our issues is the tree huggers do their best to stop production. It's not availability that stops things, it's the idea that a few people think they no better than you do, and force their idiotic ways down your throat.

That and price.

Oil is sold on a rather spooky method. Rather than like you buy gasoline at the pump, buyers of oil do so by a series of contracts.

Most of the US oil is sold abroad at higher prices than what we pay for import oil from other countries.

Yes, we could be much more reliant on our own supplies, but the repercussions to do so would result in:

1. Higher prices for fuel oil (i.e, heating).
2. Higher prices at the gas pump.
3. Higher geopolitical costs.

The last one is a bit strange, but foreign countries desperately depend on US dollars. Without those US dollars the ripple effect would result in economic hardships for those countries and higher unemployment. One of the effects of higher unemployment is a higher percentage of radicalization among youths, which results in higher probability of terrorism.

Lastly, governments have a heavy control of oil (and all energy) as it provides both a international tool and a local tool to control geopolitical events and people. In addition, it also provides a rich supply of revenue for government. Our own governments gets a larger profit margin per barrel of oil than the oil companies do.