# Moral Relativism in the United State Foreign Policy **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 20, 2006, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745 "2006-01-20T00:02:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/101 "2006-01-25T17:14:08Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > **mswas** , biodiesel is a short term alternative, not a solution. It could not handle the strain of the full automobile driving country nor will it survive past the end of oil. > > Reducing our consumption is a step, certainly, but changing our habits, changing our cities and redesigning engines are long term solutions - none of which biodiesel does. > > The difference I see between biodiesel and hybrids is that people recognize with hybrids that things are going to change - that engines need to change. Biodiesel gives people a false sense of security, it doesn’t impress on them that the time for change is now, and that the need is now. I still think you are stuck on the old paradigm of one size fits all solutions. There is no one size fits all solution. Biodiesel is making a difference now. Hydrogen power is a cyberpunk wet dream like wetware and ghosts in the machine. Sure it will exist one day, and probably within the next 15 years, but Biodiesel is making a dent now, and it will continue to be a valid dent. You seem to be falling into the old thinking of “Well if we can’t fix the entirety of the problem, there’s no point in fixing a part of it.”. Regardless biodiesel hasn’t hit it’s stride yet, and it is the alternative that will make the biggest most noticeable impact first. Progress being what it is, and moving at the pace that it’s moving now, certainly biodiesel will be replaced by something, probably by our children’s generation, but it’s still the best alternative we have at the moment, and it will help to stretch the current oil supply longer. You’ve got to remember when dealing with aggregates that large, a 5% impact is very significant. Erek ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/102 "2006-01-25T17:30:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I still think you are stuck on the old paradigm of one size fits all solutions. There is no one size fits all solution. Biodiesel is making a difference now. Hydrogen power is a cyberpunk wet dream like wetware and ghosts in the machine. Sure it will exist one day, and probably within the next 15 years, but Biodiesel is making a dent now, and it will continue to be a valid dent. You seem to be falling into the old thinking of “Well if we can’t fix the entirety of the problem, there’s no point in fixing a part of it.”. Regardless biodiesel hasn’t hit it’s stride yet, and it is the alternative that will make the biggest most noticeable impact first. Progress being what it is, and moving at the pace that it’s moving now, certainly biodiesel will be replaced by something, probably by our children’s generation, but it’s still the best alternative we have at the moment, and it will help to stretch the current oil supply longer. You’ve got to remember when dealing with aggregates that large, a 5% impact is very significant. > > Erek The problem with biodiesel is you’re not fixing anything, as I said it’s a short term alternative not a solution. You’re buying time, period. That doesn’t mean it’s not a valid short term alternative - just that it is not a valid long term solution and it doesn’t impress upon the populace that there is going to be a huge cost associated with the change that is needed. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/103 "2006-01-25T17:37:01Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > The problem with biodiesel is you’re not fixing anything, as I said it’s a short term alternative not a solution. You’re buying time, period. But you are fixing something. You are reducing dependency upon foreign oil now. You are reducing greenhouse gases now. And buying time is a valuable commodity, as it brings us closer to the more scifi advancements of the next fifteen years. Imagine if all diesel was 20% biodiesel. That means we’d need 20% less petroleum for diesel engines. That’s HIGHLY significant. Again you’re never going to find a one size fits all solution, and if you keep looking then every solution is going to seem insignificant, it is a combination of multiple solutions that take a dent out of the problem that are going to constitute a real and lasting solution. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean it’s not a valid short term alternative - just that it is not a valid long term solution and it doesn’t impress upon the populace that there is going to be a huge cost associated with the change that is needed. It’s not even a short term alternative. It can last for a long time as being a percentage of the diesel intake of this country. It can and probably will last for as long as Diesel engines are still in usage. And as I said, it’s the only solution reasonably being implemented now in real time and not at some future date. You are deluding yourself if you think there is going to be a single overarching panacea that’s going to deliver us. Erek ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/104 "2006-01-25T17:56:56Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The little vacuum sealed pouches that individually wrapped **Dentyne Ice Cool Frost** come in are certainly made out of plastic. That’s what the pictures are of. Gotcha. I couldn’t make that out from the pictures. > [@mswas](#): > > Hydrogen power is a cyberpunk wet dream like wetware and ghosts in the machine. Sure it will exist one day, and probably within the next 15 years [“BMW also plans to release its first publicly available hydrogen vehicle in 2008”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car) I think its sooner than you think. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/105 "2006-01-25T18:17:02Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > Gotcha. I couldn’t make that out from the pictures. > > [“BMW also plans to release its first publicly available hydrogen vehicle in 2008”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car) > > I think its sooner than you think. Sweet ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/106 "2006-01-25T18:52:52Z")
The state of the art Honda hydrogen car is ungodly heavy, but has a three hundred mile range at a top speed of about 65 MPH, as I recall. That’s good enough for city driving. Barely, but good enough. ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/107 "2006-01-25T19:53:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I still think you are stuck on the old paradigm of one size fits all solutions. There is no one size fits all solution. Biodiesel is making a difference now. Hydrogen power is a cyberpunk wet dream like wetware and ghosts in the machine. Sure it will exist one day… Nope, she’s looking waaay ahead. I’ve some sample calculations – the amount of energy required to create hydrogen from water OR maintain and process other materials is MORE than hydrogen can give out by burning in the atmosphere. AKA, it is not sustainable. \*\*One would have to burn fossile fuels, nuclear, fusion, or oil to produce hydrogen which will actually do LESS work than the fundamental sources. Biodiesel is also not sustainable in the long-term, but may offer a “quick fix” to depleated oil supplies. My prediction is that the US would be reduced to something on the equivalent to the Sahara (desert) with long-term biodiesel creation & use. The best hope, IMHO, is nuclear for short term (with better battery tech money & development) and fusion techs after that, with solar/wind as minor assist at every turn. MARK MY WORDS! Sure, Biodiesel will sell like mad when oil prices become untenable - and may, in fact, be a good investment for a short term – but when people in the 1st world start to see the devastation to their soil & lands, they’ll change their mind. My guess is that it will all go down before the oil is actually all gone. We can either make the change slowly now with little death, or have a major oil-depression later. \*I am not knowledgeable enough to designate how long it will take the old to run its course, but I figure around 25 more years. IMHO, with Biodiesel introduced earlier, it may be extended another 10 years, but that’s it. IMHO, Our farm-lands will NOT be able to keep up with U.S. demands for fuel by 2029. ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/108 "2006-01-25T19:56:23Z")
Hydrogen fuel is no better than an ‘Alternative, high-powered battery’. The oil companies should LOVE the idea, because we will burn MORe of it to create hydrogen than e do now on every vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/109 "2006-01-25T20:35:08Z")
We’ll burn more of _something_, Bob. But we can do it in a controlled environment, taking advantages of economies of scale, minimizing lossages due to efficiency. And not in a one foot by one foot by two foot box moving at sixty miles an hour. We’ve got assloads of coal, so who cares if we burn more of it than we would have if we used petrol directly? Or maybe we use pebble bed nuclear plants. Either way, it’s reducing consumption of oil. What, you think we should use less energy? The only problem with batteries is putting energy _into_ them. Well, that, and recharge fatigue. Turning a battery into a combustion engine of some sort allows rapid refueling, and eliminates recharge fatigue. It’s still energy in, energy out. Just a matter of transport and delivery. ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/110 "2006-01-25T21:03:56Z")
**mswas** , what part of biodiesel will only last as long as oil, do you not understand? That is what I’m trying to point out. If you interested in talking about reducing oil consumption, let’s try looking at the numbers. From the Department of Energy American petroleum consumption: 20.7 million barrels per day ([ref](http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html)) American automobile gasoline consumption: 9.1 million barrels per day American diesel consumption: ~4 million barrels per day ([ref](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2005/distillate2005/distillate2005_files/frame.html)) American diesel consumption accounts for approximately 20% of American petroleum consumption. 20% of 9 million barrels per day is 0.8 million barrels per day (or 4% of American petroleum consumption). By 2015, American diesel consumption is estimated to increase by 1 million barrels per day. Take away the 0.8 million barrels per day by using biodiesel and we still have an **increase** in demand of 0.2 million barrels per day. Please tell me, where is the dent in American dependence on oil? Biodiesel does not decrease American demand on oil, because even with biodiesel there will be an estimated increase of 0.2 million barrels per day by 2015 (for diesel use alone: does not take into account increases related to other demands). True, it slows the rate increase in demand over time and minimizes pollution, but it does little to nothing to decrease actual American demand for oil; which is why I believe that its more important to focus on SOLUTIONS rather than short term ALTERNATIVES. Changing American consumption rather than creating alternatives that allow Americans to continue to consume at these rates. As for a single solution, while certainly not the ideal I think it’s the way of American consumerism. Businesses will do what is most profitable for businesses to do, and consistency in the automobile industry is more profitable that diversity, imho. **Citizen Bob** , I can’t believe you forgot hydroelectric power! ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/111 "2006-01-25T21:27:02Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > We’ve got assloads of coal, so who cares if we burn more of it than we would have if we used petrol directly? I’ve not found any reputable source on coal availability/unavailability – do you know of any? I never said it would be easy to convert to nuclear/fusion & battery electric – I just said that it had better start happening slowly sooner than rapidly when we reach a socio-economic empass. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/112 "2006-01-25T23:01:19Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > **mswas** , what part of biodiesel will only last as long as oil, do you not understand? That is what I’m trying to point out. > > If you interested in talking about reducing oil consumption, let’s try looking at the numbers. > > From the Department of Energy > American petroleum consumption: 20.7 million barrels per day ([ref](http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html)) > American automobile gasoline consumption: 9.1 million barrels per day > American diesel consumption: ~4 million barrels per day ([ref](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2005/distillate2005/distillate2005_files/frame.html)) > > American diesel consumption accounts for approximately 20% of American petroleum consumption. 20% of 9 million barrels per day is 0.8 million barrels per day (or 4% of American petroleum consumption). By 2015, American diesel consumption is estimated to increase by 1 million barrels per day. Take away the 0.8 million barrels per day by using biodiesel and we still have an **increase** in demand of 0.2 million barrels per day. > > Please tell me, where is the dent in American dependence on oil? Biodiesel does not decrease American demand on oil, because even with biodiesel there will be an estimated increase of 0.2 million barrels per day by 2015 (for diesel use alone: does not take into account increases related to other demands). > > True, it slows the rate increase in demand over time and minimizes pollution, but it does little to nothing to decrease actual American demand for oil; which is why I believe that its more important to focus on SOLUTIONS rather than short term ALTERNATIVES. Changing American consumption rather than creating alternatives that allow Americans to continue to consume at these rates. > > As for a single solution, while certainly not the ideal I think it’s the way of American consumerism. Businesses will do what is most profitable for businesses to do, and consistency in the automobile industry is more profitable that diversity, imho. > > **Citizen Bob** , I can’t believe you forgot hydroelectric power! I don’t have the numbers in front of me for how much of a dent biodiesel can create, but you and CitizenBob are both ignoring the resource that is fryer grease. Having travelled cross country in a vegetable oil bus, I have seen how few people are aware of that resource and it’s potential, and how few restaurants nationwide are actually being tapped for it. What I am saying is that when the refineries that process fryer grease and turn it into biodiesel get up and running, they won’t have to create new crops to get their oil, they will use existing supplies that are already a standard part of the economy being that we love to shove french fries into our little piggie mouths. Every McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, TGIFriday’s, Chile’s, etc… is a source of oil, and they are already producing that oil now, yet only a tiny little percentage of it is being tapped. Of course the soybean industry is going to jump into the game, and already are in Minnesota, but I think that waste grease biodiesel will outpace it because it is about half the cost of production, because they are refining it from oil, and not from a crop in the ground. Again, I must argue against your one size fits all mentality. The solution won’t be one alternative or another, it will be a combo of electric cars, hybrid gasoline cars, biodiesel, and a number of other alternatives that I am not even thinking of right now. It’s the combination that will make the difference and make it sustainable. We aren’t going to suddenly stop using oil anytime soon, but we can significantly reduce our consumption of it and htat’s what’s important. **CitizenBob** 2029 IS long term at the current rate of technological advancement. By that time depolymerization will be a viable reality, we’ll have solar paint covering every roof and the idea of centralized power structures will be an anachronism. We’ll have nanomachine factories building custom hardware from uploaded schematics, shipping the gear straight to your door. So any current solution is going to be a ‘temporary’ solution if you’re planning as far ahead as 2029. By that time we’ll have tubes of molecules feeding cities the necessary elements they need to manufacture goods at the molecular level, which will basically end what we know of today as supply side economics. Erek ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/113 "2006-01-25T23:22:23Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t have the numbers in front of me for how much of a dent biodiesel can create, but you and CitizenBob are both ignoring the resource that is fryer grease. No, we’re not. I’m assuming that we can create enough vegetable oil to offset diesel use by 20%. That’s a significant amount of vegetable oil, 0.8 million barrels per day to be precise! Unless you’ve switched from talking about biodiesel (diesel 80% and vegetable oil 20%), then I don’t see how you could fabricate the numbers to show that biodiesel makes a significant dent in petroleum demand. Please provide a reference. As for diversity. I can see it surviving short term, but once things settle after the shift from oil, I think companies will get together to narrow down fuel options to make automobile design, fueling stations, etc standardized - just like they did with oil. I’m not saying diversification isn’t the best option for consumers, I just think companies will choose the option most profitable for them. Believing that companies will encourage diversification into the future by having several different models available for people to choose from, … is optimistic, but not realistic. > [@mswas](#): > > **CitizenBob** 2029 IS long term at the current rate of technological advancement. By that time depolymerization will be a viable reality, we’ll have solar paint covering every roof and the idea of centralized power structures will be an anachronism. We’ll have nanomachine factories building custom hardware from uploaded schematics, shipping the gear straight to your door. So any current solution is going to be a ‘temporary’ solution if you’re planning as far ahead as 2029. By that time we’ll have tubes of molecules feeding cities the necessary elements they need to manufacture goods at the molecular level, which will basically end what we know of today as supply side economics. Erek Weren’t we supposed to have this by 2000 … or was that just flying cars? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/114 "2006-01-25T23:56:19Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > No, we’re not. I’m assuming that we can create enough vegetable oil to offset diesel use by 20%. That’s a significant amount of vegetable oil, 0.8 million barrels per day to be precise! Unless you’ve switched from talking about biodiesel (diesel 80% and vegetable oil 20%), then I don’t see how you could fabricate the numbers to show that biodiesel makes a significant dent in petroleum demand. I think you don’t know exactly what biodiesel is. Biodiesel is diesel fuel made from vegetable products. It is not the mixture. The mixture is a mixture of petrodiesel and biodiesel. The first diesel engine ran on a combo of hemp and linseed oil. I am not talking about running a car off of vegetable oil, I am talking about collecting the vegetable oil from fryers in restaurants and refining it another step into biodiesel which has 0% petrol in it. > [@](#): > > Please provide a reference. [http://www.biotour.org/biodieselfacts.html](http://www.biotour.org/biodieselfacts.html) This is a reference to my friend that’s been a biodiesel activist for years. [www.tristatebiodiesel.com](http://www.tristatebiodiesel.com) is the company he is trying to get off the ground to build a waste grease refinery in Brooklyn. > [@](#): > > As for diversity. I can see it surviving short term, but once things settle after the shift from oil, I think companies will get together to narrow down fuel options to make automobile design, fueling stations, etc standardized - just like they did with oil. I’m not saying diversification isn’t the best option for consumers, I just think companies will choose the option most profitable for them. Believing that companies will encourage diversification into the future by having several different models available for people to choose from, … is optimistic, but not realistic. I think you are too stuck in the past. An electric car doesn’t need to go to a gas station. Biodiesel can replace petrodiesel or be mixed with petrodiesel, it requires NO upgrade whatsoever to existing infrastructure. There is already an industry for selling multiple fuel types, and the infrastructure already exists. You can get Diesel or Gasoline at most gas stations, and buy propane or acetylene fairly commonly. In Brazil they have a lot of cars that run off of both ethanol and gasoline. > [@](#): > > Weren’t we supposed to have this by 2000 … or was that just flying cars? [http://www.moller.com/skycar/](http://www.moller.com/skycar/) Not quite 2000, but it exists and will be available soon. As for my predictions about Nanotechnology, the tech already exists, they are using RNA to link nanobots together to make larger nanomachines already. > **[RNA Used As Nano-Scaffolding - ScienceAGoGo](http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040712214411data_trunc_sys.shtml)** > > Microscopic scaffolding to house the tiny components of nanotech devices could be built from ribonucleic acid (RNA), the same substance that transports messages around a cell’s nucleus, says a research group at Purdue University. By encouraging RNA... Erek ---
**Author:** ![Citizen\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@Citizen\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Citizen_Bob)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/115 "2006-01-26T00:18:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **CitizenBob** 2029 IS long term at the current rate of technological advancement. By that time depolymerization will be a viable reality, we’ll have solar paint covering every roof and the idea of centralized power structures will be an anachronism. We’ll have nanomachine factories building custom hardware from uploaded schematics, shipping the gear straight to your door. So any current solution is going to be a ‘temporary’ solution if you’re planning as far ahead as 2029. By that time we’ll have tubes of molecules feeding cities the necessary elements they need to manufacture goods at the molecular level, which will basically end what we know of today as supply side economics. Yeah, suuuuure… We’ll have that along with flying cars and living on the moon. I’ve been duped by that one a loooong time ago, and will not be duped again. If you truly believe that, then you will be disappointed… that’s all I’m saying… ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/116 "2006-01-26T01:10:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I think you don’t know exactly what biodiesel is. Biodiesel is diesel fuel made from vegetable products. It is not the mixture. The mixture is a mixture of petrodiesel and biodiesel. The first diesel engine ran on a combo of hemp and linseed oil. I am not talking about running a car off of vegetable oil, I am talking about collecting the vegetable oil from fryers in restaurants and refining it another step into biodiesel which has 0% petrol in it. God damn you’re dense! Are you just trying to fuck with me?! Did I not say that for ease of clarification, [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7030438&postcount=92), that if you’re referring to Straight Vegetable Oil then perhaps SVO’s would be a better term because otherwise I’m going to assume when you say “biodiesel” that you’re referring to the mixture of diesel and veg oil? Anyway, the market is limited by the quanitity of fry oil that can be produced in a day. While I do not have numbers concerning this, I would approximate the figure to be close to the 20% I presented above. Speaking strictly from a numbers standpoint, that’s not enough over time to reduce American petroleum consumption. > [@mswas](#): > > Biodiesel can replace petrodiesel or be mixed with petrodiesel, it requires NO upgrade whatsoever to existing infrastructure. Bullshit. Try reading your own reference. Their fuel system needs to be upgraded. > [@mswas](#): > > There is already an industry for selling multiple fuel types, and the infrastructure already exists. That’s only for short term necessity. Companies will not continue on this path once a **solution** is found. If you’d recall during previous oil shortages people routinely created alternatives that died out as more oil was pushed into the market. Once a solution to the oil problem is found, a consensus will be obtained in the industry and it will become the dominant market. > [@mswas](#): > > You can get Diesel or Gasoline at most gas stations, and buy propane or acetylene fairly commonly. Diesel engines are primarily reserved for trucks, not cars. In fact, while my knowledge of cars is limited in this area, I do know that the majority are designed for gasoline. To think that automobile companies are going to start designing vechiles ready for SVO’s, oil and all the other alternatives you can think of, long term, is naive. They’d have to re-equip factories and while a cool idea, not realistic. They’re going to make a decision about which method consumers prefer the most and focus their market on that. That is not being “stuck in the past,” it’s simple economics, being realistic and is based on precedent. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/117 "2006-01-26T01:15:58Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I don’t have the numbers in front of me for how much of a dent biodiesel can create When come back bring numbers. And pie. > [@mswas](#): > > I think you don’t know exactly what biodiesel is. Biodiesel is diesel fuel made from vegetable products. It is not the mixture. Well, apparently [biodiesel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel) can refer to pure biodiesel or a mixture: “20% biodiesel is labeled B20. Pure biodiesel, 100%, is referred to as B100” > [@mswas](#): > > The first diesel engine ran on a combo of hemp and linseed oil Peanut oil. > [@mswas](#): > > Biodiesel can replace petrodiesel or be mixed with petrodiesel, it requires NO upgrade whatsoever to existing infrastructure. Not quite. “However, most biodiesel, including that made from soybean oil, has a somewhat higher gel and cloud point than petroleum diesel. In practice this often requires the heating of storage tanks, especially in cooler climates.” ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/118 "2006-01-26T18:17:43Z")
> [@gooftroopag](#): > > God damn you’re dense! Are you just trying to fuck with me?! No I am saying you don’t know what you are talking about. > [@](#): > > Did I not say that for ease of clarification, [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7030438&postcount=92), that if you’re referring to Straight Vegetable Oil then perhaps SVO’s would be a better term because otherwise I’m going to assume when you say “biodiesel” that you’re referring to the mixture of diesel and veg oil? SVO and B100 Biodiesel are two different things. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the market is limited by the quanitity of fry oil that can be produced in a day. While I do not have numbers concerning this, I would approximate the figure to be close to the 20% I presented above. Speaking strictly from a numbers standpoint, that’s not enough over time to reduce American petroleum consumption. Which is why I’ve been saying that it’s not a one size fits all solution, nor are one size fits all solutions desirable. Fry oil will make a significant impact and is long term and sustainable. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. Try reading your own reference. Their fuel system needs to be upgraded. To run on SVO, not B100 biodiesel. > [@](#): > > That’s only for short term necessity. Companies will not continue on this path once a **solution** is found. If you’d recall during previous oil shortages people routinely created alternatives that died out as more oil was pushed into the market. Once a solution to the oil problem is found, a consensus will be obtained in the industry and it will become the dominant market. If you can’t get your head out of the one size fits all mentality I suppose the conversation is done here. > [@](#): > > Diesel engines are primarily reserved for trucks, not cars. In fact, while my knowledge of cars is limited in this area, I do know that the majority are designed for gasoline. To think that automobile companies are going to start designing vechiles ready for SVO’s, oil and all the other alternatives you can think of, long term, is naive. They’d have to re-equip factories and while a cool idea, not realistic. They’re going to make a decision about which method consumers prefer the most and focus their market on that. That is not being “stuck in the past,” it’s simple economics, being realistic and is based on precedent. Yeah, so biodiesel is sustainable for our massive trucking fleet. Like I said Biodiesel is being used NOW, it’s not a future thing. It’s already in production, and people are building their factories to take advantage of this. As you mentioned before pools of Algae will add another source, as that process gets perfected. But if you are maintaining a position that we must find one single solution to our energy needs then you and I don’t have a whole lot of common ground to stand on. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/119 "2006-01-26T18:18:50Z")
> [@kidchameleon](#): > > When come back bring numbers. And pie. 3.14 ---
**Author:** ![gooftroopag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gooftroopag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gooftroopag)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745/120 "2006-01-26T19:22:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > No I am saying you don’t know what you are talking about. No, you’re mixing terms again which is leading to confusion. You keep referencing a bus that runs on SVO and using it as an example to support biodiesel. > [@mswas](#): > > SVO and B100 Biodiesel are two different things. Correct. When you’re talking about the bus and dumping fry grease into diesels, you’re talking about SVO. When you tack on an additional step of processing the used vegetable oil you’re getting B100. > [@mswas](#): > > To run on SVO, not B100 biodiesel. From **kidchameleons’** , reference: > [@](#): > > Since biodiesel is more often used in a blend with petroleum diesel, there are fewer formal studies about the effects on pure biodiesel in unmodified engines and vehicles in day-to-day use. Please provide a study that claims no modifications are needed for pure biodiesel, B100. > [@mswas](#): > > Fry oil will make a significant impact and is long term and sustainable. Really? Using Wikipedia again: > [@](#): > > According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), restaurants in the US produce about 300 million US gallons (1,000,000 m³) of waste cooking oil annually.[2] Although it is economically profitable to use WVO to produce biodiesel, it is even more profitable to convert WVO into other products such as soap. Hence, most WVO that is not dumped into landfills is used for these other purposes. There are approximately 42 gallons per barrel of oil, so the quantity of annual waste cooking oil is slightly more than 7 million barrels. Assuming we stop using WVO for soap and use it 100% on biodiesel, there would not be enough biodiesel to account for even 1% of the total annual petroluem consumption. Where is the significant impact? > [@mswas](#): > > If you can’t get your head out of the one size fits all mentality I suppose the conversation is done here. I’m not saying “one size fit all.” What I am saying is that once a solution is found, the majority of these alternatives will fall away. It’s not economically feasible to support 10+ alternatives. A simple explanation of what happened in the 70’s and 80’s is found [here](http://www.coen.com/i_html/white_altfuel.html): > [@](#): > > Most of these projects and fuel suppliers disappeared during the mid-1980’s due to three key factors. First, the price of oil dropped in the second quarter of 1986 from $32 to $13 per barrel. During the following 5 years, it varied from $15 to $21 per barrel. Second, most of the legislative tax incentives were repealed or modified to a point where they lost their original purpose. Third, government sponsorship of R&D efforts has been reduced. Funding for all renewable energy research and development has declined by almost 90% from 1981 to 1990. A tremendous amount of money had been spent in developing technology to make and burn all these alternate type fuels, but by the end of the 80’s, virtually all of them were out of business. It is based on what happened in the 70’s and 80’s that I believe 1 solution will predominate and overtake the others. > [@mswas](#): > > Yeah, so biodiesel is sustainable for our massive trucking fleet. Like I said Biodiesel is being used NOW, it’s not a future thing. It’s already in production, and people are building their factories to take advantage of this. As you mentioned before pools of Algae will add another source, as that process gets perfected. But if you are maintaining a position that we must find one single solution to our energy needs then you and I don’t have a whole lot of common ground to stand on. Erek It would take algae pools to make it worthwhile, because as I’ve already shown there is not enough waste vegetable oil to support diesel for a year, unless of course you could prove that the trucking fleet accounts for less than 1% of our annual petroleum consumption. I never said we must find a single solution - just that one solution will dominate the others, much like what happened to most alternative fuels after the cost of oil dropped in the 70’s and 80’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-relativism-in-the-united-state-foreign-policy/340745.md?page=7)