Anti-ethanol arguments are easily debunked

John Biondi • Published 08/01/06
Re: Anti-ethanol arguments

You state "I want to save you the trouble of reading all this confusing information, so let's straighten out all the anti-ethanol arguments...I'm hardly unbiased."

So your interpretation of this confusing data is fact?
Hmmm!

John Biondi said, "The first anti-ethanol argument - one that is so old it is hardly worth mentioning, but one that comes up in every ethanol debate - is the energy balance issue. The argument is that ethanol takes more energy to make than it contains. The energy balance of dry mill produced corn ethanol is approximately 1.4, according to recent studies, meaning you get 40 percent more energy out of the process than is put in. Updating these studies for current corn production numbers renders a balance of 1.8 - even more favorable. Gasoline, by the way, has an energy balance of 0.8."

Mr Biondi, you are comparing apples to oranges. The figure for gasoline is an efficiency ratio, not an energy balance.
When you pump 100 barrels of crude oil out of the ground, it is true you will end up with about 80 barrels of useable liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, etc. Obviously, it takes energy to pump and transport the crude, and to crack the heavy petroleum into the liquid fuels we find so useful. But that is not the same as saying gasoline has an energy balance of 0.8.

The energy balance of gasoline is far higher, more in the range of 8 or 9 to 1.

The reason is that we do not have to invest any energy to make petroleum – the feedstock for gasoline. Mother Nature graciously did all the heavy lifting, and did that for us by applying millions of years of free heat and pressure applied to ancient organic matter.

However, when we make ethanol, we must pay for all the energy (except sunlight) that goes into making that ethanol. (Natural gas to make fertilizer, diesel fuel, natural gas to mill and distill the corn, petroleum to make pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, etc.) We must pay a large energy penalty to compress what millions of years of free heat and pressure did turning algae, plankton, and giant ferns into petroleum into a single corn growing season and a few energy-intensive days at an ethanol plant.

For that reason, ethanol made from corn can never have as good an energy balance as gasoline or diesel fuel. It is far more efficient to pump ancient organic matter from the ground that Mother Nature has turned into petroleum, and then use a fraction of the energy in that petroleum to convert it into useful liquid fuels than to play Mother Nature above ground investing huge amounts of energy to grow corn and turn it into ethanol.

I hope you are not being deliberately misleading when you say the energy balance of gasoline is far less than corn ethanol, when the opposite is true. Don’t confuse efficiency ratios and energy balance – they are not the same.

Cordially,

Gary Dikkers
Madison

I was traveling yesterday, so sorry to take a while to respond but I just want to add a quick response to Gary Dikkers comment:

Gary, I don’t mean to confuse the energy balance debate but I’m not talking about a process efficiency ratio - about the petroleum lost in the production processes that occur from the extraction of the 100 barrels of crude in your example to the consumption of 80 barrels of gasoline (for instance, also in your example. As you say, in your references to petroleum, nature does the heavy lifting in the creation of energy. It is the sun that is the source of energy with both ethanol and petroleum. With petroleum, the sun provided the energy long ago and the earth helped by compressing for long eons the biomass created by the sun. With ethanol, we try to capture the sun’s energy in various biological ways — the biological capture medium I am discussing is, obviously, corn.

In my use of the term energy balance I am referring to the amount of all fossil energy inputs required to convert to usable transportation fuel and bring to the pump the original storage source of the sun’s energy. In the case of ethanol, this includes all the natural gas energy required to make the fertilizers used to grow the corn, the diesel used to run the tractors, the coal or natural gas used to heat the stills in the ethanol plant, the diesel used to transport it to the pump, and the other uses of fossil energy that I haven’t touched on. In the case of petroleum it is the energy—diesel, natural gas, and electricity used in recovery, transportation, and refining versus the energy that makes it to the pump.

I am using Michael Wang’s Argonne National Laboratories’ transport fuel pathways analysis for my references. Dr. Wang’s study says that for every million BTUs of ethanol that make it to the fuel pump, 740,000 other BTUs of fossil energy of all forms have been consumed to produce and get it there. With petroleum for every million BTUs at the pump, 1.23 million have been consumed to extract, refine and get it to the pump. In simple terms, it takes more BTUs of fossil energy to get each BTU of fossil energy in the form of gasoline to you than it takes BTUs of fossil energy to get a BTU of ethanol energy to you. That is apples to apples.

Thanks for your comment. I’m sure you are familiar with the Argonne study but others may want to access it at: www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/news050823.html

I am sure your numbers are in reason with everything I have been reading. I am not a scientist but I do know corn is a plant that requires a lot of pesticides and fertilizers when compared to other crops such as sugar cane. Corn is tough on the soil. The erosion and nitrogen run-off is very detrimental to our environment (i.e. dead rivers and lakes). I know corn is big business in this country and you have a relationship with the industry. i just want to know that as a scientist how can you justify not using sugar cane (which is embargoed by the U.S. from Brazil) over corn. Is it just the big money or what? You would rather create more damamge to the environment growing corn than look for another job and go with a crop that has an energy balance of 8+ compared to 1.8 at best. I understand the power of lobbyist and big money, but I do not by into it as an environmental angel swooping down to save our gas hungry nation. It is a self-serving monopoly that pays off officials to get embargoes on Brazil and other cane growing countries and just wants to sell more corn. The vision of ethanol in this country is very short sighted and it will cost all of us from the big city firefighter(me living on the public dole to the big CEOs at Monsanto and ADM. I guess my question is why do we not push for sugar cane or some other major crop out there that kicks but on corn when it comes to ethanol production. It would make the decision to adopt alternative fuels a little easier to swallow when it actually does help the environment. Thanks

Mr Biondi

Since it will take some amount of energy to refine a barrel of crude oil, by definition the efficiency is less than 100%. For example, if I have 1 BTU of energy, but it took .2 BTUs to turn it into a useable form, then the efficiency is 80%. This is the calculation you have used to show that gasoline efficiency is less than 100%. However, ethanol is not measured in the same way. Let's instead do the equivalent calculation for ethanol. With ethanol, we get 98,333 BTUs per gallon, but we have to input +/- 77,228 BTUs to get it out. In this case, comparing apples to apples, the efficiency of producing ethanol is just 21%. Gasoline is about 4 times higher.

The 1.4 number you cite for ethanol is the EROEI (energy return on energy invested). Gasoline at the pump has an EROEI of about 5 to 1.

Did Mr. Biondi answer patrick moner on August 5, 2006 regarding sugar cane versus corn? I've copied his comments and question here again.

"I am sure your numbers are in reason with everything I have been reading. I am not a scientist but I do know corn is a plant that requires a lot of pesticides and fertilizers when compared to other crops such as sugar cane. Corn is tough on the soil. The erosion and nitrogen run-off is very detrimental to our environment (i.e. dead rivers and lakes). I know corn is big business in this country and you have a relationship with the industry. i just want to know that as a scientist how can you justify not using sugar cane (which is embargoed by the U.S. from Brazil) over corn. Is it just the big money or what?

You would rather create more damamge to the environment growing corn than look for another job and go with a crop that has an energy balance of 8+ compared to 1.8 at best. I understand the power of lobbyist and big money, but I do not buy into it as an environmental angel swooping down to save our gas-hungry nation. It is a self-serving monopoly that pays off officials to get embargoes on Brazil and other cane-growing countries and just wants to sell more corn. The vision of ethanol in this country is very short sighted and it will cost all of us from the big city firefighter(me living on the public dole) to the big CEOs at Monsanto and ADM. I guess my question is: why do we not push for sugar cane or some other major crop out there that kicks butt on corn when it comes to ethanol production. It would make the decision to adopt alternative fuels a little easier to swallow when it actually does help the environment. Thanks.

Mr. Bondi,

Gary Dikkers assessment is absolutely correct. You are confusing two different concepts: efficiency and energy return. You say that there is a lot of confusing information, and here you are contributing to the confusion.

Wang’s argument is very misleading (deliberately, in my opinion), and I have told him so myself. When you convert 1 BTU of oil into gasoline, diesel, etc., the output is close to 1 BTU of useable products. However, the energy input (e.g., natural gas to produce steam) is about 0.2 BTUs per 1 BTU of oil input. Wang calculates an efficiency of 0.8, or 80%. In this he is correct. However, the actual energy consumed in processing the 1 BTU was only 0.2 BTUs, for a net of 0.8 BTUs. The energy returned over energy consumed is 0.8/0.2, or 4/1 for petroleum. This is because the petroleum is not actually consumed during the process; the various fractions are merely distilled off and processed.

In the case of ethanol, using your 1.4 ratio, you actually consumed 1.0 BTU of fossil fuels to net out 0.4 BTUs of ethanol. In this case, your energy returned over energy consumed is 0.4/1.0, or 0.4. In other words, the return on petroleum (4.0) is 10 times better than the return on the energy consumed in producing ethanol. This is a true apples to apples comparison. As Gary said, that’s because 1) Nature already did the heavy lifting in the case of petroleum, and 2) Ethanol must be separated from water, and this requires an energy-intensive distillation.

You are correct that there is a lot of confusing information out there on this subject. In my opinion, most of that misinformation is put out by ethanol proponents. The energy efficiency issue is a classic example. Another is that Brazil became energy independent via ethanol, replacing 40 percent of their petroleum consumption (the real number is 10 percent).

I have written a number of essays on ethanol at my blog, debunking popular misconceptions (and those promoting misconceptions):

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com

I have a graduate degree in chemical engineering, and have spent years working on alternative energy, including cellulosic ethanol. I am always glad to respond to pro-ethanol debunkers with my own debunking. While there may be some valid reasons to consider ethanol, efficiency of production is not one of them.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier

Hey, why don't you ethanol gurus decide to work on a real alternative fuel that actually benefits the earth. Using excess corn is bad for the soil. Burning fuels is bad for the air and ozone. Your time would be much more well spent developing CLEAN alternatives to oil. If you don't, I will.

On a personal level, I won't buy corn ethanol as long as there are hungry people in the world. Electric cars work, so do hybrids and 4-cylinder engines. I drive an electric car every day. Why can't we buy them from any automaker?

Corn-based ethanol is the first step in a long process. Read Buckminster Fuller’s 1982 book Critical Path. Or consider what Christopher Columbus must have said to King Ferdinand of Spain; he didn’t know there was gold in Central America when he set out to find the New World.

Cellulosic ethanol is the prize in our future - it's the gold that lies on our horizon. If we stay the course and keep the sails trim we’ll get there in under one year! Already huge advances are already being made at Iogen in Ottawa and at GreenField Ethanol’s plant in Tiverton, Ontario.

And know this - corn grown to supply ethanol plants is not the same crop used to make corn flakes. And so what if Canadian farmers get paid more for their hard work in the future? I’d rather see our citizens profit more than Esso (Exxon) and Shell. Keep your money here at home and not in the pockets of the Arabs or the terrorists they fund, and keep our soldiers here at home.

And by the way corn crops don’t require any more fuel to produce than any other crop that's already being grown today. And with modern crop rotation, farmers don’t apply that much chemical fertilizer – just nitrogen. You know, there is a reason that you nay sayers are being ignored - because you are uninformed and your ignorance perpetuates unhealthy myths that are encouraged by petroleum companies.

read Fuel Ghoul at
http://roberrific.typepad.com/drunkenmoose/

All options that allow citizens to drive themselves everywhere they think they need to go are less environmentally friendly than those that do not. Period. The BIG problem is not what Americans are putting in their cars, it's that they own cars at all. Now, it's certainly not palpable to ask America to give up their cars; they won't even give up their oversized SUVs and truck/car crossovers when they couldn't possibly give you a good reason that they own such a fuel guzzler. I, for one, think that a renewable source that doesn't increase the overall carbon mass in the atmosphere while stimulating the domestic economy, reducing corn subsidies, and encouraging relations with friendly sugar and soy producing nations rather than promoting relations with terrorist-funding middle-eastern states is a step on the way to solar-produced hydrogen, which is underway in Norway, (and as much of a silver bullet as any that exists). The small conversion loss (real or not) seems a small price to pay to at the very least reduce the risk of being left without a fuel source if OPEC decides to cut us out, or the oil dries up. I'm also seeing among the anti-ethanolites a lack of forsight in the development and refinement of both ethanol producing technologies and advancements in no-till farming, and pest-resistent corn hybrids that would help build it's EROEI, simply by the increased application of commercial ethanol and competition within the industry.

THERE IS NO SILVER BULLET. STOP LOOKING FOR ONE.

Corn to ethanol is the first step; the second step is celluose to ethanol. That option can meet a third of the U.S. liquid fuel demand. However, both options do require significant quantities of low temperature heat to separate the ethanol from water in the production process. There is the option of using low-temperature steam from existing nuclear power plants. That reduces the cost of energy, ultimately allows more ethanol to be produced per unit of biomass, and reduces release of greenhouse gases from the ethanol production processes. Corn ethanol should be viewed as the first step of a multi-step process to a biomass liquid-fuels option go get off oil. Added details at http://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/IAEA07.pdf

I guess working for some fancy company enables you to afford $5 dollar gallons of milk. Ethanol will be responsible for driving up the prices of all that is neccessary for the poor. Corn is a staple for lower-income families. The sad thing is that most people who depend on corn to be cheap....do not even own cars, so an alternative to fuel is ridiculous.

http://www.channel3000.com/money/11538594/detail.html

this is just the beginning....

The process, developed by ORNL and three other national laboratories, employs a new microorganism to ferment the glucose sugar in corn efficiently into succinic acid...
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/PDFs/01_1999p4.pdf

First off, let me say that after reading some of these comments, I know that I am in no way as experienced in this issue as some are. However, I am very passionate about it and I would like it if my opinions could at least be expressed anyway.

Everyone makes a good point, about the balance of energy and all that, and I will admit that I didn't even know about that until today. But to me all it seems like is that some of you are just trying to prove each other wrong and throwing the age old excuse of "It's too hard" at someone who is supporting for a product that could possibly be used to benefit not only the small farm communities (one of which I am from) who have to sqeeze three classes into one because they can't afford teachers or supplies, but also the environment. Instead, some of you are saying that we should use oil just for the simple fact that it is possibly more efficient, and see benefits in only time and money.

Money's all well and good, but maybe some of you should open your brains just a little wider and think about other benefits. Crazy, I know. How could there POSSIBLY be benefits besides money? Ethanol is enviornmentely safe, which will always help you out, no matter who you are. And, if you want to go into money, it will help our economy, not to mention take some of those ridiculous gas prices away, because we'll be producing our own fuel.

Also, it seems to me that some people have done research that proves ethanol actually doesn't use up more energy to produce than oil. Some people say otherwise. I'm not sure who's right, but even if it does cost more energy to produce, you should still consider what it will do for our enviorment and economy, and make the decision for yourself.

Oh, and Vincent Higgins? What do you mean people who expect corn to be cheap can't afford cars? Are you just reading statistics, or have you actually witnessed this first hand? I live in a town of 2,000. My mother only makes a little over $2,000 a month, and I know people who make a lot less, and none of them have had a problem affording a car. Unless you have absolutly no family or friends, have a non-existent income, or are a desprate Katrina survivior who hasn't stumbled upon one of the many charity organizations and found a job with which to buy a car, you can usually find a way. And, believe it or not, after you take those people out, you've still got well over half the country to worry about. You're thinking way too small.

Also, I'm only 16. I haven't gotten out of high school or experienced the 'real world' yet (which I expect is working and paying bills, both of which I am doing so my mother can afford to go to college full time), but I read science articles, and watch the news, and read the newspaper, to form all these opinions for myself, just like everyone else. Am I ignorant about some of these things? Of course. I think everyone is, but I do believe mine is to a further extent. I just thought I'd give you my opinion straight up without all this scientific junk mixed in.

Allie -
Unfortunately, the "science junk" is what makes the difference as to whether it should be something we do, or something we don't do. Without "science junk," anyone could have a theory that cancer is caused by drinking orange juice - but to ban orange juice would be folly.

You cite that ethanol is good for the environment, but have nothing to back that up. In fact, some studies say that it produces more pollution than burning fossil fuels.

You say it will cause gas prices to decrease. However, what happens to food prices? Cheese prices are up 78 percent from a year ago. Poor people in Mexico are protesting cause they can no longer afford corn tortillas, a staple of their diet. Meat prices have increased. Much of this has to do with the increased demand for corn from the increased demand for ethanol.

Further, on the price issue, ethanol is much more expensive than gasoline. How do we know this? Because the government currently is heavily subsidizing ethanol production at all levels to try to make it somewhat competitive with gasoline.

You state it will help our economy - however - just as a household would run - would you be better off if you switched from buying generics to name brands? Would you be stronger financially for buying BMWs instead of Toyotas? Of course not, cause you are spending more for something that did the same thing.

I'd warn you to think twice before forming beliefs exclusively with "facts" learned from the news, etc. They typically don't care about the "science junk" either.

One thing is for sure. There is a long road ahead of us for getting the real facts out and about with alternative fuels. There is a lot of emotion going on with this issue and that is natural when so many factors of life are affected. We all need to keep asking the questions and then industry, government and all who are involved with energy usage will know what is needed to educate the people and satisfy the needs. Whether that happens quickly or at all is still a question, but the consumers need to ask. I think chat pages like this are good to help get all sides represented. At least it is a start.

My whole life has been in agriculture (various roles and duties) and I have a lot to learn yet about ethanol. I for one would like to get into the fact finding and education of the issues surrounding these alternative fuels options.

Thanks for listening.

Sure, Ethanol is driving up corn prices and beef, ect. You must look at the big picture of the project. Look how many people will profit in the complete process of making ethanol. Millions. When you buy regular gasoline, most of the money out of your pocket goes out of the country and out of our economy. Buy ethanol and 100% stays here. Once ethanol takes root, and it will, the nation will notice the economic strength beyond the simple argument of which is cheaper to make.

I also feel we need alternative fuels. Unfortunately the information being fed to the general public is not as concise as needed. Numbers and phrases are thrown out that few can understand. All I know for sure is Alberta is being raped for fuel, and the Greenhouse Gas Emmissions from the "tar sands" are killing our planet. More information PLEASE. In the meantime, let's all conserve more.

Ooh! I wrote a pome! A stupid, ill-informed, biased, tree-hugger of a pome that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic at hand. I am obviously a stooge of Exxon. Hooray!


OILS AIN'T OILS.

Planet Earth has been bled dry
The oil is nearly through
Many wells
Are empty shells
So now what do we do?

Let’s all go mess up the world
Fighting for what’s left
Crushing those
That dare oppose
And leaving them bereft

China wants the Russian slicks
But then, so does Japan
The Yanks attack
Saddam’s I-raq
And ‘liberate’ Iran

Kazakhstan is in the sights
Of Exxon, Shell and Fina
But other voices
Offer choices
That will make us greener

‘Fossil fuels are bad! They say,
They’re melting all the ice!
And people choke
On all the smoke!
It isn’t very nice!

We know there is another way
To make our engines go
Who needs a Sheik
When we can make
Our fuel from what we grow?’

It doesn’t fill the air with smog
It’s so clean when it burns
And unlike crude
It gets renewed –
Each season it returns!’

So what could be the problem?
Let’s plant it right away!
It’s going to charm
Those on the farm
With pay instead of hay!

Making all the fuel we need
Corn and soy and wheat
By the ton
Will mean there’s none
Left for us to eat

But we can grow our foodstuffs
In other peoples’ fields
In lieu of debt
We can jet
All a country yields

Back to where we’re living
And eat it all ourselves
And we won’t share
So people stare
At rows of empty shelves

And when those third world countries
Have all been dispossessed
Of all their land
They’ll all be banned
From moving to the west

Does Ethanol burn cleaner?
It’s dirty stuff to make
It tends to spew
Co2
And chaos in its wake

It takes more energy to make
A gallon of this goo
Than it releases
But it greases
Palms of you-know-who

Coporate vested interests
That stand to rake in stacks
Of subsidies
If you please
Paid for with your tax

To grow the fuel we cut down trees
And burn them then and there
And all the gas
Within their mass
Is sent into the air

And all the Co2 that forests
Normally absorb
Now just flies
Around the skies
Of our blue/green orb

Melting all the glaciers
Filling up the seas
Making more
People poor
To fuel our SUVs

We’re being told we’re helping while
The planet slowly boils
Which goes to show
What we should know
That they know oils ain’t oils

So what if corn prices go up? This country produces a huge surplus of food that is either bought by the government and rots in warehouses unused or is sold to other countries. Those countries are frequently either unfriendly to us or outright hostile. We have no duty to feed them. So go ahead, produce as much ethanol as possible and just enough food to take care of those that matter - US. Saudi oil will get MUCH cheaper when they are forced to trade it FOR SOMETHING TO EAT.

All of you liberal America-Haters need to quick speaking. It makes my ears bleed.

Wow, how things have changed over the past couple of years. Ethanol has been exposed as the total load of trash that it has always been. A stanford study of E85 emissions showed that ethanol would at least be as harmful to humans as gasoline vehicles, and further studies have shown that the earth cannot support the biomass necessary to create enough ethanol to reduce fossil fuel usage by a significant amount. Ethanol is a bust. I hope no intelligent people are still supporting this nightmare.

I would respectfully disagree with David. Intelligence allows for that.

The point is, ethanol has not been "exposed" as anything but a useful oxygenate for gasoline. Ethanol-tuned engines have been proven to be more efficient, which anyone can see for themselves if they follow Indy Racing. And finally, this whole notion that ethanol uses more energy to produce than it returns is at best misguided, at worst lying.

People need to understand that we need fuels like this--warts and all--to get off of our oil dependence. It is simple to me: we will run out of oil sometime in the future; we will likely never go to war for corn.

I know this is an old thread, but the message is important.

Care to explain the economic benefits to me? That would be a large part of this myth. The energy issue is one large concern. (Input to output.) But what about the replacement, mandatory upgrades, and other large expenditures required to make older cars actually function. I hate to break it to you, but somebody must I suppose, when one adds costs to families that have trouble already affording it, you cripple your lower-mid class. When that happens, a country like the US has to either put the people on welfare, or change to a workable energy solution that allows the workforce (blue collar) to actually reach their workplaces. Now I understand that most people are used to having a new porche every year, but I've never, and will never spend more than $1000 US on a car, EVER. There's no reason to. It runs, and I can do most repairs on my own for little cost. That means I have more money to invest in my retirement so that I'm not a burden on society (hey, if I don't need to draw social security, there's more to go around. go figure). I have seen E10 fuels kill two fuel pumps in an 89 Ford thunderbird within one year, and destroy a gas tank. The car ran fine until moving to an area that required ethanol. Coincidence? NO. The car wound up at a scrap yard. (shame too. I loved that car. Much blood sweat and tears working on that puppy) Now, the breaking down and recycling of that car is going to burn even more fossil fuels. Let's restate that. It will burn fossil fuels to break down the car, while I'm simultaneously burning fossil fuels in my current car. Yep, that's your efficiency for you. The sustainability trick relies on maintainance, not instantaneous transition.

I work in computers, and what I see being suggested by Ethanol fans is the exact same thing I see from novice computer users. There's plenty of trashed parts that are fully functional just because a processor went out of date, or because somebody was too lazy to put in a new video card. So somebody pitches a machine they invested $1000 into over a $200 part that would have cost $50 in labor, and is actually easily done on your own. Yeah, that makes sense. Most business would consider that a poor investment.
What do computers have to do with cars? Most cars are $14000, some are much higher. I won't spend more than $1000. My last car only cost me $600. Sure it's not a lexus, but it gets me from point a to b, and with four cyl, I get decent mileage. Therefore, it could be said that I"m getting decent performance. 30 mpg, and I'm not paying much for it. Hell, I don't even have to carry full coverage, so I save even more. Did I mention that I don't have monthly payments on it? Parts are plastic though, and metal parts don't come cheap if they exist at all. The parts would be more than the car, and aren't recommended. Not only that, but it has an electric fuel pump. Ethanol has been proven to wear those out. (before you pro Ethanol gurus belittle this, note that I've seen first hand damage from ethanol on fuel pumps, weed whips, and a variety of other motor tools. Just because you've got your heads in the sand and say it's dark doesn't mean the sun hasn't come out.) The cost of buying the plastic replacements is still cheaper than buying the new car, or even the compatible components for that matter by a long shot. So now we're burning fossil fuels to make my replacement parts. Are you seeing the trend here? Because I don't have the the $15000 for a new Energy efficient car that is E10 compatible, we're going to burn tons of fossil fuels to make replacement parts for my car. I'll only be paying about $75 per part on average. Not only that, but companies will still make the part for me. Why? There's a market.

conclusion: A fuel transition must be economical as well as environmentally sound in order to be an effective solution. Personally, I think you're all nuts. Go solar! It can heat homes, power our homes, power cars (or have we forgotten about that?), and best of all, it's freely renewable (until we run out of photoreactive elements).
Oh, and allie. I make $800 a month. I'm not on welfare, and I'm making it. (okay, so I've got a job with really good perks, and the $ is just my take home, but that's not the point) Money is how society shows what you are worth. Sociology 101 sweetheart. Even as a teacher, I didn't make as much as your parental unit. (guess that shows how much society values me!) OK is one mass oil field, so I think I can safely say we're producing. A past president started hoarding oil so that the US would have a reserve supply should the world run out. The reason: Our planes need it. Military superiority. Keep in mind that our highways were originally intended for that same military. I've seen people your age keep up with these threads, but they pay attention to that scientific fact.

To the rest of you: We do need to find a way of not "defecating where we eat". We must also find a way to do it that still supports our society as a people. If we as a society lose sight of the lowest among us, and the impacts we impart to them, then we deserve no less than extinction. We're more likely to hit societal de-evolution. Farmers must rotate crops to keep from depleting the soil. Even oil will eventually renew. It won't renew for a long time, but it will.

Thanks for being such a biased, uncredible idiot, John. I can't even quote you in my debate case because you are so biased and stupid. Woohoo.