LoudSpeakers » Blog Archive » 70 cents to 1 dollar per gallon

70 cents to 1 dollar per gallon

Vinod Khosla did an interview with Dateline NBC that you should watch if you’re interested in how America will relinquish dependence on foreign oil sources in the future by using ethanol rather than traditional petroleum based fuel sources.

One’s imagingation can run wild when thinking about all the countries that could emerge as future fuel heavy-weights based upon their agricultural landscape.

Link: The answer to sky-high

Note: MSNBC makes it difficult to link to their content, so follow the link and scroll down or search on their site for Khosla.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 22nd, 2006 at 8:22 pm and is filed under Business, Technology, Venture Capital. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Comments to “70 cents to 1 dollar per gallon”

donut Says:
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:11 pm

Issues with ethanol-

the ammount of energy that it takes to create a gallon is still way too high.

it still is a burning fuel. this planet is not getting any cooler.

creating more fuel is not the sollution. that is like giving some fat kid more cake when he cries. tell that fat kid to walk or ride a bike!

the amount of water and land that it would take to create enough fuel to make a dent in our reliance on gasoline would only hurt our farm lands. would you rather be able to eat and drink clean water or drive your hummer?

Raj Bala Says:
June 25th, 2006 at 8:26 pm

Brazil’s success with ethanol says otherwise. I haven’t studied the facts to be able to intelligently debate the use of ethanol, but I must admit that I am enamored with the thought of not being dependent on foreign oil sources to fuel our cars.

donutboy Says:
July 9th, 2006 at 10:10 pm

so san-san and I were talking while we drove past the wright brothers monument down @ OBX….two white boys from ohio start flying using canvas, wood and some bike parts just 100 odd years ago and look how far we are now in flight now. we can now fly hundreds of people half way around the world…..but we can’t our mpg in our cars and trucks higher? what gives?

hmmmmmm something seems off here

Seattle Nick Says:
July 21st, 2006 at 9:11 pm

Interesting tidbits on foreign oil. We–the US– get something like 14% of our oil from the mid-east. The largest exporter of oil to the US is our neighbor to the north, Canada. They just don’t happen to be a member of OPEC.

Problem with ethanol, or any fuel substitute for that matter, is the energy content is just not the same as fossil fuels. Consequently, it requires more fuel to do the same amount of work.

I guess the real question is are we really serious about conservation or do we just want cheap fuel to continue our lifestyles?

-Talk amongst yourselves….

Raj Bala Says:
July 22nd, 2006 at 1:05 pm

The issue of the amount of resources required for ethanol production sounds similar to that of beef production.

Seattle Nick Says:
August 2nd, 2006 at 11:05 pm

Not even close in comparison. Of course if you go on the bend of vegan or vegetarian only diets–as I think you are headed–then you get into an entirely different debate.

Want to work on conserving energy? Start doing things differently. Does a person really need a 5000 sqft house? Sure you can afford it. I can afford it too. But the cost of heating/cooling/lighting etc are much higher even with efficient appliances etc than in habiting something smaller.

Time to start up the nuke plants again. Cheap energy–even factoring in waste–and the technology lets you do things like create fuel cells at a marketable price.

I could see the 2002 with a fuel cell tooling ’round Buckhead leaving a trail of water vapor in that humid Georgia air.