 
Â
Â
Â
Â
America is a commuter society. Each and every day millions of Americans hop into their vehicles and begin their daily commute. We begin and the end the work day locked in traffic, surrounded by the sound of honking horns, blaring radios, screeching brakes, and the smell of exhaust. Tommorow on your way to work stop and take it all in. Consider that each and every day as we drive we contribute to the disturbing rates of air pollution emananting from our country each and every year. We help to increase the proportion of children suffering from asthma. And we contribute to global warming. Then, think about the current price of gas. Is it worth it? Not when there is a better way: biodiesel.
Diesel engines are a worthwhile investment to begin with. According to the National Biodiesel Board, "Diesel engines are about 30 percent more efficient than gasoline engines. This means that a diesel engine of the same displacement will produce about 30 percent more horsepower or give 30 percent better fuel economy (or 30 percent less carbon dioxide emissions." But biodiesel takes the desirable attributes of the diesel engine to awhole new level. According to the Alternative Fuels Data Center, a project of the U.S. Department of Energy, "Biodiesel is safe, biodegradable, and reduces serious air pollutants such as particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and air toxics." Vehicles fueled by biodiesel emit less carbon dioxide that vehicles that run on regular diesel or gasoline, so they make even less of a contribution than global warming. Biodiesel can be made domestically, so using it can help to reduce our nation's reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Many people believe that converting a vehicle to biodiesel is a complicated and expensive process. It is true that modifications may have to be made to some engines prior to using 100 percent biodiesel. In its purest forms, biodiesel acts as a solvent which can corrode certain engine components, namely tubing and gaskets made of certain types of materials. This is especially true with older diesel engines. Pure biodiesel can also loosen buildups of materials within the engine, clogging filters and other parts. Therefore it is recommended that you replace parts that may be susceptible to biodiesel's solvent effects prior to using purer forms of biodiesel, and change fuel filters frequently during the initial period of use. Like regular diesel engines, engines that run off biodiesel can experience additional problems in cold weather.
But one of biodiesel's strongpoints is that it can be used in existing diesel engines, new or used. It is a diverse fuel that can be blended with regular diesel in any ration. B20, a blend that contains 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent diesel, can be safely used in most diesel engines with little or no modifications. For most newcomers to the world of biodiesel, this option may be the best bet. A car fueled by B20 will still emit 12 percent less carbon monoxide and particulate matter than a regular diesel engine.
What about availability? Sales of biodiesel in the U.S. have increased from 500,000 gallons in 1999 to 250 million gallons in 2006. Biodiesel is compatible with fuel pump systems found at most gas stations, so increased demand will likely lead to increased availability. You can find out how many stations offer biodiesel in you state by visiting the USDE's Alternative Fueling Station Locator. You can even use the Alternative Fueling Station Locator to see where refueling stations are located along a pre-planned travel route. Many drivers of biodiesel make their own fuel, which can be derived from a wide variety of eco-friendly sources. Often biodiesel is made from society's waste, like old grease from restaurants.
The shift from standard gasoline to biodiesel is not going to happen over night, but it is not as difficult as it may seem. Conversion to biodiesel will not require any major changes to our nation's infrastructure - except of course for a vast increase in the number of diesel vehicles manufactured each year. If you are in the market for a new car, you can help drive the market in the right direction by buying diesel.
Americans do not need to sit and wait for Congress to enact laws. We can help the environment and improve public health by investing in environmentally friendly technologies like biodiesel that exist right now. Imagine yourself locked in traffic, window down breathing to clean air coming out of the thousands of tail pipes all around you...
Â
   Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
"Our World" is a column written by David Anderson and published weekly on Gather.com which seeks to inspire enlightening debate among its readers and enhance our democracy in the process. Comments are welcome, but please keep a civil tongue. You can read all of David's Political Correspondent pieces under the tag "live from New Hampshire".
David is a graduate student studying political science at the University of New Hampshire.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 61
"From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank," by Joshua Tickell
NOx; This section refers to the chemical term for nitrogen oxides produced during combustion. For other definitions see Nox
NOx is a generic term for mono-nitrogen oxides.(covalent bond) These oxides are produced during combustion, and are of interest as air pollution. They are believed to aggravate asthmatic conditions, react with the oxygen in the air to produce ozone, which is also an irritant, and eventually form nitric acid when dissolved in water. When dissolved in atmospheric moisture the result can be acid rain which can damage both trees and entire forest ecosystems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_oxide
Just something you might want to look into about biofuels, even the biodiesel.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/
Oh, and Deb A - you can get those push mowers at Ace Hardware, or find a rechargeable electric-assist version online.
And my latest favorite energy saving tip - unplug your charging cables (cell phone, etc.) from the wall when not in use. They draw power even when the phone's not attached!
Peace,
kmf
Keep conserving, everybody!
Dan R - As with everything, there is no perfect solution. In a cost/benefit comparison I think biodiesel wins out over regular gasoline hands down. Though not perfect, it does provide an affordable, existing alternative to gasoline. But your incite is appreciated.
Candace - I have heard that. Very interesting stuff.
Steve B - Both sites offer some good solutions. But biodiesel is here now, and we should use it until another, better alternative arises. In terms of sustainable planning, I have been glad to see a revival going on in a lot of downtown communities in my home state of New Hampshire. But even with down towns reinvigorated and more people living in decent apartments in a central location many people continue to work far from home. They go where the money is, and biodiesel is a good way to get them there and back.
Your welcome LL d'Merle!
Minnesota is a real leader when it comes to biodiesel fuels and it's good for the state.
We in the rural areas also need to figure out how to provide some sort of public transportation - that would help.
So far on just a brief discussion the guy is very interested, and we are working on setting up a time to get together on it and start a more endepth working on the project.
Basically this is that you could drive your car around the country, without ever needing to stop for fuel, or fly a prop plan around the globe without fuel, or even a ship around the world with out fuel. THe same system would work on each with just minor modifications for each. There is a few cases this would not work on, but the reduction in polution would be severely reduced from vehicles due to the amount of vehicles that would need to remain on the present fule system. And the temprature would not be a factor either.
I don't have any arguement with that. I just wouldn't invest $$$Billions in it as a long-term solution. Gas-electric hybrids are also a good short-term assist, but long-term, I'd much rather see hydrogen-electric hybrids.
David: "...many people continue to work far from home. They go where the money is, and biodiesel is a good way to get them there and back."
Again, no arguement in the short-term. In the long-term, I'd look for more people to work at home, though, and I'd hope that hydrogen, fuel-cell mass transit would fit the bill for those still working far from home.
I have no problem with short-term improvements, except to the extent they distract from long-term planning. It seems to be a peculiar vulnerability of our "culture" that we so often neglect to think in long-term solutions.
Excellent point! The algae farms can actually "scrub" coal carbon emissions, so that you double the energy from a unit of coal by growing algae, also using solar energy. The algae can be a biodiesel or health drink - take your pick. And if I'm not mistaking, the process also produces hydrogen, so that you multiply the amount of energy from burning coal while cutting the emissions in half.
Now that would be part of a long-term solution!
More on this (second half of the third segment of this video):
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm
Dan R - I look forward to hearing more about this project.
Tina - I agree. What is great about biodiesel is that individuals can take the initiative on their own. There are a number of local groups dedicated to biodiesel and its use, as well as global and nation groups and websites. Individuals can share their expertise and frusturations through these forums, and learn valuable information about potential solutions to any problems they have with their new fuel source.
Steve B - I agree that we as a society do need to focus more on the long term solutions to our problems. Many communities are doing their part by going green. I do hope that the federal government starts to do more, but for now I think local efforts are far more productive in the long run.
Carol - I was not aware of a link between biodiesel and meat prices. Thank you.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
Just line our interstate highway system with concentrated solar devices:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43336
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/whatisastirlingengine.htm
And/or make our roofs, residential and commercial, out of solar collectors:
http://www.uni-solar.com/interior.asp?id=83
The equivalent of 100 square miles of efficient solar panels (10,000 miles) could provide for the entire U.S. electrical demand.
Solar Power: the Great Untapped Energy Source
http://www.enn.com/archive.html?id=31654&cat=archives
This is fascinating stuff, and we're here to witness it. ;)
Maybe we just really prefer to fight wars in the mideast, in order "to protect our vital national interest in the region."
Great article! The concern with nitrous oxide emissions is because when combustion temperatures hit about 2500 degrees, nitrogen begins to combine with the oxygen in the combustion chamber. Compression ignited engines (diesels) are all compression ignited and therefore produce the nitrous oxides. I can't see why a catalytic converter such as gasoline engines utilize (extreme lean gasoline raises combustion temperatures also) could not be used to control this problem.
That said, no big industry is going to want to invest in this technology until they are relatively certain that the usage and supply will continue well into the foreseeable future. Today there are many ideas floating around out there and none of them seems certain to be the one to go. If a means of producing hydrogen cheaply were developed it might win out.
Also, many of us cannot afford to go out an buy a new car to access the newest technology. We purchased as fuel efficient vehicles as we could get for our needs last time around and will probably use them until we die. Since they are both gasoline powered, I do not have the opportunity to take advantage of Bio Diesel.
Another question about bio diesel is how well will the supply hold up if the use of such becomes prevalent? I suppose that there is a potential crop to produce this type fuel but the single crop which harnesses the most of the sun's energy in America is still sugar beets. While they will produce ethanol OK I don't think they would be much good for bio diesel.
Canola or rape seed can be grown for the oil as can corn. I don't know which of these is most productive. Both of these require good, fertile ground in which to grow and petroleum to plant and harvest as well as lots of water to grow. That is here in the west, I guess there are some places in the country where there is sufficient rain to water most any crop but our eleven inches of rain a year would let crops dry up early.
Yes, our society is very dependent on the private automobile. Most have little choice about driving to their employment. The idea of working at home is great but most jobs simply can't be done from home making this idea, while good, still a dream.
Forcibly herding us all into tight urban areas, like a bunch of sheep, is not a viable option either. As time goes by it may come to that gradually but not all of a sudden. When you remove the rural nature of this nation it will cease to be the nation that our forefathers founded for us!
I believe that this is an exciting time in the area of technology and hope that technology will provide us with the answer. I really don't see electric cars as the answerer because of battery costs and down time to recharge. Hybrids haven't really gotten down in price to where they are a good answer. CNG holds promise and can be installed on any car out there as can LPG.
I do have one question for someone who commented earlier. What the hell is "fossil water?" There is the same amount of water on earth as there ever was. It simply changes form and location and supplies a greater number of people. It will never be "all gone!"
What I was referencing was Ruth MacGill's statement that the "fossil water" will soon be all gone. I'm still waiting for a definition of just what fossil water is as this is a new one on me. And yes, we need to find alternative fuels and sources of energy. Only a fool would deny that.
Here's the link:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm
I don't think that's what "smart growth" refers to. Our zoning laws make us dependent on the automobile. Smart growth would make us less so, because many destinations would be accessible by walking or biking. Imagine that - it might help bring down health costs too if more of us walked/biked. And within that context, less of us would actually need to own a car. There would be more car sharing. Imagine being able to have access to the kind of car you need - two seater or SUV or pickup - without having to own just one type.
I have read that traditional automakers may be obsolete in the future, because cars may be made by companies like Google, and you will be driving cars that are produced in a much more streamlined fashion (without all the need for assembly robots) out of superlight, superstrong, recyclable, fabricated material that fits together like leggos - that is more correctly thought of as a computer on wheels rather than a car with various computer chips. This article seems to point to that eventuality (the part about the plug-in hybrids):
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49007
And this "hypercar", originally conceptualized by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), is the kind of future car described above:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
Amory Lovins, co-founder of RMI, describes this car and the material it's made from in this interview, at about the 24:10 minute mark:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
The links were interesting. I'm not holding my breath for any of these things as I don't think anyone has charted the course for the next fifty years and forseen which technology will prevail. Regardless what "smart growth" references, I don't see a way to eliminate very many of the vehicles we currently own.
I believe that we musts find alternative energy sources to power those vehicles. People have "lived free" in this nation for too long and are going to be reluctant to give that up regardless the cost of fuel. They might well cut back their driving but they want the car/truck/SUV and want to use it for vacations, outings, work and other uses besides commuting to a from work. Perhaps the "plug in hybrid" can offer a significant savings for this purpose.
Bruce,
I will indeed, share it with you.
Well, being stuck in freeway congestion for a significant chunk of one's time on this planet - many may not consider that freedom.
A few years ago, my wife and I visted D.C. on vacation. We had access to the Metro (mass transit system) from our hotel. It was fantastic! We could go anywhere we wanted to go and didn't have to worry about traffic or parking. To me, this was much more of a "free" experience than driving could have been. I had a similar experience in Boston when I was 20 or so. I visited a friend there, and we went anywhere we wanted without a car. And my younger brother has friends in Chicago, who live in the city and rarely need a car. If they do, they rent.
All in all, I think the solutions are going to be drive at both ends: better vehicle design and more efficient fuels/drive trains, AND better design in our cities and local communities. As Lovins said in this interview by Charlie Rose, these solutions are not only possible, they are fun and profitable (30-32 minute mark, and forward):
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/default.asp
I, being a western person, find that much of the "pleasure" us of my automobile cannot be offered by public transportation. Where I go is out in the hills and woods, down to streams and places where few people go. This is what I meant by "live free" and has no relevance to the congestion of crowed highways. I'd be glad to use public transportation if and where I could. How do you get the the store and pick up 12 bags of groceries and get them back to your home? Will the bus wait for you to unload them two at a time? And will it come when you want it to with say, a 15 or 20 minute arrival time? Or must you schedule every ting to the source of transportation?
Personally, I use a motorcycle for a lot of things and but there are times when I want to bring a few fence posts home or something comparable and I need a vehicle to get them. Not to get to the doctors office perhaps but for many things.
It's a problem we have to address and my questions are not rhetorical or argumentative, but rather what is the answers.
I'm not being argumentative either, but it looks like we're addressing two completely different situations. Since most pollution/CO2 and other ghg emissions come from cities (the rest from power plants), then I think city design, zoning laws, and mass transit play huge rolls. Individual vehicles are obviously not going away, either, and people, who live in rural areas are going to need them. Right now, hybrid gas/electric cars are available, or flex fuel trucks. I am hoping that in the future, either automakers or companies like Google will begin to manufacture hypercars, fueled by hydrogen and made from ultralight carbon composite material, which is 12x stronger than steel.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid191.php
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/010106.html
or this electric car has some promising features:
http://www.teslamotors.com/
My own preference is the hypercar, because it makes its own electricity with fuel cells, with hydrogen, instead of carrying around batteries. I also think there also would be a pickup version.
You are, of course, right, but making the supply smaller automatically makes the price higher, and adds to those that can't afford the price. It's a step back, not forward.
The second half of the third segment of this video describes this process:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm
There are no fuels or energy resources without some emissions factors. Even wind requires fuel to manufacture the generators, get them to the location, provide the vehicles to go service the generators and the fuel for that. We are a long ways from being able to eliminate the internal combustion engine.
As far as waste vegetable oil is concerned, that is a fine source. However, if our trucking industry geared up for biofuel, the supply from non grown sources would last about two days. For this reason the industry cannot afford to change over to biofuel on that basis alone. We need to grow fuel.
Hydrogen emits water. Fuel cells are not internal combustion engines, although there are hydrogen internal combustion engines. Fuels cells are not complicated technology and cound be deployed today. Amory Lovins wrote about how this might happen back in 1999.
Getting off Oil
Powerful Ways to Save and Replace Oil Have Been Quietly Emerging for 30 Years
https://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid151.php
James: "Even wind requires fuel to manufacture the generators, get them to the location, provide the vehicles to go service the generators and the fuel for that."
Temporary problem. As renewables gain ground, renewables will drive manufacturing. That, and what Lovins terms "negawatts," energy not used due to smart design.
My statement stands. You are going to use some form of energy to acquire hydrogen as hydrogen isn't available loosely in nature. I too, like the idea of converting to Hydrogen as soon as the technology and cost will allow.
I would say that an engine running on Hydrogen would probably emit nitrous oxide emission so they would have to be controlled but that is still an improvement and especially help get us away from Mideast oil!
Wind and solar. I've read that there's enough wind potential in two states, S. Dakota and Kansas, to provide half of the country's electrical load. Also, there's enough electric output from 100 square miles of solar panels to provide all of the nation's demand. Technology and potential exists. Infrastructure needs to be built.
James: "I would say that an engine running on Hydrogen would probably emit nitrous oxide emission...."
I've never heard that. Everything I've ever heard or read says that hydrogen emits water vapor.
I want you to register the name Amory Lovins. He is director of the Rocky Mountain Institute. I am hoping you will hear alot from him in the future, and if you are paying attention to how energy technology is developing in this country, I'm sure you will.
Again, he is interviewed here by Charile Rose:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/1/0719/59319
If hydrogen is used in an internal combustion engine, as it will for moving vehicles, when the combustion chamber reaches 2500 degrees it causes oxygen to combine with the natural nitrogen in the air to produce nitrous oxide emissions. These are controlled on todays engines by using a special catalytic converter.
It is true that when you combine (burn) hydrogen and oxygen you get water. It's the natural nitrogen that causes nitrous oxide to be a problem.
If the vehicle carried a tank of pure oxygen as well as a tank of hydrogen, then there would be no nitrogen involved but that is not going to happen because of cost, weight, room and the fact that it's not necessary.
I welcome any advances in hydrogen technology but I understand the best estimates out there are ten years away. There's lots of wind available. It's problem is that it is approximately 1/3 of the time and unpredictable. If you start trying to store it you're talking about millions of storage batteries with all the problems they entail.
Solar cells? Bring them on! I'm not aware of the costs or other potential negatives in this area but I'm sure there are. They do sound good.
I think hydrogen cars will likely use fuel cells, rather than internal combustion.
James: "I welcome any advances in hydrogen technology but I understand the best estimates out there are ten years away."
Yes, I've heard that for about the last 8 years. Technology already exists. So why aren't we seeing some of these cars on the market. Hybrids were introduced in 1999, and I was able to buy one in 2001. My guess is that oil interests have been defining our energy policy over the past 6 years. Bush committed about $3B to hydrogen technology, but compare that with $500B+ squandered on a war in the mideast "...to protect our vital national interest in the region."
James: "There's lots of wind available. It's problem is that it is approximately 1/3 of the time and unpredictable. "
Wind can be stored as hydrogen, as can solar. That precludes the need for millions of batteries. Hydrogen fuels fuel cells, and Lovins (linked above) calls for the transfer to a hydrogen economy via powering buildings with fuel cells. Once fuel cells are mass produced, prices come down, and they become economical for transporation.
Re: solar, again the key to affordable solar power is mass production. I think that we would have done much better to spend $500B in deploying a wind/solar/hydrogen infrastructure. It is not a matter of the technology being unavailable. It's a matter of priorities.
How can electricity be stored as Hydrogen? There's no Hydrogen going through the electric wires so where does it come from. And if there is Hydrogen then why not use it for other purposes. I've not heard of an effective storage system at this point in time unless you can describe the mechanism for turning electricity into Hydrogen.
I was not thinking in terms of cars, which can easily be electric powered, but rather trucks. I'm sure the internal combustion engine will continue to serve the over-the-road rigs for some time into the foreseeable future.
And I agree about priorities. We should be utilizing nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, tides, hydroelectric, drilling in the ANWR, ethanol, and any other source you can think of to get free from the Mideast oil. That is a matter of national security and economic security. We need a "Manhattan Project" for energy. This should have been done after the 1972 oil embargo and no president or congress has taken it seriously and set the process in motion to repair!
Electrolysis.
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html
James: "I was not thinking in terms of cars, which can easily be electric powered, but rather trucks."
I'm not sure there would be much of a difference. Even so, with hydrogen as fuel, hydrogen can be produced onsite, so that in itself eliminates the need to transport fuel over large distances. I think local production will limit how much OTR trucking will be needed. Even Walmart is making more of an effort to acquire locally produced produce. Also, this from the RFK, Jr. article below:
"Wal-Mart ..., which operates the nation's second-largest corporate truck fleet, also saved $22 million last year just by installing auxiliary power units that allow drivers to operate electric systems without idling their vehicles. In a move with even more far-reaching potential, Wal-Mart has ordered its truck suppliers to double the gas mileage of the company's entire fleet by 2015. When those trucks become available to other businesses, America will cut its demand for oil by six percent."
James: "We should be utilizing nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, tides, hydroelectric, drilling in the ANWR, ethanol, and any other source you can think of to get free from the Mideast oil."
No need for nuclear or drilling ANWR. Wind and solar, stored as hydrogen, is way more than sufficient to provide all of our energy needs.
"Aggressive action by the federal government could speed up our transition from oil faster than even the most optimistic predictions outlined by Lovins. If, for example, we made national investments in hydrogen fuels, which are more than twice as efficient as hydrocarbons, America could actually export energy from the Great Plains – the 'Saudi Arabia of wind.' The Dakotas alone have sufficient wind to make all the hydrogen necessary to run every car and truck on the road in America, at nearly triple the efficiency of gasoline. At the Napa Valley summit, business leaders watched a presentation by John Woolard of BrightSource Energy, which builds large-scale solar power plants. With a level playing field, he boasts, 'we'll be able to power the entire United States on less than one percent of our total land.'"
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15051506/
global_warming_a_real_solution/1
I absolutely agree!
James: "...and no president or congress has taken it seriously and set the process in motion to repair!"
I think Carter had begun a process to effect a change how we procure and use energy. This also from the RFK, Jr. article:
"Back in the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter attempted to level the playing field by creating incentives and minimal subsidies to jump-start clean fuels in the marketplace. But then Ronald Reagan took office and ordered the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof torn off. He rolled back fuel standards for automobiles, killed federal incentives that had given America a commanding lead in wind and solar power, and doubled our oil imports. Reagan's efforts fueled the current oil addiction that has us acting like a crack-house junkie rolling old ladies for drug money. Our jones for petrodrugs has not only superheated the planet, it has embroiled us in the Mesopotamian quagmire and made America a pariah among civilized nations, damaging the cause of democracy across the globe."
Very interesting! I'd forgotten that.
You bet! This video explains the whole process (8 minutes). They show converting hydrogen to electricity by internal combusion, but also say that fuel cells can be used for this - both on the grid and in our cars.
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen_video.html
I understand converting hydrogen to electricity by internal combustion. It's the fuel cell end of it is where the promise lies and that is what I understand is still ten years away. Fuel cells can also operate off of ethanol and other fuels.
It's not a technical problem. It's an infrastructure/economic problem. Fuels cells are not new, and they are relatively simple. But they are not currently mass produced, so are expensive. The same with solar. Infrastructure is initially expensive. It was the same with computers, which are much more complicated than fuel cells.
In 1999, Amory Lovins address the infrastructure/economic aspect of transferring our energy base to hydrogen. If you have time and inclination, this is very informative:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Trans/T99-07_StrategyH2Trans.pdf
How long does Lovins claim it would take to effect a total changeover? And how much research is still involved in getting our over-the-road shipping industry capable of doing it on either hydrogen or electricity. There's a big difference between shipping two people down the road in a vehicle and shipping massive amounts of freight, equipment, etc. And to the best of my knowledge, the research so far has been strictly on personal transportation.
Bear in mind also, that there is a tremendous economic factor in any changeover. I know I can't go out and buy a new car for different fuel even if fuel is $5.00 per gallon. And the trucking industry's investment is far greater. Building infrastructure alone is going to take years and that is after someone is committed to that being the way to go and having the resources to do so.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E04-21_FreeFromOil.pdf