Oil Alternatives!

[kikie]

This car drives on air. Air in and air out the exhaust!

air car: wikipedia

 

[Joey D]

To be quite honest I only scanned through the 12 pages of this thread.

I recently saw Who killed the electric car? and it reaffirms my comment at the beginning of this thread. (Post #8) I recommend you all watch it.

Why watch it? It's complete rubbish and makes it look like the oil companies and the government are out to screw everyone out of this wonderful technology...but the limited range batteries are not at fault. It's like a Michael Moore film about cars expect there are less fat people running around.

The government didn't kill the electric car, this is America, industry isn't controlled by the government, it's controlled be the private sector. This isn't Communist Russia.

GM didn't kill the electric car (ok it was the one that discontinued it), it wasn't a profitable thing for them to do. This was 1996, gas was about a $1.20 a gallon, there wasn't a need for electric cars at the time. The demand wasn't high for them and they were only really viable in California. If they would have sold the EV-1 in Michigan people would have laughed...hard too. Also it only had 2 seats and only a 100 mile range (which is probably over inflated, I would guess 60-75 is closer) which made it worthless for every day use as well.

Also the car looked like this...

and it was marketed through a Saturn dealership, people didn't want a mid 90's Saturn because they were rubbish.

The EV1 was a bad idea from the word go, if GM made it today it would be awesome and people would buy it, much like they will with the Volt, but when gas prices were only $1.20 a gallon with a booming economy you can't really expect people to buy something like the EV1.

This car drives on air. Air in and air out the exhaust!

air car: wikipedia

I posted that on the first page, but it's cool isn't it? People claim it's not possible because it defies physics or something because it uses the air engine to power a small compressor to power the engine...but they don't realise that it will eventually loose to much pressure and need to be refilled.

 

[V1P3R]

I figured someone would come in and make it not sound like a big deal and all... The point is not about the EV1 but about FUTURE of ALTERNATIVE FUELS. There were other cars involved like the Rav4 EV.

Btw, if you watched the vid they explain because GM was using Delco batts the EV1 was rubbish but when they used the batts. Ovshinsky had developed they actually worked like they were suppose to. GM had bought control of Ovshinsky's company and then sold it while an oil company bought it...

 

[Joey D]

So the future is really poorly made, short range electric cars that look like early 90's Saturns? Wow, I hate to see what the future has in store.

The future of alternative fuels is NOT plug in electric vehicles, at least in America. There are is a large group of American driver that commute well over 70 miles per day. A car with small range is pointless. These companies should be researching fuel cells, hydrogen, and even solar power before the research plug in electric cars.

Also one ever stopped and considered that plug in electric cars probably produce more pollution then a petrol car because they require electricity made with coal to go on down the road for a short time. So not only are they worthless, then aren't even green. Is is clear to you why the EV1 failed? Even GM said it should have put it's money into hybrids.

 

[V1P3R]

If the interest wasn't in how much of a profit could be made and more about SOLVING THE PROBLEM of our dependency on oil then we would already be on alternative fuels and wouldn't have to worry about the people that "travel far"... we would've already had the technological capabilites for it. Since government and car companies want to drag their feet we are still with out what they promised 10 years ago of having alternative means like hydrogen or electric. Again if you saw the film it would've told you that...

There are alternative energies that could've been perfected like wind, solar, etc. to take car of what's needed to power electric cars... again in the film...

 

[Joey D]

If the interest wasn't in profit but instead for the good of civilization we would be in a Communist society and not a Capitalist one. This is why you don't see the government or car companies pushing for it, there is no money to be made in it and since America and most of the western world practice some form of Capitalism you won't see stuff for the "good of the people". Like it or not it's pure economics and it makes sense.

I've seen bits and parts of the "documentary" and honestly I couldn't watch it because it was utter trash...like watching a Micheal Moore film.

 

[V1P3R]

Last time I checked there were all kinds of ways to do things for the good of society but still keep it capitalist... whatever though.

 

[Thirdeye]

I think with the Honda FCX coming out soon, that we might be heading in the right direction. It's definitely intriguing to me.

 

[GT4 genius]

http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/2425/

some news about the honda. Maybe fuel cells do make economic sense

 

[FoolKiller]

http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/2425/

some news about the honda. Maybe fuel cells do make economic sense

I saw an ad for this during Mythbusters last night and I was shocked because I didn't realize it was actually ready for production.

Of course, as the article notes, you have to find a place to fill it up.


I have one question about this: How flammable is the hydrogen you get at the pump? I ask because I know gasoline can be used by experimental kids (something I know a lot about) to make trouble and I wonder if the hydrogen would be any more dangerous. Plus, what kind of risk does it pose in an accident?

Another aspect is that without readily available fueling stations drivers may be tempted to keep some on hand. Is it extremely cold in its liquid form? Do you need a special container? And in the case of an accident can it create an even greater danger as it would be likely to spill when not in a proper fuel tank. Also, I know that liquid nitrogen can't be kept in something like say a plastic bottle because as it heats and evaporates the gas expands and so you have to have a vent for it. So does the car keep the hydrogen cold and do you have to have some kind of reinforced container for transporting any extra?

So many questions. I can only assume Honda has this worked out.

 

[Philly]

I'm not too sure everything in the article is feasible. The bit about producing hydrogen sounds to me a little like a perpetual motion machine with output, which, according to physics, isn't exactly possible.

I saw an ad for this during Mythbusters last night and I was shocked because I didn't realize it was actually ready for production.

Of course, as the article notes, you have to find a place to fill it up.

So now we have this car in Cali and the & in Europe. Interesting. I wonder how this will play out and how the Cali experiment will compare to the Cali electric cars.

I have one question about this: How flammable is the hydrogen you get at the pump? I ask because I know gasoline can be used by experimental kids (something I know a lot about) to make trouble and I wonder if the hydrogen would be any more dangerous. Plus, what kind of risk does it pose in an accident?

Hydrogen burns about 8 times faster than gasoline. But I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem given proper safety and reinforcement of the tank.

Another aspect is that without readily available fueling stations drivers may be tempted to keep some on hand. Is it extremely cold in its liquid form? Do you need a special container? And in the case of an accident can it create an even greater danger as it would be likely to spill when not in a proper fuel tank. Also, I know that liquid nitrogen can't be kept in something like say a plastic bottle because as it heats and evaporates the gas expands and so you have to have a vent for it. So does the car keep the hydrogen cold and do you have to have some kind of reinforced container for transporting any extra?

I would assume that hydrogen will need a special container, either kept cool or under pressure to keep the stuff in a usable state. And should any spill, my guess is that it will just evaporate quite quickly and disperse into the atmosphere. So flames wouldn't be much of an issue unless fire touches it between exiting the tank and a short while after.

 

[GT4 genius]

I have an article about a 7 series Hydrogen car on the page before this which answers alot of ur questions. I'am on my PS3 and can't move it. U should see it.
With regard to popetual motion it isn't. E nergy comes from the sun it evaporates water and it rains on a hill a dam then gets the energy which can be used to produce hydroden by electoralysis. There is other ways also.

 

[FoolKiller]

I have an article about a 7 series Hydrogen car on the page before this which answers alot of ur questions. I'am on my PS3 and can't move it. U should see it.

Found it, and I read it before, but I think I stopped before reaching the part about the hydrogen safety. I was just curious about the car, but since it isn't being put into production I didn't think too much about it.

So, the onboard storage tank seems safe enough and it appears that any spillage evaporates and rises so quickly that if it did catch fire it would be over in seconds.

It's all curious, but I still can't wait to see the first guy that tries to put some in a traditional 5 gallon gas tank.



And while they talked about sensors and bleed-off systems that keep the gas pressure from evaporation at a safe point (which the pressure is what pushes it to the engine, so no fuel pump - awesome) does that mean that if you let your car sit long enough it will go empty? This brings back the portable storage question, because I don't want to go on vacation and return home to find my car won't start. I wonder if all of these will have a secondary gasoline tank.

 

[GT4 genius]

I dont think it would loose pressure whilst sitting there, also it should be impossible for someone to accidentally or even try to pour any hydrogen into open air. This will ofcourse make the infrastructure extemely dear but it will probably be heavily grant aided and will be seen as morally right regardless of price.

 

[Philly]

With regard to popetual motion it isn't. E nergy comes from the sun it evaporates water and it rains on a hill a dam then gets the energy which can be used to produce hydroden by electoralysis. There is other ways also.

Just clarifying. It just seemed from the article that they were trying to get electricity from the hydrogen that they produced through electrolysis. I do know about the whole scheme that has been outlined here and everywhere else that involves using renewables to create the hydrogen.

And while they talked about sensors and bleed-off systems that keep the gas pressure from evaporation at a safe point (which the pressure is what pushes it to the engine, so no fuel pump - awesome) does that mean that if you let your car sit long enough it will go empty? This brings back the portable storage question, because I don't want to go on vacation and return home to find my car won't start. I wonder if all of these will have a secondary gasoline tank.

I'm sure that we know of materials that can hold the stuff quite well. The thing I would worry about is seals. I do not know how the hydrogen would react with a seal to weaken it or if we can make seals that can hold it in such conditions for extended periods of time.

And as for the construction of an infrastructure, I think you are right that the government will have to get involved. No way are companies like BP going to put a lot of cash toward in unless there was an obvious and quick payback that would give them more out of it.

 

[GT4 genius]

Maybe some companies might use it as good PR, like shell have a hydro devision, but i dont think it has ever actually had any huge advances! It is more of just a PR stunt. So if large companies like shell see that although the might loose money shorterm directly they'd gain it in other areas. Also the earlier the get involved the bigger there share of the market when it becomes big.

 

[MustangSVT]

As far as I know, we still have enough oil to last us another 60 or so years. Someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not totally sure on this.

 

[Philly]

Maybe some companies might use it as good PR, like shell have a hydro devision, but i dont think it has ever actually had any huge advances! It is more of just a PR stunt. So if large companies like shell see that although the might loose money shorterm directly they'd gain it in other areas. Also the earlier the get involved the bigger there share of the market when it becomes big.

Because the companies are just doing it for PR, that pretty much means that hydrogen set ups will be few and far between until somebody takes a big next step and actually start to show interest in the market. Even then, whoever actually makes their first investments will have to prove that the market will succeed in order for other companies to take bets.

The way I see it, the Honda experiment could very well kill hydrogen because I would say that there is no need for it yet and being too early is what killed the EV-1. But then again, the Prius is selling well after the Insight didn't end up as a huge success....

As far as I know, we still have enough oil to last us another 60 or so years. Someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not totally sure on this.

I have heard shorter estimates such as 30 years, but nobody really knows for sure. Who knows what new drilling technology will do.

 

[GT4 genius]

As far as I know, we still have enough oil to last us another 60 or so years. Someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not totally sure on this.

That maybe true but prices would go through the roof before we got to even 30 yrs. A week ago some report came out, in ireland i think, and it said that there may be oil restrictions by 2015, which seems unlikely now, but 10yrs ago did you think oil would go above $100 a barrel!!

 

[Philly]

That maybe true but prices would go through the roof before we got to even 30 yrs. A week ago some report came out, in ireland i think, and it said that there may be oil restrictions by 2015, which seems unlikely now, but 10yrs ago did you think oil would go above $100 a barrel!!

That is true. It makes me question whether or not we are taking into account China and India's usage in the future. The developed world will probably be facing some pretty stiff competition for the stuff quite soon. And I'm sure China will be much more willing to pay the difference because it really is playing a huge roll in their economy, and they probably have enough dough to pay for it anyway.

 

[GT4 genius]

This may or may not be true, i heard it on the same RTE report, that we are everyday consuming more barrels of oil then we are digging up. Peak oil, no not yet, OPEC and other oil groups say they can dig up more if they want, but is that just a cover up!!

 

[FoolKiller]

I dont think it would loose pressure whilst sitting there, also it should be impossible for someone to accidentally or even try to pour any hydrogen into open air. This will ofcourse make the infrastructure extemely dear but it will probably be heavily grant aided and will be seen as morally right regardless of price.

I'm not worried about loss of pressure, rather building up pressure from natural evaporation, which occurs just by sitting. I know they say the insulation would keep a block of ice for 13 years, but the hydrogen is evaporating fast enough to create enough pressure to eliminate a fuel pump. It seems to me (and I can be wrong) that once it reached maximum tolerance you would lose it as fast as if you had a leaking fuel line for gasoline.

Just clarifying. It just seemed from the article that they were trying to get electricity from the hydrogen that they produced through electrolysis. I do know about the whole scheme that has been outlined here and everywhere else that involves using renewables to create the hydrogen.

They weren't talking about electricity being released from the hydrogen, although their wording was a bit odd, rather they were talking about using it to burn in a plant to create more electricity. There would be a definite loss, to a degree that they were talking about using solar or wind power to create the electricity to create the hydrogen, and then using the hydrogen to fire a power plant. And if necessary that electricity can be recycled to help in hydrogen production.

Of course there is loss, since there is a waste byproduct (water vapor) in burning hydrogen, so it is not perpetual. So if you tried to make hydrogen using only a hydrogen fueled power plant for electricity you would eventually run out. You could argue that the water vapor can be re-harnessed, but even that will use some energy and re-harnessing it means it must lose its heat energy to become liquid again.

What I picture is a power plant burning hydrogen to run the turbines. On that property is a reservoir for heating into steam to turn the turbines and then it is piped through a cooling system, essentially distilling it, and then it is run into a tank where it is used to make hydrogen from electricity created by a wind farm and/or solar panels also on the property. It is a clean system which starts by using power garnered by the wind and/or sun.

I'm sure that we know of materials that can hold the stuff quite well. The thing I would worry about is seals. I do not know how the hydrogen would react with a seal to weaken it or if we can make seals that can hold it in such conditions for extended periods of time.

This has always been the major issue with a hydrogen powered car. Water corrodes, which means we have to use something resistant to water corrosion that can also withstand the heat of combustion. Off the top of my head stainless steel and titanium come to mind. Both are expensive and stainless steel is cheaper but adds weight. The consumer will swallow this cost.

I believe that ceramic seals will work fine as the water exhaust will be hot and so it won't react the same way getting water on your spark plugs do in a gas powered car now. No cracking. Or possibly something silicone based.

And as for the construction of an infrastructure, I think you are right that the government will have to get involved. No way are companies like BP going to put a lot of cash toward in unless there was an obvious and quick payback that would give them more out of it.

I would rather government didn't get involved because any taxes issued will not go away once corporations take over. One option I could see is a mandate, much like the way they did with HDTVs. The US government ordered companies to have an HD standard by 2006. That got bumped back after it became obvious that replacing the entire broadcast infrastructure in that time wasn't possible, but it is still going to happen in about five years. Doing something like that would be an option, but I still don't like it.

Using another communications example: AT&T (the original Ma Bell, not what we have now) didn't pay taxes for about 20 years because they spent so much to improve and increase the communications infrastructure every year. Offering an incentive to companies like BP for adding hydrogen to a certain percentage of their current stations every year is the most favorable option. I would rather see government encouragement rather than involvement. The government wouldn't be spending any more than if they built it themselves, but they would be making it happen from a much more efficient entity and it would be incorporated into the current infrastructure instead of having a hydrogen station put in next to every gas station.

As far as I know, we still have enough oil to last us another 60 or so years. Someone correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm not totally sure on this.

60? Well considering that we only had 5, maybe 10, years in the seventies oil reserves must be growing. Don't fall for the peak oil scare. They've been going on for over 30 years now and every time they are shown to be wrong they just rework their predictions.

It makes me question whether or not we are taking into account China and India's usage in the future. The developed world will probably be facing some pretty stiff competition for the stuff quite soon. And I'm sure China will be much more willing to pay the difference because it really is playing a huge roll in their economy, and they probably have enough dough to pay for it anyway.

This is the true issue with oil. World economic factors are causing price hikes (among other things) because demand is dramatically increasing. I have never given a second though to the environment but have always wanted an oil alternative so that we can control our own supply and stabilize the market. Let India and China work with the Middle East and deal with their economies being reliant on a region that has been at war for millenia. Plus, if we can get out of the oil market then it creates a larger, cheaper supply for developing nations in places like Africa.

 

[Philly]

They weren't talking about electricity being released from the hydrogen, although their wording was a bit odd, rather they were talking about using it to burn in a plant to create more electricity. There would be a definite loss, to a degree that they were talking about using solar or wind power to create the electricity to create the hydrogen, and then using the hydrogen to fire a power plant. And if necessary that electricity can be recycled to help in hydrogen production.

Of course there is loss, since there is a waste byproduct (water vapor) in burning hydrogen, so it is not perpetual. So if you tried to make hydrogen using only a hydrogen fueled power plant for electricity you would eventually run out. You could argue that the water vapor can be re-harnessed, but even that will use some energy and re-harnessing it means it must lose its heat energy to become liquid again.

What I picture is a power plant burning hydrogen to run the turbines. On that property is a reservoir for heating into steam to turn the turbines and then it is piped through a cooling system, essentially distilling it, and then it is run into a tank where it is used to make hydrogen from electricity created by a wind farm and/or solar panels also on the property. It is a clean system which starts by using power garnered by the wind and/or sun.

Why? You have electricity, and you use it to make the hydrogen. That hydrogen does not contain as much energy as you put into it. And then turning that back into electricity where you get even less than the hydrogen contained? Why bother going through the trouble of hauling it around and dealing with the energy losses when you can easily use the electricity generated from the first source? I'm totally confused on this one.

This has always been the major issue with a hydrogen powered car. Water corrodes, which means we have to use something resistant to water corrosion that can also withstand the heat of combustion. Off the top of my head stainless steel and titanium come to mind. Both are expensive and stainless steel is cheaper but adds weight. The consumer will swallow this cost.

There are probably alloys out there that would work reasonably well, although they might not make the best engine materials. Is there a way to make a type of coating or sealant that can prevent the corrosion?

I would rather government didn't get involved because any taxes issued will not go away once corporations take over. One option I could see is a mandate, much like the way they did with HDTVs. The US government ordered companies to have an HD standard by 2006. That got bumped back after it became obvious that replacing the entire broadcast infrastructure in that time wasn't possible, but it is still going to happen in about five years. Doing something like that would be an option, but I still don't like it.

Using another communications example: AT&T (the original Ma Bell, not what we have now) didn't pay taxes for about 20 years because they spent so much to improve and increase the communications infrastructure every year. Offering an incentive to companies like BP for adding hydrogen to a certain percentage of their current stations every year is the most favorable option. I would rather see government encouragement rather than involvement. The government wouldn't be spending any more than if they built it themselves, but they would be making it happen from a much more efficient entity and it would be incorporated into the current infrastructure instead of having a hydrogen station put in next to every gas station.

That actually sounds like a very good solution. I still think the government will have to provide the incentive, but if the companies can do it in some way, then I'm good with that.

This is the true issue with oil. World economic factors are causing price hikes (among other things) because demand is dramatically increasing. I have never given a second though to the environment but have always wanted an oil alternative so that we can control our own supply and stabilize the market. Let India and China work with the Middle East and deal with their economies being reliant on a region that has been at war for millenia. Plus, if we can get out of the oil market then it creates a larger, cheaper supply for developing nations in places like Africa.

We have been pretty involved in the Middle East for quite some time, with little trouble outside Iraqi politics and fallout from the Soviet era. I don't quite see how giving our "troubles" to China and India is such a point. Unless you were mentioning the problems that those two would definitely bring to the region.

 

[GT4 genius]

Just to clarify. Electrical energy can be used in the from of electrolosys to create hydrogen. There is also another natural gas method, but i dont know much about it but it is suppose to be more efficient.
There is several benefits to hydrogen than electrically powered cars
It takes longer for batteries to charge than it would to fill a tank. Also batteries would not bring you as far as far as a full tank of fuel. And the last one i can think of is that you still have the real sound of an internal combustion engine, although not if you use fuel cells.

 

[Philly]

It takes longer for batteries to charge than it would to fill a tank. Also batteries would not bring you as far as far as a full tank of fuel. And the last one i can think of is that you still have the real sound of an internal combustion engine, although not if you use fuel cells.

Sort of. New transistor technology enables objects to charge and discharge electricity almost instantly. I think that this would still be a few years out though. And maybe with that technology, we might be able to have an electric car go farther than a gasoline one.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why? You have electricity, and you use it to make the hydrogen. That hydrogen does not contain as much energy as you put into it. And then turning that back into electricity where you get even less than the hydrogen contained? Why bother going through the trouble of hauling it around and dealing with the energy losses when you can easily use the electricity generated from the first source? I'm totally confused on this one.

I see what you are saying and I was just basing my thoughts on what they were describing in the article of using solar and wind to produce hydrogen.

Honestly, I can't see hydrogen production being efficient enough to power plants.

There are probably alloys out there that would work reasonably well, although they might not make the best engine materials. Is there a way to make a type of coating or sealant that can prevent the corrosion?

You've got me there. The corrosion issue has always been the biggest issue in engineering a hydrogen powered combustion engine.

That actually sounds like a very good solution. I still think the government will have to provide the incentive, but if the companies can do it in some way, then I'm good with that.

Well, I meant government granting incentives. They already grant incentives for companies that work to create more efficient vehicles, and hybrid owners are given tax cuts in some places. My only problem is what you can call an incentive to efficient peopel can be translated to a gas guzzler tax the other way. I am opposed to taxing someone for not living by the personal standards of the ruling political party. If it is approached in a way that grants it for moving technologically forward then it works but if you do it as a reward for being "good corporate citizens" I think it is imposing moral standards. It has to be aimed at the technology growth and not the environmental aspect.

We have been pretty involved in the Middle East for quite some time, with little trouble outside Iraqi politics and fallout from the Soviet era. I don't quite see how giving our "troubles" to China and India is such a point. Unless you were mentioning the problems that those two would definitely bring to the region.

If it weren't for oil our foreign relations wouldn't be so close and we wouldn't feel obligated to help prevent the instability unless it involved Israel. If you want proof look at how many much worse human rights issues we ignore in African nations. We aren't fighting for oil, but we are fighting for stability because their stability is directly tied to our economic well being.

That sounds confusing. Our main goal is not to take their oil, rather it is to protect our friends. But you have to ask why are they our friends.

 

[Philly]

Reading up on the H7 answers your question about the loss of fuel. The tank starts to boil off unused fuel after one day, and as a result you will lose half of your tank in 8 days.

You've got me there. The corrosion issue has always been the biggest issue in engineering a hydrogen powered combustion engine.

Apparently BMW has it figured out. I didn't really find anything on that though.

Well, I meant government granting incentives. They already grant incentives for companies that work to create more efficient vehicles, and hybrid owners are given tax cuts in some places. My only problem is what you can call an incentive to efficient peopel can be translated to a gas guzzler tax the other way. I am opposed to taxing someone for not living by the personal standards of the ruling political party. If it is approached in a way that grants it for moving technologically forward then it works but if you do it as a reward for being "good corporate citizens" I think it is imposing moral standards. It has to be aimed at the technology growth and not the environmental aspect.

I think I got what you were saying the first time but I would also say that the situations like gas guzzler tax are perfectly fine as well. It is a democracy. The government's actions should reflect what the people want anyway.

If it weren't for oil our foreign relations wouldn't be so close and we wouldn't feel obligated to help prevent the instability unless it involved Israel. If you want proof look at how many much worse human rights issues we ignore in African nations. We aren't fighting for oil, but we are fighting for stability because their stability is directly tied to our economic well being.

That sounds confusing. Our main goal is not to take their oil, rather it is to protect our friends. But you have to ask why are they our friends.

So in the end it is all for oil

 

[FoolKiller]

So in the end it is all for oil

Well, that is like saying that you jump in a fight to help a guy you like because he lets you come over and play video games. You didn't get into the fight for video games, but because he's your buddy. He's your buddy because you all hang out and play video games, but when you jump into the fight you don't even think about the video games.

 

[Philly]

Well, that is like saying that you jump in a fight to help a guy you like because he lets you come over and play video games. You didn't get into the fight for video games, but because he's your buddy. He's your buddy because you all hang out and play video games, but when you jump into the fight you don't even think about the video games.

I think you have a solid point, but in reality, do we get anything out of our relationship with the Middle East other than oil? Really, if you were only friends with the dude because you played video games, that would be a pretty lame friendship. But with the fight, you just see somebody you call a friend and think about all the politics behind losing the games and whatnot. With a country, we have the time to sit back and look at what will happen if we are not involved with our "friends'" wars. And we will often decide to not join a war which threatens our friends because we would simply have little to gain from it. We didn't join either world war as soon as France and England got into it.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you have a solid point, but in reality, do we get anything out of our relationship with the Middle East other than oil? Really, if you were only friends with the dude because you played video games, that would be a pretty lame friendship. But with the fight, you just see somebody you call a friend and think about all the politics behind losing the games and whatnot. With a country, we have the time to sit back and look at what will happen if we are not involved with our "friends'" wars. And we will often decide to not join a war which threatens our friends because we would simply have little to gain from it. We didn't join either world war as soon as France and England got into it.

Nope, we waited until we got attacked.....oh wait.

Current war, not about oil. General hands on approach to the Middle East, about stability and protecting the international infrastructure, aka oil.

Personally, I think it will cost us less to kill some caribou and drill Alaska.