It makes perfect sense. Your ability to express yourself clearly and accurately should reflect your knowledge on the subject. If one repeatedly misstates facts and provides inaccurate information, the readers may start to doubt that poster's credibiltiy.
Credibility has absolutely NOTHING to do with "qualifications". You can repeat facts all day long but that doesn't make you qualified to talk about it.
Until a technological leap was made in hydraulic fractionation (in the late -'40s and early '50s), and major improvements in horizontal drilling capabilities (late 1990's).
I never said the technology developments that allowed Barnett Shale gas reserves to be tapped solves all our problems.
My point was that until recently, while possible, it wasn't economically viable to pull that stuff out of the ground. Just like it really isn't economically viable to have biofuels replace fossil fuels right now. There might at some point be an economic situation where biofuels may be cost effective for people, likely people who have the raw materials in the first place (farmers?), but it's not likely to make fuel any cheaper.
My bad. I interpreted that to mean that you don't like biofuels. :skeptical:
I don't like biofuels as a solution to our nations energy needs. I have no fundamental problem with them, other than too many people look at them like they're going to solve our problems, when they mostly are just delaying the inevitable.
Again how do you know this? What information do you have that can postively tell you that large scale biodiesel production will not be viable in the future?
Outside of the US, Exxon, BP, and other are involved in biodiesel already. A little Google searching will show you that.
In the US, Chevron markets BioDiesel:
Chevron Products: Our Fuels: Bio Fuels
Shell is jumping in as well...
Bloomberg.com: U.K. & Ireland
Chevron is investing in technology, not investing in manufacturing. They are also investing in geothermal, solar, hydrogen, fuel cells and everything else in hopes that something pans out.
Shell is hoping, in 20 years, that biodiesel will comprise just 7 percent of the transport fuel market according to that link. That means that 93% of transport fuel will still be from fossil fuels in 20 years. Is that honestly worth it?
Being involved in research is a far, far cry from actually building capacity to reap the benefits.
Who claimed that it could? Since people have only really been seriously considering large scale biodiesel for maybe the past 10-15 years, why would you expect biodeisel to to solve the worlds energy problems?
I don't. Other people often do. The problem is that worldwide consumption of fossil fuels is increasing and shows no signs of slowing. Costs and prices probably aren't going to come down significantly, and biofuels aren't going to make a significant impact on that for most people, unless they begin to comprise the majority of the fuel supply.
The only real answer in the long run is to reduce fossil fuel consumption if we want to keep the economy healthy. It means more efficient vehicles and technology and maybe some lifestyle changes for people. Lifestyle changes aren't going to be forced on people by the government, but they will likely be forced on them by the economic realities of the world we live in. I tend to believe that most of those things will be positive, especially for urban areas.
