If the U.S. found some sort of fuel that replaces oil, and much cleaner and efficient, thus, they completely and totally stopped buying petrol from foreign coutries. What would happen?

Hell would freeze over?
[double meanings ftw]

it never would happen. the oil companies would whine and complain too much.

.

The dollar would become stronger against other currences. I think.

The air would become clean and conservatives everywhere would cry out in agony.

No. There is too much profit in oil.

The oil companies would kill as many people as neccessary to keep it from becoming public knowlege

The oil companies will buy out all knowledge of such a thing, wait for the oil to run out, and then create the alternative under their names so they don't lose any power or position.

The world economy would collapse overnight and we would be reduced to a virtual stone age. There's a ton of money tied up in oil interests and companies, and a lot of countries are absurdly dependent upon oil exportation. A sharp decline in the value of oil would be like hitting the proverbial 'RESET' button.

"Mommy, Mommy, where's the reset button?" - Kid on GTA3

Never forget that.

Even if we switched to alternate sources of fuel, petroleum would still be important due to our dependence on plastics. However, petroleum would probably become less profitable, and definitely last a lot longer. If money stopped flowing from us to the Middle East, countries like Saudi Arabia would likely undergo revolution, possibly producing an Islamic state of some sort. Democracy will probably begin functioning in the formerly oil-rich autocratic states of the region, but we may not be pleased with the results. However, hate toward us may wane with our involvement in propping up the region's monarchs.

I posted a thread about hemp biodisel the other day...

Just like how if all issues concerning racism, sexism, homosexuals, and poverty were fixed, the liberals would cry out in agony?

...what?

You got something backwards there, Savage. Remember, conservatives like polution, while liberals don't like bigotry (unlike conservatives.)

I think it's in the US' best interest to discover more alternative energy sources. The only real reason the dollar holds value is because oil transactions around the world are done in it. If another country discovers a better energy source we'd probably lose that and the dollar would collapse.

And evolution! Dr. Dino says so!

Then I suppose more people would enjoy burning rubber without worrying about costs or filthyness.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]You got something backwards there, Savage. Remember, conservatives like polution, while liberals don't like bigotry (unlike conservatives.)[/QUOTE]

No, you're thinking of it the wrong way--if they were solved from his perspective the liberals would cry out in agony

...or they'd start selling the cheaper stuff for a bigger profit margin?

Or we can start mining the Rockies, and actually sell oil to the rest of the world after taking care of ourselves

People would shift their blame to the producers of the new fuel source for the high fuel costs.

[QUOTE=Vincent Valentine]You got something backwards there, Savage. Remember, conservatives like polution, while liberals don't like bigotry (unlike conservatives.)[/QUOTE]

Yes, but they'd no longer have causes to "champion" to make themselves appealing to minorities.

But that would be more comparable to the conservative reaction if there was no more premarital sex, drug use, divorce, atheism, public works, etc.

SavageX should have said if flag-burning, gay marriages, and evolution were banned.

Such a fuel already exists its made of [@#$@#$@#]

** Nothing to see here. move on

It's a good thing we just discovered 2 trillion barrels of oil under U.S. soil and a metric pantload of methane.

But there wouldn't be a sharp decline. The compatible technology that converts the fuel would have to be developed, created and pushed out into the market. Do you think any businessman with half a brain would sell this technology at a discounted price to that of conventional oil/gas consuming technology? It would be just like when any other new technology comes out. DVD players anyone? So, no, it would take at least 10 years (if not longer based on the current state of the US economy) for the US to completely 'wing' itself of oil for gasoline (NOTE: We'd still import oil for it's other uses...we just wouldn't have to import as much of it).

In short, however, the US isn't going to 'find' a new replacement for oil. We might create it in a lab, but that's way to expensive. Your best bet is innovative technology such as the hydrogen technology that they're still playing with. Here again, you wouldn't have to worry about the 'Doomsday' "RESET" senerio that Jon'C assumes. The technology would be filtered out slowly...if for no other reason then for that economic reason alone. If there's nothing else you can be sure of, it's that ANY type of energy source is going to be regulated by the Federal Government. No exceptions.

<insert> Global Dimming

I agree with CaptBevvil. It's simply a matter of economics. When hydrogen becomes cheaper than oil, we'll see hydrogen technology slowly encroach upon the market. A little while longer, and hydrogen will be standard. This won't happen until oil starts costing more than hydrogen.

The problem is, hydrogen doesn't occur in large quantities here on earth. It would have to be split from water, which takes a lot of energy in itself. There are currently two schools of thought on how to do this on a large enough scale to meet America's transportation needs. The first is to create a few huge nuclear facilities solely devoted to doing it, and the other is to equip every gas station (or maybe even automobile) with the technology to do the same thing on a smaller scale.

Both are viable, but both cost more than $3.00/gallon, unlike oil. That's why we use oil. No, the economy won't crash. We'll just be devoting more of our budgest toward transportation (or if you're smart, you'll start bicycle commuting ).

Umm...A hydrogen car is the last thing I'd drive. Crash=kaboom

Ummmm...hydrogen cells are made so crash != kaboom

I still don't trust hydrogen.

I think he means using hydrogen as engine fuel, not something to air the car up with.

Why is it they everyone is conentrating on only ONE new efficient energy source. Why not use a series. Such as a hydrogen, solar powered, and gas car. 3 in 1 any one?

Because three times material inefficiency is equal to a greater amount of material inefficiency.

Capitalism!!!1
To get ahead of the other guy. Whoever does it first gets the money along with "mad props" which can be very powerful in the auto industry. See "Halo Car."

I heard Mazda could be making hydrogen cars in about a decade or less.