Grant Goodman wanted to do his part to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. So two years ago, the Phoenix concrete producer began using biodiesel--made from refined soybean oil--to fuel his fleet of 130 diesel-powered cement mixers and excavators. For his efforts, Goodman in 2001 won a local entrepreneur of the year award and plaudits from the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). But protecting the Earth was not Goodman's only concern. "Let's start with national security--the billions and billions we waste dancing around the issue, protecting those pipelines, invading Iraq, doing whatever else we're doing in the Middle East. It all gets down to continuing the flow of oil to this country."

Goodman's stance hasn't been easy. Biodiesel fuel sold for 70 cents per gallon more than regular diesel fuel, giving competitors of his Rockland Materials a decided edge. "It cost me a few hundred grand," says Goodman. Those harsh economics forced him last year to resort to a petroleum mix including 40 percent or less of biodiesel. But don't count him out. He plans to build his own soybean oil refinery this year to help him return to 100 percent biodiesel. Goodman has urged other local businesses to make the switch, but as long as petroleum is cheaper, he says, "I'm this guy screaming in the wind."

Sure, in theory, everyone agrees the nation should break its 20 million-barrel-a-day oil habit, 58 percent of it imported. Last week, President Bush noted that "sometimes we import from countries that don't particularly like us. It jeopardizes our national security." Antiwar protesters, who argue that Iraq's massive oil reserves have made it a U.S. target, use sharper rhetoric. "No blood for oil!" they shouted at demonstrations at gasoline stations around the country last week. At the other end of the political spectrum, Martin Feldstein, who headed former President Reagan's panel of economic advisers, has argued that the United States should set a goal of complete oil independence by the year 2020. "Otherwise, we will continue to be hostage to the policies of the current and future rulers of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and their neighbors." And indeed, the jitters of potential war in the Middle East and political upheaval in Venezuela, the nation's fourth-largest oil supplier, have pushed up the price of gasoline for eight consecutive weeks. If global events turn awry, an oil price shock could, as has happened repeatedly in the past, tip the struggling economy back into recession.

Full article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=926&e=16&u=/usnews/20030210/ts_usnews/as_war_looms__the_search_for_new

Yeah, I read about this guy. Biodiesel: pretty interesting idea and doesn't cost ALL that much. I mean, Europeans pay more for their gasoline. The sad part is that this guy's suffering in his business because of his encouraging convictions.

I DO have a little criticism though. Basically, you get this fuel from soybeans, right? If you tried to run all of the United States' vehicles on this sort of fuel, I'd hate to hear how much more of our country would be covered with soybean farms.

I'm convinced the key to alleviating environmental troubles is cutting down on consumption; Any energy will have a price. (Let's start with SUVs and Pickups!)

Leper I agree with you on that point. Less waste of resources is the key to solve many of this planet's problems.

You can not start jumping on people that own suv's and pickups. There are just as many people that own 4 cylinder cars that waste fuel everyday. How about boats, jetski's, atv's, personal airplanes. The list can go on, to say that suvs and trucks are the problem is stupid. It's like comparing churches to bar rooms. Instead of jumping on people for what they own, maybe we should look at how our life styles are.

Hey, I'm all for reducing fuel consumption in all of those things. I just think SUVs are the flagships of the gas-guzzling commodities. They really are. If you add together all of the fuel that could be saved from driving more fuel-efficient vehicles and compare it to that you could save from "boats, jetski's, atv's, personal airplanes," I have no doubt you'll find vehicle-related fuel waste is a much larger slice of the fuel-wasting-junk pie.

blue sky hy-way (http://autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=coverstory&content_code=01247822&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=1003663&record=1)

What's the environmentalist's take on this?

How are farmers going to pull there horses, How about someome that lives up north in the country. They both need trucks and usually four wheel drive. Now lets take the person that has to drive everywere for pretty much nothing(he owns a yugo). Now tell me who is in the right. I believe that not everyone needs an suv or truck, but most of the people that have them do need them in one way or another. Yes they probably do drive to the store or other places, but maybe they can't afford another vehicle.

I still say it is wrong for the public to attack SUV's and PICKUPs.

You want to see a real waste of fuel check out our com. jets or how about cruise ships. They burn a heck of alot more fuel then any SUV or PU then I've ever seen, And that is on an everyday level. I can't believe people would think SUVs or PU's are anymore of a problem then some of the stuff they do them selfs. I think the bigger issue here is that people that don't like SUVs and PUs is because they're afraid of them. They can't drive them and they get scared when they are traveling down the road next to them.

Perhaps had they not purchased the SUV/PU in the first place, they'd have money for a more suitable vehicle.
Thirty years ago when that decade's oil crisis was happening, folks complained about "land yachts" ...the big American sedans. Buick Electra 225's, Cadillac Fleetwood's...500 cubic inch motors, gas hogs! Even the Ford Thunderbird was a monster machine. Nobody paid any attention to PU's, and SUV's really weren't popular yet. There were only a few SUV type vehicles made in the US, and most were purchased by the folks that really needed & used them. Those SUV's & PU's were rather primitive by today's standards---no leather, no fancy stereos, no DVDs, no power windows & locks, just a 4x4 PU or variation thereof. Back then, the SUV was still a Ford/Chevy/Pontiac/Dodge station wagon. Sure, it's great to have a vehicle that you can load a whole lot into, and still carry the family. Maybe we don't all need them. These new SUVs cost an awful lot, and generally they do get poor mileage. As a society, we do need to make changes in the way we consume petroleum products, if for no other reason than simple respect for the planet.

The cost of a jeep liberty on average is 18-21 thousand, now show me were that is more expensive then your average car. I can get a jeep cher. for around 23 still not very expensive. When I talk about SUV's I'm talking about all of them not just your most expensive ones. NICE TRY!!!

Even the lesser expensive get poor mileage. That's probably due to carrying the extra drivetrain, and other heavier duty parts that permit off-roading. When one figures in the extra cost of fuel, insurance, as well as upkeep, even the Liberty is more expensive than ...a Toyota Camry for example. A new Camry can be had for roughly 17, 5. Now a Camry won't tackle the Rubicon Trail, yet at the same time, well over 90% of the SUV/PU/4x4s sold lately never really get off the pavement.

Like I said before How are you going to tow with a toyota camry. I do realize there are people that have SUVs that don't need them. On the other hand they were invented because alot of people do need them.
While we're at it lets take away hair dryers people can just as easily dry there hair with a towel.
What about electric shavers?
how about microwave ovens?
The list can go on and on of stuff that people don't need in this world. Atleast with an SUV there are some people that need them.

Yes, but as es347 said, about 90% of SUVs are used by soccer moms who will never even touch the "4x4" button in their SUVs as long as they own one. And thus they likely wouldn't need to tow anything either. Most people drive SUVs because they're big, comfortable, and stylish. They're the "in" thing.

You're not going to tow much with a camry, that's for sure. Sometimes you've just got to have a truck. Some companies are experimenting with gas/electric drivetrains for SUV/PU/4x4 that would permit the same preformance and better fuel consumption rates. Eventually we'll have some new type of propulsion. May take 50 years or more to see significant changes in this country. Just changing over from Leaded to Unleaded took ....15 years?

Borghunter; I don't think it is 90% that is alittle steep. In my area SUVs are not the in thing, the people that own them need them. The in thing that alot of people in this area want are sports cars.

es347fan; I do agree we need a better type of fuel, right now our tech. isn't good enough to make a good 4by4 truck. I also believe it will take along time to invent something that not only works good, but is affordable for everyone. The biggest problem with electric is that the cars are so damned heavy. I want to know what happened to corn fuel. I saw a thing about it once and it looked like a good deal burned cleaner and added a few ponies under the hood. The last I heard they wouldn't allow it because of politics. Who knows??? Well you all have a good weekend.

I well remember corn fuel. Got very political, seems there was something about corn fuel that it was actually alcohol, or enough alcohol that the alcoholic beverage industry got irritated and did a bunch of lobbying. Haven't heard much in the last couple of years though.
Not sure where you're located, but I get really tired of seeing all these high dollar Rovers, 4x4 Ford Duallys, 4x4 Suburbans, Denalis, Navigators, and such being driven daily by individuals heading to the office. You never see them dirty unless it's raining right then. It's an image thing for sure.
The electric / petroleum hybrids are coming along pretty well, and doing so without an extra ton of batteries. They place a generator behind the motor and before the transmission to power electric motors at the wheels. Fairly impressive. Going to be a slow process.

es347fan I live way out in the woods, not much but loggers and farmers. I do agree when I see a big duall wheeled truck going to the office everyday it is frustrating, especially when you find out the person lives in a small house and really doesn't need that big of a vehicle. Like I said before you don't see it that much up here, but there are a few.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that remembers the corn fuel. I also agree we are closer to a better electric vehicle then we were 10-15 years ago.

mad dog, I lived in western NY for a while. one would be surprised to learn just how rural that can be, but it is. tons of snow, have seen snow on the ground from early Oct to April. now live near Atlanta. nothing but freeways, and you'd think they were giving Suburbans & such away by the numbers you see on the roads. yes, I drive a F150, this particular one since 12/88. also have an Olds coupe.
SUVs are just the current target. Manufacturers can do a whole lot to improve the mileage on those things. They'll just cost more.

es347fan, You need to come back up here to NY I live in the Adirondecks. If ya want I could send some snow your way [:D] It looks like we agree for the most part, I just hate ot see all SUV and truck owners attacked when they are all not to blame. I own a 48 willys that I'm restoring which won't see a hole lot of use, I quess you could say that is a waste. I'm also going to be buying a wrangler for myself and a cher. for my wife. I'm sick of being stuck, plus like I said we live in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes it's after 1100hrs. before they even get are road plowed.