Hydrocarbons created by energy from renewables or thorium LFTR power, using atmospheric CO2 (or coal) and water.

You're welcome.

I was lucky enough to find a new gig that utilizes unix sysadmin analytical skills in a different context. While it's still ops (more like app admin), it involves profiting on low latencies and proximity to certain data exchanges. And they're (insanely) profitable, but when systems aren't working properly the impact on profitability is pretty instant, and outages can involve pretty large losses pretty quickly. So.. No on-call, very little outsourcing risk, respect for operations team, technical and logical rigor in decision making, and actual bonuses. Can't complain!

ps: no state income tax neither. And rent for a detached cozy house with a garage and yard for less than 25% of take-home.

There's no amount of conservation that will offset 3+ billion people living an adequately-powered lifestyle. And it is immoral to ask them to do so. LFTRs have the potential of generating all the power everyone on Earth will ever need for hundreds of years using stuff that's currently considered toxic waste, along with medically and industrially useful fission products, and generate far less waste of far shorter half-lives. Plus, LFTRs are inherently fail-safe and self-regulatory. The only haters are folks ignorant of the facts, religious Greentards, or self-interested rent-seekers in the legacy uranium fission industrial complex.

I won't mod you down, I'll just say you're delusional if you think any democracy or republic will accept a lower-quality lifestyle voluntarily.

Too bad research, development, licensing and implementation aren't states-rights issues, at least for non-weaponizable processes. For example, rebuilding the ORNL reactor from 1960s plans in, say, Texas, should be doable as long as there's no crossing of state lines.. The beauty of statism in effect!!

So... Colo glut?

EOM

Diesel is tax-advantaged in Europe so our diesel is shipped there to fetch a better price (more demand). The US in fact is shipping an awful lot of refined petroleum products, and IIRC is at or near the top of export revenues:

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/12/02/fuel-exports-up-and-so-is-the-cost-at-the-pump/

I find this highly unlikely. You're probably talking about E10 or E15, which are mandated in many localities for what they claim are environmental purposes, but are largely sops to the corn lobby (or sold to well-meaning useful idiots as envirogoodness).

... You can more easily mod the stock FI mapping without having to replace with higher-flow injectors due to their already being enlarged to handle the less-energy-dense ethanol. So, if you have a flexfuel vehicle that you want to, say, drop forced compression into, you may not need to replace the stock injectors or fuel pumps to increase fuel delivery. I would think that flexfuel Corvettes would be an awfully good platform for such mods, with LS blocks that already have an ecosystem of mods.

Also, as ethanol is more corrosive to gaskets and lines than gasoline, those parts are more robust and longer-lasting than those in traditional fuel lines and couplings.

Additionally, there are ways of producing ethanol that don't involve burning food, and perhaps methanol would also be usable in such a vehicle. Methanol can be generated by atmospheric CO2, water, and a power/heat source such as solar or thorium LFTR. Me, I'd rather see a flexfuel SOFC or on-vehicle reformulator plus fuel cell that would enable the use of liquid hydrocarbons to be more efficiently converted into power to drive an electrified powertrain. HC fuels are very good at carrying lots of H2 at STP reasonably safely, there's an infrastructure already in place to support it, and if we can get tank-to-wheel efficiency to the ~50-60% range instead of ~20-30% (or lower) then it'd be a big win.