rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
mirage62 0
Quote
When we as a nation put our mind to something (Apollo, the Manhattan Project) we can accomplish a lot. We no longer have the will. It would take a threat far scarier than $5 a gallon gas to make us take the problem seriously.
The following is a re-post of an idea that I mention awhile back but it didn't get much traction....trying again.
With Gates/Buffet money say 1 billion to the group that solves X that relates to renewable energy and a public campain, could we move this forward? I believe so. Bill's right short of REAL pain we seem to lack the drive to do much. We are fighting wars, people are dying and to a large degree it's for cheap oil.
I can't understand why (other than as long as oil remains "cheap" we have zero will power) we aren't busting our ass to end this. We are never going to be free of influence of other countries as long as we HAVE to have there oil.
If as the "dream solution" we created a source that drove the price of oil into the dirt - or sand as the case may be - there would be the problems that would cause in the middle east. Oil at $15.00 a barrel is going to piss a lot of people off........
Call me silly but I still believe that we can solve this problem and still tow our boats and jump out of airplanes. We just need leadership. Keep in mind that both parties have been in power and done nothing. Come on Gates!!!
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little
Zipp0 1
Quote
Still not seeing how any of this would reduce the price of gas. Not saying it's a bad thing, just don't think the increase in CAFE will reduce fule prices.
Are you kidding? If we mandated 50 mpg average fuel economy for 2010 gas would be 25/bbl TOMORROW.
AND we would need no foreign oil.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuote
Still not seeing how any of this would reduce the price of gas. Not saying it's a bad thing, just don't think the increase in CAFE will reduce fule prices.
Are you kidding? If we mandated 50 mpg average fuel economy for 2010 gas would be 25/bbl TOMORROW.
AND we would need no foreign oil.
This is quite an assertion!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Zipp0 1
QuoteQuoteQuote
Still not seeing how any of this would reduce the price of gas. Not saying it's a bad thing, just don't think the increase in CAFE will reduce fule prices.
Are you kidding? If we mandated 50 mpg average fuel economy for 2010 gas would be 25/bbl TOMORROW.
AND we would need no foreign oil.
This is quite an assertion!
And a correct one, too.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteWhen we as a nation put our mind to something (Apollo, the Manhattan Project) we can accomplish a lot. We no longer have the will. It would take a threat far scarier than $5 a gallon gas to make us take the problem seriously.
What do you think about refocusing the Dept of Energy laboratories to focus on alternative energies across the spectrum? The common mantra that I’ve heard is that they’ve “lost their mission.” Let’s give ‘em a new one! Instead of fighting over who’s going to design the RRW or trying to be DHS or DoD labs.
QuoteThere will come a day (say, when we are at war with China) where the survival of our nation will depend on having those reserves available.
We also get a lot more that’s part of our 21st century society from petroleum than just oil and gas to burn up in combustion: solvents, inks, lubricants, paraffin wax, petroleum jelly (used in medical products) sometimes blended with paraffin wax in medical products, asphalt, petroleum coke (used for carbon and graphite products, such electrodes, anodes, and liners), chemical feedstock (used for plastics, pharmaceuticals, etc.)
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
billvon 3,090
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>This is quite an assertion!
Not too far of one. If we got to 50mpg average we would be independent of foreign oil (if we chose to be) and oil futures are dependent on projected (not current) demand.
Not too far of one. If we got to 50mpg average we would be independent of foreign oil (if we chose to be) and oil futures are dependent on projected (not current) demand.
billvon 3,090
>What do you think about refocusing the Dept of Energy laboratories
>to focus on alternative energies across the spectrum?
That would be great; it would take a Manhattan project level effort, but is certainly doable. That project was supportable during the 1940's because of tremendous popular support for the war and a feeling that our national survival was at stake.
Nowadays it would not be seen as part of any war, and indeed well-funded industry groups would claim it was all a conspiracy of the global warming alarmists to make us poor etc etc. I can't see it getting the support it would need to make a significant dent (although it would be great if it did.)
>We also get a lot more that’s part of our 21st century society from petroleum . . .
Definitely, and that's one reason I think it's critical to start saving what we have for future generations. Not just for fuel - oil's other products are actually more important to us. Lots of things can be used as fuel, far fewer things can be used to replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstock.
>to focus on alternative energies across the spectrum?
That would be great; it would take a Manhattan project level effort, but is certainly doable. That project was supportable during the 1940's because of tremendous popular support for the war and a feeling that our national survival was at stake.
Nowadays it would not be seen as part of any war, and indeed well-funded industry groups would claim it was all a conspiracy of the global warming alarmists to make us poor etc etc. I can't see it getting the support it would need to make a significant dent (although it would be great if it did.)
>We also get a lot more that’s part of our 21st century society from petroleum . . .
Definitely, and that's one reason I think it's critical to start saving what we have for future generations. Not just for fuel - oil's other products are actually more important to us. Lots of things can be used as fuel, far fewer things can be used to replace hydrocarbons as industrial feedstock.
Jayruss 0
Quote>but I don't understand how this represents lower fuel prices...
Supply and demand.
Case 1: Same CAFE standards, same increase in car ownership, same miles driven, dwindling oil supply.
Case 2: Increased CAFE standards (i.e. reduced demand per vehicle) same increase in car ownership, dwindling oil supply.
Case 2 will result in cheaper gas prices than case 1. Indeed, any time you reduce consumption while keeping the same variables constant, price tends to decrease. Basic economics.
>If we use 20% less fuel, I would put my money on prices rising 20%+.
That's sort of the opposite of what basic economic theory says. Like if you eat 20% less, you'll become 20% heavier.
I would argue that even if we decrease our consumption by 20% price will go up and here is why.
We can decrease our consumption 50% yet we are rapidly becoming the second largest consumer of oil in the world. If we decrease our consumption yet others don't follow suit what would be the incentive to sell to us? If another large consuming nation will pay the higher price, who would be motivated sell to us?
Reducing our consumption is necessary for environmental reasons yet until we can convince others to follow suit we won't achieve lower prices.
Bill, you are correct on the micro (USA) level that decreasing demand should reduce cost, yet on the macro level (world) prices won't decrease.
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
speedy 0
Quote>What do you think about refocusing the Dept of Energy laboratories
>to focus on alternative energies across the spectrum?
That would be great; it would take a Manhattan project level effort, but is certainly doable. That project was supportable during the 1940's because of tremendous popular support for the war and a feeling that our national survival was at stake.
Nowadays it would not be seen as part of any war, and indeed well-funded industry groups would claim it was all a conspiracy of the global warming alarmists to make us poor etc etc.
If the $billions that are are been spent on GW hysteria was spent on finding a clean, sustainable energy source to replace fossil fuels, I for one would be a lot happier.
We need an alternative ernergy source to oil and one that does not require giving up our food to make it.
Dave
Fallschirmsport Marl
Fallschirmsport Marl
kallend 2,117
QuoteQuote>but I don't understand how this represents lower fuel prices...
Supply and demand.
Case 1: Same CAFE standards, same increase in car ownership, same miles driven, dwindling oil supply.
Case 2: Increased CAFE standards (i.e. reduced demand per vehicle) same increase in car ownership, dwindling oil supply.
Case 2 will result in cheaper gas prices than case 1. Indeed, any time you reduce consumption while keeping the same variables constant, price tends to decrease. Basic economics.
>If we use 20% less fuel, I would put my money on prices rising 20%+.
That's sort of the opposite of what basic economic theory says. Like if you eat 20% less, you'll become 20% heavier.
I would argue that even if we decrease our consumption by 20% price will go up and here is why.
We can decrease our consumption 50% yet we are rapidly becoming the second largest consumer of oil in the world. If we decrease our consumption yet others don't follow suit what would be the incentive to sell to us? If another large consuming nation will pay the higher price, who would be motivated sell to us?
Reducing our consumption is necessary for environmental reasons yet until we can convince others to follow suit we won't achieve lower prices.
Bill, you are correct on the micro (USA) level that decreasing demand should reduce cost, yet on the macro level (world) prices won't decrease.
Consider 2 scenarios:
1. The US cuts its consumption.
2. The US doesn't cut its consumption.
Which of these two leads to less demand overall for oil?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rehmwa 2
QuoteIf the $billions that are are been spent on GW hysteria was spent on finding a clean, sustainable energy source to replace fossil fuels, I for one would be a lot happier.
We need an alternative energy source to oil and one that does not require giving up our food to make it.
stop being logical - you're going to get hate posts for that - but the hate posts will have a 'consensus' so that makes it ok
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
mirage62 0
Quote
If the $billions that are are been spent on GW hysteria was spent on finding a clean, sustainable energy source to replace fossil fuels, I for one would be a lot happier.
stop being logical - you're going to get hate posts for that
***
Well this isn't hate mail but this problem goes a long ways before GW. Dem/Rep BOTH have screwed the country on this problem.
It's just easier to bitch about GW
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little
billvon 3,090
>If the $billions that are are been spent on GW hysteria was spent on
>finding a clean, sustainable energy source to replace fossil fuels, I for one
>would be a lot happier.
It is happening. Much of the money spent on climate change mitigation is going towards cleaner fuels/energy sources.
>We need an alternative ernergy source to oil and one that does not
>require giving up our food to make it.
As the US is currently the fattest nation in the world, I see no signs of having to "give up our food!"
>finding a clean, sustainable energy source to replace fossil fuels, I for one
>would be a lot happier.
It is happening. Much of the money spent on climate change mitigation is going towards cleaner fuels/energy sources.
>We need an alternative ernergy source to oil and one that does not
>require giving up our food to make it.
As the US is currently the fattest nation in the world, I see no signs of having to "give up our food!"
On another note you post here like the oil here is very limited. It is estimated that the reserves under US control are larger than those in the middle east. I think the war analogy is a bit off
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites