rushmc 23 #26 March 3, 2015 wmw999 There's nothing inherently wrong with trying things; Brazil has actually been quite successful with ethanol (but from sugar cane). Fucking enviros are trying to look a little farther down the road than the way things are now -- sometimes they get that wrong, but learning stuff is generally good. That said, I find it interesting that my inexpensive Honda Civic (non-hybrid) gets 40 mpg on the highway when driven reasonably conservatively (65 mph). There are tradeoffs for everything, and the world doesn't owe anyone catering to their particular situation. If users can figure out how to use less gasoline (or water), then what we have will last longer, without having to invest in new ways to recover it. We'll have to anyway, but if we don't run out quickly, then there's more time to test options. Look at what indiscriminate water usage and "it will last" planning has done to the Central Valley in California. The thing about 100-year droughts is that they will happen, and it's not guaranteed that it'll be 100 years until the next one. I'm sure there are farmers out there who talk about "fucking water rules keeping me from my water, too. Wendy P. the fed has blocked importing surgar to do this in the US (if I remember correctly) Oh Calm down WendyThis and water and fuel are not the same issue nor are ther releated"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #27 March 3, 2015 Water isn't gasoline, I agree. However, the concept of planning for when something might run out can apply to more than one substance running out. And the concept of people disagreeing with the cost of planning for something running out before it does also can apply to more than one substance running out. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #28 March 3, 2015 wmw999Water isn't gasoline, I agree. However, the concept of planning for when something might run out can apply to more than one substance running out. And the concept of people disagreeing with the cost of planning for something running out before it does also can apply to more than one substance running out. Wendy P. http://news.yahoo.com/us-running-room-store-oil-price-collapse-next-171025276--finance.html"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #29 March 3, 2015 wmw999There's nothing inherently wrong with trying things; Brazil has actually been quite successful with ethanol (but from sugar cane). Fucking enviros are trying to look a little farther down the road than the way things are now -- sometimes they get that wrong, but learning stuff is generally good. That said, I find it interesting that my inexpensive Honda Civic (non-hybrid) gets 40 mpg on the highway when driven reasonably conservatively (65 mph). There are tradeoffs for everything, and the world doesn't owe anyone catering to their particular situation. If users can figure out how to use less gasoline (or water), then what we have will last longer, without having to invest in new ways to recover it. We'll have to anyway, but if we don't run out quickly, then there's more time to test options. Look at what indiscriminate water usage and "it will last" planning has done to the Central Valley in California. The thing about 100-year droughts is that they will happen, and it's not guaranteed that it'll be 100 years until the next one. I'm sure there are farmers out there who talk about "fucking water rules keeping me from my water, too. Wendy P. I for one am happy to be an early adopter for an all-electric self-driving car, as long as it has all the creature comforts I want. That's the issue I have with most of the hybrids out there… they're efficient, but that's not the only factor in my vehicle purchases. Hell, if we're being honest it's not even in the top 10.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #30 March 3, 2015 rushmc the fed has blocked importing surgar to do this in the US (if I remember correctly) Once again: Fucking. Corn. Lobby. Buncha asswipes living the dream on taxpayer subsidies and government protection. If actual corn wasn't so delicious I'd wish crop failure on them all just to see HFCS and ethanol industries die.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 March 3, 2015 QuoteLook at what indiscriminate water usage and "it will last" planning has done to the Central Valley in California. The thing about 100-year droughts is that they will happen, and it's not guaranteed that it'll be 100 years until the next one. I'm sure there are farmers out there who talk about "fucking water rules keeping me from my water, too. That's not what happened. There was water planning and capture. There was a system designed and buiolt to provide for crops and people. Then there became another interest with river fish and river restoration. This meant a huge interest was competing for resources of a system that wasn't designed to handle it. I compare it to NASA being asked to launch the Space Shuttle with 2/3 of the fuel for the SSMEs. Laws of nature say it can't be done without taking away payload. Same with agriculture. It takes a gallon of water to grow an almond. It takes 13 gallons of water to grow an orange. It takes 53 gallons of water for an egg. Ev entually the Central Valley will not be arable due to salt accretion. But growing food with less water just really isnt an option. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #32 March 3, 2015 > But growing food with less water just really isnt an option. Sure it is - it's just different food. (And _using_ less water is definitely an option.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #33 March 3, 2015 lawrocket Quote Look at what indiscriminate water usage and "it will last" planning has done to the Central Valley in California. The thing about 100-year droughts is that they will happen, and it's not guaranteed that it'll be 100 years until the next one. I'm sure there are farmers out there who talk about "fucking water rules keeping me from my water, too. That's not what happened. There was water planning and capture. There was a system designed and buiolt to provide for crops and people. Then there became another interest with river fish and river restoration. This meant a huge interest was competing for resources of a system that wasn't designed to handle it. I compare it to NASA being asked to launch the Space Shuttle with 2/3 of the fuel for the SSMEs. Laws of nature say it can't be done without taking away payload. Same with agriculture. It takes a gallon of water to grow an almond. It takes 13 gallons of water to grow an orange. It takes 53 gallons of water for an egg. Ev entually the Central Valley will not be arable due to salt accretion. But growing food with less water just really isnt an option. Yes there is. It it's called being efficient (e.g. drip systems). And we don't NEED to grow water thirsty almonds to sell to Asia....they just happen to be highly profitable for farmers. Also, what about CV water usage over the years? Oh, that's right, back to Wendy's point of "fucking water rules keeping me from MY water..." entitlement and no meters to actually keep track of how much is being used. Go figure. But we need another thread for this discussion.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 March 3, 2015 billvon> But growing food with less water just really isnt an option. Sure it is - it's just different food. (And _using_ less water is definitely an option.) Yes. Ban farming of animals and dairy and water use goes down dramatically. But since we are discussing real world here... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 March 3, 2015 QuoteYes there is. It it's called being efficient (e.g. drip systems). And we don't NEED to grow water thirsty almonds to sell to Asia....they just happen to be highly profitable for farmers. Also, what about CV water usage over the years? Oh, that's right, back to Wendy's point of "fucking water rules keeping me from MY water..." entitlement and no meters to actually keep track of how much is being used. Crazy Go figure. But we need another thread for this discussion.... You are correct. We could save all water for the environment and drinking/bathing and import our food. This would obviously cause other problems. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #36 March 3, 2015 lawrocketQuoteYes there is. It it's called being efficient (e.g. drip systems). And we don't NEED to grow water thirsty almonds to sell to Asia....they just happen to be highly profitable for farmers. Also, what about CV water usage over the years? Oh, that's right, back to Wendy's point of "fucking water rules keeping me from MY water..." entitlement and no meters to actually keep track of how much is being used. Crazy Go figure. But we need another thread for this discussion.... You are correct. We could save all water for the environment and drinking/bathing and import our food. This would obviously cause other problems. Ag uses 80%. Telling people to take shorter showers, etc is very minimal in savings compared to any measures to cut usage for ag. You know...that annoying 80/20 rule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #37 March 4, 2015 >Yes. Ban farming of animals and dairy and water use goes down dramatically. >But since we are discussing real world here... Who said anything about "banning?" Just charge for what water costs on the open market. (For sanitary/public health reasons we'll allow 10 gallons per person per day for free.) Watch how fast farmers discover the benefits of growing lower-water crops with more efficient irrigation systems. That might not be as much fun as putting "I hate Pelosi" signs all the way down the I-5, but would be a lot more effective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #38 March 4, 2015 lawrocket ***> But growing food with less water just really isnt an option. Sure it is - it's just different food. (And _using_ less water is definitely an option.) Yes. Ban farming of animals and dairy and water use goes down dramatically. But since we are discussing real world here... Yes. because growing lettuce in Yuma makes perfect sense... Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #39 March 4, 2015 billvon>Yes. Ban farming of animals and dairy and water use goes down dramatically. >But since we are discussing real world here... Who said anything about "banning?" Just charge for what water costs on the open market. (For sanitary/public health reasons we'll allow 10 gallons per person per day for free.) Watch how fast farmers discover the benefits of growing lower-water crops with more efficient irrigation systems. That might not be as much fun as putting "I hate Pelosi" signs all the way down the I-5, but would be a lot more effective. Ya know, there are a lot of places with plenty of water. There are lots of dairy farms in other states. But California seems very proud of the fact that they are now the "Dairy Capitol" of the US."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 March 4, 2015 billvon>Yes. Ban farming of animals and dairy and water use goes down dramatically. >But since we are discussing real world here... Who said anything about "banning?" Just charge for what water costs on the open market. (For sanitary/public health reasons we'll allow 10 gallons per person per day for free.) Watch how fast farmers discover the benefits of growing lower-water crops with more efficient irrigation systems. That might not be as much fun as putting "I hate Pelosi" signs all the way down the I-5, but would be a lot more effective. Of course. 10% of California's water goes to almonds. But a stick of butter also takes 500 gallons. Etc. There is economic reality. Fruit trees require years to mature into producers. They also require a great deal of water. They also are the most lucrative. If a farmer has the choice of keeping his fruit trees alive or planting annual row vegetables(labor intensive and low return) then the choice is pretty obvious. And since the states and feds have all the interest in maintaining revenues off cash crops. (Yes, all those peaches and oranges are shipped with California water in them) My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 March 4, 2015 Our cows stay warm in the winter My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #42 March 4, 2015 lawrocket Our cows stay warm in the winter Reminds me of these California Milk commercials that aired back east and in the midwest a few years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9iiPOaJczE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwB-TJA3puw Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #43 March 4, 2015 lawrocket Our cows stay warm in the winter Ours do to. There's a thing called a "Barn." It's like a house for the cows. They throw off enough body heat that it stays pretty warm without much extra heat. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #44 March 4, 2015 >There is economic reality. Fruit trees require years to mature into producers. >They also require a great deal of water. They also are the most lucrative. If they are the most lucrative under all conditions, then no problem. Charge for what the water costs, let farmers make their billions, and use the billions they are paying for the water to put in a canal to the Klamath River. Or build solar desalination plants. Or wind-powered RO plants. (Intermittent wind isn't an issue when you are filling reservoirs with fresh water.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #45 July 19, 2015 I cannot understand how the price of oil has dropped by over 50% in the last 12 months, and yet the price of northern California gasoline is still almost $4.00 a gallon. I guess this means when oil goes back up to $100.00 a barrel, it's going to be $6.00 a gallon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #46 July 19, 2015 jclalorI cannot understand how the price of oil has dropped by over 50% in the last 12 months, and yet the price of northern California gasoline is still almost $4.00 a gallon. I guess this means when oil goes back up to $100.00 a barrel, it's going to be $6.00 a gallon. The price of gasoline is not directly related to the price of a barrel of oil. There is a relationship there, but it's not as linear as one would expect. A big portion of it also has to do with "what the market will bear."quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #47 July 19, 2015 Speculation, lots of speculation, and trading of oil without even having to ever physically transport or store it before selling it off. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #48 July 20, 2015 I.m going with ignorant left coasters who don't have a clue how much things should cost in the real world.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #49 July 20, 2015 grue*** the fed has blocked importing surgar to do this in the US (if I remember correctly) Once again: Fucking. Corn. Lobby. Buncha asswipes living the dream on taxpayer subsidies and government protection. If actual corn wasn't so delicious I'd wish crop failure on them all just to see HFCS and ethanol industries die. Just like wind and solar. A bunch of well connected cronies living on the tax payer dole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #50 July 20, 2015 brenthutchJust like wind and solar. A bunch of well connected cronies living on the tax payer dole. Just like guns and butter. A bunch of well connected cronies living on the tax payer dole.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
