Good Stuff

#26
#26
There are countless reasons for the current price we pay at the pumps. Arguments from ANWAR, the Gulf, refining capacity, fuel mix, China, government mandates that Big Oil invest in R&D for less efficient fuel sources, less efficient automobiles on the road, global instability, Venezuala, etc. abound. To throw blame on GWB's administration is certainly displaying a profound ignorance of the current global economic situation.
 
#27
#27
Getting out of Iraq is not going to make gas prices go back down - in fact, they'll likely continue rising. I would rather discuss what the potential repercussions on our economy will be if gas/oil continues skyrocketing and what we can do as a country to protect ourselves from that. Is the answer really drill for more oil at home? And, if it is, how long can we get away with that? We have an economy that is so deeply entangled with fossil fuels that it is hard to think of what we would do with increased prices and/or decreased supply. What is the role of the President in getting us ready for this challenge?
 
#28
#28
TennTradition said:
Getting out of Iraq is not going to make gas prices go back down - in fact, they'll likely continue rising. I would rather discuss what the potential repercussions on our economy will be if gas/oil continues skyrocketing and what we can do as a country to protect ourselves from that. Is the answer really drill for more oil at home? And, if it is, how long can we get away with that? We have an economy that is so deeply entangled with fossil fuels that it is hard to think of what we would do with increased prices and/or decreased supply. What is the role of the President in getting us ready for this challenge?
Click to expand...
I am not going to sit here in denial about the future supply of oil. It is running out. However, until it does run out, we do not need to continue to provide traditional enemies and/or unstable countries with strategic advantages against us (militarily and economically).

We currently own enough resources to materially boost our economy while materially weakening foreign economies. Yet, we are handcuffing ourselves for the sake of asthetics. That just seems absolutely asinine to me.

I would love to see the US make the break through on the next great fuel/energy. However, I do not want us to panic, rush, and be legislated into depending on a far less efficient energy source, while the rest of the world continues using oil.

I would love to see large firms invest R&D into hydrogen cells, engines that run on nuclear technology (if, and that is still a big if, the Soviets could (no definite proof) dwindle down nuclear weapons to fit in suitcases, then certainly we can fit nuclear energy into the size of an engine block), and/or maybe one day cold fusion.

However, driving up the cost of staple food items (corn and sugar) in order to crank out a gasoline that is 20% less effective at 20% less cost is backwards. Especially when one considers that by driving up the cost of staple items, you are driving down the value of the dollar.

Also, if the argument is for green reasons, I do not want to see electronic cars. Most Americans are getting their electricity through coal (as well are most worldwide). I would argue that it is less environmentally friendly than the exhaust from a diesel engine. On top of that, your freedom to drive anywhere is reduced when you have an electric car...therefore, it is less efficient for the average American.
 
#29
#29
TennTradition said:
Getting out of Iraq is not going to make gas prices go back down - in fact, they'll likely continue rising. I would rather discuss what the potential repercussions on our economy will be if gas/oil continues skyrocketing and what we can do as a country to protect ourselves from that. Is the answer really drill for more oil at home? And, if it is, how long can we get away with that? We have an economy that is so deeply entangled with fossil fuels that it is hard to think of what we would do with increased prices and/or decreased supply. What is the role of the President in getting us ready for this challenge?
Click to expand...

Sadly there is no other option. We need to drill and build refineries. Not to mention the state governments outrageous taxes at the pump. Get these corn based additives that do little if anything for the environment out of our fuel. Then maybe we can address the problem of oil prices. We have only compounded our oil problem.
 
#30
#30
KB5252 said:
Sadly there is no other option. We need to drill and build refineries. Not to mention the state governments outrageous taxes at the pump. Get these corn based additives that do little if anything for the environment out of our fuel. Then maybe we can address the problem of oil prices. We have only compounded our oil problem.
Click to expand...

That still doesn't address what to do when it runs out. Great, we drill and use more but how does that help at all? Instead of investing all that money on oil why not put it toward getting us off this addiction? It will be painful for a while but will benefit this country far more in the long run
 
#31
#31
utvolpj said:
That still doesn't address what to do when it runs out. Great, we drill and use more but how does that help at all? Instead of investing all that money on oil why not put it toward getting us off this addiction? It will be painful for a while but will benefit this country far more in the long run
Click to expand...

Do we really know how long before we run out? The only reason I am asking is because it seems like every time they explore an oil field there seems to always be more than at first thought. We do need to be less reliant on oil but so far there has been no viable option implemented. Until there is we need to do what we can.
 
#32
#32
I agree that while we haven't run out yet, we know that we are going to. And, we need to make the proper investments to get ready for that day. But, this goes beyond transportation fuels or electricity production - I worry about all the other products that we depend on that stem from fossil fuels...but that is a problem we will likely be able to work out (biopolymers maybe for plastics) ... the fuel problem is likely the toughest.

therealUT said:
I would love to see large firms invest R&D into hydrogen cells, engines that run on nuclear technology (if, and that is still a big if, the Soviets could (no definite proof) dwindle down nuclear weapons to fit in suitcases, then certainly we can fit nuclear energy into the size of an engine block), and/or maybe one day cold fusion.
Click to expand...

It would actually be easier to design a small nuclear weapon that it would be a small nuclear reactor - that is mobile and for use intermittent use as in an automobile. The safety systems, control systems, and continuous power production would tend to be problems for nuclear applications in transportation, IMO. However, nuclear could support a future transportation infrastructure. You mentioned hydrogen fuel cells (and I will add hydrogen combustion engines) - but, the extremely challenging part is where/how to get the hydrogen. Nuclear will likely be an option that is explored in depth as the electricity supply for hydrolysis to make hydrogen. My research is in hydrogen production from methane - but that will only be a bridge technology ... it isn't a long-term solution.

Also - nuclear really is the ultimate bridge technology...it will run out as well...but it can likely work for us to fill the gap.

therealUT said:
However, driving up the cost of staple food items (corn and sugar) in order to crank out a gasoline that is 20% less effective at 20% less cost is backwards. Especially when one considers that by driving up the cost of staple items, you are driving down the value of the dollar.

Also, if the argument is for green reasons, I do not want to see electronic cars. Most Americans are getting their electricity through coal (as well are most worldwide). I would argue that it is less environmentally friendly than the exhaust from a diesel engine. On top of that, your freedom to drive anywhere is reduced when you have an electric car...therefore, it is less efficient for the average American.
Click to expand...

I completely agree about biofuels. We've been talking and are still taking the wrong approach, here. But, I am hopeful that this won't be allowed to continue for much longer. But....the farm lobby may be strong enough...I don't know. There are some biofuel options that may play a role - but it won't be corn. Electric cars are interesting..and I think that the larger problem is the mobility of the energy supply more than where it comes from (coal likely won't be used without carbon sequestration in the future - if the environmental concerns continue to play out). But - it would seem that if we can have hydrogen re-fueling stations at enough places to make that technology sufficiently mobile, then we could do it with electricity.
 
#33
#33
KB5252 said:
Do we really know how long before we run out? The only reason I am asking is because it seems like every time they explore an oil field there seems to always be more than at first thought. We do need to be less reliant on oil but so far there has been no viable option implemented. Until there is we need to do what we can.
Click to expand...

We don't know how long it will be - and that is a huge problem. Also, oil is such a great crutch...we aren't *really* looking for a replacement just yet...it feels like we are really still just talking about it. When Sam Bodman was asked if we found the perfect - clean and cheap - energy solution today, how long would it be until we would be ready to fuel our cars with it. His answer? "Very quickly, if it really is that good. I mean, we would have no choice - we would see very quick implementation. I would have to think that within 10, 15 years you would see it available." So...we can't wait until we *have* to have it....the question is when do we really *need* to have it by...based on oil reserves and the political and environmental externalities.
 
#34
#34
TennTradition said:
We don't know how long it will be - and that is a huge problem. Also, oil is such a great crutch...we aren't *really* looking for a replacement just yet...it feels like we are really still just talking about it. When Sam Bodman was asked if we found the perfect - clean and cheap - energy solution today, how long would it be until we would be ready to fuel our cars with it. His answer? "Very quickly, if it really is that good. I mean, we would have no choice - we would see very quick implementation. I would have to think that within 10, 15 years you would see it available." So...we can't wait until we *have* to have it....the question is when do we really *need* to have it by...based on oil reserves and the political and environmental externalities.
Click to expand...
If we found this solution today it would be 15 years at least before it would be economically viable for the public. There are many scientist throughout the world working on this problem. My biggest problem with environmentalists is that they look at oil companies to be the one to lead the way and that makes no sense. We do need to find a viable option soon.
 
#35
#35
KB5252 said:
If we found this solution today it would be 15 years at least before it would be economically viable for the public. There are many scientist throughout the world working on this problem. My biggest problem with environmentalists is that they look at oil companies to be the one to lead the way and that makes no sense. We do need to find a viable option soon.
Click to expand...

I don't know...it might make some sense for the oil companies...because they are making investments in alternatives - particularly BP who seems to be making large investments.
 
#36
#36
TennTradition said:
I don't know...it might make some sense for the oil companies...because they are making investments in alternatives - particularly BP who seems to be making large investments.
Click to expand...

But doesn't some of that research and development cost get passed on to us now?
 
#37
#37
KB5252 said:
But doesn't some of that research and development cost get passed on to us now?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it does...but I don't know..the oil companies are still making nice profits...so some of their profit may be going into alternatives. But, some of the cost is probably passed along as well. I'm not sure that is a problem though...
 
#38
#38
TennTradition said:
I'm sure it does...but I don't know..the oil companies are still making nice profits...so some of their profit may be going into alternatives. But, some of the cost is probably passed along as well. I'm not sure that is a problem though...
Click to expand...

This is kind of going backward in the discussion but we as a country have not been allowed to build refineries in some thirty years or so. That would mean that our existing refineries are being asked to meet new standards as far as environmental standards go. That has to have cost them vast amounts of money. If we were to build new facilities wouldn't it be cheaper and cleaner than updating old facilities?
 
#39
#39
KB5252 said:
This is kind of going backward in the discussion but we as a country have not been allowed to build refineries in some thirty years or so. That would mean that our existing refineries are being asked to meet new standards as far as environmental standards go. That has to have cost them vast amounts of money. If we were to build new facilities wouldn't it be cheaper and cleaner than updating old facilities?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure - but generally, I would think that is a true statement. I'm not sure how much money the refinery arms have to invest in a new refinery...

Refining doesn't seem to make that much money, so I'm not sure if the incentive to invest is there...
 
#41
#41
jkell24 said:
I don't think the left have been taking the enviromental stand for the past 32 years and gas prices weren't an issue 8 years ago either.
Click to expand...

You are only 28 and have probably only been following politics for the past 10 years or so. So what are you basing your opinion on the past 32 years on???
 
#42
#42
TennTradition said:
I'm not sure - but generally, I would think that is a true statement. I'm not sure how much money the refinery arms have to invest in a new refinery...

Refining doesn't seem to make that much money, so I'm not sure if the incentive to invest is there...
Click to expand...

My thought process was more along the lines of cheaper cost to refine might mean that improving our facilities might mean the savings passed to the consumer. Your point does make sense that for an entity to invest usually means a good margin must be involved. Since there is not much money to be made in the refining process I could see where there would not be many companies beating down doors to build a refinery.
 
#43
#43
VolDad said:
You are only 28 and have probably only been following politics for the past 10 years or so. So what are you basing your opinion on the past 32 years on???
Click to expand...

I believe you can trace the environmental friendly agenda to the early 60's.
 
#44
#44
VolDad said:
You are only 28 and have probably only been following politics for the past 10 years or so. So what are you basing your opinion on the past 32 years on???
Click to expand...
I wasn't around for WWII either, but I can tell you quite a bit about the history and politics involved there.
 
#45
#45
BigPapaVol said:
I wasn't around for WWII either, but I can tell you quite a bit about the history and politics involved there.
Click to expand...

To be fair WWII is a much more studied topic than the early years of the environmentalist movement.
 
#46
#46
My theory is GWB saw oil prices comin up and considering his Texas oil buddies he pushed through a middle class tax rebate for consumers, so when gas went outrageous over this summer he'd leave the White house swimmin in cash.
 
#47
#47
KB5252 said:
I believe you can trace the environmental friendly agenda to the early 60's.
Click to expand...

Agreed….You can follow the agenda. First it was air pollution, then littering, then water pollution (for a time these three were combined, remember the Indian Chief canoeing down the river and the single tear at the end of the commercial), then the ozone, and now global warming.
 
#48
#48
VolDad said:
You are only 28 and have probably only been following politics for the past 10 years or so. So what are you basing your opinion on the past 32 years on???
Click to expand...

I am only saying that I don't think it was a big "left" agenda 32 years ago to place restrictions on everything based on environmental reasons. As far as bringing up gas prices from 8 years ago my point with that is that it is a new problem to deal with so lets not keep going back and pointing fingers to yesterday. I don't blame Bush or Clinton for this. I was hitting on the same thing when I sarcasticly said to blame it on Henry Ford. Yes, maybe we can place blame on our leaders for not looking ahead but I just don't think people invisioned this 32 years ago so lets get a plan for the future and stop worrying about the past. It wasn't a dig at what you wrote or anything. As I said in another post in this thread, I think the prices are due to a weak U.S. dollar and a new demand from China. I don't like Bush on other issues but I know better than to blame him for the current fuel prices.
 
#50
#50
jkell24 said:
... I think the prices are due to a weak U.S. dollar and a new demand from China. I don't like Bush on other issues but I know better than to blame him for the current fuel prices.
Click to expand...

You are wise beyond your years :)

There is too much finger pointing, for the sake of political posturing, and not enough problem solving.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top