| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| How politics drives how we live | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2008, 10:20 AM (981 Views) | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Mar 13 2008, 10:20 AM Post #1 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I came across this editorial this morning and it (surprisingly) points out a lot of the flaws in our domestic energy policy, and what drives it: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...30321/1009/EDIT Titled: Green movement also behind gas hike There was one ironic comment that came from this article:
I agree with a lot of what is said here. Comments are welcome. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 13 2008, 11:41 AM Post #2 |
|
Admiral
|
Perhaps, but what bothers me more is this: Just 60 years? So when all the supplies completely run out, what then? Maybe instead of more pumping we ought to be figuring out how to use less. And, while we're at it, we should figure out another fuel source completely because even when using less it will run out eventually. "Eventually" doesn't sound that far away... Here's one quick and easy way to use less: Raise gas prices to lower demand.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Mar 13 2008, 11:47 AM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
You mean like say, to $25 a gallon? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 13 2008, 11:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
I really don't know, but that sounds like much higher than it would probably need to be before people would cut back, carpool, or whatever it takes to use less. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Mar 13 2008, 12:03 PM Post #5 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
and when you get people who can barily afford the gas to get to work. then what. have them stop going? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Mar 13 2008, 12:14 PM Post #6 |
|
Admiral
|
And when the gas runs out completely and nobody can get to work, is that better? Carpooling, alternative modes of transportation that use less or no gas, increased use of public transportation - just a few examples - doesn't mean people have NO way to get to work. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| STC | Mar 13 2008, 12:27 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Commodore
|
Oil is a scarce good. The more we use, the closer we get to running out. Supply falls. Hence, the free market will ration oil through price increases. That is an inescapable fact. Most of you do believe in free-market economics, right? Well, this is the free-market in action (adding in swelling demand from China, India etc). The alternative is government intervention - oil ration coupons or something like that. Actually, mightn't be a bad idea, at least everyone could get to work. Might well come to that eventually.The people I would worry most about are those on low incomes in developed countries, who are being priced out of the market. Also, those living in developing countries who are oil importers. Any hope they have of industrialising and developing is going to be scuppered as oil becomes more scare. I agree with IE, we need to be more efficient in the way we use oil now in order to make what we've got last longer, to buy us some time to work out and/or implement alternatives. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Mar 13 2008, 01:11 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Data's Cat's Sister | Mar 13 2008, 02:43 PM Post #9 |
|
Commodore
|
I'm already feeling the effects of the shortages of oil. There is no way that I could possibly afford a car on my income not even a cheap economical one, largely because of the cost of fuel. Now I'm not loaded by any stretch of the imagination but compared to others in my country I'm not exactly on the poverty line either. The result is that I have to fit my life around public transport. It played a part in my decision to more where I did, where I looked for my job and where I socialise. However my government is failing to provide non oil dependent forms of public transport in any meaningful way where I live. The result is that even public transport is becoming expensive to cope with rising fuel costs. If I didn't have my discounted bus ticket which I get through work, it would cost me £3.60 to get there and back. £3.60!!! On a journey of only a few miles. We desperatly need to start planning for the no oil senario now because this is only going to get worse. This is why I believe its vital we invest in alternative energy sources now. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Mar 13 2008, 03:39 PM Post #10 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Here's what we really need to do. Develop alternative energy sources, and despite the anguished cries from some, nuclear is the first and best source. A cheap, nuclear-powered electrical infrastructure will make transportation options like electric vehicles (or so-called plug-in hybrids) more attractive. You don't conserve your way out of a problem. IE, you are treating this like a zero sum game. 1) Oil reserve estimates are always conservative. 2) You neglect other forms of fueling vehicles, like natural gas or electric power (either plug in or eventually direct induction). The reason we use oil? It is what is known as an "energy-dense source." You get a lot of ergs out of a barrel of oil. One thing about oil prices? Most of current increases are driven by speculation, which always assumes the worst case. The demands by China and India really don't affect the US; our lack of additional refinery capacity is a far larger culprit. Even with the intentionally-weaker dollar (this "problem" would not exist in a non-election year), oil prices should be $55-60 a barrel, not $110. Yes, it is the free market, and we're doing it to ourselves. This being said, further research into still other energy sources, like power satellites. While solar cells are not very efficient, a solar power satellite, firing a focused microwave beam on a target on the ground, is a cheap (once done in volume) source of energy. Fusion power research needs to continue (and here's one area oil companies would like to get into, but there's no incentive to do so and a lot of startup costs). Just because we run out of oil someday does NOT mean that we have to shiver in the dark. By then we should be beyond the need for oil as a primary source of power. Look at France, where 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power. We are hampered by NIMBYs and the intentionally ignorant. We could be living in a gold-plated society with dirt cheap energy, but the ignorant-but-good-intentioned and the intentionally-obstructive prevent us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| STC | Mar 13 2008, 03:54 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Commodore
|
^^^ ABG I certainly agree with your analysis re. nuclear power. IMO the 'risks' are blown way out of proportion by the media and the more reactionary environmental groups. We should be investing more in this energy source, alongside investment in renewable energy sources. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Mar 13 2008, 05:23 PM Post #12 |
|
Admiral
|
I agree with this. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| captain_proton_au | Mar 13 2008, 07:26 PM Post #13 |
![]()
A Robot in Disguise
![]()
|
Considering what they have to do to it to get it out of the ground, refine and transport it to the nearest bowser and store it, Gas is dirt cheap. As for alternative fuels, their impact wont change much whilst Gas is cheaper. That wont be for quite a while, there's enough stuff in oilsands under Canada alone to feed the world for a decade or two, no ones touched it yet cos its 3 times the price getting out of the ground |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| rowskid86 | Mar 13 2008, 08:29 PM Post #14 |
|
Suck my Spock
|
And what About us who Live out in BumF*cking norwhere? Carpoling is a little out of the question. as is Public Transportation. I doubt a Bus coming out here to pick up 5 people to take to the city, and then another bus to somewhere near work dosn't really work well DOES IT? Maybe we should all move into the City, abandon all the farms and our house's. you do releise where I live the closest drive to the "City" is about 25 miles away. Kinda hard to have your Precious Public transportation. Not all of us are city Dwellers, some of US live in very rural Area's. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Franko | Mar 13 2008, 08:41 PM Post #15 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
Hate to say it, but Skid's got a point. I live in a semi=rural/urban area outside of Vancouver, and let me tell you, without a car out here, you are screwed. Every time gas goes up, so do the costs of transportation, even public. Shipping, trucking, courier, taxis, buses, on and on, these costs are just passed onto the consumers. Continously taxing our fuel in order to dissuade people from driving a motor vehicle is like raising the price of food to combat obesity. I say tell the auto manufacturers that they had better phase out the standard gas/internal combustion engine by such and such date, rather than punish me; I have to burn X amount of gas a week in order to live. I'd totally welcome the next generation of hybrid and whatever-fuel source vehicles. Some of them look pretty cool, actually. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



Well, this is the free-market in action (adding in swelling demand from China, India etc). The alternative is government intervention - oil ration coupons or something like that. Actually, mightn't be a bad idea, at least everyone could get to work. Might well come to that eventually.


9:33 AM Jul 11