|
How politics drives how we live
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 13 2008, 10:20 AM (983 Views)
|
|
STC
|
Mar 13 2008, 08:42 PM
Post #16
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,421
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #1,245
- Joined:
- April 16, 2007
|
- rowskid86
- Mar 14 2008, 01:29 AM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 12:14 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 13 2008, 01:03 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 11:41 AM
- article
-
America will never be "green" enough, either, until gas is $25 a gallon. We should ignore the eco-stupidity and start pumping it ourselves.
Perhaps, but what bothers me more is this: - article
-
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil - "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years."
By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion.
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.
and when you get people who can barily afford the gas to get to work. then what. have them stop going?
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more.
That's why public transport needs to be subsidised, to protect people in these situations, such as yourself.
In these cases, the 'free market' will not provide as Marginal Revenue will be well below Marginal Cost, due to lack of Economies of Scale in providing transport for rural areas.
So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Mar 13 2008, 09:06 PM
Post #17
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
- Quote:
-
So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
Totally. And Skid, you'll enjoy it even more once the State has embedded you with a micro chip to monitor all of your polluting activities. (currently planned, by the way. AT&T already has a working prototype)
|
|
|
| |
|
STC
|
Mar 13 2008, 09:16 PM
Post #18
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,421
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #1,245
- Joined:
- April 16, 2007
|
- Franko
- Mar 14 2008, 02:06 AM
- Quote:
-
So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
Totally. And Skid, you'll enjoy it even more once the State has embedded you with a micro chip to monitor all of your polluting activities. (currently planned, by the way. AT&T already has a working prototype)
Not unreasonable after all. It would appear to me to be a fair tax to charge people per mile/km travelled/consumed.
|
|
|
| |
|
RTW
|
Mar 13 2008, 10:03 PM
Post #19
|
Vice Admiral
- Posts:
- 7,678
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #543
- Joined:
- February 12, 2006
|
- STC
- Mar 13 2008, 06:42 PM
That's why public transport needs to be subsidised, to protect people in these situations, such as yourself. In these cases, the 'free market' will not provide as Marginal Revenue will be well below Marginal Cost, due to lack of Economies of Scale in providing transport for rural areas. So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
Rather than driving around in your personal vehicle at your convenience for $.30 a mile, they'll send a big ol' bus out for several times a day - whether you need a ride or not! Rather than your personal vehicle spewing out a lot of pollution - but only when you drive, a bit ol' empty bus will be spewing out enormous amounts of pollution driving around. Your 50 mile round trip into town currently costs you about $15. Now it's cost you a couple a bucks to be chauffeured while the taxpayer picks the rest of the cost of the $200 trip.
For the small sacrifice of convenience you get to pollute a lot more and be chauffeured while doing so!!!
It's a win-win 'skid!
The cost of Seattle's relative new mass transit train is so great that buying every rider their own chauffeured limousine would actually save a considerable amount of money over the course of a year.
|
|
|
| |
|
Data's Cat's Sister
|
Mar 14 2008, 05:56 AM
Post #20
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,646
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #107
- Joined:
- February 6, 2004
|
Not necessarily. In the UK farmers already get heavily discounted diesal known as 'the red' operating tractors and so forth. It's no great stretch of the imagination that a similar scheme might be put in place in future for their personal transportation.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:37 AM
Post #21
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Mar 13 2008, 04:39 PM
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.
AB,
You sure did read a lot into what I said. Actually, I haven't even begun to address this subject in a thorough manner. I was merely making one point which is that the article is focused on the wrong solution IMO. It's bottom line is opening up more domestic drilling. I see that as a temporary solution at best. I was also saying that, in the absence of a more permanent solution, we need to be more careful with what we have because it's not going to last forever. When it's gone, it's gone. We need to make sure it lasts at least long enough to see us through to a workable alternative.
The other main point in the article was about nuclear power. I'm not opposed to nuclear power in theory. However, we see time and time again how government fails us and big business gets greedy and cuts corners. So who can we trust to run these and make sure they remain safe? Nuclear power isn't any good if no one is around to use it. Still, I recognize that we may have to take the risk because I don't see any better alternatives on the horizon.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:48 AM
Post #22
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- rowskid86
- Mar 13 2008, 09:29 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 12:14 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 13 2008, 01:03 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 11:41 AM
- article
-
America will never be "green" enough, either, until gas is $25 a gallon. We should ignore the eco-stupidity and start pumping it ourselves.
Perhaps, but what bothers me more is this: - article
-
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil - "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years."
By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion.
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.
and when you get people who can barily afford the gas to get to work. then what. have them stop going?
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.
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.
I suppose you'll be using less gas and making those fewer trips twice as productive.
Seriously, it's a valid point that you raise. Got a horse? Moped? Bicycle? How far can you walk? 
Ok, ok. I realize that some people will be inconvenienced or even put out completely. Another example is truck drivers who are already suffering under the higher prices we have now. As I said to AB, I wasn't really attempting a complete solution here and I don't claim to have all the answers. Government subsidies, as STC mentioned, might be part of the solution, but I'm not sure that really solves your situation. But consuming the entire world's supply of oil is not a good idea either and apparently that could happen, even conservatively, within 100 years or so. People do need to use less one way or another. And people won't do so unless it impacts them personally.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Mar 14 2008, 01:09 PM
Post #23
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 14 2008, 08:37 AM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Mar 13 2008, 04:39 PM
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.
AB, You sure did read a lot into what I said. Actually, I haven't even begun to address this subject in a thorough manner. I was merely making one point which is that the article is focused on the wrong solution IMO. It's bottom line is opening up more domestic drilling. I see that as a temporary solution at best. I was also saying that, in the absence of a more permanent solution, we need to be more careful with what we have because it's not going to last forever. When it's gone, it's gone. We need to make sure it lasts at least long enough to see us through to a workable alternative. The other main point in the article was about nuclear power. I'm not opposed to nuclear power in theory. However, we see time and time again how government fails us and big business gets greedy and cuts corners. So who can we trust to run these and make sure they remain safe? Nuclear power isn't any good if no one is around to use it. Still, I recognize that we may have to take the risk because I don't see any better alternatives on the horizon.
Yes, I did read a lot into that article, because you made such an incredible statement.
Actually, "when it's gone it's gone" is not a valid statement, as there is oil sands and shale to look at. In addition, did you know that oil is still being created? Of course the source isn't dead dinosaurs or Jurassic plants.
What I took issue with was your comment about "Just 60 years?" You make it sound like we're just going to use our own oil and no other source. That simply isn't true.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Mar 14 2008, 01:13 PM
Post #24
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- STC
- Mar 13 2008, 08:42 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 14 2008, 01:29 AM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 12:14 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 13 2008, 01:03 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 11:41 AM
- article
-
America will never be "green" enough, either, until gas is $25 a gallon. We should ignore the eco-stupidity and start pumping it ourselves.
Perhaps, but what bothers me more is this: - article
-
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil - "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years."
By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion.
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.
and when you get people who can barily afford the gas to get to work. then what. have them stop going?
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more. That's why public transport needs to be subsidised, to protect people in these situations, such as yourself. In these cases, the 'free market' will not provide as Marginal Revenue will be well below Marginal Cost, due to lack of Economies of Scale in providing transport for rural areas. So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
I was running through my head whether or not you were trying to goad him on with your statement.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't, but are merely uninformed. No government subsidy is needed. Cheap energy is needed. Whether Skid uses a pickup truck or a hybrid something or other.
You see, marginal revenue is not the issue here. Personal freedom is. Yes, putting some kind of subsidized transportation out to his area is not cost effective. Developing new energy sources allows him to live his own life without GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE.
Government subsidies are NOT part of any solution. Why? Because money doesn't grow on trees.
|
|
|
| |
|
rowskid86
|
Mar 14 2008, 02:31 PM
Post #25
|
Suck my Spock
- Posts:
- 9,678
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #631
- Joined:
- July 8, 2006
|
Well a Hybrid is also out of the question for me. Hard to hall around bails of straw and hay, on a roof rack of a Prius, towing a hay-wagon. dosn't seem to work now.
When I say the "city" is over 25 miles away. that "city" is really growing suburbs of detroit, and are not that big granted they do have alot of stuff in them, store's wise.
DCS, we have the red diesal as well we use in the tractors, Corn/Soybean Dryer's (Well one is diesal, the other Propane and that one isn't discounted).
Plus I doubt a Bus will take me to any of my buddies house's who live from 5 miles to 20ish miles away. What should I do Cut Contact with them, and become a Reclusive person.
I live on a Farm (Grain farm) the Small Cattle farm is my 2nd cousins. In the summer I help drive those big grain trucks when we harvest winter Wheat, and the fall the rest. How would Public Transport do that?
And I agree, I don't want ANY Government Interference, at all.
when one Depends of Government subsidies, one relies on the Government, and NO ONE should have to rely on them. It gives the Government more control of our lives and anyone here knows exactally how much I hate that.
|
|
|
| |
|
STC
|
Mar 14 2008, 02:44 PM
Post #26
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,421
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #1,245
- Joined:
- April 16, 2007
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Mar 14 2008, 06:13 PM
- STC
- Mar 13 2008, 08:42 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 14 2008, 01:29 AM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 12:14 PM
- rowskid86
- Mar 13 2008, 01:03 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 13 2008, 11:41 AM
- article
-
America will never be "green" enough, either, until gas is $25 a gallon. We should ignore the eco-stupidity and start pumping it ourselves.
Perhaps, but what bothers me more is this: - article
-
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil - "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years."
By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion.
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.
and when you get people who can barily afford the gas to get to work. then what. have them stop going?
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.
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.
I couldn't agree more. That's why public transport needs to be subsidised, to protect people in these situations, such as yourself. In these cases, the 'free market' will not provide as Marginal Revenue will be well below Marginal Cost, due to lack of Economies of Scale in providing transport for rural areas. So, government intervention is needed. Sorry, but that will likely mean bigger government. More taxes, and you'll be the beneficiary of a subsidy.
I was running through my head whether or not you were trying to goad him on with your statement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't, but are merely uninformed. No government subsidy is needed. Cheap energy is needed. Whether Skid uses a pickup truck or a hybrid something or other. You see, marginal revenue is not the issue here. Personal freedom is. Yes, putting some kind of subsidized transportation out to his area is not cost effective. Developing new energy sources allows him to live his own life without GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE. Government subsidies are NOT part of any solution. Why? Because money doesn't grow on trees.
Cheap energy would certainly be ideal - I don't debate that. But the present reality is that we don't have that at the moment and, unless there is some sudden technological breakthrough, we're not going to have that anytime soon.
So, the issue then becomes, how do we ensure that Rowskid86, and other people living in, as 'skid calls "BumF***ingnowhere", can afford to get to work? Or for people who, for whatever reason, don't have their own car.
IMO, a subsidy is relevant. This IS about Marginal Revenue and Cost, because its not profitable for business to provide services where there are small populations. But those people need to be able to get around and live their lives. Therefore there is an argument for government intervention through some form of subsidy, or direct provision.
I'm not goading anyone ABG. Disagreeing with someone, holding a different view, and presenting a situation where there is an element of irony involved does not = goading.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Mar 14 2008, 02:57 PM
Post #27
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
So, the issue then becomes, how do we ensure that Rowskid86, and other people living in, as 'skid calls "BumF***ingnowhere", can afford to get to work? Or for people who, for whatever reason, don't have their own car.
That's his problem, not some big monolithic government agency. He CHOOSES to live there. He has the freedom to live where he wants. Simultaneously, with that freedom comes the responsibility to be able to provide your own transportation needs. He's an adult. He is capable. It is his choice.
I know this is a radical concept, but worth researching.
|
|
|
| |
|
rowskid86
|
Mar 14 2008, 03:06 PM
Post #28
|
Suck my Spock
- Posts:
- 9,678
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #631
- Joined:
- July 8, 2006
|
And I provide my own transportation, and can Afford it. but rising gas prices really hit some families hard when they live out here, and can't afford to get to work, becasue they had a good job our or crappy state Economy (Thanks Govener Jennifer granholm for that one) but where laid-off, and now work in a low paying job making ends meat.
|
|
|
| |
|
ImpulseEngine
|
Mar 14 2008, 03:10 PM
Post #29
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,851
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Mar 14 2008, 02:09 PM
- ImpulseEngine
- Mar 14 2008, 08:37 AM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Mar 13 2008, 04:39 PM
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.
AB, You sure did read a lot into what I said. Actually, I haven't even begun to address this subject in a thorough manner. I was merely making one point which is that the article is focused on the wrong solution IMO. It's bottom line is opening up more domestic drilling. I see that as a temporary solution at best. I was also saying that, in the absence of a more permanent solution, we need to be more careful with what we have because it's not going to last forever. When it's gone, it's gone. We need to make sure it lasts at least long enough to see us through to a workable alternative. The other main point in the article was about nuclear power. I'm not opposed to nuclear power in theory. However, we see time and time again how government fails us and big business gets greedy and cuts corners. So who can we trust to run these and make sure they remain safe? Nuclear power isn't any good if no one is around to use it. Still, I recognize that we may have to take the risk because I don't see any better alternatives on the horizon.
Yes, I did read a lot into that article, because you made such an incredible statement. Actually, "when it's gone it's gone" is not a valid statement, as there is oil sands and shale to look at. In addition, did you know that oil is still being created? Of course the source isn't dead dinosaurs or Jurassic plants. What I took issue with was your comment about "Just 60 years?" You make it sound like we're just going to use our own oil and no other source. That simply isn't true.
Actually, I said you read a lot into what I said, not into the article. (Not sure if you misunderstood or mistyped.)
Anway, the article says:
- Quote:
-
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and American Petroleum Institute, we have at least 112 billion barrels of undrilled oil - "enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years."
By comparison, Iraq has 115 billion barrels and Venezuela 80 billion. So my point was that ALL of those sources would be used and not just by us. We would use ours and other countries would use Iraq and Venezuela (I'm speaking hypothetically; in reality, we'd probably use some of each.) But 60 million cars and 25 million homes is pretty close to what we actually use today. If that would use up 112 billion barrels in 60 years, it's pretty easy to imagine that other countries combined would use up the rest in a similar period. And, if 60 years isn't accurate, how about 100? That adds another 67% of time just for the sake of doubt, but 100 years isn't very long either.
That was my point. Now, in answer to what you said, no I was not aware that oil is still being created. Do we know at what rate? How much would be created by the time we have used up what exists? I didn't know about oil sands and shale either.
But, anyway you look at it, oil is NOT unlimited. I see nothing wrong with making sure we don't simply waste it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:31 PM
Post #30
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
I just don't see the internal combustion engine, or any other type of fossil-fuel dependant vehicle even existing in our world "100" years from now. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to give it forty.
In fact, in a hundred years, "fossil fuels" will almost be redundant.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Develop a lucrative alternative energy which has a potential of trillions of dollars, and bob's your uncle.
Incentive is everything. We're merely at the threshold of it right now; where we realize that in time we must adapt to new energy realities.
We don't need higher gas prices, which is just another tax grab by government. They'll keep squeezing, until there's a blacklash. Just watch.
|
|
|
| |