261 replies to this topic

[Miss Soupy]

all oil companies fund that research soupy its good business to be ahead of the curve. and yes brazil has had non ethanol using engines for years now. thats just a small sample. theyve had the capacity to make electric cars since the 80s and theyve had alternate fuel technolgoy available form reseach done in Germany during WWII.

oils been obsolete as a reliable fuel source for decades now. its long since outlived its usefullness. the only thing keeping it going is that oil companies feed into a myth of an utter desperation for oil and the further myth that oils an inexhaustable resource.

quite frankly its somehting we can easilly do without. and to top it off studies show that if every drop of oil were to dry up and all oil were to be lost. while soicety would take a pretty hard hit, it would recover fully in less then 50 years.

Compare Brazil to the US and there is a pretty big difference. Not only do we have more cars, but they have longer growing seasons perfect for biofuel. You have to make it work for the country, and doing that takes a lot of time and money. Once again, it wasn't developed until recently because it was cheap, not because the oil companies were somehow holding us back. It would be bad business for a company that knows their product will be gone one day to not look into alternatives.

The problem has been that alternative energy takes time and the US hasn't been able to think more than a few years ahead of time. Back in '73 with the oil embargo, the US nearly stopped and everybody freaked out about needing alternative energy. So Nixon was pushing for an aggressive alternative energy plan - as was Carter. And Congress passed lukewarm CAFE standards to start reducing the amount of oil that we needed back in '78. And then, Reagan weakened those standards in '86 and not much has happened with them so fuel efficiency was fairly stagnant for the next couple decades.

Meanwhile, Brazil spazzed out about the same oil embargo in '73 and started pushing ethanol. But they kept pushing ethanol, even after gas prices dropped again. And now, they're pretty much energy independent and the world leader in biofuel technology. They still use oil and are drilling for more oil, but they didn't scuttle their other energy production in the process.

Pretty much what I have been saying. The demand was low until recently which is why nothing really went through. Now that it is being researched, people are impatient and expect there to be a product like yesterday. Making sure products are safe, noninvasive, and actually something people can afford takes time and should really be done well. Then again, I'm sure a lot of the same people who complain about oil will complain about any other product that comes out and its effects on the environment.

P.S. I heard on the radio today that they sold the first flying cars

[Derock]

P.S. I heard on the radio today that they sold the first flying cars

... We're finally heading to the Jetsons era!!!

[Nick Soapdish]

Pretty much what I have been saying. The demand was low until recently which is why nothing really went through. Now that it is being researched, people are impatient and expect there to be a product like yesterday. Making sure products are safe, noninvasive, and actually something people can afford takes time and should really be done well. Then again, I'm sure a lot of the same people who complain about oil will complain about any other product that comes out and its effects on the environment.

P.S. I heard on the radio today that they sold the first flying cars

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that we were stupid and shortsighted. It's not like we didn't know that oil would eventually run out and we've been worrying about our dependence on foreign oil for nearly forty years now. And worrying is about as far as it got. So now China and Germany are years ahead of us on solar energy research and then we yielded our lead in electric and hybrid cars to Japan.

And it depends on the product. I've already said that I'm not a fan of hydroelectric power in pretty much any situation and biofuels for the US. Like you said, Brazil has different strengths so that's what they worked with. Our strength is apparently using coal and buying oil. There is a component of people that are going to complain about anything. I'm not sure what the point of bringing that up is. There is also a chunk of people that absolutely don't care about the environment. Something like 21% said that due to the oil spill, they are even more in favor of offshore drilling. Complaining about the fringe doesn't really make one's argument.

As to that 21%, I don't think that the real number is that high. I suspect that it's people trying to emphatically confirm their continued support hasn't been lessened, people that are just being contrary because it's a ridiculous poll option and poor reasoning or ignorance by others.

[Miss Soupy]

... We're finally heading to the Jetsons era!!!

*hears jetsons theme song* o.o;;

There is a component of people that are going to complain about anything. I'm not sure what the point of bringing that up is. There is also a chunk of people that absolutely don't care about the environment. Something like 21% said that due to the oil spill, they are even more in favor of offshore drilling. Complaining about the fringe doesn't really make one's argument.

It was merely an after-thought and not meant as proof of anything.

[catsi563]

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that we were stupid and shortsighted. It's not like we didn't know that oil would eventually run out and we've been worrying about our dependence on foreign oil for nearly forty years now. And worrying is about as far as it got. So now China and Germany are years ahead of us on solar energy research and then we yielded our lead in electric and hybrid cars to Japan.

this is also what ive been saying as well. that short sightedness is at the core of whats happening now. its what lead --along with greed-- to the lack of oversight, and so on and so forth. its a mess, and its a mess that could have been avoided if wed only looked further then the end of our collective noses.

[Nick Soapdish]

It was merely an after-thought and not meant as proof of anything.

I didn't think that it was proof, but ...

Well, I guess I'm just too sensitive to it now. Sorry. I've heard that complaint waaay too many times, usually from people that are defending the status quo. It usually segues into a list of the problems with the alternatives - that are admitted even by those that support those alternatives (or oppose the status quo which is sometimes confused as being the same) - and then the argument that we shouldn't take action until those problems get fixed.

[Nate River]

I didn't think that it was proof, but ...

Well, I guess I'm just too sensitive to it now. Sorry. I've heard that complaint waaay too many times, usually from people that are defending the status quo. It usually segues into a list of the problems with the alternatives - that are admitted even by those that support those alternatives (or oppose the status quo which is sometimes confused as being the same) - and then the argument that we shouldn't take action until those problems get fixed.

I'm sensitive in the opposite direction. I have no qualms with pursing alternative fuel sources and continuing to invest in them. One of the ironies about the spill is that BP was one of the darlings of the enviromentalist movement because it invested in such technologies.

My issue is with people pretending that the economics of them are something other than they are or don't matter and those that don't provide a whole lot of suggestions of what to do until the alternatives are economically viable.

I'll got to catsi's WWII example. The economy transformed, yes, but why did WWII cause that? It creaetd a demand for those goods. That weren't just produced for the heck of it. It was a response to the massive demand created by the war. As Soupy explained, when the price for gasoline is cheap the demand for alternatives is low. Who will produce them if all that can be done with is to be sold at loss? Even the corn-based ethanol that is required to be a part of gasoline only survives on the massive subsidies by government.

I'd be curious to see where our broke federal government is going to get the funding to build all those autoplants, hire the works to run them, and spend the money to build the cars to meet the demand, and at the same time produce vehicles of compartively quality and cost to the consumer.

And it you recall, when that was put into place both fuel and food costs went up. Fuel because the growers couldn't meet demand and food because corn used for fuel can't be used for food. Sugarcane based ethanol faces a similar problem. Farmer's will have to grow a sufficient amount to meet consumer demand. How much land will that take? Land used for that purpose cannot be used for another and time spent growing it is time spent not growing something else.

The cost per Kilowatt hour for wind power is considerably higher than coal and building the turbines is expensive and consumes significant amounts of land. For those who don't have alot of spending money, that increase matters. It works in places like west texas were there is a whole lot of nothing and the land doesn't have a whole lot of alternative uses, but its not to the point where it could come close to supply the nations needs and at a cost that people can afford.

From what I know, it sounds like most alternatives are only to the point of supplements useful in limited circumstances, but aren't even close to viable alternatives to oil, especially on the economic front. Until something is developed to that point, what do you suggest we do in the meantime? If you have one, I'd honestly love to hear it. If you think we should invest more that's fine and not a bad idea, but what do we do about providing for the current needs of the economy?

Nobody's asked why the nation is adicted to oil in the first place? It's not just because of evil oil companies. For you average consumner it is a relatively available at a currently relatively cheap price. If your alternative vehicle and fuel are more expensive to produce and purchase demand for it isn't going to high. All cash for clunkers was was a subsidy for a type of vehicle. I don't think it was nearly as successful as advertised. The real test for success is the creation of NEW demand; people who would have otherwise not purchased a vehicle without the program. If all it did was cause people who want one to buy one a bit sooner or defer the purhcase a bit later, then that's not a success.

[Nick Soapdish]

I wasn't aware that BP was one of the darlings of us environmentalists. I do know that they spend some money on researching alternative energy - just like every other major oil company. The one that I hear the most about is Exxon's efforts in that direction, but they definitely aren't beloved by environmentalists.

One of the issues of cost that is almost always ignored is that we aren't paying the full costs of oil or coal now and a significant chunk of the costs that we are paying now isn't borne by those using coal or oil. Pollution results in poorer health - that can either lead to increased health care costs or more missed work. Pollution also damages the ecosystem - which impacts agriculture and recreational components of our economy. And I'm not referring to the oil spill right now because I'm still hoping that BP is going to pay for all the economic damages. The future costs are also that pollution, but it's also the opportunity cost. Since we're using such incredibly cheap energy now, we won't have it available later. Which is fine for people like me since I don't have any kids, but it's just as irresponsible to future generations as constantly cranking up the federal deficit if not more so.

The main subsidies that we're paying for now aren't because of their alternative energy possibilities, but because of their lobbying power.

And I wouldn't say that alternative energy is considerably more expensive. Wind costs about $55 per kW/hour vs. about $53 for coal. It does take up a lot of land (if not done over water), but that land can be multi-purpose - and used for rangeland or some agriculture. The Nature Conservancy has been studying how well it works as conservation land as well. (It's fine for some species, but a significant impact on others so the idea is to put wind farms in areas where those impacted species don't live anyway.)

The US government doesn't need to pay for everything. I still believe in American ingenuity. It just needs to give a bit of a push or else the nations that are giving those industries a bit of help will be attracting the experts - like they have been for the last decade.

And there are some energy development ideas that I want the US to step back on dramatically. Such as the subsidies to the oil companies and subsidies to farmers for ethanol.

Most of it is that I think we should invest more and I'm furious that we haven't been since ... well, ever since I first started following the issue shortly after Reagan tore up CAFE.

Edited out a bit of snarkiness.

Edited by Nick Soapdish, 30 June 2010 - 05:59 PM.

[Insurrection]

I wanted to check more of this out. Some enviromentalist/activist from Alabama took a plane out and shot footage of the oil spill.

Edited by Insurrection, 01 July 2010 - 06:11 AM.

[Nate River]

Edited out a bit of snarkiness.

I figured as much. I knew I wasn't just imagining things.

It didn't bother me since my posts have been a bit snarky. So, it's not like I didn't deserve it.

[Nee-sama]

Wow, I feel so grateful to the men who made that video. Finally, someone shows the truth and asks the questions that everyone needs to know.

Contrast that to what we're getting from mainstream media. Like the first 2 paragraphs in this story.

Edited by Nee-sama, 02 July 2010 - 12:01 AM.

[Insurrection]

Okay WTF?

[Black Rose]

O.o ? This doesn't make sense, does it?

[TheBerserkMoogle]

Well, it kinda does in a way if you want to "Preserve" the beauty of the beaches by covering up the oil, but if beauty of the beaches doesn't matter then it's basically just a big waste of money.

[Nick Soapdish]

I figured as much. I knew I wasn't just imagining things.

It didn't bother me since my posts have been a bit snarky. So, it's not like I didn't deserve it.

It's not like the snark is all gone.

But I thought that I'd crossed the line there from just being sarcastic to being rude. I didn't think it'd be a problem, but it was unnecessary.

[Kyuudaime]

Well, it kinda does in a way if you want to "Preserve" the beauty of the beaches by covering up the oil, but if beauty of the beaches doesn't matter then it's basically just a big waste of money.

It's like an adult spilling wine on the floor and then covering it up with a carpet, it was irresponsible to cover it up with oil.

[Nee-sama]

Hmm, could it just be that the oil is getting pushed up against the dumped sand from the tides? It might be just another way to stop the oil before it reaches the boon?

[Kyuudaime]

You mean from the oil spill? I doubt it, I can't see that much sand just happening to be pushed onto it by coincidence.

[Black Rose]

Well, I think it is just a waste of money. They are trying to sweep the problem under the rug

[Sakura Blossoms]

The Gulf Coast isn't the only oil spill disaster:

http://finance.yahoo...125839.html?x=0

Most gripping quote from the article:

Environmentalists estimate as much as 550 million gallons of oil have poured in -- at a rate roughly comparable to one Exxon Valdez disaster per year. For the last 50 years.