idrankwhat 0 #26 June 17, 2008 Quote I aggree that we should fund alternative energy research and marketing, but I disagree whole heartedly with the implication that marketing is currently the biggest failure. All of the current alternative fuel vehicles are inferior to fossil fueled vehicles in at least one of several ways. That depends on what you consider to be "superior". I consider a car that can carry 5 people, 4 comfortably and get over 100 mpg to be superior to most of the vehicles on the road. And that technology is available, and driving on the road, today. And regarding your marketing angle, you should watch "Who killed the electric car" some time. It's eye opening, addressing that issue along with quite a few others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 June 17, 2008 Quote Go drive a Jetta TDI or a diesel BMW sometime. a modern one. you won't be able to tell the difference between it and a gas version...except perhaps in the increased power and fuel economy Europe has not adopted the same diesel emissions standards the US has. And, unless everyone over there has purchased a new BluTec diesel from Diamler, or VW to replace their "older" cars... Quote Yes, i'm a proud member of the "enviro-crowd" who will happily buy one of the new diesel cars when they come out next year. It's too bad that we've done such a poor job marketing the new diesel technology. Diesel is in short supply, and the US regulations have all but crimped them out of this market. I like diesel powerplants too, but the US market cannot support higher diesel demand right now. Regulations have made the lower sulfur fuel more expensive to refine, and it takes more oil to make. The consumer demand on top of overall economic demand (like from truckers) will not help with independence or consumption.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #28 June 17, 2008 Max you are forgetting one fact about CA VS The Gulf of Mexico... Most of the rigs in CA are nearshore in fairly shallow water on the very small continental shelf. You do not have to go very far offshore till you are talking depths in excess of viable technology for oil rigs..Unless you want the moored platforms( record depths available are HALF the depth you find off the CA coast).. or far less safe deep water drilling ships that can not stay on station in rough seas. Granted.. there are some ares that could be reached and probably will but the danger to the platforms goes up exponentially the deeper you go and the stormier the seas. CA is subject to the hurricanes coming up from MExico.. as well as the North Pacific winter storms that last for a good part of the winter that have winds in excess of hurricane strength but are just called "extra tropical storms". The storm season of the North Pacific lasts longer than the hurricane season in the Atlantic and Gulf and summer brings the hurricanes north to CA from the tropics. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Newsroom/Publications/deepwater/drilling/mn_drilling.html The Not-So-Pacific Ocean is completely different beast than the Gulf. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #29 June 17, 2008 Quote I consider a car that can carry 5 people, 4 comfortably and get over 100 mpg to be superior to most of the vehicles on the road. And that technology is available, and driving on the road, today. And regarding your marketing angle, you should watch "Who killed the electric car" some time. It's eye opening, addressing that issue along with quite a few others. Please tell me where, and more importantly, how much more does it cost than a regular car? If it were that simple, everyone would have one by yesterday. And I maintain that a true breakthru in alternative fuel vehicles will be so huge that it needs no marketing, which is all that I was trying to say to begin with. Things like E85, plug in cars, etc are all nice, but are not a night and day difference. If Honda all the sudden came out with a car that got 150 MPG, ran off of fart fumes, burned your body fat while driving, emitted only pure dasani water all while donating the profits to the baby seals club of america, then it would be so huge that everyone in america would be talking about it at the dinner table and it would need no advertising. The reason why you have to advertise for E85 vehicles, hybrids, and plug in cars is that they really are not as good Jeez, everyone knew what I was trying to get at, why must everyone always pick at the details? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 June 17, 2008 Quote The reason why you have to advertise for E85 vehicles, hybrids, and plug in cars is that they really are not as good Jeez, everyone knew what I was trying to get at, why must everyone always pick at the details? By not as good do you mean it wont do the 1/4 mile in under 12 sec?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #31 June 17, 2008 QuoteScooters? Really silly looking, and not as safe as a car. My irrational side would agree on the silly factor, but if everyone choose your Montero to the scooters and their 60-90mpg economy), then you'll eventually find yourself on an even "sillier" bicycle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #32 June 17, 2008 Quote> Sorry, but the only way your prius beats my Mitsu Montero is gas mileage. And handling; the Prius has a much lower CG due to its body shape and its battery pack. And looks; the Montero looks like a brick. And service; less maintenance required since I don't have to change brake pads or oil as often. . Ease of parking too, I expect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #33 June 17, 2008 Quote Quote But I just said that off-shore rigs don't pose a real threat to the environment. In fact, they seem to have helped it. Congress has never been known to let a few pesky facts get in the way.... and have you two actually established this as fact? Repeating it three times doesn't make it true, you know. I've done some dives on the rigs off the Huntington Beach shore. It provides a reef like habitat for mussels, rock scallaps, and a small amount of fish life. But the reef surface area in the depths that receive sunlight is pretty low. I see enough benefit that I support the rigs to reef programs, but let's not pretend this is a great ecological boom. We're more than aware of the consequences of a tanker mishap docking with the rig or hitting reefs. In 1990 Huntington had a significant spill when a tanker ruptured the hull trying to offload into the underwater pipeline. Almost certainly did more damage in one incident than all of the rigs on that coast ever created. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #34 June 17, 2008 >And I maintain that a true breakthru in alternative fuel vehicles will be >so huge that it needs no marketing . . . The Prius has sold over a million in less than ten years, and they are so in demand that they're hard to find in showrooms. Their bluebook value is among the highest out there, since everyone wants one. There are now over a dozen hybrids on the market, and manufacturers are falling over themselves to get more to market. Why did it take ten years for this car to get to be so popular? Poor marketing. Most people didn't know about it before they became ubiquitous on highways. Nowadays they are flying off lots even though Toyota has been ramping up capacity as fast as they can. Same was true of the PC. I got my first computer in 1978, and I sent my first email in 1983 via Arpanet (Internet predecessor.) Yet the real explosion in the Internet (and subsequent bubble) didn't happen until the late 90's. So to answer your question, true breakthroughs get recognized eventually. Well-marketed breakthroughs get recognized faster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #35 June 17, 2008 Damn, Billvon wins again. That probably makes it like 0-5 for me. Just when I thought I had him too... Ever consider running for political office?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #36 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuote I consider a car that can carry 5 people, 4 comfortably and get over 100 mpg to be superior to most of the vehicles on the road. And that technology is available, and driving on the road, today. And regarding your marketing angle, you should watch "Who killed the electric car" some time. It's eye opening, addressing that issue along with quite a few others. Please tell me where, and more importantly, how much more does it cost than a regular car? If it were that simple, everyone would have one by yesterday. Buy a 2004-2008 Prius and then contact these guys. http://www.a123systems.com/hymotion/products Give them $10K and you're done. Check out the site and use the plug in calculator to figure out your expected mileage. If you don't want to go that route then you'll have to wait for the production line plug-in from Toyota in 2010. Unfortunately they are going to be leased at first and you won't be able to get one unless your business leases it. But to address your other concerns. No, there's no magic technology that's going to give everyone what they want at a super low price. Low/zero emission vehicles can go a long way to serving the majority of the public with all their needs while simultaneously conserving tremendous amounts of fuel. Not everyone will want them and to them I say "knock yourself out". They're free to buy the motor home and tow their Hummer if they want to. But again, if you get the chance, check out "Who killed the electric car". Until I watched it I didn't even know that there were so many manufacturers that built successful zero EV cars. And people still DO want them. A Toyota RAV4 EV (that wasn't crushed) just recently sold on ebay for over $60K. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #37 June 17, 2008 Quote Same was true of the PC. I got my first computer in 1978. When you were 12?I got one the same year, but I was 32.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #38 June 17, 2008 >When you were 12? 13 actually. A Commodore PET. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #39 June 17, 2008 QuoteSame was true of the PC. I got my first computer in 1978, and I sent my first email in 1983 via Arpanet (Internet predecessor.) Yet the real explosion in the Internet (and subsequent bubble) didn't happen until the late 90's. I don't think this was a case of bad marketing. The infrastructure wasn't there yet. Arpanet became NSFnet which eventually became wide spread. Before that you had a lot of communication at the local BBS level, and then self contained national networks like Compuserve, Prodigy, and (ugh) AOL. It took longer than it should have for those 3 to join every university on the planet, but I don't see it happening before the mid 90s still. My first "computer" was 1980ish - a dumb terminal with a 300baud acoustic modem that dialed into the Long Beach State mainframe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #40 June 17, 2008 Clicky Drill? Why? The bugs are coming! I think increased drilling would be just dandy, but another refinery or two might be needed as well. Opening up ANWR would be a good thing as well. I hope the bug thing pans out. THat would be cool. In and of itself it probably won't be able to supply the U.S. , but it could be another source of supply. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #41 June 17, 2008 things we already know about drilling for oil on our own soil: 1. we don' have that much so it would hardly dent the imports 2. it will take 7-10 years to see it anyway, even if we said 'go' today. 3. we use 25% of the world's oil already, how much more exactly do you want? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption I am for drilling ANYWHERE in the USA, but not if it is so people can go "Yippee - I get to keep my SUV!" But if we combine that with energy REDUCTION programs, solar incentives, taxes for big vehicles, or rebates for smaller ones, more public transit etc. Bottom line - WE USE TOO MUCH ENERGY - and we live ina dream to think that somehow energy conservation will hurt the economy. Europe has strong economies all over the place and they have been driving small cars since the beginning of time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #42 June 17, 2008 Quotethings we already know about drilling for oil on our own soil: 1. we don' have that much so it would hardly dent the imports In the 1980s, the US was producing somewhere around 8.5m bbls per day (avg). Today, it's down to about 5m bbls. Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm Quote2. it will take 7-10 years to see it anyway, even if we said 'go' today. That's what was said ten years ago (specific to ANWR). Quote3. we use 25% of the world's oil already, how much more exactly do you want? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption Granted...no dispute. Did you see the other graph on a per capita basis, interesting: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita Much of that energy can be generated by other means (like nuclear), and I've been a proponent of these methods. However, the very people that would spurn us of fossil fuels do not allow the other means to be build, nor the ability to stabilize domestic production and supply since I do not believe short term replacement of fossil fuel sources is feasible. QuoteI am for drilling ANYWHERE in the USA, but not if it is so people can go "Yippee - I get to keep my SUV!" The market will bear what the market will bear. Al Gore's concern for the environment hasn't reduced his massive consumption of resources. Quotedream to think that somehow energy conservation will hurt the economy. Never said that it would, but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers...these businesses which employ tens-of-thousands of talented Americans are being hindered by movements that do not have the environment at heart. We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/05/13/top-five-actions-your-federal-government-can-take-to-lower-energy-prices/ I'm tired of "can't do this" and "can't do that". This country could be off middle-east sources of energy in as little as 10 years if we really want it. Since I'm not in favor of abandoning our interests overseas, a comprehensive 25-50+ year plan is far better. Yet, somehow, our Congress is bent on self-destruction. It's not about SUVs, it's about getting serious for a change - drill here, drill now.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #43 June 17, 2008 >but I am weary of government claiming to have the answers... Yet you want the government to open ANWR to give you the solution. >I'm tired of "can't do this" and "can't do that". This country could be off >middle-east sources of energy in as little as 10 years if we really want it. I agree. But for as long as people keep blaming liberals/environmentalists/scientists/Al Gore/insert-your-favorite-scapegoat here, then nothing will happen. As soon as they start embracing solutions instead of blame, then we can move forward. >It's not about SUVs, it's about getting serious for a change - drill here, >drill now. Ignoring consumption while pushing production is like trying to fill a reservoir by pumping water into it instead of fixing the big hole in the dam. It didn't work in the past 50 years, and it won't work today. We have to fix the hole in the dam first. If you want to get serious, demand a CAFE of 50mpg. We will be off foreign oil within ten years. If you want nothing to change, demand drilling. We will be more dependent than we are now within 10 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #44 June 17, 2008 You’re arguing that the US should do something just because the rest of the world or Europe does/may do it? Quote In the 1980s, the US was producing somewhere around 8.5m bbls per day (avg). Today, it's down to about 5m bbls. Source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/...t/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm Why was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. Quote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #45 June 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteBecause our legislature has been unable to come up with a compromise between reasonable environmental protection and causing our economy to collapse under the strain of energy costs. But I just said that off-shore rigs don't pose a real threat to the environment. In fact, they seem to have helped it. QuoteMaybe someone who is better at searching can look up how many of these we currently have and see what legislature is blocking the constuction of more. Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) introduced yesterday regarding exploration on the Continental Shelf. It was dropped in committee. He plans on reintroducing today or tomorrow. QuoteNow heres a possibly crazy idea that vaguly makes sense in my feeble 22 year old brain: The US starts its own national oil company (heavily subsizided at first, The US government is not an expert on oil exploration. In fact, Congress is planning on privatizing their own restaurants...now there's talk of them handling health care and energy even more? Sorry, I really, really, really hate your idea. QuoteReasons I can think of why it would never work: How about: Socialism doesn't work. Quote-Would take too long to pass congress -Environazis (am I allowed to say that?) would never allow it -NIMBY crowd -simply not enough oil exists on our land/ off shore Your right about bullet number one and two. We and estimated trillions of resources in the shelf and rocky mountains (shale oil). Government needs to get out of the way.Quote Speaking of shale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves I was to start working on one of the first shale oils jobs in 81 I think, in CO. All the talk. Condos to live in and co. trucks for everyone. Seems if I remember correctly the REAGAN administration had the plug pulled on all that shit. I starved for a yr. under that bastard. Finally went back to work for 5 bucks an hr. vs. the 19 I was making at the time to feed my kids. trickle down economics, don't ya love em. The gov't needs to stay the fuck out. I say let em drill everywhere. Safety for workers and the enviornment has come a long way except in third world countries. They have to drill either now or later. No Doubt.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #46 June 17, 2008 Quote We and estimated trillions of resources in the shelf and rocky mountains (shale oil). Government needs to get out of the way.Quote Speaking of shale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves I was to start working on one of the first shale oils jobs in 81 I think, in CO. All the talk. Condos to live in and co. trucks for everyone. Seems if I remember correctly the REAGAN administration had the plug pulled on all that shit. I starved for a yr. under that bastard. Finally went back to work for 5 bucks an hr. vs. the 19 I was making at the time to feed my kids. trickle down economics, don't ya love em. . You do bring forth an intesting and timely piece of history. The Carter administration invested millions in getting shale oil recovery started. President Reagan abandoned it in 1982, along with investment in solar energy. It's estimated that the shale oil in Colorado & Wyoming is ~800 billion recoverable barrels, 3x more than Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of conventional crude. Shale oil is NOT a silver bullet. It won't be as easy or cheap to recover as sweet crude ... but imagine if the US had only continued to invest in development of these technologies in the 1980s? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #47 June 17, 2008 Why were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #48 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. QuoteQuote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. I've said time and a again that eliminating sources of energy is not an energy policy. There is no reason to set any expectation about "alternatives" to oil. There is every reason to set expectations of supplemental technologies to oil. How? Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Natural gas and geothermal is an excellent home heating option. Hell, wood is too (on a micro scale) if it's replenished. Coal-gas conversion can also supplement along with solar. Hybrid technologies to supplement heavy trucks and assist with fuel consumption (high torque up and down). Honda's FCX is on the market now, but hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long way off. Those vehicles cost Honda nearly $1M/each to make. Hybrid vehicles are nice, but efficient internal combustion engines continue to advance. If the government doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, the market will find solutions for everyone. Meanwhile, if we harvest our own resources for use on the global market, we, the USA advance our own policies, provide a stable supply to the world, and maintain a true leadership role. These are answers we start NOW. We don't need a Kyoto Treaty or some ambiguous accord.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #49 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Good question ... in a market economy. The tax dollars were largely to fund research to develop techniques and methods for extracting shale oil that industry wouldn't fund (like the NIH, NSF, DoD, etc do). Vannevar Bush recognized this in 1944. He also recognized the critical importance of basic and applied research for national security, innovation, and economic competitiveness (altho' he probably wouldn't have used the latter phrase as it's a more recent meme). There were also subsidies, including tax breaks similar to what there are currently. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #50 June 17, 2008 Quote I'll state for a third time, the off-shore rigs have not been proven to be an environmental detriment, in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. I work on the rigs, am on one right now as it happens. I could go outside and take a picture of the nice shiny looking film on the waters surface to prove otherwise. When you fly over all the rigs in the chopper on the way out here, all of them have it around them running for miles. Don't believe what the oil companies say about how environmentally friendly they are. Saying that, we do have segregation bins to seperate our rubbish types for recycling. Damn hippies everywhere! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
nerdgirl 0 #46 June 17, 2008 Quote We and estimated trillions of resources in the shelf and rocky mountains (shale oil). Government needs to get out of the way.Quote Speaking of shale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves I was to start working on one of the first shale oils jobs in 81 I think, in CO. All the talk. Condos to live in and co. trucks for everyone. Seems if I remember correctly the REAGAN administration had the plug pulled on all that shit. I starved for a yr. under that bastard. Finally went back to work for 5 bucks an hr. vs. the 19 I was making at the time to feed my kids. trickle down economics, don't ya love em. . You do bring forth an intesting and timely piece of history. The Carter administration invested millions in getting shale oil recovery started. President Reagan abandoned it in 1982, along with investment in solar energy. It's estimated that the shale oil in Colorado & Wyoming is ~800 billion recoverable barrels, 3x more than Saudi Arabia's proven reserves of conventional crude. Shale oil is NOT a silver bullet. It won't be as easy or cheap to recover as sweet crude ... but imagine if the US had only continued to invest in development of these technologies in the 1980s? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andrewwhyte 1 #47 June 17, 2008 Why were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #48 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. QuoteQuote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. I've said time and a again that eliminating sources of energy is not an energy policy. There is no reason to set any expectation about "alternatives" to oil. There is every reason to set expectations of supplemental technologies to oil. How? Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Natural gas and geothermal is an excellent home heating option. Hell, wood is too (on a micro scale) if it's replenished. Coal-gas conversion can also supplement along with solar. Hybrid technologies to supplement heavy trucks and assist with fuel consumption (high torque up and down). Honda's FCX is on the market now, but hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long way off. Those vehicles cost Honda nearly $1M/each to make. Hybrid vehicles are nice, but efficient internal combustion engines continue to advance. If the government doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, the market will find solutions for everyone. Meanwhile, if we harvest our own resources for use on the global market, we, the USA advance our own policies, provide a stable supply to the world, and maintain a true leadership role. These are answers we start NOW. We don't need a Kyoto Treaty or some ambiguous accord.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #49 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Good question ... in a market economy. The tax dollars were largely to fund research to develop techniques and methods for extracting shale oil that industry wouldn't fund (like the NIH, NSF, DoD, etc do). Vannevar Bush recognized this in 1944. He also recognized the critical importance of basic and applied research for national security, innovation, and economic competitiveness (altho' he probably wouldn't have used the latter phrase as it's a more recent meme). There were also subsidies, including tax breaks similar to what there are currently. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites dropoutdave 0 #50 June 17, 2008 Quote I'll state for a third time, the off-shore rigs have not been proven to be an environmental detriment, in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. I work on the rigs, am on one right now as it happens. I could go outside and take a picture of the nice shiny looking film on the waters surface to prove otherwise. When you fly over all the rigs in the chopper on the way out here, all of them have it around them running for miles. Don't believe what the oil companies say about how environmentally friendly they are. Saying that, we do have segregation bins to seperate our rubbish types for recycling. Damn hippies everywhere! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Andrewwhyte 1 #47 June 17, 2008 Why were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy was that? Peak oil. Domestic oil discoveries peaked in 1971. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. Shale oil and fields in the ocean have since been discovered. US and Canadian shale oil sources add up in trillions of barrels of oil. Trillions. Orders-of-magnitude more than the middle east. QuoteQuote We, as Americans, have overcome hurdles in the past. How have we lost the desire to endeavor to persevere? Concur. So how about putting as much passion and effort (& advocating your representatives do as well) into advocating for solar energy and other alternative energy sources? I have, but I do not subscribe to "oil must be replaced" theology. I've said time and a again that eliminating sources of energy is not an energy policy. There is no reason to set any expectation about "alternatives" to oil. There is every reason to set expectations of supplemental technologies to oil. How? Clean coal power, nuclear, hydro and solar could power the grid without oil if we would just build the plants. We need not burn a single drop of oil to power the grid. Natural gas and geothermal is an excellent home heating option. Hell, wood is too (on a micro scale) if it's replenished. Coal-gas conversion can also supplement along with solar. Hybrid technologies to supplement heavy trucks and assist with fuel consumption (high torque up and down). Honda's FCX is on the market now, but hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long way off. Those vehicles cost Honda nearly $1M/each to make. Hybrid vehicles are nice, but efficient internal combustion engines continue to advance. If the government doesn't stop anyone from doing anything, the market will find solutions for everyone. Meanwhile, if we harvest our own resources for use on the global market, we, the USA advance our own policies, provide a stable supply to the world, and maintain a true leadership role. These are answers we start NOW. We don't need a Kyoto Treaty or some ambiguous accord.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #49 June 17, 2008 QuoteWhy were tax dollars required to insure the oil companies got rich on this resource? Good question ... in a market economy. The tax dollars were largely to fund research to develop techniques and methods for extracting shale oil that industry wouldn't fund (like the NIH, NSF, DoD, etc do). Vannevar Bush recognized this in 1944. He also recognized the critical importance of basic and applied research for national security, innovation, and economic competitiveness (altho' he probably wouldn't have used the latter phrase as it's a more recent meme). There were also subsidies, including tax breaks similar to what there are currently. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dropoutdave 0 #50 June 17, 2008 Quote I'll state for a third time, the off-shore rigs have not been proven to be an environmental detriment, in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. I work on the rigs, am on one right now as it happens. I could go outside and take a picture of the nice shiny looking film on the waters surface to prove otherwise. When you fly over all the rigs in the chopper on the way out here, all of them have it around them running for miles. Don't believe what the oil companies say about how environmentally friendly they are. Saying that, we do have segregation bins to seperate our rubbish types for recycling. Damn hippies everywhere! ------------------------------------------------------ May Contain Nut traces...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
