|
"Guess what this liberal will be all about?" (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Q5echo |
 |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
|
that's exactly why we need to move away from petroleum as an energy source. increasing domestic supply will only delay the inevitable, and it will not change the fact that the price will be largely controlled by foreign supply. moving away from that source now is the better option. we have the technology to do so; we haven't done so because oil was once cheap. changing our entire policy will be painful, but it's absolutely necessary. we should utilize our own resources so we are not dependent upon other countries to power our economy. the US has more wind, solar, and bio potential than any other country in the world. it's stupid to push those resources to the side because oil is, or was, cheap. the point is we don't control oil supply, and at some point in the future without a significant change the price of oil will be astronomical. also, we should utilize nuclear as an option, especially considering much of the worlds uranium supply is located in friendly countries (canada and australia). |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
we should utilize our own resources so we are not dependent upon other countries to power our economy. the US has more wind, solar, and bio potential than any other country in the world. it's stupid to push those resources to the side because oil is, or was, cheap. |
i don't disagree with you but what "powers our economy" right now and what immediately effects all of us is the transportation sector. i.e. cars, trains, planes, trucks among a plethora of other petroleum thirsty infrastructure. wind, solar and bio are just not going to cut it if you want something moved in this country. especially considering that 40% of our power generating capacity comes from coal...and we have over 250 years worth of that stuff!
i'd save the wind, solar and bio argument for the Green's, but thats just me. they're not going to get me to work and back though. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't disagree with you but what "powers our economy" right now and what immediately effects all of us is the transportation sector. i.e. cars, trains, planes, trucks among a plethora of other petroleum thirsty infrastructure. wind, solar and bio are just not going to cut it if you want something moved in this country. especially considering that 40% of our power generating capacity comes from coal...and we have over 250 years worth of that stuff!
i'd save the wind, solar and bio argument for the Green's, but thats just me. they're not going to get me to work and back though. |
you're absolutely correct that today bio, solar, and wind won't get you to work. the reason being that the government is complacent with the current petro regime. With flex-fuel, bio, hydrogen, lithium battery, and plug in hybrid technologies, there is no reason we couldn't eliminate petro from our land transportation methods. the reason we don't eliminate petroleum products is because the oil companies stand to lose big time. unfortunately, since big oil is a big player in politics, politicians thus far have had little incentive to change policy. i see no reason we couldn't have hybrid-bio(or hydrogen)-fueled cars with plug in capability. in theory, such vehicles would have significantly greater fuel economy than the current gasoline regime, and it would be largely fueled from domestic sources.
the argument that moving to these technologies would slow our economy is stupid (not that you said that). innovation is never a hindrance to an economy. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
With flex-fuel, bio, hydrogen, lithium battery, and plug in hybrid technologies, there is no reason we couldn't eliminate petro from our land transportation methods. |
sure there is. technology and cost. more accurately, the costs compounded by the lack of technology.
this is kind of simplistic approach to this argument but the way i see it, if the Norwegians or the Japanese aren't all over it like a dirty shirt then something is amiss with the whole notion that we're (the US) deliberate footsteps away from some "Standard Model" of higher energy consciousness.
and if you are implying that the US has some vast conspriacy to keep us tied down to oil then i'd refer back to that chart at the top of this page and say it's a world wide conspiracy then. not just Exxon and ConacoPhillips pulling the strings.
furthermore, i don't think it's secret that, given outlooks on global demand, the planet will soon sometime within our lifetimes be on the output decline. no one better than petro-companies know that fact. given that we're talking about a time span of only several decades the very first individuals looking to protect profits and hedge futures within that time will be those same multi trillion $ petro-conglomerates...if it were as easy as i think youre implying.
i don't think for one second though the American automobile industry hasn't or isn't acting like what you are saying, i just don't think it's exactly that way with petro as a whole and everything that petro moves. it's just too much.
industry tends to move like water, through the path of least resistance. it can't just stop on a dime either and the market is much, much faster. the fact remains that nothing moves mass, nothing builds more, nothing flies faster, more efficiently or cheaper (relatively speaking of course) than petroleum based energy sources. the billions and billions of dollars and years spent worldwide in idependent analysis and research keeps proving that, despite what you are saying about the petro market. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| You know this might just be me since I live in a foreign country. But I have always heard that the US has the largest reserve of oil and Im not talking about shale. Perhaps the reason why the Americans keep on using other countries oil is to make them and the rest of the world dependent on American oil once they run out of oil to export? And bio-fuel is the worse fuel for the economy and the environment. And I mean A LOT worse. Maybe Americans should send men to the moon already to extract C3? So that they could learn how to refine it?? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
You know this might just be me since I live in a foreign country. But I have always heard that the US has the largest reserve of oil and Im not talking about shale. Perhaps the reason why the Americans keep on using other countries oil is to make them and the rest of the world dependent on American oil once they run out of oil to export? And bio-fuel is the worse fuel for the economy and the environment. And I mean A LOT worse. Maybe Americans should send men to the moon already to extract C3? So that they could learn how to refine it?? |
BIO is not worse. The way we process BIO is worse. BIO from sugarcane is very efficient. If the plants producing the sugarcane were powered by wind and solar your talking about very little emissions in its production (with the exception of burning the cane fields).
The problem is sugarcane BIO will never take off in the US because we have strict trade barriers on sugar to protect the corn syrup and domestic sugar industry (which is very small). |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
sure there is. technology and cost. more accurately, the costs compounded by the lack of technology. |
that's a BS GOP comment. There is no lack of technology, and the cost is only too much because we haven't embraced the technology so that mass production could reduce the cost.
Remember, at one time computers used to be highly inefficient and costly. The difference between alt energy and computers is there was no real substitute for computers so the technology was fully embraced. If the government embraced alt energy technologies who knows what the cost would be in the future.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
this is kind of simplistic approach to this argument but the way i see it, if the Norwegians or the Japanese aren't all over it like a dirty shirt then something is amiss with the whole notion that we're (the US) deliberate footsteps away from some "Standard Model" of higher energy consciousness. |
hardly simplistic.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and if you are implying that the US has some vast conspriacy to keep us tied down to oil then i'd refer back to that chart at the top of this page and say it's a world wide conspiracy then. not just Exxon and ConacoPhillips pulling the strings. |
i'm not a conspiracy theorist. my view, and that of all rational people is that the oil companies make significant political contributions so that politicians support big oil positions. Government could advance alt energy by the right mix of investment, tax breaks, and credits. Why hasn't government thrown its full support behind alt energy? big contributions from big oil. it doesn't matter that most oil supply is currently foreign. There are still many people in this country making billions from oil. Those people are highly influential in politics.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
furthermore, i don't think it's secret that, given outlooks on global demand, the planet will soon sometime within our lifetimes be on the output decline. no one better than petro-companies know that fact. given that we're talking about a time span of only several decades the very first individuals looking to protect profits and hedge futures within that time will be those same multi trillion $ petro-conglomerates...if it were as easy as i think youre implying. |
petro companies invest billions to perfect petro technologies, not alternative energy technologies. they don't have the expertise in that arena. that's not to say they can't enter into the market efficient, however, with record profits there is no need for oil companies to foray into alt energy at this point. It would be a capital drain without the immediate returns their shareholders are used to receiving. These companies need to answer to shareholders, and shareholders want immediate returns and not capital investments into a substitute energy source. If Exxon investors wanted to invest in solar, wind, or hydrogen technology they would invest in GE, Vestas, or United Technologies. Investors put their money in Exxon because of petroleum and the company must account for that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i don't think for one second though the American automobile industry hasn't or isn't acting like what you are saying, i just don't think it's exactly that way with petro as a whole and everything that petro moves. it's just too much. |
government could make this move faster. we haven't put the right incentives in place. our government is notorious for giving incentives where they are not needed, i.e, corn farmers, oil producers, etc... we should be giving tax breaks to alt energy producers and huge university grants to engineering schools to advance these technologies.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
industry tends to move like water, through the path of least resistance. it can't just stop on a dime either and the market is much, much faster. the fact remains that nothing moves mass, nothing builds more, nothing flies faster, more efficiently or cheaper (relatively speaking of course) than petroleum based energy sources. the billions and billions of dollars and years spent worldwide in idependent analysis and research keeps proving that, despite what you are saying about the petro market. |
currently, you are correct (that's why i keep saying the transition is going to be painful). but you must admit that if the right incentives were in place and if the government allowed the technologies to advance like computing technologies did through the 80s and 90s, we could possibly have a great substitute that is produced domestically. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
BIO is not worse. The way we process BIO is worse. BIO from sugarcane is very efficient. If the plants producing the sugarcane were powered by wind and solar your talking about very little emissions in its production (with the exception of burning the cane fields).
The problem is sugarcane BIO will never take off in the US because we have strict trade barriers on sugar to protect the corn syrup and domestic sugar industry (which is very small). |
BIO is worse because the energy output isn't the same as oil. There is nothing comparabale to oil as an energy source. Im sorry to say that but understand that I have a Bachelor and masters in Biochemistry. I should know what I am talking about better than what most people believe. If you look at Brazil and the reason why they are capable of having sugar as their alternative to oil you will see that it isn't really working. As it costs Brazilians more money a year to fill up. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
that's a BS GOP comment. |
i realize it's an election year but do we really need to politicize the argument? and i would respond by how is it not BS thinking that the U.S. Federal Government has the answer to solving alternative energy source problems at the transportation level? is it only the Federal Government doing research in this area? please don't refer to something like "alien technology".
| quote: | | There is no lack of technology, and the cost is only too much because we haven't embraced the technology so that mass production could reduce the cost. |
i'm going to have to challenge you on specifics on your very broad and bold statement.
| quote: | | Remember, at one time computers used to be highly inefficient and costly. The difference between alt energy and computers is there was no real substitute for computers so the technology was fully embraced. If the government embraced alt energy technologies who knows what the cost would be in the future. |
look thats an apples and oranges comparison. how did we get from UNIVAC to Apple I in 50 years? silicon. the Federal Government, in whatever obligations you say they have, will need to "embrace" their collective asses off to move 15 tons of freight across 1000 miles if interstate or 1000 tons of freight across 3000 miles of rail or 5 tons of freight 10,000 miles through the air just once without fossile fuel. i'm not saying nobody is working on doing that but we need our energy "silicon" to make that happen.
ok, good. we can agree on that. there are people on the forefront, on the cutting edge of this common problem. they're completely indepdent of the alleged nefarious constraints that our government puts on energy reseach in this country and they are no closer to the answer than anybody else.
thats not to say they won't ever find the answer. not at all, just not there yet. maybe a decade, maybe two. meanwhile here in 2008 we have a serious market problem. a MARKET problem to which i would agree and argue our Federal government abbetted by environmentalists has exacerbated to the point of near crisis. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
i'm not saying nobody is working on doing that but we need our energy "silicon" to make that happen. |
i totally agree with that statement. we just don't need our government tying any hands by providing tax incentives and research grants for petroleum R&D. i'm much more free market than most americans, but free markets sometimes go down the wrong path and this is definitely the wrong path. some slight guidance is surely necessary. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
What do you know about "stupidity"? You've been applauding bush for 7 and a half years.
Choose your adjectives more wisely.
Things we do NOT need:
A right-wing crazy like yourself using adjectives like "liberal" in a negative sense, in order to bolster your own failing party's lack of integrity.
Bring on the PROGRESSIVES, please. We need to bury this guy and the verbal fundamentalist poison he spreads.
it, I'm fed up. |
|
|
|
|
