NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been hearing things. And not from the voices INSIDE my head this time. I've heard that gas prices will be skyrocketing. Whether or not they will be, with th gas prices as they are right now, it's obvious we've got a problem. Over in the little state of Maryland, gas prices have hit the $3.90 mark. Now, as we all know, gas fuels the world. Almost all forms of transportation nowadays are reliant on Gasoline. If gas prices go up, everything goes up. Food, books, evrything. What do my fellow NSGers think we should do about this crisis? I personally say this: Individuals may not be able to make a big difference, but it is individuals that make the world. If each person tried to drive less, bike more, get a more fuel-efficent car, and slowly move towards energy independence from oil... Well, problem solved. But the question is how do you get that to happen? I'm not sure.

But the question is how do you get that to happen?
Electric cars and nuclear power. Problem solved. :D

Support public transportation. Vote for politicians who want to invest in it.

Electric cars and nuclear power. Problem solved. :D

I am Wilgrove and I support this post.

Electric cars and nuclear power. Problem solved. :D

How about...nuclear cars and electric power *little finger to mouth*

Electric cars and nuclear power. Problem solved. :D

My solution was going to be electric cars and every alternative renewable energy source except for nuclear power since it isn't renewable and I just don't like the waste/radiation.

We should leglly require that my grandmother is installed in all cars. That way we can exploit all the hot air she expends on an average journey blaming immigrants and the darkies for all societies ills to power the vehicle.

Problem solved.

We should make polls that don't suck.

We should make polls that don't suck.
I second that proposal, good sir!

Nuke the whales.

at least that's what a bumpersticker told me.

Too many people have forgotten how to use their legs. We should educate them. And if they don't want to learn, we should remove their legs (with a rusty spoon or some similarly vicious instrument) and burn them to power something else.

Seriously. People regularly drive to their local store to pick up a carton of milk. A trip that would take maybe ten, fifteen minutes on foot, less than five on a bicycle. Not only would you save money and the environment, but you'd burn some of that god-awful fat off of your hips! There's a time and a place for a car, but a lot of people seem to think that this time is always, and that this place is everywhere.

If you can't use your legs for whatever reason, you are exempt from such criticism of course. And no, pure laziness isn't a valid reason!

Oil problem? Problem? Huh? There is no problem.
If you're referring to the limited availability of fossil fuel, then I must say that humans have always been ever so inventive when it comes to getting things done. Transportation will be entirely relocated to railways (the way it's ought to be), electricity will be produced by nuclear plants (just like God intended), people will live without plastic (and replace it with something more adequate, such as the skulls of their enemies), and cars will be powered by stupidity (which is renewable).
Or if you're referring to how burning more oil results in more severe effects of global warming, then I can assure you, that the worst that can happen is the total annihilation of mankind. And that'll be a self-solving problem if I ever saw one.

I'm sure there's a Minority we can use as fuel.

If you can't use your legs for whatever reason, you are exempt from such criticism of course. And no, pure laziness isn't a valid reason!

How about this reason: I save my legs for kicking sanctimonious people like you in the face!
Joking.

How about this reason: I save my legs for kicking sanctimonious people like you in the face!
Joking.

Good luck swinging those lard pouches!

*runs*

Oil problem? Problem? Huh? There is no problem.
If you're referring to the limited availability of fossil fuel, then I must say that humans have always been ever so inventive when it comes to getting things done. Transportation will be entirely relocated to railways (the way it's ought to be), electricity will be produced by nuclear plants (just like God intended), people will live without plastic (and replace it with something more adequate, such as the skulls of their enemies), and cars will be powered by stupidity (which is renewable).
Or if you're referring to how burning more oil results in more severe effects of global warming, then I can assure you, that the worst that can happen is the total annihilation of mankind. And that'll be a self-solving problem if I ever saw one.
...
I can honestly say this is the most interesting post I've seen in a while. Yes, I relieze about half of it was sarcastic, please tell me that all of it is sarcastic. PLEASE!

DAMN YOU OPEC!

*shakes angry fist*

If there were no growing demand there would be no crisis. My wife's solution: nuke China and India. I know, I know. All I can say is don't shoot the messenger.













It's a joke. At least on my part. I think she was dead serious.

If there were no growing demand there would be no crisis. My wife's solution: nuke China and India. I know, I know. All I can say is don't shoot the messenger.













It's a joke. At least on my part. I think she was dead serious.
No, that's if you want to get rid of coal. If you want to get rid of demand for gasoline, you have to Nuke the US! :p

Well there's the alternative of umm, uh geez, I don't know, maybe adopting these policies:

1. Tax the gas comapanies on their overall profit and give that money back to consumers! Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse. Then again to conservatives it seems that if you say no to tax shelters, you sir want Worldwide Anarchy

2. Use efficient cars. My car does 24-25 MPGs and it ain't a Hybrid. No need for Hummers, SUVs, etc.

3. Cut down the use of oil for military. Do you really need to use 1,000 Hummers for that drill at Fort Bragg?

4. Commute when possible.

5. Use the Tele-Commuting Initiative. Relax taxes on the companies that have over 100 employees, where over 40% of these employees work from home.

6. Build up the National Monorail System. It has already worked in Japan, so don't even bother arguing that it won't work.

7. Research about Electric Cars and Solar Power Panels. The Sun ain't gonna run out of energy anytime soon and with Global Warming (yes it is real, no it won't happen overnight) such constructions might actually help the environment.

8. Don't elect John McCain. (I am not telling you to vote for Obama, I'm just saying Don't vote for McCain. You have other choices too, and this year the people might just five a third party candidate over 30% of the vote, sending a strong message to the Republicrats in da White House.)


That took me 10 minutes and our government has half-assed the effort. Like JFK said "when you half-ass stuff, you get the Pay of Pigs". Well he said it with more flair, but that's the essense.

My solution was going to be electric cars and every alternative renewable energy source except for nuclear power since it isn't renewable and I just don't like the waste/radiation.

We don't exactly have a choice, mate. Nuclear power is going to be the energy king for the next half a century or so. We need that breathing room to develop fusion and/or other possible energy resources that are clean AND reliable, as well as reasonably cheap.

But by all means we'll be using solar, wind, geothermal, and everything else. Nuclear'll just be the major core of it, that's all.

We don't exactly have a choice, mate. Nuclear power is going to be the energy king for the next half a century or so. We need that breathing room to develop fusion and/or other possible energy resources that are clean AND reliable, as well as reasonably cheap.

But by all means we'll be using solar, wind, geothermal, and everything else. Nuclear'll just be the major core of it, that's all.

Seconded, Nuclear is, in most cases, a good reliable source of energy, especialy if we develop fusion on a large scale, then we would be set for as long as the sun keeps burning.

Seconded, Nuclear is, in most cases, a good reliable source of energy, especialy if we develop fusion on a large scale, then we would be set for as long as the sun keeps burning.

Fusion is a long way from our current capabilities. It's best if we concertrate on what we can currently achieve.

I am just waiting for industrial capitalism to become ecologically impossible. I wager this is just the beginning.

I am just waiting for industrial capitalism to become ecologically impossible. I wager this is just the beginning.

I don't think so. No one gave petroleum a second thought until the late 1850s, and industrial capitalism had existed for decades by then. I'm sure we'll find something else, even if the transition is not a pleasant one.

I am just waiting for industrial capitalism to become ecologically impossible. I wager this is just the beginning.
Yay, neo-Malthusians!

They're coming up everywhere at the moment, it's been a great few months for them.

Yay, neo-Malthusians!

They're coming up everywhere at the moment, it's been a great few months for them.
The motto for Malthusians:

Thomas Malthus: "It'll be soon" for over 200 years.

Fusion is a long way from our current capabilities. It's best if we concertrate on what we can currently achieve.

Indeed. It's why we need breathing room, and nuclear fission power will provide that. It's the cheapest and most reliable energy technology we've got next to fossil fuels.

With the breathing room we gain from the usage of nuclear combined with other alternative energy sources, I would give us a free half century. With the way computer technology keeps improving, I'd say that's all we need to come up with a reliable, cheap, clean energy source that'll keep us going forever, so long as we don't screw up somewhere.

4. Commute when possible.
I especially like that one.
We don't exactly have a choice, mate. Nuclear power is going to be the energy king for the next half a century or so. We need that breathing room to develop fusion and/or other possible energy resources that are clean AND reliable, as well as reasonably cheap.

But by all means we'll be using solar, wind, geothermal, and everything else. Nuclear'll just be the major core of it, that's all.

*cries*

At least it's better than a resource that's on its way out.. I suppose.

Yay, neo-Malthusians!

They're coming up everywhere at the moment, it's been a great few months for them.
I'm not really a Malthusian. I don't think that there are "too many people" or that we need "population control," or that civilization is "going to crash."

Malthus asserted that population growth tends to exceed the resources available to us. I think the problem is rather different: the demand for resources is growing too much.

Click Stand;13726443']Nuke the whales.

at least that's what a bumpersticker told me.

Nuke a gay communist baby seal for Christ.

Wait for the commodity bubble to burst.... my guess is sometime between 1 September and 1 June 2009.

Can't we just...you know...make oil? For god sakes its an organic compound. Surely we can find some way to synthesize it in a lab.

What problem?

*sneezes, wipes trail of light, sweet, Brent crude off his nose*

I don't have a problem. I can stop any time I want.

Click Stand;13726443']Nuke the whales.

at least that's what a bumpersticker told me.



Nah, Lil Lisa Slurry will solve all our problems. http://www.actionfig.com/store/item_lil_lisa_slurry.jpg

Can't we just...you know...make oil? For god sakes its an organic compound. Surely we can find some way to synthesize it in a lab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Needs work, but it shows promise. :)

Personally, I've always been a fan of nuclear power. Some of the new reactor designs being researched now are pretty exciting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

Wikipedia is a nice little website, isn't it? Not entirely perfect, but nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Needs work, but it shows promise. :)

Personally, I've always been a fan of nuclear power. Some of the new reactor designs being researched now are pretty exciting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor

Wikipedia is a nice little website, isn't it? Not entirely perfect, but nice.
I just thought I would add that you need other energy to synthesize fuel in the lab. And because of the law of thermodynamics and our inability to get 100% efficiency, we will need to put in more energy than we get back out.

If we get some of that energy from renewable sources, all were doing is changing wind/solar/thermal power to chemical power. The point of all this is that the only sustainable sources of energy come from the sun, meaning wind and solar (or thermal, because it is going to dissipate anyway).

Too many people have forgotten how to use their legs. We should educate them. And if they don't want to learn, we should remove their legs (with a rusty spoon or some similarly vicious instrument) and burn them to power something else.

Seriously. People regularly drive to their local store to pick up a carton of milk. A trip that would take maybe ten, fifteen minutes on foot, less than five on a bicycle. Not only would you save money and the environment, but you'd burn some of that god-awful fat off of your hips! There's a time and a place for a car, but a lot of people seem to think that this time is always, and that this place is everywhere.

If you can't use your legs for whatever reason, you are exempt from such criticism of course. And no, pure laziness isn't a valid reason!

I applaud your post. I walk or take public transport and always have, and the strange thing is that it really bothers other people that I dont drive! It's never bothered me! It's as though I have two heads or something because I want to use my feet to get around. When I tell them that I have no desire to learn to drive, you would have thought by the expression on their faces that I have just stepped off a spaceship. And yes - most of the ones who say this to me are fat, or at least a bit wobbly, and as you say, they do drive to the shop up the street just to pick up some biscuits or chips to stuff in their lazy faces. There are far too many vehicles on the road anyway.
My reply to people like that is to tell them that as they are so adamant about my being yet another driver, they must be offering to pay for my lessons, tax, insurance, gas, parking and maintenance. They usually shut up after that. Then they wobble off to their car and drive to their home that is probably half a block away. GET OUT AND WALK!!!

GET OUT AND WALK!!!

Easy for you to say. *wheels off in a huff* ;)

Nu-cu-lar.

But the question is how do you get that to happen? I'm not sure.Those who cannot adapt will become extinct. Gas will inevitably run out.
And so will fissionable material btw; going nuclear is only postponing the inevitable for a few decades. (In the long term, of course, everything is postponing the inevitable; but there's a few order of magnitude difference between fossil and nuclear fuels running out and the sun dying).
Make haste to become self-sustaining, and get a shotgun to keep neighbours at bay. ;)

Can't we just...you know...make oil? For god sakes its an organic compound. Surely we can find some way to synthesize it in a lab.If we had usable energy, sure. But that's what we want oil for in the first place.

More public/mass transportation that goes where people need to go and does so on time (I could indeed set my watch over here by the public transportation).

More fuel efficient cars for now, moving to either electric/hybrid in the future. Sorry, speed demons, you're gonna have to slow down a bit (Yes, I KNOW East Coast Federation is gonna have a hissy fit with that one).

Finally, try to car pool more.

I will say though that I would kill for four dollars a gallon. It's currently about $6.42 over here in Japan and they are planning for a 13 cent increase next month! Damn Fukuda and the bloody LDP!

no wimp about it. the answer is transparently simple to anyone who doesn't keep conning themselves or being conned, into lying to them selves about it.

we DON'T NEED no stinkin oil, nor coal, nor fission based power. there is absolutly nothing to prevent more and better tecnology then you can possibly imagine beyond your wildest and wettest dreams, without BURNING anything to power it.

by using all of the NONcombustion tecnologies IN COMBINATION just as the backward headed ones we've come to screw ourselves into to depending upon now have to be.

multiple clean ways of storing energy on board to propel mechanical transportation are proven, reliable, and exist.

the only reason we are forced to depend upon oil, or automobiles for that matter, is that a small number of fat assess are sucking a buck off of the rest by keeping much of the so called western/northern world conned into doing so.

the crisis isn't oil, (or any other fuel source), it is our totally self serving having been conned into dependence on it.

WIMPING, is going along with putting trying to impress each other ahead of the kind of world we all have to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

In the US we should start exploiting our own vast reserves of oil and coal, increase our production capacity, and build as many nuclear power plants as possible. Pretty simple and considering the innovations in drilling technology, production technology, and nuclear technology the impact to the environment would be minimal.

here is a novel idea that traces back to the 17th century and before.

Letter of Marque against Iran, Venezuela, and any other oil producers that piss us off.
So what we do we allow private citizens to acquire oil tankers from said country, and to keep them from being privateered back they fly the American flag and the Us navy would escort them back into port. 50% of the oil would go to the US goverment to be sold to oil companies and the other half the privateer gets to sell along with the tanker itself.

If we do this Gas prices should drop to 50 cents a gallon in no time.

Any action is only suitable for a particular time frame. This issue is both short (next 5-10 yrs), medium (next 20-30 yrs) and long term (next 30 to 100 years). As such a whole set of solutions are needed to address each stage of the issue.

Short term:
To ease the problem of high oil prices in the short term, I recommend the following:
* Introduce quickly implementable improvements in public transportation in areas where it is inadequate. Short term measures would include guided busways systems and trolleybus systems in city centres, and bringing in efficient, frequent commuter rail over existing track networks. Given the will to act, the first measures could be deployed within months, and there is nothing here there couldn't be completed within 2-3 years, even in major urban areas.

* Put ownership of rail and inland waterway infrastructure and operations in hands of a singe government agency, and shift key commodities (foodstuffs and raw materials) through these rather than road haulage, which is less efficient. This would reduce inflationary pressures down to fuel costs.

* Target minor tax breaks on road haulage companies in areas where rail/river freight is currently impossible.

* In areas with major waterways or coastal areas, move goods and people by water as much as possible.

Medium term
work to start at same time as Short term, but completion and benefits are regarded as medium term, due to large amunts of construction and/or design work needed:

* Begin more significant mas transit systems, those that involve extensive tunnel boring or viaduct construction works. Electrification of all key railway lines. Construction of segregated track for high speed rail between major urban centres and construction of new railway rolling stock to modernise the system, and for new subway lines.

* Phasing out of older less fuel efficient aircraft and replacement with more fuel efficient models. Design of new fleet of very low fuel consumption aircraft. Encourage adoption of prop aircraft for shorter flights, or high speed ferry and rail.

Long term:
Longer term projects, due to the extensive amount of tehnical and engineering design and testing needed before construction can be started. Real and massive commitment is hwoever still needed at the beginning, in conjuction with short and medium term aims.

* Development and deployment of Fuel Cell technology on wide scale as a replacement of the internal combustion engine in all incarnations, rather than just cars. Introduction as propulsion for river and sea going watercraft, all road vehicles, trains (where direct electrification is not viable or possible) and for possible use in lighter-than-air craft (airships) in conjunction with solar, which could partly replace conventional aircraft.

* To this end, development of multi-use power/water/salt/fuel plants in desert coastal areas. Developing power with solar tower technology to generate electricity, and using part of this power to drive a sea water desalination plant that will provide both drinking water, hydrogen fuel and sea salts. One plant, one cost, many uses.

* Phased replacement fossil power grid with solar and tidal power. Wind energy is a gimmick as it isn't inherently reliable, but solar and tidal power are completely predictable, and offer more than enough capacity to replace fossil power. Maintain current levels of nuclear production for research, development and defensive purposes, and continue research into fusion.

* For high speed air transport, continue looking at ways of getting aircraft into sub orbital flight to make energy efficient high speed flight workable. With dedicated research this could be brought to fruition within 20-30 years.

There is a completely renewable resource that can be used to run cars and is in some cases being used already.

And that's a grain oil mixture. An oil being made from fields of grain or something or other very similar and that means that it can be grown every year and gives hardly any damage to the environment.

Unfortunately there'd have to be a lot of fields produced for it. Just to get enough quantity to keep you going between harvests.

Any action is only suitable for a particular time frame. This issue is both short (next 5-10 yrs), medium (next 20-30 yrs) and long term (next 30 to 100 years). As such a whole set of solutions are needed to address each stage of the issue.

You stole my idea ;)


Short term:
To ease the problem of high oil prices in the short term, I recommend the following:
* Introduce quickly implementable improvements in public transportation in areas where it is inadequate. Short term measures would include guided busways systems and trolleybus systems in city centres, and bringing in efficient, frequent commuter rail over existing track networks. Given the will to act, the first measures could be deployed within months, and there is nothing here there couldn't be completed within 2-3 years, even in major urban areas.

* Put ownership of rail and inland waterway infrastructure and operations in hands of a singe government agency, and shift key commodities (foodstuffs and raw materials) through these rather than road haulage, which is less efficient. This would reduce inflationary pressures down to fuel costs.

* Target minor tax breaks on road haulage companies in areas where rail/river freight is currently impossible.

* In areas with major waterways or coastal areas, move goods and people by water as much as possible.


I don't agree with arbitrarily taking existing, privately owned infrastructure and just handing it over to the Government. The Government is not known either for its efficiency nor its competence. Besides which, there would be a huge investment needed to create the relevant agency as well as compensate the existing owners of the infrastructure in question. (Unless you're talking about seizing it outright, which is just a chilling thought.)

Better to offer tax incentives.



Medium term
work to start at same time as Short term, but completion and benefits are regarded as medium term, due to large amunts of construction and/or design work needed:

* Begin more significant mas transit systems, those that involve extensive tunnel boring or viaduct construction works. Electrification of all key railway lines. Construction of segregated track for high speed rail between major urban centres and construction of new railway rolling stock to modernise the system, and for new subway lines.

* Phasing out of older less fuel efficient aircraft and replacement with more fuel efficient models. Design of new fleet of very low fuel consumption aircraft. Encourage adoption of prop aircraft for shorter flights, or high speed ferry and rail.

I would add to this construction of new refining facilities as well as exploration for new sources of crude oil. This must be done in the meantime while new technologies are developed and perfected. The United States hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 years. Given the increase in demand since then, that's ridiculous. The United States is also the only country in the world that ignores its own natural resources. We have oil off both coasts as well as a huge deposit under North Dakota. We must start using these resources to increase supply and keep prices under control, as well as ensure we won't run out before new technologies and resources are available.



Long term:
Longer term projects, due to the extensive amount of tehnical and engineering design and testing needed before construction can be started. Real and massive commitment is hwoever still needed at the beginning, in conjuction with short and medium term aims.

* Development and deployment of Fuel Cell technology on wide scale as a replacement of the internal combustion engine in all incarnations, rather than just cars. Introduction as propulsion for river and sea going watercraft, all road vehicles, trains (where direct electrification is not viable or possible) and for possible use in lighter-than-air craft (airships) in conjunction with solar, which could partly replace conventional aircraft.

* To this end, development of multi-use power/water/salt/fuel plants in desert coastal areas. Developing power with solar tower technology to generate electricity, and using part of this power to drive a sea water desalination plant that will provide both drinking water, hydrogen fuel and sea salts. One plant, one cost, many uses.

* Phased replacement fossil power grid with solar and tidal power. Wind energy is a gimmick as it isn't inherently reliable, but solar and tidal power are completely predictable, and offer more than enough capacity to replace fossil power. Maintain current levels of nuclear production for research, development and defensive purposes, and continue research into fusion.


The only problem with solar power is that right now it takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it's expected lifetime output. We need to improve the efficiency of solar cells before it can be a true solution.


* For high speed air transport, continue looking at ways of getting aircraft into sub orbital flight to make energy efficient high speed flight workable. With dedicated research this could be brought to fruition within 20-30 years.

I believe this is already underway, so perhaps it could be moved into the short to midterm solutions column.

There is a completely renewable resource that can be used to run cars and is in some cases being used already.

And that's a grain oil mixture. An oil being made from fields of grain or something or other very similar and that means that it can be grown every year and gives hardly any damage to the environment.

Unfortunately there'd have to be a lot of fields produced for it. Just to get enough quantity to keep you going between harvests.

The problem with that is the type of crops used to harvest fuels from is not the same as what we grow for food. I don't know the specific details but it's a different genetic strain of corn or whatever.

There's also the problem, which you touched on, about capacity. Right now there would be a real danger that food crops would be converted into fuel crops, which could have a severe effect on food prices globally.

There is a completely renewable resource that can be used to run cars and is in some cases being used already.

And that's a grain oil mixture. An oil being made from fields of grain or something or other very similar and that means that it can be grown every year and gives hardly any damage to the environment.

Unfortunately there'd have to be a lot of fields produced for it. Just to get enough quantity to keep you going between harvests.

That's all well and good, but those fields are ones that we currently grow food on. Do we want to eat, or to drive? Whilst climate change may open up new agricultural land, all the best places are already under the plough. Given the current food situation, taking away fields from growing food to growing oil is unwise.

1. Tax the gas comapanies on their overall profit and give that money back to consumers! Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse. Then again to conservatives it seems that if you say no to tax shelters, you sir want Worldwide Anarchy

We do tax companies on thier profits already. This is not new. Are you suggesting we make oil companies pay a higher tax rate then any other company does? Just because we say so? Oil companies do not make excessive profits. You read alot about hundreds of billions in profits but you fail to realize this is a result of trillions of dollars in superstructure investment. If you look at the return of the oil companies as a percentage of thier investment, its not all that much higher then the profit margins of any other company. They just use alot bigger numbers as a base is all.

2. Use efficient cars. My car does 24-25 MPGs and it ain't a Hybrid. No need for Hummers, SUVs, etc.

Maybe you dont need an SUV but im sure that family of 10 disagrees. Why shouldnt someone who has plenty of money and is perfectly willing to pay $10 a gallon for gas if he wants to run his vehicle not be allowed to do so?

3. Cut down the use of oil for military. Do you really need to use 1,000 Hummers for that drill at Fort Bragg?

Pissing in the wind. Well you might save .0000001% of the gas used in the Country i guess.

4. Commute when possible.

Reasonable but impractical for the largely rural US

5. Use the Tele-Commuting Initiative. Relax taxes on the companies that have over 100 employees, where over 40% of these employees work from home.

So you want the taxpayers to subsidize private businesess? Why not just skip the middleman and have the government send everyone a gas allowance?

6. Build up the National Monorail System. It has already worked in Japan, so don't even bother arguing that it won't work.

Im going to argue it wont work. Japan is a highly population dence small area. The US is a huge rural landmass with a widely dispersed population. Look at Amtrack. It loses hundreds of millions every year and has for as long as my memory goes back and has to be subsidized by the government or they would have to shut it down.

7. Research about Electric Cars and Solar Power Panels. The Sun ain't gonna run out of energy anytime soon and with Global Warming (yes it is real, no it won't happen overnight) such constructions might actually help the environment.

Do you not think we are doing this already?

8. Don't elect John McCain. (I am not telling you to vote for Obama, I'm just saying Don't vote for McCain. You have other choices too, and this year the people might just five a third party candidate over 30% of the vote, sending a strong message to the Republicrats in da White House.)

Wont make any difference. Price is determined by world demand not by whos President.

You stole my idea ;)



I don't agree with arbitrarily taking existing, privately owned infrastructure and just handing it over to the Government. The Government is not known either for its efficiency nor its competence. Besides which, there would be a huge investment needed to create the relevant agency as well as compensate the existing owners of the infrastructure in question. (Unless you're talking about seizing it outright, which is just a chilling thought.)

Better to offer tax incentives.


Well, it's a good idea :P

I think this is necessary for several reasons, particularly for medium term aims of expanding the use of the rail networks in places like the US and Mexico, where they are privately owned. Low capacity lines that haul occasional, large diesel freight gives reasonable profit for the minimum possible expenditure. Private operators have consistently shown an unwillingness to put serious money or long term thought into their infrastructure, so compulsory purchase is a wise option, and worked well in developing European, Asian and African railways. (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Malaysia, Thailand all operate state railways, and Britain did until recently). Giving people tax breaks in the hope they will take it up gives very little control or ability to predict what's going to happen, especially when you have many companies. It's easier to have it under one agency with a clear plan.

Nationalisation in a state like the US wouldn't be very expensive, since the existing infrastructure is comparatively basic. The real expense is in upgrading the system to a point where it's full potential can be realised. Inter-city passenger services and some track are already nationalised anyway (but chronically underfunded) so existing institutions could be used provided adequate funding could be guaranteed. It's a question of political will, not engineering, legal, or even financial problems.


I would add to this construction of new refining facilities as well as exploration for new sources of crude oil. This must be done in the meantime while new technologies are developed and perfected. The United States hasn't built a new refinery in over 30 years. Given the increase in demand since then, that's ridiculous. The United States is also the only country in the world that ignores its own natural resources. We have oil off both coasts as well as a huge deposit under North Dakota. We must start using these resources to increase supply and keep prices under control, as well as ensure we won't run out before new technologies and resources are available.

Good point. I don't see oil running out, but it would help lower the trade deficit and aid stability in the prices.


The only problem with solar power is that right now it takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it's expected lifetime output. We need to improve the efficiency of solar cells before it can be a true solution.

Rather than photo-voltaic cells I was thinking more along the lines of the heliostat/power-tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower) type, which is technically much more straightforward. The Spanish are big fans of these and have them running well. Why they haven't taken the next logical step and linked it to a desal plant mostly comes down to Spanish politics and their national water grid plan...

I believe this is already underway, so perhaps it could be moved into the short to midterm solutions column.

I've seen some plans too. I think you are correct in this, maybe I am being a little conservative with my estimates. I am thinking in terms of a working fleet of vehicles entering service, though, so I don't think short term would be feasible.

Well, it's a good idea :P

I think this is necessary for several reasons, particularly for medium term aims of expanding the use of the rail networks in places like the US and Mexico, where they are privately owned. Low capacity lines that haul occasional, large diesel freight gives reasonable profit for the minimum possible expenditure. Private operators have consistently shown an unwillingness to put serious money or long term thought into their infrastructure, so compulsory purchase is a wise option, and worked well in developing European, Asian and African railways. (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Malaysia, Thailand all operate state railways, and Britain did until recently). Giving people tax breaks in the hope they will take it up gives very little control or ability to predict what's going to happen, especially when you have many companies. It's easier to have it under one agency with a clear plan.


I wonder if some sort of compromise option exists. Maybe a contract between the Government and the rail lines to subsidize investment in expansion of the infrastructure such that ownership of the lines would remain private but a specific series of goals and timetables might provide the necessary incentive to expand operations as desired.


Nationalisation in a state like the US wouldn't be very expensive, since the existing infrastructure is comparatively basic. The real expense is in upgrading the system to a point where it's full potential can be realised. Inter-city passenger services and some track are already nationalised anyway (but chronically underfunded) so existing institutions could be used provided adequate funding could be guaranteed. It's a question of political will, not engineering, legal, or even financial problems.


It seems to me that's the best focus. The vast majority of mass transit needs are urban anyway, so an upgrade in existing public transportation might show a much greater return on the investment than long haul railroads.


Good point. I don't see oil running out, but it would help lower the trade deficit and aid stability in the prices.


I was thinking it might also shift the US from being an importer of crude oil to an exporter. That would be a great stimulus to the economy as well as lower domestic oil prices considerably. With a competitor for OPEC, that would also lower prices worldwide.


Rather than photo-voltaic cells I was thinking more along the lines of the heliostat/power-tower (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower) type, which is technically much more straightforward. The Spanish are big fans of these and have them running well. Why they haven't taken the next logical step and linked it to a desal plant mostly comes down to Spanish politics and their national water grid plan...


I'd never heard of those before. Very interesting. Thanks for the link!


I've seen some plans too. I think you are correct in this, maybe I am being a little conservative with my estimates. I am thinking in terms of a working fleet of vehicles entering service, though, so I don't think short term would be feasible.

I think the problem we have now is that only NASA is working on it at this moment, since the airlines are hardly in a position to use investment capital on this technology when they're struggling to survive.

I will say though that I would kill for four dollars a gallon. It's currently about $6.42 over here in Japan and they are planning for a 13 cent increase next month! Damn Fukuda and the bloody LDP!

And a lot of people here in Finland would kill for $6.42 per gallon. Today's cost in Helsinki is 1.509 euros per liter, which, if my conversions are correct, equals $8.87 per gallon. Hell, if it went down to four, we'd probably have a national holiday to celebrate it.

Over in the little state of Maryland, gas prices have hit the $3.90 mark.

Converted to Pounds, $3.90 = £1.97.
Here in the old UK, we have an average price of £1.15 per litre, unleaded.
1 US Gallon = 3.78 litres.
Thus, 1 US Gallon of unleaded petrol would cost £4.37 in the UK, or $8.63. Stop complaining! =P

1. Tax the gas comapanies on their overall profit and give that money back to consumers! Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse. Then again to conservatives it seems that if you say no to tax shelters, you sir want Worldwide Anarchy

We do tax companies on thier profits already. This is not new. Are you suggesting we make oil companies pay a higher tax rate then any other company does? Just because we say so? Oil companies do not make excessive profits. You read alot about hundreds of billions in profits but you fail to realize this is a result of trillions of dollars in superstructure investment. If you look at the return of the oil companies as a percentage of thier investment, its not all that much higher then the profit margins of any other company. They just use alot bigger numbers as a base is all.

Umm, perhaps you are unable to read, perhaps you are a child who was left behind, but from the above post I think it very clearly says: "Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse." Umm, that means take the profit that made in 1998, adjust it for inflation, and subtract that number from the 2008 profits, and give the difference back to the average American Citizen. People were still investing in oil companies and the oil companies had a quite nice return on profit back than. And if you look at the return rate of oil companies today, you'd realize that ever since Cheney the Oil CEO took office, oil companies return on profit sky-rocketed above other companies. Must've been magic. Or the skill of oil CEOs, because we all know the Republicans would never interfere with the free markey by invading foreign countries.


2. Use efficient cars. My car does 24-25 MPGs and it ain't a Hybrid. No need for Hummers, SUVs, etc.

Maybe you dont need an SUV but im sure that family of 10 disagrees. Why shouldnt someone who has plenty of money and is perfectly willing to pay $10 a gallon for gas if he wants to run his vehicle not be allowed to do so?

The family of 10 can have an SUV, that's fine. What I am mad about is a single person driving a Hummer on the freeway, something I see quite often. I'm not saying ban the SUVs, I'm saying that people should switch from the SUVs to more fuel efficient cars if they're able to afford it; kinda that whole supply/demand thingy that Adam Smith wrote about.


3. Cut down the use of oil for military. Do you really need to use 1,000 Hummers for that drill at Fort Bragg?

Pissing in the wind. Well you might save .0000001% of the gas used in the Country i guess.

The military uses 1/4 of the nation's oil supply. But with your Republican math skills according to which Bush won Florida, sure make it 0000001%. It's actually 25%, but you speak from the gut.


4. Commute when possible

Reasonable but impractical for the largely rural US

Can you read at all? It says "when possible". US is 4/5th urban and 1/5th rural. So 80% of the population can still commute. Doh!


5. Use the Tele-Commuting Initiative. Relax taxes on the companies that have over 100 employees, where over 40% of these employees work from home.

So you want the taxpayers to subsidize private businesess? Why not just skip the middleman and have the government send everyone a gas allowance?

Because if everyone is sent a gas allowance, the dollar will inflate. If people start using the Telecommuting Tactic, they would drive less, hence less government money would be used to maintain roads and build new ones, less traffic would lead to less oil consumption (you spend the most fuel in traffic) and in the end the benefit would be greate then the cost and in the long run, the government would benefit. It's an investment, kinda like giving out small business grants to companies like Google. Geez, that can't possibly work now can it? I mean Google, that small company...


6. Build up the National Monorail System. It has already worked in Japan, so don't even bother arguing that it won't work.

Im going to argue it wont work. Japan is a highly population dence small area. The US is a huge rural landmass with a widely dispersed population. Look at Amtrack. It loses hundreds of millions every year and has for as long as my memory goes back and has to be subsidized by the government or they would have to shut it down.

The problem with Amtrack is that it covers the entire US and needlessly competes with airlines and transport ships (for cargo). A national Monorail System would be initially focused on dense areas, like those in Japan, where it would be immensely profitable. It works in dense Japanese areas, why won't it work in dense American areas? Cause Conservatives said so? You also said that there is a link between Saddam and Osama, that there are WMDs in Iraq, that we are bringing Democracy to Iraq, that the KLA did not burn Serbian Churches, that Russia's economy would collapse by 2001...when you say something I tend to assume the opposite and I'm usually right in that regard. I'm not talking about a National Monorail from LA to NY, we have airplanes that do that, but a National Monorail inside LA would definetely help the American economy, just like it did for the Japanese in Tokyo.


7. Research about Electric Cars and Solar Power Panels. The Sun ain't gonna run out of energy anytime soon and with Global Warming (yes it is real, no it won't happen overnight) such constructions might actually help the environment.

Do you not think we are doing this already?

Not enough. You can give one dollar to the US Dept. of Edukashun and claim you are funding edukashun. The amount of money Solar Power R&D gets in the US is less then the amount of money Californians spent on golf. Pathetic.


8. Don't elect John McCain. (I am not telling you to vote for Obama, I'm just saying Don't vote for McCain. You have other choices too, and this year the people might just five a third party candidate over 30% of the vote, sending a strong message to the Republicrats in da White House.)

Wont make any difference. Price is determined by world demand not by whos President.

Wrong. Price is determined by the World's SUPPLY and demand. You tend to forget the supply part, but that's ok, you're a Republican. McCain wants to keep the Iraqi quagmire going for 10,000 years, his words, not mine. The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the longer the inevitable Iraqi Civil War is delayed; the longer the Civil War is delayed, the longer it will take Iraq to become stable; the sooner Iraq will become stable, the sooner it will again start producing reasonable oil quantities in order to feed it's people. Hence the sooner US troops leave, the sooner the price of oil will drop. It's market economics, nothing too complicated, but you have to think outside of Faux Noise and I understand that it's tought for a Republican these days.

Converted to Pounds, $3.90 = £1.97.
Here in the old UK, we have an average price of £1.15 per litre, unleaded.
1 US Gallon = 3.78 litres.
Thus, 1 US Gallon of unleaded petrol would cost £4.37 in the UK, or $8.63. Stop complaining! =P

Yea but where do you have to drive to? France? Your an island. The US has a massive land mass and for a significant % of its population you must travel large distances to even get basics such as fuel and food.

Converted to Pounds, $3.90 = £1.97.
Here in the old UK, we have an average price of £1.15 per litre, unleaded.
1 US Gallon = 3.78 litres.
Thus, 1 US Gallon of unleaded petrol would cost £4.37 in the UK, or $8.63. Stop complaining! =P

UK has something the US doesn't: an efficient transportation system. When I went clubbing in the UK, I was able to take a bus back to my hotel. Try doing that in the US buddy.

Also, continue to piss off Russia and Iran and watch your oil price skyrocket. Geez, let's make the oil producing countries mad and see if they will try to hurt our market. Hmm, they did, those infidels!

And a lot of people here in Finland would kill for $6.42 per gallon. Today's cost in Helsinki is 1.509 euros per liter, which, if my conversions are correct, equals $8.87 per gallon. Hell, if it went down to four, we'd probably have a national holiday to celebrate it.

How many miles do you personally have to drive a day? My company pays for my fuel, but I have to drive rougly 100 miles to work and back. That's 500 miles a week. I don't think you have to drive that far in Helsinki.

Edit: ok granted, I tele-commute (work from home) most of the times, but my friends have to drive 500 miles a week. So still, same picture, just without me.

UK has something the US doesn't: an efficient transportation system. When I went clubbing in the UK, I was able to take a bus back to my hotel. Try doing that in the US buddy.

Also, continue to piss off Russia and Iran and watch your oil price skyrocket. Geez, let's make the oil producing countries mad and see if they will try to hurt our market. Hmm, they did, those infidels!

A transport system isn't an immutable thing - vote for someone who wants to produce the infrastructure. Clamour for it, start pressure groups, whatever.
The UK's public transport system is, I can tell you from living all my life here, *way* worse than anywhere I've been in mainland Europe. It's in need of as much reform as the US, as it's a terribly crowded Isle.

Dunno if you're accusing the UK of pissing off oil producers any more or less than anyone else, so I'll leave that; but I certainly agree with your sentiment. Ever since North Sea Oil stopped meeting our needs, we've been in trouble.

How many miles do you personally have to drive a day? My company pays for my fuel, but I have to drive rougly 100 miles to work and back. That's 500 miles a week. I don't think you have to drive that far in Helsinki.

Edit: ok granted, I tele-commute (work from home) most of the times, but my friends have to drive 500 miles a week. So still, same picture, just without me.

Stop complaining and don't live that far away?

Seriously, 4$ a gallon is cheap. If you're complaining you have to use more, then don't live that far away.

here is a novel idea that traces back to the 17th century and before.

Letter of Marque against Iran, Venezuela, and any other oil producers that piss us off.
So what we do we allow private citizens to acquire oil tankers from said country, and to keep them from being privateered back they fly the American flag and the Us navy would escort them back into port. 50% of the oil would go to the US goverment to be sold to oil companies and the other half the privateer gets to sell along with the tanker itself.

If we do this Gas prices should drop to 50 cents a gallon in no time.

people Drink rum!!! watch pirate of the Caribbean you will see that this is the solution.

UK has something the US doesn't: an efficient transportation system.
I lol'd!

Our buses are pretty pricey, and the trains... they're quite débâcular. Although IIRC yours are somehow even worse.
When I went clubbing in the UK, I was able to take a bus back to my hotel. Try doing that in the US buddy.
Eh, buses aren't that expensive, so buy some :p



As to the solution to the problem - no idea whatsoever. Run everything off batteries powered by nuclear power stations, and bury the waste perhaps.

As to the solution to the problem - no idea whatsoever. Run everything off batteries powered by nuclear power stations, and bury the waste perhaps.

well if we adjust the treaty on dumping in the oceans we could put the waste in a subduction zone. in time it will be pulled into the mantle.

I've been hearing things. And not from the voices INSIDE my head this time. I've heard that gas prices will be skyrocketing. Whether or not they will be, with th gas prices as they are right now, it's obvious we've got a problem. Over in the little state of Maryland, gas prices have hit the $3.90 mark. Now, as we all know, gas fuels the world. Almost all forms of transportation nowadays are reliant on Gasoline. If gas prices go up, everything goes up. Food, books, evrything. What do my fellow NSGers think we should do about this crisis? I personally say this: Individuals may not be able to make a big difference, but it is individuals that make the world. If each person tried to drive less, bike more, get a more fuel-efficent car, and slowly move towards energy independence from oil... Well, problem solved. But the question is how do you get that to happen? I'm not sure.

The only real soltuion is to develop means of power not dependant of fossil fuels that will eventualy run out.

well if we adjust the treaty on dumping in the oceans we could put the waste in a subduction zone. in time it will be pulled into the mantle.
Er, no. We have most of Australia going spare that we could use.

I voted other, I just suck it up and pay it, I'll have a job making 50 grand a year even through college ( 7-noon classes ftw ), So I'll just say fuck it and pay it no matter what. One thank gets me about 300 miles.

500 some miles a week for work and school, even at 10 bucks a gallon, it wont be that bad. I'll just have to stay away from my Volvo and Lebaron and stick to the SI.

1. Tax the gas comapanies on their overall profit and give that money back to consumers! Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse.

..... Umm, perhaps you are unable to read, perhaps you are a child who was left behind, but from the above post I think it very clearly says: "Gas companies are making record profits now, so if they were taxed back to the profits that they've made in 1998, I doubt the economy would collapse." Umm, that means take the profit that made in 1998, adjust it for inflation, and subtract that number from the 2008 profits, and give the difference back to the average American Citizen. People were still investing in oil companies and the oil companies had a quite nice return on profit back than. And if you look at the return rate of oil companies today, you'd realize that ever since Cheney the Oil CEO took office, oil companies return on profit sky-rocketed above other companies. Must've been magic. Or the skill of oil CEOs, because we all know the Republicans would never interfere with the free markey by invading foreign countries.

I cant begin to count the ways to attack this. Are the oil companies making more of a profit then say Google did in the last 2 years? (On a percentage of value not gross)Not even CLOSE. Google shares shot up like 700% Oil companies havnt even performed anywhere NEAR that. Where is the great Google outrage and the demand for them to pay more tax? Apple profited at a far higher rate per dollar invested then the oil companies in the last 2 years. Should we decide that Apple is only allowed to operate at the same profit rate that they did in 1998 as well? And why did you pick 1998? Can you demonstrate how 1998 is an any more or less " fair " year of profit then any other? Id love to see how you prove that.

...When again to conservatives it seems that if you say no to tax shelters, you sir want Worldwide Anarchy....

When did i ever say i was a Conservative or a Republican? Stop putting words in my mouth.


The family of 10 can have an SUV, that's fine. What I am mad about is a single person driving a Hummer on the freeway, something I see quite often. I'm not saying ban the SUVs, I'm saying that people should switch from the SUVs to more fuel efficient cars if they're able to afford it; kinda that whole supply/demand thingy that Adam Smith wrote about.

Why should people have to do anything just because you get mad about something? In the interest of full disclosure, while im spending time typing this reply im running my microwave while its empty just to counter any possible energy saving effect your suggestions might have.

If your not suggesting we ban SUVs what are you suggesting? Lets get down to it, if a single person wants to buy an SUV and drive it across country by himself are you going to get mad and forbid him

The military uses 1/4 of the nation's oil supply. But with your Republican math skills according to which Bush won Florida, sure make it 0000001%. It's actually 25%, but you speak from the gut.

Wrong. "The U.S. government, as a whole, consumes not quite 2% of all the liquid fuel that the entire U.S. economy uses in a given year. That translates into about 440,000 barrels of oil per day"
http://www.peak-oil-news.info/military-oil-usage-statistics/


Can you read at all? It says "when possible". US is 4/5th urban and 1/5th rural. So 80% of the population can still commute. Doh!

The answer to "when possible" is hardly ever. The infrastructure expenditure to subsidize construction of new facilities is greater then its profitability.

Because if everyone is sent a gas allowance, the dollar will inflate. If people start using the Telecommuting Tactic, they would drive less, hence less government money would be used to maintain roads and build new ones, less traffic would lead to less oil consumption (you spend the most fuel in traffic) and in the end the benefit would be greate then the cost and in the long run, the government would benefit. It's an investment, kinda like giving out small business grants to companies like Google. Geez, that can't possibly work now can it? I mean Google, that small company...

People might drive less in a minor way but i doubt to the extent that it would do much in a cost/benefit ratio. Most businesses simply need physical employees. The people that dont need to be at a business to do thier job now live in India to a suprising extent.

The problem with Amtrack is that it covers the entire US and needlessly competes with airlines and transport ships (for cargo). A national Monorail System would be initially focused on dense areas, like those in Japan, where it would be immensely profitable. It works in dense Japanese areas, why won't it work in dense American areas?

We have these already. We call it the subway. And you want to run an above ground monorail in the densest parts of the US? That would be trillions in land aquisition costs alone not even counting construction costs..

Cause Conservatives said so? You also said that there is a link between Saddam and Osama, that there are WMDs in Iraq, that we are bringing Democracy to Iraq, that the KLA did not burn Serbian Churches, that Russia's economy would collapse by 2001...when you say something I tend to assume the opposite and I'm usually right in that regard.

Stop ranting. I said none of these things. Either cite where i did or shut up already.


7. Research about Electric Cars and Solar Power Panels. The Sun ain't gonna run out of energy anytime soon and with Global Warming (yes it is real, no it won't happen overnight) such constructions might actually help the environment.

You must be young. I remember solar was also all the rage in the 1970s and all the scientists said that profitable solar was just 5-10 years away, and we spent billions of 1970s dollars in research and development as well. And the solar story never changed. We were ALWAYS 5-10 years from solar being the answer and the only thing that was needed was, suprise suprise, yet more money. Here we are, 35 years later and its the same song and dance that we have been fed for almost 2 generations now.


Wrong. Price is determined by the World's SUPPLY and demand. You tend to forget the supply part, but that's ok, you're a Republican. McCain wants to keep the Iraqi quagmire going for 10,000 years, his words, not mine. The longer US troops stay in Iraq, the longer the inevitable Iraqi Civil War is delayed; the longer the Civil War is delayed, the longer it will take Iraq to become stable; the sooner Iraq will become stable, the sooner it will again start producing reasonable oil quantities in order to feed it's people. Hence the sooner US troops leave, the sooner the price of oil will drop. It's market economics, nothing too complicated, but you have to think outside of Faux Noise and I understand that it's tought for a Republican these days.

Well i was with you thru price is determined by supply and demand then it turned into drivel from there. Iraq doesnt determine world oil supplies. Its only one player in a cast of many. Im sure your aware that Sadaam allowed the oil facilities to degrade to the point of needing Mcgiver to keep them working in the first place. Your going to need more then a civil war to get oil producing in massive amounts any time soon from Iraq.

Stop complaining and don't live that far away?

Seriously, 4$ a gallon is cheap. If you're complaining you have to use more, then don't live that far away.

Many people who live farther away do so because its cheaper and they cant afford to live in the city in the first place.

Er, no. We have most of Australia going spare that we could use.

I was thinking on the Marianas Trench

Let the price climb higher. It's not high enough now to really affect anyone in a real way or demand would be down. As long as my local mall parking lot is full, I'm pretty sure it's not as bad as people let on. The price of gas has gone up like 26% since this time last year, so I pay like $100 a month on gas, it's now costing me $126. $26 just isn't enough to push me into poverty. I know the gas prices haven't gone up here in my state as much as everywhere else, but it doesn't seem to be affecting people other than the media says it is, so people believe it.

I heard that rising gas prices were causing people to foreclose, but only 2% of houses are in foreclosure right now.......so it doesn't seem to be widespread.

The problem with that is the type of crops used to harvest fuels from is not the same as what we grow for food. I don't know the specific details but it's a different genetic strain of corn or whatever.

There's also the problem, which you touched on, about capacity. Right now there would be a real danger that food crops would be converted into fuel crops, which could have a severe effect on food prices globally.

We could always use the useless second homes of politicians and political buildings and convert them into fuel crops.

I mean, they aren't actually being used for anything decent at the moment right? ;)

.....
Iraq doesnt determine world oil supplies.

Neither does the Middle East, nor does Russia. It is determined by magic. Why did I even bother with you... :headbang:

Originally Posted by Intestinal fluids
.....
Iraq doesnt determine world oil supplies.


Neither does the Middle East, nor does Russia. It is determined by magic. Why did I even bother with you... :headbang:

What are you FOX News? How about posting my very next sentence,"Its only one player in a cast of many."

And not a very impressive response to my post im disappointed to say.

Easy for you to say. *wheels off in a huff* ;)

Sorry, mate. ;)

We could always use the useless second homes of politicians and political buildings and convert them into fuel crops.

I mean, they aren't actually being used for anything decent at the moment right? ;)

NOW you're talking!

Originally Posted by Intestinal fluids
.....
Iraq doesnt determine world oil supplies.




What are you FOX News? How about posting my very next sentence,"Its only one player in a cast of many."

And not a very impressive response to my post im disappointed to say.

What did you expect?

You must be young. I remember solar was also all the rage in the 1970s and all the scientists said that profitable solar was just 5-10 years away, and we spent billions of 1970s dollars in research and development as well.
Really??? I remember in the 70's a lot of people proposing that we should spend money on researching solar and other alternative energy sources, and the conservatives mocking the idea and shouting it down and making sure that nothing much was actually invested in it.

We could take all the golf courses in Florida and grow sugarcane on them for Ethanol. :p

Or better yet, hydrogen-producing algae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production

:)

Seems like all the BS most of you are spewing in this thread would be more then enough to solve world energy needs for the next 1000 years.

Sence nobody has said it yet Solor is already developed enough to compete easly with oil, now if someone here feels like finding real info for use in this thread that would be great but seeing the way it has gone so far id say you all like debaiting/arguing more then getting real answeres makeing this thread worthless.

(im not providing info on this subject because i dont really care)

Really??? I remember in the 70's a lot of people proposing that we should spend money on researching solar and other alternative energy sources, and the conservatives mocking the idea and shouting it down and making sure that nothing much was actually invested in it.

I am trying to track down how much money the US has invested in solar research in the last 40 years and the answer doesnt seem readily available without spending far more time then its worth trying to figure out :(

Or better yet, hydrogen-producing algae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production

:)

It would take an algae farm the size of the state of Texas to produce enough hydrogen to supply the energy needs of the whole world. It would take about 25,000 square kilometers to be sufficient to displace gasoline use in the US; this is less than a tenth of the area devoted to growing soy in the US but would equal the size of the state of Vermont, or three times the size of the everglades swamp in Florida, all dedicated to raising this form of algae. [2].


Lets not I like for my home state not to be an algae Farm

Lets not I like for my home state not to be an algae Farm

If we can figure out how to farm algae near Walla Walla, Washington it could work out very well...

Or switch all our internal combustion engines over to New Folger's Crystals! (TM)

I am trying to track down how much money the US has invested in solar research in the last 40 years and the answer doesnt seem readily available without spending far more time then its worth trying to figure out :(

The answer isn't simple, since private firms spend their own R&D. (Okay, except Exxon-Mobil, whom do none...)

However, the US gov't spent $81,791,000 on Solar R&D in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Energy_Efficiency_and_Renewable_Energy

Those who cannot adapt will become extinct. Gas will inevitably run out.
And so will fissionable material btw; going nuclear is only postponing the inevitable for a few decades. (In the long term, of course, everything is postponing the inevitable; but there's a few order of magnitude difference between fossil and nuclear fuels running out and the sun dying).
Make haste to become self-sustaining, and get a shotgun to keep neighbours at bay. ;)
I wouldn't go that far. More like forestalling it for a few centuries. Nuclear material is in abundence, and little of it is being used. Little of it is needed, and if we can perfect cold fusion... *Goes back to lab, experiments*

If I glow, is that a good thing?

We could take all the golf courses in Florida and grow sugarcane on them for Ethanol. :p


But that would be enough Sugarcane to power the world! :eek:

Those who cannot adapt will become extinct. Gas will inevitably run out.
And so will fissionable material btw; going nuclear is only postponing the inevitable for a few decades. (In the long term, of course, everything is postponing the inevitable; but there's a few order of magnitude difference between fossil and nuclear fuels running out and the sun dying).
Make haste to become self-sustaining, and get a shotgun to keep neighbours at bay. ;)

know nuclear reserves would run out if we supplied the worlds energy on it yes. however we really haven't looked for uranium at all since the 1950's. it would the same as guessing how soon we would run out of oil based of know 1890's reserves.

most scientist estimate unknown reserves would last several thousand years.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

and if getting Uranium from sea water becomes feasible uranium could last a very long time indeed.

The answer isn't simple, since private firms spend their own R&D. (Okay, except Exxon-Mobil, whom do none...)

However, the US gov't spent $81,791,000 on Solar R&D in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Energy_Efficiency_and_Renewable_Energy
All publicly held firms are required to file with the SEC. Part of that filing is R&D expenditures But they aren't required to break down the R&D funding. Exxon spent $814 million on R&D, not including exploration costs.

All publicly held firms are required to file with the SEC. Part of that filing is R&D expenditures But they aren't required to break down the R&D funding. Exxon spent $814 million on R&D, not including exploration costs.

Right. I was just pointing out that we really can't tabulate that number, since it isn't broken down and the Feds aren't the only researchers in town.

But we do know that Exxon spent $0 million on R&D for solar power.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm

I wonder if some sort of compromise option exists. Maybe a contract between the Government and the rail lines to subsidize investment in expansion of the infrastructure such that ownership of the lines would remain private but a specific series of goals and timetables might provide the necessary incentive to expand operations as desired.

A compromise solution was adopted when the UK privatised it's system. Basically, the track was given to one company, the rolling stock to a series of holding companies, and the rights to operate service and maintain stations was given to another set of operating companies on franchises. The system has proven highly problematic, however. The public do not like it due to high ticket prices and confusing fare rules and variations, and technical and engineering staff dislike the split responsibilities of the various companies and lack of clear cut procedures. It is generally regarded as a failure. A similar, less ambitious scheme was adopted for the London Underground. It has failed quite spectacularly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metronet)

It seems to me that's the best focus. The vast majority of mass transit needs are urban anyway, so an upgrade in existing public transportation might show a much greater return on the investment than long haul railroads. [quote]

I think both are needed. Amtrak as it exists mainly deals with inter-city (not urban) services but I think commuter services need to be the top priority. However, Inter-city cannot be ignored.

[quote]I was thinking it might also shift the US from being an importer of crude oil to an exporter. That would be a great stimulus to the economy as well as lower domestic oil prices considerably. With a competitor for OPEC, that would also lower prices worldwide.

I think the US becoming an oil exporter is highly unlikely, giving that at present the US imports over 15 mbpd of oil, and produces around 5mbpd of it's own. To give you an idea, Saudi Arabia produces something in the region of 8 to 9 mbpd in total, so the unexploited fields would have to be absolutely massive (as in almost twice the size of all the Saudi oil fields put together) for the US to be able to be self sufficient and export a modest amount of oil herself. Although I'm not familiar with the geology of the west coast fields, I'm guessing that there may be geological concerns preventing recovery of that oil, given the very deep seabed off the west coast and it's general tectonic unpleasantness.

However, moves to develop internal oil as much as possible during a switchover, and a strong emphasis on reducing consumption as steeply as possible could dramatically reduce import dependency. A 6 to 7 mbpd reduction in demand is entirely possible, given political will, without the need for elaborate technology

I'd never heard of those before. Very interesting. Thanks for the link!

Your welcome :)

I think the problem we have now is that only NASA is working on it at this moment, since the airlines are hardly in a position to use investment capital on this technology when they're struggling to survive.

And we all know how much funding NASA gets for it's research *holds up peanut*

The only problem with solar power is that right now it takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than it's expected lifetime output. We need to improve the efficiency of solar cells before it can be a true solution.


This may have been true ten years ago, but with recent advances in solar technology it no longer is. Solar power is already a viable energy source; it is ignored seemingly because people are so used to viewing it as a pipe dream. There was an article in either Discover or Scientific American several months back outlining a plan to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in electric power generation within twenty years, mainly through increased use of solar power. I believe nuclear plant construction was also part of the plan, and why not? Nuclear power is irrationally and unfairly attacked by ignorant hippies. Even getting rid of nuclear waste is largely an invented problem, as it can quite safely be transported and stored. This plan won't be used, of course, because the government is completely incompetent. Oh yeah, and because the oil companies are run by Satan. Heil, Satan!

Oil problem?

The oil itself has no problem.
The oil corporations have no problems, at all.
It's those who have to buy petrol who are paying too much (I mean, those who have to drive to work - if you buy petrol because you like to run in your car it's another thing).

So, the best solution is to switch as many people and goods as possible to vehicles who don't need petrol, while encouraging ANY means of producing electricity who don't need to burn coal or petrol - nuclear (be it uranium or thorium), wind power, hydro power, thermal solar, photovoltaic, biomasses aka shit gas.

How many miles do you personally have to drive a day? My company pays for my fuel, but I have to drive rougly 100 miles to work and back. That's 500 miles a week. I don't think you have to drive that far in Helsinki.

Edit: ok granted, I tele-commute (work from home) most of the times, but my friends have to drive 500 miles a week. So still, same picture, just without me.

I personally don't have to drive at all, mostly due to me not owning a car. That's actually why I said "a lot of people would kill" instead of "I would kill". And you're right in that in Helsinki, people don't need to drive very much - in fact, it is perfectly possible to live without a car at all - but many people working in Helsinki actually live in the surrounding smaller cities, and have to drive 50, some maybe even as many as 100, miles for work. Also, many other areas in Finland are more or less rural, with not very good public transportation systems, and Helsinki's gasoline price is among the lowest in the country. Is that 100 miles per day very common in America?

Since you wanted to know driving distances for comparison, and my own is insignificant, I'll tell those of my parents instead. They live in the countryside, and thus need to drive a lot. Last year, my father drove easily 150 miles per day for work. Admittedly, his company paid for it, and due to the nature of his work, he has to drive around a lot, and sometimes the distances he has to drive are significantly shorter. My mother drives maybe 30 miles per day, but she has to pay for it herself.