Electric Cars Are Not Very Green

[red states rule]

Not only do most people do not want to buy an electric car due to the high price, rotten mileage on a charge, and cramp quarters - now we find out they are not very "green" (except for the price tag)





Electric cars are promoted as the chic harbinger of an environmentally benign future. Ads assure us of "zero emissions," and President Obama has promised a million on the road by 2015. With sales for 2012 coming in at about 50,000, that million-car figure is a pipe dream. Consumers remain wary of the cars' limited range, higher price and the logistics of battery-charging. But for those who do own an electric car, at least there is the consolation that it's truly green, right? Not really.

For proponents such as the actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio, the main argument is that their electric cars—whether it's a $100,000 Fisker Karma (Mr. DiCaprio's ride) or a $28,000 Nissan Leaf—don't contribute to global warming. And, sure, electric cars don't emit carbon-dioxide on the road. But the energy used for their manufacture and continual battery charges certainly does—far more than most people realize.

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.
So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html

[Voted4Reagan]

been saying it for years...

You have to use OIL/GAS/COAL or NUCLEAR PLANTS to make the Energy to charge these things.

If everyone owned one you'd crash your electrical grids in the Spring, Summer and Fall.

Especially in the overnight hours when charging would conflict with Air Conditioning in off peak usage hours..

then there is the issue of BATTERY DISPOSAL!

[aboutime]

been saying it for years...

You have to use OIL/GAS/COAL or NUCLEAR PLANTS to make the Energy to charge these things.

If everyone owned one you'd crash your electrical grids in the Spring, Summer and Fall.

Especially in the overnight hours when charging would conflict with Air Conditioning in off peak usage hours..

then there is the issue of BATTERY DISPOSAL!


V4R. I know this isn't possible. But since I always tend to look at the comical side of everything.

Imagine that Electrical Grid multiplied by MILLIONS as dumb Americans across the nation leave
their EXTENSION CORDS plugged in....as they pull away in the morning.
It might look like crazy string....4716 across the nation.

[red states rule]

Another liberal fantasy meets reality - and we hear the sound of crashing and burning. Of course Obama's solution is more "investments"

[logroller]

Another liberal fantasy meets reality - and we hear the sound of crashing and burning. Of course Obama's solution is more "investments"
Speaking of fantasies meeting reality; you ever seen a chart for domestic oil production? It peaked in the 70's. Of course, some say that more drilling. Odd, since the largest and most productive oil field in the the states was developed in the 80's, yet, it didn't surpass our peak production. whilst our consumption grows and grows-- it's unsustainable. reality is: cheap oil is gone and its only going to get more expensive. not because of what Obama does, but because of the economic reality. It's just more convenient to blame policy than our insatiable addiction for personal autos. Electric cars are just the methadone to ease us off our addiction.

[red states rule]

Speaking of fantasies meeting reality; you ever seen a chart for domestic oil production? It peaked in the 70's. Of course, some say that more drilling. Odd, since the largest and most productive oil field in the the states was developed in the 80's, yet, it didn't surpass our peak production. whilst our consumption grows and grows-- it's unsustainable. reality is: cheap oil is gone and its only going to get more expensive. not because of what Obama does, but because of the economic reality. It's just more convenient to blame policy than our insatiable addiction for personal autos. Electric cars are just the methadone to ease us off our addiction.

and the spike in drilling is on privately owned land while it is has plunged on Federal owned land. Obama still has his oil ban going and is blocking all attempts to increase production. Obama would rather pander to the enviro wackos then do what is best for the nation and put people back to work.

[red states rule]

LR here is a recent report backing up what I have been saying about Obama's war on drilling
New Report Chronicles Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Declining Under Obama’s Watch

March 5, 2013
http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png http://w.sharethis.com/images/check-small.png


CRS Finds Oil and Gas Production Fell on Federal Lands Despite Increases on State and Private Lands - ALL Increases in Oil Production Since 2007 Have Occurred on Non-Federal Lands


The nonpartisan Congressional Research Services has issued a new report (http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/20130228CRSreport.pdf) showing the effects of the Obama administration’s “all-of-the-above but nothing-from-below” energy policy on oil and gas production on federal lands. While U.S oil production is at its highest levels in two decades, evidence suggests this increase is largely a result of production on state and private lands where the federal government plays little or no role. CRS found that ALL the increases in production since 2007 have taken place on non-federal lands. The report reveals a similar story for natural gas. Since 2007, natural gas production on federal lands fell by 33 percent while production on state and private lands grew by 40 percent.
President Obama often boasts that overall energy production has increased under his administration, but this report confirms the energy boom is occurring in spite of the president’s policies, not because of them. Oil and gas production on federal lands are down due to a complex regulatory regime and an inefficient permitting process. According to CRS, the average time to process an Application for Permits to Drill (APD) on federal lands increased 41 percent from 2006 to 2011, extending the process by nearly 90 days.
“Private sector investment and new technologies are driving increases in oil and gas production. Where the states have been in charge, we have seen energy development boom in a safe and responsible way, but under federal control we have seen a sharp decline in production. A web of red tape and a backlog of delayed permits are blocking important energy production opportunities on federal lands,” said Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY). “As gas prices continue to rise past $4.00 a gallon, American families are looking to Washington for solutions to help provide relief at the pump. Expanding oil production on federal lands offers a real opportunity to help increase domestic supplies and stabilize prices as well as boost federal revenues.”
Key Findings of the Report:


“All of the increased production from FY2007 to FY2012 took place on non-federal lands…”
For natural gas production in the U.S. since 2007 “…production on federal lands (onshore and offshore) fell by about 33% and production on non-federal lands grew by 40%.”
Because of declines in oil production on federal lands in FY2011 and FY2012, production is now below FY2007 production levels.
The average daily production of natural gas on federal lands decreased by 19% from FY2011 to FY2012 and by 33% from FY2008 to FY2012.
The average time to process an Application for Permits to Drill (APD) on federal land increased 41% from 2006 to 2011, from 218 days in 2006 to 307 in 2011.
“A more efficient permitting process may be an added incentive for the industry to invest in developing federal resources, which may allow for some oil and gas to come onstream sooner, but in general, the regulatory framework for developing resources on federal lands will likely remain more involved and time-consuming than that on private land.” http://energycommerce.house.gov/brand/new-report-chronicles-oil-and-gas-production-federal-lands-declining-under-obamas-watch

[logroller]

and the spike in drilling is on privately owned land while it is has plunged on Federal owned land. Obama still has his oil ban going and is blocking all attempts to increase production. Obama would rather pander to the enviro wackos then do what is best for the nation and put people back to work.
Uh. The north slope of Alaska was federal land, and it was huge. Still didn't bump us past the previous peak though. Sorry rsr. We can drill and drill, deeper and with increased technological investment like Fracking and oil sand/shale but the cheap oil has already been recovered-- it's going to get more and more expensive. Think of it like liquidating assets; we've already spent what's in our bank accounts and pockets, dug through the couch, taken out loans and now we're faced with selling our belongings to generate cash. All the liquid stuff you get dollar for dollar, but the time spent digging through the couch is time lost, loans have interest and we'll only get fractions on the dollar value of goods we sell. It's not a pretty picture; so we place this great hope in electric cars, alternative fuel sources etc. but that's just placating our selfish desires. We need to use less fuel. Period. Drilling won't change that any more than giving a panhandler money is going to get him back on his feet. He'll just get loaded and be begging again tomorrow.

[red states rule]

Uh. The north slope of Alaska was federal land, and it was huge. Still didn't bump us past the previous peak though. Sorry rsr. We can drill and drill, deeper and with increased technological investment like Fracking and oil sand/shale but the cheap oil has already been recovered-- it's going to get more and more expensive. Think of it like liquidating assets; we've already spent what's in our bank accounts and pockets, dug through the couch, taken out loans and now we're faced with selling our belongings to generate cash. All the liquid stuff you get dollar for dollar, but the time spent digging through the couch is time lost, loans have interest and we'll only get fractions on the dollar value of goods we sell. It's not a pretty picture; so we place this great hope in electric cars, alternative fuel sources etc. but that's just placating our selfish desires. We need to use less fuel. Period. Drilling won't change that any more than giving a panhandler money is going to get him back on his feet. He'll just get loaded and be begging again tomorrow.

The point is we are NOT drilling as much as we can. Obama has this fantasy of a "green" economy and it has doubled energy costs and he has pissed through hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to create the green economy. Like with Obamacare, people are paying more for less and the people libs claim their polices will help end up screwing them over. If there were ANY potential for the electric cars, private investors would be paying for the R&D and not using taxpayer money. But the free market is the last thing a liberal like Obama would rely on. Under his leadership, gas prices have doubled and are climbing. But hey, it is not like the days when Bush was in office and libs trotted out before the liberal media and blasted the President when gas first hit $3/gal is it LR?

[logroller]

The point is we are NOT drilling as much as we can. Obama has this fantasy of a "green" economy and it has doubled energy costs and he has pissed through hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars trying to create the green economy. Like with Obamacare, people are paying more for less and the people libs claim their polices will help end up screwing them over. If there were ANY potential for the electric cars, private investors would be paying for the R&D and not using taxpayer money. But the free market is the last thing a liberal like Obama would rely on. Under his leadership, gas prices have doubled and are climbing. But hey, it is not like the days when Bush was in office and libs trotted out before the liberal media and blasted the President when gas first hit $3/gal is it LR?
And my point is that more drilling isn't going to solve the problem of over-consumption. I don't see what bush and the lib media has to do with it quite frankly. We don't, nor have we ever had a free market rsr. How many trillions do you think we've spent over the last thirty-five years securing Middle East oil? I read a report one time that estimates it at almost $300 billion per year. That's over multiple congresses and presidents of all different colors. Is that the free market at work? Please. The numbers don't lie. Even during Reagan's presidency and the Alaskan oil boom our production of oil didn't surpass our domestic peak. Its simply scarcity and cost/benefit of recovery being insufficient to meet our ever-growing demand; so prices increase. Why would investors dump money into r&d when you can get the government to keep the cheap oil coming from abroad. The gigs up though, global oil hit its peak too most likely. Expect a maelstrom. Go ahead and blame Obama like everybody blames bush for the housing crash..of course, nobody bitches when they're flipping houses and reaping unsustainable profits...until they're upside down having liquidated and burned through whatever equity once existed. Then its time to drill into the coffers of govt...which is already dry and we need to borrow more. You know its asinine because there isn't a policy fix to this. We need to use less oil; not drill to give some insignificant fraction of whats demanded. Takes ten years to develop a well anyhow. solutions: Carpool telecommute transit...there's an abundance of solutions we already have but people want their heroin cars. You have to acknowledge the problem before you can solve it.

[red states rule]

And my point is that more drilling isn't going to solve the problem of over-consumption. I don't see what bush and the lib media has to do with it quite frankly. We don't, nor have we ever had a free market rsr. How many trillions do you think we've spent over the last thirty-five years securing Middle East oil? I read a report one time that estimates it at almost $300 billion per year. That's over multiple congresses and presidents of all different colors. Is that the free market at work? Please. The numbers don't lie. Even during Reagan's presidency and the Alaskan oil boom our production of oil didn't surpass our domestic peak. Its simply scarcity and cost/benefit of recovery being insufficient to meet our ever-growing demand; so prices increase. Why would investors dump money into r&d when you can get the government to keep the cheap oil coming from abroad. The gigs up though, global oil hit its peak too most likely. Expect a maelstrom. Go ahead and blame Obama like everybody blames bush for the housing crash..of course, nobody bitches when they're flipping houses and reaping unsustainable profits...until they're upside down having liquidated and burned through whatever equity once existed. Then its time to drill into the coffers of govt...which is already dry and we need to borrow more. You know its asinine because there isn't a policy fix to this. We need to use less oil; not drill to give some insignificant fraction of whats demanded. Takes ten years to develop a well anyhow. solutions: Carpool telecommute transit...there's an abundance of solutions we already have but people want their heroin cars. You have to acknowledge the problem before you can solve it.

It is called supply and demand LR. Increase the supply of something the price comes down. If you do not "get" how the Dems, Obama, and the liberal media blamed Bush for high gas prices then you are indeed living in a bubble. When Obama took office gas was about $1.80/gal and it has now doubled which is a massive tax on the working folks libs claim to care about. Obama has a ban on drilling in the Gulf and is blocking drilling on Federal owned land. If you refuse to face those facts -then there is nothing else to discuss. Your loyalty to Obama is typical as well as naïve. Libs seldom admit their policies are a failure even when it all comes crashing down around the,. I know with most on the left Obama is blameless, he inherited the mess, he is doing the best with what was handed to him, ect, ect. It is called LEADERSHIP LR something Obama does not have nor has he shown. You will be standing with those who continue to make excuses and blame US the people for all the nations problems. Which is also typical for libs. BTW, you demand we use less oil- what do you drive? What do you use to heat/cool your home? Do you have anything in your home made of plastic (which comes from oil) Do you walk the walk LR or just talk the talk?

[logroller]

It is called supply and demand LR. Increase the supply of something the price comes down. If you do not "get" how the Dems, Obama, and the liberal media blamed Bush for high gas prices then you are indeed living in a bubble. When Obama took office gas was about $1.80/gal and it has now doubled which is a massive tax on the working folks libs claim to care about. Obama has a ban on drilling in the Gulf and is blocking drilling on Federal owned land. If you refuse to face those facts -then there is nothing else to discuss. Your loyalty to Obama is typical as well as naïve. Libs seldom admit their policies are a failure even when it all comes crashing down around the,. I know with most on the left Obama is blameless, he inherited the mess, he is doing the best with what was handed to him, ect, ect. It is called LEADERSHIP LR something Obama does not have nor has he shown. You will be standing with those who continue to make excuses and blame US the people for all the nations problems. Which is also typical for libs. BTW, you demand we use less oil- what do you drive? What do you use to heat/cool your home? Do you have anything in your home made of plastic (which comes from oil) Do you walk the walk LR or just talk the talk?
Exactly right-- Its called supply AND DEMAND rsr. Curiously, however, Increasing the supply is negligible when demand is insatiable. If only it were as simple as pumping more oil. lets look at the facts: global oil production (ie supply) is about at its highest levels ever and yet oil prices are also near their highest ever. Sorta puts a wrinkle in your supply up, prices down theory. Here's a hint: its call price (in)elasticity. Oil is an input into so many things that changing the price has little effect on consumption. overall economic health plays a huge part in consumption(ie demand), more than price ever did and that's why prices were low when bush left office--the economy was in the crapper. Im not blamin bush for that mind you, I'm just stating the economic fact of the matter. Oil prices have steadily risen through the last decade; the economic downturn of 2008 was just a blip in the overall trend. You always cherry pick that fact and its an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth; worthy of msnbc or democraticunderground. That'd b like putting forth the Dow jones numbers when bush took office and when he left; its like 10,600 down to 8,500. While Obama has increased it from 8500 to over 14,000. Does that tell the story rsr; you know damn well it doesn't. I know you've seen the charts showing the price of oil increasing throughout Bush's presidency. It's really quite hypocritical to belabor the bias of lib media whilst submitting such rubbish as half-truth proof.

Price goes down, people produce more, demand more, price goes back up. Repeat. Only we have less and less of a resource pool= scarcity up, prices up-- and they're not going to go down unless our economy demands less of it. As far walking the walk, I drive a ford focus, gets about 24 mpg, but i only drive 5000 miles a year, spending around $1200 a year in fuel. it doesnt behoove me to buy a more fuel economical car currently-- but I do carpool with a neighbor two days a week. As for heating: gas fired central air and electricity for electic blankets so I can drop the temps during the night with a programmable thermostat on the central air. Summertime though, ooh boy. AC bills are outta sight. Not so much me as the wife; but we all have guilty pleasures; eg I still smoke. So ive got to pick my battles. What about you walking the walk; you out drilling for oil? :poke:

[fj1200]

It is called supply and demand LR. ... When Obama took office gas was about $1.80/gal and it has now doubled...

POTUS has zero control over the price of oil/gas... but we've been over that haven't we?

[Robert A Whit]

POTUS has zero control over the price of oil/gas... but we've been over that haven't we?

Well if you say so. I had no idea he had nothing to say about the Pipeline from Canada to TX.

I had no idea he had nothing to say about how slow the Feds are as to moving faster on areas Obama banned.

I had no idea Obama did not ban oil from parts of Alaska. Off the East Coast of the US.

Gee, the guy just is not in charge of a thing.

[Robert A Whit]

Exactly right-- Its called supply AND DEMAND rsr. Curiously, however, Increasing the supply is negligible when demand is insatiable. If only it were as simple as pumping more oil. lets look at the facts: global oil production (ie supply) is about at its highest levels ever and yet oil prices are also near their highest ever. Sorta puts a wrinkle in your supply up, prices down theory. Here's a hint: its call price (in)elasticity. Oil is an input into so many things that changing the price has little effect on consumption. overall economic health plays a huge part in consumption(ie demand), more than price ever did and that's why prices were low when bush left office--the economy was in the crapper. Im not blamin bush for that mind you, I'm just stating the economic fact of the matter. Oil prices have steadily risen through the last decade; the economic downturn of 2008 was just a blip in the overall trend. You always cherry pick that fact and its an outrageous misrepresentation of the truth; worthy of msnbc or democraticunderground. That'd b like putting forth the Dow jones numbers when bush took office and when he left; its like 10,600 down to 8,500. While Obama has increased it from 8500 to over 14,000. Does that tell the story rsr; you know damn well it doesn't. I know you've seen the charts showing the price of oil increasing throughout Bush's presidency. It's really quite hypocritical to belabor the bias of lib media whilst submitting such rubbish as half-truth proof.

Price goes down, people produce more, demand more, price goes back up. Repeat. Only we have less and less of a resource pool= scarcity up, prices up-- and they're not going to go down unless our economy demands less of it. As far walking the walk, I drive a ford focus, gets about 24 mpg, but i only drive 5000 miles a year, spending around $1200 a year in fuel. it doesnt behoove me to buy a more fuel economical car currently-- but I do carpool with a neighbor two days a week. As for heating: gas fired central air and electricity for electic blankets so I can drop the temps during the night with a programmable thermostat on the central air. Summertime though, ooh boy. AC bills are outta sight. Not so much me as the wife; but we all have guilty pleasures; eg I still smoke. So ive got to pick my battles. What about you walking the walk; you out drilling for oil? :poke:

Prices in the USA caused by USA policies (Obama policies) are blocking more use of fuels.

It is well known that Obama does like high prices. He sees it as force to drive us out of using gasoline.

Gasoline prices supposedly is explained by talking globally. This fails to explain why fuel costs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Venezuela are so low that Americans don't track those prices yet other countries pay for fuel alone, excluding taxes, much more. It would be even priced if your theory is accurate. Matter of fact, it plays into oil companies hands to explain it the way you explain it.

Consumption fell. Due to prices. I put some of the blame of the housing crash on prices of fuel.

This is simple to explain. I sell homes so i understand this problem. I used to sell homes for let's say $400,000 30 miles to the East. Today those homes bring $130,000. While my immediate area fell in prices, they did not fall by any 3/4. We fell maybe 1/4. Fuel is what brings people from 30 miles or more to jobs. When they pay too much for fuel, they that live on the edge of affordability, can't afford both the home and the fuel. But they must keep the job.Then people living way out lose jobs. This puts down pressure on homes prices where they live. It is a down spiral.

I have driven all over this country and know very well that even in the USA prices vary widely. Clearly this global supply can get to CA just as easy as it gets to Wyoming. Matter of fact. Wyoming is cheaper yet has no tanker ships coming to ports.

It is not that easy to explain the way you try to explain it. Obama has tampered thus earning the bonus of being blamed.

[logroller]

. Prices in the USA caused by USA policies (Obama policies) are blocking more use of fuels.

It is well known that Obama does like high prices. He sees it as force to drive us out of using gasoline.

Economics play a far greater role. we demand far more oil every year than we have ever produced domestically in any year. You do realize that, right? So tell me why you think we should consume more oil to fuel our cars when we haven't the resources?



Gasoline prices supposedly is explained by talking globally. This fails to explain why fuel costs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Venezuela are so low that Americans don't track those prices yet other countries pay for fuel alone, excluding taxes, much more. It would be even priced if your theory is accurate. Matter of fact, it plays into oil companies hands to explain it the way you explain it.

Those countries are state-owned oil exporters; they use the profits to subsidize their domestic fuels. Same way we spend billions to secure the market prices we receive from the Middle East oil.


Consumption fell. Due to prices. I put some of the blame of the housing crash on prices of fuel.
Consumption fell because the economy collapsed; thus it demanded less. So prices drop.


This is simple to explain. I sell homes so i understand this problem. I used to sell homes for let's say $400,000 30 miles to the East. Today those homes bring $130,000. While my immediate area fell in prices, they did not fall by any 3/4. We fell maybe 1/4. Fuel is what brings people from 30 miles or more to jobs. When they pay too much for fuel, they that live on the edge of affordability, can't afford both the home and the fuel. But they must keep the job.Then people living way out lose jobs. This puts down pressure on homes prices where they live. It is a down spiral.

Housing is not an economic input. Oil is. It behaves quite differently. First off, the housing crash had zilch to do wih fuel prices; it had to do with capital markets (money lenders/borrowers)
--businesses of all types and sizes routinely borrowing money from banks and these banks borrow money from capital equity banks-- and this drives our economy. These loans were backed by securities that used mortgages as collateral. When it was realized that thecollateral wasn't sufficient to cover the capital loans outstanding, capital lenders liquidated these assets. With a glut of supply, demand couldnt keep up and a fire sale ensued resulting in a price crash for mortgage backed securities. Thus people couldn't buy and sell homes and the housing boom went bust--housing prices dropped. Housing and capital markets are related, but it was the capital markets drying up, (meaning less monetary turnover) that had such a devastating effect on the economy, not housing. You put the cart before the horse; it wasnt the housing crash that caused the economy to collapse, it was the housing boom that caused the capital market to crash and that caused the economy and the housing market to crash.


I have driven all over this country and know very well that even in the USA prices vary widely. Clearly this global supply can get to CA just as easy as it gets to Wyoming. Matter of fact. Wyoming is cheaper yet has no tanker ships coming to ports.
Regional differences in fuel is mostly due to domestic policies; specifically, CAFE standards. Those policies are responsible for reducing air pollution. Wyoming doesn't use much fuel, nor have a very large population (demand) nor have geological and meteorological constraints that trap pollution. So they don't have the same standards, so they dont incur the cost of meeting them.


It is not that easy to explain the way you try to explain it. Obama has tampered thus earning the bonus of being blamed.
Oil gets used for all kinds of stuff;but not all uses are as important. Oil is an input for polymers that make catheters to save lives; oil makes the red-dye diesel fuel that powers the tractors to make food; oil makes the gas that powers your car to go to the beach. Each purpose is not equal in value, but each is important in its own right. The problem is, we demand more oil than we generate, thus the price increases. So what can be done to reduce the price of this essential input? We could drill more, but that's been tried and, as a matter of fact, we don't produce anywhere near our 1970's peak-- yet our demand continues to grow. Oh sure, the price may be increasing less so, but the overall price trend remains upward regardless of whether we drill or not or who's in office. look it up for yourself if dont believe me-- I know ive posted it here before. alternative fuels, ev, fuel cells... All just a shill game. Dont get me wrong, They offer some benefits, just as drilling does, but the only tried and true viable solution is to reduce consumption; which faces us with a choice: life saving medical devices, food or a trip to the beach--which is easiest to forgo?

[red states rule]

POTUS has zero control over the price of oil/gas... but we've been over that haven't we?

Oh forgive me FJ for holing Pres Obama to the SAME standards the Dems, liberal media, and candidate Obama held Pres Bush to. I know to people like you that is uncalled for and so unfair

[red states rule]

Well if you say so. I had no idea he had nothing to say about the Pipeline from Canada to TX.

I had no idea he had nothing to say about how slow the Feds are as to moving faster on areas Obama banned.

I had no idea Obama did not ban oil from parts of Alaska. Off the East Coast of the US.

Gee, the guy just is not in charge of a thing.

Robert, the bottom line is people like LR and FJ have one set of high standards for R's and a much lower set of standards for the D's. When it come to LR and FJ if not for their double standards they would have no standards at all. During the Bush years, it was Bush's fault when gas hit $3/gal. Now when gas hits $4/gal under Obama it is OUR fault because he have the f'ing gall to use cars and trucks that run on gasoline

[fj1200]

Well if you say so. I had no idea he had nothing to say about the Pipeline from Canada to TX.

I had no idea he had nothing to say about how slow the Feds are as to moving faster on areas Obama banned.

I had no idea Obama did not ban oil from parts of Alaska. Off the East Coast of the US.

Gee, the guy just is not in charge of a thing.

Which, believe it or not, are things which have zero impact on the global price of oil. Global you say? \/


Gasoline prices supposedly is explained by talking globally. This fails to explain why fuel costs in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and even Venezuela are so low that Americans don't track those prices yet other countries pay for fuel alone, excluding taxes, much more. It would be even priced if your theory is accurate. Matter of fact, it plays into oil companies hands to explain it the way you explain it.

Gas is typically subsidized in those countries to pacify the people which is easy to do when you are the country that owns the oil.


I have driven all over this country and know very well that even in the USA prices vary widely. Clearly this global supply can get to CA just as easy as it gets to Wyoming. Matter of fact. Wyoming is cheaper yet has no tanker ships coming to ports.

Efficient methods of transporting oil and gas means you don't need to be anywhere near a refinery to get what you need. Blends and gas taxes determine price differentials between states.

[fj1200]

Oh forgive me FJ for holing Pres Obama to the SAME standards the Dems, liberal media, and candidate Obama held Pres Bush to. I know to people like you that is uncalled for and so unfair

Please point out where I said anything about media standards for blame of POTUS. If you had any sense you would see that my position is the same regardless of who wins elections; The POTUS has zero to do with the global price of oil whereas you change with the wind.


Robert, the bottom line is people like LR and FJ have one set of high standards for R's and a much lower set of standards for the D's. When it come to LR and FJ if not for their double standards they would have no standards at all. During the Bush years, it was Bush's fault when gas hit $3/gal. Now when gas hits $4/gal under Obama it is OUR fault because he have the f'ing gall to use cars and trucks that run on gasoline

I see you fell back to your talking points since that is all that you have. I'm sure we can discuss AGAIN why the president doesn't affect the price of oil but I'm sure AGAIN you'll go back to your rote recitation of the evils of libs.

[Robert A Whit]

Economics play a far greater role. we demand far more oil every year than we have ever produced domestically in any year. You do realize that, right? So tell me why you think we should consume more oil to fuel our cars when we haven't the resources?

We seem to be in a situation where you tell me things I know and you seem to not believe things I know are true. Your question above is moot since I have not made a case we should consume more oil, just that I know we will. And Obama is curtailing said resources and that distorts market prices to the worse for consumers.


Those countries are state-owned oil exporters; they use the profits to subsidize their domestic fuels. Same way we spend billions to secure the market prices we receive from the Middle East oil.

I presume that you assume I knew this and you just wanted to let some other person know. Since I stated market facts, it is easy to realize I know the above. The point seems to be that presidents policies to choke off supply have no impact.

I don't buy that. It makes no sense of any sort. We all, maybe not you, can see that Obama's mission is to prevent oil from reaching the market. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the man can order agencies that impact on oil supply to cool their jets and take a lot of time. What he hopes for is some miracle will happen to offset the laws of physics and chemistry in some cases. Such that one can take any vehicle of X weight and by magic wish it got better fuel economy.


A lot of the fuel economy we get today vs say in 1955 for instance is much more precise control over the fuel to the engine. Advances in fuel injection systems such as coupling them with computers has helped somewhat. Abandoning the carburetor was good. Some other effeciencies in engine design helped. Having computers manage the transmission helped. As to emissions, that also was helped along with including the catalytic converter improved emissions control. Maybe you know all of this and if so, i don't mean to act like your teacher.

But look around. We can look back at the 1930s autos where in general the typical workers car was small. A model A coupe is a small vehicle. As time passed, post WWII, auto makers had better and better roads and people were more willing to travel in autos long distances so cars were getting larger and larger for comfort. Today the typical cars I see on the roads are small again. My view is smaller cars provide less safety so I drive a car that weighs over two tons and still gets decent milage on the highway. Too many stop signs block my city mpg from being better. A city is one of the worst places to try to get decent fuel mileage. The paradox is at slower speeds and steady speeds, that should favor outstanding mileage yet in the city mileage typically sucks. This is due to government road blocks to efficient traffic flow. Stop lights in other words.


Consumption fell because the economy collapsed; thus it demanded less. So prices drop.

Your argument here is that a person driving round trip of say 100 miles per day to get to work did not have any problems paying much higher prices for fuel so it has no impact. I don't accept that. Those scraping by, just making the house payment and paying say X dollars per month for fuel to go to work, by making that cost 2X, it causes him to have to give something up to pay for fuel. If he is that much on the edge, he may try to sell the home but moving closer means higher home prices in my area at least. He is almost stuck where he lived. It is a mistake to not factor in fuel prices to where people live. As to your chicken /egg first problem, it works as well as you say. But your argument does not invalidate my argument. It depends on factors you or I may not control for. For instance, maybe the guy paying high prices for fuel figures he might refinance the home trying to wait out till prices of fuel fall again. When Bush was president, I bought fuel for not much over $1 per gallon in some parts of this country. If one drives through many states on a trip, one sees easily the way the prices vary a lot. It also becomes apparent that the state one drives in also impacts on fuel economy. I got the very best fuel economy in Wyoming. This has to mean the governments of states mess with the fuel and cause poor fuel mileage. CA for instance is bad for this. So, government actually causes problems.


Housing is not an economic input. We will not agree here since I know better so you may as well forget trying to refute my argument. Another factor as to the housing crash was variable rate loans. I hope you don't try to dispute that.


Oil is. It behaves quite differently. First off, the housing crash had zilch to do wih fuel prices;
We had rapid run up in prices. I know when a person refuses to buy a home say 90 miles from work, he has looked at fuel prices and tried to factor that into a budget. Even when they don't think they do, they do since to look at homes they also know they paid a lot more for fuel on the days they looked for homes. They are not that stupid as to ignore prices. When prices were 1 per gallon and then not long later were close to 5 per gallon, surely you see that changes a lot of things if the person has funds to handle say 2 dollars per gallon but is having to pay over double that? I don't see how you can just ignore prices. As to housing be a driver for fuel prices, no ... I agree that housing prices are not drivers of fuel prices. But fuel prices affect affordability and you seem to ignore that.

it had to do with capital markets (money lenders/borrowers)
--businesses of all types and sizes routinely borrowing money from banks and these banks borrow money from capital equity banks-- and this drives our economy. These loans were backed by securities that used mortgages as collateral. When it was realized that thecollateral wasn't sufficient to cover the capital loans outstanding, capital lenders liquidated these assets. With a glut of supply, demand couldnt keep up and a fire sale ensued resulting in a price crash for mortgage backed securities.
I could be wrong, but you seem to be mixing the housing market capital with the non housing market capital. Business capital comes from banks. For the most part, Banks play little role in housing capital. I have seen banks get out of the housing capital supply very fast and stay out for years. When I got into Real Estate, the state test asked where housing capital comes from mostly and the correct answer was then the savings and loans. This changed radically in the 1980s and then the conventional market cash flow was driven by the GSE's. Fannie and Freddie in other words. When it was clear that the no money down programs by the VA were working, and the low down FHA loans also worked, it occured to a bright person to insure conventional loans low down payment plans and offer those. Well, some bright guys in Wall St figured to cut a buck by buying those low down loans. I am not saying subprimes. They still wanted excellent credit. In the 90s, we in the lending business over time were having subprimes pitched to our offices and depending on the client and the loan package, we might offer said client that loan. I always tried to avoid that route to do my clients good service so to the extent I could, I stayed away from sub-primes. Or course not all loan people did this and some decided to put the client last and themselves first. Those leeches do not have the respect of the loan industry. However, it seems that once Wall St wanted home loans, in packages as you outline, those boys harmed the market further in my opinion. I do blame Wall St to a point but when you look at other consumer loans, such as auto loans, home loans even with the leeches were still cheap money given the risk and the waiting time to be paid back.
I don't wish to engage in a long complex commentary over home loans but this is my forte. I am not naive enough to put ALL the blame on any one premise.
I do know that when the sub-prime loan died, it had a major impact on home prices.



Thus people couldn't buy and sell homes and the housing boom went bust--housing prices dropped. Housing and capital markets are related, but it was the capital markets drying up, (meaning less monetary turnover) that had such a devastating effect on the economy, not housing. You put the cart before the horse; it wasnt the housing crash that caused the economy to collapse, it was the housing boom that caused the capital market to crash and that caused the economy and the housing market to crash.

Clearly you did not understand my argument since I agree with you on the way you put it just above. But there were more factors at play. Your explanation does not explain why for so many years the market stayed alive despite those problems you cite and those problems were there all along from the 1990s. I think what you are trying to do is turn something very complex into something simple. But I doubt you were in the home loan business. I had plenty of business loan experience prior to my going into real estate so I had to learn home loans since they were different than the business or consumer loan business. I just don't agree that it was as simple as you put it or that it was precisely that way. But in general, I think you understand that Wall St had a major role and that I agree with.


Regional differences in fuel is mostly due to domestic policies; specifically, CAFE standards. Those policies are responsible for reducing air pollution. Wyoming doesn't use much fuel, nor have a very large population (demand) nor have geological and meteorological constraints that trap pollution. So they don't have the same standards, so they dont incur the cost of meeting them.

Are you trying to say that Wyoming is exempt from Federal Standards? I hope not. It amuses me to read things I am already well aware of as if I am being told something i don't know. LOL I drove through other low population states and did not get the same really great fuel mileage. I got at least 5 mpg better fuel economy in Wyoming than i am able to get in CA. I did better than CA in other states such as OK/TX ... I can't recall if I filled up in TX or OK but I also refueled at Ft. Smith Arkansas. I can't say much about the fuel economy on that fuel given I spent too much time in city driving at Branson MO with mixed driving in Arkansas. I did not pay close attention to fuel economy leaving Branson to St. Louis but on those open roads, I could expect to get about 24/5 mpg. I would say that given how flat MO and KS were, I should have got worse mileage in the much more hilly Wyoming and the air conditions in those states were similar to Wyoming. You did not know the long range of this trip I speak of.


Oil gets used for all kinds of stuff;but not all uses are as important. Oil is an input for polymers that make catheters to save lives; oil makes the red-dye diesel fuel that powers the tractors to make food; oil makes the gas that powers your car to go to the beach. Each purpose is not equal in value, but each is important in its own right.

The problem is, we demand more oil than we generate, thus the price increases.

Yep, just what I have been saying and others as well. Obama put the clamps on supply to the point he had control. He has nothing to say about Baaken so of course this has helped lower prices with the added supply. He can't claim he helped add to supply.


So what can be done to reduce the price of this essential input? We could drill more, but that's been tried and, as a matter of fact, we don't produce anywhere near our 1970's peak-- yet our demand continues to grow.
Baaken has not helped? Come on. It helps those able to get that fuel. It does not help me in CA but where that oil gets to, it helps those people. In the 1970s, this country also had a lot lower population.

Oh sure, the price may be increasing less so, but the overall price trend remains upward regardless of whether we drill or not or who's in office. look it up for yourself if dont believe me-- I know ive posted it here before. alternative fuels, ev, fuel cells... All just a shill game. Dont get me wrong, They offer some benefits, just as drilling does, but the only tried and true viable solution is to reduce consumption; which faces us with a choice: life saving medical devices, food or a trip to the beach--which is easiest to forgo?

Reducing consumption helps the supply last longer but it deprives the market of the good effects of using fuel. Using fuel actually is great for the economy. I keep bringing up from time to time a very good book on this topic, of energy by Professor Muller at CAL Berkeley. He details the relevant factors of the various fuel sources and includes economics. But his book also includes a lot more good stuff. It would have been smart of Obama to have read that book. i just don't see him reading such books.

Said book is Physics for future presidents and he has an updated book out.

[logroller]

Reducing consumption helps the supply last longer but it deprives the market of the good effects of using fuel. Using fuel actually is great for the economy. I keep bringing up from time to time a very good book on this topic, of energy by Professor Muller at CAL Berkeley. He details the relevant factors of the various fuel sources and includes economics. But his book also includes a lot more good stuff. It would have been smart of Obama to have read that book. i just don't see him reading such books.


Said book is Physics for future presidents and he has an updated book out.
You say its depriving the market of good effects;like what?
You seem centered on the paradigm of people must drive alone in their cars and buy buttloads of cheap fuel to power the economy.
I know the above is not what you are saying, nor what you intend, but the ideological view of drill more to lower prices is complicit in over-exuberant consumption.
I'm saying carpooling and transit can have the same economic benefit and reduce dependance on foreign oil and reduce fuel consumption. thus Freeing up oil for other purposes and freeing up consumer funds to spend elsewhere like, gasp, investment. Why don't more people do that???? I don't know. But I can tell you that as fuel price rises, more people will do those things.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=625628#post625628)
Reducing consumption helps the supply last longer but it deprives the market of the good effects of using fuel. Using fuel actually is great for the economy. I keep bringing up from time to time a very good book on this topic, of energy by Professor Muller at CAL Berkeley. He details the relevant factors of the various fuel sources and includes economics. But his book also includes a lot more good stuff. It would have been smart of Obama to have read that book. i just don't see him reading such books.


Said book is Physics for future presidents and he has an updated book out.



You say its depriving the market of good effects;like what?
You seem centered on the paradigm of people must drive alone in their cars and buy buttloads of cheap fuel to power the economy.
I know the above is not what you are saying, nor what you intend, but the ideological view of drill more to lower prices is complicit in over-exuberant consumption.
I'm saying carpooling and transit can have the same economic benefit and reduce dependance on foreign oil and reduce fuel consumption. thus Freeing up oil for other purposes and freeing up consumer funds to spend elsewhere like, gasp, investment. Why don't more people do that???? I don't know. But I can tell you that as fuel price rises, more people will do those things.

Good effects like more production. You may believe that only autos are effected but fuel costs are much more dispersed than that.

It is not my desire that people drive with no passengers. It was common for me to share rides when I worked for 9 years in construction. i believe in it. Some people simply are not able to ride share since no network that I am aware of exists to the point it makes much difference.

We need to drill more to lower prices. Lower prices filter through the economy and produce the greater good for the population. Try taking transit in most cities sometime. New transit is not only super expensive but takes a long time to put into place. The super fast train for CA will not be used enough to justify the cost and too few people can reach the rail. This is one reason why rail passenger traffic declined so much in the 1950s+. Of course high prices can and will drive people to change but when your own government is forcing it on you, it is we they harm. All change is not good.

What we have in Government are those living in cities, having city amenities but acting like most live in such large cities. Most cities have no transit. And most cities can't do things you suggest.

What it boils down to is policies have to work for all of us, not just those living in cities.

It reminds me in a way of what Obama said today in Jerusalem He wants the Palestinians and Jews to work a plan together.

The irony is he does not govern like that. Bullshit walks.

[fj1200]

We need to drill more to lower prices. ... This is one reason why rail passenger traffic declined so much in the 1950s+.

We can't drill enough to affect prices. ... Highways were subsidized more so than rail beginning in the '50s.

[Robert A Whit]

We can't drill enough to affect prices. ... Highways were subsidized more so than rail beginning in the '50s.

I believe we can drill our way to lower prices. I can't recall the start of the Fed highway tax but recall very well when freeways started. I also recall when rail did very well. The best solutions do not need such funds. That is just artificial price fixing.

Here is why we can drill to cheaper fuel. First, NG is on the rise. Trucks will help by changing to this fuel. NG is cheap. NG however is not compact enough so trucks need more fuel tanks to be practical.

I don't see autos using NG in the same way. Truck stops are gearing up for NG so the problem will be less difficult.

The auto has many advantages that rail lacks. Even when using air, many of us rent autos.

A bit about how roads are first built in CA is in order.
When homes are constructed, in CA, the owner of the land must pay for paving. New home tracts developers pay for all improvements including sewers, inground utilities less wiring, and sidewalks, curbs, gutters and provisions for water. When complete, the city accepts at no cost to the city the infrastructure. As you can well know, the majority of all roads are internal to cities. Cities take them over and keep them improved.

Freeways, and I once worked on them, have federal and state funds so those are mostly built using road taxes.

Commerce ends up using the roads. Thus the best way to keep all costs low is to price fuel lower.

[fj1200]

I believe we can drill our way to lower prices. I can't recall the start of the Fed highway tax but recall very well when freeways started. I also recall when rail did very well. The best solutions do not need such funds. That is just artificial price fixing.

Here is why we can drill to cheaper fuel. First, NG is on the rise. Trucks will help by changing to this fuel. NG is cheap. NG however is not compact enough so trucks need more fuel tanks to be practical.

I don't see autos using NG in the same way. Truck stops are gearing up for NG so the problem will be less difficult.

The auto has many advantages that rail lacks. Even when using air, many of us rent autos.

A bit about how roads are first built in CA is in order.
When homes are constructed, in CA, the owner of the land must pay for paving. New home tracts developers pay for all improvements including sewers, inground utilities less wiring, and sidewalks, curbs, gutters and provisions for water. When complete, the city accepts at no cost to the city the infrastructure. As you can well know, the majority of all roads are internal to cities. Cities take them over and keep them improved.

Freeways, and I once worked on them, have federal and state funds so those are mostly built using road taxes.

Commerce ends up using the roads. Thus the best way to keep all costs low is to price fuel lower.

No matter what you believe, we can not. We can not drill enough domestically to affect the global price of oil. You'd do better to have the Fed tighten the money supply to affect the price of oil than drill. And as far as the best solutions, you can't ignore that highways are subsidized and have affected the development of how we live since the 50's; you don't build the highway to the suburbs and very few will be living out there.

[logroller]

Good effects like more production. You may believe that only autos are effected but fuel costs are much more dispersed than that.
I don't believe that it is only; but id hardly consider 71%(transportation) and 45% (gasoline alone) as "dispersed".

U.S. Transportation fuel consumption accounts for over 70 percent of total U.S. oil consumption, and more than 65 percent of that amount is for personal vehicles. American drivers consume about nine million barrels of gasoline per day for personal transportation—378 million gallons every day—about 45 percent of total U.S. oil consumption.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2

Transportation accounts for over 70% of us oil consumption--hardly inconsequential. Perhaps there's a way to target automobile fuel use and not other production...

It is not my desire that people drive with no passengers. It was common for me to share rides when I worked for 9 years in construction. i believe in it. Some people simply are not able to ride share since no network that I am aware of exists to the point it makes much difference.

And how, pray tell, will there be any investment in said "network" if fuel prices are routinely subsidized by government allowances. You seem to operate under the impression that the market alone has delivered the prices we have received historically, which are among the lowest among oil importing nations despite the fact we far and above the largest consumer of oil. Guess why? Because government has and continues to subsidize oil through various means.


We need to drill more to lower prices.

Correct me if im wrong, but you suggest the we drill to increase production right? Yet, despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, and gas prices are higher than they were 20 years ago.


Artificially Lower prices filter through the economy and produce greater inflation...fixed that for ya.
which is good for the population. not so much.

Try taking transit in most cities sometime. New transit is not only super expensive but takes a long time to put into place. The super fast train for CA will not be used enough to justify the cost and too few people can reach the rail. This is one reason why rail passenger traffic declined so much in the 1950s+. Of course high prices can and will drive people to change but when your own government is forcing it on you, it is we they harm. All change is not good.

Well no change is all good. Theres always cost to any benefit; its a ratio, and that ratio is an extensive calculation. You seem to be ignoring our government subsidizing oil, as though that hasn't harmed us as well. You do realize that since the oil embargo, the US has spent trillions, hundreds of billions per year in the Middle East. Its obviously oil that is the primary interest. Is that not expensive to you? Please tell me about the lasting production value those trillions delivered?


What we have in Government are those living in cities, having city amenities but acting like most live in such large cities. Most cities have no transit. And most cities can't do things you suggest.

Transit includes buses; anything larger than a village likely has a bus system, or could feasibly. Regional transit is under-utilized; because fuel for the personal auto is artificially low.


What it boils down to is policies have to work for all of us, not just those living in cities.

87% of California lives in urban areas; 79% of Americans live in urban areas. Show me any policy that will work for a greater percentage of our population; I'm all ears!!


It reminds me in a way of what Obama said today in Jerusalem He wants the Palestinians and Jews to work a plan together.

The irony is he does not govern like that. Bullshit walks.
Do you think he meant come up with a plan that includes all the failed policies of the past? The only bullshit is believing that despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, despite a doubling of the number of oil wells on federal land during that time period, despite ever growing demand over that time period, despite domestic production being nowhere near its historic peak, despite increasing fuel prices, and despite trillions spent to secure oil imports that somehow, contrary to all available evidence, the answer to lowering prices is more drilling. That's insane.

The facts just don't support your premise that drilling will result in lower prices of fuel. The only thing that will lower prices of fuel is our government subsidizing it some more, in addition to the trillions already spent, in some insane hope that historic tends will magically reverse course this time around. They won't. Oh sure, maybe we'll we some decrease for a few months, maybe even a year or two, only to see it spike again, then settle back higher than before, and we repeat the process. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Robert A Whit]

I don't believe that it is only; but id hardly consider 71%(transportation) and 45% (gasoline alone) as "dispersed".


Transportation accounts for over 70% of us oil consumption--hardly inconsequential. Perhaps there's a way to target automobile fuel use and not other production...

You showed how it is dispersed though you did not include aircraft fuel or ship fuel to just name two.


And how, pray tell, will there be any investment in said "network" if fuel prices are routinely subsidized by government allowances. You seem to operate under the impression that the market alone has delivered the prices we have received historically, which are among the lowest among oil importing nations despite the fact we far and above the largest consumer of oil. Guess why? Because government has and continues to subsidize oil through various means.

What do you mean subsidized? Do you mean fuel write offs for trucks or business autos? Do you mean consumers get write offs or are you trying to talk of the oil industry that gets normal deductions for expenses? I do not accept that government subsifi9zes oil firms. I want no part of the public being forced by government to take any market action. We got cheap electronics without them causing it to happen. This country is a major oil producer with a lot more to come. There is no reason why with an oversupply, oil companies won't drop prices. T here is a new oil find in the Gulf and that ought to help. Then Obama can open Alaska back up and we should use ANWR. Really, we have plenty of time to wean off gasoline. And NG being used by trucks will free up more crude. The concept the Governemnt is paying for normal deductions is not true. This trick is often used by Democrats. The way it works is the Feds simply boost taxes to the oil companies no matter what else happens.


Correct me if im wrong, but you suggest the we drill to increase production right? Yet, despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, and gas prices are higher than they were 20 years ago.

The Obama policy in action is why.

..fixed that for ya. not so much.


Well no change is all good. Theres always cost to any benefit; its a ratio, and that ratio is an extensive calculation. You seem to be ignoring our government subsidizing oil, as though that hasn't harmed us as well. You do realize that since the oil embargo, the US has spent trillions, hundreds of billions per year in the Middle East. Its obviously oil that is the primary interest. Is that not expensive to you? Please tell me about the lasting production value those trillions delivered?

You keep talking as if there is this magical income the government is entitled to. Much like those who think the money belongs to the government but they allow us to have the part the company pays us. this sort of thinking reminds me of soviet theory.


Transit includes buses; anything larger than a village likely has a bus system, or could feasibly. Regional transit is under-utilized; because fuel for the personal auto is artificially low.

There is no bus that will pick me up at home, when I want to be picked up, take me to X, then to Y then to Z and get me there in the time it takes my auto. My auto is not an item I can live without. My auto is used to carry clients to see homes. They won't ride in your bus. The people living in my city would need hours and hours to get to work trying to ride a bus. We do have bus running but at times the bus leaves and the next is 30 minutes later. Some routes they run one day per week.

You have a strange theory of who owns the money and your theory it belongs to the Feds is not pleasing to Americans. It sounds socialist to me.



87% of California lives in urban areas; 79% of Americans live in urban areas. Show me any policy that will work for a greater percentage of our population; I'm all ears!!

We in CA have very little mass transit. I live where BART runs yet our Bus system is sparse and not frequent. I tried to use Bus and BART once to go to Oakland and it consumed far too much time and cost too much. And I had to do a lot of walking. Over the hill from me, say in Pleasanton CA, I know of no bus service to my city nor to cities in the area ad then we have country towns. It gets worse. I can put a lot of things in my car and take them. I can't do that on a Bus nor BART.


Do you think he meant come up with a plan that includes all the failed policies of the past? The only bullshit is believing that despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, despite a doubling of the number of oil wells on federal land during that time period, despite ever growing demand over that time period, despite domestic production being nowhere near its historic peak, despite increasing fuel prices, and despite trillions spent to secure oil imports that somehow, contrary to all available evidence, the answer to lowering prices is more drilling. That's insane.

I take it you are a huge Obama fan. Were we nearly out of oil, industry would have come up with the solution by this date. Obama has not caused any doubling of oil wells. You say we are not using oil refineries to max production. That may be true and it is great news to me. No, the message to oil by Obama is he loves high prices. At the moment, Big oil has no better friend than Obama as to prices. He works to hold down the number of new oil wells. For injstance, he could reverse his no drill order off the east coast and reopen Alaska. Even Shell is frustrated by the Obama policy off shore above Barrow in general.

The facts just don't support your premise that drilling will result in lower prices of fuel. The only thing that will lower prices of fuel is our government subsidizing it some more, in addition to the trillions already spent, in some insane hope that historic tends will magically reverse course this time around. They won't. Oh sure, maybe we'll we some decrease for a few months, maybe even a year or two, only to see it spike again, then settle back higher than before, and we repeat the process. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

More supply = lower prices. Simple formula. So long as Obama is not helping, oil prices stay sky high.

[logroller]

You showed how it is dispersed though you did not include aircraft fuel or ship fuel to just name two.

Almost half of oil goes straight to cars. Not ships, not planes, not big trucks not tractors. We are talking about cars in this thread don't forget. Ships are already the most efficient means of intercontinental shipping. Planes are stupid inefficient, that's why they've been not only subsidized by government, but bailed out of bankruptcy umpteen times.

And how, pray tell, will there be any investment in said "network" if fuel prices are routinely subsidized by government allowances. You seem to operate under the impression that the market alone has delivered the prices we have received historically, which are among the lowest among oil importing nations despite the fact we far and above the largest consumer of oil. Guess why? Because government has and continues to subsidize oil through various means.

What do you mean subsidized? Do you mean fuel write offs for trucks or business autos? Do you mean consumers get write offs or are you trying to talk of the oil industry that gets normal deductions for expenses? I do not accept that government subsifi9zes oil firms. I want no part of the public being forced by government to take any market action. We got cheap electronics without them causing it to happen. This country is a major oil producer with a lot more to come. There is no reason why with an oversupply, oil companies won't drop prices. T here is a new oil find in the Gulf and that ought to help. Then Obama can open Alaska back up and we should use ANWR. Really, we have plenty of time to wean off gasoline. And NG being used by trucks will free up more crude. The concept the Governemnt is paying for normal deductions is not true. This trick is often used by Democrats. The way it works is the Feds simply boost taxes to the oil companies no matter what else happens.

Subsidized by trillions spent on the security of middle east oil fields. DUH? among other things.



Correct me if im wrong, but you suggest the we drill to increase production right? Yet, despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, and gas prices are higher than they were 20 years ago.

The Obama policy in action is why.

Obama's policies have been in effect for twenty years?


..fixed that for ya. not so much.


Well no change is all good. Theres always cost to any benefit; its a ratio, and that ratio is an extensive calculation. You seem to be ignoring our government subsidizing oil, as though that hasn't harmed us as well. You do realize that since the oil embargo, the US has spent trillions, hundreds of billions per year in the Middle East. Its obviously oil that is the primary interest. Is that not expensive to you? Please tell me about the lasting production value those trillions delivered?

You keep talking as if there is this magical income the government is entitled to. Much like those who think the money belongs to the government but they allow us to have the part the company pays us. this sort of thinking reminds me of soviet theory.

You keep talking as though there is some invisible hand that delivers half our oil from the middle east... Do you personally send warships to protect shipping lanes? You see, I thought that it was the government funded by us...and trillions in loans?

Transit includes buses; anything larger than a village likely has a bus system, or could feasibly. Regional transit is under-utilized; because fuel for the personal auto is artificially low.

There is no bus that will pick me up at home, when I want to be picked up, take me to X, then to Y then to Z and get me there in the time it takes my auto. My auto is not an item I can live without. My auto is used to carry clients to see homes. They won't ride in your bus. The people living in my city would need hours and hours to get to work trying to ride a bus. We do have bus running but at times the bus leaves and the next is 30 minutes later. Some routes they run one day per week.

You have a strange theory of who owns the money and your theory it belongs to the Feds is not pleasing to Americans. It sounds socialist to me.

Again. Strip away the trillions spent subsidizing oil from the middle east, and transit systems become economically feasible. Besides, couldn't an electric car do the same thing.:poke:



87% of California lives in urban areas; 79% of Americans live in urban areas. Show me any policy that will work for a greater percentage of our population; I'm all ears!!

We in CA have very little mass transit. I live where BART runs yet our Bus system is sparse and not frequent. I tried to use Bus and BART once to go to Oakland and it consumed far too much time and cost too much. And I had to do a lot of walking. Over the hill from me, say in Pleasanton CA, I know of no bus service to my city nor to cities in the area ad then we have country towns. It gets worse. I can put a lot of things in my car and take them. I can't do that on a Bus nor BART.

"Its expensive." If more people used it, economies of scale would result in lower fares. "Its slow." If more people used it, they could offer express routes, more nodes, and more frequent bus runs. I too have been to the bay area.. and I seem to remember stop and go traffic where my car just burned fuel, going slowly, if at all, for hours. Besides transit...electric cars would work in those conditions. :poke:

Do you think he meant come up with a plan that includes all the failed policies of the past? The only bullshit is believing that despite domestic oil production being at its highest in 20 years, despite a doubling of the number of oil wells on federal land during that time period, despite ever growing demand over that time period, despite domestic production being nowhere near its historic peak, despite increasing fuel prices, and despite trillions spent to secure oil imports that somehow, contrary to all available evidence, the answer to lowering prices is more drilling. That's insane.

I take it you are a huge Obama fan. Were we nearly out of oil, industry would have come up with the solution by this date. Obama has not caused any doubling of oil wells. You say we are not using oil refineries to max production. That may be true and it is great news to me. No, the message to oil by Obama is he loves high prices. At the moment, Big oil has no better friend than Obama as to prices. He works to hold down the number of new oil wells. For injstance, he could reverse his no drill order off the east coast and reopen Alaska. Even Shell is frustrated by the Obama policy off shore above Barrow in general.

Look. Youre entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. I never said we were almost out oil. NEVER. I've said that domestic oil production is past its peak. That doesnt mean that we'll run out soon; it means it will get more and more expensive to get out of the ground and, thus, more and more expensive to buy. Pretty simple concept really; if it costs more to make, it'll cost more to buy.


The facts just don't support your premise that drilling will result in lower prices of fuel. The only thing that will lower prices of fuel is our government subsidizing it some more, in addition to the trillions already spent, in some insane hope that historic tends will magically reverse course this time around. They won't. Oh sure, maybe we'll we some decrease for a few months, maybe even a year or two, only to see it spike again, then settle back higher than before, and we repeat the process. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.



More supply = lower prices. Simple formula. So long as Obama is not helping, oil prices stay sky high.

That's not a formula. A formula has a function. That is merely a statement..and specific to the discussion, it is a false one.

If it were true, then wouldn't we see a decrease in US gas price when US domestic production increases, right?

Ok. Lets take a look, (yet again) shall we.


<tbody>
Decade
Year-0
Year-1
Year-2
Year-3
Year-4
Year-5
Year-6
Year-7
Year-8
Year-9


1850's









2


1860's
500
2,114
3,057
2,611
2,116
2,498
3,598
3,347
3,646
4,215


1870's
5,261
5,205
6,293
9,894
10,927
12,163
9,133
13,350
15,397
19,914


1880's
26,286
27,661
30,350
23,450
24,218
21,859
28,065
28,283
27,612
35,164


1890's
45,824
54,293
50,515
48,431
49,344
52,892
60,960
60,476
55,364
57,071


1900's
63,621
69,389
88,767
100,461
117,081
134,717
126,494
166,095
178,527
183,171


1910's
209,557
220,449
222,935
248,446
265,763
281,104
300,767
335,316
355,928
378,367


1920's
442,929
472,183
557,531
732,407
713,940
620,373
770,874
901,129
901,474
1,007,323


1930's
898,011
851,081
785,159
905,656
908,065
993,942
1,098,513
1,277,653
1,213,254
1,264,256


1940's
1,503,176
1,404,182
1,385,479
1,505,613
1,677,904
1,713,655
1,733,424
1,856,987
2,020,185
1,841,940


1950's
1,973,574
2,247,711
2,289,836
2,357,082
2,314,988
2,484,428
2,617,283
2,616,901
2,448,987
2,574,590


1960's
2,574,933
2,621,758
2,676,189
2,752,723
2,786,822
2,848,514
3,027,763
3,215,742
3,329,042
3,371,751


1970's
3,517,450
3,453,914
3,455,368
3,360,903
3,202,585
3,056,779
2,976,180
3,009,265
3,178,216
3,121,310


1980's
3,146,365
3,128,624
3,156,715
3,170,999
3,249,696
3,274,553
3,168,252
3,047,378
2,979,123
2,778,773


1990's
2,684,687
2,707,039
2,624,632
2,499,033
2,431,476
2,394,268
2,366,017
2,354,831
2,281,919
2,146,732


2000's
2,130,707
2,117,511
2,096,588
2,060,085
1,989,263
1,892,796
1,857,322
1,853,086
1,830,136
1,953,800


2010's
1,999,731
2,066,458
2,369,484

</tbody>

4736http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a

Interestingly, US domestic production has increased during Obama's presidency.

So let's take a look at prices. Since, according to you, "Supply up= prices down" we should see a price decrease right?


<tbody>
U.S. All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon)




</tbody>

<tbody>
Decade
Year-0
Year-1
Year-2
Year-3
Year-4
Year-5
Year-6
Year-7
Year-8
Year-9


1990's



1.071
1.078
1.158
1.245
1.244
1.072
1.176


2000's
1.523
1.460
1.386
1.603
1.895
2.314
2.618
2.843
3.299
2.406


2010's
2.835
3.576
3.680








</tbody>



<tbody>
- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.



</tbody>
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_nus_dpg&f=a


That's just a recent one, having more data that's not available on this chart.

4737

<tbody>
U.S. Total Gasoline Through Company Outlets Price by All Sellers (Dollars per Gallon)




</tbody>


<tbody>
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

</tbody>


<tbody>
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec


1983
0.980
0.934
0.911
0.959
0.980
0.989
0.995
0.992
0.980
0.963
0.947
0.932


1984
0.919
0.916
0.926
0.944
0.948
0.938
0.917
0.907
0.911
0.916
0.909
0.889





1985
0.858
0.853
0.889
0.934
0.951
0.958
0.960
0.951
0.934
0.927
0.936
0.934


1986
0.899
0.808
0.666
0.618
0.662
0.665
0.597
0.579
0.580
0.554
0.553
0.562


1987
0.612
0.633
0.642
0.660
0.673
0.693
0.712
0.729
0.719
0.710
0.705
0.684


1988
0.665
0.649
0.643
0.675
0.694
0.692
0.713
0.725
0.711
0.695
0.690
0.677


1989
0.672
0.676
0.706
0.830
0.864
0.853
0.834
0.786
0.771
0.767
0.746
0.745





1990
0.799
0.781
0.767
0.793
0.815
0.828
0.822
0.953
1.037
1.097
1.077
0.987


1991
0.899
0.807
0.764
0.795
0.836
0.831
0.807
0.826
0.817
0.798
0.805
0.775


1992
0.729
0.718
0.725
0.760
0.813
0.844
0.836
0.825
0.823
0.815
0.809
0.779


1993
0.763
0.754
0.755
0.777
0.797
0.794
0.775
0.764
0.751
0.751
0.726
0.680


1994
0.666
0.675
0.673
0.693
0.709
0.737
0.768
0.807
0.792
0.770
0.772
0.748





1995
0.740
0.732
0.732
0.776
0.833
0.837
0.802
0.776
0.764
0.741
0.721
0.732


1996
0.746
0.750
0.798
0.879
0.913
0.889
0.867
0.848
0.846
0.851
0.876
0.875


1997
0.877
0.866
0.844
0.836
0.839
0.829
0.814
0.864
0.864
0.835
0.806
0.766


1998
0.721
0.685
0.657
0.672
0.702
0.696
0.684
0.658
0.645
0.652
0.625
0.581


1999
0.580
0.561
0.633
0.756
0.757
0.738
0.788
0.845
0.871
0.860
0.873
0.893





2000
0.910
0.991
1.116
1.057
1.097
1.221
1.156
1.085
1.156
1.142
1.124
1.047


2001
1.066
1.066
1.030
1.169
1.298
1.189
1.009
1.030
1.104
0.896
0.763
0.690


2002
0.717
0.727
0.875
0.999
0.990
0.980
0.995
0.994
0.997
1.046
1.010
0.982


2003
1.060
1.215
1.268
1.162
1.076
1.077
1.097
1.214
1.230
1.133
1.085
1.063


2004
1.169
1.243
1.319
1.382
1.556
1.527
1.471
1.446
1.444
1.577
1.539
1.397





2005
1.402
1.476
1.644
1.802
1.702
1.722
1.847
2.087
2.438
2.263
1.809
1.744


2006
1.877
1.835
1.993
2.335
2.436
2.422
2.523
2.485
2.051
1.781
1.788
1.869


2007
1.770
1.827
2.119
2.392
2.665
2.565
2.499
2.321
2.345
2.343
2.607
2.539


2008
2.570
2.573
2.787
2.980
3.319
3.565
3.565
3.275
3.227
2.544
1.610
1.222


2009
1.353
1.469
1.510
1.596
1.853
2.182
2.057
2.153
2.071
2.100
2.180
2.149





2010
2.248
2.191
2.318
2.393
2.371
2.260
2.259
2.266
2.244
2.335
2.392
2.525


2011
2.626
2.730
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


2012
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


</tbody>

I'm guessing you've heard the expression, correlation is not causation, but do you know what correlation is? Well, its a function ( a real function, not like your's above) of the linear relationship between variables. It varies between -1 and +1. '0' means there is no relation. Educational attainment and earnings for example, have a positive correlation. The better you are educated, the more you'll make over your lifetime, statistically. Whereas years spent in jail and educational attainment have a negative correlation; meaning the more years you spend in jail, the less education you've had...again, statistically. Typically, anything higher than .6 or greater (positive or negative) is considered a strong correlation. The above data demonstrates a correlation of -.62. Now I emboldened this so you can see that not only is your "function" not right, it's strongly the opposite of what you contend to be true. Look, I've spent years studying this; I really don't care to explain this over and over. I've asked a simple question. If it's Obama's fault, why has the price been increasing for so much longer than Obama's been in office? There's more to it than Dark lord, lib bias, commie socialist pinko hippy idiot pothead yada yada blah blah blather.

So I repeat,
The facts just don't support your premise that drilling will result in lower prices of fuel. The only thing that will lower prices of fuel is our government subsidizing it some more, in addition to the trillions already spent, in some insane hope that historic tends will magically reverse course this time around. They won't. Oh sure, maybe we'll we some decrease for a few months, maybe even a year or two, only to see it spike again, then settle back higher than before, and we repeat the process. insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

You sir, are insane. and learn to quote, this color crap is lame.

[Robert A Whit]

Logroller

What do you mean by the statement that the Government pays oil companies cash payments; eg. subsidies?

Look, we do not get half our oil from the ME. Canada is our major source outside the USA followed by Mexico and I believe Venezuela. I did not look this up today so can be off a bit.

You want to do battle with charts. But those charts do not reflect the added domestic supply and where it ends up. It does not get to CA and if you study the piping system of oil/products in the USA you can see that the Baaken oil is piped to refineries in it's region.

As I told you but you ignored, it depends on where you are in the USA as to what you pay. I have flown from CA, paying a dollar more per gallon than say in parts of VA. VA gets its oil from sources not like CA.

Even inside the usa in other words, there is not just one market.

While i do not know your oil experience, I too have studied this for many years.

[red states rule]

No matter what you believe, we can not. We can not drill enough domestically to affect the global price of oil. You'd do better to have the Fed tighten the money supply to affect the price of oil than drill. And as far as the best solutions, you can't ignore that highways are subsidized and have affected the development of how we live since the 50's; you don't build the highway to the suburbs and very few will be living out there.

So you - and LR - have essentially rewritten Economics 101 and the Law of Supply and Demand.

[cadet]

been saying it for years...

You have to use OIL/GAS/COAL or NUCLEAR PLANTS to make the Energy to charge these things.

If everyone owned one you'd crash your electrical grids in the Spring, Summer and Fall.

Especially in the overnight hours when charging would conflict with Air Conditioning in off peak usage hours..

then there is the issue of BATTERY DISPOSAL!

Where I agree wholeheartedly with your point, I'd just like to point out that nuclear power plants are basically harmless to the environment.

[red states rule]

Where I agree wholeheartedly with your point, I'd just like to point out that nuclear power plants are basically harmless to the environment.

While lib,s and their desire for people to drive in golf carts with bucket seats, are bankrupting the nation

[fj1200]

So you - and LR - have essentially rewritten Economics 101 and the Law of Supply and Demand.

No, you just refuse to see where you are wrong.

[logroller]

Logroller


What do you mean by the statement that the Government pays oil companies cash payments; eg. subsidies?
I didn't say they gave money to oil companies. What i mean by subsidies is a government created market distortion where the cost of bringing a commodity to market is not borne wholly by the producer; thus offering said commodity at below fair market cost. Its not a direct subsidy like corn, but the effect on the supply curve is exactly the same. There are costs associated with bringing oil to market. This cost varies by region. Maybe its greasing the wheels of some tyrannical regime; or building a water well to satisfice locals or floating trillions in military security of shipping lanes and oil fields. This is a cost of doing business in oil, but oil companies arent paying for it-- its subsidized by the american trust. Is energy security important to america? you bet! but theres more ways to secure energy than the billions we spend in the middle east. one such way is subsidizing alternative fuels, or more fuel efficient cars...its a long list. But if you look at those latter solutions as new change thats wasteful, i must tell you that drilling and spending trillions to secure foreign market supplies isn't without significant cost to the environemt, our security and our future.



Look, we do not get half our oil from the ME. Canada is our major source outside the USA followed by Mexico and I believe Venezuela. I did not look this up today so can be off a bit.
I don't what you're trying to prove or discredit, but if we get less oil from the Middle East than other places, it only makes the money spent securing the Middle East that much less cost- effective. Again its a ratio of benefit to cost; I've submitted the costs, so if the amount of oil we receive (ie, benefit) is lower, then its even less cost efficient.





You want to do battle with charts. But those charts do not reflect the added domestic supply and where it ends up. It does not get to CA and if you study the piping system of oil/products in the USA you can see that the Baaken oil is piped to refineries in it's region.
Those charts are TOTAL domestic production. WHAT IS NOT ADDED, imports? Go ahead and compare total domestic consumption to price or (domestic production+ imports) to price and you'll find a similar negative correlation. That's because higher prices drive oil producers to supply more, not that prices will drop because supply is increased. In the short term gas prices are ineleastic, meaning demand doesn't react equally to price. in the long term, its more elastic, but due to our being past the oil peak (where oil gets harder and more laboiuos to recover) prices are rising.... "long term" as in, Obama, bush, clinton, bush, and Reagan-- the prices are going up and up. That fact is irrefutable. As prices rise, sources like canadian oil sands, deeo water offshore drilling, (recovery techniques that require larger inputs of energy and thus cost more) become economically feasible. If you're following any of this you'll find that increased prices should actually increase supply oil. Tell me, what's the energy recovered/ energy invested for Baaken crude? Or the recovery cost per barrel?



As I told you but you ignored, it depends on where you are in the USA as to what you pay. I have flown from CA, paying a dollar more per gallon than say in parts of VA. VA gets its oil from sources not like CA.
as the costs incurred to meet CAA/CAFE STANDARDS VARY BY REGION AND SEASON explain regional price differences, not supply, its irrelevant to a discussion of aggregate supply and pricing. If you feel it is relevant, there'd be a stronger correlation between reformulated gas price and consumption than traditional gas price and consumption. To to the EIA website, all the data you need to show that is available there.



Even inside the usa in other words, there is not just one market.
Ok. There's even different grades of crude, each traded at unique prices and each with different refining costs; but I don't see a point in discussing these differences when you fail to accept the empirical evidence that shows your theory on oil supply and pricing is flawed.



I too have studied this for many years. it doesn't show.

[red states rule]

No, you just refuse to see where you are wrong.

Well with Conhog gone you have to try and save LR now? Time is heavy on your hands eh? Economics 101 is never worng FU - only to people who cling to liberalism and they myth of green energy is a cheaper way to go

[red states rule]

Meanwhile libs continue to promote the "green energy" and say it is the nations future. Well they be correct that America may end up like many of their green programs that taxpayer money have been spent on. http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/solyndrachair.jpg

[fj1200]

Well with Conhog gone you have to try and save LR now? Time is heavy on your hands eh? Economics 101 is never worng FU - only to people who cling to liberalism and they myth of green energy is a cheaper way to go

Why do I have to "save" LR? He's smoking you guys all on his own. I can tell you're getting smoked because you've abandoned any pretense at debating the TRUTH, as some here like to say, and falling back on your tired talking points and ignorant cries of "liberal. :eek: " You're right about one thing though, econ is never wrong, it's just that you don't know a thing about it or are choosing to ignore it.

[Robert A Whit]

Meanwhile libs continue to promote the "green energy" and say it is the nations future. Well they be correct that America may end up like many of their green programs that taxpayer money have been spent on. http://www.unitedliberty.org/files/images/solyndrachair.jpg

Well, you all will be happy to know that the sign is gone, a new sign for another company is on the building and later this year the company that purchased the building for pennies on the dollar will put people there and do electronics work. I forget the name of the new company but that building is down the street from me.

[Robert A Whit]

I know I have argued this with at least two posters but I want to lay out what I believe to be the correct premises. Space limits me so I urge you all to get the book by Richard Muller, a Physics professor at CAL Berkeley and consume the book. It is easy reading. You won't need a course in physics or calculus to get it. The man puts out the case in easy to read terms. I got the book at the local public library so you ought not need to spend a dime to get a very top education.

The title is Physics for Future Presidents.

I will not post tables.
I will not post links.

I will post plain common sense backed up by his book as well as fundamentals of economics.

I want to note on economics. While various economists vary in outlook, a lot of it is shared in common. They vary on some matters on a few points and may see problems different. But I don't care about those differences.

Let's proceed.
What is all the whining about and why?

This varies per presenter.
Person A thinks the end is coming if we don't go to green energy and person B says, don't worry, the smart people are working on this and a solution will come. I have faith in engineers and in those solving problems. I have almost no faith in politicians. And many of those arguing with me come to battle based on politics and not fundamentals of engineering or science.

Climate change. Stop worrying. The ocean will not flood your home. Warming climates as can be seen in the tropics produce lush plant life. There is more variety in animals in the warmer climates by far than in the cold climates. People die faster when it is very cold than when it is warmer. Cold weather can and does kill.

Sources of energy.
Coal - Coal does produce Carbon Dioxide and other awful emissions but this can be handled. It takes the same will to solve that as it does to smother your landscape with windmills or solar collectors. I urge you to check into areas that are going to windmills. Huge fights are going on. People want them out of sight and environmentalists fight against them. Carbon Dioxide is natural food for plants. Plants create the oxygen you need to survive. The more humans there are, the more oxygen they need. So any solution that leads to more plants is good.

Nuclear - expensive but awesome. The Government powers ships. It it was dangerous, do you think they would expose the navy to this danger? We have not any reported deaths due to nuclear on ships. That is nuclear energy confined to a ship. If you can manage fine as sailors do, why would you not want nuclear in your areas?

Windmills - they seem to need to have your dollars spent by the governemnt or they don't do well. Windmills, contrary to popular belief do not spin all that much. I see windmills in the Altamont Pass and you would be amazed to note how many of them are sitting still. They must have brakes on them to stop them from spinning since some of them are spinning while others sit still. The majority of windmills stand still. Windmills suffer from periods where the wind does not blow. And part of the time, they spin when loads are light and when needed, there may be no wind. Thus you end up with back up power. Also expensive and so forth.

Hydroelectric. Expensive but once in operation almost free since running water is the power and that is cheap. And so long as the river is running, you have power, day and night.

Biomass - Carbon Dioxide is a natural product of burning things. Most things contain carbon. Thus when you burn any of it, coal, wood, gasoline, etc. you still get carbon dioxide. This is what the nut cases hair is on fire about. They despise carbon dioxide the natural plant food. And how much bio mass can you get? And some bio mass is food. Food is vital to survival.

But lets get to the way you go to work or take trips.

Can you load the bus with your camping gear or luggage for an extended trip? Can you put a family and all that gear in the taxi? Can you put that stuff you need on a train? You know you dont' go camping by taking your stuff on an airplane.

So, you need cars. You want cars. You want a car since if somebody gets sick, you want to take them to the doctor. Waiting on a bus or subway to take a person to a hospital may work in NY City, but most cities are not designed like that city is.

You want cars because when you want to head to the store to get food, you want to do it on your schedule. We don't live by African time, they have plenty of time to walk. We are an economy of people who hustle. We don't use horses to plow fields because we want it done fast so we use machines.

Electric cars. Range is a major problem and have you considered the high weight of batteries? I maintain that in auto crashes, the toxins in batteries is one more thing to fear. Do you want those chemicals on your body in addition to damages of a crash? But most of the time, you find that you get so far and then must totally stop to recharge. The Volt is a car that has both, batteries plus the onboard charging system. You get a lot of range from the Volt. But do you notice how many Volts are in your neighborhood? They are not hot sellers. But look how tiny a Volt is. I know that I could never take my camping gear in a Volt. I have a Cadillac and it has a pretty large trunk but I still fill the trunk and the back of the car. I take plenty of comforts on camping trips and food as well. Electric cars would be all over the place if the public wanted them. They know where to buy them.

Cars powered by other than gasoline. Gasoline per gallon packs more energy into it than anything else on the market. Natural gas could be used in cars but you have all seen those heavy steel propane tanks. You know, if you stop to think about it, that you need one of those heavy tanks in your car to hold the pressurized natural gas or you can't drive much further than an electric car. NG for trucks will help but look at trucks. They are designed to carry heavy stuff. Even with them, they need to put double the tanks on trucks they now use just to get decent range. The good thing about NG is not that it produces no carbon dioxide, because it does produce carbon dioxide, but that it is cheap fuel. And the USA has so much of it they want to export it.

One person autos. Those are available. Do you see them? Nuff said.

Coupes. While some drive those, they may have a SUV to take on trips. They may normally have several cars.

Look what the public wants. They want SUVs if they have a family. Families with kids dread long trips where the kids are cramped up in tiny back seats, so they go for SUVs.

I heard proposals to go to bikes today on TV. China is abandoning bikes but the USA is supposed to to to the system that China is abandoning? Why? China is consuming a lot of oil today and it is because of their cars. And what about other nations? Do you think they will submit to bicycles? Not if they want a vibrant economy. Cars cut down your time to travel. If you need 2 hours to use a bus and mass transit, the car can do the job in half an hour.

OK, while this green energy is nice, can you live with it?

If you are a mole in NY where the moles live in subways, sure. But most US cities don't provide for the mole human. Few cities in CA for instance and certainly the entire middle of the country are not set up to use anything other than cars. You won't find a subway in St, Louis.

I helped to construct the SF Bay Area BART system and saw what happened. It was super costly. We did not have to put in that many miles of tracks yet it took us something like 7 years just to get it ready to use. We had to disrupt cities. We ripped up Market St in San Francisco. We forced many people in many small towns to live with traffic jams due to our equipment. And when done, the public did not rush to fill the trains. Finally over time, more did use BART so what did BART do to them? Jacked up ticket prices. When you depend on Government for your transportation, they can simply jack up costs and you have no say so. Look at bridge tolls. We in the SF Bay Area pay far to much for tolls since we long ago paid off the bridges. They steal money from bridges for other things.

Well, this draws to a close. I look at the public as they are, not as one might wish they are. Few people want or will use green energy. That is true based on the fact that green energy is available but very little of it is used.

[logroller]

Well with Conhog gone you have to try and save LR now? Time is heavy on your hands eh? Economics 101 is never worng FU - only to people who cling to liberalism and they myth of green energy is a cheaper way to go

Economics is science; it builds on itself and certain assumptions help to illustrate a concept, even though those assumptions aren't realistic. Supply and demand is a concept. Like cell bodies are a concept. That's what cells are supposed to do; but cancer isn't explained by what cells are supposed to do.
Do you understand the effects of price elasticity and inelasticity on supply and demand? That was in Econ 101.

[Robert A Whit]

Economics is science; it builds on itself and certain assumptions help to illustrate a concept, even though those assumptions aren't realistic. Supply and demand is a concept. Like cell bodies are a concept. That's what cells are supposed to do; but cancer isn't explained by what cells are supposed to do.
Do you understand the effects of price elasticity and inelasticity on supply and demand? That was in Econ 101.

This is one problem though. People don't always behave as one thinks they will. Take the Volt for instance. Economically it makes a lot of sense because the Taxpayers help the buyer buy this auto. Notice the price is very high as if Chevrolet wants more profit. But, development costs must be recovered so they actually deserve the high price.

Krugman would always be correct due to his education of his economics was always correct.

Back in the early 80s, I tracked 26 who predicted basic things. They had pretty much the same education. But the 26 varied all over the place in predictions. Clearly it is some darned good guessing with what level of knowledge one has.

For instance. Take 50 well trained economists.

Get them to use what they know to predict some of the following.

Ask them

In 6 months then 12 months.

What will employment be?
What will the prime rate be?
What will be the national debt?
And much more, but the idea turns out that they will not all agree.

[logroller]

This is one problem though. People don't always behave as one thinks they will
Behavioral economics is a wholly different field. Take tobacco for instance; there's overwhelming evidence that indicates tobacco use causes premature death and a myriad of chronic health problems. Yet people continue to smoke, which is quite irrational really, but clearly it is their will to do so-- should government subsidize tobacco?
They have, but now they tax it. Government taxes/ subsidizes things to address market failures; even those brought about by irrationality. Human beings are supposedly risk averse; but this is not necessarily the case.

Take the Volt for instance. Economically it makes a lot of sense because the Taxpayers help the buyer buy this auto.
I don't follow.

Notice the price is very high as if Chevrolet wants more profit.
A firm seeking profit is the foundation of capitalism.

But, development costs must be recovered so they actually deserve the high price.

Krugman would always be correct due to his education of his economics was always correct.

Back in the early 80s, I tracked 26 who predicted basic things. They had pretty much the same education. But the 26 varied all over the place in predictions. Clearly it is some darned good guessing with what level of knowledge one has.

For instance. Take 50 well trained economists.

Get them to use what they know to predict some of the following.

Ask them

In 6 months then 12 months.

What will employment be?
What will the prime rate be?
What will be the national debt?
And much more, but the idea turns out that they will not all agree.
26 economists? Which ones? To what schools of economics did they subscribe (london/Chicago etc) the same ones, or different? What were their findings/in which fields? What were their assumptions? Sorry boss; comparisons of apple markets amidst competing macroeconomic theories isn't a matter of who predicted the apple crop would coincide with monetary supply...
Why do you keep changing the subject, stipulating that failure to prognosticate is tantamount to proof that economic theory is flawed. That's a red herring if I've ever seen one. But check out m king hubbard "peak oil". He was geologist that worked for Shell (iirc) and he accurately predicted the domestic peak of oil and his prediction in global peak oil seems to be coming to fruition now. Admittedly, the global peak has come later than he predicted, but when you consider the number of unforeseen variables, its hardly reason to say his whole theory is flawed. How could he know in 1950 that there'd be an oil crisis in 1972, or cafe standards or a bunch of other geopolitical changes that would affect consumption.
Coase (london school) predicted that transaction costs were so prevalent that the supply/demand model assumption of perfect information/ competition/etc, predicated upon zero transaction costs was a conceptual exercise rendered functionally problematic. Held the same view from the 1930's until his death in the 2010.

What you fail to grasp is the empirical (recorded) evidence doesn't support your beliefs. You take the side of some climatologist that says wait and see; yet in this instance I've shown you hard evidence that drilling and producing more has coincided with an increase in price due to ever-increasing consumption. But you still hold that drilling more will lower the price through some wonder of technological development. To which I've said that the technological development is expensive, you even agree that it is above; I've even stipulated that this expense is a function of the anticipated return on investment, made possible by increased commodity costs. We keep pumping oil and the price is only going up...and experience shows this. If you can't accept this fact then it as though you want to debate the merits of seismic loading without looking at the differences between a house built of wood vs bricks. Bricks held out better against the big bad wolf, but the reality of earthquakes paints a different picture. It seems you base your ideas formed in a context different than the one we are in currently. If you think pumping can bring back $3 oil you're living in a dream world. I'm not saying windmills are the cure all, nor electic vehicles-- I'm saying reduced consumption of fossil fuels will be necessary to the future economy and conserving our present fossil fuel resources will give us an edge over those who have not.

[red states rule]

Why do I have to "save" LR? He's smoking you guys all on his own. I can tell you're getting smoked because you've abandoned any pretense at debating the TRUTH, as some here like to say, and falling back on your tired talking points and ignorant cries of "liberal. :eek: " You're right about one thing though, econ is never wrong, it's just that you don't know a thing about it or are choosing to ignore it.

NO you are the one smoking and you are as high as kite if you think LR has made his case. Of course it is clear you have either gone over to the left side of things or you are continuing to play your role as professional troll. Only you know the answer to that

[red states rule]

Economics is science; it builds on itself and certain assumptions help to illustrate a concept, even though those assumptions aren't realistic. Supply and demand is a concept. Like cell bodies are a concept. That's what cells are supposed to do; but cancer isn't explained by what cells are supposed to do.
Do you understand the effects of price elasticity and inelasticity on supply and demand? That was in Econ 101.

I understand you are a graduate of Obamanomics and that you have sold out to the idea that government should now pick winners and losers by using taxpayer money to gamble of unproven green energy programs. While blocking oil companies from tapping massive oil reserves, and going after other reserves of the nations natural resources. All to "protect" Mother Earth. Thanks again for your continued support for the decline of America LR. One day, none of this will be ours

[logroller]

I know I have argued this with at least two posters but I want to lay out what I believe to be the correct premises. Space limits me so I urge you all to get the book by Richard Muller, a Physics professor at CAL Berkeley and consume the book. It is easy reading. You won't need a course in physics or calculus to get it. The man puts out the case in easy to read terms. I got the book at the local public library so you ought not need to spend a dime to get a very top education.

The title is Physics for Future Presidents.
I see you've abandoned economic support.


I will not post tables.
(perhaps this is because actual data refutes your assertions, which I ill note when applicable.

I will not post links.

I will post plain common sense backed up by his book as well as fundamentals of economics.

I want to note on economics. While various economists vary in outlook, a lot of it is shared in common. They vary on some matters on a few points and may see problems different. But I don't care about those differences.

Let's proceed.
What is all the whining about and why?

This varies per presenter.
Person A thinks the end is coming if we don't go to green energy and person B says, don't worry, the smart people are working on this and a solution will come. I have faith in engineers and in those solving problems. I have almost no faith in politicians. And many of those arguing with me come to battle based on politics and not fundamentals of engineering or science.

Climate change. Stop worrying. The ocean will not flood your home. Warming climates as can be seen in the tropics produce lush plant life. (and disease and pestilence, and overall want of economic development) There is more variety in animals in the warmer climates by far than in the cold climates.(ibid, pestilence) People die faster when it is very cold than when it is warmer. Cold weather can and does kill.

I suppose that's why tropical africans have such a longer lifespan than europeans....or, wait, no they don't. I have a feeling this is going to be a painful read.


Sources of energy.
Coal - Coal does produce Carbon Dioxide and other awful emissions but this can be handled. It takes the same will to solve that as it does to smother your landscape with windmills or solar collectors. I urge you to check into areas that are going to windmills. Huge fights are going on. People want them out of sight and environmentalists fight against them. Carbon Dioxide is natural food for plants. Plants create the oxygen you need to survive. The more humans there are, the more oxygen they need. So any solution that leads to more plants is good.
More plants....
http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/375px-Coal_strip_mining.jpg
Looks good! People in this area are just jumping at the opportunity to site their house here I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Nuclear - expensive but awesome. The Government powers ships. It it was dangerous, do you think they would expose the navy to this danger?

Did you really just ask a that question? Was it supposed to imply a rhetorical "no"? Because, and this might come as an unpleasant shock to you, but the US government has been known to put military members at risk.



We have not any reported deaths due to nuclear on ships. That is nuclear energy confined to a ship. If you can manage fine as sailors do, why would you not want nuclear in your areas?
Have you talked with aboutime much....:eek:


Windmills - they seem to need to have your dollars spent by the governemnt or they don't do well. Windmills, contrary to popular belief do not spin all that much. I see windmills in the Altamont Pass and you would be amazed to note how many of them are sitting still. They must have brakes on them to stop them from spinning since some of them are spinning while others sit still. The majority of windmills stand still. Windmills suffer from periods where the wind does not blow. And part of the time, they spin when loads are light and when needed, there may be no wind. Thus you end up with back up power. Also expensive and so forth.

I live in an area with lots of oil wells...I often see them not pumping. Oil wells must suffer from not enough oil to pump out of the ground. Yet some say we need more oil wells...odd.

People don't care nearly as much for where energy comes from, so long as it does. I live near a windfarm that has been in existence since the early eighties and it wasn't until the last few years that the transmission lines were upgraded to carry more power than it was designed to carry thirty years ago. That upgrade happened as a result of government action, but so too did the interstate highway system, the golden gate bridge, commercial air travel, etc etc. You seem to operate under the belief that the energy we now use was the product of common-sense market-driven practices; nothing could be farther from the truth.


Hydroelectric. Expensive but once in operation almost free since running water is the power and that is cheap. And so long as the river is running, you have power, day and night.

Did you forget devastated natural ecosystems, or was that just part of the expense of construction? Keeping these systems operational, and not being overtaken by mollusks and other critters, requires the use of some of the most toxic substances in industry. I'm guessing you probably don't count environmental destruction and increased toxic exposure as costs, right?


Biomass - Carbon Dioxide is a natural product of burning things. Most things contain carbon. Thus when you burn any of it, coal, wood, gasoline, etc. you still get carbon dioxide. This is what the nut cases hair is on fire about. They despise carbon dioxide the natural plant food. And how much bio mass can you get? And some bio mass is food. Food is vital to survival.


Biomass, like a switchgrass grown this year, contains the aforementioned carbon plant food and photosynthetic energy from this year. Whereas burning fossil fuels contains the biomass from millions of years. There's a bit of difference. I read once that a single gallon of gas contains the same amount of energy as five years of a tropical fern's photosynthetic yield. Maybe you can drive a plant powered car, with all the plant food we kick out, should be super-cheap.




But lets get to the way you go to work or take trips.

Can you load the bus with your camping gear or luggage for an extended trip? Can you put a family and all that gear in the taxi? Can you put that stuff you need on a train? You know you dont' go camping by taking your stuff on an airplane.

So, you need cars. You want cars. You want a car since if somebody gets sick, you want to take them to the doctor. Waiting on a bus or subway to take a person to a hospital may work in NY City, but most cities are not designed like that city is.
Did I miss the "get to work" part in there?
- and - How often does one go camping? I go to the doctor more than I go camping; shouldn't I just buy a doctor? I want them, I need them. I've got to have a doctor!!!! Doctors used to make house calls, now they don't-- they even made house calls in rural areas...saw it on little house.
and hospitals- You don't have ambulances in your area?
And what's with all this stuff talk-- you ever heard of conspicuous consumption? "Gotta have all my gear" "gotta have a suburban for all my shit!" That's odd to me, because mostly I see people in cars with nothing but their sweet ass getting toted around. But hey, camping and doctors visits demand personal automobiles. got it:thumb:



You want cars because when you want to head to the store to get food, you want to do it on your schedule. We don't live by African time, they have plenty of time to walk.
I walk to the neighborhood market. It takes twenty minutes, round trip.
- and - Was that a reference to colored people time....Seriously, is there no end to your racism?

We are an economy of people who hustle. We don't use horses to plow fields because we want it done fast so we use machines.
When was the last time you plowed a field with your car?
I'm guessing never. As for american's hustle:
http://sjolly26blog.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/6521977_f520.jpg
Hustle/ lazy...what's the difference, really?

Electric cars. Range is a major problem and have you considered the high weight of batteries? I maintain that in auto crashes, the toxins in batteries is one more thing to fear. Do you want those chemicals on your body in addition to damages of a crash?

As opposed to gasoline, oil, and the innumerable list of carcinogenic properties contained within... but that's just like plant food. :rolleyes:




But most of the time, you find that you get so far and then must totally stop to recharge.

By "most of the time", do you mean that fraction of the 5% of trips over 30 miles?

4756
source: National Household Travel Survey https://nhts.ornl.gov



The Volt is a car that has both, batteries plus the onboard charging system. You get a lot of range from the Volt. But do you notice how many Volts are in your neighborhood? They are not hot sellers. But look how tiny a Volt is. I know that I could never take my camping gear in a Volt. I have a Cadillac and it has a pretty large trunk but I still fill the trunk and the back of the car. I take plenty of comforts on camping trips and food as well. Electric cars would be all over the place if the public wanted them. They know where to buy them.

Cars powered by other than gasoline. Gasoline per gallon packs more energy into it than anything else on the market.
Indeed, so much so that despite 30% efficiency, gasoline fueled internal combustion engines are still marketable. Doesn't make up for the fact that ~70% of that energy is wasted. And as gasoline gets more and more expensive, that 70% percent becomes more and more costly a loss. How long have volts even been on the market-- two years? I'd venture to guess more volts are on the road than model T's two years after introduction. Interestingly, model T's were designed to run on ethanol.


Natural gas could be used in cars but you have all seen those heavy steel propane tanks. You know, if you stop to think about it, that you need one of those heavy tanks in your car to hold the pressurized natural gas or you can't drive much further than an electric car. NG for trucks will help but look at trucks. They are designed to carry heavy stuff. Even with them, they need to put double the tanks on trucks they now use just to get decent range. The good thing about NG is not that it produces no carbon dioxide, because it does produce carbon dioxide, but that it is cheap fuel. And the USA has so much of it they want to export it.

NG is plentiful and burns cleaner than petroleum. Buses often use NG but few cars do, mostly due to the lack of fueling facilities. Trucks typically use diesel, not gas or NG, due to the higher efficiency and torque of diesel engines.


One person autos. Those are available. Do you see them? Nuff said.

I see autos with one person in them all the time. What about motorcycles and scooters?


Coupes. While some drive those, they may have a SUV to take on trips. They may normally have several cars.

Look what the public wants. They want SUVs if they have a family. Families with kids dread long trips where the kids are cramped up in tiny back seats, so they go for SUVs.

I heard proposals to go to bikes today on TV. China is abandoning bikes but the USA is supposed to to to the system that China is abandoning? Why?
Ah yes, the public wants it....the public also wanted Obama for a second term. So I've my doubts about the public's awareness.


Chinese cities still register some of the highest cycling rates in the world, despite growing consumer interest in private automobiles. In the most cycled cities, such as Tianjin, Xi'an, and Shijiazhuang, the bicycle accounts for more than half of all trips.4http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5462SO... half is "abandoned".
In the US, bicycles account for 1% of all trips, so I suppose that's why the US has 50 times the GDP and a more vibrant economy than China. :rolleyes:



China is consuming a lot of oil today and it is because of their cars. And what about other nations? Do you think they will submit to bicycles? Not if they want a vibrant economy. Cars cut down your time to travel. If you need 2 hours to use a bus and mass transit, the car can do the job in half an hour.


In Germany, bicycle use accounts for ~30% of all trips. Is their economy not vibrant?

See now here's one those times where your position fails to explain the facts.





According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the number of registered vehicles (including cars, vans, buses, and trucks) in the U.S. has been growing slowly but steadily from 189 million in 1990 to 247 million in 2007. By comparison, according to China’s State Statistical Bureau, the country had merely 5.54 million vehicles on the road in 1990, but the number exploded to 62 million last year (including 26.05 million privately-owned sedans), and will exceed 70 million this year.Update on 8 October 2010: The Chinese Ministry of Public Security discloses today that there are 199 million registered motor vehicles in the country, including 85 million automobiles. The number of legal drivers of motor vehicles reached 205 million, including 144 million automobile drivers.
http://chinaautoweb.com/2010/09/how-many-cars-are-there-in-china/
oil numbers from CIA fact book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html)

So let's see:
US cars 2010: 247 million
US Oil consumption 2010: 19,150,000 bbl/day
US Oil consumption per car: .078 bbl/day/car

CH cars 2010: 199 million
CH Oil Consumption 2011: 9,400,000 bbl/day
CH Oil Consumption: .047 bbl/day/car

So are Chinese cars 60% more efficient than ours or is there more to Chinese oil consumption than "they're using cars because cars are the most efficient form of transportation" In fact, I'd submit that their rapid economic growth was, in part, due to their lesser dependance upon fuels for personal automobile transportation. In fact, you'll find that their investment in light rail is tremendous and most accounts call their recent expansion "unprecedented in scope and scale". Indeed their investment in urban settings is also key to their massive growth in production. Cities are being built around the largest hydroelectric project in the world and the locks used in that project allow for highly efficient barge transport of manufactured goods from inland areas that these cities surround. I'm not saying we do what China does, they've massive corruption issues brought on by highly centralized command and control of development; but don't sit there and tell me "China's buying more cars, that's why they're growing." That's not true, not by a long shot.



OK, while this green energy is nice, can you live with it?

Can I live with it? Seems to me civilization lived with green (ie sustainable) energy sources for most of recorded history. The question is how can we have the same quality of life to which we have grown accustomed without alternative fuels amidst increasing scarcity of conventional fuels. I'm not talking about banning cars or living without power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining. There's always going to be some need for conventional energy and your clever attempts to elucidate this "green" position of no cars or the oceans flood is ludicrous. The question is how much are we willing to forgo elsewhere to enjoy the aforementioned SUV trips in spacious luxury? Are you willing to pay twice as much for food and water? Three time as much? 10X? when does the opportunity cost outweigh the realized benefit?



If you are a mole in NY where the moles live in subways, sure. But most US cities don't provide for the mole human. Few cities in CA for instance and certainly the entire middle of the country are not set up to use anything other than cars. You won't find a subway in St, Louis.
moles??? Are you equating people with vermin...you know, the nazis did that too.:poke:
And this functional NY subway system, when was it built? Before or after the advent of cars?
Odd that a functional and feasible system occurred before cars; yet now, according to you they simply don't work. WHich is odd considering that much investment was again put into the light rail and subway system in the 50's iirc. In fact, you'll find most cities had rail transit at some point but, after cars came along, they were removed.
I believe this is because some didn't want them to work (cough, auto manufacturers) and we have since designed our society around personal automobile transportation. This made sense when oil was super cheap, say until the 1970's (cough: domestic oil peak)
http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/468x351/153500/iresourcemultiple_files/45e3ab6d-71f4-4d70-a82e-9fb145b0f6a8/en/oil+price+development+BP+stats-mit+beschriftung.jpg

; but now with prices climbing, such ideas are being revived despite the best efforts to prolong the pronounced economic wastes associated with personal automobiles.


I helped to construct the SF Bay Area BART system and saw what happened. It was super costly. We did not have to put in that many miles of tracks yet it took us something like 7 years just to get it ready to use. We had to disrupt cities. We ripped up Market St in San Francisco. We forced many people in many small towns to live with traffic jams due to our equipment. And when done, the public did not rush to fill the trains. Finally over time, more did use BART so what did BART do to them? Jacked up ticket prices. When you depend on Government for your transportation, they can simply jack up costs and you have no say so. Look at bridge tolls. We in the SF Bay Area pay far to much for tolls since we long ago paid off the bridges. They steal money from bridges for other things.

How much does it cost to build roads? Maintain them? That's why you pay a toll, taxes, etc. Do you have any idea how many bridges in the united states are in dire condition? Roads in need of upgrade? Any idea how much money is spent doing that already. In fact, we're finding that the purchasing power parity of money spent doing road repairs and construction is dropping.



Well, this draws to a close. I look at the public as they are, not as one might wish they are. Few people want or will use green energy. That is true based on the fact that green energy is available but very little of it is used.


"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, 1889.

I dont see anything having to do with economics here. And so far as common sense, it does appear some of your positions, which I presume you think are common, fails to address reality...leaving me to believe that you look at the public as ignorant. Am I bad guy for wishing they weren't?

[logroller]

I understand you are a graduate of Obamanomics and that you have sold out to the idea that government should now pick winners and losers by using taxpayer money to gamble of unproven green energy programs. While blocking oil companies from tapping massive oil reserves, and going after other reserves of the nations natural resources. All to "protect" Mother Earth. Thanks again for your continued support for the decline of America LR. One day, none of this will be ours
I understand you can't debate and get all sore when you get your ass handed to you. All you have is ad hominem arguments RSR. All that lamestream media has rotted your mind. But hey, why don't explain why gas prices have consistently and increasingly risen for almost forty years despite increased production and drilling. In fact, over 10,000 wells have been drilled on public lands since Obama took office. So help me out on how "he blocks them". And what massive reserves? You got a link to them? and how much does it cost to extract said "massive reserves"? Massive reserves that cost $6o+/bbl to extract is not going to save us from high prices.

Oh, and BTW, the program from which I graduated was wholly sponsored by Aera Energy and Chevron. Perhaps you've heard of them, they're oil companies. I happen to be quite familiar with how they operate and what economic considerations they have. For example, I can tell you they don't pump anywhere near full capacity from the proven and accessible reserves they already have. Now tell me RSR, why do you think they would they do that with oil at or near record high prices?

You have answers to these questions?

[Noir]

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

So from the OP. ^

So half the lifetime emissions of an elec car come from its production, which equates to 30,000lbs of CO2. Meaning the total lifetime output of CO2 is about 60,000lbs.

Whereas the conventional car only has 17% total emissions at production, with around 14,000lbs of CO2 being produced. Which gives total lifetime output of around 82,350lbs of CO2

So the elec car is Producing about 22,000lbs less CO2 over its lifetime. Or about a 27% reduction.

So yes elec cars have a larger actual CO2 production at manufacture than conventional cars, but because that makes up a greater % of its lifetime output, its much 'greener'.

[logroller]

So from the OP. ^

So half the lifetime emissions of an elec car come from its production, which equates to 30,000lbs of CO2. Meaning the total lifetime output of CO2 is about 60,000lbs.

Whereas the conventional car only has 17% total emissions at production, with around 14,000lbs of CO2 being produced. Which gives total lifetime output of around 82,350lbs of CO2

So the elec car is Producing about 22,000lbs less CO2 over its lifetime. Or about a 27% reduction.

So yes elec cars have a larger actual CO2 production at manufacture than conventional cars, but because that makes up a greater % of its lifetime output, its much 'greener'.
Right you are. There's this issue though with said co2 being necessary for plants...thus making electric cars less "green". Or so some say:laugh:

[red states rule]

From the link - if you think blowing $45,000 on a golf cart with bucket seats
If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.
Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.
Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html

[red states rule]

I understand you can't debate and get all sore when you get your ass handed to you. All you have is ad hominem arguments RSR. All that lamestream media has rotted your mind. But hey, why don't explain why gas prices have consistently and increasingly risen for almost forty years despite increased production and drilling. In fact, over 10,000 wells have been drilled on public lands since Obama took office. So help me out on how "he blocks them". And what massive reserves? You got a link to them? and how much does it cost to extract said "massive reserves"? Massive reserves that cost $6o+/bbl to extract is not going to save us from high prices.

Oh, and BTW, the program from which I graduated was wholly sponsored by Aera Energy and Chevron. Perhaps you've heard of them, they're oil companies. I happen to be quite familiar with how they operate and what economic considerations they have. For example, I can tell you they don't pump anywhere near full capacity from the proven and accessible reserves they already have. Now tell me RSR, why do you think they would they do that with oil at or near record high prices?

You have answers to these questions?

LR once again you show how desperate you are to defend your boy Obama. I have NEVER deputed production is up on public land. Where is huge decrease has taken place has been on FEDERAL LAND. So show me where there has been an increase in production of FEDERAL LAND.

BTW, Obama still has a ban on drilling in the Gulf right?

Come on bigshot do not be shy - show us the facts

Like Gabby you may be book smart but you lack common sense and really have an issue when people point out the many failures of your boy Obama. Like most libs you are very tolerant until you see or hear something you disagree with

[Robert A Whit]

I don't mind replies, but why books? Sigh, isn't his agenda clear to all of you? For the first time in cutting and pasting, I saw the invisible words in his signature line. Clearly he is a shill for Obama.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
I know I have argued this with at least two posters but I want to lay out what I believe to be the correct premises. Space limits me so I urge you all to get the book by Richard Muller, a Physics professor at CAL Berkeley and consume the book. It is easy reading. You won't need a course in physics or calculus to get it. The man puts out the case in easy to read terms. I got the book at the local public library so you ought not need to spend a dime to get a very top education.

The title is Physics for Future Presidents.



I see you've abandoned economic support.

Professor Muller deals with the economics. Have you yet read his fine book?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
I will not post tables.
(perhaps this is because actual data refutes your assertions, which I ill note when applicable.

I will not post links.

I will post plain common sense backed up by his book as well as fundamentals of economics.

I want to note on economics. While various economists vary in outlook, a lot of it is shared in common. They vary on some matters on a few points and may see problems different. But I don't care about those differences.

Let's proceed.
What is all the whining about and why?

This varies per presenter.
Person A thinks the end is coming if we don't go to green energy and person B says, don't worry, the smart people are working on this and a solution will come. I have faith in engineers and in those solving problems. I have almost no faith in politicians. And many of those arguing with me come to battle based on politics and not fundamentals of engineering or science.

Climate change. Stop worrying. The ocean will not flood your home. Warming climates as can be seen in the tropics produce lush plant life. (and disease and pestilence, and overall want of economic development) There is more variety in animals in the warmer climates by far than in the cold climates.(ibid, pestilence) People die faster when it is very cold than when it is warmer. Cold weather can and does kill --- Life, including animals and disease thrive better in warm climes than in cold climes. Of course. By the way, few people speak of this and I presume they do not know about it but Earth has climates classified by experts.
Letters have been assigned to the 5 major climates, to wit: A, B, C, D and E with each having subzones and the high altitude climates are called H that have climates too complex to accurately map. This is relevant because in the USA the common standard is the USA and even it has several divisions of climate. This is bogus science to act as if the globe has a climate. It h as many climates.





I suppose that's why tropical africans have such a longer lifespan than europeans....or, wait, no they don't. I have a feeling this is going to be a painful read.

This is not the correct way to discuss this. Africans lack the modern infrastructure that Europeans enjoy. Something as simple as lights to provide any doctor with illumination to do the surgery is not reliable and in too much of africa patients die because doctors are forced to work in the dark, at times with flash lights. Much of Africa is in poverty and one can't compare as an explanation of climate things such as lack of medicine, lack of doctors. If Africa enjoyed the benefits of Europe, only then can we compare.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Sources of energy.
Coal - Coal does produce Carbon Dioxide and other awful emissions but this can be handled. It takes the same will to solve that as it does to smother your landscape with windmills or solar collectors. I urge you to check into areas that are going to windmills. Huge fights are going on. People want them out of sight and environmentalists fight against them. Carbon Dioxide is natural food for plants. Plants create the oxygen you need to survive. The more humans there are, the more oxygen they need. So any solution that leads to more plants is good.



More plants....

Looks good! People in this area are just jumping at the opportunity to site their house here I'm sure. :rolleyes:

You could also have posted photos of areas enjoying the benefits. Such as in the USA, the simple fact, which I got some years back, is the USA has more plant life, including trees, than prior to entry by Europeans to these shores. Cities are built where there were no trees but man has no desire to live without trees so he plants trees. Most of us are so used to the trees we don't appreciate what they do for mankind.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Nuclear - expensive but awesome. The Government powers ships. It it was dangerous, do you think they would expose the navy to this danger?



Did you really just ask a that question? Was it supposed to imply a rhetorical "no"? Because, and this might come as an unpleasant shock to you, but the US government has been known to put military members at risk.

During the era of my teen years, I recall a very few military men exposed to above ground nuclear tests. But that is not how nuclear power plants operate nor the power plants on ships. When you speak of the military though, it is helpful if you ignore things that took place 60 years ago.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
We have not any reported deaths due to nuclear on ships. That is nuclear energy confined to a ship. If you can manage fine as sailors do, why would you not want nuclear in your areas?



Have you talked with aboutime much....:eek:
From my first post, the man set himself up as an adversary. I attempted to get him to be moderate but have little luck accomplishing that. But does he allege that navy nuclear is unsafe? I happen to be in a business where one of my blessings is that I had senior navy men as my clients. I was invited by one to board the Carrier Enterprise which I did. He did not mention unsafe conditions though we did speak of the actual speed of the ship which remains classified to this day. I do happen to know the top speed of those ships. An E-9 client of mine also served on that same ship and he did not bring up unsafe nuclear conditions. So, without AT, I have spoken to those people along with a former Navy Commander who also served on nuclear ships.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Windmills - they seem to need to have your dollars spent by the government or they don't do well. Windmills, contrary to popular belief do not spin all that much. I see windmills in the Altamont Pass and you would be amazed to note how many of them are sitting still. They must have brakes on them to stop them from spinning since some of them are spinning while others sit still. The majority of windmills stand still. Windmills suffer from periods where the wind does not blow. And part of the time, they spin when loads are light and when needed, there may be no wind. Thus you end up with back up power. Also expensive and so forth.



I live in an area with lots of oil wells...I often see them not pumping. Oil wells must suffer from not enough oil to pump out of the ground. Yet some say we need more oil wells...odd.

We have many oil wells in CA also so I am aware of what you are saying. But you must know that each well pumps but so many bbls of crude unless other technology is applied allowing more crude to be pumped. You may see those wells back in action. But oil wells are not windmills. Oil wells do not depend on the vagrancies of weather to operate.

People don't care nearly as much for where energy comes from, so long as it does.

I agree.

I live near a windfarm that has been in existence since the early eighties and it wasn't until the last few years that the transmission lines were upgraded to carry more power than it was designed to carry thirty years ago. That upgrade happened as a result of government action, but so too did the interstate highway system, the golden gate bridge, commercial air travel, etc etc. You seem to operate under the belief that the energy we now use was the product of common-sense market-driven practices; nothing could be farther from the truth.

Are you speaking of the Altamont because no oil wells are in that area. Windmills have since the beginning been so uneconomical that the market did not drive them, but government distortions to the market did. So I am not making the case I am accused of. The Golden Gate bridge afforded a direct route that is faster than the ferries that were there formerly. I have rode the ferry from Richmond to Marin County that the Richmond San Rafael bridge put out of business so I am well aware of how that works. And of course those bridges assisted the public thus improving the economy. However, we do not put a dozen such bridges in just to improve the economy. So, I refute your final sentence since as I said, not my position.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Hydroelectric. Expensive but once in operation almost free since running water is the power and that is cheap. And so long as the river is running, you have power, day and night.



Did you forget devastated natural ecosystems, or was that just part of the expense of construction? Keeping these systems operational, and not being overtaken by mollusks and other critters, requires the use of some of the most toxic substances in industry. I'm guessing you probably don't count environmental destruction and increased toxic exposure as costs, right?

So, you want to speak against water as a clean energy source? That surprises me. I have not been yet exposed to those mollusks being way up fresh water rivers to impact hydroelectric plants. I have as a client an expert on this and I plan to ask him what problems there are with hydroelectric given he is one of this nations experts on this topic. While a dam blocks the stream, it also meters water so that fewer drought years adversely impact life such as fish. I can't speak for all states but in CA the state has long been in the business of raising fish and releasing them into the waters of the state, including they stock fish in some small city lakes we have.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Biomass - Carbon Dioxide is a natural product of burning things. Most things contain carbon. Thus when you burn any of it, coal, wood, gasoline, etc. you still get carbon dioxide. This is what the nut cases hair is on fire about. They despise carbon dioxide the natural plant food. And how much bio mass can you get? And some bio mass is food. Food is vital to survival.



Biomass, like a switchgrass grown this year, contains the aforementioned carbon plant food and photosynthetic energy from this year. Whereas burning fossil fuels contains the biomass from millions of years. There's a bit of difference. I read once that a single gallon of gas contains the same amount of energy as five years of a tropical fern's photosynthetic yield. Maybe you can drive a plant powered car, with all the plant food we kick out, should be super-cheap.

President Bush really promoted switchgrass and gets no credit at all from Democrats. That is better than taking corn and depriving corn from the food source to use it to make alcohol. I agree it should be favored. Gas actually is outstanding as an energy source. The problem lies not with the gasoline for energy, but energy losses in internal combustion engines. Some serious improvements have been made since the days of the carburetor. I outlined them on a different thread. A lot of the energy from internal combustion engines comes from losses due to hot air being sent down the exhaust pipes. A way to gain more energy would be to recycle the exhaust some how. Use of the exhaust to drive turbines has done a lot to improve efficiency. We may see the day when all autos have turbos to boost power just as we got rid of carburetors and now rely on fuel injection systems that can be controlled by computers.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
But lets get to the way you go to work or take trips.

Can you load the bus with your camping gear or luggage for an extended trip? Can you put a family and all that gear in the taxi? Can you put that stuff you need on a train? You know you dont' go camping by taking your stuff on an airplane.

So, you need cars. You want cars. You want a car since if somebody gets sick, you want to take them to the doctor. Waiting on a bus or subway to take a person to a hospital may work in NY City, but most cities are not designed like that city is.



Did I miss the "get to work" part in there?
- and - How often does one go camping? I go to the doctor more than I go camping; shouldn't I just buy a doctor? I want them, I need them. I've got to have a doctor!!!! Doctors used to make house calls, now they don't-- they even made house calls in rural areas...saw it on little house.
and hospitals- You don't have ambulances in your area?
And what's with all this stuff talk-- you ever heard of conspicuous consumption? "Gotta have all my gear" "gotta have a suburban for all my shit!" That's odd to me, because mostly I see people in cars with nothing but their sweet ass getting toted around. But hey, camping and doctors visits demand personal automobiles. got it:thumb:
Do you intend to be a part of a conversation or will this be a mocking contest? Sure people must go to work. Was it you that outlined ways to efficiently take them to work? Maybe it was not you. I know that where mass transit is able to work, it does work. But i also helped to build one major system when I worked in construction and I was in management so I had privy to much more information than those in the crews had so i am well aware of mass transit systems.

I live in the real world where Mom wants to go pick up a sick child and won't wait on mass transit nor force a sick child to do that. Doctors don't often have offices in tract home areas thus people use cars to efficiently get to the doctor, the store, an emergency room at times. We can't wish autos away because they use fossil fuels. I own a book that speaks of crude being produced all the time from natural processes in Earth. If you stop to think of how deep some crude oil wells are (the typical person has not studied this as I have since the mid 1960s), those wells cant contain what is called fossil fuels. Generally the fossils spoke of would be from the ancient oceans. Can you imagine the ocean at the Baaken oil fields? TX can be imagined as once an ocean but can you imagine the Dakotas as once deep sea beds? Crude oil has a well known chemical formula so it is possible I believe that the expert is correct that Earth keeps creating crude oil.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
You want cars because when you want to head to the store to get food, you want to do it on your schedule. We don't live by African time, they have plenty of time to walk.



I walk to the neighborhood market. It takes twenty minutes, round trip.
- and - Was that a reference to colored people time....Seriously, is there no end to your racism

There is no purpose to you falsely accusing me of what you believe to be, racism. And you clearly live in a city so your view is tainted by the city view that totally ignores that most of us don't live in such cities, we live in much more rural areas. This country has over 300 million people and if you take the populations of the major cities and add them all up, it does not approach 100 million people. We can't make public policy to suit a third of the population at the expense of two thirds. I too can walk to a store but the store happens to be not one I favor so I drive the several miles to the store I favor to shop in. I save more in food purchases than the cost of the fuel. The African comment reflects a largely tribal continent with a poor infrastructure compared to Europe or this country. Places where doctors suspend operations because the lights failed. Where the public is infected with water disease because they lack proper sanitation or water treatment plants. This is not about race, but demographics. I hate the way Democrats try to play the race card. It is not even remotely logical.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
We are an economy of people who hustle. We don't use horses to plow fields because we want it done fast so we use machines.



When was the last time you plowed a field with your car?
I'm guessing never. As for american's hustle:

I gave you credit for intelligence. Forgive my error. I stated that machines, known as farm tractors are used. I expected you understood that. My bad. I won't assume a level of education you lack from now on.

Hustle/ lazy...what's the difference, really?

Where I live those fitness centers are at the same level as sidewalks. Is it really your belief that all fitness centers have escalators? Besides, they work out once inside, don't they?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Electric cars. Range is a major problem and have you considered the high weight of batteries? I maintain that in auto crashes, the toxins in batteries is one more thing to fear. Do you want those chemicals on your body in addition to damages of a crash?



As opposed to gasoline, oil, and the innumerable list of carcinogenic properties contained within... but that's just like plant food. :rolleyes:

No, to get sufficient power to last even 100 miles, a lot of weight of the car is devoted to batteries. But since you live in a city, how could you know? The proof is in what the eyes observe. CA has a lot of Prius yet few Volts. I prefer the Volt given the auto is powered by batteries that get charged while you drive. But the price is far too high. And both autos are not suitable for other than single people or old folks or maybe teens. But for families, forget it. I have one advantage you seem to lack. I grew up with those tiny cars and American auto makers realized the need for larger cars so they supplied us with those. I spent hours upon hours cramped up in the back seat with 4 siblings and an auto with no AC driving on desert roads. Take a look at a 1950 ford or Chevy sometime and imagine you have to endure a trip in one lasting 1000 miles. It is no fun for 5 kids. We are rapidly going back to cars the size of those pre and post WW2 era. We are not advancing, we are going backwards. How many kids can fit in a VW bug? i think you do not approach this problem from the majority of people but approach it from the point of view you don't consider children in families. Take a family in my city of two adults and 4 kids. They want to visit San Francisco for the day and include many places to visit. SF has plenty but it is spread all over the city. The Beach is far from Fisherman's wharf, the city Zoo is way the hell away from downtown and so forth. They can do that in a day in the car and spend maybe (todays fuel prices) $50 for fuel and have the convience of actually getting to all the places they want to go to, yet that $50 dollars won't buy them transit tickets to and from using BART.(BART per person charges at least $7.50 per person one way) Once they escape BART, they must either walk, take taxis or use SF buses They can't do all they want to do in several days at that rate then they can't take that picnic basket with them either. I think you won't consider how most of the public lives.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
But most of the time, you find that you get so far and then must totally stop to recharge.



By "most of the time", do you mean that fraction of the 5% of trips over 30 miles?

City drivers can eat up easily 30 miles in a day. But for some odd reason, your assumpts are built on city drivers rather than the bulk of the American public. I have had it both ways. I don't drive very much now. But at one time i easily put on 30,000 and more miles per year on my car. Tell me when I was appraising homes all over the SF Bay Area, from SF to Many miles south to Gilroy, North to Oakland, east to Antioch and in fact, look at the SF Bay area map and I drove all over a huge area of maybe on the order of 50 cities. How was I to do that walking, using Bus and BART and so forth. Even had I blew a lot of money on taxis, those are still autos. I can't imagine what I would have charged to appraise a home if I had no auto to use. A lot of work is done by people who must drive an auto.


source: National Household Travel Survey https://nhts.ornl.gov (https://nhts.ornl.gov/)



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
The Volt is a car that has both, batteries plus the onboard charging system. You get a lot of range from the Volt. But do you notice how many Volts are in your neighborhood? They are not hot sellers. But look how tiny a Volt is. I know that I could never take my camping gear in a Volt. I have a Cadillac and it has a pretty large trunk but I still fill the trunk and the back of the car. I take plenty of comforts on camping trips and food as well. Electric cars would be all over the place if the public wanted them. They know where to buy them.

Cars powered by other than gasoline. Gasoline per gallon packs more energy into it than anything else on the market.



Indeed, so much so that despite 30% efficiency, gasoline fueled internal combustion engines are still marketable. Doesn't make up for the fact that ~70% of that energy is wasted. And as gasoline gets more and more expensive, that 70% percent becomes more and more costly a loss. How long have volts even been on the market-- two years? I'd venture to guess more volts are on the road than model T's two years after introduction. Interestingly, model T's were designed to run on ethanol.

The model T was introduced when roads were dirt and in rainy times, mud. Why didn't you refute me by showing the sales of Volts then disburse them by states? LOL I have addressed the improvements to efficiency in the internal combustion engine cars. But gasoline per gallon packs more punch than any other fuel I can name. (Feel free to read Professor Muller's book to dislodge some of your prejudices.) Gasoline is also dense in power. A lot of sources that can be used are not nearly as dense in energy per gallon.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Natural gas could be used in cars but you have all seen those heavy steel propane tanks. You know, if you stop to think about it, that you need one of those heavy tanks in your car to hold the pressurized natural gas or you can't drive much further than an electric car. NG for trucks will help but look at trucks. They are designed to carry heavy stuff. Even with them, they need to put double the tanks on trucks they now use just to get decent range. The good thing about NG is not that it produces no carbon dioxide, because it does produce carbon dioxide, but that it is cheap fuel. And the USA has so much of it they want to export it.



NG is plentiful and burns cleaner than petroleum. Buses often use NG but few cars do, mostly due to the lack of fueling facilities. Trucks typically use diesel, not gas or NG, due to the higher efficiency and torque of diesel engines.

Fuel tanks are also a major problem for autos. Bus and Trucks are large vehicles that even though they too need a lot larger tank, at least have ways to deal with this problem that autos can't. Some pick up trucks are modified to use NG and they also have installed in the bed of the truck a large heavy steel tank. Not too long ago the bad rap on NG was we lacked supply. Well, that sure was wrong.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
One person autos. Those are available. Do you see them? Nuff said.



I see autos with one person in them all the time. What about motorcycles and scooters?

Those are multiple person autos carrying one person. I was addressing the car that only carries one person. Sure, I have ridden motorcycles to work and you would not enjoy that experience on days that are numbing cold nor in storms. You would wish you owned a car.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Coupes. While some drive those, they may have a SUV to take on trips. They may normally have several cars.

Look what the public wants. They want SUVs if they have a family. Families with kids dread long trips where the kids are cramped up in tiny back seats, so they go for SUVs.

I heard proposals to go to bikes today on TV. China is abandoning bikes but the USA is supposed to to to the system that China is abandoning? Why?



Ah yes, the public wants it....the public also wanted Obama for a second term. So I've my doubts about the public's awareness.

Well, that floors me since you talk just like a typical democrat. Generally my opponents are democrats who love the Obama policies.

The fact is the public has long had tiny cars they can buy. They normally prefer much larger autos, SUVs even. Go away from your comfort zone of that city and drive around rural areas and count up the number of large vehicles used by those people. Do you do that?


Chinese cities still register some of the highest cycling rates in the world, despite growing consumer interest in private automobiles. In the most cycled cities, such as Tianjin, Xi'an, and Shijiazhuang, the bicycle accounts for more than half of all trips.4


http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5462SO... half is "abandoned".
In the US, bicycles account for 1% of all trips, so I suppose that's why the US has 50 times the GDP and a more vibrant economy than China. :rolleyes:

While autos are mostly dominating the large cities in China, your premise is we are to move in the opposite direction. They love Buick's and I presume you love bicycles.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
China is consuming a lot of oil today and it is because of their cars. And what about other nations? Do you think they will submit to bicycles? Not if they want a vibrant economy. Cars cut down your time to travel. If you need 2 hours to use a bus and mass transit, the car can do the job in half an hour.




In Germany, bicycle use accounts for ~30% of all trips. Is their economy not vibrant?

See now here's one those times where your position fails to explain the fa????

I spent considerable time in Germany including driving a lot of miles. I don't dispute it must be different now than then but then I saw few bicycles. Germans have long been punished by high fuel costs. Sure they will escape them. Germany is not at all like the USA in many respects. Germans have long shunned living way out on farms, preferring rather the village approach. I saw all over that country farmers leaving villages to go work the fields. Berlin has a very fine mass transit but I can't recall anything like that in Frankfurt. Trains are widely used to carry passengers and they are deadly prompt. You can't be a minute late. The trains are extremely dependable and don't lag around with freight trains holding them back as is the case in this country. While there is no doubt that the east has a good train corridor, that does not apply to much of the country. The typical German can't be mistaken as being like Americans since they have long been living as a very different culture. They generally are much more serious about education and enjoy many benefits lacking in this country. If one lives in a typical small German village, a Bike may well be enough. I am not of the opinion Americans want to mimic Germans or they would have done this a long time ago.



According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, the number of registered vehicles (including cars, vans, buses, and trucks) in the U.S. has been growing slowly but steadily from 189 million in 1990 to 247 million in 2007. By comparison, according to China’s State Statistical Bureau, the country had merely 5.54 million vehicles on the road in 1990, but the number exploded to 62 million last year (including 26.05 million privately-owned sedans), and will exceed 70 million this year.Update on 8 October 2010: The Chinese Ministry of Public Security discloses today that there are 199 million registered motor vehicles in the country, including 85 million automobiles. The number of legal drivers of motor vehicles reached 205 million, including 144 million automobile drivers.



http://chinaautoweb.com/2010/09/how-...here-in-china/ (http://chinaautoweb.com/2010/09/how-many-cars-are-there-in-china/)
oil numbers from CIA fact book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html)

Thanks for proving that China is on the fast track to many more cars in the near term.

So let's see:
US cars 2010: 247 million
US Oil consumption 2010: 19,150,000 bbl/day
US Oil consumption per car: .078 bbl/day/car

CH cars 2010: 199 million
CH Oil Consumption 2011: 9,400,000 bbl/day
CH Oil Consumption: .047 bbl/day/car

So are Chinese cars 60% more efficient than ours or is there more to Chinese oil consumption than "they're using cars because cars are the most efficient form of transportation" In fact, I'd submit that their rapid economic growth was, in part, due to their lesser dependance upon fuels for personal automobile transportation. In fact, you'll find that their investment in light rail is tremendous and most accounts call their recent expansion "unprecedented in scope and scale". Indeed their investment in urban settings is also key to their massive growth in production. Cities are being built around the largest hydroelectric project in the world and the locks used in that project allow for highly efficient barge transport of manufactured goods from inland areas that these cities surround. I'm not saying we do what China does, they've massive corruption issues brought on by highly centralized command and control of development; but don't sit there and tell me "China's buying more cars, that's why they're growing." That's not true, not by a long shot.

Since I had not made such a case, pardon me if i skip defending a claim I did not make.

My case goes more like this. We in this country as recently as say 1980 thought of the typical Chinese taxi as a Rickshaw and a high use of bicycles. I am saying they are moving the opposite direction of what many so called environmentalists wish this country to move in. I keep hearing these domestic conservationalists pushing bicycles. Why have you not posted our domestic count of bicycles used to go to work?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
OK, while this green energy is nice, can you live with it?



Can I live with it? Seems to me civilization lived with green (ie sustainable) energy sources for most of recorded history. The question is how can we have the same quality of life to which we have grown accustomed without alternative fuels amidst increasing scarcity of conventional fuels. I'm not talking about banning cars or living without power when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining. There's always going to be some need for conventional energy and your clever attempts to elucidate this "green" position of no cars or the oceans flood is ludicrous. The question is how much are we willing to forgo elsewhere to enjoy the aforementioned SUV trips in spacious luxury? Are you willing to pay twice as much for food and water? Three time as much? 10X? when does the opportunity cost outweigh the realized benefit?

And you want to revert to pre-automobile conditions? not me. I prefer the perfect way to travel. I keep asking some of you guys, why do you want to ride horses since back then , they rode horses? I believe that this nation is the only nation on this planet that deliberately refuses to use our domestic supplies in favor of trying to choke the public into submission to do as the Feds want us to to. Most of us do not trust the Feds to be our decision makers. Maybe you trust them, most of us do not. What is strange about the USA is you brilliant thinkers don't mind the FEDS blowing up the economy with massive public debts but you want us out of the automobile because they say so? God, this gags me. You want us to save the gasoline for the future but pass on the major debt problems of this country to the children and grand kids? Tell you this much, we have some very smart engineers thank god, who realize what is going on and are busting hump to fix it. But we have engineers who want to drill but are told hell no. Don't try to persuade me Obama is all for more fuel for anybody but himself. He wastes so damned much fuel I refuse to believe he believes in conserving fuel. Hell, he has wasted tens of thousands of gallons merely to fly to NY city for a meal with his wife.



http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
If you are a mole in NY where the moles live in subways, sure. But most US cities don't provide for the mole human. Few cities in CA for instance and certainly the entire middle of the country are not set up to use anything other than cars. You won't find a subway in St, Louis.



moles??? Are you equating people with vermin...you know, the nazis did that too.:poke:

I see, you refuse to discuss other than putting labels on posters. Gee, now you mention Nazis, they did that same thing. The mole spends a lot of time beneath the surface, like subways. I really did give you credit for being smarter than you are.

And this functional NY subway system, when was it built? Before or after the advent of cars? Before of course. But also study the subsurface soils or rather rock. Subways work well where they are put into rock.

Odd that a functional and feasible system occurred before cars; yet now, according to you they simply don't work.

I did not say subways don't work. Light rail has other problems but you don't wish to mention their disadvantages. I like your habit of rushing to the WWW and yanking up the work of others. I suppose it does substitute for thinking and other facts than those you show. At least to you they do.

WHich is odd considering that much investment was again put into the light rail and subway system in the 50's iirc. In fact, you'll find most cities had rail transit at some point but, after cars came along, they were removed.

I remember all of that. I did not read of it, I saw it happen. And by the way, don't forget the way the Feds poured money into making it easy for more cars to drive the highways. China is also constructing many freeways and indeed they have a boom in construction. ​But why would we want a boom like they are enjoying, right?

I believe this is because some didn't want them to work (cough, auto manufacturers) and we have since designed our society around personal automobile transportation. This made sense when oil was super cheap, say until the 1970's (cough: domestic oil peak)

Well, now we are down to price. I was making say in 1956, a grand total of $1.35 per hour. I worked for a gas station where the price per gallon was about .30 cents per gallon. Currently that same worker making similar minimum wage has about $8 hour income in this state and he pays about $3.85 per gallon. So, clearly today we get robbed but a lot of this happens because of our federal and state government. They won't work to help make gasoline cheaper.



; but now with prices climbing, such ideas are being revived despite the best efforts to prolong the pronounced economic wastes associated with personal automobiles.

Apparently we can boil down your arguments to no automobiles but force the public, no matter where they live, no matter their occupation or living conditions into some form of transport you happen to favor despite you don't experience the same lives as the rest experience. This to me is more big government, less human freedom so pardon me if I don't agree with said premise. This entire argument has had you attacking automobiles and oil. Gee, isn't that just what democrats do all the time?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
I helped to construct the SF Bay Area BART system and saw what happened. It was super costly. We did not have to put in that many miles of tracks yet it took us something like 7 years just to get it ready to use. We had to disrupt cities. We ripped up Market St in San Francisco. We forced many people in many small towns to live with traffic jams due to our equipment. And when done, the public did not rush to fill the trains. Finally over time, more did use BART so what did BART do to them? Jacked up ticket prices. When you depend on Government for your transportation, they can simply jack up costs and you have no say so. Look at bridge tolls. We in the SF Bay Area pay far to much for tolls since we long ago paid off the bridges. They steal money from bridges for other things.



How much does it cost to build roads? Maintain them? That's why you pay a toll, taxes, etc. Do you have any idea how many bridges in the united states are in dire condition? Roads in need of upgrade? Any idea how much money is spent doing that already. In fact, we're finding that the purchasing power parity of money spent doing road repairs and construction is dropping.

Since I also built bridges, or at least my part of them, I am fairly current in what is going on. I am not current on current costs to maintain roads but are you current on the cost to maintain mass transit? CA charges outlandish tolls for bridges long paid for. And they don't get to use the money for the bridges thanks to the governments habit of using those tolls as a slush fund. I don't know what all states do since I live in CA but my understanding of CA bridges are they are well maintained. Roads that we pay high taxes for less so well maintained. Our worst state roads are where it snows so part of that is the pounding they take from large trucks as well as damage by snow equipment. CA has put on our ballots many times the plea for more cash for roads. We vote for that but those jerks put the money not into roads, but something else. Do you blame me for not trusting government? These people both in states and the Feds don't mind one bit lying through their teeth. And you want more of this?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626154#post626154)
Well, this draws to a close. I look at the public as they are, not as one might wish they are. Few people want or will use green energy. That is true based on the fact that green energy is available but very little of it is used.



"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever." - Thomas Edison, 1889.

I have long been educated in electricity and electronics. I know about the fight Thomas had with the Tesla crowd. I know that Tesla won.


I dont see anything having to do with economics here. And so far as common sense, it does appear some of your positions, which I presume you think are common, fails to address reality...leaving me to believe that you look at the public as ignorant. Am I bad guy for wishing they weren't?

I think I stated I did not plan to include economics so why does that bother you. I see damned little real economics in your presentation.

I was under the impression your argument is we are running out of crude so you don't mind Obamas restricitve policies and you had planned to defend Obama.

No, to the typical reader, my comments do reflect reality.

I will explain why.

Have you managed any mass transit jobs?

I have. Score a point for me.
Did you spend years studying the automobile?
I have. second point for me.
Do you keep on hand technical books on the automobile design and fuels?

Probably you do not. I take that point too. I do and have.
Have you earned a living building highways.

I have. My point.

Well, I guess in your mind you won. I can't help it if you have not done the things I have done and still do.

[logroller]

LR once again you show how desperate you are to defend your boy Obama. h
Cherry picking facts again i see. Yet again you show how desperate you are to avoid the facts of increased oil production coinciding with increased oil and gas prices. Its a simple question rsr; Why has production went up along with price? Show me this common sense explanation of how increased supply has coincided with increased fuel prices for 30 years.

[Robert A Whit]

Logroller says:"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child in this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." -- guess who?

Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush

The bottom is in white letters but by selecting only black, you see his intent.

When he argues, keep this in mind.

[Robert A Whit]

Cherry picking facts again i see. Yet again you show how desperate you are to avoid the facts of increased oil production coinciding with increased oil and gas prices. Its a simple question rsr; Why has production went up along with price? Show me this common sense explanation of how increased supply has coincided with increased fuel prices for 30 years.

Politics in a nutshell.

I happen to recall how it was before Government shrilly declared an end to crude and we must now move to other energy forms.

Back in those days, the politicians actually, on all sides, wanted more crude.

Today that is not the case.

This is a way Government distorts the market.

[aboutime]

Cherry picking facts again i see. Yet again you show how desperate you are to avoid the facts of increased oil production coinciding with increased oil and gas prices. Its a simple question rsr; Why has production went up along with price? Show me this common sense explanation of how increased supply has coincided with increased fuel prices for 30 years.


logroller. Wow. How entertaining, and how willing you finally are to demonstrate...through your question above, where you accuse someone of cherry picking to defray, and distract attention from your absolute, total dissfunctional knowledge about a topic you can only pretend to explain..much less honestly discuss.

In short. Your unanswered question shall remain unanswered UNTIL you learn the basics of the laws of Supply, and Demand, coupled with Economic principles of World Trade.

But thank you for finally letting us know...you know so little. So much in fact. You sound more like Obama...than Obama.

[fj1200]

NO you are the one smoking and you are as high as kite if you think LR has made his case. Of course it is clear you have either gone over to the left side of things or you are continuing to play your role as professional troll. Only you know the answer to that

You're ability to discern illicit substance usage rivals only Taft in accuracy. :rolleyes: Log has wasted his time providing data and logic which you absolutely refuse to accept or even counter beyond the simplistic drivel of increasing domestic supply in a global market will be the magic elixir of lower prices; you are completely ignoring practically every other factor of supply/demand that has an effect. Have you taken a look at the copper graph lately?

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=Copper+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||1960|1963|1966|1969|1972|1975|1978|1981|1 984|1987|1990|1993|1996|1999|2002|2005|2008|2011|2 012|1:||1:|633.1|2666.7|4700.3|6733.9|8767.5&cht=lc&chd=t:8,7,7,7,11,15,17,13,14,17,16,12,12,20,23,14, 16,15,16,23,25,20,17,18,16,16,16,20,30,32,30,27,26 ,22,26,33,26,26,19,18,21,18,18,20,33,42,77,81,79,5 9,86,100,92&chdl=($/mt)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0

It practically mirrors the crude graph (http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html) over the past 10 years:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=Crude+oil,+Spot+Average+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||1960|1963|1966|1969|1972|1975|1978|1981|1 984|1987|1990|1993|1996|1999|2002|2005|2008|2011|2 012|1:||1:|1.2|27.4|53.7|79.9|106.1&cht=lc&chd=t:2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,10,10,11,12,12,2 9,35,33,31,28,27,26,14,17,14,17,22,18,18,16,15,16, 19,18,12,17,27,23,23,27,36,50,61,67,91,58,74,98,10 0&chdl=($/bbl)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0

Are you going to suggest that BO is having the same war on copper that he's having on crude? Take a look at the other major commodity graphs as well and tell me what you see as similarities.

Beyond that, why don't you tell me how I've gone to the "left side" of things.


LR once again you show how desperate you are to defend your boy Obama. I have NEVER deputed production is up on public land. Where is huge decrease has taken place has been on FEDERAL LAND. So show me where there has been an increase in production of FEDERAL LAND.

BTW, Obama still has a ban on drilling in the Gulf right?

Come on bigshot do not be shy - show us the facts

Like Gabby you may be book smart but you lack common sense and really have an issue when people point out the many failures of your boy Obama. Like most libs you are very tolerant until you see or hear something you disagree with

Actually it would seem that he doesn't.


More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html

It appears to have only been a deep-water ban.

Here's the best info I could find on gulf oil production.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfp3fm1&f=m

Another graph here.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--tgkLGTrIb8/T0l4HObC1lI/AAAAAAAACxs/plub0vVDh1s/s1600/Domestic+Crude+2.jpg

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a correlation between US oil production and the price of a barrel of oil.

[fj1200]

logroller. Wow. How entertaining, and how willing you finally are to demonstrate...through your question above, where you accuse someone of cherry picking to defray, and distract attention from your absolute, total dissfunctional knowledge about a topic you can only pretend to explain..much less honestly discuss.

In short. Your unanswered question shall remain unanswered UNTIL you learn the basics of the laws of Supply, and Demand, coupled with Economic principles of World Trade.

But thank you for finally letting us know...you know so little. So much in fact. You sound more like Obama...than Obama.

You are a complete fool.

[logroller]

The bottom is in white letters but by selecting only black, you see his intent.

When he argues, keep this in mind.
Well its not entirely true. The quote is really Hitler's. the reasoning however was also used by bush -- I'd meant to change that to include Bush's actual statement instead of that one. Thanks for reminding me. Failing at beating me with facts so you've turned to character attacks. Color me surprised. Not really; youre a hack. Bu you know the difference between you and me is I have the ear of elected officials and you get their lip service. Because I present relevant facts and actually explain the conditions. I don't make the decisions mind you, I merely explain the costs and benefits of a variety of actions based on historical evidence. You're just good with a hammer so you think everything needs a good pounding. Usually I say whatever, such idiocy is not my concern; but unfortunately I'm not a democrat so when members of my party act like idiots it interferes with the advancement of conservative fiscal policy. You do realize that conservative policies have been losing ground right? Its because of baggers like you who spout irrational theories and those in power can't focus on legitimate policies and regulations.

[Robert A Whit]

Well its not entirely true. The quote is really Hitler's. the reasoning however was also used by bush -- I'd meant to change that to include Bush's actual statement instead of that one. Thanks for reminding me. Failing at beating me with facts so you've turned to character attacks. Color me surprised. Not really; youre a hack. Bu you know the difference between you and me is I have the ear of elected officials and you get their lip service. Because I present relevant facts and actually explain the conditions. I don't make the decisions mind you, I merely explain the costs and benefits of a variety of actions based on historical evidence. You're just good with a hammer so you think everything needs a good pounding. Usually I say whatever, such idiocy is not my concern; but unfortunately I'm not a democrat so when members of my party act like idiots it interferes with the advancement of conservative fiscal policy. You do realize that conservative policies have been losing ground right? Its because of baggers like you who spout irrational theories and those in power can't focus on legitimate policies and regulations.

What, you are angry that I explained what your sig line said? And over that you attack?

Ask me if I am surprised at your child like outburst.

[fj1200]

nvm.

[logroller]

What, you are angry that I explained what your sig line said? And over that you attack?

Ask me if I am surprised at your child like outburst.
i attack? You made it personal, not me..

Explain how the explanation addresses the OP? Other than using it to deride my position by attacking my character: calling me a shill for obama. Calling people "moles", and I can't count how many racist comments you've made here. You have a serious superiority complex and my well-reasoned explanation of the facts escapes you.

Address the question: how could Obama effect rising fuel prices for over two decades before he held public office? Any common sense explanation will do...a miracle perhaps? I'm thinking its you that think Obama is the messiah. I doubt highly he's much control over fuel prices at all and have stipulated as much. So how is that being a shill for Obama. I don't play games; the real constraints on oil production extend well being the White House or any given election cycle.

[logroller]

Politics in a nutshell.

I happen to recall how it was before Government shrilly declared an end to crude and we must now move to other energy forms.

Back in those days, the politicians actually, on all sides, wanted more crude.

Today that is not the case.

This is a way Government distorts the market.
i don't really care what tidbits of information you offer from times past. Oil is becoming more and more expensive to bring to market and this has zero to do with what you say government declares. I still see you fail to answer why price and production have both increased over the last several decades. Common sense tells me this is because your theory doesnt explain it, so its ignored.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[
QUOTE=logroller;626514] Address the question: how could Obama effect rising fuel prices for over two decades before he held public office? Any common sense explanation will do...a miracle perhaps? I'm thinking its you that think Obama is the messiah. I doubt highly he's much control over fuel prices at all and have stipulated as much. So how is that being a shill for Obama. I don't play games; the real constraints on oil production extend well being the White House or any given election cycle.[/QUOTE]

Log, the real constraints on America's oil production have come from foreign interests and their role played in our political system. They have spent billions to make trillions in the last 3 or 4 decades. The Federal government long ago stopped protecting it's citizens's interests as far as gasoline is concerned. Long ago sold out to foreign interests. Obama is by leaps and bounds the worst of the lot in that regards. -Tyr

[fj1200]

i don't really care what tidbits of information you offer from times past. Oil is becoming more and more expensive to bring to market and this has zero to do with what you say government declares. I still see you fail to answer why price and production have both increased over the last several decades. Common sense tells me this is because your theory doesnt explain it, so its ignored.

Psst. Federal Reserve.


Log, the real constraints on America's oil production have come from foreign interests and their role played in our political system. They have spent billions to make trillions in the last 3 or 4 decades. The Federal government long ago stopped protecting it's citizens's interests as far as gasoline is concerned. Long ago sold out to foreign interests. Obama is by leaps and bounds the worst of the lot in that regards. -Tyr

Oh geez. Do you blame the copper cartel as well?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Psst. Federal Reserve.



Oh geez. Do you blame the copper cartel as well?

Do you often confuse energy resource (oil) with raw metal supplies??

Very different subjects with vastly different interests by the world's nations. Oil being so much more important and the M.E. IS A VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THAT!

WHO IS EVER LIKELY TO START WW3 OVER COPPER!!???

^^^ A damn shame that I have to point this extremely important distinction out to you. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Do you often confuse energy resource (oil) with raw metal supplies??

Very different subjects with vastly different interests by the world's nations. Oil being so much more important and the M.E. IS A VERY CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THAT!

WHO IS EVER LIKELY TO START WW3 OVER COPPER!!???

^^^ A damn shame that I have to point this extremely important distinction out to you. -Tyr

I haven't confused anything. I look for similarities in base commodities and when similarities arise I look for the reason why. You? You'll ignore anything that doesn't conform to your world view.

[Robert A Whit]

i don't really care what tidbits of information you offer from times past. Oil is becoming more and more expensive to bring to market and this has zero to do with what you say government declares. I still see you fail to answer why price and production have both increased over the last several decades. Common sense tells me this is because your theory doesnt explain it, so its ignored.

Well, we might as well stop since thus far you spent too much of your time saying "gee, I dunno"

Maybe on the next topic you will do better. Best to you pal.

[logroller]

Log, the real constraints on America's oil production have come from foreign interests and their role played in our political system.

Like how, exactly? did these interests have Reagan in their pocket too? Nixon? Bush(I/II)? Clinton? Obama? And even if they did; what did they do to reduce our production? I seriously want to know; I 'd like to believe that there is some policy that could implemented or undone that would reverse the trend, but I don't see how we can lower energy costs by pumping or drilling more. The facts just don't support that theory.

I think people overlook the rather obvious explanation that oil is simply not as plentiful as it once was. The oil that is now being pumped requires more energy to extract then it did 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years ago-- so if it costs more to extract, it cost more to buy. This isn't a new theory either; M King Hubbert described the phenomena in the 1950's, and to the chagrin of stakeholders here in the US, his predictions regarding "peak oil" proved true. We hit our peak in the 70's. I've posted charts. Despite the largest and most productive oil field in US history coming online in the 1980's, we still didn't exceed our previous peak. How do you explain this?

I've no doubt that foreign interests play a part in oil pricing; its a global market with global demand and global supply. Each nation, even subregions within nations have different demand and supply, and indeed different costs associated with extracting from different fields and different refining costs etc etc. Even going back to the Oil crisis of the 70's, not by mere coincidence did this happen right when we hit our predicted peak, it was a calculated action by OPEC to effectuate their dominance in the political schema ling dominated by western powers. Fighting over resources is nothing new though. Why do yo think we're in the middle east? Freedom? Sure, within the context of free access to petroleum resources.

The decisions that effect the consumption of oil is within the purview of policymakers and regulatory authorities; the cost of getting oil out of a hole really isn't. I know environmental regulations impose some costs, bt so too do failing to meet environment regulations-- the deepwater horizon spill caused significant damage to not just the environment, but also economic mainstays of the region like fishing and tourism. These industries were decimated (still gonna try those brain teasers too, but this debate to dominate my attn for the time being) Is the economic livelihood of those on the gulf coast less important than another's? There's no easy answer. If it was easy, there'd be no debating this.

Now Obama. Obama is world class retch; I dont trust him any farther than I could throw him; but to ascertain that Obama is to blame for economic scarcity ignores a decades long trend and, quite frankly, doesnt really fit the timeline for oil exploration, drilling and production. I think you, like many others have reversed the causation in this matter; its not that political interests that have increased the scarcity of oil, but rather the scarcity of oil has increased the political interest.

[red states rule]

You're ability to discern illicit substance usage rivals only Taft in accuracy. :rolleyes: Log has wasted his time providing data and logic which you absolutely refuse to accept or even counter beyond the simplistic drivel of increasing domestic supply in a global market will be the magic elixir of lower prices; you are completely ignoring practically every other factor of supply/demand that has an effect. Have you taken a look at the copper graph lately?

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=Copper+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||1960|1963|1966|1969|1972|1975|1978|1981|1 984|1987|1990|1993|1996|1999|2002|2005|2008|2011|2 012|1:||1:|633.1|2666.7|4700.3|6733.9|8767.5&cht=lc&chd=t:8,7,7,7,11,15,17,13,14,17,16,12,12,20,23,14, 16,15,16,23,25,20,17,18,16,16,16,20,30,32,30,27,26 ,22,26,33,26,26,19,18,21,18,18,20,33,42,77,81,79,5 9,86,100,92&chdl=($/mt)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0

It practically mirrors the crude graph (http://www.mongabay.com/images/commodities/charts/crude_oil.html) over the past 10 years:

http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?chtt=Crude+oil,+Spot+Average+price+chart&chts=000000,12&chs=700x420&chf=bg,s,ffffff|c,s,ffffff&chxt=x,y&chxl=0:||1960|1963|1966|1969|1972|1975|1978|1981|1 984|1987|1990|1993|1996|1999|2002|2005|2008|2011|2 012|1:||1:|1.2|27.4|53.7|79.9|106.1&cht=lc&chd=t:2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,10,10,11,12,12,2 9,35,33,31,28,27,26,14,17,14,17,22,18,18,16,15,16, 19,18,12,17,27,23,23,27,36,50,61,67,91,58,74,98,10 0&chdl=($/bbl)&chco=000099&chls=3,1,0

Are you going to suggest that BO is having the same war on copper that he's having on crude? Take a look at the other major commodity graphs as well and tell me what you see as similarities.

Beyond that, why don't you tell me how I've gone to the "left side" of things.



Actually it would seem that he doesn't.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204204004576050451696859780.html

It appears to have only been a deep-water ban.

Here's the best info I could find on gulf oil production.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/leafhandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfp3fm1&f=m

Another graph here.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/--tgkLGTrIb8/T0l4HObC1lI/AAAAAAAACxs/plub0vVDh1s/s1600/Domestic+Crude+2.jpg

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a correlation between US oil production and the price of a barrel of oil.

From your own link FU




The administration says it is simply trying to enforce new safety rules adopted in the wake of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 workers and set off the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Environmental groups say the administration is right to take its time because the Gulf disaster exposed the risks of offshore drilling.


But the delay is hurting big oil companies such as Chevron (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=CVX) Corp. CVX +0.70% (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=CVX?mod=inlineTicker)and Royal Dutch Shell (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=RDSB) RDSB +0.96% (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=RDSB?mod=inlineTicker)PLC, which have billions of dollars in investments tied up in Gulf projects that are on hold and are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a day for rigs that aren't allowed to drill. Smaller operators such as ATP Oil & Gas (http://www.debatepolicy.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=ATPG) Corp., which have less flexibility to focus on projects in other regions, have been even harder hit.


The impact of the delays goes beyond the oil industry. The Gulf coast economy has been hit hard by the slowdown in drilling activity, especially because the oil spill also hurt the region's fishing and tourism industries. The Obama administration in September estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 workers could lose their jobs temporarily as a result of the moratorium; some independent estimates have been much higher.


The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.




If you feeble attempt at a post was to try and save LR's credibility - it was an epic fail. You still have not addressed the post showing thanks to Obama, oil production of Federal land is in the basement

Please stop FU and tell LR to put down the mouse and back away from the keyboard. If this was a boxing match the ref would have stopped it a long time ago and sent both you back to the showers and medical attention. I realize it is hard for two libs to admit their icon Obama has been a failure but try. The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

[fj1200]

From your own link FU

Of course it was in my link. I wasn't attempting to show that everything is great and wonderful under BO I was only attempting to show where you were wrong. On that point: success.


If you feeble attempt at a post was to try and save LR's credibility - it was an epic fail. You still have not addressed the post showing thanks to Obama, oil production of Federal land is in the basement

I don't care to address it, it makes no difference to my argument. What I do see is you being shown to be wrong at every point and having to constantly backtrack to save credibility. Your position now has to be that if only we were drilling on FEDERAL land then this whole price crisis would be over while ignoring that domestic production is up at the same time prices are up.


Please stop FU and tell LR to put down the mouse and back away from the keyboard. If this was a boxing match the ref would have stopped it a long time ago and sent both you back to the showers and medical attention. I realize it is hard for two libs to admit their icon Obama has been a failure but try. The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem

As I expected, you ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your worldview. It's pretty common around here apparently. I'm starting to feel bad though, and I expect Log would agree, that we shouldn't be picking on the special kids anymore.

When can we expect your dissertation on how BO's drilling ban and EPA policies are causing the massive hikes in commodities like copper... aluminum... even coffee? I mean, it must all be connected... right?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I haven't confused anything. I look for similarities in base commodities and when similarities arise I look for the reason why. You? You'll ignore anything that doesn't conform to your world view.

Yep, that's my mistake.
I should study all about timber harvesting when I am going deep sea fishing..:laugh:
If the subject is guns why should I not ignore race cars?

[fj1200]

Yep, that's my mistake.
I should study all about timber harvesting when I am going deep sea fishing..:laugh:
If the subject is guns why should I not ignore race cars?

:dunno: I don't even know how to comment that was so stupid.

[logroller]

Yep, that's my mistake.
I should study all about timber harvesting when I am going deep sea fishing..:laugh:
If the subject is guns why should I not ignore race cars?
Ever heard of effluent runoff? land based activities do have an effect on oceans. I mean, why shouldn't you concern yourself with such things? you certainly don't trust government to do it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ever heard of effluent runoff? land based activities do have an effect on oceans. I mean, why shouldn't you concern yourself with such things? you certainly don't trust government to do it.

Why, is my knowing about the runoff going to get me a hit by a big swordfish?
Apparently you'd say a race car driver should study all about the tread wear on farm tractor tires and the high costs of farm equipment maintenance..
Not relevant was my point and it was valid. We were discussing oil and who cares about discussing copper prices in the same debate?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:dunno: I don't even know how to comment that was so stupid.

Then don't.
You know your limits and lack of insight better than I DO....:laugh2:-Tyr

[cadet]

Not only do most people do not want to buy an electric car due to the high price, rotten mileage on a charge, and cramp quarters - now we find out they are not very "green" (except for the price tag)

Back to the begining!!!!

It depends on where you're getting your energy. Yeah, if you're getting it from a coal mine... It's pointless to have an electric car. But if say... You're getting it from solar panels all over your garage to charge the little machine...




10% of the energy content of the fuel is lost in combustion and only 90% of the calorific content is transferred to the steam.
The steam turbine efficiency in converting the energy content of the steam into mechanical energy is limited to about 40%. (Carnot's Efficiency Law (http://www.debatepolicy.com/history.htm#carnot))
The rotary electrical generator is very efficient by comparison.The conversion efficiency of a large machine can be as high as 98% or 99%.
Transmission of the electrical energy over the distribution grid between the power station and the consumer results in a distribution loss of 10% mainly due to the resistance of the electrical cables.
Further energy is lost due to the energy conversion efficiency of the end user's appliance. Incandescent lighting is particularly inefficient converting only 2% of the electrical energy into light.


http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm

^^^This should put things more into perspective for ya'll. Just goes to show how inneficient things are in a car or from transmitting energy from a power plant to your car.
It slowly adds up, but fossil fuels end up being the best since there's no loss in energy from fuel to car.
But power plant, added with loss in wires, added with the loss in what the car gets, ends up being alot. Unless you're going strait from your own generated power (like solar) to your car.

It ALL depends on where your power's coming from. And I personally think electric cars are pretty facinating. But I also find going back to steam (H2O) powered cars to be pretty cool...


http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarssteama.htm

In 1769, the very first self-propelled road vehicle was a military tractor invented by French engineer and mechanic, Nicolas Joseph Cugnot (1725 - 1804). Cugnot used a steam engine (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blenginehistory.htm) to power his vehicle, built under his instructions at the Paris Arsenal by mechanic Brezin. It was used by the French Army to haul artillery at a whopping speed of 2 1/2 mph on only three wheels. The vehicle had to stop every ten to fifteen minutes to build up steam power. The steam engine and boiler were separate from the rest of the vehicle and placed in the front (see engraving above). The following year (1770), Cugnot built a steam-powered tricycle that carried four passengers.
In 1771, Cugnot drove one of his road vehicles into a stone wall, making Cugnot the first person to get into a motor vehicle accident. This was the beginning of bad luck for the inventor. After one of Cugnot's patrons died and the other was exiled, the money for Cugnot's road vehicle experiments ended.
Steam engines powered cars by burning fuel that heated water in a boiler, creating steam that expanded and pushed pistons that turned the crankshaft, which then turned the wheels. During the early history of self-propelled vehicles - both road and railroad (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrailroad.htm) vehicles were being developed with steam engines. (Cugnot also designed two steam locomotives with engines that never worked well.) Steam engines added so much weight to a vehicle that they proved a poor design for road vehicles; however, steam engines were very successfully used in locomotives. Historians, who accept that early steam-powered road vehicles were automobiles, feel that Nicolas Cugnot was the inventor of the first automobile.


Besides the fact that steam cars are AWESOME, cars don't go very fast in cities, so it could be applicable to put them in the largest CO2 creators. (new york, vegas, etc)
Think about it, buses go freaking slow, and if we convert them all to steam... And that's not even adding to the fact that we can make these cars better due to better technology.. The speed might not even be much of an issue! (Nobody legally drives over 80 anyway)

[fj1200]

Why, is my knowing about the runoff going to get me a hit by a big swordfish?
Apparently you'd say a race car driver should study all about the tread wear on farm tractor tires and the high costs of farm equipment maintenance..
Not relevant was my point and it was valid. We were discussing oil and who cares about discussing copper prices in the same debate?

Your point was wrong. The discussion is the price of oil and if you don't think commodity prices are not effected by the same factors then you are sadly mistaken.


Then don't.
You know your limits and lack of insight better than I DO....:laugh2:-Tyr

You're right, the limits of what I can offer are clearly limited by your intelligence in being able to absorb new information.

[Robert A Whit]

Back to the begining!!!!

It depends on where you're getting your energy. Yeah, if you're getting it from a coal mine... It's pointless to have an electric car. But if say... You're getting it from solar panels all over your garage to charge the little machine...



^^^This should put things more into perspective for ya'll. Just goes to show how inneficient things are in a car or from transmitting energy from a power plant to your car.
It slowly adds up, but fossil fuels end up being the best since there's no loss in energy from fuel to car.
But power plant, added with loss in wires, added with the loss in what the car gets, ends up being alot. Unless you're going strait from your own generated power (like solar) to your car.

It ALL depends on where your power's coming from. And I personally think electric cars are pretty facinating. But I also find going back to steam (H2O) powered cars to be pretty cool...



Besides the fact that steam cars are AWESOME, cars don't go very fast in cities, so it could be applicable to put them in the largest CO2 creators. (new york, vegas, etc)
Think about it, buses go freaking slow, and if we convert them all to steam... And that's not even adding to the fact that we can make these cars better due to better technology.. The speed might not even be much of an issue! (Nobody legally drives over 80 anyway)

I have at least 7 years experience with using steam engines. We used them to power pile drivers.

These pile drivers at a minimum weighed 21 tons and some of them weighed up to 150 tons. So, all this tells us is that the way we ran them was to have a 55 gal drum of diesel on each pile driver and a huge boiler. It took the fireman at least half an hour to get the steam up. When we got steam up, we never got low on steam due to the huge boiler. We had a large water tank on the pile drivers that must have been several hundred gallons and we had water hoses hooked to them so that water never got low. They were super fast. If you hooked a line to say a concrete truck, you had to be careful to now yank the truck real fast. It was amazing what loads the steam could lift.

Here in town a guy has a collection of Stanley steamers but he does not use them much.

I tend to doubt people want to wait that long just to get steam up and I can't comment much on fuel economy. I know we put up full 55 gallon barrels of diesel during the day but can't recall how many it took for 8 hrs use. With a steam engine, one can spin the wheels pretty fast and I hear steam cars can hit some high speeds.

[logroller]

Back to the begining!!!!

It depends on where you're getting your energy. Yeah, if you're getting it from a coal mine... It's pointless to have an electric car. But if say... You're getting it from solar panels all over your garage to charge the little machine...



^^^This should put things more into perspective for ya'll. Just goes to show how inneficient things are in a car or from transmitting energy from a power plant to your car.
It slowly adds up, but fossil fuels end up being the best since there's no loss in energy from fuel to car.

thats not entirely true. I mean, theres little loss going from plug to battery...you need to start at the well and end at the wheel for an apples to apples comparison. The efficiency of well to pump is a little better than ~80%; which may seem gloriously better than the ~50% efficency of electrity delivery (nat gas turbine to plug). But when rubber meets the road, after you factor in the efficiency of the vehicle itself, electric cars are drastically more efficient. Operating with an efficiency rate of nearly 90% to the internal combustion's 35%(at best), the energy efficiency clearly favors the electric car. It ends up an electric vehicle gets twice the mileage/joule than even a hybrid getting 51mpg (true well to wheel).

[red states rule]

Back to the begining!!!!

It depends on where you're getting your energy. Yeah, if you're getting it from a coal mine... It's pointless to have an electric car. But if say... You're getting it from solar panels all over your garage to charge the little machine...



^^^This should put things more into perspective for ya'll. Just goes to show how inneficient things are in a car or from transmitting energy from a power plant to your car.
It slowly adds up, but fossil fuels end up being the best since there's no loss in energy from fuel to car.
But power plant, added with loss in wires, added with the loss in what the car gets, ends up being alot. Unless you're going strait from your own generated power (like solar) to your car.

It ALL depends on where your power's coming from. And I personally think electric cars are pretty facinating. But I also find going back to steam (H2O) powered cars to be pretty cool...



Besides the fact that steam cars are AWESOME, cars don't go very fast in cities, so it could be applicable to put them in the largest CO2 creators. (new york, vegas, etc)
Think about it, buses go freaking slow, and if we convert them all to steam... And that's not even adding to the fact that we can make these cars better due to better technology.. The speed might not even be much of an issue! (Nobody legally drives over 80 anyway)

Cadet, the entire point of this thread was to show government should not be the one financing these new ventures into finding alternate sources of energy. Obama has wasted hundreds of billions dollars by funneling them into losing companies and paybacks to political backers

If there was a viable chance at perfecting the electric car the private sector and private investors would leap at the chance to bring it to market

Instead we have had the Feds pay people to but electric cars and still people do not want them for various reasons

The Feds need to get out of the way and let the electric car work itself through the private sector. Something that Obama and his worshipers hate with a passion

[fj1200]

thats not entirely true. I mean, theres little loss going from plug to battery...you need to start at the well and end at the wheel for an apples to apples comparison. The efficiency of well to pump is a little better than ~80%; which may seem gloriously better than the ~50% efficency of electrity delivery (nat gas turbine to plug). But when rubber meets the road, after you factor in the efficiency of the vehicle itself, electric cars are drastically more efficient. Operating with an efficiency rate of nearly 90% to the internal combustion's 35%(at best), the energy efficiency clearly favors the electric car. It ends up an electric vehicle gets twice the mileage/joule than even a hybrid getting 51mpg (true well to wheel).

The real problem IMO is how much energy it takes to move the cargo. In that respect the efficiency is probably about 1% when you factor in a 200 lb. person riding in a 4000 lb car.

[MtnBiker]

Electric cars, hmmmmm. I wonder what people's perception would be if the electric car was marketed as a coal burning car?

The car's battery is charged from electricity, chances are it was a coal burning electric plant that produced that electricity.

[Robert A Whit]

Cadet, the entire point of this thread was to show government should not be the one financing these new ventures into finding alternate sources of energy. Obama has wasted hundreds of billions dollars by funneling them into losing companies and paybacks to political backers

If there was a viable chance at perfecting the electric car the private sector and private investors would leap at the chance to bring it to market

Instead we have had the Feds pay people to but electric cars and still people do not want them for various reasons

The Feds need to get out of the way and let the electric car work itself through the private sector. Something that Obama and his worshipers hate with a passion


The entire idea put forth by democrats can be summed up neatly.

We will decide what we like or don't like.

If we like you, you get money from the public even when they hate it.

If we don't like you, you won't get a dime, even if the public loves you.

Let me give you one example. The public clearly loves guns.

But Democrats won't lift a finger for gun research to be used by the public. (Such as a gun that can be made childproof, or some safety feature I can't think of)

[red states rule]

The entire idea put forth by democrats can be summed up neatly.

We will decide what we like or don't like.

If we like you, you get money from the public even when they hate it.

If we don't like you, you won't get a dime, even if the public loves you.

Let me give you one example. The public clearly loves guns.

But Democrats won't lift a finger for gun research to be used by the public. (Such as a gun that can be made childproof, or some safety feature I can't think of)
It has been going on for decades. In high school I remember my liberal social studies teacher holding up (I believe it was TIME) regarding the coming Ice Age. Then we were told how America is "running out of oil". Then libs went after SUV's and those who decided to drive them. All their scare and doom and gloom BS is just that - BS

It is all about forcing their agenda on us. Of cousre most of these same libs refuse to lower their standard of living as they demand the rest of us do

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626876#post626876)

The entire idea put forth by democrats can be summed up neatly.

We will decide what we like or don't like.

If we like you, you get money from the public even when they hate it.

If we don't like you, you won't get a dime, even if the public loves you.

Let me give you one example. The public clearly loves guns.

But Democrats won't lift a finger for gun research to be used by the public. (Such as a gun that can be made childproof, or some safety feature I can't think of)




It has been going on for decades. In high school I remember my liberal social studies teacher holding up (I believe it was TIME) regarding the coming Ice Age. Then we were told how America is "running out of oil". Then libs went after SUV's and those who decided to drive them. All their scare and doom and gloom BS is just that - BS

It is all about forcing their agenda on us. Of course most of these same libs refuse to lower their standard of living as they demand the rest of us do

Very good points, all.

[logroller]

The real problem IMO is how much energy it takes to move the cargo. In that respect the efficiency is probably about 1% when you factor in a 200 lb. person riding in a 4000 lb car.
In regards to freight movement, you're right-- ton-miles per gallon is the metric. Haven't seen the numbers for passenger travel, but rail freight is just shy of 500 ton-miles/ gallon, truck is just under 150.
the methodology ignores curb weight; its just the weight of goods moved. This makes better sense than gross weight though-- as its really the functional work done per unit energy that matters-- a train with nothing in it is certainly not very efficient from an economic perspective; a bit like rsr's intended reference to a solar-powered flashlight. A quick calculation for a passenger car: est. 1000 lbs (.5 tons) at 30 mpg (~ cafe fleet avg) yields 15 ton-miles per gallon. 50 mpg hybrid: 25 mi-ton/gal. 100 MPGe Electric car: 50 ton-mi/ gal* (*equivalent). So the efficiency ratio, miles/joule, I stipulated previously is quite similar to ton-mi/gal. Which makes sense really, as any economic calculation really boils down to energy; and the reason fuel prices have increased is because it requires more energy to extract, refine and deliver that fuel than it once did.

[fj1200]

... and the reason fuel prices have increased is because it requires more energy to extract, refine and deliver that fuel than it once did.

But mostly it's Federal Reserve failure. :poke:

[logroller]

But mostly it's Federal Reserve failure. :poke:
Its all Obama's fault ya pothead conservative Libtard dem hippy pinko commie! :coffee:

[fj1200]

Its all Obama's fault ya pothead conservative Libtard dem hippy pinko commie! :coffee:

Now that's just hurtful... I am not a pothead. :slap:

[logroller]

Now that's just hurtful... I am not a pothead. :slap:
Conservative Libtard should be a political party. We could sell t-shirts! :laugh:

[fj1200]

^It would be EPIC!!! Dial 1-888-VOTE-420... ya know, when you get around to it.

[logroller]

^It would be EPIC!!! Dial 1-888-VOTE-420 (tel:1-888-VOTE-420)... ya know, when you get around to it.
Busy; as if off the hook. Damned stoners probably forgot to hang up the receiver.

[red states rule]

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0904/if-you-smell-politics-democrats-obama-president-funny-true-m-demotivational-poster-1241151697.jpg