RE: Solve the energy crisis

RE: Solve the energy crisis (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 1:28:11 PM)
Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind the driving age of 18? Is it just to reduce the number of drivers on the roads? I really like most of your plan, but think the older driving age would be highly impractical in many parts of the country. Getting to school would be a serious issue, as many schools these days use a course assignment system and elongated school day for Juniors and Seniors, as a way to drastically stretch the resources of the school. Also, people in rural areas and suburbs, don't have bus service. I know we don't have it where I live, outside Houston. I don't know how far the nearest bus stop is, but I would guess it's ten or fifteen miles. Given the modern world where both parents work fourteen+ hours a day, and where there are so many single parents, the teenager that can drive is sort of an integral part of the family unit. When I got my license at sixteen, I took over quite a few household chores that require a car, like grocery shopping, etc ...

Mercnbeth -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 2:02:03 PM)
caitlyn, I respect your consideration of the "plan". Of course many of the details only exist in my head. However, perhaps we can borrow from the past regarding our shopping habits of goods and services. There used to be a fruit man, grocery man, door to door salesman of every type. Why not once again let them come to us in an updated version? Using the internet as a tool why not shop for groceries on-line and have them delivered. Why physically commute when a PC and a web-cam serves the same purpose. I'd rather spend tax money supplying every household with a computer to function in this manner than not use it as a tool to solve a problem. BTW - beth and I already take advantage and grocery shop this way. It's actually cheaper because "impulse buying" is non-existent. To your specific question regarding the 18 year old driving age - Yes, it would greatly curtail drivers and use of vehicles. Coming from a state where you didn't drive until 17 it wasn't so much a stretch. It must be done in conjunction with an aggressive ramping up of public transit. In Europe you don't need a car because intra and inner city transportation is cheap and reliable. Compare that to LA, where if I wanted to commute from LA to SF. The journey requires transferring from a bus to a train and you end up in Oakland. It also takes more time than driving. Coming from the east coast corridor I find it incredible that there is no direct train service between LA and Las Vegas! Conspiracy theorist would have a heyday looking into the deals cut between the 1950's city planners of LA and the oil/car companies. Care to guess the political party in charge at the time?) (Note to self - The party is IMMATERIAL! - see how hard it is not to blame?) There are short term sacrifices required from all levels of society and age levels. I'm convinced that the people of the US are prepared to make them if they see a plan in action. Regardless of any decision it won't have unanimous acceptance. The spotted owl crowd will need to sacrifice, the top end tax payers will sacrifice, the companies will sacrifice. We need to be charged and motivated as a people to give up some of ourselves to get us back on a foundation where we can once again have the personal and national resources to address our "special interests". What we lack is a personality with the guts to say so, to point out the failings and the fraud, to benchmark in clear language the interim goals, and to identify a big picture goal. When President Kennedy committed to a man on the moon within 10 years, the hand held calculator hadn't been invented. With sufficient motivation and focus, there is no reason the same overwhelming goal, self sufficient energy in 10 years, can't be similarly obtained. Finger pointers, name callers, and blame appliers, be damned.

subtoFemDommes -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 2:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMacComb ORIGINAL: subtoFemDommes What's particularly shocking to me is that there are probably a lot of successful business owners on this thread who think it's government manipulation and corporate collusion that are causing these high prices. It flies in the face of the laws of supply and demand, as although there is a record supply of petroleum, there is also a record demand for it. quote: Umm yea, check. In a time when Katrina happened, Iraq, now rumors of an Iranian war the oil companies are price gouging plain and simple. Great declarative statement. Not that it's backed by anything, but let's say it's true... On second thought, let's not, because that resorts to arguing with what? You say it's true, so it is? (But there is a futures market and yes, they do speculate, however it's hardly going to drive up costs as high as they are for as long as they've been driven, although Bill O'Reilly, a guy I'm guessing you wouldn't agree with on much, thinks so...) quote: I love how people keep parroting big oils comments (also known as BushCo) about supply and demand. And of course all the economists and respected financial advisor's who say the same thing. The people who are shouting "conspiracy" are talk show hosts and opposing politicians. And they are what? More expert and without agendas of their own? quote: This past winter it was heating oil and natural gas, now petrol for autos and last night I saw a news article that we can expect a 67% increase in electric rates this summer (except for some east coast areas that will be 100%) And that proves what? In areas where fuel is used to generate, prices will go up - duh. Here in Seattle, where City Light is primarily hydro (evil dams, kill salmon, rip them down... oh, and pay 4 times as much for electricity to keep the evil people warm in winter...) we pay very little. But there's a price for that very little, environmentalists want to rip down dams all over the country to accommodate fish and restore rivers to whatever they were. Nothing is that simple and nothing doesn't have other effects. quote: Meanwhile back in reality land the price of lighters is the same as they were (butane, propane or whatever they are) I'll ignore the "reality land" comment; I'm sure you'll do the same with my "duh" above... (sheese, and this was all seeming so productive and adult...) The profit margin on those items is now much higher than it once was, after all, they're all made in CHINA by cheap labor, the same labor that works in all those fuel demanding industries and is starting to buy cars and drive up the price of oil. My guess is the 2/10th of an oz of whatever is in them is hardly the bulk of the cost and beside, ever notice all those very expensive butane lighters the convenience stores are now selling? If we're going to speculate, maybe the crack users who buy them are supporting the price of the cheap ones... quote: Iraqis are still paying about 35 cents per gallon, OK then (when they can get it). Uh, isn't that where it comes out of the ground? If they're going to get an economy going and get us the hell out of there, whatever helps. (NO -- let's all agree to start another thread on anything about that issue, please! ) quote: Bush has been pumping gas into the reserves and big oil is under investigation for not paying their taxes and price gouging. *I know, I know, it's just more proof of the endless conspiracy, but not one* investigation of oil price gouging from the 70's on has come up with anything in the past and it's unlikely to now.** quote: How do you make 44 BILLION in profit during a war, in the aftermath of the most devasting natural disastor the US has ever seen and then have the audacity to state that profits are not that high but its just supply and demand. Very simple, let me do the math: Companies want a percentage of return on investment. 10 percent of more is more than 10 percent of less. If the cost goes up, the profits go up, or should they lower the return on investment to give you a break? Remember, even if they removed that 10 percent (which again, no investigation by any administration has shown to be the result of gouging) your 3 dollar gas would drop to 2.70. But then of course, they'd fold and you'd have no gas. quote: There is no shortage of supply and demand is growing at the same rate that suppliers can provide for. They'll charge (as OPEC is) whatever they can get. That IS the law of supply and demand. If they were engaged in this huge conspiracy, why does the price EVER go down? To keep us off balance? (Don't answer that) quote: There are wells all over the US and other areas that are capped that could be put back into "action" but then that would increase supply and then big oil would have no argument about the supply/demand reason for its gouging. When it's worth putting those wells back "into action" they do. I sold supplies for years into the Bakersfield oil industry, where there is still very difficult to extract oil. (they have to inject steam, which is derived from burning off gas and also used to power generators that, at least back in the time I was there, sold their co-gen power back into the grid at prices only made profitable by government tax breaks to encourage co-gen). If one of those fields has to go down for maintenance, it takes 24 hours or more to heat it up to the point the crude will flow again... Getting together all of the elements and backup supplies necessary to "heat up" a cold field and put it back online was a time to rejoice, as the suppliers made a fortune off of that very costly process. They only will crank up when they are sure that prices will stay high enough to make the entire, enormous effort worth while. It's the reason they're starting up shale again too.But these fields have been pretty much tapped. Want US oil? Can you say "Coastal"? Can you say "ANWR"? If it were that easy to tap those old wells, do you think the industry would want to expend the huge costs of coastal and ANWR drilling?

caitlyn -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 3:36:24 PM)
I'm not sure changing the driving age to 18 would eliminate as much vehicular traffic as you might think. It may just change the person behind the wheel, or worse still, double the trips that are made dropping teens off and picking them up later. What I think we need to do, is figure out a way to make these people driving serious gas hogs, pay out the butt for gasoline ... and put all that extra money towards R&D for alternate energy sources. Even a massive sales tax when you buy the beast would either make people not buy them or raise lots of R&D money. To me, that would directly address the issue in areas like mine, where public transportation is never going to be a viable solution, due to distances to be travelled and the heat in the summer.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 3:38:58 PM)
I'm not blaming anyone, but I did see today where Exxon reported their 3rd highest quarterly profits ever...hmmm. As for the 18 year old driving age, I haven't had to run High Schoolers around for a number of years, but I think raising the age would just mean the same if not more miles, just different drivers (parents). Mass transit doesn't exist and isn't an option in the majority of the country, like where the corn grows, so although I understand that theory, I'd have to say that's a no in my book. Well that and the youngins have tough time with learning responsibility the way it is, I would rather they start driving while there is a slim chance someone is there to teach discipline (I know...fat chance...lol). Edited to say, sorry caitlyn, I didn't know you were typing nearly the same thing at the same time I guess..lol

DelightMachine -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 4:04:39 PM)
I would immediately DOUBLE or TRIPLE the tax on gasoline, and possibly quadruple it. Then I would offer a series of benefits for people, especially the poor, that would compensate them for the high tax. Those who conserve more gasoline would probably get more back in benefits than those who don't, so we'd have more people saving gas. If you raise the price, you lower the demand -- literally Economics 101. I'm not sure how much money would be raised, but here's how I'd spend it. By the way, most of the money would go directly to the states, a bit to the federal government. -- eliminate sales taxes on new automobiles, except for SUVs and other gas guzzlers. -- eliminate motor vehicle taxes. Maybe keep them on gas guzzlers. -- eliminate all motor vehicle registration fees. -- eliminate or reduce some tolls, saving money on the collection of tolls. -- give tax rebates to lower income people who trade in older cars for newer cars that get better gas mileage. -- mandate that taxis, public transit buses and most government vehicles are hybirds or otherwise super energy efficient. Local governments can get money from the gas tax to buy the vehicles. The greater volume of vehicle sales would help automakers gear up for more efficient manufacturing, helping to bring down the price. --- Just keeping the air pressure in your tires at the recommended level (it's in the car manual) saves a good amount of gas. Maybe there are ways to use some of the gas tax revenues to make it easier to check tires -- installing air pumping machines right at the pump, for instance, or setting up special stations for it, or mandate that all car washes have them, or that oil-change places check and pressurize tire air (mine does, but some don't). --- None of this will use up all the gas tax money, so let's lower sales taxes with the rest. That way the money goes right back to people but they're given a big incentive to save gas in their own way. Some people will accelerate their cars slower and brake them slower. I personally will never do that, but I drive a car that saves a lot on gas. Other ideas: --- France at one point was getting 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants. I'm not sure if the percentage is lower or higher now, but I think we can do something close to that. I don't want nuclear plants too close to cities, and I wonder about locating them in earthquake-prone areas, so that might restrict some use of nuclear power, but we could do a lot more. If nuclear plants were built using only a few designs, safety might be easier to guarantee. --- buildings could be built to be more energy efficient. I'm not sure of the economics of it, but most of the cost could be recovered with lower energy bills. I think if the money is returned in 20 or even 30 years, it's worth it. --- I agree with opening up the continental shelf and Alaska to energy exploration and oil pumping. Maybe use some gas tax revenues for extra environmental protection measures.

DelightMachine -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 4:25:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level It is sad, I agree, MsMacC. I also saw on 60 Minutes how in Wyoming (I think) they're expanding operations of getting oil from surface pits, extracting it from sand. Supposedly huge amounts of oil to be had. Apparently there's a lot of oil mixed with sand. I hear there's a lot of that in Canada, and I think I heard that as oil prices rise, it becomes economical to get it out. Two other points: --- if you want to get the cheapest rates at your local gas stations, MSN has this web page where you can type in your zip code and get the prices of the stations in your area, ranked lowest to highest price: http://autos.msn.com/everyday/gasstations.aspx MSN claims 90,000 gas stations post their prices on the site. I'd mandate it by law and have the federal govenment set up this kind of Web page or offer some kind of tax break to others who offer it. -- The last time I drove across southern Wyoming (come to think of it, it was the first time, too) I saw a massive windmill farm from the highway. That land was so empty you could have increased the size of the farm a thousand times. I guess it isn't easy or terribly efficient to send electricity many hundreds of miles from the generating source, but I'd think there's plenty of desert land (or otherwise empty land) and a bit of wind near Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Denver, Omaha, etc. etc. etc.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 6:50:52 PM)
Uhhh...wrong. Do you actually own any stock? Try buying some oil stocks and go to a stockholders' meeting. See whether you can get the board to change any of its policies. That'll be fun to watch. Ever heard of Enron? Oil companies may be legally owned by stockholders, but that doesn't mean ordinary stockholders have any influence over the company's decisions. For one thing, ordinary stockholders usually have no means even to verify that the company's numbers are accurate. quote: ORIGINAL: subtoFemDommes And by the way, in a capitalist society, "the oil companies" are the stock holders.

subtoFemDommes -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 7:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uhhh...wrong. Do you actually own any stock? Try buying some oil stocks and go to a stockholders' meeting. See whether you can get the board to change any of its policies. That'll be fun to watch. Ever heard of Enron? Oil companies may be legally owned by stockholders, but that doesn't mean ordinary stockholders have any influence over the company's decisions. For one thing, ordinary stockholders usually have no means even to verify that the company's numbers are accurate. quote: ORIGINAL: subtoFemDommes And by the way, in a capitalist society, "the oil companies" are the stock holders. No, I do not and I have no illusions about whether a small stockholder can influence the board of a large corporation. However, the quadrupling of the value of Exxon stock has, I'd risk saying, been beneficial to those stock holders. How many of those 297,000 thought Exxon was doing that by unethical practices, but were more than happy to have profited from it, no one can say. I heard a guy call a talk show today who said that he saw this coming, bought a Prius hybrid and also invested in Exxon. He said he had doubled his money while getting 45 mpg... I also heard that I may have been wrong about no Federal investigation having fined an oil company after the 70's shortages. So I went to the web and searched but couldn't find anything but people implying that had happened, no hard facts. I'd be grateful if someone can come up with that. I'll go with facts when presented with them. I also found a number of studies saying that the current prices are due to supply manipulations, for those who'd care to see them: http://http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/rp/5083.pdf http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=2091&pageTitle=New+Study+Finds+Cause+of+Midwest+Gasoline+Price+Spikes%3B+Midwest+Oil+Refiners%27+Manipulation+Of+Inventories+%26+Exports+To+Blame http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/rp/3374.pdf http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/co/?postId=4441&pageTitle=EXTRACTING+TOP+DOLLAR%3B The first one is particuarly compelling. Now... quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I'm convinced that the people of the US are prepared to make them if they see a plan in action I hope you're right, and that they are ready to act without the leadership of the Federal government, because as I said in the first post, they're whored out. I'll believe prices are just gouging when I see good facts, but that's not the whoring I was referring to, it's the more endemic relationship between politicians and all big money. This isn't the space project, which put money INTO the hands of big corporations. This is a case where acting expediently and encouraging innovation on the conservation and production side to come up with power alternatives could take money out of their hands. And it's not just corporations, it's the entire bureaucracy that oversees much of the centralized, big business distribution systems from petroleum to electrical. What happens if savings are too radical and demand actually drops? What happens if localized production becomes too easy and no one needs big oil through pipelines or electricity off the grid? That isn't something guys who take millions to run for office and get cushy jobs as consultants or lobbyists when they leave are going to support in a meaningful way, if history is any indicator. (At least not until they can get if from the producers of those products, lol). Change is going to have to start and continue with individual decisions to do the many things one can now and invest in whatever comes along that seems to pass muster to save energy (or produce it). If you're sitting in a house that still doesn't have every light bulb that can be, replaced by fluorescent screw-ins (dispose of properly, they contain mercury vapor -- see? another problem...) then you have an opportunity to begin making changes. The 'Net is filled with ideas and products, one only has to research them. Your examples are excellent. And there are many more, the process of reading about them makes them more apparent in each person's individual situation. Thanks for the thread.

cloudboy -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 10:15:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Energy consumption is the real problem and not energy shortage. A friend of mine is an Oil and Gas officer for the Department of State. He attended a conference in HOUSTON, and one of the spokesman there who was employed by the oil industry said, "In the US, engergy problems are always addressed from the supply side, not the demand side." This one reason the problem is not being redressed. Increased demand from China and India only compound this situation.

cloudboy -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 10:31:19 PM)
quote: People may bitch, but they aren't altering much behavior We live in the City. My wife takes public transportation to work and our household has one car and one 125cc Scooter. Urban revitalization would go a long way to increasing energy efficiency in the US, but the suburban expansion has been a nightmare on this front: sprawl, sprawl, sprawl with no public transportation and longer and longer commutes for workers. If cities came back, businesses could be centered where the population is, public transport could carry folks to and from work, and commutes might be less onerous. The problem in my locale is the schools, which suck, so all folks who want to avail themselves of good public education abandon the city for the suburbs. Clearly the whole: energy---gov't policy---oil company---pollution concerns---global warming---conservation---urban devleopment---alternative fuels--- population explosion question is a BIGGIE. Solving this question through increases of fossil fuel supplies is an untenable.

MsMacComb -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/27/2006 10:57:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subtoFemDommes They only will crank up when they are sure that prices will stay high enough to make the entire, enormous effort worth while. It's the reason they're starting up shale again too.But these fields have been pretty much tapped. Want US oil? Can you say "Coastal"? Can you say "ANWR"? If it were that easy to tap those old wells, do you think the industry would want to expend the huge costs of coastal and ANWR drilling? Dude, you need to get a grip on your line for line debate-requote-make no sense babble. Your all over the place. Talking about O'Reily, conspiracies, ANWR and god only knows what else. Bottom line is this. American oil companies are selling to the US refineries (which they partially own) crude that costs them roughly $20 per barrel for $70+. So there is already $50+ PROFIT on top of which they then average another 7 to 10 percent at distribution. All the bullshit about what happens in China, OPEC speculation is tied to the simple fact that they own and/or control these variables. Look, its like diamonds ok? De Beers controls a majority of the diamond trade. Diamonds are not actually all that rare. But as they are readily found in few places at the present, and only a few companies own "rights" to them, they pump up the price by controlling the supply. They could flood the diamond market and a little rock today that costs $1500 could be five bucks tomorrow. Its supply and demand yes. But they CONTROL the supply and hype and advertize to promote the demand. You don't think big oil has a HUGE stake in the Big 3 automakers? Of course they do. Also they have their "boys" speculating to drive up prices, their other "boys" in the White House pushing for more drilling, pissing off their competition from other nations, doing everything they possibly can to avoid promotion of conservation, Hybrids, bio-diesels, Ethanol or other alternatives and everything to drive up prices. Its NOT that complicated. You can over analyze anything to death. Its very simple really. BushCo and his oil buddies and their shareholders a fucking the American drivers. There is NO shortage of oil and they can easily meet the increasing demand. This is fact, not some lunatic conspiracy theory. No one really debates it nor denies it including the oil execs. As to the rest of your diatribe/paranoid rant, you will need to talk to a professional or get medication to assist.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 3:25:34 AM)
quote: So the answer for some people is, let government, which they think is corrupt and ineffective, nationalize the oil companies. Of course they'll operate them better than they do everything else. No... The answer is for the government to enforce its anti-trust laws, so we don't give way for monopolies to form, collude and perpetuate fraud on the public. This time there is no checks and balances. - R

UtopianRanger -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 3:44:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Blame instead of plan. More politicians here than I realized - pick your party. It's no wonder our elected officials get away with it, they are a reflection of their constituency. HAR! Are you referring to my Laguna Beach comment? I certainly stand by it - In fact, not that I want to see anything happen to either of you, but I'd love to see it put to the test. - R

UtopianRanger -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 5:00:16 AM)
quote: Ethanol or other alternatives and everything to drive up prices. Its NOT that complicated. You can over analyze anything to death. Its very simple really. BushCo and his oil buddies and their shareholders a fucking the American drivers. There is NO shortage of oil and they can easily meet the increasing demand. This is fact, not some lunatic conspiracy theory. Beautiful post. You even got down on the boutique additives. And the Diamond analogy was great. But you better put your foil hat back on, because we just can't allow anything to get in the way of the ''free market''. Isn't funny how the Enron debacle has already been forgotten and what happens when the speculative market is allowed to be erroneously ''bid up'' and remain unchecked. - R

DelightMachine -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 3:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Urban revitalization would go a long way to increasing energy efficiency in the US, but the suburban expansion has been a nightmare on this front: sprawl, sprawl, sprawl with no public transportation and longer and longer commutes for workers. If cities came back, businesses could be centered where the population is, public transport could carry folks to and from work, and commutes might be less onerous. The problem in my locale is the schools, which suck, so all folks who want to avail themselves of good public education abandon the city for the suburbs. Actually, this is exactly what is happening in Westchester County (the county just north of New York City) and Fairfield County (just over the border in Connecticut). The areas near the Metro-North train stations, especially in the small cities, are seeing enormous development and downtowns are continuing to revive significantly. For the first time, high-rise apartment buildings from expensive to the least expensive, are being built within walking distance of the train stations. Stamford, Conn. and White Plains, N.Y., are farthest along on that path, but the other cities are doing roughly the same thing. The incentive has been traffic congestion along Interestate 95 in Connecticut. Office parks located away from trains are finding it difficult to get tenants. In Westchester County, there's talk of building a light-rail system along Route 284, which would allow many more people to take the train to their office park or into Connecticut. So it's happening. It's just coming a little later than it should.

subtlesubie -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 9:35:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Immediately half the federal, state, and local tax on gasoline. Establish a national driving age of 18. Open the entire continental shelf to exploration and drilling as well as the Alaskan field. Reestablish the use of nuclear power. As an incentive and to address the NIMBY attitude, anyone living and any business within 10 miles of the plant gets free energy and pay zero real estate tax. This solves nothing.

WeeIttyBitty -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/28/2006 9:56:21 PM)
1) nuclear energy. its the only long term solution that is currently viable. I dont get these environmentalists hating CO2 but also hating nuclear energy - the only form of energy that adds no CO2 to the atmosphere. (and who cares about co2! Its PLANT FOOD!!) 2) tire recycling - would save America 1 super tanker of oil per year... (Tires are recycled into home heating oil - or "bunker fuel" for ships) 3) Coal sublimation. America has more energy in coal, than all the middle east has in oil. Coal sublimation (or liquefaction) was perfected by the Nazis in WW2 and kept the Nazi war machine running for several years - without any natural oil at all. 4) Biodiesel - Brazil has committed itself to being energy self reliant in the near future. One of the major corner stones to its energy plan is Biodiesel created from sugar cane. From everything Ive heard, Brazil will meet its targets. 5) Alternative Oil reserves. The Alberta Tar Sands projects have more proven oil reserves than the entire middle east combined. Enough to meet north america's demand for oil, for the next 400 years. 6) Natural gas from the high arctic has to be brought to market. As energy demand continues to grow, these gas reserves must be brought to the market. Projects like the Mackenzie-Delta pipeline must become national priority projects.

Amaros -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/29/2006 6:20:43 AM)
Tar sand and shale are there, the point however, is that it's much more expensive and difficult to extract oil from them - in other words, the end of cheap oil is drawing nigh. When a "what me worry" neocon like the hand puppet says it, you know it's true, all the argueing in the world isn't going to change it.

sharainks -> RE: Solve the energy crisis (4/29/2006 6:40:17 AM)
All the arguments on here are fine. Unless you are sending your opinions to the people you vote for they aren't worth much. Not that your legislators will actually read 99% of them but at least their staff will mark them down as "letters about fuel prices" so that Senator Joe Blow will know that a lot of people are concerned. I'm not for ethanol. I live in Kansas where this is getting to be a major push. The farmers like it. They see huge profits coming. What I see is that they have virtually drained the lakes and reservoirs in the area irrigating the crops used to get this profit. I guess they will drain the aquifers next and then wonder why there isn't any water to drink. I expressed my concerns to my legislators, along with suggestions for alternatives. Here in Kansas the wind seldom drops below 5 mph. Thats all it takes to run a wind generator. Most days its in the 15+ mph range. Yet a wind power initiative was dropped here because wind power "is an unproven source". Uh...yeah so was gasoline in its day. Most things are unproven until you take the time to prove them. The real problem in my mind is that no one can figure out how to make huge profits from the wind. You sell the turbines, hire someone to make repairs when needed, and then how to make money??? Oh yeah you can sell the electicity generated for years ahead for the cost of an initial investment. Our government needs to quit worrying about how many mpg a car gets and start looking at alternative power. Wind maybe? How about constant battery charging from the wind blowing past the car as you drive? Yeah an electric car powered by driving it? I think theres a way to make that work but I'm no scientist.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875