Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 70
  1. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoxy
    5 Letters ANWAR
    I don't know for sure...but wasnt something wrote about this that it will be 10 years or so before we see any oil from exploration there?

    Plus (as a general question to everyone), shouldnt we be trying to find real alternatives to the fossil fuels, instead of trying to find more oil? (short term v. long term )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I don't know for sure...but wasnt something wrote about this that it will be 10 years or so before we see any oil from exploration there?

    Plus (as a general question to everyone), shouldnt we be trying to find real alternatives to the fossil fuels, instead of trying to find more oil? (short term v. long term )
    I think we need both. It'll be years before alternatives are readily available and more importantly, affordable.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  3. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I think we need both. It'll be years before alternatives are readily available and more importantly, affordable.
    Good point...but by doing both...arent we short-changing the alternative fuel development side?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  4.    #25  
    Insertion....I fully agree. There has to be a long short term solution to ease our economic dependence and decrease potential national security threats while we develop the long term solutions.

    My big question.....is there really any major efforts being made right now to accomplish either? Sure there is research going on, but it does seem to be stunted for various reasons.

    There has always been talk of drilling in Alaska, and other US states and territories...but has always be opposed by Dems or Reps or the Eviro Groups. I feel that we need to utilitize the resources that are within our borders so we can take the time needed to develop and implement alt fuel sources. In fact, if we increase our own oil production and establish a whole new fleet of oil drilling facilities, that would give us increased profits.

    I say, imagine if we took our 60% dependence and brought that down to 10-15% by increasing our own production by 45-50%, then we are going to increase our own profits by selling the extra oil to ourselves. Now take .5-1.5 percent of the profits from the new drilling facalities to help fund research for alt fuel solutions.

    Something along these lines addresses both the short term urgencies while helping to map out a plan to eliminate the extra oil facalities in 30 years or so as we implement the new fuel technologies we had been developing during that time.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/26/2005 at 07:29 PM.
  5. #26  
    fusion?
  6. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobbes
    Now take .5-1.5 percent of the profits from the new drilling facalities to help fund research for alt fuel solutions.
    Whose profits though? The private oil companies? How would you make them part with the profits?

    I like the idea but (IMO) we have to artifically manipulate the market (or pay to have the government to do the R&D) to get real fuel alternative cars to market. As it is now...too many interest groups control our oil and fuel policies with the short term interest in creating profits and not the long term interest in creating dependency.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7.    #28  
    I was thinking along the lines of having the oil companies US based companies for both the economic and security reasons. If the additional oil companies were foreign owned, then we are still in the same boat.

    Then the gov could give them a 1.5% tax break in one area and then that percentage is rolled over into a Alt Fuel R&D Fund as a seperate tax. Even though your special interest groups are going to be clammering to have a say of how and where to spend the money....at least that way there is more public accountability for the additional research.

    In addition to that I really feel the gov should give substantial tax breaks to companies who can show continual progressive R&D towards main stream alt fuel solutions.

    This way you have gov sponsor and monitored programs and incentives for private market R&D.
  8. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    One of these days a scientist will genetically modify a soybean or corn such that very little processing will make it ooze gasoline. That will solve everything.
    Sorry, doesn't work. Growing soybean and corn costs a lot of energy (e.g. fertilizer production, machines for sowing, spraying herbicides, harvesting, transport, etc.), so the energy balance is not good enough. Besides, there is not enough fertile soil to grow more, unless people stop eating meat (most corn and soy goes into meat). Apart from that, the amount of oil consumed is far greater than the amount of corn and soy produced.

    The solution is actually quite easy: increase the price of oil ("toll" on oil or on carbon dioxide emission). This will lead to investments into more efficient use of oil and to substitution of oil with other energy sources, because then it pays off to do that. There is no need to increase taxes by increasing the price of oil, you can compensate in other fields (e.g. labour costs, etc.).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  9. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I say, imagine if we took our 60% dependence and brought that down to 10-15% by increasing our own production by 45-50%
    If you have 60 % foreign oil and 40 % domestic, then you have to double the domestic production (from 40 % to 80 %, which would be a 100 % increase of domestic production) in order to reach only 20 % dependence on foreign oil. Doesn't sound realistic.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #31  
    Live wrong. Party on. Pay later
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  11.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    If you have 60 % foreign oil and 40 % domestic, then you have to double the domestic production (from 40 % to 80 %, which would be a 100 % increase of domestic production) in order to reach only 20 % dependence on foreign oil. Doesn't sound realistic.
    With the resources we have available that we are not tapping into, we can go a LONG ways towards that goal. But there are still several other "friendly" countries that we can work with more to do the same, i.e. Canada, to help make up the difference, if any, that we are not able to do ourselves.
  12.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The solution is actually quite easy: increase the price of oil ("toll" on oil or on carbon dioxide emission). This will lead to investments into more efficient use of oil and to substitution of oil with other energy sources, because then it pays off to do that. There is no need to increase taxes by increasing the price of oil, you can compensate in other fields (e.g. labour costs, etc.).
    There is a tremendous amount of Tax in Europe on petrol, is it working over there?
  13. #34  
    The solution is even easier than all of this. Make the middle-east glow in the unholy unnatural light of a series of massive nuclear explosions. Send folks over there is radiation suits and take the oil. Hell, proclaim some nonsense like Manifest Destiny again. Hook China up with half of it so they STFU and don't try to get at us. Punch every liberal in the face who screams it's genocide because 98% of the time they drive a car that vomits more pollutants into the air than Rosie O'Donnell after a night of eating mexican food and crushing the rights of the Americans under the guise of freedom.
  14.    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    You mean like in Europe?
    There is a big difference in the impact that the price marks are at between the US and EU is the amount of consumption for the end consumer. I lived in the EU for several years and there is certainly not the amount of driving distances that there is here. It was amusing sometimes to try to explain the vastness of hundreds of empty miles to someone in Europe and not have them comprehend it. That is not a put down...just a lack of something to relate it to from their own personal experience.

    For example, in my job as a District Manager, my district covers Western WY, All of Southern ID, Southwest WA, All of OR, Very Northern part of CA, and Reno, NV. I may drive over 1,600 miles in 3 days while meeting my appointments (that is half way from LA to New York). On a more common week, I probably drive around 300 - 800 miles.

    That does not count all the planes I have to catch to jump over to a remote corner of my District and back in the same day.

    My wife drives 95 miles a day (round trip) to work. That adds up to 475 miles a week. This certainly a lot more common in the States than in the EU.

    Plus we go on a family weekend trip ever month, two at the latest. They can easily average about 450 miles round trip each month.

    The point is that the distances here in the States a far more vast than in the EU......so we have to drive hundreds of miles more per week......so $2.50 a gallon in the US is probably about the same impact at $4.00 in the EU (of course $4.00 in the EU if taken out the taxes is probably only $1.23 a gallon )
  15. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    The solution is even easier than all of this. Make the middle-east glow in the unholy unnatural light of a series of massive nuclear explosions. Send folks over there is radiation suits and take the oil. Hell, proclaim some nonsense like Manifest Destiny again. Hook China up with half of it so they STFU and don't try to get at us.
    I (hope) know your kidding but what happens when other countries (who have oil) preemptively strike us with nuclear warheads?
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    Punch every liberal in the face who screams it's genocide because 98% of the time they drive a car that vomits more pollutants into the air
    What, I cant complain about something and be part of the problem as well? So much for my 1st amendment right (oh..thats right...the 2nd amendment is all that you care about. )
    Quote Originally Posted by evilghost
    than Rosie O'Donnell after a night of eating mexican food
    Ok, that was hilarious (and bit gross at the same time.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There is a big difference in the impact that the price marks are at between the US and EU is the amount of consumption for the end consumer.
    Good points Hobbes. Also, in addition, dont the european nations (in general) have better (and higher quantities) of mass transit systems than the U.S.?
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  17. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    There is a tremendous amount of Tax in Europe on petrol, is it working over there?
    Since countries like Germany, France, Great Britain, Switzerland, and others use about half as much oil per capita as the US, it looks like it, doesn't it? Even when considering longer distances in the US. Euopeans have much more vacation than people in the US, and they don't spend it at home, so Europeans travel, too. Europe as a whole is not that much smaller (area) than the US.

    I guess it is also true that most European countries have better public transport systems (faster, more comfortable trains etc.) so there is less need for a car.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    For example, in my job as a District Manager, my district covers Western WY, All of Southern ID, Southwest WA, All of OR, Very Northern part of CA, and Reno, NV. I may drive over 1,600 miles in 3 days while meeting my appointments (that is half way from LA to New York). On a more common week, I probably drive around 300 - 800 miles.

    That does not count all the planes I have to catch to jump over to a remote corner of my District and back in the same day.

    My wife drives 95 miles a day (round trip) to work. That adds up to 475 miles a week. This certainly a lot more common in the States than in the EU.

    Plus we go on a family weekend trip ever month, two at the latest. They can easily average about 450 miles round trip each month.
    What's so cool about spending half of your life in a car, apart from the dependence on Middle Eastern oil it creates, and not even mentioning global warming? Sounds like a great waste of time and effort to me. Maybe if oil and hence travel would cost a bit more, your company would be willing to find more useful ways of spending your time than driving a car?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Even when considering longer distances in the US. Europeans have much more vacation than people in the US, and they don't spend it at home, so Europeans travel, too. Europe as a whole is not that much smaller (area) than the US.
    Having lived over there, I know they have a LOT more bank holidays and they travel on vacation and they do travel a lot, but not a lot compared to the average American. I am sure there are a small percentage that do, but I don't think that the average European drives 90 plus miles a day commute for work. But that is not uncommon over here.

    You live in Switzerland? Have you traveled over to the states and driven any distance before? If so, then I would think you understand what I am referring to.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    What's so cool about spending half of your life in a car, apart from the dependence on Middle Eastern oil it creates, and not even mentioning global warming? Sounds like a great waste of time and effort to me. Maybe if oil and hence travel would cost a bit more, your company would be willing to find more useful ways of spending your time than driving a car?
    Who ever said it is cool? Who ever said I live my life in the car? It is just a fact of life. I am not aware of many District Managers that are not required to visit their District on a regular basis. The company I work for is very world renowned and is very efficient in managing their resources. As I eluded to before, whenever possible I fly. But due to the vastness of my territory and with so many remote locations without airports, I am often forced to drive. Plus when you have to stop at 5 cities along while driving the length of a state, it is pretty hard to get the airplane to pull over for your next visit.

    Here is a frame of reference:

    My district is somewhere around 351,1081 sq miles. That is equal to an equivalent territory covering all of:

    France: Area: 210,026 sq mi (543,965 sq km)
    Great Britain (including Wales, Scotland, and N Ireland): 94,248 sq mi (244,101 sq km).
    Belgium: 11,787 sq mi (30,528 sq km)
    Portugal: 35,662 sq mi (92,365 sq km)

    I didn't originally bring this up for a Mine is Bigger than yours contest, but just using my job and my wife's as an example as we are not in the least bit unique in our job responsibilities and mile usage here in the states. That due to a whole onslaught of reasons (lack of availability of mass transit, greater distances, average household owning 3.5 cars, longer average commutes, etc...) the average American consumes more gas per capita than does the average European.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions