Killer Joe
New member
What about the "air pressure" fuel source I saw somewhere being used in Finland? Not sure where I saw it.
Gas/Oil
- Thread starter Killer Joe
- Start date
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
I disagree, alternative energy sources would not have the oil producing nations as part of it's cost...... Also, if there were multiple sources, then no one industry could dominate energy prices as the oil companies have..... We need to increase renewable energy sources, wind, water, solar, nuclear and maybe hydrogen electricity production to take the demand off of oil, coal, corn, etc.......Oversoul said:
D
DarthFerret
Guest
I have to go with Oversoul on this one. Any replacement or alternative energy source will start out at a greater cost. One of my arguments for this case is that R & D is very expensive, and so would all of the certifications and testing that everything has to go through. One of the reasons that other countries have a much greater shot at any new discoveries of this nature is that they have less government controls over what they research, what the environmental impact of it is, and gernally speaking, a lot less red tape.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Bullocks.........
Sorry, but I think just saying anything but oil will be more expensive is a cop out to keep the status quo...... Will that be true if a barrel of oil hits $200, $250?
If the government weren't working against these developments, we would have had these options already.....
Since 2001, how much has our federal government allocated towards finding a replacement for oil (as energy production and gasoline, diesel, etc..), as a percentage of GDP?
My guess would be less than %1, far less than tax credits for oil exploration....
Sorry, but I think just saying anything but oil will be more expensive is a cop out to keep the status quo...... Will that be true if a barrel of oil hits $200, $250?
If the government weren't working against these developments, we would have had these options already.....
Since 2001, how much has our federal government allocated towards finding a replacement for oil (as energy production and gasoline, diesel, etc..), as a percentage of GDP?
My guess would be less than %1, far less than tax credits for oil exploration....
D
DarthFerret
Guest
I know....springs, and Hamsters!....that is the new energy source!
Killer Joe
New member
This current adminstration has a vested interest in stopping alternative fuel sources. Say it isn't so and then check out how oil has soared more during the last 7 years than before.
But you know what? "SO!?" to use Dick Cheney's expression. There are lots of things that folks would do in the spirit of their own interest and if THAT'S not so then why run for a govenment office at all? For the HASSEL? Nope, to get something tangible and personal out of it whether it be sex, money or the ability to pick your nose with the same finger that can push the red button to destroy the world.
Until January, when the new president takes office oil prices will continue to get higher AND, get this, unchecked.
Necro this post this time next year when the national gas price is $5.00/gal. or more. I'm telling you there no need for anyone to get off their @$$ and do anything as long as hands are dipped into the cookie jar.
Personally, I love oatmeal raisin, I hope there's oatmeal raisins in that cookie jar...
But you know what? "SO!?" to use Dick Cheney's expression. There are lots of things that folks would do in the spirit of their own interest and if THAT'S not so then why run for a govenment office at all? For the HASSEL? Nope, to get something tangible and personal out of it whether it be sex, money or the ability to pick your nose with the same finger that can push the red button to destroy the world.
Until January, when the new president takes office oil prices will continue to get higher AND, get this, unchecked.
Necro this post this time next year when the national gas price is $5.00/gal. or more. I'm telling you there no need for anyone to get off their @$$ and do anything as long as hands are dipped into the cookie jar.
Personally, I love oatmeal raisin, I hope there's oatmeal raisins in that cookie jar...
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Moosey, you know what happens when we assume, don't you?Mooseman said:
I DON'T want to keep the status quo. At all. Here's why: I'm an organic chemistry student. I realize that all of the neat solvents and resins and adhesives and disinfectants and detergents and lubricants and pesticides and explosives and dyes and preservatives and waxes and propellants and paints and surfactants and thickening agents and polymers and carbon composites we've become accustomed to are made from oil. Oh, and we use coke in making electrodes and important catalysts for purifying metals too. We need kerosene to store reactive materials. Then there's tar and asphalt. And a little thing called plastics we've been using a lot of. Let's not forget MEDICINE. Yeah, most drugs are synthesized from petroleum.
So aside from being an environmental concern (and one that could kill us all if ocean acidification behaves more severely than we hope it will), burning this stuff all up is also a huge economic concern. Furthermore, we can't keep doing it. Even if we wanted to. We're going to run out at some point whether we do anything about that or not. I'd prefer to enter that situation well-prepared.
Keeping the status quo isn't an option. We either find alternative energy sources or our society collapses completely because we didn't. If I got to choose, I'd be leaning toward the former.
Personally, I'm a big fan of photoelectrolysis. It's a neat process and it seems like it has a lot of potential to provide a permanent answer to the whole fuel question.
But all of this doesn't change the fact that photoelectrolysis or any other solution we come up with will be more expensive than petroleum has been. This is because there's a lot of energy in hydrocarbons. And we didn't put it there. It built up through natural processes over millenia. We had to work to get it out of the ground. Other than that, we just burned it up and reaped the energy rewards.
I said alternatives would more expensive because they would be and for that reason only. I thought it needed to be pointed out because Spiderman touched on the cost of biofuels and something being expensive now doesn't rule it out as an alternative, because we're looking for long-term replacements or we should be. And if we only look for something that will only be cheaper than what we're doing right now, we will search in vain. By all means, discuss which alternative fuels will be most economical now. Maybe we can phase one out as another becomes more available through technology. Maybe we can integrate different alternatives into different applications, spreading the full stress of our energy needs over multiple resources. But sustainability isn't merely a perquisite here. The people that develop sustainable technologies and energy sources now will be the ones who survive later. Eventually, it becomes adapt or die.
So I most certainly did not mean to imply that because alternative energy sources actually aren't free we should just give up and suck oil out of the ground until we run out. I like screwing around on the web and I can't do that if the apocalypse happens.
I agree, I was just trying to say that everything is linked together (so far). People thought ethanol was the answer to high oil/gas prices and thus created a tremendous demand for corn. What is happening though is that planting more corn took away acreage to plant wheat (or other foodstuffs, but wheat is the big one), which of course decreased its supply although demand for wheat is always strong. So now wheat's going up, corn is going up because using it for ethanol purposes takes away from its other "normal" usage (like feed or whatever), causing eggs and its associated end products going up.
And oil/gas prices are STILL going up since the embracement of ethanol!
So I was just trying to ask if synthetic oil is an answer, since it primarily uses coal, what else uses coal that would be affected? Those "elses" costs would probably rise too since more demand in created for as yet a still constant but let's face it, probably depleted supply of coal.
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Yeah, I think I already covered that one. Coal is used in generating electricity. A lot, actually. It's also used in iron smelting. But electricity is the big one. Probably the only other major modern-day uses for coal are using it to make natural gas and what is apparently called "synthetic oil" (I'd always thought it was just "oil from coal" but I guess it makes sense to have a less clunky name for it).Spiderman said:
So yeah, I don't know. But personally, I consider synthetic oil to be at best, buying a little time.
Killer Joe
New member
$3.80 National Average as of this post.
Saudi's are paying a whopping $0.45/gal.
Saudi's are paying a whopping $0.45/gal.
Killer Joe
New member
Okay, just for a moment, pretend I don't know what "subsidizes" means, tell me.Spiderman said:
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
It would mean that the government pays for part it in order to lower the price. So if it were going to be $3.00, the government throws in enough money to keep the price down to $0.45 instead. I don't know that the Saudi government subsidizes it at all though. I would have thought they didn't, but I guess would have been wrong...Killer Joe said:Okay, just for a moment, pretend I don't know what "subsidizes" means, tell me.
It's the same principle with the US and the farmers, with the US subsidizing certain crops Although with the rising price of corn and some other crops, you'd think that part could be phased out.
I'm pretty sure that most stable Middle East countries subsidize the oil/gas for their citizens, but not 100% sure...
Although with the rising price of corn and some other crops, you'd think that part could be phased out.I'm pretty sure that most stable Middle East countries subsidize the oil/gas for their citizens, but not 100% sure...
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Actually, the US government is supposed to subsidize those crops that aren't rising in price to keep farmers from all growing the "cash" crop. there needs to be a certain amount of crops to be harvested no matter the market price.....Spiderman said:It's the same principle with the US and the farmers, with the US subsidizing certain crops
I'm pretty sure that most stable Middle East countries subsidize the oil/gas for their citizens, but not 100% sure...
But, all countries subsidize goods and services in their countries to make them "marketable" on the world stage or affordable to their own citizens.....
B
BigBlue
Guest
One big trouble with corn as I understand it right now is the amount of it being provided to make ethanol... that's causing the demand to go up which is affecting the cost of raising livestock and (combined with rising fuel costs) is causing the price of meat to go up...
The "stimulus" we were supposedly going to spend on goods to bring up the economy barely covers the cost of a few months increase in the cost of living. And, given that it's a one time thing, actually hurts some consumers imho who need more than a one time personal "subsidy". ( )
I have very serious doubts about the future of this country. We've exported just about every job we had because it's cheaper to have everything made elsewhere... (China, Mexico, Canada...)
Where I live, the only jobs are service jobs... no manufacturing, with environmental concerns we don't have logging or mining any longer... so we're left with service jobs. Which will sustain our city for a while since we support more than our city but a fairly wide region with medical and educational services. But, how long can that go on? Eventually we have to start making things again here or we're screwed. The US cannot be a service country in a global market and survive. I'm not talking about blaming here for political gaffes of the past... it's just a fact that right now companies export jobs out of the country, and then keep the profits they earn in the other countries so they don't have to pay taxes on the profits from them to the US.
Try buying clothes made in the US. You may find some, but you won't want to pay the prices for them which is why the companies exported jobs in the first place.
Sure the quality degraded, but we make up for that by feeling it's ok to buy it twice since we saved so much, right? (/sarcasm) And we wonder why we consume more than the rest of the world...
Buy Local whenever you can, it may cost more but you know you are supporting your community. And if enough people buy locally, it could make a dent that would make locally better priced, plus fuel costs are a lot cheaper...
Grow or make what you can... even if it's only a small garden, you'll be amazed the benefits. Decide if you really need product X.
A side effect to potential savings is a smaller carbon footprint - and less fuel costs.
I think the Amish have it right. Except for things like the Internet or many other modern conveniences... But, true sustainability comes from self sufficience. I only wish I owned enough land to try it myself.
The "stimulus" we were supposedly going to spend on goods to bring up the economy barely covers the cost of a few months increase in the cost of living. And, given that it's a one time thing, actually hurts some consumers imho who need more than a one time personal "subsidy". (
)I have very serious doubts about the future of this country. We've exported just about every job we had because it's cheaper to have everything made elsewhere... (China, Mexico, Canada...)
Where I live, the only jobs are service jobs... no manufacturing, with environmental concerns we don't have logging or mining any longer... so we're left with service jobs. Which will sustain our city for a while since we support more than our city but a fairly wide region with medical and educational services. But, how long can that go on? Eventually we have to start making things again here or we're screwed. The US cannot be a service country in a global market and survive. I'm not talking about blaming here for political gaffes of the past... it's just a fact that right now companies export jobs out of the country, and then keep the profits they earn in the other countries so they don't have to pay taxes on the profits from them to the US.
Try buying clothes made in the US. You may find some, but you won't want to pay the prices for them which is why the companies exported jobs in the first place.
Sure the quality degraded, but we make up for that by feeling it's ok to buy it twice since we saved so much, right? (/sarcasm) And we wonder why we consume more than the rest of the world...
Buy Local whenever you can, it may cost more but you know you are supporting your community. And if enough people buy locally, it could make a dent that would make locally better priced, plus fuel costs are a lot cheaper...
Grow or make what you can... even if it's only a small garden, you'll be amazed the benefits. Decide if you really need product X.
A side effect to potential savings is a smaller carbon footprint - and less fuel costs.
I think the Amish have it right. Except for things like the Internet or many other modern conveniences... But, true sustainability comes from self sufficience. I only wish I owned enough land to try it myself.
Mooseman
Isengar Tussle
Except that you would have to balance the value of that land with what it produces..... can't raise beans on land that is valued at 10 or 20 grand per acre..... Taxes would kill you....BigBlue said:
I almost always have a garden, so do my parents...... My dad grew up on a farm and I spent my 1st 6 years in that farm house.... farm was mostly gone by then.