new GOP slogan: "Find More, Use Less"

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

We already have alternative fuels. We have nuclear, we have wind, We have solar. We have fuel cell cars and electric cars. The technology is here now.

Almost all of the alternative power plant options are being blocked by Democrats and I don't see a new nuclear facility being built any time soon. Wind power is not viable everywhere and often meets strong opposition... however, Texas has managed to push ahead on that front.

Solar power is expensive and likely won't ever be monetarily viable. That technology is not quite there yet. Fuel cell vehicles still to this day typically end up costing more than you'd save in gas if you bought a fuel effecient vehicle.

So while you list all of these technologies, they're either being prevented by Democrats or simply not economically viable which is the same problem we're having with oil right now. That's not a solution to our problems. We need strong advancements in these technologies, we need to build nuclear reactors and we need to understand that it's going to take a very long time before our country is ready to rely on these over oil. In the meantime we need to do what we can to keep our economy together so that the private sector is able to invest in finding these alternative solutions. If we run $8-12 gasoline like many Democrats want our economy will go to crap and nobody will have the dough for the R&D of alternative power sources. We need to stabalize prices so businesses are comfortable and feel safe investing in long term development. We do not need to have an unstable energy market with our government constantly threatening to make it worse. I just read last week some politicians were looking to increase the federal gas tax because people were driving less and they need more money.

[nbiggershaft]

Lou I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the principle being what you are saying. But no one but idiots think drilling domestically is going to greatly reduce the price of gas. It does stabilize gas prices in the country and make them less volatile to the evening news in the middle east. As far as having the tech now to get off oil, we're getting there. But to develop effective electric cars it will still take billions of dollars and probably a few decades, just look at how many years it took us to get efficient combustion vehicles about 60-70 years.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Lou I don't think anyone is going to disagree with the principle being what you are saying. But no one but idiots think drilling domestically is going to greatly reduce the price of gas. It does stabilize gas prices in the country and make them less volatile to the evening news in the middle east. As far as having the tech now to get off oil, we're getting there. But to develop effective electric cars it will still take billions of dollars and probably a few decades, just look at how many years it took us to get efficient combustion vehicles about 60-70 years.

I understand that, but some of it was due to the fact that gasoline was so cheap. If your car got 8mpg, it didn't matter. There was no economic incentive to be efficient. When the fuel crisis hit in the late 1970's it only took maybe 5 years before small efficient cars really came out in force. Honda and toyota have always had the foresight to be ahead of the curve and they are reaping rewards now. If gas prices were even higher it would bring even more people into the market. Imagine if Chevy had the foresight to produce the Chevy Volt sooner so that it was ready today or last year instead of well, who knows. The higher the price of gas goes the more pressure gets put on these companies to move in that direction... and you will also find that the "environmentalists" who oppose things like nuclear power and such will start to look at thier wallets and curse. They will be more likely to shut up and let the nuclear plants get built. If gas was 6 dollars a gallon, people would say fuck Yucca mountain, put the waste there it's fine with me. I need to plug in my electric car.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I understand that, but some of it was due to the fact that gasoline was so cheap. If your car got 8mpg, it didn't matter. There was no economic incentive to be efficient. When the fuel crisis hit in the late 1970's it only took maybe 5 years before small efficient cars really came out in force.

but this doesn't apply

they tuned an engine and made cars smaller to get more mileage but electric/battery/hybrid is either hardly existent or in its infancy. "it took them 5 years to get better mileage" is different than "it will take them 5 years to make a viable, cheap, electric car."

Honda and toyota have always had the foresight to be ahead of the curve and they are reaping rewards now. If gas prices were even higher it would bring even more people into the market.

so make gas $100/gallon tonight and EVERYONE will be in the market by friday?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by JaJae

If your question is will people use less gasoline if the prices are higher? Of course the answer is yes. But the reality is that will have major impacts on our economy. Nothing we can do at this point will make gasoline cheap again, we can only hope to keep the prices managable until we find alternative fuels. The Republicans seem to realize this. Democrats seem to want to run us off a cliff of ever increasing gasoline prices on a pipe dream that we can sustain the increased oil costs we've seen over the past 5 years for another few decades. We can't sustain the increases we've seen for the amount of time it will take for alternative fuels to go mainstream. Oil prices will only increase exponentially as India/China start to modernize and our economy goes to crap because of poor energy policies.

Like Lou is saying we just might get serious about moving to alt energy sources if the price stays high. It might put a bunch of gitty up in every ones go. When some people quit worrying they buy giagantic SUVs like they did before. Our economy for many reasons is in a bear mode, face it. We have to live with it and keep our heads held high.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

but this doesn't apply

they tuned an engine and made cars smaller to get more mileage but electric/battery/hybrid is either hardly existent or in its infancy. "it took them 5 years to get better mileage" is different than "it will take them 5 years to make a viable, cheap, electric car."

so make gas $100/gallon tonight and EVERYONE will be in the market by friday?

I think that's a bit out there, but the principle is correct. This is the next gold rush. The people who get there first will make the most. Obviously there comes a point of diminishing returns. 100 dollars a gallon would not be good. 5 or 6 dollars a gallon? Maybe that would be OK. More than that? I don't know. I think you would need to do real analysis on the numbers. But yeah if there is money to be made someone will step in to make it.
If we keep trying to get the price of oil down, we discourage those people from entering the market.

[WickedLou9]

Instead of trying to drill for more oil we should do thigns like offer tax breaks to companies that make green energy. A company that makes solar cells should pay no tax on the revenue that it makes through the sale of solar panels. GM should get a tax credit for every fuel cell vehicle that rolls off of it's lines. Thats the kinda thing we should be talking about.

[Fed Up]

Just my 4 cents...

The reason T. Boone Pickens and other corporations are going after alternative energy is because congress is giving them tax breaks.

Pickens energy plan (wind farms): PickensPlan wants every American on board. Gee I wonder why? He plans on spending 10 billion on it and realizing a 25% annual profit.

I've got no problem with people investing and getting richer, but when they try to convince the citizens that their plan makes the most sense, and "everyone" needs to get on board, one also must look at the reasoning as it also makes the developer of that plan "cents."

Wind power has major flaws with continuous base-load power or peak-load power downtime. There would still be a need for a backup grid.

France's total energy consumption derived from oil has decreased from 71 percent in 1973 to 36 percent in 2004. The U.S. could easily do the same and would have by now if congress had any brains.

There are 28 nuclear plants being built in the U.S. right now.

Pickens doesn't support nuclear power IMO, because he's not invested in it.

Lastly, double the purchasing power of the dollar and you reduce the cost of oil by 50%. As if....

Again, just my 4 cents...not claiming to be an expert, but I've recently researched Pickens plan.

Fed Up

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Instead of trying to drill for more oil we should do thigns like offer tax breaks to companies that make green energy.

we do.

A company that makes solar cells should pay no tax on the revenue that it makes through the sale of solar panels.

so prop up inferior products?

GM should get a tax credit for every fuel cell vehicle that rolls off of it's lines.

they do.

[kombayn]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Just my 4 cents...

The reason T. Boone Pickens and other corporations are going after alternative energy is because congress is giving them tax breaks.

Pickens energy plan (wind farms): PickensPlan wants every American on board. Gee I wonder why? He plans on spending 10 billion on it and realizing a 25% annual profit.

I've got no problem with people investing and getting richer, but when they try to convince the citizens that their plan makes the most sense, and "everyone" needs to get on board, one also must look at the reasoning as it also makes the developer of that plan "cents."

Wind power has major flaws with continuous base-load power or peak-load power downtime. There would still be a need for a backup grid.

France's total energy consumption derived from oil has decreased from 71 percent in 1973 to 36 percent in 2004. The U.S. could easily do the same and would have by now if congress had any brains.

There are 28 nuclear plants being built in the U.S. right now.

Pickens doesn't support nuclear power IMO, because he's not invested in it.

Lastly, double the purchasing power of the dollar and you reduce the cost of oil by 50%. As if....

Again, just my 4 cents...not claiming to be an expert, but I've recently researched Pickens plan.

Fed Up

That's why an economist should have been nominated as a Presidential candidate. Our dollar use to be the stronghold in the world and we had cheap products. Not anymore. This decline has been going on since the 70's... Yet people still claim people like Reagan and Clinton were good Presidents.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So if they increase supply and prices come down... demand will also go down? You got some 'splainin to do lucy.

At the very least we can hold prices at a more constant level over the coming decades. I don't want prices to collapse for a variety of reasons (including a selfish reason) but I do want and think prices should come down to 2.75 to 3.25/gallon. At that price level it isn't such a pinch on our economy but still has people thinking about conservation and minimizing our use of gasoline. Furthermore the government can continue to bump CAFE standards after 2020 instead of leaving them constant ala 1982 to 2004.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Instead of trying to drill for more oil we should do thigns like offer tax breaks to companies that make green energy. A company that makes solar cells should pay no tax on the revenue that it makes through the sale of solar panels. GM should get a tax credit for every fuel cell vehicle that rolls off of it's lines. Thats the kinda thing we should be talking about.

But continue to tax traditional energy companies that have provided this country steady and relatively cheap energy for us to build our powerhouse of a nation on? I dont think there should be any corporate taxes, and thats especially true of energy of any kind.

[JaJae]

More oil was found in the Alaskan territory.
Bloomberg.com: Canada

July 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Arctic may hold 90 billion barrels of oil, more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and enough to supply U.S. demand for 12 years, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

One-third of the undiscovered oil is in Alaskan territory, the agency found in a study released today. By contrast, a geologic formation beneath the North Pole claimed by Russian scientists last year probably holds just 1.2 percent of the Arctic's crude, the U.S. report showed.

Energy producers such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Chevron Corp. have accelerated exploration of the northernmost regions for untapped reserves amid record prices and receding access to deposits in more hospitable climates. Russia's move to scrap a United Nations convention and carve out an exclusive Arctic zone sparked protests from Canada, the U.S., Norway and Denmark.

[saabguy]

what's the point of switching to alternative energy sources again? prices? i think they are still relatively cheap, and the rising cost I'd say is more a function of the weak dollar than anything else. reduce our dependence on foreign supplies? couldn't we do that by opening up anwar/off-shore drilling? afraid we're going to run out? we've been afraid of running out of oil for decades and we have more proven supplies now than we ever thought. environmental concerns? i'm sorry but i don't like the idea of abandoning our most efficient and readily-available fuel source just because al gore has a hissy fit every couple of months. There is still debate in the scientific community about "global warming" (what it is, what causes it, what effect it has). I'd hesitate to make such a sweeping change trying to "fix" something that we might not even have control over, or might not even need "fixing."