Cynicalism at it's very best.

[Moose]

Now that i'm home (thank god) i've been having quite a bit of time searching through the news, and I have to say this: "Where do we draw the line in the world?"


Issue 1: The Gaza Withdrawl


So now that the Isreali people must with move out of their homes within the next 48 hours or be forceibly removed, does this mean were substituting the small guys to benefit the great cause? Is it fair to say that because of this withdrawl and giving full attority to Palestine that the world will become a better place? Ok maybe, but think about it, forceibly moving people away from their homes, their life's even, is that not fair to a democratic society? The people who vote and have the right to choose now are simply poker chips that have been lost in a game of texas hold'em? Now true, this does solve fighting and pit shots at each side of the border, but couldn't there be a way to just get everyone happy? Couldn't the familys on the Isreali side come to some compromise that would be a show of strength and peace to allow the Pale's to have control of their area but freely live under a chain of command?

If not, then we really haven't learned from world war 2.


Issue 2: Gas Prices


Ok so, coming home the gas prices are now 1.04$ Canadian Per Litre, in America it's 2.80, 2.85 and even 2.90$ American per Galon, now tell me this, if this is really a way to premote the fact that we are at peek of gas production, would this not be a good idea to stop making these gas gassuling trucks that maybe get 30 miles to the galon? Could we not become more efficient at saving energy? Could we just invest more into alternate fuels? NO!

Bush wanted the Oil in Iraq, he took it. Congress released a new energy bill that has nothing to do with saving, but instead producing energy at higher rates at lower budget costs....ARE THESE NOT THE PEOPLE WE ELECT TO MAKE SURE THE COST IS LOW BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ENERGY IS LESS HARMFUL???!!!! DO WE HAVE TO TAKE UP ARE ARMS AND MARCH TO CAPITAL HILL AND PROTEST DAY AND NIGHT OR DO WE SIMPLY ABIDE BY THE RULES AND KEEP ARE "DISBELIEVE" IN ARE HEADS??

Come on....are we really going to be pushed around? Are manufacturing companies truely looking for ways to make a quick buck and not worry 30-40 years down the road to are own demise? Well all I have to say is this, we can either stand up to are so called benefactors...or lay down in obsecruity, and as Arnold so rightly put it, "We will Terminate Terror and feel like the world is a safer place!"...well he's right, with the way his Hummer is pushing out gas, I doubt even the deserts of the middle east could prevent green house gas to iradicate are atmosphere and bring in harmful sun rays.


Issue 3: Bill Cosby


To me, this is more of a realistic truth instead of cyncalistic view of corruption. After he spoke in St.Louis, I totally agree with him. Islamic people do not abide by drug dealers, they simply walk up to another "brotha" and tell him get going on his way, Christians are the ones who sit and watch these drug dealers take the black youth of America, get them into drugs, and eventually they wind up dead for their debts. Simply said, if we take the money out of the drug dealers hands and put it into an education, we can get better results. So why is he critized by his actions, why do people see this as an oppurtunity to write a book against people's views to try and become famous for 4 months? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH! We love hearing the shame and disgrace, thats right, the "dis", always a "dis"advantage, people always in "dis"belief. and we abide by it, we make things seem sad so others believe it, afterall, the islamic people for years during the dark ages prospered as one of the most advantaced technologically and culturally for many generations until the crusades, but even still. If we let people push us around, we become pushers, and with that said. The pushing will continue until shoving, until violence, until death. and even after "dis"believing what are god and saviors views might show us, it's eaiser to hate then it is to love.


Anyways thats my rant, yes i'm still in a very cynical/realist mood, and to be honest, there are at least 4 more topics I could go into, but lets just think about this for now, lets bring it out, put it in, and show ourselves the realism on how reality is slowing turning into a sci-fi based fantasy which sadly enough is a reality today.

[Hydrant]

cynicism

[Kyir]

If gas prices get high enough people wont buy as much, therefor our reserves will last longer, and we hit a peak of gas production about 2 years ago, so no, we arnt at the highest, just a bit below (ot mabey im wrong :confused: )

[Moose]

Firstly: Shut up Hyrdrant :p.


2ndly, China is getting to be the biggest user in Fossil Fuels and polution based products. But yeah thats just my cynicism at work >.<

[Kyir]

Firstly: Shut up Hyrdrant :p.


2ndly, China is getting to be the biggest user in Fossil Fuels and polution based products. But yeah thats just my cynicsm at work >.<

cynicism

[Moose]

......Your so lucky my leg still hurts >.>

[Kyir]

actaully I just edited your quote =P
the origional is spelled right

[Moose]

actaully I just edited your quote =P
the origional is spelled right

original

[Realist]

I've got to say, reading this thread has made me much more sinikalysitical in regards to Moose. :dry:

[Moose]

I've got to say, reading this thread has made me much more sinikalysitical in regards to Moose. :dry:

I've got to say, after reading this reply by realist, has only made me more empathic to people in need :dry:.

[Realist]

Anyways thats my rant, yes i'm still in a very cynical/realist mood, and to be honest, there are at least 4 more topics I could go into, but lets just think about this for now, lets bring it out, put it in, and show ourselves the realism on how reality is slowing turning into a sci-fi based fantasy which sadly enough is a reality today.

Cynicism != realism. Cynics are just negative idealists.

[Moose]

Having grown up with a father whose a realist, a mother whose a deep idealist, i've adapted my own form which I call "Realistic Idealism" which in many ways is a contradiction yet perfectly understandable, as for the cynicism, i'm just in a moody mood.

[Realist]

Poor moose, no one's replying to what he actually said. :(

ARE THESE NOT THE PEOPLE WE ELECT TO MAKE SURE THE COST IS LOW BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE ENERGY IS LESS HARMFUL???!!!! DO WE HAVE TO TAKE UP ARE ARMS AND MARCH TO CAPITAL HILL AND PROTEST DAY AND NIGHT OR DO WE SIMPLY ABIDE BY THE RULES AND KEEP ARE "DISBELIEVE" IN ARE HEADS??

Our, our, our! Only the first "are" is correct.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok maybe, but think about it, forceibly moving people away from their homes, their life's even, is that not fair to a democratic society?

Yes it is...

The Gaza Strip was part of the Palestinian nation, Israel took possession of it and put up settlements on the strip...

So basically...

If Israel hadn't taken the Gaza Strip in the first place, there would be nothing to cry about...

But since Israel DID take the Gaza Strip, and then withdrew from it, and because of their loss, there is grief.

Get how that works, or more accurately doesn't?

Gas prices - Of course that's an issue... Hawai'i has gas prices higher than Canada (getting near $3 a gallon)...

The sad thing is, instead of pushing for higher fuel efficiency standards, a better alternate energy research budget, or anything of this sort, they're giving major gas companies tax breaks... This of course does absolutely nothing to stop or slow down the spiral in gas prices, or our dependence on foreign oil...

Bleh...

[CRX687]

Issue #1: Before it went to isreal, Gaza was part of Egypt. It was taken FORCIBLY during the 6 day war. Isrealis then displaced many of the palestinian people who's ancestors had been there for many generations. Now, realizing that it would be too high of a cost to maintain, Sharon is recalling the settlers, who call the place "home" after being there for one generation. Not only that, but by resisting, they are directly challenging the isreali goverment. No one can define what is better or worse, sharon is doing what he thinks is right. Also note that the majority of the resistance comes from younger people that don't even live in the area, they began pouring in to defend the isreali settlers, most of whom are already prepared to leave.


Issue #2: Bush hasn't taken any oil from Iraq yet... Gas prices are soaring for many reasons, not because of Bush. A fear of terrorists, OPEC having basically a monopoly on production, and a growing awareness of gas as a nonreplacable resource are all causing prices to rise. The current average American price per gallon is $2.54... not as bad as you're making it out to be. As for the next generation of Fuel, the gov't is currently investing heavily on Hydrogen based fuel. And only American companies are getting tax breaks for "looking the other way"... honda, toyota, and most of the non-western world is doing heavy research on hydrogen and electric powered cars. The current electric prototype can get 250 mpg, it's a step towards the right direction. As hydrogen power will not be a possibility for many decades, electric hybrids are the main focus at the moment, we can't expect results overnight...

Issue #3: I admit it, I've got nothing on that... >_<

[Daemon Bloodmaw]

Now I hated chemistry miserably and have little to no understanding of it. However, doesn't hydrogen have the potential to be really dangerous?

[Moose]

Aww thanks xyx, my obviously boring/un-intended attempt at an intelligent thread is so much better looking now that ur ray of sunshine has infiltrated it :roll:.


True Crx, I just made this thread because i'm still in a cynic mood ;).

[Lonely Tylenol]

Isn't gasoline highly combustible? :rolleyes:

Solar energy is the safest, most reliable form of energy, and it's completely renewable... Excess energy can be stored through the mechanics of solar technology for when there is no sunlight... And let's not mention efficiency!

You could make a giant solar plant in a wide-open area--a single solar power plant--and assuming it is large enough, it can provide enough power for the entire United States.

[Realist]

Isn't gasoline highly combustible? :rolleyes:

Solar energy is the safest, most reliable form of energy, and it's completely renewable... Excess energy can be stored through the mechanics of solar technology for when there is no sunlight... And let's not mention efficiency!

You could make a giant solar plant in a wide-open area--a single solar power plant--and assuming it is large enough, it can provide enough power for the entire United States.

Solar power is actually quite ineffecient and expensive....

[Lonely Tylenol]

I beg to disagree.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Concentrating%20Solar%20Power/cat=Applications

It's hard to say exactly how much land is required for a CSP plant, however, because this depends on its generating capacity and the particular technology used. For example, a 250-kilowatt plant composed of ten 25-kilowatt dish/engine systems requires less than an acre of land. And a parabolic trough system uses about 5 acres for each megawatt of installed capacity. But in any case, the solar resource needed to generate power using CSP systems is quite plentiful. Imagine being able to generate enough electric power for the entire country by covering about 9 percent of Nevada — a plot of land 100 miles on a side — with parabolic trough systems!

If you're trying to power a single household with a tiny solar heater, it is inefficient; but a large-scale solar product would be more efficient and have less of an environmental impact than anything else.

[Realist]

As even the site you listed said, solar power is still far more expensive than fossil fuel power. Regardless, even if we had solar power plants, that wouldn't solve our gas problems, as we still don't have marketable electric cars.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Perhaps I should elaborate--That was in response to your saying it was inefficient...

You do have a point with the electric cars, which is a shame, because with the demand to lighten the dependence on foreign oil, more should have been done in the way of being able to market such vehicles.

[gelshp]

Now that i'm home (thank god) i've been having quite a bit of time searching through the news, and I have to say this: "Where do we draw the line in the world?"


Issue 1: The Gaza Withdrawl


So now that the Isreali people must with move out of their homes within the next 48 hours or be forceibly removed, does this mean were substituting the small guys to benefit the great cause? Is it fair to say that because of this withdrawl and giving full attority to Palestine that the world will become a better place? Ok maybe, but think about it, forceibly moving people away from their homes, their life's even, is that not fair to a democratic society? The people who vote and have the right to choose now are simply poker chips that have been lost in a game of texas hold'em? Now true, this does solve fighting and pit shots at each side of the border, but couldn't there be a way to just get everyone happy? Couldn't the familys on the Isreali side come to some compromise that would be a show of strength and peace to allow the Pale's to have control of their area but freely live under a chain of command?

If not, then we really haven't learned from world war 2.
.

The state of Israel owes its existence to the Zionist movement that was a reaction to the holocaust in WWII. Arabs were offended by this. The 7 day and Y.K. wars were attempts by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and others to destroy Israel. Israel won both and grabbed land to form a buffer. The UN stated that they should give the land back. Israel said yeah, um ok but we need security, and this buffer of land is for security purposes. Then Israel starts to colonize the buffer areas, Gaza, w.b., golan. Then Arafat forms PLO and starts trying to remove Israel with gorilla and terrorist tactics. Iran backs them via H.B. Various levels of war/peace take place. A road map for peace is worked out that gives back occupied land to Palestinians in exchange for peace. The Palestinians cant keep peace cuz they cant control HB. So the road map get stuck. Five years ago Sharon visits some old relic and the Palestinian reaction is a major uprising. Arafat finally dies. The road map gets unstuck. Settlers are removed in order to give back the occupied land

[Realist]

Perhaps I should elaborate--That was in response to your saying it was inefficient...

Inefficient and expensive are essentially the same thing. In any case, solar power is inefficient in any sense of the word--it gets very little energy for the space it takes up, and it can only collect energy when the sun is shining. All that as well as the expensive start up and maintnence costs....

Truth is, if solar power was profitable, we would be using it. In fact, the government already subsidises alternative power sources which wouldn't otherwise be profitable, so they could even survive operating at a moderate loss.

[Moose]

Solar Power batteries aren't the most efficient for long term storage, the more viable clean energy source would be wind power, but then again, the structures used take up a lot of space, Denmark uses 20% power from Wind, but in all reality though, to get the most efficient use would probably be in the ocean, but that would cost a lot even though the world is slowly dying each day.

[CRX687]

Xyx is right, solar power is not a very plausible source... though they do have partially solar powered batteries that help power electric cars. Those don't do too much though. Using it as a main source of power, will not work. LT, if you go to one of the more densely populated places in the world (ie, tokyo, beijing), you'll see the sun at all. They'd have to set up solar collection facilities all over the place and build a massive system to get power to these places.

America is currently focusing to hydrogen power, and doing research to make it safe and efficient. But many private companies, mostly in Japan, are doing quite a lot to make electric cars marketable. Though most of it involve hybrids, it's better than nothing. A pure electric car is highly unlikely, and will be VERY bothersome to use... as you'll have to plug it in every night like a cell phone. And driving long distances will be difficult.

[MallaLubba]

Yes, solar is inefficient. But if the government put EVEN A QUARTER of the money into subsidizing the many alternative fuel sorces that they put into oil, the industries that produce such energies would become efficient.
Besides, quite some time ago the oil industry was horribly inefficient. Only through the massive subsidies have the oil industries become what they are today.
Ain't it funny how a big business dominated government (on historical average) put big business into a position where big business can say that no one else can produce things as efficiently as big business to offer any real competition to big business and be able to be convincing on an economic level as much as big business?

[Moose]

Well it's not that Solar Power is inefficient, the batteries themselves are not forever lasting, and eventually they must be disposed of, Hydrogen yes, the next logical choice, however to create the particles needed, you would need to burn more hydro-carbons that are harmful to the atmosphere. Atm, the best source of energy could be wind power, and in the future, Fusion/Particle Fuel.

[Northwind]

Truth is, if solar power was profitable, we would be using it. In fact, the government already subsidises alternative power sources which wouldn't otherwise be profitable, so they could even survive operating at a moderate loss.
You're right, of course. If it was cost-effective to do so, we would already be using solar energy.

However, I would argue that the decision of cost-effectivness is based on a faulty premise. That is to say that we solely examine the short-term costs and ignore long-term costs. Fossil fuels are cheaper in the short-run, though have a number of unintended consequences (pollution, global warming, destruction of the environment as we mine for oil in more and more hard-to-reach places, etc.). Our current accounting methods act as a sort of subsidy for fossil fuel that make it seem profitable to continue to invest in this technology -- despite knowing that we (or our children) will pay for all of this down the road.

It would be interesting to see a true accounting of short-term and long-term costs associated with the various types of energy production. Fossil fuels still might be cheaper, but I'm willing to be that they would look a lot more even. Google anyone?

Personally, I think we should tax the @#$% out of fossil fuels to encourage conservation and the search for less harmful alternatives. (The tax monies could go to research on alternative fuels.) Until we acknowledge the true costs of our dependence on fossil fuels, we are only digger ourselves in deeper.

And, to respond to Kyir's point, we have not yet reached peak oil production (the year at which we extract more oil from the ground that we will in any subsequent year). When we do, expect to see DRASTICALLY rising fuel prices and a great deal of conflict over oil. The country that is least dependent on oil when this happens will be in a vastly superior position compared to other countries. I truly fear that America will be one of the "other" countries when this scenario occurs.

[BaxVarlet]

There's always nuclear power, which despite it's bad rap, is relatively clean. It is far less dangerous than coal/oil burning power simply due to the fact of the horrible air pollution they cause. Yes, there is nuclear waste being disposed of because of these plants, but safer ways to dispose of it/ways to reduce/eliminate it our becoming more feasible.

I agree with Northwind, that we have to look at both long and short termed cost-effectiveness, I just don't think the majority of Americans will look at it that way. Spending billions on solar/wind plants does not appeal to a lot of people, even if it will help phase out the options that will cost them more in the end.

-Bax

[CRX687]

There's always nuclear power, which despite it's bad rap, is relatively clean. It is far less dangerous than coal/oil burning power simply due to the fact of the horrible air pollution they cause. Yes, there is nuclear waste being disposed of because of these plants, but safer ways to dispose of it/ways to reduce/eliminate it our becoming more feasible.

I agree with Northwind, that we have to look at both long and short termed cost-effectiveness, I just don't think the majority of Americans will look at it that way. Spending billions on solar/wind plants does not appeal to a lot of people, even if it will help phase out the options that will cost them more in the end.

-Bax

Of course nuclear power if a logical choice... but America won't let any developing nations use it... so that won't be possible.

[BaxVarlet]

Ahh, true, but most developing countries can't afford any cleaner power supply than what they already have. So "upgrading" to anything better wouldn't be feasible, unless, countries, like the US chip in to make that happen. But good point, the US would not chip in to make nuclear power happen for developing countries.

-Bax

[CRX687]

Ahh, true, but most developing countries can't afford any cleaner power supply than what they already have. So "upgrading" to anything better wouldn't be feasible, unless, countries, like the US chip in to make that happen. But good point, the US would not chip in to make nuclear power happen for developing countries.

-Bax

well... when a developing country begins to "upgrade", US calls it a "nuclear program" and lists it as part of the 'axis of evil'... then pays it 300 billion dollars to drop it.

so no, it's not happening.

[Northwind]

Great news! (http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4132)

[Realist]

Yes, solar is inefficient. But if the government put EVEN A QUARTER of the money into subsidizing the many alternative fuel sorces that they put into oil, the industries that produce such energies would become efficient.

Perhaps, but more efficient than oil? Truth is, gas works, and gas is still incredibly cheap compared to other costs. Seems to me that, as oil gets more expensive, the market will open naturally for alternatives--right now they just cost an unreasonable amount.

Besides, quite some time ago the oil industry was horribly inefficient. Only through the massive subsidies have the oil industries become what they are today.

When were cars run on anything besides oil? :confused: Considering that most oil subsidies are in the form of tax breaks, is there an alternative automotive fuel source currently in existance which you think would, if it recieved similar tax breaks (and a large credit for startup costs), be able to compete with oil?

[doubledown]

When were cars run on anything besides oil? :confused: Considering that most oil subsidies are in the form of tax breaks, is there an alternative automotive fuel source currently in existance which you think would, if it recieved similar tax breaks (and a large credit for startup costs), be able to compete with oil?

Well most of the very first cars ran on water, or rather steam. And there are several prototypes for hydrogen-powered automobiles available, but since there has not been adequate backing, they sit as just prototypes and not actually manufactured.

[Realist]

However, I would argue that the decision of cost-effectivness is based on a faulty premise. That is to say that we solely examine the short-term costs and ignore long-term costs.

While this is quite true, it is not necessarily a bad thing. As oil prices continue to rise, alternative sources will become more profitable in proportion to this rising; that is, there won't be some sudden point at which oil quadruples in price in a few months. And, as alternatives become viable, that will even stabalize the cost of oil by decreasing demand. As long as some alternative exists, therefore, I think rising fuel costs are just a moderate pain we're going to suffer from to a degree but will eventually recover from.

As for pollution, global warming, etc., all good points, but we should remember that we are already less polluting than we were in 1980s even as the total number of cars has increased and we continue to use oil for fuel...and I don't think that cars contribute that significantly to global warming compared to industrial sources. That's not to say that we wouldn't benefit from replacing oil, just that we shouldn't get too paranoid about it all...or at least, that there are other things we should get paranoid about first.

The real problem in my mind is that I just don't see any alternatives to oil...its just such a great resource, we use it for everything from pesticides necessary for agriculture to plastic used for tons of manufactured goods, not to mention the obvious usage as a fuel source for transportation. Are there any sources, even sources of significantly greater expense, which can replace oil?

One final point: We must separate our discussions about energy for electricity and energy for transportation. The vast majority of oil is not generally used to produce electricity. Even if we run out of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels, we can still get electricity from nuclear power, so that's not a huge problem.

[Realist]

Well most of the very first cars ran on water, or rather steam. And there are several prototypes for hydrogen-powered automobiles available, but since there has not been adequate backing, they sit as just prototypes and not actually manufactured.

Its not like there isn't any interest, billions of dollars is being put into hydrogen research; sure, that's nothing like the subsidies for oil, but I'd think it'd be enough to build at least one hydrogen vehicle if it were currently workable....

Edit: Seems there are already a few hydrogen cars.... (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4563676/)

[doubledown]

Its not like there isn't any interest, billions of dollars is being put into hydrogen research; sure, that's nothing like the subsidies for oil, but I'd think it'd be enough to build at least one hydrogen vehicle if it were currently workable....

Actually there are several, fiat has one on the road now Fiat's Hydrogen Car (http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1276.html) and IBM is working on one as well as many other major corporations. The problem is, they are doing it on their own and since there is not that big of an incentive, they are in no rush to mess with an already profitable business model

[Realist]

Actually there are several, fiat has one on the road now Fiat's Hydrogen Car (http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1276.html)

Yeah, I editted my post right before you replied. :)

The problem is, they are doing it on their own and since there is not that big of an incentive, they are in no rush to mess with an already profitable business model

The question is whether, when there is such an incentive, they will be able to reduce the price to one which won't collapse the world economy. :cool:

[MallaLubba]

When were cars run on anything besides oil? :confused: Considering that most oil subsidies are in the form of tax breaks, is there an alternative automotive fuel source currently in existence which you think would, if it received similar tax breaks (and a large credit for startup costs), be able to compete with oil?

No, you're right they never were run on anything else besides oil. But the production, transportation, storage, and refinement of oil used to be a completely inefficient process. A lot of loss of product, efficient use of volume (i.e. octane levels), and lack of use for the non-fuel byproduct were all realities. But because it was a fast and because technology hadn't evolved there was little choice. My problem is that governments (and by that I mean a collective of people in a society) generally focus on short-term realities instead of long-term ideologies. Yes, I realize that if we only focus on ideologies we suffer for something that our ancestors will only see. But if we achieve a balance (and I mean 10% oil 10% solar 10% power cell 10% wind, etc.) then we will suffer slightly now and only slightly in the future. The reality is that we are going to suffer slightly soon, anyway. Why not accept that and look towards the future sooner?

[CRX687]

Actually there are several, fiat has one on the road now Fiat's Hydrogen Car (http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage1276.html) and IBM is working on one as well as many other major corporations. The problem is, they are doing it on their own and since there is not that big of an incentive, they are in no rush to mess with an already profitable business model

There's currently a 12 billion dollar federal budget for hyrogen powered automotive research.

Anyway, yes, we all know that hydrogen powered cars are possible and good... But it still can't compete with gas. They CAN be made, but the production cost right now is to high that marketing it against a normal car is suicide for most companies. Plus, do you see any hydrogen- fueling stations by any roads?

Before hydrogen can replace oil as automotive fuel, we need a completely new fueling infrastructure to be built, and we need to cut down on production costs.

Even if companies make a model right now, where will the people go to refuel their cars?

The incentive right now is to make hybrids, and increase mpg rates.

[MallaLubba]

...Plus, do you see any hydrogen- fueling stations by any roads? ...
[superhero voice]Devil's advocacy (http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf) aaaaaaaawwwwwwaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy[/superhero voice]

[CRX687]

[superhero voice]Devil's advocacy (http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf) aaaaaaaawwwwwwaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy[/superhero voice]

and you expect everyone in the world who drives to go to one of those places for fuel? Do you know how long the lines will be?

A list of all the gas stations in my county alone would be at least three times as long as that one...

[doubledown]

and you expect everyone in the world who drives to go to one of those places for fuel? Do you know how long the lines will be?

A list of all the gas stations in my county alone would be at least three times as long as that one...

true the infrastructure isnt really there, but theres no reasont to build up an hydrogen refueling infrastructure if the automobile industry shuns hydrogen-powered cars anyways. The two need to be developed simultaneously. If just one quarter of the money going to oil subsidies went instead toward joint development of hydrogen cars and refueling stations, we'd be so much further along.

[Realist]

No, you're right they never were run on anything else besides oil. But the production, transportation, storage, and refinement of oil used to be a completely inefficient process. A lot of loss of product, efficient use of volume (i.e. octane levels), and lack of use for the non-fuel byproduct were all realities. But because it was a fast and because technology hadn't evolved there was little choice. My problem is that governments (and by that I mean a collective of people in a society) generally focus on short-term realities instead of long-term ideologies.

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with this; you just made a statement in your last post that I didn't fully understand--that if we subsidized alternative fuels as well as oil, then those fuels would become more efficient (and presumably marketable). I'm wondering which fuel you were thinking of then, and whether you think that fuel could ever replace oil. Especially considering that, of the types of power you listed in your latest post, at least wind has never even been considered as a fuel for cars as far as I know. And if you were referring to electricity, oil is already not used very often for electricity, so that's not a way to solve our oil problems no matter how well the government subsidizes it.

[CRX687]

true the infrastructure isnt really there, but theres no reasont to build up an hydrogen refueling infrastructure if the automobile industry shuns hydrogen-powered cars anyways. The two need to be developed simultaneously. If just one quarter of the money going to oil subsidies went instead toward joint development of hydrogen cars and refueling stations, we'd be so much further along.

But you have to keep in mind that the industry is full of private businesses. They need money and profit to keep afloat.

US companies are getting cuts, but many other automibile companies ARE doing research on hydrogen fuel. The industry does not shun hydrogen powered cars, the individual companies just recognize that they cannot put too much resources into something that won't turn out a profit.

Oil is the current #1 source of energy to power cars, obviously the subsidies are high. As the current budget is so tight, you can't expect the government to have money for everything and be able to still keep the economy healthy. And if the government starts rewarding heavily those companies that work on hydrogen energy, there will obviously be complaints it 'interfering' in the private sphere.

[doubledown]

I dont think anyone really thinks we can get away from using oil altogether, however if we can lessen our dependance, it can only benefit us. Alternative fueled automobiles is one way. Solar/wind/hydro power for electricty would help as well. The thing that really bugs me is, at a time when our nation is really coming to terms with the fact that these fossil fuels are finite and are depleting at an increassing rate, the current administration gives out the most subsidies to those businesses, oil and coal rather than trying to invest in new or already established renewable sources.

[CRX687]

I dont think anyone really thinks we can get away from using oil altogether, however if we can lessen our dependance, it can only benefit us. Alternative fueled automobiles is one way. Solar/wind/hydro power for electricty would help as well. The thing that really bugs me is, at a time when our nation is really coming to terms with the fact that these fossil fuels are finite and are depleting at an increassing rate, the current administration gives out the most subsidies to those businesses, oil and coal rather than trying to invest in new or already established renewable sources.

Well, reality is, America is the number 1 consumer of oil in the world. And it's NOT just america realizing oil cannot be depended upon forever, so the entire market is raising in prices, and oil companies are making less and less money. At the moment, america NEEDS the oil, it's like a drug that it's addicted to. In order to keep people IN business and survive the present, it HAS to give these subsidies.

[Realist]

No, it really doesn't have to give subsidies. The oil industry is already making billions and billions in profit each year. And consider that the subsidies come from taxes; its not like America is just taking money from thin air and giving it to oil corps; its taking money from the American people and other corporations (which could use that extra money to buy oil products anyways) and giving it to oil companies which are already making tons of profits.

[CRX687]

No, it really doesn't have to give subsidies. The oil industry is already making billions and billions in profit each year. And consider that the subsidies come from taxes; its not like America is just taking money from thin air and giving it to oil corps; its taking money from the American people and other corporations (which could use that extra money to buy oil products anyways) and giving it to oil companies which are already making tons of profits.

But it has to keep the industry alive, and keep america competitive so that it can actually get the oil. Prices are going up because OPEC is setting it that way. The companies need a certain amount of profit (billions) to pay for everything. And it's the industry as a whole that's making billions every year on profit, that includes the shipping, the transporting, the importing, each individual gas station, the main companies, etc... The actual businesses don't get that much. These subsidies help keep the gas prices down. Plus, there is no guarantee that americans would take the money to buy gas... by collecting it in the form of taxes and controlling what industries get it, the gov't is keeping the industry healthy. These subsidies, in turn, allow the companies to set their prices lower, so in the end, the consumer gets more or less the same amount of the actual product.

[Moose]

One way of looking at it is perhaps due to the fact that we will be saved in 3000 years, raising prices of oil will somehow tell us that we need to stop wasting the fuel we have that will last 7 years more.

[Realist]

But it has to keep the industry alive, and keep america competitive so that it can actually get the oil. Prices are going up because OPEC is setting it that way. The companies need a certain amount of profit (billions) to pay for everything.

Profit means after all costs. Many companies these days are making virtually no profit whatsoever and still surviving. There is no reason to subsidize any industry which is in profit; such a company can obviously survive on its own (its stupid to subsidize companies which are losing money too, but that's another topic)

These subsidies help keep the gas prices down.

Would you rather have $500 extra dollars a year to buy gas, or have gas cost $500 less per year to buy? If you're already spending over $500 in gas prices, its the exact same thing from your perspective. So, if subsidies really just took that $500 extra dollars from you and gave them to the oil companies, the subsidies would be essentially meaningless to you--in an otherwise competitive system where prices moved to lowest possible levels.

But that the oil companies are making profits--and not just profits, record profits. The oil industry made $8 billion profit last year. That means they aren't lowering the prices to the levels which they could survive; rather, they are keeping the prices artificially high in order to enrich themselves. Meaning that the government subsidies taken from the average person and given to the oil companies don't evem help the average consumer.

[MallaLubba]

Sure, I wouldn't disagree with this; you just made a statement in your last post that I didn't fully understand--that if we subsidized alternative fuels as well as oil, then those fuels would become more efficient (and presumably marketable). I'm wondering which fuel you were thinking of then, and whether you think that fuel could ever replace oil. Especially considering that, of the types of power you listed in your latest post, at least wind has never even been considered as a fuel for cars as far as I know. And if you were referring to electricity, oil is already not used very often for electricity, so that's not a way to solve our oil problems no matter how well the government subsidizes it.
Uh. . .maybe. . .well. . .sail powered vehicles? It could happen.

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about any in particular fuel, actually. You know how us academics think: theory, ideology, conceptual, and abstract expectations.

[Realist]

Well, I wasn't specifically talking about any in particular fuel, actually. You know how us academics think: theory, ideology, conceptual, and abstract expectations.

Yeah, I do know that. :cool:

[CRX687]

Profit means after all costs. Many companies these days are making virtually no profit whatsoever and still surviving. There is no reason to subsidize any industry which is in profit; such a company can obviously survive on its own (its stupid to subsidize companies which are losing money too, but that's another topic)



Would you rather have $500 extra dollars a year to buy gas, or have gas cost $500 less per year to buy? If you're already spending over $500 in gas prices, its the exact same thing from your perspective. So, if subsidies really just took that $500 extra dollars from you and gave them to the oil companies, the subsidies would be essentially meaningless to you--in an otherwise competitive system where prices moved to lowest possible levels.

But that the oil companies are making profits--and not just profits, record profits. The oil industry made $8 billion profit last year. That means they aren't lowering the prices to the levels which they could survive; rather, they are keeping the prices artificially high in order to enrich themselves. Meaning that the government subsidies taken from the average person and given to the oil companies don't evem help the average consumer.

The industry is in profit, yes, but there has to be ENOUGH profit so that the best minds would go into the business and the US industry leading in the world.

As for the $500 for gas... it's a necessity, so if I'm going to lose the money and get the gas in the end anyway, taxing would be the better way.

The oil companies are NOT the ones that set the prices, prices rise when OPEC sets the cost per barrel higher. They drop according to that too. Venezuela and the middle east are making more money, the gas companies themselves set their prices a standard amount above that which they are charged. Record profits show taht someone, somewhere, in the industry is doing a good job, the gov't should reward that. If the gov't cuts down on subsidies when companies make more profit, it means there's less incentive to do a better job.

Plus, average profits for a lot of industries are raising each year, simply due to inflation, and a change in the value of the currency. Gov't subsidies help keep the companies running, not because the companies would go bankrupt if they stop, but to give them incentive to do their best.

[Realist]

The industry is in profit, yes, but there has to be ENOUGH profit so that the best minds would go into the business and the US industry leading in the world.

Why exactly? In fact, if you subsidize oil, it means the "best minds" have no incenitive for "bestness", since any failure on their part will be covered by the government. Regardless, profit means after ALL costs, including compensation for the people in charge.

The oil companies are NOT the ones that set the prices, prices rise when OPEC sets the cost per barrel higher.

Of course the oil companies set the prices. Its true that OPEC affects the price of oil, but it is the oil companies which set the price at the pump--and they are clearly setting them much higher than necessary, considering the profits they are making.

If the gov't cuts down on subsidies when companies make more profit, it means there's less incentive to do a better job.

Agreed there. That's why the airline subsidies are really stupid. ALL corporate welfare should be dropped; if a corporation cannot survive on its own then its not worth keeping alive.

Gov't subsidies help keep the companies running, not because the companies would go bankrupt if they stop, but to give them incentive to do their best.

They already have enough incentive to do their best from the customers and stockholders. Government has the opposite effect since it doesn't follow the rules of the free market.

[meat.eater]

Way to be cynical, Moose (http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6314/moose7fu.png):D

[Moose]

Way to be cynical, Moose (http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6314/moose7fu.png):D


Thats realistic, not cynical ;).

Do you want me to start posting s/s's to Meat ;). I believe some are a lot more worse for you :P.

[Realist]

I was really cynical yesterday about how messed up our society is. I was going to write something long, powerful, thoughtful, probing, original, innovative, genius, so on, but I was just a bit too lazy. Sigh.

[Moose]

I was really cynical yesterday about how messed up our society is. I was going to write something long, powerful, thoughtful, probing, original, innovative, genius, so on, but I was just a bit too lazy. Sigh.


Eventually the money dries up real ;).

[meat.eater]

Thats realistic, not cynical ;).

Do you want me to start posting s/s's to Meat ;). I believe some are a lot more worse for you :P.

good luck with that. :p