Thread: Where Do We Draw The Line?

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

there is at least 100 years of oil on federal land and this being federal land means it belongs to the people, now it seems to me that a contract to drill on this land can be given to an oil company with the provision that gasoline must stay in this country and. Put a percentage cap on the prophet that they can make. This seems like a fair way to get reasonably priced gasoline and a reasonable return on the investors money while not being greedy.

I don't think the oil producers would be interested in such conditions. The traditional way it's done is they pay lump sum upfront for concession over the plot and then later on they look for oil there, may be develop it if it's profitable and sell it at market prices. The oil companies already have many years worth of oil in their concession portfolios, but they need more for afterwards.

Originally Posted by Grizzley1

During this time I believe they can figure out a way to produce hydrogen

The problem isn't production, but storage. Fossil fuels are still very cheap, so as long as they remain cheap there is really no need for alternatives. How cheap you may ask they need to be? Well, the real life data is that at about $150-$160/barrel people change their behavior and start decreasing their consumption sharply and switch to alternatives, so there is an upper limit where other technology takes over.

I know a doctor who is OBGYN. Doesn't take any insurance. Does really, really well. I mean, some doctors prioritize money to helping patients and decide they'll serve only those who can afford their services.

As far as term limits. Why are they necessary? Representatives are elected every two years, senators every 6 - if people don't want to change them, why would they want to impose limits themselves? I say american citizens ought to start pointing this particular finger at themselves, preferably on election day.

Originally Posted by gugi

The problem isn't production, but storage. Fossil fuels are still very cheap, so as long as they remain cheap there is really no need for alternatives. How cheap you may ask they need to be? Well, the real life data is that at about $150-$160/barrel people change their behavior and start decreasing their consumption sharply and switch to alternatives, so there is an upper limit where other technology takes over.

Storage is the issue. Wind and solar aren't available 24/7. Only water, fossil, and nuclear are.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Storage is the issue. Wind and solar aren't available 24/7. Only water, fossil, and nuclear are.

I don't think you understand the issue at all, because what you are saying is irrelevant to the matter. Demand for energy varies throughout the day by factor of about 2. Plus not many people are using fossil or nuclear energy directly to meet all of their household needs.

The issue is that energy storage and delivery on the scale for transportation is cheaper through fossil fuel at current market rates than the alternatives. But the fossil fuel isn't a limitless resource - it's just a storage of a tiny fraction of the solar energy over millions of years.
You can grow crops and convert much much larger fraction of the solar energy into fuel (like ethanol), but it's still more expensive than converting something accumulated over millions of years.

We already have hybrid and electric cars though, so we're closing to the crossover point.

Originally Posted by gugi

I don't think you understand the issue at all, because what you are saying is irrelevant to the matter. Demand for energy varies throughout the day by factor of about 2. Plus not many people are using fossil or nuclear energy directly to meet all of their household needs.

The issue is that energy storage and delivery on the scale for transportation is cheaper through fossil fuel at current market rates than the alternatives. But the fossil fuel isn't a limitless resource - it's just a storage of a tiny fraction of the solar energy over millions of years.
You can grow crops and convert much much larger fraction of the solar energy into fuel (like ethanol), but it's still more expensive than converting something accumulated over millions of years.

We already have hybrid and electric cars though, so we're closing to the crossover point.

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time. By the time you pay for all the expensive electronics you could have purchased several years worth of gas. The pollution and extra energy you expend to make them negates any energy savings. Electronics plants use huge amounts of water and generate some of the most toxic byproducts. After you have used them for just a few years the battery pack goes out and you are looking at a $5000 replacement battery.

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with. So a coal power car makes sense? We don't have enough generation capacity to charge everyone's cars, especially with Obama's war on the coal industry shutting down existing plants and blocking the building of new ones.

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it. Obama lies when he takes about increased production here. Any increased production is only coming from private land. The oil companies are still being blocked on government land and in the gulf.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Hybrid and electric cars are the stupidest thing we have come up with in a long time.

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

All electric? 45% of our electricity is from coal. There is generation and transmission losses to deal with.

I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Sure fossil fuel isn't limitless but we have 200 years worth of coal and MANY decades worth of oil right here is the US if Obama would just let us go get it.

There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

Originally Posted by gugi

No, that was the computer, and may be the space program. Do you know how much these things used to cost when they start making them?


I see you're very good with numbers. Did you ever learn in school to both add and subtract?


There's plenty of geothermal energy too - the Earth's core is liquid. And let's not forget the thermonuclear synthesis. The issue is not what is available, but what is practical and how much it costs. You want cheap energy? Stop all the government regulation nuclear production, including how the fuel is generated and what happens with it afterwards. A great place to start with is Iran.

But I can tell none of this matters the least bit to you, everything is Obama's and the Democrat's fault.

If you think the space program and computers an computers are bad you are off your nut.

Nasa did more to improve our standard of living than any other government program.

Have you ever had a friend saved by a Mobile ICU? That technology came directly from Nasa. Inertial navigation for aircraft and submarines. GPS. The list is endless.