Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[rumblefish]

That explains why *we* didn't aggressively develop alternative energies *here* but it doesn't explain why *nobody* developed them anywhere else. For instance, battery technology is no further along in Europe than it is here.

Well, I may not be 100% sure on this but considering the times of the last oil crisis, the 70's cold war was rampant. Budgets were aimed more towards defense. NATO had built up forces along the iron curtain. Europe was more afraid of Russian tanks sweeping across Europe then developing battery technology. Also, remember the EU wasn't formed back then. Europe was still composed of individual countries. The economic might of the EU didn't exist back then meaning that most countries concentrated on exporting their prime products to support GDP growth. Remember, at the time Europe wasn't really considered a technological powerhouse. The US and Russia were the innovators, involved in the propaganda space race. Countries like France concentrated more on exporting products they were known for (cheese,wine). The research infrastructure for high technology really didn't exist there back then. As evidence, you didn't see any other countries join the space race to put a man on the moon.

[captain]

Originally Posted by aggie99

Not at all, they tax ALL fuel types so there is currently little incentive to develop a new fuel system if it will be taxed at the same rate as fossil fuel. I was watching a show in England about biofuels and although they got the used vegetable oil free they still had to pay a tax on the biofuel they created. Sadly, after production costs and taxes its cost was only slightly lesser than standard diesel. I am sure this will be reformed but I am sure this is why high fuel costs haven't prompted different fuel technologies up to now. Plus one of the other major reasons for the fuel tax is to make public transit more popular, something we are now seeing here with the fuel cost increases.

Kind of goes against the logic of the greens that putting a high tax on gas will force development of alternatives. Problem is if it does force development of alternatives by then the gas tax revenues will have become adictive so when it starts to drop with less gas usage the tax will applied to the alternative to continue feeding the adiction.

[aggie99]

Originally Posted by captain

Kind of goes against the logic of the greens that putting a high tax on gas will force development of alternatives. Problem is if it does force development of alternatives by then the gas tax revenues will have become adictive so when it starts to drop with less gas usage the tax will applied to the alternative to continue feeding the adiction.

The taxation of fuel, regardless of type, will always be there. It isn't the tax that has caused the price quadruple over the last decade. It's too late to try an impose higher taxes on gas at this point, it would have made sense 5 years ago. At this point we need to find a way to provide tax breaks and incentives for the advancement alternative fuel systems and change out mindset as a society on wants vs needs and we just might remain the superpower and leader of the free world.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by aggie99

The bigger issue is that even if they started drilling right now in the Gulf (which won't happen because propsecting isn't permitted and they need to find it) we wouldn't see the first barrels of oil for at least 3 years and most probably 5 years.

Two comments:

1. You must not know anything about oil speculation and oil futures. My friend, the price of a barrel of crude is NOT dependent upon what we're talking out of the ground TODAY, TOMORROW, or NEXT WEEK. The price of crude is largely dependent upon what the anticipated supply (and demand) will be YEARS from today. Oil speculators are buying FUTURES (future oil based on future demand & supply, but pricing TODAY).

In short, if we began drilling our own oil right now (ANWR, off the US coast, oil shale in UT/CO, etc.), the net result would be IMMEDIATE. Speculators would know that FUTURE supply will be greater, and as a result, will not need to bid up oil futures as they are right now.

THAT is what drives the price of crude -- NOT what we're getting out of the ground today, tomorrow, or in the next year or two.

2. If you don't agree with drilling because it will take "3 years and most probably 5 years", please tell me which alternative energy source that YOU support (e.g., solar, wind, hydrogen) will be available and in as much supply as oil in the next 3 to 5 years ...

Those who are against drilling and love to quote the "3-5-10 year until we get some oil out of the ground" never seem to include a timeline of how long it will take to get alternative energy online -- IF any of them EVER take off to begin with!

So before you go on and on about how long it will take to get oil out of the ground, do a little reserach to understand (a) what drives the price of crude and (b) to find out when (and IF) *any* alternative energy will actually make a dent in our energy usage in the US.

Besides ... we have EXISTING platforms off the coast in California (that were shut down by the tree-huggers in the 1970's) that could realistically be pumping oil again in less than a year.

[SlvrDragon50]

IN response to 2:

I never said that we would develop withing a few years... Its that the sudden increase of oil will cause a large amount of people to believe, "Oh, we dont need to research alternatives.. we just found more oil!" Actually, the oil will only last 10 years... If we slow down research for 10 years, the crisis will be much worse once those oil drills are empty.

Also, about alternative energies.. were talking mainly about cars.. I havn't seen any solar powered cars or wind powered cars nor do I believe they are in development...

Hydrogen has already been in testing for several years in CA. Electric cars have also been testing for several years in CA and the Volt will be coming in the near future. THe Aptera and VW 1L i posted before, if you bothered to read at all, dont even require an alternative fuel source. Its stuck in the American mind that we need big cars like the Expedition and Yukon... How often are you going to be driving 7 people and bringing 4 bags of luggage with you anyways?

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by aggie99

At this point we need to find a way to provide tax breaks and incentives for the advancement alternative fuel systems and change out mindset as a society on wants vs needs and we just might remain the superpower and leader of the free world.

I've read through many of your posts, aggie99, and the problem with your argument is that you seem convince that the only solutions is one-sided (alternative energy).

The solution to today's energy crisis is TWO-FOLD:

1. Drill here, drill now, pay less - this reduces the pain at the pump.
2. Develop alternative energy - everything from solar to wind to nuclear to hydrogen -- ANYTHING that might be a viable solution for FUTURE demand.

All the wishful thinking about alternative energy isn't going to make one iota of a difference for the next 10-15-20 years ... IF at all!

We don't KNOW (and there is no emperical evidence) that ANY currently investgated alternative energy sources will be able to REPLACE our dependency on OIL.

So how can you claim that the ONLY way to reduce/eliminate our dependence on ANY oil - foreign or domestic - CAN be addressed by any of these miracle panaceas that do NOT (without more R&D) provide the impact that oil (and coal) does?

It's not a one or the other solution: it's BOTH. Increased oil SUPPLY now while, simultaneously, development of what MIGHT be tomorrows energy sources.

[SlvrDragon50]

Alternative energy is not supposed to replace energy. It is so we can reduce oil consumption, native or foreign, so we will be able to last on what we have for a MUCH longer time.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

I never said that we would develop withing a few years... Its that the sudden increase of oil will cause a large amount of people to believe, "Oh, we dont need to research alternatives.. we just found more oil!"

Really? Where's your proof? Did you perform primary research by polling all 300 million + people in the US, or all 6 billion + humans on earth?

While your opinion is respected, without credible data to back it up it's still nothing more than an opinion.

Actually, the oil will only last 10 years... If we slow down research for 10 years, the crisis will be much worse once those oil drills are empty.

Please provide the proof for the basis of this absolutely ludicrous claim, because that talking point has been worn out for quite some time already.

We have more oil in the oil shale in UT/CO right now than has been consumed by ALL of man since the dawn of the oil age. There is an estimated 1.2 to 1.8 TRILLION barrels of oil there. Since the oil age started, humans have used just over 1 trilllion barrels.

Also, about alternative energies.. were talking mainly about cars.. I havn't seen any solar powered cars or wind powered cars nor do I believe they are in development...

Solar cars: Toyota is putting solar panels on next year's Prius vehicles (reported).

As for wind powered cars, the only thing you can do to harness the wind to power a car is to hang a big sail on it ...

Hydrogen has already been in testing for several years in CA. Electric cars have also been testing for several years in CA and the Volt will be coming in the near future. THe Aptera and VW 1L i posted before, if you bothered to read at all, dont even require an alternative fuel source.

You're forgetting the MOST important requirement for these vehicles: a source of hydrogen (or whatever) on every corner, as abundant as the corner gas station. How are you going to drive a hydrogen powered car with NO HYDROGEN STATIONS?

100% ric cars are no where NEAR being a viable alternative, because you can only get a few hundred miles, tops, before having to recharge, and that recharge takes a HUGE amount of time.

Its stuck in the American mind that we need big cars like the Expedition and Yukon... How often are you going to be driving 7 people and bringing 4 bags of luggage with you anyways?

In case you missed it, the Chevy Taho Hybrid (Tahoe same as GMC Yukon) was just named the "Green Car of the Year" ... an SUV:

Chevy Tahoe Hybrid wins Green Car of the Year award | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

My point isn't that we want/need to drive big gas-guzzling SUVs. My point is: the solution is comprehensive, not just "wishing" that new energy alternatives will materialized from thin air. You can't just stop relying upon oil, which means you have to increase SUPPLY while, at the same time, developing new energy solutions. Currently, there is nothing to replace oil with regard to the convenience it provides the average consumer.

[reservecops]

Originally Posted by SlvrDragon50

Alternative energy is not supposed to replace energy. It is so we can reduce oil consumption, native or foreign, so we will be able to last on what we have for a MUCH longer time.

Actually, since oil is a finite natural resource, some form of alternative energy will HAVE to "replace" oil ... but your talking point estimates about how much oil is left and how long it will last are about as far from the truth as Al Gore's 'global warming' hypocritial personal actions are from what he's telling US to do to save energy.

[aggie99]

Originally Posted by reservecops

I've read through many of your posts, aggie99, and the problem with your argument is that you seem convince that the only solutions is one-sided (alternative energy).

The solution to today's energy crisis is TWO-FOLD:

1. Drill here, drill now, pay less - this reduces the pain at the pump.
2. Develop alternative energy - everything from solar to wind to nuclear to hydrogen -- ANYTHING that might be a viable solution for FUTURE demand.

All the wishful thinking about alternative energy isn't going to make one iota of a difference for the next 10-15-20 years ... IF at all!

We don't KNOW (and there is no emperical evidence) that ANY currently investgated alternative energy sources will be able to REPLACE our dependency on OIL.

So how can you claim that the ONLY way to reduce/eliminate our dependence on ANY oil - foreign or domestic - CAN be addressed by any of these miracle panaceas that do NOT (without more R&D) provide the impact that oil (and coal) does?

It's not a one or the other solution: it's BOTH. Increased oil SUPPLY now while, simultaneously, development of what MIGHT be tomorrows energy sources.

Due to the current gas prices we have started to see a much needed shift in our thinking on consumption. GM shut down 4 of it's truck and SUV plants, has decided to discontinue the Hummer brand and shift to more fuel efficient cars. There are waiting lists for smart cars and Hybrid vehicles. The all electric Tesla (although for a niche market) never expected the demand and has a one year waiting list and they now plan to develop a lower end sedan model. Public transit use has dramtically increased. Telecommuting is growing because of the increase in the cost of flying. Sure all of these will affect certain market sectors worse than others and sadly affect american jobs and families but drilling here to marginally reduce prices and not force us into greater action is a huge mistake. Companies react to market demand and I can guarantee there is more action being taken today to resolve our oil dependence then ever before. This country thrives on a challenge, why are we so scared this time? We need a cure, not a crutch.