Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » interesting energy info
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86087 is a reply to message #86084] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 12:09   |
![dc[3] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "dc[3] is currently offline")
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Graham Duncan <graham@grahamduncan.com> wrote:
>Isn't this what tax credits for businesses are all about? At a certain
>point vehicles could cost too much for any small business to afford, but
>there are tons of breaks (see tax code fore mileage, hybrids, or for
>f-ing SUVs).
i would hate to see small businesses relying on tax breaks for
basics like vehicles. I think the truck exemption is going to be
hard to eliminate.
>My guess is refinery construction stays low so that prices go up.
>Shocking! :)
No, as I understand it, there has not been a new refinery
approved in many years. It seems that everyone wants gas,
but no one wants a refinery near them.
>As for oil drilling, I don't think oil is the solution
>for our energy needs. Save it for plastics. I find it horribly
>short-sighted of us to find ways to use all the oil as quickly as
>possible. If China and India start using oil in ways we do, it's gone.
> So we must find another source of energy.
I have heard estimates of oil reserves amounting to hundreds
of years worth, and right now, there is no other usable solution.
Yes, develop alternatives. But this situation we have found
ourselves in with financing these middle east satraps is so
deadly that our first priority must be energy independence,
not alternatives which are not ready. Too many people are
trying to turn this situation into the big opportunity for
alternatives. It is not, and to treat it as such when there is
so much work to be done in that area yet, is pure foolishness.
BTW, there is one source for both clean electricity and
hydrogen for cars... Nuclear plants, and further development
of fusion power. Are you ready for it, or is it going to be another
NIMBY issue?
I don't think very many people realize how serious this issue
has become...
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86095 is a reply to message #86069] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 13:13 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinDetroit.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>We had a presentation by an energy group talking about imports. His claim
>>was that if after the 1973 oil shock the US had mandated that cars become
>>one percent more efficient across the board (no more light truck exemption)
>
>The light truck exemption is problematic, yet there is little way around
>it.
>Taking it away sounds attractive, but they are about as efficient as current
>tech allows and need to be able to carry things and tow and that requires
>power and frame strength and that means big engines and weight.
I dunno, Don, I see a whole lot of Westport hedge fund wives driving around
Eddie Bauer Edition SUV's that get 11 MPG. The average weight of all cars
has been going up since the 80's, mostly because of 'light' trucks. Do more
people need heavy hauling/towing capacity than used to, or are people buying
heavier, more powerful cars/trucks than they need?
>Now, the purchasing of these things by consumers is a way around CAFE
>but it also drives the manufacturing of them and keeps the price affordable
>for businesses. Restrict them to business only, and way fewer get made
>and the price goes nuts and businesses take the hit. Charge punitive
>consumption taxes; same thing.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that a $2/gallon gas tax is a good
thing. I think if we bomb Iran and gas goes to $12 per gallon in the marketplace
that probably would be a good thing because people would realize that we
can't have a smart energy policy without a smart foreign policy. But I don't
think a high gas tax would do anything significant to the behavior of the
Westport hedge fund wives and I'm from the Midwest so I realize that some
people have jobs where they really need to drive 100 miles per day.
That said, the question is are we making people truly pay the price for their
choices. By exempting light trucks we are in essence subsidizing fuel inefficient
vehicles. Does that make any sense if we are trying to use less oil? We made
laws to attain that goal and I think it's a classic loophole that is letting
people not pay the right price for those vehicles.
>Nonetheless, I think the applying of CAFE standards to light trucks is
>likely, especially if the dems get more power. This will ding small
>business harder than anyone else and will move small trucks and 4wd
>into the "rich people only" area where they will quickly become
>status symbols. Chrysler, whose trucks are about the only thing they
>actually make money on, will likely go under.
And if Chrysler can't make money because they can't build cars that people
want to buy they should go under, just like if I can't write good enough
code to do the job I should get fired. Again, it's a question of whether
we're pricing things correctly. We decided that it was in the interest of
everyone to have more fuel efficient vehicles, and think that's almost a
statement of fact. So the people who drive less efficient cars are welcome
to do so, they can pay more for their gas and more for their cars and trucks.
If a person _really_ needs the kind of towing and hauling capacity for their
work then they have to build that into what they charge for a job.
>The other thing we have to look at is how long it has been since we
>built a refinery and why a few rich NIMBY's manage to keep us from
>drilling for oil so easily when it is clearly time to do so.
Are we short on refining capacity? Deej? And yes we should be seeking for
domestic oil capacity, but we should be expending at least as much effort,
probably more, on domestic conservation and domestic renewables. That's the
real fix, even though it's a long way off, the sooner we start the sooner
we'll get there.
TCB
>DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86097 is a reply to message #86095] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 13:28 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>I dunno, Don, I see a whole lot of Westport hedge fund wives driving around
>Eddie Bauer Edition SUV's that get 11 MPG. The average weight of all cars
>has been going up since the 80's, mostly because of 'light' trucks. Do more
>people need heavy hauling/towing capacity than used to, or are people buying
>heavier, more powerful cars/trucks than they need?
Out here it's 90lb asian girls in H2's that get 8...
Really, these are cliches and while they are true in many
cases, in many others they have a bunch of people in them and
millions of small businesses require them.
How do you stop it without unintended consequences?
>That said, the question is are we making people truly pay the price for
their
>choices. By exempting light trucks we are in essence subsidizing fuel inefficient
>vehicles. Does that make any sense if we are trying to use less oil?
Call me a libertarian, but energy conservation is bullshit...
use it use it use it.. Doing so supplies the money and science
to replace it. A weakened economy with silly people putting
nasty notes on the windshields of H2's (like someone does out
in Santa Monica all the time) does not provide either the
money, nor the motive to replace oil and to get more oil
in the meantime.
BTW, I drive a certified ULEV vehicle. I just don't want people
acting like nazis to others about their vehicle choice.
>We made
>laws to attain that goal and I think it's a classic loophole that is letting
>people not pay the right price for those vehicles.
Actually I totally agree. I just wonder how to do it without
hammering people who do not deserve it?
>And if Chrysler can't make money because they can't build cars that people
>want to buy they should go under,
Agreed, but if enough companies go under, then even Toyota
will start making horrible vehicles because their is no
competition. Bail out Chrysler? Nope, but I don't want to
legislate them into bankruptcy either.
>If a person _really_ needs the kind of towing and hauling capacity for their
>work then they have to build that into what they charge for a job.
There's the problem... Eventually, my clients will stop buying.
When they do, I can't pay my mechanic to fix my car, nor the
roofer to fix the roof, etc etc... "The customer" does not have
endlessly deep pockets.
Remember, the rich can afford whatever punitive taxes you throw
at them. If they want the Eddie Bauer, they will get it. The small
business gal is another question entirely...
>Are we short on refining capacity? Deej? And yes we should be seeking for
>domestic oil capacity, but we should be expending at least as much effort,
>probably more, on domestic conservation and domestic renewables.
I understand we have not built a new refinery in 20 years in the
US. That's just strategic suicide. I agree on spending on
alternatives but never to the detriment of the oil infrastructure.
>That's the
>real fix, even though it's a long way off, the sooner we start the sooner
>we'll get there.
Agreed. Here come the nukes...
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86101 is a reply to message #86094] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 13:58 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jeff, you don't need to duck at all but here it seems you have ducked wrong
in the second worldwarstory;-) The big bad wolf, Sovjet did a great job too,
but in a totalitarian different way, after they had lost millions of people
in that war. I have read how many America lost but can't remember but I mean
it was far, far from a million. So, Sovjet did the job from east so America,
England and other occupied lands like Norway, could get room to do the job
from west, over the English channel.
Erling
"Jeff Hoover" <jkhoover@excite.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4665c03e@linux...
> ...And Europe is not a conglomeration of german facist vassals because of
> America too....
>
>
> (ducking...behind the largest object in miles ;-p
>
> Jeff
>
> erlilo wrote:
>> He too was a product of America.....;oD...ducking too....;-o)
>>
>> "DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:4665b01c@linux...
>>
>>>It's Clinton's fault.........;oD
>>>
>>>(ducking for cover)
>>>
>>>;o)
>>>
>>>"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4664dec1@linux...
>>>
>>>>Pretty cool little map. I had no idea we had that much nuclear
>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>My hometown is right in the middle of the biggest blob on the oil map .
>>>>. . eastern Montana, near the North Dakota border. There was quite an
>>>>oil boom up there in the '70s, my little town doubled in size to about
>>>>12,000. Now it's dwindled down to about 4,000.
>>>>
>>>>S
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"DJ" <www.aarrrrggghhh!!!.com> wrote in message news:4664bd13@linux...
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.msnbc.com/modules/eoe/energy.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>click on the top tab on the right, then get the details from the tab
>>>>>underneath it. It looks to be pretty accurate as far as O & G is
>>>>>concerned, at least from my experience in the industry (which is
>>>>>considerable in some aspects).
>>>>>
>>>>>;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86111 is a reply to message #86087] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 15:58 |
Graham Duncan
Messages: 147
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> i would hate to see small businesses relying on tax breaks for
> basics like vehicles. I think the truck exemption is going to be
> hard to eliminate.
I think a lot of small businesses already DO rely on tax breaks to
survive. And so do corporations if you want to get picky.
> Yes, develop alternatives. But this situation we have found
> ourselves in with financing these middle east satraps is so
> deadly that our first priority must be energy independence,
> not alternatives which are not ready. Too many people are
> trying to turn this situation into the big opportunity for
> alternatives. It is not, and to treat it as such when there is
> so much work to be done in that area yet, is pure foolishness.
So... when do you propose we START pouring resources into alternatives?
I'd say it's as good an opportunity as any. Imagine if we put all the
billions we've spent in Iraq into energy research. You want something
fast, blow a lot of money into it.
> BTW, there is one source for both clean electricity and
> hydrogen for cars... Nuclear plants, and further development
> of fusion power. Are you ready for it, or is it going to be another
> NIMBY issue?
NIMBY? Sorry, don't know that one. I assume it's a term for liberals?
Until solar and wind can increase capacity, I think nuclear is the best
option. We have it. It's probably easier to find a place to dump the
waste than it is to develop something new, so that's probably what will
happen. Sometimes I think the US is just lazy. ;)
> I don't think very many people realize how serious this issue
> has become...
I think it's serious. It should have been serious when the oil in Texas
ran dry last century. It was serious in the 70's, but people don't see
much past their immediate surroundings and comforts. It's a real bummer
about humanity.
And to bring us back to audio: I'm hoping to get my next studio (when I
can buy a house) on solar. Should be cool...
Anyway, interesting discussion!
Graham
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86114 is a reply to message #86097] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 16:25 |
excelav
Messages: 2130
Registered: July 2005
Location: Metro Detroit
|
Senior Member |
|
|
We need fuel efficient cars and trucks.
As soon as everybody starts driving cars that get 50 to 100 MPG, we'll be
paying $20.00 to $100.00 for a quart of oil, and $20.00 for a gallon of gas.
They will have some new excuse for why they are screwing us. I think you'll
see demand for gas go down if we have more fuel efficient cars, but I'll
bet prices will go up. There playing us now, they'll be playing us then.
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>>I dunno, Don, I see a whole lot of Westport hedge fund wives driving around
>>Eddie Bauer Edition SUV's that get 11 MPG. The average weight of all cars
>>has been going up since the 80's, mostly because of 'light' trucks. Do
more
>>people need heavy hauling/towing capacity than used to, or are people buying
>>heavier, more powerful cars/trucks than they need?
>
>Out here it's 90lb asian girls in H2's that get 8...
>
>Really, these are cliches and while they are true in many
>cases, in many others they have a bunch of people in them and
>millions of small businesses require them.
>
>How do you stop it without unintended consequences?
>
>
>
>>That said, the question is are we making people truly pay the price for
>their
>>choices. By exempting light trucks we are in essence subsidizing fuel inefficient
>>vehicles. Does that make any sense if we are trying to use less oil?
>
>Call me a libertarian, but energy conservation is bullshit...
>
>use it use it use it.. Doing so supplies the money and science
>to replace it. A weakened economy with silly people putting
>nasty notes on the windshields of H2's (like someone does out
>in Santa Monica all the time) does not provide either the
>money, nor the motive to replace oil and to get more oil
>in the meantime.
>
>BTW, I drive a certified ULEV vehicle. I just don't want people
>acting like nazis to others about their vehicle choice.
>
>>We made
>>laws to attain that goal and I think it's a classic loophole that is letting
>>people not pay the right price for those vehicles.
>
>Actually I totally agree. I just wonder how to do it without
>hammering people who do not deserve it?
>
>>And if Chrysler can't make money because they can't build cars that people
>>want to buy they should go under,
>
>Agreed, but if enough companies go under, then even Toyota
>will start making horrible vehicles because their is no
>competition. Bail out Chrysler? Nope, but I don't want to
>legislate them into bankruptcy either.
>
>
>>If a person _really_ needs the kind of towing and hauling capacity for
their
>>work then they have to build that into what they charge for a job.
>
>There's the problem... Eventually, my clients will stop buying.
>When they do, I can't pay my mechanic to fix my car, nor the
>roofer to fix the roof, etc etc... "The customer" does not have
>endlessly deep pockets.
>
>Remember, the rich can afford whatever punitive taxes you throw
>at them. If they want the Eddie Bauer, they will get it. The small
>business gal is another question entirely...
>
>
>>Are we short on refining capacity? Deej? And yes we should be seeking for
>>domestic oil capacity, but we should be expending at least as much effort,
>>probably more, on domestic conservation and domestic renewables.
>
>I understand we have not built a new refinery in 20 years in the
>US. That's just strategic suicide. I agree on spending on
>alternatives but never to the detriment of the oil infrastructure.
>
>
>>That's the
>>real fix, even though it's a long way off, the sooner we start the sooner
>>we'll get there.
>
>Agreed. Here come the nukes...
>
>DC
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86117 is a reply to message #86114] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 16:28 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm looking into electric cars.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
James McCloskey wrote:
> We need fuel efficient cars and trucks.
>
> As soon as everybody starts driving cars that get 50 to 100 MPG, we'll be
> paying $20.00 to $100.00 for a quart of oil, and $20.00 for a gallon of gas.
> They will have some new excuse for why they are screwing us. I think you'll
> see demand for gas go down if we have more fuel efficient cars, but I'll
> bet prices will go up. There playing us now, they'll be playing us then.
>
> "DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I dunno, Don, I see a whole lot of Westport hedge fund wives driving around
>>> Eddie Bauer Edition SUV's that get 11 MPG. The average weight of all cars
>>> has been going up since the 80's, mostly because of 'light' trucks. Do
> more
>>> people need heavy hauling/towing capacity than used to, or are people buying
>>> heavier, more powerful cars/trucks than they need?
>> Out here it's 90lb asian girls in H2's that get 8...
>>
>> Really, these are cliches and while they are true in many
>> cases, in many others they have a bunch of people in them and
>> millions of small businesses require them.
>>
>> How do you stop it without unintended consequences?
>>
>>
>>
>>> That said, the question is are we making people truly pay the price for
>> their
>>> choices. By exempting light trucks we are in essence subsidizing fuel inefficient
>>> vehicles. Does that make any sense if we are trying to use less oil?
>> Call me a libertarian, but energy conservation is bullshit...
>>
>> use it use it use it.. Doing so supplies the money and science
>> to replace it. A weakened economy with silly people putting
>> nasty notes on the windshields of H2's (like someone does out
>> in Santa Monica all the time) does not provide either the
>> money, nor the motive to replace oil and to get more oil
>> in the meantime.
>>
>> BTW, I drive a certified ULEV vehicle. I just don't want people
>> acting like nazis to others about their vehicle choice.
>>
>>> We made
>>> laws to attain that goal and I think it's a classic loophole that is letting
>>> people not pay the right price for those vehicles.
>> Actually I totally agree. I just wonder how to do it without
>> hammering people who do not deserve it?
>>
>>> And if Chrysler can't make money because they can't build cars that people
>>> want to buy they should go under,
>> Agreed, but if enough companies go under, then even Toyota
>> will start making horrible vehicles because their is no
>> competition. Bail out Chrysler? Nope, but I don't want to
>> legislate them into bankruptcy either.
>>
>>
>>> If a person _really_ needs the kind of towing and hauling capacity for
> their
>>> work then they have to build that into what they charge for a job.
>> There's the problem... Eventually, my clients will stop buying.
>> When they do, I can't pay my mechanic to fix my car, nor the
>> roofer to fix the roof, etc etc... "The customer" does not have
>> endlessly deep pockets.
>>
>> Remember, the rich can afford whatever punitive taxes you throw
>> at them. If they want the Eddie Bauer, they will get it. The small
>> business gal is another question entirely...
>>
>>
>>> Are we short on refining capacity? Deej? And yes we should be seeking for
>>> domestic oil capacity, but we should be expending at least as much effort,
>>> probably more, on domestic conservation and domestic renewables.
>> I understand we have not built a new refinery in 20 years in the
>> US. That's just strategic suicide. I agree on spending on
>> alternatives but never to the detriment of the oil infrastructure.
>>
>>
>>> That's the
>>> real fix, even though it's a long way off, the sooner we start the sooner
>>> we'll get there.
>> Agreed. Here come the nukes...
>>
>> DC
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: interesting energy info [message #86119 is a reply to message #86111] |
Tue, 05 June 2007 16:42 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Graham Duncan <graham@grahamduncan.com> wrote:
>So... when do you propose we START pouring resources into alternatives?
Now! We should be doing both. There is no reason we cannot
do both, and now.
> I'd say it's as good an opportunity as any. Imagine if we put all the
>billions we've spent in Iraq into energy research. You want something
>fast, blow a lot of money into it.
if there is never a democracy in Iraq, I would agree. If there
is, it was worth it.
>NIMBY? Sorry, don't know that one. I assume it's a term for liberals?
Not In My Backyard, and they run the gamut politically.
They move into areas where there are airports and try to close
the airport down because of the noise. The vote "lawnorder"
and protest a new prison. They bitch about gas prices and
veto drilling off "their" coast to protect their view and
property values. Ted Kennedy got wind turbines taken down
because they were in view of his estate! That sort of sh*t...
NIMBY's have prevented us from building any new refineries
for 20 years.
>Until solar and wind can increase capacity, I think nuclear is the best
>option. We have it. It's probably easier to find a place to dump the
>waste than it is to develop something new, so that's probably what will
>happen. Sometimes I think the US is just lazy. ;)
The others aren't ready and might not be ready in our lifetime
no matter the investment. The materials cost for photovoltaic
cells does can be more than the cost of the energy they replace...
There are alternatives and we need to really work on them,
and now. I like the mirrors and steam generator thing they
are trying out in the desert up here.
And drlll drill drill and build refineries...
>And to bring us back to audio: I'm hoping to get my next studio (when I
>can buy a house) on solar. Should be cool...
We want the details when you do!
best
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Dec 24 16:15:37 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01561 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
