"Forget "electric" cars for at least 15 years. "

http://issues.ni4d.us/index.php?title=Energy_and_Environment_Research_2

there are busses in sb that run up and down state street all day long
which are electric only, they have been doing that for 20 years.

they have a max speed of about 60 mph, run for two hours on a charge,
and carry as many as 30 people.

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:39:42 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

it's time to stop "debating."
All you'll get is the talking points they are parroting from their
respective camp leaders. No thought.
That kind of bullshit just gets tiring.
Reminds me of barking dogs.
Identical dogs, except for minor markings.
But the barks are the same.
Woof woof. Maybe it's the mailman, maybe a firecracker.
Only thing that shuts them up is a swift kick in the ass.

--Vic

"Roger Blake" <rogblake10 (AT) iname10 (DOT) com> wrote in message

There is a lot of oil in some shale deposits, but it is not cheap to extract
it.
That IS a fact.

On 7/2/09 6:37 AM, in article aS03m.10150$Dx2.8933 (AT) flpi146 (DOT) ffdc.sbc.com,
"HLS" <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) nix> wrote:

If the price goes up because it costs more to produce, that's reasonable,
but raising the price artificially through excess taxation as has been
proposed is quite another.

Roger Blake wrote:
Well I hope you are right because then there would be some hope for
future generations. Right now the most optimistic estimate for how much
oil is in ANWR is about equivalent to what the nation uses in 4 years.
ore realistic estimates are more like 2 years. And that oil belongs to
the people of the United States not the oil companies. You are asking
the people to sell that oil cheaply to the oil companies and they sell
it back to us at whatever price they can get. That doesn't solve
anything it just delays it a little while. Actually there is no
guarantee the oil companies will even sell it to Americans - they could
sell it to Japan or China just as easily. But the bottom line is if we
sell it now then in the future it isn't going to be there - Then what
happens? Oh right, I forgot, that is not our problem.


Yes but if you had the benefit of a working brain you would still want n
answer to the question who is benefiting from hoarding that oil. That
oil isn't going any place it is just becoming more valuable the longer
it sits in the ground.



That statement convinces me you are extremely gullible, but it doesn't
matter you can believe what you wish to. Even if your belief were true
it is still undeniable that if the US had put a high tax on every barrel
of oil 50 years ago the amount of oil that would be still sitting in the
ground as a result would be vast. I mean, it would be a lot more oil
left in the ground than the oil you think we have now. Not only would
there be more oil available still in the ground there would also be less
need (demand) for oil. That would be because alternate sources of energy
would have long ago developed and more efficient ways of using oil
energy would have also been developed. But most important of all: we
wouldn't stuck with an economy that isn't capable of functioning without
cheap oil.


Yes absolutely. That is the whole idea. It creates an economy that is
not distorted by a bubble of cheap oil. In case you haven't been paying
attention lately, bubble economies always pop and the consequences of
bubbles popping are always disastrous. You have to be a complete moron
to invite the greatest of all bubble economies to pop on you. And the
fact that you argue that disaster will happen, but not in our life time
is just an indication of your selfishness nothing more.




You might be right. Increasing the cost of oil may be fatal to the
economy, but if the economy can't adapt to high priced oil then the
economy is ultimately doomed anyway. Either we learn to survive with
high priced oil or we die. The only real choice we have is do we face
that reality now or do we put a gun to the head of future generations
and make them figure out how to live with high priced oil. And at the
same time that we avoid any responsibility for creating a viable economy
that we can pass to future generations we also saddle them with a huge
amount of debt. Do you think those future generations are going to be
better able to survive then we are now? Is it their fault that we now
have a faltering economy? You seem to think it is if you are asking them
to pay the bills.


Where do you think the money is coming from that the government spends.
Right now we are asking future generations to tax themselves to pay for
a large portion of what the government is spending for us now. This is
because we refuse to pay our own taxes. Your wonderful solution to all
our problems is don't tax us make somebody in the future pay the tax.
But I realize you are not alone. Not paying our taxes is also the
government's solution and most of the people are going along.


Sure, oil is not going to run out any time soon. But it will get more
expensive. And as we have seen in the last couple of years we cannot
rely on oil prices remaining stable and low.


Cheap oil is a bubble that will pop. Expensive oil will last forever.


I never said we are running out of oil. I said we need to do what needs
to be done to change the economy so that it can survive high oil prices.
The nation has a vested interest in doing that because as you yourself
have indicated the nation is completely vulnerable in this area. The
failure to immunize ourselves from this could be a "death blow" as you
so eloquently put it. I also said we need to start raising our own
taxes instead of asking future generations to raise taxes to pay for our
spending.


Only a complete idiot would not be able to see that our current
economy only functions well when oil prices are low and stable.
Currently the economy is clearly incapable of withstanding the shocks of
oil price fluctuations that are bound to come. Now you can rant a rave
and foam at the mouth about who is responsible for oil price instability
and whether or not it will happen sooner or later, but that won't make
it go away.

-jim

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote


The below reasons, all suppied by Jim, show why we should create stinulus
jobs by developing ANWR at taxpayer expense, BUT LEAVE THE OIL IN PLACE.
This would save the oil for future generations, leave the taxpayers with a
new "Fort Knox" of national treasure, give us the immediate benefit of a
potential supply buffer to discourage internationl oil price/supply
blackmail of our economy, and provide a strategic oil reserve.
Reason 2:
Reason 3:
Reason 4:
Reason 5:
Reason 6:
Reason 6:
Back to Reason 4:

Roger Blake <rogblake10 (AT) iname10 (DOT) com> wrote:
Problem is that removing oil from most of that shale will take more
energy than you'll get from burning it. Now, that's fine if you want
the oil for something like plastics fabrication or lubricating oils,
but it's not such a good thing if your intention is to burn it.

Also, please do not forget lubricating oils. Not all crude oil is
light sweet crude... there are a lot of crude oils out there that
are specialized for particular lubricating oil applications and when
those are gone they are gone.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Roger Blake <rogblake10 (AT) iname10 (DOT) com> wrote:
Tar sands are long chain hydrocarbons... it is outrageously expensive
in terms of energy input to crack that stuff down into gasoline and
diesel. On the other hand, some of those long paraffins are great for
plastics precursors.

The argument is made that people won't research other energy sources
(and that includes things like shale oil extraction) as long as cheap
petroleum is so cheap. I won't argue either way, but I'd like to
clarify what the argument is.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Roger Blake wrote:
Yes it is a good thing for the reason you state. It is also a good thing
because high prices encourages the discovery and use of alternatives to
oil. That was the topic of this thread. It is not just that a tax will
help insure a continued supply, as you so well put it, it will also
change the other side of the economic equation it will alter the demand
for oil by creating a demand for alternatives. That means the market
place figures out what alternatives to oil are best instead of the
government trying to guess what might be best and sinking money into
that. If you put a tax on oil there is no need for the government to be
involved in spending money on research. Research for alternatives
becomes a good investment opportunity for the private sector.

The reason the oil companies and the people who work for oil companies
tell you a tax won't matter and that it will just pass the cost to the
customer is because it is not true. If it were really true they wouldn't
say anything because they wouldn't care. If it were true they wouldn't
be arguing against it so vehemently. If you look at the big picture over
time. A tax on oil production will negatively impact on the oil
companies and it will positively impact on the customer. But that isn't
the reason for the tax. The purpose is not to favor one sector over
another the reason for the tax is that it has become abundantly clear
that fluctuating oil pries have become destructive to the long term
survival of the nation. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. It
something that shouldn't have been ignored for so long.

The crux of the matter that those opposed to taxing oil refuse to even
think about is do we include future generations in our considerations or
do we continue on the present course of thinking only what is good for
ourselves, at this time, and let future generations worry about
themselves. The opponents to a tax just want to ignore that it would be
better for future generations if we paid our own taxes and it would be
even better still for future generations if we did so in a way that
helped insure that that future had a continued supply of oil.
Instead the only solution they have to offer is to pass laws and
government incentives to extract more oil out of the ground at a
faster rate. One would think by now everyone would see why that is a
failed policy. There is little doubt that extracting more oil faster
will in the short run appear to look like it is making things better. It
might even encourage the public to go back to buying big SUV's, but what
will happen in the long run? As you have already pointed out there is no
reason the government needs to create incentives and means for oil
companies to extrract more oil. there is abundant oil they could be
extracting if they wanted to. Nobody is stopping the oil companies from
extracting shale oil.




"confiscatory taxation" I like that phrase how clever of you to think
that up. I propose that the US impose a $200/barrel "confiscatory oil
tax". That has a nice ring to it.

In case you are unaware - all taxes are confiscatory. So trying to
paint one tax as bad as if they aren't all the same would be OK if you
could supply some reason for that labeling. But you haven't supplied
reasons for any of the policies you want. All you can do is label
things. No reasoning, no thought. Just labels. It would be refreshing if
you could supply a reason why you think it is OK to impose a
confiscatory tax on future generations for our current spending. Is it
so terrible that the generation doing the spending be the ones that have
the money confiscated?

But if you are so hung up on labels and don't like the word "tax" then
let's call this an insurance premium. Require that the oil companies buy
a $200/brl insurance premium that is used to bail out the economy
whenever the economy crashes. That way, the next time the price of oil
shoots upward the government won't be already drowning in debt when it
needs to bail out the economy. Heck you could even give the oil
companies a "good drivers rewards"- where their premiums would go down
after so many years without a crash (if that happens).


People need to wake up and realize we already have a confiscatory
taxation policy and taxes aren't going to go away. The problem is that a
good bit of what we are confiscating is not from our ourselves but from
future generations. You may be able to make a reasonable argument that a
tax on oil now would not benefit the current generation, but it is hard
to argue that an oil tax today would not benefit future generations,
because as you said higher prices will insure continued supply. Not for
us, but for the future. That is the main point instead of robbing from
the future as we have done for the last 25 years we need to turn that
around and for a change do something that will be an investment in the
future.

OTOH, Your proposal is to continue robbing from the future, but not as
slowly as before we need now to shift gears and accelerate robbing from
the future faster.


Taxation is your solution where do you think the money is coming from
that is bailing out the economy that crashed as a result of last years
high oil prices? It is all coming from a confiscatory tax on the future
- every penny. Why are the future taxpayers being forced to pay for
this? Have you got it into your head that somehow the future taxpayers
are the ones who are to blame?

You have never once said one word to address the fundamental economic
problem that taxing oil will address. Every time the price of oil shoots
upward the US economy tanks. That is something that you would think can
no longer be just ignored. I mean just how long do you think we can keep
ignoring that? A tax on oil may be a bitter pill to swallow but it will
inoculate the nation against those price fluctuations which are
inevitable. The choice seems obvious either sit by and watch the
inevitable train wreck happen or do something to prevent it. Your
response to that problem is apparently to just bury your head in the
sand and pretend there is no problem.

The only action you have proposed is to ask that the government ignore
the long term health of the nation. Why should the nation go along with
that? Passing laws that help the oil companies pump more oil faster is
short term near sighted solution. It may look beneficial for a little
while, but once again puts the nation in a position to crash once the
supply again becomes inadequate to meet the demand. It is an inevitable
cycle that is guaranteed to happen.


-jim

"Roger Blake" <rogblake10 (AT) iname10 (DOT) com> wrote

Well balances the raving ring wing loonies on here.