Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
Because that's a long term plan. Remember, the government doesn't go out an explore sources. It funds exploration...true.
Someone said it best when he said: We need a three week plan, a three month plan, and a three year plan"" on energy. Actualy, I'd add to that: "...and a 30 year plan". Alternate sources will take years to become viable. Until then we need oil. Lots of oil.
jimmac:
Quote:
Hmmmm? Imagine that. I seem to remember proponents of the war in Iraq saying that fuel prices would be down after the war. So it was a good thing. Hmmmmm?
PS. By the way most experts are predicting around 150 years bfore we run out of fossil fuels. I for one do happen to care about our children in the next few generations! And just because 150 years seems like a long time ( about the year 1850 looking backwards to put it in perspective ) things will get bad long before that. Food for thought. Perhaps you should have a word with dubbya's oil company executive friends?
I never mentioned fuel prices...I don't think.
Perhaps you should provide some documentation or a plausible explanation for your thoughts. I believe if we stopped exploring for more oil we'd have about 200 years left. Or, let's use your number of 150. Who cares? It's irrelevant, because we won't be using gasoline power cars in 150 years and you know it. This is assuming we stop looking. There are billions, maybe trillions of barrels offshore. Alaska alone has enough to supply this country for 40 years or more....and that's just 2% of the ANWR.
Don't panic, jimmac. The Democratic candidate for President will have enough gas t oget to the podium where he gives his concession speech.
i still say require any retail facility that covers more than a few acres of land (i am looking in YOUR direction, wal-mart, and your airfield-sized asphault n' gravel roof) to allow for installation of solar fields or windwill farms on top (use tax incentives to get those chains to buy in, though i would hope they would do it just because it makes friggin' sense and is a good thing to do), to put some of that bulldozed land back to good use. considering the fact that there's like half a million wal-marts, targets, sam's clubs, and other warehouse style stores cropping up everywhere, as well as huge malls that have been around forever, you've got a lot of unused resources on top of those buildings that could be helping us out.
the problem with the current "drill more" philosophy, i think, is that it allows the government to get lazy and not devote any resources (or thought, even) to finding any alternatives. sure, there's a law of diminishing returns -- after a certain point, you have to drill more to keep things functioning properly -- but does anyone think we've gotten that desperate yet?
'course, maybe if i owned an suv, i might be getting desperate right about now.
Good one. Your idea re: Wal-Marts and what not is interesting and original. I don't think it is feasible though. You'd still have to get the power out of those places.
Randycat99:
Quote:
What I'm trying to say is that maybe there is a reason everybody hasn't jumped on the solar cell bandwagon. They aren't as practical and troublefree as you think. If you were an energy developer you might conclude that your money would be better utilized into a nuclear plant or top-notch oil refinery. Solar cells are still just a "curiosity", as of yet.
Exactly.
Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically.
I hope people here who think solar panels are the cure have done a bit of research before concluding it as the instant solution. You don't just put a panel up, and viola, instant, free power for tracks and tracks of neighborhood. It takes a considerable amount of surface area to generate anything reasonably useful (making a Walmart roof look pretty pointless). Then you have to account for additional support to keep them clean and maintained because they certainly aren't going to stay that way by themself on a Walmart roof after city rain, dust, and fall-out.
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or maybe windpower -- heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)
or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment. basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently??? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
now if you couldn't use that much space to help offset some of the power necessary to power that facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or windpower (or even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment), then you just are not trying hard enough. period.
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!?
"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...
"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!
"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?
Quote:
they have a considerable surface area.
In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.
Quote:
of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
Florescent tube lighting is quite energy-friendly, actually. The power for that would be peanuts compared to the extra A/C you would need to offset the heating caused by sufficient levels of natural lighting. My guess is that you simply have something personal against Walmart for some reason.
Quote:
now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs),...
If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.
Quote:
heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)
It would be just like proposing a nuclear plant. Everybody will suddenly fallback to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Plus there'll always be some nature conservationist group who would have a problem with you decimating some flat field with windmills. There's always some vital creature that you will be infringing upon.
Quote:
or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment.
Probably will be hot as hell on that rooftop- real pleasant place for a break area. A patch of foliage on a rooftop won't do jack for "giving something back to the environment", either.
Quote:
basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.
Maybe the world would suddenly become a better place, or maybe it won't make a damn bit of difference. It's all just idle speculation at this point. Sounds fuzzy and flowery, but functionally dubious in the extreme.
" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "
Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.
Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.
Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.
agreed, sdw, i'll let it go... i can get a bit obsessive at times.
p.s. randycat, i don't have anything against wal-mart, per se. i do have a problem with real estate developers and chain warehouse-style stores knocking down dozens of acres of trees for no good purpose -- walmart suffers simply because they are so visible and fall into that category well, but they are certainly not the only ones. they are doing it a lot around my house now, with huge warehouse stores adding to ones that are not even fully utilized, just to add presence and offer "convenience."
heck, if i have a thing against anyone, it's probably target, since they just waylayed probably 20 acres for a target and parking accommodations simply so people in my town didn't have to drive 15 MINUTES to the target they just opened 6 MONTHS AGO).
and having just come from the big city, rooftop garden break areas do work, and are not that hot at all. you can't have 100 year old oaks up there, but you can get a decent number of 10 foot shade trees with little to no maintenance except watering. and they're no hotter than, say, sitting down in the parking lot under a shade tree to take lunch (and a helluva a lot more enjoyable than the nasty breakrooms of many retail stores, provided the weather accommodates). plus, you get a better view, a little privacy from the general public, and a slightly better breeze than ground level.
perhaps i am a bit oversensitive to the issue, because i just came from a concrete and steel metroplis, and i forgot how much i MISSED TREES and WIDE OPEN SPACES WITHOUT RETAIL OR ADS. and now they seem to be knocking them down and paving them over as fast as possible. plus, i can't get that stupid counting crows song outta my head. grrr...
damn, didn't i just say i was going to let it go? okay, must go to bed... will be calmer in the morning... i swear. where's my medication???
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
This type of knee-jerk statement is fundamentally wrong. It's a line that people have used for years, to the point that it's became a universally accepted truth, and as reflexive as kicking the doctor when he gets to banging on your knees.
You see, we have this problem. It's called the progression of technology. Environmentalists seem to be of the mind that if there were no oil industry-based Republican conspiracies in the way, we could snap our fingers and have non-oil power sources now. Availability that matches that of petroleum products now. Conversion of all older oil consuming products now.
It's so obviously impossible to do in a short time span that I find it funny that people exist who think it to be just the opposite.
Are we getting there? Yes. Does government pressure and money help out a lot? Yes, it does, and it exists.
If we collectively move our focus in such an extreme manner, bad things will happen. If you add up all the little crises that would result from giving the bird to big oil, you'd have an economic nightmare. We'd all be driving short range, slow, small fuel cell cars at an enormous personal expense while replacing our furnaces, lawn mowers & such, or else face supremely high gas prices as a result of frowning upon the use of gas; companies would see highly decreased profit or even loss at the expense of converting over to and replacing old technology all at once. There are all manner of things that would result from instant alternative energy. Could the US weather the storm? I think so, but it would suck like hell.
To top it off, we're already in a bad economic position where investing in environmentally friendly items is not in the scope of nearly everyone's budgets.
And the liberals, who are supposedly more representative of the poor, are the ones who want to force this on the poor. What happens to me and my '92 F-150? I'm still in high school, I can't afford anything like the environmentalists want.
Give it time. We will reach a point where the mass market alternative energy cars are a decade old or more, and poor students like myself wont have to take a hit for using them, as they'll be the norm. My F-150 will be a part of some nostalgic old guy's car collection. The diesel power plant in my town will be a nice place to visit and reminisce on the old days, back when a plume of black smoke could be seen rising to power everyone's air conditioners on the hottest days of summer.
Will this time be sometime in the near future? I'd like to think that, at the very least, the situation I described will be that of my grandchildren, if not my children.
The truth is for now, we have a massive infrastructure based around fossil fuels. For the past century, it's all we've known. That's a lot of replacing and upgrading to do. And while we're still reliant upon it, it's absolute madness to look the other way and let a situation that is bad now get more confused and worse.
If we stop "drilling for more oil", and stop mining coal, we're going to have one big mother of a problem. It would cause The Great Depression II. Think about it long enough and deep enough.
And like I said, I suspect even the USA doesn't get it a cheep cheep as the oil producing countries..
But hell, who gives a flying toss..as far as I am concerned, petrol ( gas ) should be much much higher priced.
We need to encourage more public transport infrastructure. Too much damage to the enviroment & to society in general has been caused by the damm stupid car..
Hey, I like an outdoor break area just as much as the next guy, but the one thing that ruins it all for me are the smoking crowd. Sometimes I would enjoy feeling the light sunshine on my face and breathing in the outdoor air, but all that goes to hell when you got some f*cker next by smoking. That great fresh feeling goes to $hit when you have to smell that rancid odor with bits of ash blowing by you, and then goes the irritated eyes and runny nose. I know, where else are they going to smoke, right? I don't know, but it sure as hell ruins the outdoor experience for me. That is just a damn shame when the air in the break area ends up being worse than the "processed" air you get indoors. Now, I'm ranting... Usually, I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but my current work situation makes me believe more and more that smoking is a far more offensive habit than people are willing to acknowledge. It isn't just a "personal habit". It damn well sure has effects on the people around them, seemingly beyond the realm of that person's personal space (where what you do is your own business).
Also someone mentioned that there was no East Coast event that could have raised prices? I do remember this large BLACKOUT that occured. Last time I checked refineries and things of that nature needed electricity. Could be wrong though...
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.
I didn't have much time to post more elaborately on alternative energy sources. What I said was quite simplistic.
I do believe we should use oil just as we always have, just reduce the amount year after year as more alternative energy sources become better researched. It's not cut and dry, like "oil is evil and solar power is good." That's not true at all.
Another thing I think is that eventually, oil will run low and people will have to rely on other sources of energy. Like how the earth's population will eventually get too high and there will be mass famines. Yes, it will be a terrible crisis, but afterwards things might be better off.
I don't think oil will run out anytime soon though. Various studies have shown that oil would run out by 2000 or 2010 or 2020 or basically any year. They all say "30-70 years" but none of them have come true. What I think is that over time, it'll just get more and more expensive as methods for finding and extracting it get more expensive.
I have heard a bit about Shale Oil so I investigated more. I found this article on Google:
It sounds as if there's a remarkable quantity of shale oil in the US, but it remains untapped due to the high cost. But in a few decades, if some of the major oil resources have run out, it might become cost effective. We'd pay a lot for gas, maybe even $3/gallon by today's dollars, but it would be better than having no oil at all. And perhaps it would accelerate the development of alternate forms of energy (which are already being developed).
" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "
Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.
Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.
Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.
Good point, but I don't think it will happen here---at least not for a long time. The American mentality is very different...too individidual. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad...but the point is, it's true.
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
Simple. Consumer inertia.
When I was in Canada, I had not one but two cars that I converted to natural gas dual fuel - which meant I had a cylinder in the trunk for natural gas while keeping the gasoline tank intact. I did it mostly for environmental reasons (90% less emissions) and cost (50% cheaper).
Most of the time, I ran on natural gas, but if I couldn't find a station that had it, I switched to gasoline. Only a problem out in farm country.
Now, the technology for doing this has existed since Word War II, and all the parts for NG were made in Italy, where the conversion shop told me that up to 90% of the vehicles run on it (maybe they were exaggerating). There was a slight drop in the power output of the car, but there was a 50% drop in running the car! And that was more important.
The conversion was paid for by the various levels of the Canadian govt, which effectively made it free for me. No matter who I told this too, admiring the forward thinking of a country that promoted an alternate fuel like this, NOBODY wanted to convert their car. Excuses, excuses, excuses. My favorite being that the car would blow up like houses do when there is a leak, even though this has NEVER happened to an NG vehicle (you would more likely die from the gasoline explosion).
Yes, people complain about gas prices, but quite frankly, it obviously isn't hurting people enough. We have more cars on the road nowadays, people idling at drive-thru windows, etc.
The price of gasoline isn't stopping people from putting food on the table or a roof over their head.
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.
It's call price gouging.
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
Because that's a long term plan. Remember, the government doesn't go out an explore sources. It funds exploration...true.
Someone said it best when he said: We need a three week plan, a three month plan, and a three year plan"" on energy. Actualy, I'd add to that: "...and a 30 year plan". Alternate sources will take years to become viable. Until then we need oil. Lots of oil.
jimmac:
Hmmmm? Imagine that. I seem to remember proponents of the war in Iraq saying that fuel prices would be down after the war. So it was a good thing. Hmmmmm?
PS. By the way most experts are predicting around 150 years bfore we run out of fossil fuels. I for one do happen to care about our children in the next few generations! And just because 150 years seems like a long time ( about the year 1850 looking backwards to put it in perspective ) things will get bad long before that. Food for thought. Perhaps you should have a word with dubbya's oil company executive friends?
I never mentioned fuel prices...I don't think.
Perhaps you should provide some documentation or a plausible explanation for your thoughts. I believe if we stopped exploring for more oil we'd have about 200 years left. Or, let's use your number of 150. Who cares? It's irrelevant, because we won't be using gasoline power cars in 150 years and you know it. This is assuming we stop looking. There are billions, maybe trillions of barrels offshore. Alaska alone has enough to supply this country for 40 years or more....and that's just 2% of the ANWR.
Don't panic, jimmac. The Democratic candidate for President will have enough gas t oget to the podium where he gives his concession speech.
Originally posted by rok
i still say require any retail facility that covers more than a few acres of land (i am looking in YOUR direction, wal-mart, and your airfield-sized asphault n' gravel roof) to allow for installation of solar fields or windwill farms on top (use tax incentives to get those chains to buy in, though i would hope they would do it just because it makes friggin' sense and is a good thing to do), to put some of that bulldozed land back to good use. considering the fact that there's like half a million wal-marts, targets, sam's clubs, and other warehouse style stores cropping up everywhere, as well as huge malls that have been around forever, you've got a lot of unused resources on top of those buildings that could be helping us out.
the problem with the current "drill more" philosophy, i think, is that it allows the government to get lazy and not devote any resources (or thought, even) to finding any alternatives. sure, there's a law of diminishing returns -- after a certain point, you have to drill more to keep things functioning properly -- but does anyone think we've gotten that desperate yet?
'course, maybe if i owned an suv, i might be getting desperate right about now.
Good one. Your idea re: Wal-Marts and what not is interesting and original. I don't think it is feasible though. You'd still have to get the power out of those places.
Randycat99:
What I'm trying to say is that maybe there is a reason everybody hasn't jumped on the solar cell bandwagon. They aren't as practical and troublefree as you think. If you were an energy developer you might conclude that your money would be better utilized into a nuclear plant or top-notch oil refinery. Solar cells are still just a "curiosity", as of yet.
Exactly.
Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically.
Originally posted by Randycat99
I hope people here who think solar panels are the cure have done a bit of research before concluding it as the instant solution. You don't just put a panel up, and viola, instant, free power for tracks and tracks of neighborhood. It takes a considerable amount of surface area to generate anything reasonably useful (making a Walmart roof look pretty pointless). Then you have to account for additional support to keep them clean and maintained because they certainly aren't going to stay that way by themself on a Walmart roof after city rain, dust, and fall-out.
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or maybe windpower -- heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)
or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment. basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.
Originally posted by rok
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently??? they have a considerable surface area. of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
now if you couldn't use that much space to help offset some of the power necessary to power that facility (and thereby save it for other local needs), through either solar or windpower (or even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment), then you just are not trying hard enough. period.
"Fuggin'" = Funniest Intentional Misspelling...EVAR.
As for the idea, let it go. It's time for it to die now. Let it be.
Originally posted by rok
true, but ANY energy generated by such a technique would be better than the ultra-useless heat generating and sun reflecting and non-oxygen producing areas they are now. i mean, have you SEEN some of these super-wal-marts recently?!?
"ANY energy" is just wishful thinking. If it isn't enough to justify the cost of the panels and infrastructure, it is pointless...but as long as it is somebody else's money you are spending...
"ultra-useless heat generating"? Wait till you cover the roof with midnight blue solar cells. That'll be some heat generation!
"sun reflecting"? If it isn't reflected, it is absorbed, and that would turn your friendly Walmart into an oven, unless they crank up the A/C. More A/C means more power consumption, so was there really an improvement?
Quote:
they have a considerable surface area.
In terms of building structures, yes. In terms of solar generation potential, no, not really. You shouldn't assume one implies the other.
Quote:
of course, maybe wal-mart and others would need so much bloody power of they BUILT A FEW FUGGIN' WINDOWS in their stores for some natural lighting, as opposed to the football-field-sized tombs they are now.
Florescent tube lighting is quite energy-friendly, actually. The power for that would be peanuts compared to the extra A/C you would need to offset the heating caused by sufficient levels of natural lighting. My guess is that you simply have something personal against Walmart for some reason.
Quote:
now, even if it isn't easy to pipe that energy out of that location, why couldn't you use that generation to help offset some of the power necessary to power that retail facility (and thereby save it for other local needs),...
If it is a wash, then a million dollars worth of solar cell equipment is a million dollars down the drain.
Quote:
heck, those folks who don't want to see a windmill farm off their coastline probably would even blink if a windmill farm or two were built into the tops of some of those flat fields (which have lots of wind since they're usually just higher than the surrounding trees, but with a very even landscape to reduce unpredictable eddys (sp?)
It would be just like proposing a nuclear plant. Everybody will suddenly fallback to the "not in my backyard" syndrome. Plus there'll always be some nature conservationist group who would have a problem with you decimating some flat field with windmills. There's always some vital creature that you will be infringing upon.
Quote:
or, hell, even plant a goddamn rooftop garden if you want for the workers to have somewhere to break and at least give something back to the environment.
Probably will be hot as hell on that rooftop- real pleasant place for a break area. A patch of foliage on a rooftop won't do jack for "giving something back to the environment", either.
Quote:
basically, people need to find some additional use to the area we are already gobbling up at a record pace (and note that this IS a compromise -- people still get all the retail offerings they want, but it also gives back to the community, too). otherwise, they just are not trying hard enough. period.
Maybe the world would suddenly become a better place, or maybe it won't make a damn bit of difference. It's all just idle speculation at this point. Sounds fuzzy and flowery, but functionally dubious in the extreme.
" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "
Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.
Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.
Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.
p.s. randycat, i don't have anything against wal-mart, per se. i do have a problem with real estate developers and chain warehouse-style stores knocking down dozens of acres of trees for no good purpose -- walmart suffers simply because they are so visible and fall into that category well, but they are certainly not the only ones. they are doing it a lot around my house now, with huge warehouse stores adding to ones that are not even fully utilized, just to add presence and offer "convenience."
heck, if i have a thing against anyone, it's probably target, since they just waylayed probably 20 acres for a target and parking accommodations simply so people in my town didn't have to drive 15 MINUTES to the target they just opened 6 MONTHS AGO).
and having just come from the big city, rooftop garden break areas do work, and are not that hot at all. you can't have 100 year old oaks up there, but you can get a decent number of 10 foot shade trees with little to no maintenance except watering. and they're no hotter than, say, sitting down in the parking lot under a shade tree to take lunch (and a helluva a lot more enjoyable than the nasty breakrooms of many retail stores, provided the weather accommodates). plus, you get a better view, a little privacy from the general public, and a slightly better breeze than ground level.
perhaps i am a bit oversensitive to the issue, because i just came from a concrete and steel metroplis, and i forgot how much i MISSED TREES and WIDE OPEN SPACES WITHOUT RETAIL OR ADS. and now they seem to be knocking them down and paving them over as fast as possible. plus, i can't get that stupid counting crows song outta my head. grrr...
damn, didn't i just say i was going to let it go? okay, must go to bed... will be calmer in the morning... i swear. where's my medication???
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
This type of knee-jerk statement is fundamentally wrong. It's a line that people have used for years, to the point that it's became a universally accepted truth, and as reflexive as kicking the doctor when he gets to banging on your knees.
You see, we have this problem. It's called the progression of technology. Environmentalists seem to be of the mind that if there were no oil industry-based Republican conspiracies in the way, we could snap our fingers and have non-oil power sources now. Availability that matches that of petroleum products now. Conversion of all older oil consuming products now.
It's so obviously impossible to do in a short time span that I find it funny that people exist who think it to be just the opposite.
Are we getting there? Yes. Does government pressure and money help out a lot? Yes, it does, and it exists.
If we collectively move our focus in such an extreme manner, bad things will happen. If you add up all the little crises that would result from giving the bird to big oil, you'd have an economic nightmare. We'd all be driving short range, slow, small fuel cell cars at an enormous personal expense while replacing our furnaces, lawn mowers & such, or else face supremely high gas prices as a result of frowning upon the use of gas; companies would see highly decreased profit or even loss at the expense of converting over to and replacing old technology all at once. There are all manner of things that would result from instant alternative energy. Could the US weather the storm? I think so, but it would suck like hell.
To top it off, we're already in a bad economic position where investing in environmentally friendly items is not in the scope of nearly everyone's budgets.
And the liberals, who are supposedly more representative of the poor, are the ones who want to force this on the poor. What happens to me and my '92 F-150? I'm still in high school, I can't afford anything like the environmentalists want.
Give it time. We will reach a point where the mass market alternative energy cars are a decade old or more, and poor students like myself wont have to take a hit for using them, as they'll be the norm. My F-150 will be a part of some nostalgic old guy's car collection. The diesel power plant in my town will be a nice place to visit and reminisce on the old days, back when a plume of black smoke could be seen rising to power everyone's air conditioners on the hottest days of summer.
Will this time be sometime in the near future? I'd like to think that, at the very least, the situation I described will be that of my grandchildren, if not my children.
The truth is for now, we have a massive infrastructure based around fossil fuels. For the past century, it's all we've known. That's a lot of replacing and upgrading to do. And while we're still reliant upon it, it's absolute madness to look the other way and let a situation that is bad now get more confused and worse.
If we stop "drilling for more oil", and stop mining coal, we're going to have one big mother of a problem. It would cause The Great Depression II. Think about it long enough and deep enough.
Time, people, time.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Excellent post!
thank you! oh wait, you probably weren't talking to me, huh?
Originally posted by Aquafire
And like I said, I suspect even the USA doesn't get it a cheep cheep as the oil producing countries..
But hell, who gives a flying toss..as far as I am concerned, petrol ( gas ) should be much much higher priced.
We need to encourage more public transport infrastructure. Too much damage to the enviroment & to society in general has been caused by the damm stupid car..
...
Your higher price puts people out of work.
Originally posted by trumptman
Also someone mentioned that there was no East Coast event that could have raised prices? I do remember this large BLACKOUT that occured. Last time I checked refineries and things of that nature needed electricity. Could be wrong though...
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.
It's call price gouging.
Originally posted by Scott
Your higher price puts people out of work.
Care to lay out your reasoning..?
I do believe we should use oil just as we always have, just reduce the amount year after year as more alternative energy sources become better researched. It's not cut and dry, like "oil is evil and solar power is good." That's not true at all.
Another thing I think is that eventually, oil will run low and people will have to rely on other sources of energy. Like how the earth's population will eventually get too high and there will be mass famines. Yes, it will be a terrible crisis, but afterwards things might be better off.
I don't think oil will run out anytime soon though. Various studies have shown that oil would run out by 2000 or 2010 or 2020 or basically any year. They all say "30-70 years" but none of them have come true. What I think is that over time, it'll just get more and more expensive as methods for finding and extracting it get more expensive.
I have heard a bit about Shale Oil so I investigated more. I found this article on Google:
http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/v98n4/Youngquist.html
It sounds as if there's a remarkable quantity of shale oil in the US, but it remains untapped due to the high cost. But in a few decades, if some of the major oil resources have run out, it might become cost effective. We'd pay a lot for gas, maybe even $3/gallon by today's dollars, but it would be better than having no oil at all. And perhaps it would accelerate the development of alternate forms of energy (which are already being developed).
Originally posted by Aquafire
Care to lay out your reasoning..?
Are you college educated?
Originally posted by Aquafire
Originally posted by SDW2001
" Aquafire, public transit won't work here. The American lifestyle is too independent. Things are also more spread out geographically. "
Well it's a litle known fact that Australia is probably one of the most "urbanised" countries in the world. We also have to deal with geographical distances equal to anything in the USA.
Urban sprawl is as much an issue for us as it is for you.
Likewise, we've had to drag both state & federal governments by the ears to make them realise the long term issues of public transport, the ultimate unsustainability of private gas consumption vs public transport.
Like your government, ours is hooked on the excise tax it recieves from the oil companies & gas stations.
They're like mainlining junkies..intravenous tax from the bowser straight to their coffers.
It's all a matter of changing public attitudes as well as getting off the gas merry go round.
Good point, but I don't think it will happen here---at least not for a long time. The American mentality is very different...too individidual. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad...but the point is, it's true.
I understand your resistance to suburban sprawl. Be aware, though, that the clearing of trees is not the problem it is made out to be. There are more trees in the US today than there were during the Revolutionary War (fact).
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Why not focus on alternative energy sources instead of drilling for more oil, which will eventually run out?
Simple. Consumer inertia.
When I was in Canada, I had not one but two cars that I converted to natural gas dual fuel - which meant I had a cylinder in the trunk for natural gas while keeping the gasoline tank intact. I did it mostly for environmental reasons (90% less emissions) and cost (50% cheaper).
Most of the time, I ran on natural gas, but if I couldn't find a station that had it, I switched to gasoline. Only a problem out in farm country.
Now, the technology for doing this has existed since Word War II, and all the parts for NG were made in Italy, where the conversion shop told me that up to 90% of the vehicles run on it (maybe they were exaggerating). There was a slight drop in the power output of the car, but there was a 50% drop in running the car! And that was more important.
The conversion was paid for by the various levels of the Canadian govt, which effectively made it free for me. No matter who I told this too, admiring the forward thinking of a country that promoted an alternate fuel like this, NOBODY wanted to convert their car. Excuses, excuses, excuses. My favorite being that the car would blow up like houses do when there is a leak, even though this has NEVER happened to an NG vehicle (you would more likely die from the gasoline explosion).
Yes, people complain about gas prices, but quite frankly, it obviously isn't hurting people enough. We have more cars on the road nowadays, people idling at drive-thru windows, etc.
The price of gasoline isn't stopping people from putting food on the table or a roof over their head.
Originally posted by bunge
When the cost of a barrel of oil decreases, it takes three months for a watered down decrease in the price of gas to reach the pump. When something not necessarily related to oil goes wrong in the world, prices at the pump go up immediately.
It's call price gouging.
Of course it's price gouging, but I don't necessarily agree with the previous statement. When a Taiwanese chipmaker slumps and fails to produce enough chips, it raises prices. Those chips already in the channel don't sell at the previous prices. Resellers take into account the fact they'll be paying more for the next batch and immediately raise prices of what they have already.