User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 88 of 103

Thread: GAS PRICES!!!!

  1. #81
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    how can you "nationalize" the price of crude when so much of what we are using does not come from this country? in another 5 years we will be fighting the Chinese for the crude from Venezuala and Iran. to hell with the oil industry, let them do whatever they are going to do and start demanding alternatives and put your money where your mouth is. i have a hard time feeling sorry for those in Cali, especially south Cali, though you guys are probably going to make me money as they are trying to put in a coal power plant bout 100 miles from here in order to sell power to the Californians. produce your own darn power and you wont have brown outs. most of the power from the hydro-electric dam 45 miles from me is going to power the pacific northwest though thats going to go down as the ppl of Montana would rather have the water in the lake instead of letting the Corps sell the power out of state. and since the Corps did such a wonderful job with the levees in Louisiana they have lost alot of their bargining power with this dam.

    keep the guberment away from the oil companies i dont trust the feds any more than the suits. even as remoe as i am i would rather see gas stay at $2.50-$3 a gallon than nationalize the oil companies. the government isnt fit enough to do 90% of what they are doing now, i aint keen on turning this over to them either.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  2. #82

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]yes but if you start powering a bunch of homes with solar your going to start getting rid of the brown out problems so many face such as with southern Cali. if the cost for an average home right now is under $20,000(i think the cost for a house the size of mine is approx $16,000) if you start doing it on a mass production level the cost per unit will drop farther.
    True, but there is a limit to the bottom price, set by the technology itself. High quality solar cells mean using gallium arsenide, which costs a lot to dispose of, and lower-quality solar cells mean lower efficiency, meaning more surface area is needed for them to work effectively.

    Given how much power is consumed by A/C systems, I think the best way to make solar more effective is to implement more high-tech heating and cooling systems which rely less on powered A/C and more on insulation or exploiting existing temperature differentials. Remove that massive chunk of the power bill and solar becomes a lot better of an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]i fully realize there are no right now answers but saying that nuclear, solar and wind arent viable options that shouldnt be implimented in the near future is just wrong.
    They should be implemented, but not regarded as panaceas; each has its own drawbacks. It's like a socio-economic version of the first law of thermodynamics; you don't get something for nothing.

    There's even the possibility of using massive solar arrays in space (where a *lot* more light can be captured). Drawback: power would have to be transmitted down to the surface via a concentrated microwave beam which, if it strays even a little, could make Hiroshima look like a ****ing kiddie park.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]BTW you will never sell me on electric car, im having enough problems with all the extra electrical systems on the 2003 Ford truck the shop has. the fairly low tech 11 year old straight six in my Cherokee doesnt have near the problems as alot of the newer vehicles. and the problems it does occationally have dont cost $500 plus to fix. cant imagine a care thats run only on electrisity and computers
    Reliability is a major issue, yes, but 100 years ago, cars were unreliable in comparison to horses, not to mention dangerous and uneconomical (horses will avoid obstacles on their own, and will self-replicate if you've got two of opposite sexes). Eventually, the reliability issues will be fixed, or at least minimized.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]let them do whatever they are going to do and start demanding alternatives and put your money where your mouth is.
    That returns to the question of "how"? For instance, I rent. I cannot install solar, nor do anything about where the electricity I use comes from. I can use less, and I do, but at the end of the day, I have very little control, and cannot switch until I own my own home, which is likely not happen until I'm 40.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]most of the power from the hydro-electric dam 45 miles from me is going to power the pacific northwest though thats going to go down as the ppl of Montana would rather have the water in the lake instead of letting the Corps sell the power out of state.
    Well, there's the issue of location; not every river can be used for hydroelectric, and not every place is suitable for, say, large arrays of solar power.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  3. #83
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No, I meant price controls TIED to the market price of crude. We can't help what oil-producing states charge for their product, but we CAN regulate how much profit can be made of each barrel. Alternatively we can regulate how much profit goes into research and new plants. The shareholders of these companies aren't going to like that, however. They like making tons of money off of all of us.

    Energy production is a national, not a state issue. Not every state can have self-contained power production. That's neither practical or efficient. In California, we were victims of price fixing, artificial shortages, and grossly inflated prices. Whatever resentment you have towards California, it still remains the fact. It could be your state next.

    As far as regulation goes, if there were none, we'd be paying $10/gallon. Existing regulation covers collusion and price fixing so already regulation is keeping it somewhat in check. But it isn't keeping them from making more profit than any company ever.

    The government can be horrible running things or good. It depends. For example, medicaid and medicare operate much more efficiently (% of administrative cost versus dollars given) than the medical insurance companies that cover us all. It's hard to believe that they'd use up $10 BILLION a quarter in extra waste, however (and that's just Exxon).

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  4. #84
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ahh but if there is a high demand for solar energy we should be able to find an alternative to the gallium arsenide.

    in a year or so we plan on switchin out our hot water heater to a couple tankless units. as far as $16,000 for a solar system, heck my car cost about that. 4 or 5 years down the road when we get the new house mostly paid off we are going to seriously look at one especially if i want a greenhouse. whats another $20,000 when your already building a $100,000 house? especially if your utillity bills will be next to nil?

    i agree none are THE answer but they ARE a part of the solution, if the public as a whole accepts and empraces them than thats a HUGE stepping stone twords other energy sources and getting away from oil and coal.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  5. #85
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    (sorry Caps, was typing a responce to Mokele when yah posted)

    California is one of the LARGEST states, you have the land mass to produce your own power. i understand why the smaller New England states are not self sufficient but for California to be buying alot of power from plants in Montana and other states seems a lil odd to me. i would take a nuclear plant here in Montana over the coal they are suggesting especially given the high sulfur content of our coal, this could impact my fishing! i dont see why California cant put in some more Nuclear power plants instead of having other states deal with the enviromental impact of coal power plants and such. Californias state guberment seems second only to the Feds in its idiocity.

    actually i dont have alot of problems with California though you couldnt pay me to live there, i do have a huge issue with the Corp of Engineers, those idiots are costing us money cause they are letting water out of the lake to "keep barge traffic going" doesnt matter that we make more money on tourisim than the barge industry does. plus the fact they are lieing out their **** as they didnt need water from Fort Peck to keep the Missisippi up last year(the Yellowstone was running bank to bank ALL YEAR last year, something i havent seen in 12 years, there was plenty of water heading down to keep the barges afloat), what they did do is sign a contract on how much power they would produce for a customer and had to pump out the water to meet the contract.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]ahh but if there is a high demand for solar energy we should be able to find an alternative to the gallium arsenide.
    High demand can increase the incentive, and increase the funding to basic research, but science can't be rushed. Even with all the money if the world, experiments still take time, and you can't put a timeline on serendipitous ideas, which are where many of our advances came from (iirc, Pauli came up with the idea for nuclear fission while waiting at the traffic light).

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]in a year or so we plan on switchin out our hot water heater to a couple tankless units. as far as $16,000 for a solar system, heck my car cost about that. 4 or 5 years down the road when we get the new house mostly paid off we are going to seriously look at one especially if i want a greenhouse. whats another $20,000 when your already building a $100,000 house? especially if your utillity bills will be next to nil?
    But how many people have that much to spend? I know I don't, and won't for a very long time. $20k may be the price of your car, but for a lot of people $200 can make or break them. I know people who're working 3 jobs in order to pay for college and feed themselves, and *still* can't make ends meet when the crappy car that's all they can afford breaks down.

    Once you have a home, sure, you can modify it, but how many people have that luxury, compared to all those in apartments and rental homes.

    There's also the 3-d problem: as a building gets larger, the volume increases as a cubic function (and, presumably, the power drain due to people working or living inside), but the surface area availible for solar increases as a square function. Considering that solar cells cover most of the roof of a small home for one family, they get progressively more unrealistic as you talk about larger apartment complexs and office buildings.

    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]California is one of the LARGEST states, you have the land mass to produce your own power. i understand why the smaller New England states are not self sufficient but for California to be buying alot of power from plants in Montana and other states seems a lil odd to me. i would take a nuclear plant here in Montana over the coal they are suggesting especially given the high sulfur content of our coal, this could impact my fishing! i dont see why California cant put in some more Nuclear power plants instead of having other states deal with the enviromental impact of coal power plants and such. Californias state guberment seems second only to the Feds in its idiocity.
    It's the "not in my back yard" problem. Everyone approves, until it has to be near them. Nevermind the fact that modern nuclear reactors can essentially never melt down due to some new concepts invented recently (the reactor is flexible, so as it heats, it expands, and the greater surface area lets it cool, resulting in it shrinking, resulting in more heat, resulting in expansion...it's said that it's creepily organic to watch, like the reactor is actually *breathing*).

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

  7. #87
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    yes solar wont work for every one but if x number of homes have it it takes y amount of strain of the current infrastructure. its a good thing even if its not universal

    Mokele, how much money do you think i make? between the wife and i we have 3 jobs and dont break $75,000 a year. i see the solar system as an investment in that for the cost of not buying a new vehicle for a few more years, im not going to have hardly a power bill in a few years. its about proirities. i dont need a new vehicle every couple years. solar is a definate answer now for houses probably up to about 3 times the size as mine as long as its got a basement and not trying to heat/cool 3 stories above ground. if i was living in half way rural South Cali its what i would really be looking at given the frequency of brown outs.
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    427
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by [b
    Quote[/b] ]Mokele, how much money do you think i make? between the wife and i we have 3 jobs and dont break $75,000 a year.
    This year, I'll make a total of $17k, with $3k of that only because I got a grant thanks to everyone on campus being to afraid of my advisor to turn one of his students down. I'll make about the same next year, then move on to PhD, where if I get good support I'll be making $18k for the next 5-7 years. Then there's post-doc for up to 6 years, where I'll be lucky to see $30k a year. Only then will I get a shot at an entry level faculty position ($50-60K), which I'll have to work for 7 years putting in roughly 70 hours a week. (Of course, then comes the payoff: tenure, a $70k job that I can't be fired from for anything short of murder. And even then, it'd probably have to be another faculty member.)

    I'm not in miserable poverty or anything, but half of the US makes less than 60% of what you do, which makes such modifications to a home (if they own a home) much less feasible. While solar is certainly a wise investment, all investments require a certain level of capital to start off, and if you don't have that much liquid assets, you can't make the investment, no matter how wise.

    The point is that those who can afford to invest in this emerging technology are those who have less incentive to, since they have more income and thus the rising gas prices hurt them less. Those for whom gas prices pose the biggest problem are those who cannot afford other types of energy. They still have alternatives, of course, such as public transportation or walking (that's part of how I can live comfortably on such a low income; I specifically got an apartment close enough to campus that I could walk in, even in the foulest weather), but not always.

    This creates the situation in which the people who are hit hardest have the least alternatives, and that the companies are making obscene profits off this situation without regard to who they hurt. The governmental response has been only to spout lip-service about new methods (the fudning for the NSF, which funds the vast majority of basic research, has increased at a rate *below* inflation), while actively encouraging wasteful habits (tax breaks for SUV owners) and downplaying the environmental consequences.

    Mokele
    \"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw.\"
    --J. Burns, on the evolution of auditory ossicles.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •