:bs:

I'm not twisting or skirting anything. You're the one that wants them to do something but you won't tell us what you want them to do. What do you have in mind?

I'll go pick out my curtains now. I'm think'in
floral if I can afford a crust of bread. Burgundy if I need another trade.

Regardless, Ali, there's never an excuse for me to be unkind.

The reality seems to be (and you can find plenty of people who support, and others who reject, this idea) that we are at, or very near, the limit of oil production. If you do a search for "Peak Oil" you can find a lot of this information. This is no longer just a lunatic fringe idea.

This quote is from a Volvo web site "The consumption of energy is increasing all over the world. At the same time, the available resources are declining. "

ASPO probably has the most comprehensive site. I was at a conference recently where Colin Campbell, the founder of ASPO, gave a presentation.

Here's an article from Technology Review from 2005.

There are lots more out there (even on Wikipedia).

Fair enough HLJ, and I happen to agree with your point here. It's why I suggested that if governments are to do anything, it should be to invest in alternative fuels.

I just don't get where in my post I suggested anything about dwindling supplies. I was only addressing one facet of the whole debate and I thought that was fairly clear.

I find on message boards, if you write a whole diatribe people mostly either just ignore it, or they skim it and often miss important bits. Therefore, in general I prefer to discuss one point per post.

So many posts want government to fix this problem. Government did which is why things are now solved. This is the solution we wanted.

How many addressed actual reasons for over $100 per barrel? A dollar once bought one Euro. Today it takes over $1.50 to buy the same Euro. That's a 50% increase in oil prices. Where is the post that describes that problem?

Oil prices have returned to 1970s prices. Is oil expensive? Or is everyone so weak and pathetic as to 'hurt' when fair market prices return? Get over it. The cheap and easy 'sweet' oil is gone. We burned it in 8 and 14 MPG (3 and 5 km/liter) Pontiacs. Party is over.

What was posted. The heater (a diesel motor) is running constantly to heat air outside the cab. Little energy actually heats the cab. No problem. Energy is too cheap. We do same in many if not most commercial buildings: only enough insulation to say it is insulated when the building has near zero insulation. Energy is rediculously cheap.

Stupidity does not stop there. Put 10 liters of gasoline in the tank. How many liters actually do any productive work? Most people say 5 or 8. Well government fixed the problem; maintained ignorance. You don't know this answer? Then you are the problem. Reality: because gasoline is so cheap, something between 1 to 2 liters out of ten does any productive work. I have found that most people need that sentence stated again due to ignorance or denial. Only 1 to 2 liters in ten do productive work. Vehicles are that grossly inefficient - as we want them to be.

Where is a post that actually blames the problem? Who is so foolish as to look for solutions in government? Government already solved this problem. Government even mandated ethanol that increases gasoline prices - that can only be shipped from the Mid-west in energy consuming trucks or trains - not in pipelines.

How many are so much part of the problem to have a passenger vehicle with 8 cylinders? If gasoline is so high, then why have largest SUV sales continuously increased these past two years? How many waste even more money buying gas at the discount stations - Hess, Wawa, Sheets, 7-11? All examples of what happens when gasoline prices are still too low.

Learned from history. Gasoline prices only get high enough in America at $5 per gallon or $1.30 per liter. Current gasoline prices here are about $0.85 per liter. Amazing. With gas prices that low, anyone would complain? Well how many stood up when the problem was being created by George Jr - repeatedly. How many so hated America as to ignore the numbers - even believed Saddam had WMDs.

Others here so hated humanity as to buy GM products. Congratulations. Just another example of why gas prices must increase. Chevy owners wanted the "heart attack of America"; said, "Stifle innovation". How many who wanted stifled innovation will then complain about prices?

Let's see. BrainR probably hauls 60,000 pounds with a 350 or 500 Hp engine. How many who complained first looked at their own numbers? 180 or 250 horses to haul a 3,000 pound car. Again, gasoline prices are too low. Brian hauls ten times more weight from the same horse. Or do your eyes glaze over when numbers appear? Very few here have any right to complain about gasoline prices.

Why does the dollar only buy 0.67 Euros? How many so hated America as to also believe Saddam had WMDs. Welcome to the many reasons for higher gasoline prices. Remember, 12 years ago "Project for a New American Century" said that we must secure "OUR" oil. Their solutions to global warming and energy shortages was to lie, invent wars, destroy American relations with the entire world, and then advocate more energy consumption. Now that the world is less stable, all commodities (including oil) must cost more. Gold is now $1000 per oz.

Our government gave us what we wanted. Burn copious quantities of energy to heat open air around a truck cab. We do this because energy is expensive? No problem. The Chinese will finance the debt. "Regean proved that deficits don't matter". Welcome to what happened in the 1960s to create quadrupled gas prices ten years later. Well, it has been 35 years. Those who do not learn from history (or who read UG's books) are doomed to relive history.

That crying is embarrassing. Did you see George Jr lying in 2002 - and not complain then? Do you drive anything with more than 4 cylinders? Did you bitch when our wacko politicians kept gasoline mileage standards excessively low and then gave exemptions to SUVs; also called corporate welfare? What has always been a major solution to Global Warming? Do more work from less energy. Instead, how many choose to deny global warming - advocate less productive work from greater consumption?

Ten liters when only 1 to 2 actually do any productive work. Most energy gets wasted as heat and noise. If you did not know that, then slap yourself for being part of the problem. This complaining has become tiresome.

"When the collapse comes ..."? What collapse. Economics takes revenge. There is no collapse. You simple work more jobs and actually worry every week about the price of milk and meat. Some of the best jobs were moving construction equipment to the docks - to other countries what produced same things using less than have the energy. Deja vue.

Then another posted the facts. There are no alternative fuels. Some of these myths (such as hydrogen) are not even fuels. That 'alternative fuel' myth is another problem created by governement and junk scientists.

Aliantha - again. All this was posted last time. Why do people have so much trouble with facts? Why, after facts are promoted, do some reiterate the myths from politicians? Only solution is doing more work from less energy. That is the only solution for pollution, global warming, energy shortages, etc. Out of ten liters of gasoline - how many acutally move the car? One to two. You did not know that? Alternative fuels are preached by the naive to the naive. Alternative fuels are preached by the same logic that prove Saddam had WMDs. Only solution is found in doing more work from less energy.

Right, so electric solar powered cells aren't worth considering?

A rain drop does not fill a bucket.

yes well, we can trade all the proverbs you like, but if our civilization is to survive, alternative energy must be developed. Simply telling people to 'use less fossil fuels' is great, but it only prolongs the inevitable outcome because it's a non renewable resource.

Show me the solar cells that will put BrainR's 60,000 pound truck up highway hills? Ideal numbers cannot even approach a solution. Show me the alternative energy source that can make airplanes fly. There is no theoretical technology that can store sufficient energy per pound. Nothing can happen pragmatically until it can first work theoretically. Even those many alternative fuels are actually reapplications of the same energy sources - coal, oil, etc. Just another example of doing more work from less energy.

Ethanol is alternative energy because it comes from corn and the sun? Bull. Massive amounts of petroleum are required to make and truck ethanol. Ethanol is the perfect example of alternative energy - that does not really exist.

Why is BrainR wasting 12 gallons every night to sleep? One way of not using that petroleum is to price it higher so that the same petroleum does more work. Then maybe one gallon does what is currently done by 12. Only with proper (higher) pricing do other (and trivial) energy sources become viable. Even your solar cell solution is not feasible until gasoline goes to $5 per gallon - or maybe higher. If we don't demand more work from the same energy, then those alternatives cannot happen. It's basic economics. Same was demonstrated in the 1970s.

You can speculate all you want. I put those speculations into perspective. A rain drop does not fill a bucket. Even a thunderstorm does not provide enough raindrops. Meanwhile, the problem involves barrels. And here we are discussing buckets. To save barrels, we first need proper energy prices (higher). Only then do we also get raindrops from alternative energy sources.

So what you're saying is, we should all use less oil (great idea) to make the supplies last longer (another great idea) till we can come up with a better means of creating energy (yet another great idea).

Shit tw, that sounds a lot like what I just said.

You forgot the perspective and therefore came to a different conclusion. Your alternative energy concepts are not viable without first addressing the bigger problem - doing more work with less energy.

George Jr said last year that he was increasing funding for all this R&D stuff. A world wide effort to create alternative energy was ITER. What did George Jr do last Dec? He entirely canceled money for that research. That black day was 15 Dec 2007 (if I remember correctly). We must secure our oil (not our future). So any idea of alternative energy from that research (by Americans) is destroyed by those who advocate more consumption. Destroyed by people who cannot value energy when oil is priced so low - when we don't try to do more with less energy - when it is more profitable to increase the weigh of automobiles which was also proposed in Washington early last year.

What makes the energy content of solar cells practical? First we must learn to move BrianR's truck with maybe 1/5th the energy. Of course it is remotely possible. Some fundamental theories even exist to approach that goal. But nothing is in research. Price of energy is too low. If the machine needs so much energy, then trivial energy from alternative fuels get unbudgeted as impractical (ie ITER).

Meanwhile, most every alternative energy source is really only an energy medium - uses existing energy technologies. Most every alternative energy source is not.

How much energy in sunlight? Near zero especially when our machines demand massively more energy. The only 'alternative fuels' that can provide that energy are really nothing more than conventional energy rehyped as 'alternative fuels'.

Until we learn how to do more with less, then alternatives only supply a drop in the bucket. We need machines that no longer need buckets and barrels. We need machines that can work with raindrops - not buckets of energy. Only then do alternatives have practical value. Only then are raindrops from so called 'alternatives' are viable. The solutions to excessive petroleum consumption in the short term only then makes alternative fuels viable in the long term.

Quantum physics research also necessary to accomplish these goals? Guess who has reduced R&D funding, again, in advanced physics research? Spending on things such as financial markets and military budgets is increasing. We must enrich the right people. We must save the world from Saddam Hussein and the evil Iranians. Even John Howard said so; so it must be true.

The real 'alternative fuels' have little value in a world where a machine consumes so much energy. In America, that is more than twice the energy compared to any other industrial nation. No wonder other nations are more interested in alternative fuels. Their machines consume less energy. Their machines do more work for the same energy. Therefore more alternative energy sources are explored. A completely different conclusion once we apply perspective - once we replace sweeping generalizations with perspective.

The irony: alternative fuels - the few that actually are alternative fuels - become practical only after our machines start doing more work with less energy.

Well John Howard is no longer in power, so it really doesn't matter what he said now.

Hey TWonk
I didn't realize you were Brian's sock puppet. So, then, you do keep the engine running just to keep you warm while you sleep? Or are there other reasons? Is it cheaper to rent a room in the places where you have to stop or not ? Maybe there are other reasons for needing to stay in your cab? security for example? Please note, I am not passing judgement or complaining, just being nosy, so kindly do me the courtesy of not making assumptions about my opinions on the price of gas. kthxbai. :)

::grenade:: nuclear? ::runs away::