Buy your energy from Australia! Seriously, there are plans to import up to 10 million tons of LNG per year from Australia starting circa ~2010. As oil declines and prices rise, gas (in the form of LNG) will become the dominant energy source.
Drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge is assinine. It wouldn't even dent the market, there just isn't that much oil there. Getting Iraq's oil online would help, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. The best thing long term is to just let the price keep going up. The only way that America, or the world for that matter, will lower its appettite for fossil fuels is if they cost too much. When enough people start screaming for hybrid cars, watch Detroit starting rolling them out. Until there is enough demand, you won't see an alternative to oil.
And I would argue that it is WAY past time to make that investment. We seem to be able to afford to just go invade countries that are not a threat to us, investing in renewable energy sources would be a drop in THAT bucket. In addition, this administration has spent billions on SDI and plans to spend hundreds of billions on it when we could be investing that money in something that will help create jobs (researchers), improve the economy (by eventually reducing energy prices), and reduce our dependence on oil from the ME. Key word is CURRENTLY. With research and development along with government enforced efficiency goals, those economies will shift and eventually we will see economies of scale, which will reduce prices for renewable energy and allow us to begin to reduce our dependence on petroleum. Not familiar with the book, but any attempt to "cross the chasm" begins with prudent preparations. We will not build that bridge in a day or even the next four years, but with John Kerry at the helm, at least there will be more than lip service paid to renewable energy. But the only candidate that has plans to do ANYTHING regarding renewable energy is Kerry. His plans probably won't significantly decrease our energy dependence in four years, but they will get us on the right path, a path that GWB seems completely oblivious of. IMO, Kerry wins BIG on renewable energy specifically and energy policy in general.
Gas prices are way higher in Europe than in the US because taxes on gas are much higher. The money gained by the government through taxing gas is (only partly, unfortunately) invested in researching and promoting renewable energy. I think a lot more needs to be done to push renewable energy instead of using oil. Common sense should dictate that.
LNG as the next big thing has been promised for decades. Worldwide energy demand may force it to actually become the next big thing, but you never know. My opinion is that it will be a slow change to alternative energy in everyday life unless the U.S. government takes a bigger stand against the current situation. The big integrated oil companies have no current incentive to change. Take ExxonMobil. In the past six months (ending 6/30/04), they had $136 billion in sales, $11 billion in net income, and have $14 billion in cash on the books. We're talking about a companies with approx. $325 billion in value.
Lil Pun - the higher prices you are seeing at the stores is a direct result of higher diesel prices.....as the diesel prices rise, the transportation companies charge more to haul the material which in turn drives the price of the finished goods higher.
moon, please do some research before you have to resort to LYING again in an attempt to smear President Bush. Thanks in advance. Here, I'll even help you out with the first part of your research: http://www.georgewbush.com/Environment/.
Speaking of renewable energy, have anyone ever heard of a company call Changing World Technologies. http://www.changingworldtech.com./home.html They claimed they could turn any waste products (turkey offal, old tires, used plastic bottles, municipal sewage … etc) into oil through thermal technology. According to the articles, they are in the process of opening a plant this fall in Carthage, Missouri. This plant has the capacity to process 200 ton of turkey offal per day and will produce 600 barrels of light oil. I wonder how legitimate and practical this technology is The discover magazine did an article on this technology. By Brad Lemley Photography by Tony Law DISCOVER Vol. 24 No. 05 | May 2003 The original site of the 2 articles (access require subscription). http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/ http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil/ The following site posted the two article contents(free access) http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000337 http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000332
Wow... that's an excellent article indeed. So much for my China/India theory. I still think that long-term, they will be major competitors for energy supplies that most of us didn't see coming a decade or two ago, but clearly it's more complicated than that. I found this quote intersting: ...President Jimmy Carter declared, in his State of the Union address, “Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.” I remember when Carter, the President so often vilified for being weak and ineffective, declared the Carter Doctrine. But we sometimes forget how stark and definitive that doctrine is. Saddam clearly didn't take it seriously when he invaded Kuwait. The geological debate is difficult for an outsider to judge. All we know for sure is that proven reserves are concentrated in the Persian Gulf: Saudi Arabia (262.7 billion barrels), Iran (130.7 billion), Iraq (115 billion), the United Arab Emirates (97.8 billion), and Kuwait (96.5 billion). The only country in the Western Hemisphere that has reserves of comparable magnitude is Venezuela (78 billion barrels), which is also a member of opec and boasts a populist, left-leaning President, Hugo Chávez, who frequently rails against United States imperialism. opec oil, for all its geopolitical drawbacks, is cheap, easy to transport, and relatively clean if used efficiently. One of the key strategic issues facing the United States is how to insure continued access to opec oil when other countries are also importing more fuel. During the past ten years, global demand for oil has risen by almost a fifth, with the greatest increases coming from India and China, which recently passed Japan to become the world’s second-largest consumer of crude oil. This mentions China and India, but they are only a part of the equation. By invading Iraq, the Bush Administration has unwittingly helped to create what its National Energy Policy was designed to avoid: rising oil prices that threaten to derail the economic recovery. When the price of fuel goes up, it acts like a tax on the economy, reducing consumers’ purchasing power and raising firms’ costs. After the oil-price shocks of both 1973 and 1979, the economy went into a recession. So far this year, the economy has continued to grow, but the rate of expansion has fallen, a development that Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, has largely blamed on rising oil prices. In light of what is happening in the oil market and in the Middle East, many analysts believe it is time to reassess the Carter Doctrine and its Bush-Cheney variant. “I think we are pretty much at the end of the line,” Jeffrey Sachs, the director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, who also serves as a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, told me. “Saudi Arabia is pretty rapidly destabilizing. Iraq I don’t think we are ever going to get under control this way. And our relationship with Iran is poor and deteriorating. The idea that we are going to be the dominant military power of the Persian Gulf is an extremely unrealistic way to manage our affairs. I don’t have an automatic solution. I just think that this one—where we keep building up the military commitment because it keeps failing—is a loser.” A less provocative United States policy stance would involve reducing the American military presence in the Gulf while retaining a veto over what happens there. (American disengagement, which Senator Kerry sometimes seems to advocate, is neither realistic nor desirable.) “The only sensible policy in the Middle East for a superpower is one of benign protection,” Robert Mabro said. “‘Don’t misbehave, boys! If you start misbehaving, we might intervene.’ But we aren’t going to be there all the time.” From an economic vantage point, a strategy based on Realpolitik makes sense. To meet the rising demand for oil in the coming decades, the Gulf states need to spend tens of billions of dollars on expanding their capacity, an enormous capital investment that is unlikely to materialize in a hostile environment. Some opec members already favor keeping the supply tight so that prices will stay high. As in the past, the West will have to rely on the Saudi government to be the voice of moderation. “If you are sitting on a very large reserve base, as Saudi Arabia is, you don’t want somebody coming along and saying, ‘We are really going to make a push to develop an alternative to the internal-combustion engine,’” Robert Ebel said. “You have a division of opinion within opec, but Saudi Arabia is big enough to call the shots.” Pretty provocative reading, folks. And another reason to wonder about the Bush Administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. We better start cranking out the hybrid cars and trucks, and crank up minimum mpg. standards. We could be paying $5.00 a gallon before you know it. I hope not! Keep D&D Civil!! edit: I found the reference to Haldane fascinating. I'm a fan of alternative history... an off-shoot of science fiction, and in one book I've read, Haldane figured in it prominently, or at least his theories did.
I read about that a few months back. It was one of those under-the-radar things. Makes you wonder how legitimate the technology is...guess we'll see. moon, please do some research before you have to resort to LYING again in an attempt to smear President Bush. Thanks in advance. Here, I'll even help you out with the first part of your research: http://www.georgewbush.com/Environment/. C'mon. That's not research, that's just going to a website. The content certainly varies. Here's another one for you. http://www.democrats.org/environment/bushrecord.html
that might not be the most objective of references. kerry's website would not be either. i just dont see either doing anything significant to kick-start research. its going to be (and is now) the private sector that gets things off the ground.
You know it's not research when the web site shows a picture of Bush with a shovel working away while smiling to the camera !
I’ve always been weary of tax cuts and tax credits to spur specific types of research. Too many boondoggles, and a basic presumption that the politicians know where the research should be conducted. Hydrogen? Solar? LNG? I prefer the government setting the target and letting industry, which is amazingly resourceful when it has to be, come up the best method to achieve those targets. But the targets should be set by government. We were all convinced in the late 70’s that the oil supply would run out in twenty years. Seemed a long ways away and we did school projects on alternate energy and the such. Yet thirty years later, there’s plenty of oil, it’s cheaper than before (adjusted for inflation) and the supply source was no longer considered a problem. So mileage requirements for automakers were loosened, highway speed limits raised from 55 and SUV’s prevailed. Nobody gave it much thought as long as there were no kinks in the supply line. Yet it continued to be an issue. So if dependence on Mid East oil is an issue of political importance, the government should force industry to come up with solutions. This isn’t interfering with the free market. There are political (and financial) costs that are not reflected on the income statement of Exxon or Ford and the government should create an environment where those costs are considered. I like the fleet mileage requirements. If your customers what a heavy SUV or a fast sportscar – fine. But have your engineers make one that gets better mileage. Nobody particularly wants a car that gets 8 mpg. They buy that car because the like the drive, the feel, the space and the funky hubcaps that spin at the stop signs. When California required hybrid cars – we got hybrid cars. When emission standards are raised – the companies met them. But they won’t just do it out of the goodness of their hearts --- their industry is far too competitive to give them that option. So the Gov has to set the standard, apply it consistently and let industry fight it out on how best to achieve it. But a specific tax cut for targeted research I feel is just too open to abuse and rewards following the template set by politicians rather than actual results. You want research? Tell ‘em what they need to achieve and let ‘em figure out for themselves how to do it.
