Has anybody listened to this idiot?  Don't people realize that the world uses 80.5 million barrels of oil. That's the problem. 80.5 million fucking barrels a day!!!

Big oil did not create this problem, demand did.  The US uses over 20 Million BOPD, 25% of the world's output. Blame John Kerry, and his his 5 SUVs and, how many planes? not George Bush

I personnally beleive that we need a national effort on the scale of the moon shot to find alternative energy, fuels and ways of powering our cars that do not pollute and cause global warming.

You are right that the demand is not Bush's fault. What is his fault is ignoring global warming as if it is "not proven yet". Promoting "clear skys" which is anything but, not supporting higher fuel efficiencies on vehicles, etc. Bush is trying to help the oil companies at the expense of the rest of us and the environment, no doubt. Oil companies just want to get richer as with most big businesses -- they have little interest in anything else. Of course they want demand to be high.

To me it is not so much that we are paying such high prices for gas. It is that we should be taxing gas at a much higher rate in order to suppress demand and fund a major national effort to get us onto fuel cells, hydrogen or whatever the scientists invent with that scale of effort and resources. Bush does not want this because it will either hurt his precious oil company friends or make them change to these alternative fuels.

I have listened to Bobby Kennedy and this has consistently been my "take-away" from his show.

-- Modified on 4/22/2005 10:38:51 PM

You DON'T tax the consumers. Raising gas taxes at the pump will only kill the poorer members of the population.

Take a minute and think it through.

People in the lower income brackets generally cannot afford newer, fuel efficient cars. So they are driving older cars that consume fuel. Alos, with the rapidly rising real estate market, A LOT of people are having to move further away from work locations, which translates into longer commutes, which means more fuel consumption.

These are people who earn low wages. Now you want to add ridiculously higher taxes to the gas they need to earn those low wages. What a load of BS.

And, taxing the oil companies is a sham, the taxes will just get passed along to the consumers.

You MUST find a way to encourage the development of alternative fuel sources without passing the cost along. And the alternatives must then be introduced into metropolitan usage first. Hydrogen cells, pure ethanol, one guy has converted domestic deisels to run on cooking oils, etc. Get cities to adopt the fuels for police, fire, metro transit, and government vehicles first. Introduce refueling centers to make refueling convenient. Low cost loan programs for people who purchase alternative fueled vehicles (not in the form of tax incentives), in programs similar to first time home purchases, student loans, etc.

The absolute LAST thing you want to do is penalize people and companies. Find ways to MOTIVATE and positively ENCOURAGE people to purchase alternative fueled vehicles-methods that aren't going to gouge them in the wallets.

And you HAVE to get Detroit to make trucks and mini-vans that run and perform well with alternative fuels ASAP.

ALl you encourage with taxation is more government spending.

scientists across a multitude of disciplines recognize that the earth's weather system is about to experience a radical change from one "stable state" to another stable state where nuttin' is like what we know. The degree of whiteness (tehnically known as the albedo) in the far north is rapidly decreasing. As the earth's surface darkens it absorbs more heat. As it absorbs more heat, more snow melts and the surface becomes darker yet. Being darker it absorbs even more heat. And so on. This is called a positive feedback loop. Now for the fun part. This loop accelerates change (the implications of this are that each year's change will be greater than the previous year's) so the amount of artic circle change in the next ten years will make the amount we've seen in the past ten years seem mild by comparison. This in turn affects a global oceanic current system know as the thermohaline pump, meaning that changes in artic ice have a direct effect on tropical ocean currents, and that has a direct effect on temperate zone weather patterns. This probably means that storms of another magnitude than anything we've known will be standard fare. Contemplate, if you will, a hurricane Andrew event happening with regularity through the hurrican season.

I agree this should be a "moon shot" kind of initiative, with significant dollars going to it with bipartisan support.  The initiative should include a process to gain oil industry support rather than threaten them.

If G Bush were to propose that, I'd fall down with surprise like I'd been shot.  In all fairness, Kerry didn't mention this kind of vision that I recall hearing, either.

and the board is the poorer if you have been made to feel otherwise.

Guys, this woman is an appealing combination of brains and physical attractiveness, with a very healthy, uninhibited sexual style thrown into the mix.  She should be encouraged to participate here, not made to feel that there are risks to her business to do so.

the figures have probably changed some... the old rule of thumb was that the rails charged about one third (yeah, you read that right, 1/3 as much as, not 30% less than) as much as truckers did per ton-mile... if we had invested anywhere near as much in a rail system as we did in superhighway system many things would be different... the highways would have fewer long haul 18 wheelers, and need fewer repairs, we'd be saving a massive amount of fuel, a great reduction in highway accidents and deaths.... as it is our commuter rail system is a fiasco of mismanagement, our rail freight system is adequate (and that's about all it is)... this is a case of gross misallocation of resources... in the post World War II economy we wanted an auto manufacturing boom to stimulate the economy and we built a superhighway system to insure that there would be a strong demand for autos (now SUVs, bloatmobiles, and assorted motorized monstrosities)... now the equation is stood on its head and we don't have the infrastructure, nor the political will to unwind the process begun 60 years ago.

It's no different than electricity. It's merely a way to transport engergy from one place to another. That energy still must be generated by some other means.

Until the Bush administration releases that, I'm well within my rights to blame Bush.  If they can deny it, they're free to cite evidence from this commission that proves the denial.  If they won't, it's either because it's true or they're hiding something worse.  

BTW, five SUV's for one couple isn't that much worse than one.  They can only drive one at a time, or at most, two at a time.  

As for "demand" creating this problem, I didn't notice this kind of SUV craze before there were tons of commercials for them. Funny how that works, little demand, till it's advertised with some clever, highly manipulative commercials and marketing design.  On the good side, our domestic auto industry bought a generation of continued employment for many workers by doing this.  

The same goes for oil.  For the "demand" we used to have railroads, remember?  Then we built the interstate system.  Railroads have been dismantled.  Now it's almost impossible to get to work without a half-hour, 20 mile commute through heavy traffic. Moreover, most freight is moved most of its land miles by interstate now.  Let's talk about Ford, GM and the oil companies lobbying Congress to create "demand" here.  To make sure that the car was essential, was loved, and was demanding in terms of oil.  

I owned a Geo Metro in the early 90s.  It was a great car, a Suzuki motorcycle made nerdy.  I would have started a Geo Metro gang, except when I look at what's on the road now, I wouldn't dare drive such a thing.  

-- Modified on 4/23/2005 8:37:47 PM

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 11:05:46 AM

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 12:03:28 PM

Free hydrogen isn't found in any quantity on the earth.  There's no source for it; it has to be made.  To make it, you have to put more energy into it than you could ever get out of it.  The only way hydrogen could ever be a practical fuel is if it's made from nuclear fusion-- and that technology has been stalled for forty years despite billions poured into researching it.  

Perhaps some unexploited fission technology might also make it practical-- we've been locked into a power plant design based on the technology developed for the nuclear Navy.  

It does raise the question of whether the only source for energy for cars in the future might not depend on nuclear power.  If so, we better solve the waste problem, and I would suggest also making producing plutonium a crime against humanity.  That stuff is far too dangerous.    

If we could figure out how to make it, it's a good way to transport and store energy, and you could make other, lower grade fuels from it when you need safer storage.    

-- Modified on 4/23/2005 8:49:42 PM

Hydrogen can be a fuel source. Anything that is combustible can serve as a fuel source. The issue is the energy output generated by the cumbustion. If the energy output is too low, it is too expensive to operate the engine. Additionally, you have to look at the byproducts of the combustion and the effect of the combustion on the chamber that contains the combustion.

In the internal combustion engine, the issues that need to be addressed are the potential imapct that a hydrogen generated combustion reaction would have on the engine parts, as well as controlling the flashpoint of the hydrogen.

Basically, hydrogen fuel is similar to gasoline in the sense that they have a low enough flashpoint that a simple spark will serve as the source for ignition. Diesel fuels have a flashpoint that works on compression instead of a spark.

Sources of hydrogen are endless, since hydrogen is the basic building element. One of the fundamental experiments in high school chemistry is the seperation of water into hydrogen and oxygen. You can easily generate hydrogen from water using eltrical energy. The issue is the cost of the generation and the safe storage of the resultant hydrogen. If hydrogen fuel cell technology evolves into a reality, one concern is the possibility of people having home generation systems. A home hydrogen system would create mini-fuel storage systems that could create spetacular explosive capabilities if a home caught fire.

For those of you who don't believe that hydrogen is a source of energy/fuel, study the Hindenburg.

It sounds like you are saying we can either choose between cheap and affordable gas vs. mass human extinction due to global climate change.

When you say:

"You MUST find a way to encourage the development of alternative fuel sources without passing the cost along."

Okay, let's find a way. I am all for it! Let's "find a way". You go first...

Until then somebody has to pay for those costs you referred to.

Ever look around at the other cars on the road during rush hour? Ever notice that very few have more than one person in them? I am no different. I drive to work by myself as well.

The point is that we can do a lot more. We must provide far greater incentive for people to personally act in a more conservationist way when it comes to burning fossil fuels while developing alternatives.

So I would go further to say this: There should be huge tax credits for using mass transit, for buying high fuel efficiency cars, for replacing low fuel efficiency with high fuel efficiency vehicles and for corporations developing higher fuel efficiency vehicles....AND HUGE INVESTEMENT IN NEW RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE, CLEANER FUELS. All of it payed for with a huge tax increase on gasoline as a way to suppress demand. That is the obvious way to go.

Either way, we should do something other than what Bush and the neocons are doing which is allowing MORE pollution, not less.

-- Modified on 4/23/2005 11:10:21 PM

You are dense, and you obviously did not read my response.

A major gas tax would only cripple to poor working people you liberals claim to want to help.

As for mass transit, that's a load of crap. My normal commute to work is 40 minutes. I live 20 miles from my office. If I used the local mass transit, my commute time would turn into a 2 hour commute that would require me to travel 2 1/2 times my regular distance. There is no direct service from my home to my office area. So, I can drive my paid for 1998 vehicle which consistantly passes some of the strictest vehicle emission tests in the nation, or I can ride a bus that is exempt from emissions testing and spews more crap into the atmosphere in one week than I do in a month. Really bright logic there.

And tax credits....c'mon..... You lefties are always bitching that tax credits only benefit the wealthy. If you granted a full tax amnesty to people who earn less than $50,000 per year if they purchased an alternative fueled car, it would still take them 10-15 years to recoup the cost of the vehicle in those tax savings. WTF?!?!?

Read this carefully-A gas tax increase will economically cripple the poor and working class people. What part of that statement do you not understand?

Alternative fuel research cannot rely on private industry unless it's funded by the government without restrictive beaurocratic bullshit regulation. Treat alternative fuel research like government defense R&D. Show that there's a viable market for alternative energy vehicles (like mandating that federal, state, and local government vehicle purchase must be alternative energy vehicles) and you'll see the marketplace develop.

ALl you do when you raise the gas tax is create another deep pocket for government to take money from and spend away. Current gas taxes are SUPPOSED to pay for highway improvements and transportation infrastructure support. Instead, state and federal govenrments use gas taxes as piggy banks to pay for bullshit social and special interest projects.

"I can ride a bus that is exempt from emissions testing and spews more crap into the atmosphere in one week than I do in a month. Really bright logic there."  ..Invalid point unless you're the only passenger.

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 12:39:19 AM

I thought I would give it another shot with you, but you do not want to debate -- you want to call names and try to bully.

One thing you forgot -- THIS IS JUST A BLOG! I don't give a shit.

GO AWAY! We were having a debate until you showed up.

Getting a little sensitive?

I guess you can dish it out but you can't take it? Trying to divert the thread away from the point?

I refuted your position twice with legitimate points and the best you can do is hurl an ineffective insult?

What is it you are always harping about....something to the effect of stick to the point?

The point is that your proposal to increase the gas tax is ill advised and hurts people. But you would rather cling to environmental concerns. So you give up your car and use mass transit. Lead by example.

Oh I'm sorry, you "don't give a shit".

When the obvious flaws of your argument are pointed out, you call that bullying, instead of refuting the points. That seems to me to reinforce the arguments that you have no valid position.

And just an FYI, since you're so righteous about the Constitution, I have as much "right" to have my say as you. So, as others are so fond of pointing out when the "go away" argument is used, you go away instead.

If you don't like my replies, don't read and respond. As long as you post points which are totally out in left field, I will post responses that ridicule your position.

Deal with it.

The criticism is an environmental one about pollution. My truck pollutes less than mass transit, as do many of the newer vehicles in the state of California.

Also, I hear a lot of environmental screaming about the US polluting and causing all the suppsoed nastiness to the environment, but I don't hear much criticism of other industrlaized nations that are far worse. Mexico and China for example.

Although I'm a railfan and I'd love to see more rail activity, from a business perspective trains just don't really cut it for some freight. Both reasons are related.

First, you still need transport form the freight depot to the final destination. There isn't enough rail line to service the majority of business. And most people don't want rail lines near their property, along with the disruption (noise and traffic) that rail service has.

One other aspect is scheduling. You can fill up a semi and dispatch it a lot quicker than a box car. For large items (like automotive vehicles) and bulk material (coal, wheat, and chemicals), rail transport is much more efficient and cost effective. But in this time of instant gratification, the truck is faster than the train and ultimately more effective.

Grat answer. Impose a punitive tax that will increase inflation, hurt the poor, drive interest rates up, and eventually throw us back into the economic cess pool of the Jimmy Carter years. Can't you libs get it through your heads that raising taxes is not the answer to everything.

Yes, it burns better than any other fuel.  It's a fuel, but it's not a **fuel source.**  This is what I and Ed2000 were referring to.  (This is rather, what I thought he was referring to.)

The shortcoming for hydrogen is it's not a fuel found in nature on the earth.  Thus, it can't be a replacement for plentiful fossil fuels.  All systems for creating it (splitting water, for example) require more energy to be put into it than you will get out of it.  

Thus, it's not an fuel source in the real world.  Whereas, chemically speaking, it's a fuel, and the best one, it can't  replace any fuel source in this economy, like oil, like coal, like uranium, like things found in nature that have a net positive energy output for our society.  It can't really take up any percentage of our energy expenditure.  It can, however, make the expenditure very efficient and polution free when we do burn it.

Yes, I know something of chemistry, but I know something about how it applies to the real world, too.

(In case you will nitpick on this point, I also know that, chemically speaking, it takes an equivalent energy to split H2O as you get when you burn the H2 back into water.  However, after you apply the second law of thermodynamics, I'm afraid your going to lose energy.  So, the split & burn method is a net energy loser.  The only way to overcome this is a large energy source, to split the H20 molecule, like nuclear power.)  

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 9:17:26 AM

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 9:24:47 AM

You are a joke and you apparently cannot read.

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 9:28:47 AM

Acting a bit hypocritical there.

As I noted, you can dish it out, you can't take it.

My, my, my.

Muwahahahahahaha

Apparently if you disagree with one of the liberal posters and point out the obvious, you're just an asshole who wants "to call names and try to bully".

I do have an opposition to special taxes on anything, but this was just an idea.  

I guess my problem with it is different.  If you raise taxes on oil products, the government then depends on revenue from the gas tax.  It discourages consumers from buying oil, but encourages the government to promote that behavior for a higher revenue.  You're then depending on the government to do things to promote the cutting of its own operating budget.  Is the government really going to funnel this money into things that discourage oil production then?

It's similar to the special taxes on gambling, which were supposed to go to education.  Funny thing is, the better educated would tend to gamble less...

I will also say that since our government is headed by an oil man, I suspect it will really be a way for oil companies to raise their prices and blame the government.  The revenues will be, through tax credits and subsidies, funneled right to the oil companies.

The problem, I'm afraid, is structural.  As much as our government, our society and culture are now intertwined with oil, I do question whether it can survive at all after peak oil.  I suspect that there will, at the very least, be a change in the world's power structure.  

"The problem, I'm afraid, is structural.  As much as our government, our society and culture are now intertwined with oil, I do question whether it can survive at all after peak oil.  I suspect that there will, at the very least, be a change in the world's power structure."

Interesting theory in general, however, I question your final statement. If the US can take the lead in alternative energy sources, this would strengthen our power position. If we could find synthetic replacements for petroleum, we would lose our reliance on foreign supplies, increasing our independence (assuming that we don't have to rely on some other nation(s) for the material sources to create the synthetics.

The US typically has the inventiveness to create the ideas, it's in the manufacturing that we lag. Our culture of independence promotes thinking outside the traditional viewpoints. Whereas in Asia, the culture fosters a more collective thinking that focuses on productivity versus creativity.

And it has been a strong factor in the destruction of our education system.  We've become a country of spectators.  Unable to act.  Unable to invent.  And soon a country of wrecked health and impoverishment.  

I could be wrong, and very wrong, and I hope I am, but I think the torch will pass.

And I hate to say, this is actually one of the better scenarios I could think of for the future.  

-- Modified on 4/24/2005 10:09:44 PM

the leading theory was that static discharge initiated the fire in the Hindenburg and the hydrogen in the lift bags was what turned it into the disaster it became.

With hydrogen fuel cells, the impact concern is how to vent the hydrogen into the atmosphere without running the risk of having it ignite by wayward sparks-don't want another Pinto type of vehicle.

I suspect that we're a long way away from home hydrogen fuel systems, but they might look at the technology used to protect compressed LNG. THAT stuff is deadly.

Examples of better mass transit systems can be found in the east coast areas, New York & the beltway. But you also find a couple contributing factors-the areas are not conducive to automipbile traffic (no parking, excessive traffic, blah, blah, blah) and the population and work areas are fairly tightly packed in. Chicago has the El system, which isn't the greatest but it works better than anything here on the left coast.

Out here, everything is spread out and there's no decent mass transit to make the commutes tolerable.

Consider this legitimate scenario-with an average commute of nearly an hour now, people who work a traditional 8-5 job must leave home at 7AM and not arrive home until 6ish. Add the dinner factor and you're looking at 7:30-8:00 before they have time to attend to home matters. Mon-Fri, they need quick transportation to use their lunch hours for personal business when dealing with non-weekend available agencies and businesses.

In many larger metro areas, downtown redevelopments are hot because people can live & work close by-relieving the need for driving. But developers have quickly seen the $$$ in redevelopment and downtown condo's in San Diego are selling for $450,000 and up. Out of the price range for many middle income people, and honestly, downtown condo living is not supportive of family life (i.e. kids).

We have a real crisis in SoCal, SDPD officers are commuting 1 1/2 hours to work each day because they cannot afford to live in the city itself.

JBIRD;
    I was pointing out the fact that mass transit (your bus example) can carry many passengers, possibly taking MANY vehicles off the road.  That was the only point I was addressing.

I love it when people say that Government should do (insert your favorite cause here) to help.  Well, I've got a news flash, the very nature of the way our government is structured makes it totally inept.  If it were a hobbiest, it couldn't get it up w/ a case of Viagra.

No what the government needs to do is simply get the fvck out of the way & let the market work it out.  At the very least companies should drill in places like Prudhoe (spelling?) Bay in Alaska.

Given the constraints of where we are, i.e. EARTH, there is no natural supply. From our frame of reference, all hydrogen must be produced. Maybe someday, nanotube elevator shafts will mine hydrogen from the Sun, but until then we must manufacture hydrogen.

Electrolysis (breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen is VERY ineffeicient. Fusion powered electric generation may make this efficiency a moot point. Hydrogen can also be generated from things like methane (natural gas), by injecting steam.

Overall, hydrogen is best considered an alternative way of transporting energy from one location to another while being extremely clean in the "reconversion" process.

Until fusion (or something else) is available, the generation of hygrogen is anything but clean.

Be careful using words like "easily" and "endless". They both have costs and limits.

BTW, transporting hydrogen isn't all that easy or cheap. For example, since it's so light it will take over FIVE TIMES the pipeline infrastructure and FIVE times as many tanker trucks as it now takes to transport natural gas or propane.

Contrary to popular belief, Bush is spending a fair amount aof money here. Probably not enough for some but companies are lining up with their hands out for a piece of the pie. Federally funded R&D is OK, but my bet is that the big break throughs will come as an accident by someone experimenting with something completely unrelated.

Yeah you're right, let's just surrender to the libs. They obviously know what's best for us, whatever the problem is, just raise taxes. Yep that'll fix the problem. Sorry, my bad

This just in: they've been drilling in Prudhoe Bay since the 1970s.

The industrial complex of Prudhoe Bay annually emits more air pollutants than Washington, D.C., and has permitted total emissions that exceed those of at least six states.  Oil companies have drilled 5 times as many wells, roads have extended twice as far, and gravel pads for the facilities have buried three times the area initially predicted and has averaged 400 toxic chemical spills per year since 1996.  

The facilities are now producing at less than half of their peak level and according to former Republican Senator Frank Murkowski by 2010, oil flow from the original Prudhoe Bay field is predicted to drop to 315,000 barrels -- just 16 percent of its flow as recently as 1991.

Then, we'd have to find an effecient way to run cars with nuclear power as the end fuel source.  Electric cars aren't the answer.  Battery acid is about the most polluting stuff in the world, and batteries are... pretty heavy.  You need a lot of fuel to move a battery that big.    

If it comes to it, and it looks now like it will, we would almost have to run cars on hydrogen, or run them hardly at all.    

-- Modified on 4/28/2005 4:50:03 AM

a breakthrough in fusion technology. Then electricity becomes much cheaper, but even more important, cleaner. This makes hydrogen production much more economical. Then hydrogen only powered vehicles make sense. Either burn it or in fuel cells. If it comes to it fission reactors will be on the increase. From what I've read there have been big advances since we quit building them. But of course the gonvernment will have to make up some big lies to convince half the population that their safe enough.

What a witty response. I am so impressed. Now who has been reduced to name calling? You sound like Cartman, "Screw you guys I'm going home" ROFLAO