03 Apr 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziPerhaps we should rethink the question? For example: The only cheap, reliable, alternative fuel is nuclear power. It solves all the problems you outlined, plus there is none of the nasty CO2 released into the air. Unfortunately, the wacko environmentalists oppose nuclear power. What should we do about the wacko environmentalists?
well let's recap.
never mind what you said or what i said. we start fresh
i am saying that the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives, whether fuels or raw material for synthetics(all synthetics that use fossil fuel) must start as soon as possible and on a much larger scale than what we do today.
i am also saying that if we continue to waste ...[text shortened]... ly have a very screwd future.
what are you saying to my saying and in addition to my saying?
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI'm saying that the trasition is already happening and will continue to step up as oil prices increase.
well let's recap.
never mind what you said or what i said. we start fresh
i am saying that the transition from fossil fuels to alternatives, whether fuels or raw material for synthetics(all synthetics that use fossil fuel) must start as soon as possible and on a much larger scale than what we do today.
i am also saying that if we continue to waste ...[text shortened]... ly have a very screwd future.
what are you saying to my saying and in addition to my saying?
I'm saying that, since supplies are finite, oil companies will make more profits if they increase prices and keep supply of quantities fairly stable in comparison. We should then expect progressive price increases. Eventually, we reach 'peak oil' and the supply of quantities will begin to decrease, but prices keep going up. This is what their optimal strategy will look like if they want to maximize their net worth (their present discounted value of future profits).
Price increases generate incentives for research into substitutes. I've presented evidence that this is already happening. The shift in Silicon Valley is particularly telling. My prediction is that this will even gain speed as the continuation of price increases continues to pile on the pressure.
The progressive increase in prices will lead to the gradual introduction of alternatives and the gradual change in habits. As oil prices rise, SUVs will begin to be less and less attractive. Plastics using petroleum will also progressively lose competitiveness and alternatives become more competitive both by that reason and through new breakthroughs.
I have no particular faith in humanity. All I need is that investors follow the profits. Both of oil companies and EnviroTech entrepreneurs.
The differences with respect to your opinion:
- Transition is already starting and it will pick up pace.
- 'Waste' will become less and less common (prices increase, the cost of wasting increases)
- There is no rioting, end of the world scenario. I'm not sure if the transition will be so smooth as to say it will be costless. It might very well be. We may not live with as much material possessions as we do now but that's not going to happen overnight. In the best case scenario, we could potentially live as well, or even better than we do now. That will depend on the speed of technological achievements.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThere the 'wacko environmentalists' have a point. Companies do not internalize the costs of pollution unless the government forces them to. It is up to the government to find ways to correct this.
Perhaps we should rethink the question? For example: The only cheap, reliable, alternative fuel is nuclear power. It solves all the problems you outlined, plus there is none of the nasty CO2 released into the air. Unfortunately, the wacko environmentalists oppose nuclear power. What should we do about the wacko environmentalists?
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Rittersure but what do you do with the radioactive sludge, how do you pack a nuclear power plant in a car and several other issues. we must research a lot of different alternatives because we didn't find one that works in every case and is as effective as the oil burning.
Perhaps we should rethink the question? For example: The only cheap, reliable, alternative fuel is nuclear power. It solves all the problems you outlined, plus there is none of the nasty CO2 released into the air. Unfortunately, the wacko environmentalists oppose nuclear power. What should we do about the wacko environmentalists?
of course the enviros will oppose any technology that causes harm forgetting that burning oil is already harmful.
and the oil companies will oppose researching alternate techs because they are not stupid to kill the golden chikin. we all do our best to fuk up the planet
perhaps one simple and maybe naive way of speeding the process is to forbid presidential and senate candidates from accepting campaign funds from anyone other than private contributors and only lower than a certain amount. when a big oil company or a health insurance company gives you millions to get you elected it is obvious you will not do what is in the interest of the people but in the interest of the said contributor.(but that is another issue)
03 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow do they French deal with it? They generate 80% of their electrical power from nuclear reactors. I think what you've hit upon is that no fuel source is perfect. None of this occurs in a vacuum, so there are always trade-offs.
sure but what do you do with the radioactive sludge, how do you pack a nuclear power plant in a car and several other issues. we must research a lot of different alternatives because we didn't find one that works in every case and is as effective as the oil burning.
of course the enviros will oppose any technology that causes harm forgetting that burnin ...[text shortened]... interest of the people but in the interest of the said contributor.(but that is another issue)
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThis only says that pollution is going down, not what the causes are. I'd hazard a guess that the main cause is governement regulation. If it wasn't then we just had the luck that tecnologies that are more profitable are also, by coincidence, less polluting.
Not true:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16156
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNot true: solar energy captured outside the earth's atmosphere and directed towards the ground is a very real solution, e.g.:
I think what you've hit upon is that no fuel source is perfect. None of this occurs in a vacuum, so there are always trade-offs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/01/guardianweeklytechnologysection.research
Man's energy needs could be met by this source alone.
So what's the hold up? Political will is lacking. The cost of implementing this would not be significantly greater than putting the first man on the moon, and a LOT cheaper and far more sensible than Bush's idiotic idea to put a man on Mars. However as long as the politicians are in the pockets of the oil company lobbyists, this will never get off the ground.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeVery interesting and the type of solution I am unopposed to. However, I suspect that in a billion or so years, when our own sun is about to die out, Nemesio's descendants will be arguing about "peak sun" theory and the need to conserve energy.
Not true: solar energy captured outside the earth's atmosphere and directed towards the ground is a very real solution, e.g.:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/01/guardianweeklytechnologysection.research
Man's energy needs could be met by this source alone.
So what's the hold up? Political will is lacking. The cost of implementing th ...[text shortened]... ticians are in the pockets of the oil company lobbyists, this will never get off the ground.
03 Apr 08
If the oil ran out tomorrow, America would find some planet with oil resources then denigrate the inhabitants, and insist on regime change on this new planet. Then murder the majority of its citizens and call it " Bringing Freedom" or "Operation Slap and Tickle".
Following this they would then blow up the armies of the forces that aide their tyranny and call it "Friendly Fire".
Just as the aliens from this planet, think it can get any worse, a film comes out about the whole scenario, probably starring Haley Joel Osmond and Ben Affleck, directed by some Zionist director, with Aerosmith doing the soundtrack!
Viva La Revolution!
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeHow is solar energy going to power my SUV?
Not true: solar energy captured outside the earth's atmosphere and directed towards the ground is a very real solution, e.g.:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/01/guardianweeklytechnologysection.research
Man's energy needs could be met by this source alone.
So what's the hold up? Political will is lacking. The cost of implementing th ...[text shortened]... ticians are in the pockets of the oil company lobbyists, this will never get off the ground.
03 Apr 08
Originally posted by NevilleBartosAnd you'll be waiting in line at the gas station to top off your piece of s**t Yugo.
If the oil ran out tomorrow, America would find some planet with oil resources then denigrate the inhabitants, and insist on regime change on this new planet. Then murder the majority of its citizens and call it " Bringing Freedom" or "Operation Slap and Tickle".
Following this they would then blow up the armies of the forces that aide their tyrann ...[text shortened]... cted by some Zionist director, with Aerosmith doing the soundtrack!
Viva La Revolution!
Granny.