fuel prices

[BassinDan]

just in case you missed the hijack
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UOpcPfAarjY

[JamesH]

Newt for President!

James

[MIKE TREMONT]

Wait til the Newt haters wake up, then we'll see some real insight as to how to save the world!

Go Nancy, go Barbara, and the new guy that vow's CHANGE for America!

From what the numbers are saying, we're in a world of hurt.

Oh and the price of gas is hurting my ability to fish as much as I would like .

[RichThiel]

I second that "Newt For President" Start it on FOX News

[Skeeterman]

I,ll third it.

[MikeD]

agree on using the reserves, it's beyond stupid that we don't use the reserves. continuing to buy oil while holding all these reserves is like borrowing money to pay your mortgage when you have $200k in your checking account and a well paying job.

disagree strongly on drilling colorado, alaska, and the pacific coast. thankfully the first 2 are protected by the federal wilderness act, the damage caused by drilling and transporting oil to these areas would be catastrophic. the cost of resurrecting those 25 year old oil platforms on the pacific coast doesn't seem to be good business in the oil companies eyes - not when it requires huge capital inlay now only to see meager returns in 10 years when all that work is done in a future market that may or may not include oil as a solution.

agree *strongly* on alternatives, the guy he mentions who can create fuel from garbage has a methane solution which is proven viable but has low production potential. but nuclear is a total no go for me, too powerful for stupid humans to safely control, and no long term solution exists for dealing with the haz waste produced - bury it so that we can't see it? brilliant... we already have more leaky barrels of haz waste that we are legally required to safely deal with but are unable to that are costing the gov tens of thousands per day in lack of compliance fines.

in my world electrical cars powered by solar generated electricity is the answer on the transportation side. that damn power source pops up in the east each day like clockwork, and during the summer when the electrical demand is the highest that power source sits with the best availability producing more UV than ever. ironic eh? the downside - today - is that the patent rights for the most viable battery solution to efficiently store that converted power is owned by Texaco/Chevron and they ain't letting that one out of the bag. what is this I speak of?? do some reading on Ford's EV1 for some background on the NiMH battery. the upside - today - is that many companies are working on a solution that will outperform NiMH making it possible for the existing car design that we are all so comfortable with and reticent to let go of to use electric motors powered by incredibly efficient on-board battery storage units that are charged by power plants generating electricity thru solar power.

its also beyond stupid - to me - that we have one of the greatest power generating plants that appears in the sky each morning that the policy wonks can't control/tax/price gouge that would easily power the entire US or the world with a very small solar array that we seem to be totally ignoring as a solution. for most of us the sum of the price of 2-5 years of our current PGE bills would make us energy independent in our homes for the rest of our lifes. in any other business full a return on investment of 2-5 years is considered a pretty darn good thing. if enough of us invested in solar for our homes there would be enough excess capacity available to drive pricing on current electrical sources back to dirt cheap.

Propane/CNG/biodiesel/methane/E87, all thumbs up. thumbs down on hydrogen and higher blended corn based methanol - too much impact on food

my .02 that ain't worth much these days...

[mark poulson]

Why not store nuclear waste in the center of military bases?
Aren't they safe enough?

[Skunkedagain]

Why not have the oil companies drill on land they already have and ONCE they have actually done that, let them move on to the next area? I can't be convinced for one second that the ones benefiting from these reserves will be anyone of us, but rather the oil companies themselves and the fat pockets of the politicians.

[Greg_Cornish]

Why not store nuclear waste in the center of military bases?
Aren't they safe enough?

They absolutely are.

[biteme]

Lets just face it, theres way to many politics to ever make anything happen.
Has anyone seen "who killed the electric car"?

[Greg_Cornish]

Lets just face it, theres way to many politics to ever make anything happen.

Ummm what? Huh?

[Greg_Cornish]

Why not have the oil companies drill on land they already have and ONCE they have actually done that, let them move on to the next area? I can't be convinced for one second that the ones benefiting from these reserves will be anyone of us, but rather the oil companies themselves and the fat pockets of the politicians.

Ummmm what? Huh?

[Skunkedagain]

Why not have the oil companies drill on land they already have and ONCE they have actually done that, let them move on to the next area? I can't be convinced for one second that the ones benefiting from these reserves will be anyone of us, but rather the oil companies themselves and the fat pockets of the politicians.

Ummmm what? Huh?

LOL was I speaking french?

[StockOption]

Go Nancy, go Barbara, and the new guy that vow's CHANGE for America!

Trust me we ain't seen nothing yet.

We're in for a world of hurt if such an inexperienced, unprepared, junior politican becomes commander in chief. The good news is the energy issue will become an afterthought.

[biteme]

Lets just face it, theres way to many politics to ever make anything happen.

Ummm what? Huh?

Just watch the movie and get back to me.

[MikeD]

Why not store nuclear waste in the center of military bases?
Aren't they safe enough?

not sure if you are serious or not but will approach it as though you are.

do you have any idea *how much* nuclear waste there is being generated daily/weekly/monthly/annually, and how fatally dangerous it is to living organisms??

log some time on google with the results from nuclear waste storage

some good info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste

this stuff stays "hot" for tens of thousands of years - so lets bury it in a mountainside surrounded by volcanic and seismic activity -- BRILLIANT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain

[mac (Doyle McEwen)]

Skunked, unfortunately most of the land the oil companies already have under lease to drill on would not produce enough oil to make any kind of serious dent in our dependence on foreigh oil..I know the Democrats are trying their best to make it sound like these current leases are right in the middle of premium oil properties, but that is not the case..I am not saying there is not any oil there, I am sure there is, but is it the type we need and can readily use, is there enough of it to really make a significant difference..Many people think all oil is the same and that any well will produce an abundance of oil..Neither is true..There is an abundance of shale oil in the Rocky Mountain basin, more than enough to supply the US with oil for the next 100 years, unfortunately we have yet to develop a method of getting this oil that is efficient and profitable to do so..Even with the current price of oil, it would still cost more to get it out for refining than what it would or could sell for..Sounds funky doesn't it, but it is true..

mac

[Greg_Cornish]

do you have any idea *how much* nuclear waste there is being generated daily/weekly/monthly/annually, and how fatally dangerous it is to living organisms??

Yes, about 1/100th as much as you are being exposed to by coal burning power plants that pumps it into the air and falls on your head every day. about 1/10 of what your wife radiates sleeping next to you every night.

My understanding is that all the nuclear waste that has been generated in the last 20 years is about the size of a cubic football field.

I also heard that European countries are recycling their spent fuel rods.

[MikeD]

do you have any idea *how much* nuclear waste there is being generated daily/weekly/monthly/annually, and how fatally dangerous it is to living organisms??

Yes, about 1/100th as much as you are being exposed to by coal burning power plants that pumps it into the air and falls on your head every day. about 1/10 of what your wife radiates sleeping next to you every night.

My understanding is that all the nuclear waste that has been generated in the last 20 years is about the size of a cubic football field.

I also heard that European countries are recycling their spent fuel rods.

not sure I'm understanding your point Greg - are you saying that coal burning plants are a greater threat than nuclear waste by a factor of 100?

[Greg_Cornish]

not sure I'm understanding your point Greg - are you saying that coal burning plants are a greater threat than nuclear waste by a factor of 100?

Yes, they spew more radiation directly into the atmosphere than any pollution danger you could ever suffer from nuclear power plants. I'm surprised you didn't know this. We've been radiating ourselves for years. I'll give you links to check out and a paragraph in that link to save you time.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coa ... lear-waste which says

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Radiation ... 2520plants

On of the interesting facts associated with the debate over nuclear power is the amount of radiation emitted by burning coal. Typically a coal-fired power plant emits about 3.3 times the amount of radioactive material into the environment that a nuclear plant does for a similar amount of power produced.

This is due to the fact that coal contains radioactive material, mostly uranium and thorium, at about 4 parts per million. Now this does not seem like a lot until the quantity of coal a 1000 megawatt plant will burn in a day, around 11,000 tons, is considered. This works out to be roughly 40 kilos of radioactive material (88 pounds) each day. About 10% of this will be released to the atmosphere and the rest will end up in the ash pile and subject to weathering. If proper scrubbers are in place as little as 1% could reach the atmosphere, but this is still rather significant given the tonnage of coal burned for electric generation.

Also the environmentalists who force us to burn coal and corn ethanol are forcing us to keep pumping carbon dioxide into our air and add MTBE to our water.

Now with all the coal burning plants burning in the U.S. Canada and China, plus six coal mine fires in china that with burn for years and year we are being over radiated. A viable hope for short term clean environmental energy is Nuclear power. We HAVE to have it to clean our air.

According to Bill Watterburg a scientist and teacher, coal-fired power plants release 2000 tons of Uranium & Thorium each year

[CORAL 96]

Thats also why the Alaska Pipeline runs at 35% of capacity. Why only 35%? As much money as the taxpayers spent that sucker should be running at 100%. Use the resource to it's full potential. Unless their afraid it will burst!!

[Rippin Toad]

Mike D you make some great points and I am fully on board with alternative sources of energy. The long term answer to the fossil fuel problem is move away from it completely. The problem is the free market and all the pepople in this country getting fat bank accounts off of it. However, there are some things you need to take into consideration.

1. Not all of the country can run their cars off of solar energy alone based on the fact that not all areas are, as sunny as, Calif. (think Oregon, Washington). There is no way the power demand throughout the entire country could be supported by solar alone. It will take other sources. (Not to say solar is not one of them)

2. Necular has a bad rap in this country becasue a bunch of drunk Russians decided to bulid a plant without any protection over the core and all hell broke loose. If the plants are built correlty they pretty much take care of themselves with supervsion, of course. As for the waste, ask yourself truthfully do you care what generations in 10k years are going to face (are we even going to inhabit the earth then?). Bury the waste in the middle of the desert away from falt lines and say good riddence. Necular is the cleanest form of energy and prodcues the most bang for the buck -if you will-. Wind, Solar, Methane, etc. just don't have the ability to do it alone on a big scale.

Just my .02!

Toad

[minnkotaman]

i'm really getting tired of getting hosed.
check out title 35, u.s. code(1952) sections 181-188, when the feds repeal this is when we'll see a change. right now any alternative
devices or application belong to the feds, and the men in black.
check out stanley meyers, and water for fuel, and a host of other sites
that have information. its amazing how all of the ones who hold out to get it to the public accidently die.
at last count over 3000 devices have gone to the government. and we wont see them unless they repeal this law.

[TWinger]

Can you be more specific or post the code, Can not find with info given

[MikeD]

Mike D you make some great points and I am fully on board with alternative sources of energy. The long term answer to the fossil fuel problem is move away from it completely. The problem is the free market and all the pepople in this country getting fat bank accounts off of it. However, there are some things you need to take into consideration.

thanks

1. Not all of the country can run their cars off of solar energy alone based on the fact that not all areas are, as sunny as, Calif. (think Oregon, Washington). There is no way the power demand throughout the entire country could be supported by solar alone. It will take other sources. (Not to say solar is not one of them)

must not have been clear enough on my info, not suggesting by any means that the EV car be powered by solar alone. should have been more specific that large solar panel array powers an array of storage batteries - those storage batteries in turn hold and provide the power to charge the batteries in the car.

2. Necular has a bad rap in this country becasue a bunch of drunk Russians decided to bulid a plant without any protection over the core and all hell broke loose. If the plants are built correlty they pretty much take care of themselves with supervsion, of course. As for the waste, ask yourself truthfully do you care what generations in 10k years are going to face (are we even going to inhabit the earth then?). Bury the waste in the middle of the desert away from falt lines and say good riddence. Necular is the cleanest form of energy and prodcues the most bang for the buck -if you will-. Wind, Solar, Methane, etc. just don't have the ability to do it alone on a big scale.

if we only do an *adequate* job of harnessing the sun then there is little, if any, need for nuclear. for me there are 2 sides of the coin on nuclear - great power source as you noted but too much downside due to the inevitable ineptitude that will come in. I just can't trust that it will be managed by those in charge at the level necessary to make it safe for all. look at the all bungled management now, whats to say that nuclear will be managed long term at a different level.

And yes, truthfully I do care about 10k years from now - but that makes the assumption that all will be well for the next 10k and there is little guarantee that this is the case. not considering life on the planet in 10k years is taking a big swim in Lake Me while not considering those that may have to deal with the consequences of our current laziness in the future. in the end I just don't feel nuc is necessary at all - there are too many other options that are "low hanging fruit" solutions that could be implemented sooo much faster than both the time and cost of building another nuc plant.

I'm a big believer in the mantra "the behavior will change when the pain becomes great enough" - wondering how much more pain is really necessary before we get our collective asses out of the lay-z-boy and realize that we are being taken advantage of and are not being taken care of by those who are supposed to have our best interests in mind. Lake Me seems full of swimmers these days...

Just my .02!

Toad

all good stuff, thanks for chiming in.

Greg - have not had a chance to review your info on coal stuff, but looking fwd to doing so. it is an area I have only a laymans understading of, I'm kind of an info junkie so I appreciate you posting the links for me.

[minnkotaman]

check this out
title 35
http://www.padrak.com/ine/TITLE35.html

[FATGUY]

this is the same thing the liberals were saying five years ago . if we would have started drilling back then we wouldn't be in this mess..

[Jeff C.]

I agree that the Democrats are wrong on blocking more drilling. However, the Republicans are equally to blame. What the hell were they doing over the first 6 years of the Bush presidency when they had control over both houses of congress AND the presidency?

Just yesterday the Republicans blocked votes that would have led to regulation of speculation in the oil market (a major cause of increases in prices according to many economists). They also blocked a vote to release the strategic oil reserves, which by the way happens to be one of the steps called for by Gingrich in his drill now campaign (which is supported by this liberal). While everyone knows that drilling is not going to pay off much for many years, those two measures that the Republicans blocked would have lead to an immediate large drop in oil prices. I guess that shouldn't be surprising since the Republicans are more beholden to business and big oil than the common man who can't even afford to fill up his truck and go fishing.

Another reason for the high price of oil is the undervalued dollar, a lot of which has to do with the record budget deficits rung up while the Republicans are in power. So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around to both sides of the political aisle.

[BigBoy]

my .02 that ain't worth much these days...

Forgot to account for inflation, those $0.02 is about $1.23 now.

[MikeD]

I agree that the Democrats are wrong on blocking more drilling. However, the Republicans are equally to blame. What the hell were they doing over the first 6 years of the Bush presidency when they had control over both houses of congress AND the presidency?

Just yesterday the Republicans blocked votes that would have led to regulation of speculation in the oil market (a major cause of increases in prices according to many economists). They also blocked a vote to release the strategic oil reserves, which by the way happens to be one of the steps called for by Gingrich in his drill now campaign (which is supported by this liberal). While everyone knows that drilling is not going to pay off much for many years, those two measures that the Republicans blocked would have lead to an immediate large drop in oil prices. I guess that shouldn't be surprising since the Republicans are more beholden to business and big oil than the common man who can't even afford to fill up his truck and go fishing.

Another reason for the high price of oil is the undervalued dollar, a lot of which has to do with the record budget deficits rung up while the Republicans are in power. So yes, there is plenty of blame to go around to both sides of the political aisle.

well said.

even threatening to release the oil reserves would most likely lead to speculators dumping their holdings in a profit taking frenzy which should have helped lower prices.