Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

JOEBIALEK · May 20, 2005, 06:28 pm

As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the growing uncertainty with the situation in the Middle East, South America and Europe, the United States is now forced to re-think its energy policy so that it can lower energy consumption of and dependence on foreign oil. Just as the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage so it is time for the electric battery to replace the gasoline engine. We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more. But with any wholesale change comes the requirement of a transitional mechanism. Hence the need for a vehicle that can run alternatively on both gasoline and electricity. The goal of course would be to make a total conversion within a reasonable amount of time. Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants so the concern by some is that a reduction in tailpipe emissions would be offset by an increase in air pollution from the power plants. Others argue that the sheer volume of reduced vehicle emissions would fall far greater than plant-produced air pollution. We may even see a coalition of military hawks and environmentalists as fuel efficiency brings about both security and a better climate.

Few would argue that two factors influence consumer's choice of transportation more than anything else: gas mileage and appearance. Ever since the automobile became available to the average consumer, it has always been considered a status symbol much like the clothing we wear and the houses we live in. The price of electricity is pale compared to the price of gasoline so this factor is virtually a no-brainer. The choice of appearance however, will always linger as long as we believe that "appearance makes the person". But this factor can also be addressed during the transition phase since it appears that most vehicles today can be modified to use both fuel sources. As for the future, the old tried and true marketing techniques will convince most people that buying the style of car available will guarantee that the "future won't pass them by". Just as Japanese cars promoting fuel efficiency in response to the oil embargo of the 1970's sparked the Big Three to respond accordingly so will the shift to electric vehicles change the market once again. Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.

Milton Bradley · May 20, 2005, 10:42 pm

On a side note...

I am much more worried about the disposal of batteries. The overwhelming majority of people just throw them into the trash with all the other non-recyclable materials. This is very dangerous to the water supply, and it is never mentioned in the media, or on the batteries packaging.

I believe that should become the third factor in the consumers mind when choosing alternative fueled transportation.

Very, very scary.

RVonse · May 20, 2005, 10:52 pm

We should all be using hybred vehicals now but no one in the US is really interested. When driving down the highway it is obvious to a casual observer that saving gas is still not a priority for most Americans. Gas guzzling SUV's appear to be as popular as ever and you rarely see more than 1 person to a vehical. Car pooling and mass transit are just about almost non-existant in most cities.

The scary part of all of this IMO is that when the price of gas does finally reach a price that causes people to change it may be too late. We are not doing enough research right now to be ready. According to the author of this article the price will be when gas price reaches $4/gallon:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_ventura.html
"the U.S. has no long-term way to influence prices. That means $4 a gallon by next spring, and rising – $5, then $6, probably $10 by 2010 or thereabouts. Their economy can afford it; ours can't. We may hobble along with more or less the same way of life for the next dollar or so of hikes, but at around $4 America changes. Drastically."

And according to him it will be too late for us to do anything but go back to light rail.

Prometheus · May 21, 2005, 01:28 am

The energy chrisis is simpler to solve that many think. We have a fine source of energy - plutonium. Nuclear power is *much* safer than people think, and can be disposed of very safely. Either way it's a whole lot less deadly than wars in the midle east.

The major obsticals to energy utopia:

(1) Battary technology. Battary tech blows - most of it's 15 years old. We need longer lasting and lighter battaries.

(2) Public fear of nuclear power. When the first nuclear plants were made it was the "wild west" of nuclear power. There was little oversight and accadents happened. There is much more controll and it is very safe. That perception will correct with time.

JOEBIALEK · May 21, 2005, 09:59 pm

you can thank the oil lobbyists and the politicians for this mess...

RVonse · May 21, 2005, 10:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: JOEBIALEK

you can thank the oil lobbyists and the politicians for this mess...

I happen to own a small amount of Exxon common stock and I can tell you that the shareholder's report was very favorable for them this year.

What they should be doing with their "billions" of profits right now is building more refineries in the US and the environmental agency should let them do it.

carlessbiker · May 21, 2005, 11:18 pm

I think everyone should just swallow their pride and ride a bike.

Prometheus · May 22, 2005, 12:22 pm

Yes, but then what would those with small penises do to prove their manlihood?

Charles · May 22, 2005, 05:16 pm

At the current rate nuclear fuels are projected to run out in the next 50 years.

CallousGiant · May 22, 2005, 05:50 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Charles

At the current rate nuclear fuels are projected to run out in the next 50 years.

Not necessarily....

http://www.thenewagesite.com/jjdewey/deceptions/15.php

I think the solution is a mixture of ethanol run vehicles, solar powered homes and nuclear powered cities/factories/businesses etc.

All 3 are environmentally friendly and are [mostly] renewable. Ethanol can be from sugar cane, solar power, obviously, comes from the sun and nuclear products from the reactor can be recycled and reused, plus there are large amounts of them left.

carlessbiker · May 22, 2005, 08:20 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Prometheus

Yes, but then what would those with small penises do to prove their manlihood?

Ummm, I'm not sure......OK I fold, I don't get it. People who ride their bikes have small penises? Maybe they are just growers and not showers.

Prometheus · May 23, 2005, 10:50 am

I was alluding to them common quip that a man with a huge vehichle is making up for an inadequicy somewhere else. How have you not seen Mrs. Doubtfire?

carlessbiker · May 23, 2005, 11:02 am

Quote:

Quote by: Prometheus

I was alluding to them common quip that a man with a huge vehichle is making up for an inadequicy somewhere else. How have you not seen Mrs. Doubtfire?

Oh I get it. Man is that prevelant here as well. "You ain't jack" if you don't have a large gas-guzzling Ford F-350 that spews black smoke. They drive those trucks like the F stands for Ferrari. Losers.

tman_ndsu08 · May 23, 2005, 06:39 pm

It baffles me. It absolutely baffles me.

There is much oppertunity to harvest free energy in our world and yet, here we are burning coal.

WHY?!?!?!?!?!

The earth showers us each day with not only the ability to produce massive amounts of electricity, but heat too!

The earth itself has a very hot core! This heat could produce steam which could turn a turbine and heat homes.

Earth also has many forms of free kinetic energy that could be used to turn a turbine. Wind, the rising and falling of the tides, rivers (damed), etc.

And here we are...in the 21st century....and we burn mountains of coal each day when we could literally be harvesting the only true free lunch of the universe.

As far as batteries go, forget about em. The idea is an old and obsolete one. Pure hydogen fuel cells are the way of the future and unlike batteries their charge can be refilled and dissplaced exactly over and over again with no loss from use.

The energy industry is pathetic. We all live in the dark ages of energy because the powers that be hold us down under their god damned boots! The government and the oil industry sleep with each other in the same bed at the expense of innovation and simple, plain, god damned common sense! I mean, for crying out loud, if the sun is litterall spraying you with **FREE** energy every day, then what in the hell are you doing spending money to burn coal?!?!!?

UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

tusaki · May 23, 2005, 07:31 pm

why?

cost of exploring the possibility + cost of inventing methods to extract new energy + cost of extraction of energy + cost of developing infrastructure + cost of maintaining infrastructure + cost of selling (advertising) new energy source

is more than

the cost of maintaining an already build oil infrastructure.

tman_ndsu08 · May 23, 2005, 07:38 pm

the possibilities have already been explored and the methods already exist. You don't have to advertise anything. The power companies have a contract with the city. You don't get a choice. It's not like I could say "hmm...Xcel is too expensive, I think I'll try Gulf Power". The maintenence of the new infrastructure would certainly be cheaper than the current maintence needs or at the least, the same (but not more).

So the only thing that actually costs any real money is building new infrastructure. But wait a minute, the government could do that! They could offer power companies many incentives to build new infrastructure. But they don't. The government are the same people who own the oil companies. They know that as soon as new forms of energy are availible to the people that the people will not buy oil products anymore and they'll lose their money. They don't give a damn what the people want nor what's actually best for the people. They only care about using government power to grant themselves an energy monopoly to line their own pockets.

RVonse · May 23, 2005, 08:41 pm

Harvesting energy from the sun may be more difficult than most people realize. Most people don't know this but solar panels go bad and wear out after about 10-20 years. That makes them not so practical because they are expensive to begin with. Wind and water power are the only thing that works good today but these resources are not found everywhere.

But that doesn't mean we can't do a lot better. I think the U.S. governement is slacking and should help with the research in order to get all of us out of the crapper before its too late.

tman_ndsu08 · May 24, 2005, 11:28 am

I've not seen that anywhere about solar panals wearing out in 10 years. Perhaps if you don't take good care of them and sheild them properly from the elements.

But you're absolutely right that it's the government holding us back in the dark ages of energy.

Libertarian · May 24, 2005, 12:35 pm

You say RVonse that solor enegry is ineffective, but what about oil?!?! Is that not killling the envoirment and will run out soon?!?! Is that not ineffecitve? Do you believe that the oil will be always there. We need to use other types of fuel. Even if they are ineffective to a point, if enough people use them, than researchers will develop more technologies because there would be a big market for it. Now there is not a big enough market for research to develop into.

tman_ndsu08 · May 24, 2005, 01:00 pm

Libertarian, the other forms of energy harvesting are actually far more effective than fossil fuels.

The point simply is that the costs of implementing the new forms is way too high for any company to take on without government help. The costs being high would cause the price for the energy to be high (since the implementation costs would be passed on to the consumer). This would cause the demand for it to go sharply down.

The costs won't get low again until there is high demand.

So you can see the circular quandry that comes with implementation. The only thing that can be done is either for a few early adopters to bite the bullet and get the ball rolling or for a major climate change that will force the implementation (such as the ending of the supply of fossil fuels).

May 20, 2005, 06:28 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
JOEBIALEK Molten Ash Posts: 39	Energy As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the growing uncertainty with the situation in the Middle East, South America and Europe, the United States is now forced to re-think its energy policy so that it can lower energy consumption of and dependence on foreign oil. Just as the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage so it is time for the electric battery to replace the gasoline engine. We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more. But with any wholesale change comes the requirement of a transitional mechanism. Hence the need for a vehicle that can run alternatively on both gasoline and electricity. The goal of course would be to make a total conversion within a reasonable amount of time. Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants so the concern by some is that a reduction in tailpipe emissions would be offset by an increase in air pollution from the power plants. Others argue that the sheer volume of reduced vehicle emissions would fall far greater than plant-produced air pollution. We may even see a coalition of military hawks and environmentalists as fuel efficiency brings about both security and a better climate. Few would argue that two factors influence consumer's choice of transportation more than anything else: gas mileage and appearance. Ever since the automobile became available to the average consumer, it has always been considered a status symbol much like the clothing we wear and the houses we live in. The price of electricity is pale compared to the price of gasoline so this factor is virtually a no-brainer. The choice of appearance however, will always linger as long as we believe that "appearance makes the person". But this factor can also be addressed during the transition phase since it appears that most vehicles today can be modified to use both fuel sources. As for the future, the old tried and true marketing techniques will convince most people that buying the style of car available will guarantee that the "future won't pass them by". Just as Japanese cars promoting fuel efficiency in response to the oil embargo of the 1970's sparked the Big Three to respond accordingly so will the shift to electric vehicles change the market once again. Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.

May 20, 2005, 10:52 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
RVonse Igneous Magma Posts: 563	We should all be using hybred vehicals now but no one in the US is really interested. When driving down the highway it is obvious to a casual observer that saving gas is still not a priority for most Americans. Gas guzzling SUV's appear to be as popular as ever and you rarely see more than 1 person to a vehical. Car pooling and mass transit are just about almost non-existant in most cities. The scary part of all of this IMO is that when the price of gas does finally reach a price that causes people to change it may be too late. We are not doing enough research right now to be ready. According to the author of this article the price will be when gas price reaches $4/gallon: http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...s_ventura.html "the U.S. has no long-term way to influence prices. That means $4 a gallon by next spring, and rising – $5, then $6, probably $10 by 2010 or thereabouts. Their economy can afford it; ours can't. We may hobble along with more or less the same way of life for the next dollar or so of hikes, but at around $4 America changes. Drastically." And according to him it will be too late for us to do anything but go back to light rail. Last edited by RVonse; May 20, 2005 at 10:57 pm.

May 21, 2005, 01:28 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Prometheus Glad to be back! Location: Vernal, UT Posts: 1,725	The energy chrisis is simpler to solve that many think. We have a fine source of energy - plutonium. Nuclear power is much safer than people think, and can be disposed of very safely. Either way it's a whole lot less deadly than wars in the midle east. The major obsticals to energy utopia: (1) Battary technology. Battary tech blows - most of it's 15 years old. We need longer lasting and lighter battaries. (2) Public fear of nuclear power. When the first nuclear plants were made it was the "wild west" of nuclear power. There was little oversight and accadents happened. There is much more controll and it is very safe. That perception will correct with time. Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it. -Søren Kierkegaard

May 21, 2005, 11:18 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
carlessbiker Someplace Hot Location: So. Utah Posts: 65	I think everyone should just swallow their pride and ride a bike. You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.

May 22, 2005, 12:22 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Prometheus Glad to be back! Location: Vernal, UT Posts: 1,725	Yes, but then what would those with small penises do to prove their manlihood? Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it. -Søren Kierkegaard

May 20, 2005, 10:42 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	On a side note... I am much more worried about the disposal of batteries. The overwhelming majority of people just throw them into the trash with all the other non-recyclable materials. This is very dangerous to the water supply, and it is never mentioned in the media, or on the batteries packaging. I believe that should become the third factor in the consumers mind when choosing alternative fueled transportation. Very, very scary.

May 21, 2005, 09:59 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
JOEBIALEK Molten Ash Posts: 39	you can thank the oil lobbyists and the politicians for this mess...

May 22, 2005, 05:16 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Charles Molten Ash Location: London Posts: 59	At the current rate nuclear fuels are projected to run out in the next 50 years.

May 23, 2005, 10:50 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Prometheus Glad to be back! Location: Vernal, UT Posts: 1,725	I was alluding to them common quip that a man with a huge vehichle is making up for an inadequicy somewhere else. How have you not seen Mrs. Doubtfire? Fixed ideas are like a cramp in the foot - the best remedy against it is to tread on it. -Søren Kierkegaard

May 23, 2005, 06:39 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	It baffles me. It absolutely baffles me. There is much oppertunity to harvest free energy in our world and yet, here we are burning coal. WHY?!?!?!?!?! The earth showers us each day with not only the ability to produce massive amounts of electricity, but heat too! The earth itself has a very hot core! This heat could produce steam which could turn a turbine and heat homes. Earth also has many forms of free kinetic energy that could be used to turn a turbine. Wind, the rising and falling of the tides, rivers (damed), etc. And here we are...in the 21st century....and we burn mountains of coal each day when we could literally be harvesting the only true free lunch of the universe. As far as batteries go, forget about em. The idea is an old and obsolete one. Pure hydogen fuel cells are the way of the future and unlike batteries their charge can be refilled and dissplaced exactly over and over again with no loss from use. The energy industry is pathetic. We all live in the dark ages of energy because the powers that be hold us down under their god damned boots! The government and the oil industry sleep with each other in the same bed at the expense of innovation and simple, plain, god damned common sense! I mean, for crying out loud, if the sun is litterall spraying you with FREE energy every day, then what in the hell are you doing spending money to burn coal?!?!!? UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

May 23, 2005, 07:31 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	why? cost of exploring the possibility + cost of inventing methods to extract new energy + cost of extraction of energy + cost of developing infrastructure + cost of maintaining infrastructure + cost of selling (advertising) new energy source is more than the cost of maintaining an already build oil infrastructure. Hope & Dream

May 23, 2005, 07:38 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	the possibilities have already been explored and the methods already exist. You don't have to advertise anything. The power companies have a contract with the city. You don't get a choice. It's not like I could say "hmm...Xcel is too expensive, I think I'll try Gulf Power". The maintenence of the new infrastructure would certainly be cheaper than the current maintence needs or at the least, the same (but not more). So the only thing that actually costs any real money is building new infrastructure. But wait a minute, the government could do that! They could offer power companies many incentives to build new infrastructure. But they don't. The government are the same people who own the oil companies. They know that as soon as new forms of energy are availible to the people that the people will not buy oil products anymore and they'll lose their money. They don't give a damn what the people want nor what's actually best for the people. They only care about using government power to grant themselves an energy monopoly to line their own pockets.

May 23, 2005, 08:41 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
RVonse Igneous Magma Posts: 563	Harvesting energy from the sun may be more difficult than most people realize. Most people don't know this but solar panels go bad and wear out after about 10-20 years. That makes them not so practical because they are expensive to begin with. Wind and water power are the only thing that works good today but these resources are not found everywhere. But that doesn't mean we can't do a lot better. I think the U.S. governement is slacking and should help with the research in order to get all of us out of the crapper before its too late.

May 24, 2005, 11:28 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	I've not seen that anywhere about solar panals wearing out in 10 years. Perhaps if you don't take good care of them and sheild them properly from the elements. But you're absolutely right that it's the government holding us back in the dark ages of energy.

May 24, 2005, 12:35 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Libertarian Thats Me Location: Where Am I Again?!?! Posts: 177	You say RVonse that solor enegry is ineffective, but what about oil?!?! Is that not killling the envoirment and will run out soon?!?! Is that not ineffecitve? Do you believe that the oil will be always there. We need to use other types of fuel. Even if they are ineffective to a point, if enough people use them, than researchers will develop more technologies because there would be a big market for it. Now there is not a big enough market for research to develop into.

May 24, 2005, 01:00 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Libertarian, the other forms of energy harvesting are actually far more effective than fossil fuels. The point simply is that the costs of implementing the new forms is way too high for any company to take on without government help. The costs being high would cause the price for the energy to be high (since the implementation costs would be passed on to the consumer). This would cause the demand for it to go sharply down. The costs won't get low again until there is high demand. So you can see the circular quandry that comes with implementation. The only thing that can be done is either for a few early adopters to bite the bullet and get the ball rolling or for a major climate change that will force the implementation (such as the ending of the supply of fossil fuels).