Ignoring hybrids... pushing more oil instead

I really kinda doubt if the President actually is aware of this subset of a smaller problem than backpack nukes being smuggled into the USA or the Iranian nuke development program or the North Korean work on perfecting an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile to put their nukes on to hit the USA with.

I think that the presidential priorities are slightly different than what our particular focus is on as workers with Prii, trying to earn, learn and save.

He isn't known as a detail guy, but rather has proven to have a grasp of the fundamentals of what pushing liberty and freedom will do around the world.

Sure, I have policy disagreements with Bush but I can see where this isn't part of the policy discussion.

fuel prices are going to go up anyway, and the delays in getting drilling going there are suprising to me. I am delighted we are finally getting a push underway to do so.

The marketplace is the area where consumers will make choices, and I am doubtful if government policy on hybrids would be benificial anyway. They would screw it up, let the market forces prevail. I have some faith in consumers.

 

there is an article in today's Province newspaper http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprovinc...b2-db142ee555c0 that say's the following
Date line Richmond.
Hybrid cars approved.
David Suzuki drives one - and soon, so will the mayor of Richmond. Richmond has adoped a policy of buying hybrid cars for all future replacements of city vehicles following a 26 month trial that found they were enviromentally friendly and no more expensive to operate than gas powred cars. Richmond News.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"71066)</div>

Our government's history concerning environmental issues is rather pathetic. Rather than take the lead using "good science," they are influenced and directed by special interests and big industry (gotta get re-elected you know!)

Pushing for more drilling is the typical "quick fix", "knee jerk" response to the greater problem, our dependence on oil. I've heard some say that history will label this period of time as the "Oil Age".

With the global warming effects reaching greater proportions, we should be pushing for less dependence on oil, and not more production. Some say we have less than 60 years left in the world wide oil reserves. What happens then?

What happened to solar, wind, and geothermal technologies? Why doesn't the government promote them openly as alternatives to fossil fuels? Why - because of market pressures placed on them by industry. They've still got reserves to deplete and money to make.

Our local utility company is offering rebates on energy saving appliances. Why - not because they want to save energy - because they don't have enough capacity to transmit power to its consumers.

It's funny how our "market economy" works. It used to be supply vs. demand. Saving money is the bottom line. But it is becoming readily apparent what this philosophy is doing to our environment. Pushing for more drilling is not the answer. Changing the mindset of millions of ignorant people is.

WHAT TO DO?
Start by buying a Prius! (not perfect - but it's the best we have right now)
Buy local, organic foods (less production - less shipping);
Shop locally;
Change your lightbulbs;
Turn off your lights;
Stop paving the world over with asphalt;
Live with less;
Recycle;
Buy your power from utility companys that promote green power;
Get you power from solar, geothermal, or wind;
Contact your Congressman or Senator (Tell them to stop putting profits over the environment;
Be active in environmentalist groups.

WHAT HAPPENS?
Better stability in the Middle East (at least we're not starting wars for oil's sake)
Cleaner air (less acid rain = increased biomass production)
Cleaner groundwater
Self sustainability means less money goes to utility companies, more stays in you pocket (now that's market economy sense)
Oil reserves that remain will be conserved for future generations.
A better world for our children and children's children.

It's a complicated, intricate world we now live in. It's true we're all to blame somewhat for the problems we face now. But passively standing by and letting big governments be pushed around by big industry or placing a higher emphasis on the GNP is simply wrong and irresponsible. We need to let our actions speak. We need to let government know there's more to life than striving to be the number one market economy.

The fact that we have this user group leads me to believe there is a quiet groundswelling underfoot. Lets capitalize on this and make a difference!

 

Amen, brother...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Robert Taylor\";p=\"71066)</div>

:lol: Thank you... I haven't had that big of a laugh in a long time.

To quote GW himself:

"After all, Europe is America's closest ally." —George W. Bush, Mainz, Germany, Feb. 23, 2005"

and...

"I'm not the expert on how the Iraqi people think, because I live in America, where it's nice and safe and secure." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 23, 2004" :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup: :lolup:

 

John,

As far as why the admin is choosing ANWR vs anything that makes sense, and for other issues, I highly recommend downloading and reading the Luntz Research group GOP Handbook for 2004-2006, and their strategy for winning more in 06. It can be found in two seperate pdfs here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2113945

Enjoy, it's a funny and aggravating read. My especially favorite part, is the 14 phrases you never use, and the ones to use in their place.

-m.

 

I would be willing to bet that the present administration knows to the nearest penny how high the gas price has to go before they have the political capitol to drill for oil anywhere they want. They have been going after this since they arrived in Washington DC. I give you an example yesterday amid calls to pump oil from the oil reserve and the administration stated categorically that it would not happen.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ssmithri\";p=\"71102)</div>

:lol: Thank you... I haven't had that big of a laugh in a long time.:[/b][/quote]
I also thought the suggestion that Bush is such a mastermind was one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. The thing is there are well funded groups out there that are working their tail off to convince us of that. Those organized groups have a lot of mischief planned for Bush II. ANWR is just one.



And when exactly did the reason we invaded Iraq become "pushing liberty and freedom"?
Was it after the WMD reason collapsed?
After the WMD that were an immenent threat to America reason collapsed?
After the nuclear program reason collapsed?
After the connection to 9/11 reason collapsed?
After the connection to Al Qiada reason collapsed?
After the connection to terrorism reason collapsed?
After the threat to his neighbors reason collapsed?
After the "he's a bad man" reason collapsed?

So when exactly did "pushing liberty and freedom" become the reason for our invasion? Why don't you tell me that that was the reason all along. I could use another good laugh.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hdrygas\";p=\"71243)</div>

You've hit the nail on the head. ANWR has about 6 months worth of oil at USA consumption rates. So why not wait until the arab oil is nearly gone to consider ANWR. Why don't we consider ANWR as our second oil reserve to use only if absolutely needed?

Do people know that in Bush's plan to cut the deficit in half in x number of years, he has included $200 billion dollars in income from drilling in ANWR? SO BUSH IS ALREADY SPENDING that money!!!

 

Sadam wanted everybody to think that he had WMD because without the world believing that he has WMD, Iran would of attacked them, including others.

 

Check out www.beingcaribou.com. Just saw the movie here in our city. Wonderful documentary. There is a reason to NOT dril our way to oil independence. Also check out "Oil on Ice" (google it). Another stunning work on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Those who stand to profit most on this ill-conceived plan are those ignorant people who know little about what would be destroyed. I don't want to have to tell the future generation that we took away a great piece of this earth, destroyed a people and their way of life so that we could drive 15 MPG vehicles. Do you? Love my Prius.

 

Bush and associates are those who substitute nonsustainable oil for knowledge. Raising the fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) eliminates the need for ANWR several times over and is much more cost effective.

Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) has identified constructive alternatives to drilling for many years. Want to double your profit? Double your efficiency. Driving an EV or hybrid vehicle speaks loudly for sustainability.

 

I blame the bean counters for most of the backwards-thinking policy of the U.S. and Canada. There is little financial incentive to double your efficiency at the industrial level.

Say you can replace an inefficient piece of equipment, not quite through its depreciation cycle, with a new piece of equipment with twice the efficiency. Big problem: you then have to set up a new depreciation cycle to amortize the new equipment.

With the crap old equipment, you carry on with its depreciation cycle. Even if the maintenance costs are ten times higher, what the h*** that's written off in the current period.

I have a good friend who is a maintenance engineer for a large chemical company. He tried to carefully explain to Management why they should replace 10% - only 10% not *all* of them - of the 3 phase electric motors rated at 175 HP or higher.

The motors he selected for replacement were on 24x7 duty cycles and were "standard" efficiency 10 years ago. Their maintenance costs were escalating too. Rewinding never restores a motor to its factory efficiency, and some rewinds are iffy in quality.

The replacement motors he had in mind were the "super premium efficient" as classed by NEMA. He calculated they would pay for themselves in 3.7 years at current electricity costs. He even had an Energy Audit lined up from an independent testing lab.

So it's a done deal, right? WRONG.

See, the maintenance costs are claimed in the current period. Same as rewinding, it's claimed in the current period. Oh, and if you bring in an "outsider" to "expose" our inefficiencies without permission, you're fired.

If we could improve our factory efficiency by only 20% that would be a lot better to compete with the "unfair" low costs in China. Yet the bean counters will have nothing to do with it.

If every home had tri-pane windows installed, a super efficient furnace and A/C, and florescent lamps where possible, you could *really* save money. Same as replacing the SUV with a Prius. You can't expect the average person to do that without incentives (Grants, rebates, tax breaks, etc).

So before we automatically dump on an administration for doing the "wrong" thing, better take a peek at the underlying foundation known as FASB.

 

I think the real reason Bush is pushing for ANWR is to reduce our dependance on foreign oil. ANWR, when done, will produce 1 million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. It's about 4 trillion dollars worth of crude.

When we had the big oil embargo, the US only imported 20% of its needs. That figure is now at 60%. Every oil refinery in the US is working at 100% capacity, and they've been upgraded about as far as they can. No new refineries have been built for 26 years.

I would also expect to see these things coming up soon too:

1) Oil drilling off of the CA coast
2) Oil drilling off of the East coast
3) A big push/incentives/whatever to get at least 5-6 new petro refineries built in the U.S.
4) Higher fuel efficency standards or a new federal tax on vehicles with poor gas mileage (have to offset the revenue loss from fuel-efficient vehicles)
5) And I wouldn't be surpised if more nuke power plants are on the horizon. There's a LOT of development going on in that area, particularily in the pellet gas reactors.

Face it, it's a **** sandwich and we're all going to have to take a bite. Some will only get on the bandwagon kicking and screaming, but it's not going to happen overnight, and it's not going to please everyone getting there.

But it's better than seeing nukes flying over oil fields, and I think that's inevitable if something isn't done.

 

Well, I'll get flamed by the Bush partisans for this, but I think that the real reason he is pushing more drilling is because that's what his oil industry allies want! The attitude this administration has about conservation was made clear by Cheney years ago in a speech, where he referred to conservation in tones dripping with contempt. As for ANWAR, let's be practical: even if we accept the predictions of capacity floated by the administration, how many years will it take to get to the 1 million barrels per day mark? I believe that the U.S. uses something like 20 million barrels per day right now--and that consumption is increasing over time, not decreasing.

It's true, whatever is done is going to hurt. But, IMHO, trying to drill for more relatively small amounts of oil, ignoring conservation, and promoting "alternative" fuels that are decades away from practicality is going to hurt now AND it won't solve our problems in the future.

End of rant. Just my .02.

 

Well, there might be some truth to the "friends of the oil industry" thing, but in that same light you said consumption was increasing - you're VERY right about that.

Soon we'll be competing with the likes of China, etc for Middle East oil, and that's trouble!

 

We are actually competing with China (and other mass consumers) for oil now (unlike in the 70s), and China's needs grow every year.

We pumping out more oil than ever before in history, but there's less to go around so prices go up - supply/demand - not a conspiracy by OPEC.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbarry\";p=\"71276)</div>

I'm not sure where you got your figures. Based upon the USGS most recent study, there are no more than 10 billion theoretically recoverable barrels and it will take at minimum 7 years to start to get some oil out. They think the real figure is closer to 5.5 billion.

US daily consumption is 18.5 million barrels a day, or 6,752 million barrels a year.

The 30 billion barrel figure comes from industry. The USGS figures come from scientists but it was at a time when science was important in our government. We all know how they feel about science nowadays so the next USGS will probably say there is 100 billion barrels there.

So with those kinds of numbers, why again are we considering ANWR? (I'm referring to the reality based numbers and not faith based ones.) It will cost 400 billion to get that oil out and tyake 7 to 12 years. Can you imagine all the hyrids we could build for 400 billion?