[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Looks like both parties got in on it, Bush took it to greater heights.

Without a doubt. It has been stair stepped to the point it is now. The question now is who will recognize the significant downfalls and steer away from biofuels while increasing more domestic energy production overall?

There has been a voice almost exclusively from the right expressing concern over loss of food production.

[trekguy]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Some fall hook line and sinker.

Maybe you should get your ear out of the toilet, stop listening to those who brought us the situation, and listen to the economist who are all singing the same tune. World demand has increased exponentially and that has caused oil prices to climb.

Hmmmm.

So the Chinese are drilling 50 miles off of the coast of Florida and the dems in congress have forbidden domestic companies???



Cheney's office said in a statement to The Associated Press that the vice president had erred.

"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

That is rich! The Vice-President makes a statement like that based on a reporter's article! He doesn't even know what's going on (or not going on) a few miles off the coast of our country??!!!

Are we safer now??? LOL!

Oh yeah...Some fall hook line and sinker.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by trekguy

That is rich! The Vice-President makes a statement like that based on a reporter's article! He doesn't even know what's going on (or not going on) a few miles off the coast of our country??!!!

Are we safer now??? LOL!

Oh yeah...Some fall hook line and sinker.

Laugh now. It won't be long if they are currently exploring.

Kind of like 15 years ago when the dems said we didn't need to drill domestically cause it would take 15 years before any real quantities make it to market. How much do we all wish we had some of those quantities today!!! Duh

[Wino]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

There really are quite a few results on Bush energy proposals. Here are a few:


Bush urges more refineries, nuclear plants

What the President Got Right

Bush says Democrats are blocking energy proposals

So from your articles, Bush has had an energy policy since June 2008? Lordy, you're gullible.

No one has blocked Bush from anything cause he hasn't proposed anything for 7 years. We have adequate refinery capacity, there is no shortage of crude. Bush has no more clue why we are paying $4/gal for gas than you do.

[Stoner]

Bret,

There has been talk about other bio processes using cellulose waste and genetically altered bacteria . Some of the articles I've seen think the new processes might be economically advantageous compared to corn.
I don't think existing corn/alky plants are easily converted with out being totally stripped out....though.
It still looks like a limited application either way.

We might just have to bite the bullet and build more nuclear plants.
Myself, I'd like to see more spent in speeding up development of fusion reactors
But that's 20 to 50 years away at best from what I'm reading.

I do think we need to open up those restricted fields, but I don't think there is as much benefit in reducing pump gas prices as some argue.
We need it till other energy sources come in, but there has to be support for research now so that we don't initiate research late....after demand surpasses oil extraction capability/declining reserves.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Wino

So from your articles, Bush has had an energy policy since June 2008? Lordy, you're gullible.

No one has blocked Bush from anything cause he hasn't proposed anything for 7 years. We have adequate refinery capacity, there is no shortage of crude. Bush has no more clue why we are paying $4/gal for gas than you do.

Energy Demand: China vs. the World

Overall, it’s a pretty simple story: while high energy prices are causing demand to slow from Western nations, China’s economy is growing so fast that it’s able to easily absorb the price increases without blinking. Even in an instance where an individual consumer of oil (consumer or corporate) cuts back on purchases, the overall pool of consumers is increasing more than fast enough to compensate. This is why I don’t even think that China’s recent decision to raise fuel prices will create a significant slowdown in demand, because the aggregate pool of gasoline consumers is growing more than fast enough to offset any reduction in demand from the existing pool.

While the 18% increase in fuel prices may cause a temporary slowdown in demand, I seriously doubt it will change the overall trend even if China implements several more price increases. Right now, and for the foreseeable future, China will be the nation that drives global trends in energy demand more than any other.

Graphics courtesy of the WSJ

The gullible ones are those who believe some of the dems saying that its the greedy oil companies raising prices just cuz.

Economics are hard to understand so it is alot easier to sit back in your recliner and say "its all Bush's fault". The reality is that is wrong and its a very stupid thing to say.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Wino

So from your articles, Bush has had an energy policy since June 2008? Lordy, you're gullible.

Do your own work. From 2000:

Lieberman takes aim at Bush energy proposals, environmental record

Hoping to seize on skyrocketing gasoline and home heating oil prices as a hot-button political issue, the Texas governor's energy plan includes proposals for tax credits for companies that develop alternative fuels and "clean coal" technologies, curbs on utility emissions, heating oil assistance for low-income families, and increased diplomatic pressure on the nation's oil producing allies.

But the most controversial initiative proposed by Bush is the opening of 1.5 million acres of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration and drilling.

"The heart of his energy policy is exactly what the oil industry wants ... which is to drill in one of the most beautiful parts of America, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, for the possibility that we may get some oil seven to 12 years from now, Lieberman said.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Bret,

There has been talk about other bio processes using cellulose waste and genetically altered bacteria . Some of the articles I've seen think the new processes might be economically advantageous compared to corn.
I don't think existing corn/alky plants are easily converted with out being totally stripped out....though.
It still looks like a limited application either way.

We might just have to bite the bullet and build more nuclear plants.
Myself, I'd like to see more spent in speeding up development of fusion reactors
But that's 20 to 50 years away at best from what I'm reading.

I do think we need to open up those restricted fields, but I don't think there is as much benefit in reducing pump gas prices as some argue.
We need it till other energy sources come in, but there has to be support for research now so that we don't initiate research late....after demand surpasses oil extraction capability/declining reserves.

I agree Jack. We need to start developing nuclear energy now in order to meet the coming demand. There is no other practical way of meeting future demand. The sad thing is that many who fight the idea of clean, nuclear energy don't seem to realize that there is lag between the initiation of building production capacity and actual production. Kind of like "don't drill today cause it will take 5 years". It is lack of vision that is causing our energy problems and the inability of those who have vision to succeed in educating the consumers/voters.

I also agree that there are alternative energies that would be better, but there is a long way to go and lead time has got to be a primary consideration.

I do think that there would be some immediate reaction to the enactment of a serious domestic energy policy. Speculators with longer investment time frames will curtail trading which could have some impact albeit limited at first.

[Littlefield]

Obama reminds me of that ad for that bank with the guy falling in the quicks sand and about sinks while the team is trying to find a way to save him
Obama has to get a big study group to look at solving the energy problem .
MAC needs to develop more of an actual plan that is results drven .

[Wino]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Do your own work. From 2000:

Lieberman takes aim at Bush energy proposals, environmental record

Nothing to work on. Already know the answer. Nothing.

BTW you need to find some unbiased links for world oil problems than investing web sites or oil related. Hell, why not post the links to ExxonMobile or Shell. You are a hoot, if nothing else.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Wino

Nothing to work on. Already know the answer. Nothing.

BTW you need to find some unbiased links for world oil problems than investing web sites or oil related. Hell, why not post the links to ExxonMobile or Shell. You are a hoot, if nothing else.

Yeah, those economists are real idiots.

You are somethin' else.

You go on thinkin' that Bush caused oil prices to skyrocket. You aren't the only one who buys it.

Demand from China has nothing to do with it.

You must really think Bush is evil.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Wino

Nothing to work on. Already know the answer. Nothing.

BTW you need to find some unbiased links for world oil problems than investing web sites or oil related. Hell, why not post the links to ExxonMobile or Shell. You are a hoot, if nothing else.

EIA
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html

Together with strong economic growth, China’s demand for energy is surging rapidly. EIA forecasts that China’s oil consumption will increase by almost half a million barrels per day in 2006, or 38 percent of the total growth in world oil demand. China is the world’s third-largest net importer of oil behind the United States and Japan, an important factor in world oil markets.

Times Online
China’s drive for wealth means end of our low-carbon dreams

A failure to invest in oil and gas extraction will leave Europe and America poor, technologically disabled and unequipped financially to cope with climate change.

The feeble intellectual response of Europe and America to this energy challenge is becoming a matter not of concern but alarm. The use of food crops for biofuels, the hobbling of energy companies with the obligation to use unreliable and expensive alternatives and the lack of investment in nuclear power is frightening.


How about those capitalist pigs over at the BBC?

Satisfying China's demand for energy

China has been on a buying spree, and is prepared to pay top-dollar to get its hands on the oil it needs.


Or those thoughtless polluters over at Earth Trends.org??
China's Future in an Energy-Constrained World

In the last quarter century, China's breakneck economic growth has lifted over 50 million people out of poverty and tripled energy demand. Experts predict that China will surpass the United States to become the world's largest consumer of energy and fossil fuels soon after 2010.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

There has been talk about other bio processes using cellulose waste and genetically altered bacteria . Some of the articles I've seen think the new processes might be economically advantageous compared to corn.

i don't think anybody expects corn to be THE solution....'bout the only good thing it's done is demonstrate that it's time to start some serious pursuit of alternatives....as you say, stoner, there are some developments in other areas that will probably yield results sooner, rather than later.

the advantage to some of the other plants matter (notably grasses) is that they do well on land not really fit for anything else....the current drawback, of course, is that their yield is small- fiber doesn't break down easily.

I do think we need to open up those restricted fields, but I don't think there is as much benefit in reducing pump gas prices as some argue.
We need it till other energy sources come in, but there has to be support for research now so that we don't initiate research late....after demand surpasses oil extraction capability/declining reserves.

which points to a political reason that the liberals stand so tough against developing the restricted fields, imo.....forcing the issue of alternatives.

interesting topic, btw, and certainly an important one in terms of rep's thread...still, methinks the leadership potential is of america is wasted in the pursuit of oil...any country that can make it a priority to put a guy on the moon can certainly fast track energy....it just takes the desire to lead the way....something this country seems to be divided upon.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Laugh now. It won't be long if they are currently exploring.

Kind of like 15 years ago when the dems said we didn't need to drill domestically cause it would take 15 years before any real quantities make it to market. How much do we all wish we had some of those quantities today!!! Duh

From what I have read from multiple sources , pumping the ANWR reserve , would bring about
.04 percent increase in crude supply.
Also , it would , theoretically , bring a reduction in price on the BBL of approx -- .41 cents --to .75 cents, and that would be many years from now .
Price at the pump ? , anybody's guess, whatever the market will bear.
The price of the barrel rose on average -- $ 2.60 over last weekend .
Makes the ANWR thing look not so earthshaking .
I am quoting figures from memory , but I believe they correct. >f

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

i don't think anybody expects corn to be THE solution....'bout the only good thing it's done is demonstrate that it's time to start some serious pursuit of alternatives....as you say, stoner, there are some developments in other areas that will probably yield results sooner, rather than later.

the advantage to some of the other plants matter (notably grasses) is that they do well on land not really fit for anything else....the current drawback, of course, is that their yield is small- fiber doesn't break down easily.



which points to a political reason that the liberals stand so tough against developing the restricted fields, imo.....forcing the issue of alternatives.

interesting topic, btw, and certainly an important one in terms of rep's thread...still, methinks the leadership potential is of america is wasted in the pursuit of oil...any country that can make it a priority to put a guy on the moon can certainly fast track energy....it just takes the desire to lead the way....something this country seems to be divided upon.

the advantage to some of the other plants matter (notably grasses) is that they do well on land not really fit for anything else....the current drawback, of course, is that their yield is small- fiber doesn't break down easily.

GB brought the concept of waste cellulose from forests and scrub from lumbering as sources, to light about a year ago or so.
At the time, I felt there wasn't enough of the source to process inorder to have a large impact.
I still feel that way, but I don't want to put it in a negative light so that it isn't considered.
I see these concepts as additive, but not large enough to have major impact.
Our consumption is still great at $4 a gallon and will again rise again as the economy adjusts to the new price structure.
It won't be quick and it will be economically painful.

which points to a political reason that the liberals stand so tough against developing the restricted fields, imo.....forcing the issue of alternatives.

If you notice, I'm staying away from political arguments in these energy issues.
I'm looking at what's needed and how to achieve it.
I see much of the political posturing from both sides as being non responsive to direct solutions.
More a get out the vote drive.
But then again, that's what this thread is all about

Looking forward and seeing the increased energy needs associated with a population expanding 3 fold, I view wind, solar and hydro as local aids that won't supply the major needs of expansion. Each has a limitation .
But they do need to be exploited.
This is why nuclear concepts look advantageous. Few limitations of generation. True.....fission has the drawback of waste issues, but generation is cheap/ plentiful and the technology already mature.
Fusion I prefer, but it's going to take financial commitment I haven't seen from either party.

still, methinks the leadership potential is of america is wasted in the pursuit of oil.

You know my stance on global warming, but it is a practical issue to me......develop what oil resources need to be used until technology provides working answers.

" forcing the issue of alternatives." Don't you think that puts an undue stress on society .....trying to fill a need vacated by restricted oil while the ability to facilitate an alternative is still an engineer's dream?