Possibly some good news for future oil prices
- Thread starter wheelsup
- Start date
caliginousface
Frank N. Beans
skyhawk39 said:
That is awesome, i'd praise you but you're driving a Dodge. I believe the original sticker said "Eat'n Dodges, ****tin' Fords."
Or! How about we harness the incredible amount of energy the sun gives off and use that to charge up peoples cars.
Wow, you willing to drink ground water contaminated with synthetic pesticide? Or how about contaminated water from cow ****?
Don't me wrong guys, i'm totally down with newer, cleaner sources of energy, but it's gotta be clean. If you're down with gassifying coal and all the nasty stuff that comes with it, that's cool, I guess. But if that company is able to pump ethanol quickly, right on.
I just hope people realize resources are still and will limited, especially with a growing global population. Conservation is still something that should still be considered throughout all of this, and beyond.
I still don't understand why 80+mpg clean disel econoboxes aren't being produced. The technology is here, no one gives a rat's ass.
greaper007
Well-Known Member
wheelsup said:
flyover
New Member
caliginousface said:
And I just hope people don't buy too much into the doom and gloom. Statements like the above have been "common knowlege" for decades. When I was in college I was told I would be dead by now from famine due to over-population and global cooling.
Technology stays ahead of the curve. The environment gets steadily cleaner, not dirtier. Natural resources like oil get more plentiful, not less.
The evolution of energy related technologies has been amazing in my lifetime. The only reason more of these technologies haven't come to market is that oil has stayed so cheap after a spike in the late 70s.
I'm just saying that the doom and gloomers have been around for a long time. It may be the third oldest profession. They are so wrong, so often that things might just be better than they look.
Texasspilot
New Member
kellwolf said:
greaper007
Well-Known Member
Watch out Texxaspilot nuclear energy definitely makes jetcareer'ers split into their liberal/conservative camps.
Also, where were you a few weeks ago when I was rallying against nuclear energy and everyone made fun of me. Those insults really hurt, I had to hide under my mother's piano for a week.
Also, where were you a few weeks ago when I was rallying against nuclear energy and everyone made fun of me. Those insults really hurt, I had to hide under my mother's piano for a week.
caliginousface
Frank N. Beans
flyover said:
So common knowledge means devoting 41% of water to agriculture and 38% to power plants. According to the US Water Resources Council and US Geological Survey, more than half the country is considered to be in a "shortage" or "acute shortage" listing.
That's cool if you don't think there are problems that need to be dealt with, but to think technology will solve everything can prove to be a very grave mistake.
caliginousface
Frank N. Beans
greaper007 said:
Nah man, I think nearly everyone except for handful on this board are down with nuclear power.
Well, people like to talk about the price of gasoline in Europe and the end of the world as we know it if we cut our addiction on fossil fuels.
However, if you look at Europe, there's a society with a choice of transportation. If you want to go from Paris to Munich, you can hop on high-speed rail (Thalys), medium-speed rail (SNCF), take a tourist bus, drive a car, fly an airplane or ride a mule.
If you want to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, which is a much shorter trip, you have to drive, fly an airplane, take a bus or ride a mule. All involve fossil fuels except, of course, the mule.
We might need to rethink our transporation infrastructure in cities, regions and coasts.
I remember when Kristie and I went to the Tower of London a few years ago. The nosey old ladies asked, "Where might you be from?"
"We're from America!"
"I hear they don't have trains there, you have to bloody drive everywhere!"
Not exactly, but in a lot of metropolitan areas, yes.
However, if you look at Europe, there's a society with a choice of transportation. If you want to go from Paris to Munich, you can hop on high-speed rail (Thalys), medium-speed rail (SNCF), take a tourist bus, drive a car, fly an airplane or ride a mule.
If you want to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, which is a much shorter trip, you have to drive, fly an airplane, take a bus or ride a mule. All involve fossil fuels except, of course, the mule.
We might need to rethink our transporation infrastructure in cities, regions and coasts.
I remember when Kristie and I went to the Tower of London a few years ago. The nosey old ladies asked, "Where might you be from?"
"We're from America!"
"I hear they don't have trains there, you have to bloody drive everywhere!"
Not exactly, but in a lot of metropolitan areas, yes.
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
Doug Taylor said:
There, fixed it for you.
PanJet
Well-Known Member
aloft said:
It's true, but how can you help it? I come from what would be considered a large farm by family farm standards, yet it's nothing compared to corporate farms, but with today's commodity prices and the increasing cost of equipment, fertilizer, chemicals, etc., it's almost impossible for a family farmer to even break even. Commodity prices are par with 50 years ago. It takes a lot of grain to buy a $300,000 combine at $2.75/bushel of wheat.
caliginousface said:
Of course it's not perfect, but you have to look at the lesser of the two evils, I think pesitcides and chemicals are a tiny worry compared to the pollution caused by obtaining and burning oil. Chemicals really aren't that big of a pollutant, if you want an idea of how much chemical is actually used, depending on the chemical it's roughly about one cup per acre after it's diluted with water. There are more chemicals than that used in cities by people spraying weeds and insects in their backyards.
Texasspilot
New Member
Doug Taylor said:
Thats what I don't get either....comparing europe to the US isrediculous. Most poeple in the US still live in small towns and rural areas. Its a 20 mile drive for me to get to the nearest grocery store and 15 to get to the gas station. I cant really move my place close and I doubt the county is gonna start bus service from my corner to town just for me. Walkings out for obvious reasons. I guess I could get a horse/buggy to help save fuel.....
My point is the US is different than europe both landmass and living situation wise what works there aint gonna work here.
flyover
New Member
caliginousface said:
I'm just saying that historically it is the case. People, especially fear-mongers, tend to look at the current situation and project it forward without allowing for technological advances. And those advances across all spectrums keep solving problems. There's a wealth of scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs just waiting to solve problems.
flyover
New Member
Doug Taylor said:
Of course, the mule does involve fossil fuel. Unless you have other mules out there tilling to grow mule food. And other mules to haul the food around. And the veterinarian uses a horse to come take care of the mule, etc. etc. You have to go to an all mule economy (with the occasional donkey for smaller jobs), then you end up with so much "bio-mass" laying around you can use it to power cars again.
And people live in bloody houses big enough that you don't have to take turns standing up. And people can see bloody doctors whenever they want for whatever they want. And you can eat food that has some bloody taste to it.
caliginousface
Frank N. Beans
Texasspilot said:
Why ain't it gonna work? Because we all have to drive rather than subsidize upgrading mass transit systems?
But I think i see where you're coming from, and it starts when the city is being built. It's tough to integrate light rail, monorail, whatever rail, when a city is already standing.
Chris_Ford
Well-Known Member
caliginousface said:
Yeah, good thing that Europe didn't have any old cities or anything. That would've been a mess.