Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Did you read my first post?
|
Yes. I think perhaps my response wasn't detailed enough to reflect that, because I was speaking directly to it. Read on.
Quote:
I quoted an article written in 2004 that oil production would peak by Thanksgiving, 2005. There are several other articles predicting the same thing, written within a six month window of the one I quoted.
We're three years past and again, predictions are we are going to "peak" within a year. Looks like a case of crying "wolf".
|
This is because no one really knows what goes on until they get more data. Analysts don't "cry wolf," but they are often wrong. A more accurate term would be "inaccurate." They do make corrections and perform new analyses. It's actually quite boring, but the data is out there that suggests we are hitting a peak.
Isn't it possible that prices are partly a reflection of this peaking production in Saudia Arabia and elsewhere? Remember, over the long term, increasing production to keep up with demand requires expanding capacity for tapping new oil. There is a limit to this game; the world is only so big. If it's not peaking now, then when?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
Right now, it is more expensive to produce a gallon of ethanol than a gallon of gas. Since gas now contains 10% ethanol, one can conclude this too is adding to the price at the pump and that 10% is not helping anything at all, including the air quality. To date, ethanol is a negative. It'd take major refinements in the thinking process to make it a positive.
|
This is why there needs to be funding for research and development on fuel alternatives as a whole.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
The US also notoriously pays to NOT grow grains and other foodstuffs to keep the costs and growth under control here. Lift some of those restrictions and pay TO grow and the burden would be, if not lifted entirely, at least lightened.
|
They should shift some of the subsidies going to meat and dairy producers into other agricultural producers for various uses.
If I'm reading that right, over 74% of your agricultural subsidies go into meat and dairy. That's a lot of grain right there going into cows and pigs and such instead of directly for human use (biofuels, for example).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngdawg
It is also imperative that, instead of tossing tons of grains grown to third world countries, we endorse and support self-sustaining farming there. The familiar "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats all his life" applies. We wouldn't dream of teaching our own kids to call crying they're hungry as adults, then run over with food, yet we do it with the other half of the world. Only by telling them, "Here's your seeds, get to work", will we be able to use our own resources in furthering alternative fuel testing and usage.
|
America already has more than the resources it needs. The Third World isn't holding it back. America dumps into world markets because of oversupply and their competitive advantage when it comes to pricing and production. I think they make money at it too. Consider that local prices could be lower than world prices and they can sell at prices lower than the cost of production elsewhere. This is "dumping." But we shouldn't get too off topic here.