Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-01-2008, 04:08 PM   #41 (permalink)
Addict
 
guyy's Avatar
 
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
I think it's a good idea but it should be permanant, and it should only be compensated by cutting government programs elseware.
I'd be for it if they were going to cut military spending or shut down the torture camps or something like that. Otherwise, it's a bad idea.
guyy is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 05:43 AM   #42 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
A gas tax holiday is a terrible idea. In fact, I think gas taxes should be doubled or tripled. Anything that raises the price of gasoline is good for the country. It's good for the environment, it encourages better land use, it frees us from dependency on some of the world's worst regimes. The higher the price of gasoline the more likely it is that we'll find a better alternative that is economically feasible.
loquitur is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:22 AM   #43 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
A gas tax holiday is a terrible idea. In fact, I think gas taxes should be doubled or tripled. Anything that raises the price of gasoline is good for the country. It's good for the environment, it encourages better land use, it frees us from dependency on some of the world's worst regimes. The higher the price of gasoline the more likely it is that we'll find a better alternative that is economically feasible.
loquitur you surprise me here, I didn't see you as a social engineering type via artificial pricing.

While all of your points are valid lets look at places where they have been doing just that, pretty much all of western Europe and Canada. Have they come up with better solutions? Alternative fuels?

You could argue that they have better public transportation systems and I'll grant you that, (well I can't say it for Canada), but beyond that, they have weaker economies, and higher prices on just about everything. Now how much of that is due to their artificially increased fuel costs and how much is due to their putative tax policies I don't know but it can't be helping.

America is a massive country and in order to operate at full potential we need cheap energy. I have complete faith that at some point we will find alternative energy sources which do everything you are looking for, but scientific progress isn't just based on need and money. Discoveries and ideas are more luck and rare genius, and limiting ourselves prematurely doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:47 AM   #44 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Well it may help if the oil companies can't buy out and shelve any possible cheap alternative to fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_...ydride_battery
http://www.gassavers.org/archive/ind...ts/t-6853.html
Quote:
Patent encumbrance of NiMH batteries
In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery
development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the
manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries in the United
States. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months
later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was
restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy
Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[13] Chevron's influence over Cobasys
extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest
in ECD Ovonics.[14] Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or
licensing of NiMH technology.[15] In addition, Chevron maintains the right
to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD
Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations.[15] On September 10,
2007, Chevron filed a legal claim that ECD Ovonics has not fulfilled its
obligations. ECD Ovonics disputes this claim.[16] NiMH patent expires in
2015.

In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published
in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries
are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to
small companies or individuals
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:48 AM   #45 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
I do believe that there were some experiments with alternative fuels particualarly LPG, liquid propane gas. It burns much hotter and the conversion to the vehicle isn't significant. It wears the engines out much faster if I recall correctly.

I don't know how pervasive LPG is in other countries. I know we tried it here under CNG, compressed natural gas modifications.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 06:59 AM   #46 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I do believe that there were some experiments with alternative fuels particualarly LPG, liquid propane gas. It burns much hotter and the conversion to the vehicle isn't significant. It wears the engines out much faster if I recall correctly.

I don't know how pervasive LPG is in other countries. I know we tried it here under CNG, compressed natural gas modifications.
I live in the country and heat my house with propane and the price has skyrocketed in the last few years. Apparently it follows the price of petroleum.
flstf is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 07:31 AM   #47 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
... I have complete faith that at some point we will find alternative energy sources which do everything you are looking for, but scientific progress isn't just based on need and money. Discoveries and ideas are more luck and rare genius, and limiting ourselves prematurely doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
At some point, we would have developed the atomic bomb through luck and rare genius....but the $2 billion ($28 billion in '08 dollars) federal investment between 1939-44 certainty helped produce it in time to make a difference in WW II.

At some point, we would have competed successfully against the Soviets in the space race through luck and rare genius....but the $23 billion federal investment in the decade of the 60s certainly propelled the US ahead.

Scientific progress to support the national interest is absolutely based, in part, on need and money. Luck and rare genius is a luxury when time is not an issue.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 07:36 AM   #48 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
Ustwo, those other countries don't have the entrepreneurial tradition we do. Around here, if there is a market niche to be served, someone will serve it.

I see no reason to continue enriching Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family by paying them for the right to pollute our air and use up our land in inefficient ways. The pricing mechanism is the ONLY form of social engineering I find acceptable, because it preserves people's freedom. No one is forced to do or not do anything; they simply have the right to choose whether or not to pay for their preferences.
loquitur is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 08:00 AM   #49 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
At some point, we would have developed the atomic bomb through luck and rare genius....but the $2 billion ($28 billion in '08 dollars) federal investment between 1939-44 certainty helped produce it in time to make a difference in WW II.
The ideas were already there, it was the matter of secrecy and production. There are already billions spent on alternative fuel research.

Using the same logic, why hasn't aids been cured or cancer? It certainly isn't a lack of funds.

Quote:
At some point, we would have competed successfully against the Soviets in the space race through luck and rare genius....but the $23 billion federal investment in the decade of the 60s certainly propelled the US ahead.

Scientific progress to support the national interest is absolutely based, in part, on need and money. Luck and rare genius is a luxury when time is not an issue.
The space race, was in the long run, a waste of much of that money. Its enormously expensive to build rockets and the like, it again, wasn't the science that was new here, it was the scale. We then did an amazing thing going to the moon, and then gave up on it as we 'won' the space race. We are now starting over, in early planning, 30 years later.

Mind you, I am not opposed to public funding of alternative energy, and the examples you gave were both public funding. It has nothing to do with the gas tax we are talking about, or gas in general, in fact its quite the opposite.



Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Ustwo, those other countries don't have the entrepreneurial tradition we do. Around here, if there is a market niche to be served, someone will serve it.
We are better at it than most places, but its still no guarantee of results in any given time frame. We still need our Wilbur and Orville here and maybe its 10 years maybe its 50. There is still an insane amount of money to be made, so I don't see that as being that much more of an incentive.

Quote:
I see no reason to continue enriching Hugo Chavez and the Saudi royal family by paying them for the right to pollute our air and use up our land in inefficient ways. The pricing mechanism is the ONLY form of social engineering I find acceptable, because it preserves people's freedom. No one is forced to do or not do anything; they simply have the right to choose whether or not to pay for their preferences.
Artificially putting something out of someones price range with taxes is no less totalitarian than banning it outright. I would support an outright ban of dealing with such governments at least thats honestly representing the issue. Higher taxes on ALL petroleum, foreign or domestic, enemy or friendly nation, is just taking a cut and making life harder on some people who can't afford it.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 08:10 AM   #50 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
Here is the latest Republican solution announced, in very general terms by the Sen Minority Leader yesterday:
* open parts of ANWR and the OCS to drilling

* invest in the the development of oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah

* invest in clean, coal-to-liquid fuels

* accelerate the development of advanced batteries to power plug-in hybrid vehicles

* encourage the construction of new refineries

* suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.c...297147&start=1
Anyone impressed?

This is the week of dueling energy plans. The Dems will be released later today.

Now if they could only work together on something sensible and meaningful with a focus on long-term, environmentally and economcally sustainable solutions and a recognition of the need for short-term sacrifice.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 08:56 AM   #51 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
We also should make it easier to build big, honkin' nuclear plants. Lots of 'em. They are clean, safe and renewable. And they don't depend on fuel from despotic misogynistic anticapitalist anti-American antiliberal anti-enlightenment totalitarian regimes.
loquitur is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 09:02 AM   #52 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Here is the latest Republican solution announced, in very general terms by the Sen Minority Leader yesterday:
* open parts of ANWR and the OCS to drilling

* invest in the the development of oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah

* invest in clean, coal-to-liquid fuels

* accelerate the development of advanced batteries to power plug-in hybrid vehicles

* encourage the construction of new refineries

* suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.c...297147&start=1
Anyone impressed?

This is the week of dueling energy plans. The Dems will be released later today.

Now if they could only work together on something sensible and meaningful with a focus on long-term, environmentally and economcally sustainable solutions and a recognition of the need for short-term sacrifice.
Not impressed, but I have not been impressed with Democrats on this issue either. This has been on the table almost 40 years, and we are having the same discussions.

I know I should not say this, but perhaps this whole issue is over-blown and the problem is not as bad as we think it is.

Quote:
Energy and food companies may spend less time in the spotlight today because their output commands a smaller share of people's pocketbooks than in decades past. Gasoline, for example, currently accounts for about 5.4% of household budgets, down from 7% to 8% in the early 1980s.
Quote:
Adam Sieminski, chief energy economist at Deutsche Bank, has been trying to calculate how much oil prices would need to rise for consumers world-wide to feel as alarmed as they did in 1980, when crude soared to a then-unheard-of price of $40 a barrel.

If one adjusts for constant dollars, as measured by the consumer price index, oil at $100 a barrel today would be comparable, he says. But if one also adjusts for the somewhat smaller bite oil takes out of personal income -- as people have become more energy efficient -- it would take a price of $135 to $150 a barrel to produce the dislocations caused by the 1980s price spike.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1209...googlenews_wsj

http://mises.org/story/1892
This is a few years old but it helps put things in perspective when adjusting the price of oil in constant dollars over time.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 10:11 AM   #53 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
We also should make it easier to build big, honkin' nuclear plants. Lots of 'em. They are clean, safe and renewable. And they don't depend on fuel from despotic misogynistic anticapitalist anti-American antiliberal anti-enlightenment totalitarian regimes.
Now thats something I can get behind 100%. Any self proclaimed environmentalist who isn't for expanding nuclear power doesn't grasp the issues well enough to be taken seriously.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 11:18 AM   #54 (permalink)
Crazy
 
smoore's Avatar
 
Location: West of Denver
Didn't we miss the boat re: nukes? Some tell me that they are prohibitively expensive to build now due to regulation and construction costs. Hindsight being 20/20 we should have done it in the '70s.
__________________
smoore
smoore is offline  
Old 05-02-2008, 01:56 PM   #55 (permalink)
Junkie
 
loquitur's Avatar
 
Location: NYC
No, not if you build a bunch of them. The first one is pricey but the learning curve kicks in, and so do economies of scale. The first one would be a few billion, but each successive one gets cheaper.

And they create their own fuel.
loquitur is offline  
 

Tags
gas, holidaygood, idea, tax

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:46 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360