I fucking HATE OPEC.

[Destrukto]

Greediest bunch of swine on the planet. No no Kafu, it's not enough that you have 5 Enzo's to play demolition derby with, that are parked next to your diamond encrusted Mercedes... let's jack up prices so we can all build a house out of crushed Bentley's! I'm bored don't you know?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442343,00.html

:bang::bang::bang:



OPEC Pushing to Cut Production, Drive Up Oil and Gasoline Prices

Tuesday, October 21, 2008


Just as Americans are finally beginning to reap the benefits of plunging gasoline prices — including more money in their pockets — OPEC is getting ready to squeeze them once again by cutting oil production and driving up prices to refineries.

The 13-nation global oil cartel — which includes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela — will hold an emergency meeting in Vienna Friday to discuss the steep and rapid decline in oil prices.

"The era of cheap oil is finished," Iran's Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari boasted on Tuesday.

When asked what price Iran would want for its oil, Nozari declared, "The more the better."

"A few member nations have voiced their intentions of pushing for a cut in production, including Qatar, Iran, as well as OPEC's president Chekib Khelil, who said that output could be slashed by as much as 2 million barrels a day," analysts for Raymond James & Associates told MarketWatch.com.

When oil peaked at more than $147 a barrel in July, gas prices soared to above $5 a gallon in some parts of the U.S., and Americans were forced to cut back on driving. With the price of oil at about $73 a barrel on Tuesday, pump prices have fallen to as low as $2.30 a gallon.

The price dip in oil — and gasoline — finally is working its way into the beleagured American economy, putting a few extra dollars in the hands of consumers just as the home heating and holiday shopping seasons begin.

Sam Gault, president of Gault Inc., a fifth-generation, family-owned oil business in Westport, Conn., said the drop in oil prices is helping his customers, his business and his community.

"Obviously a down market helps the consumer," Gault said. "When the price of oil is less, it’s a good thing for everyone. It's good for the consumer. It's good for us as an oil company. It just puts more disposable income back into the economy because it's not used for household expenses."

When oil costs more, Gault said, "people need to make different choices. But you have to heat your home."

OPEC, however, wants prices to climb — and quickly.

Khelil on Monday even urged non-OPEC oil producers, such as Russia, Mexico and Norway, to follow the cartel's lead and cut production, Reuters reported.

Such a coordinated move is sure to drive prices back up over $100 a barrel — and hit Americans where it hurts.

"OPEC doesn't care about anybody. They don't care about the United States. They don't care about our consumers," said Ross Dibono, executive director of the Pennsylvania Gasoline Retailers Association.

"They're very small countries that just happen to be sitting on an unlimited wealth of oil and they're going to extract as much out of the ground as they feel comfortable with," he said. "Why sell 200 gallons for $100 a barrel when you can sell 100 gallons for $200 a barrel?"

"Saudi Arabia doesn't care about you or me or anybody else," he said. "They've got a taste of the expensive barrel of oil."

Iran's oil minister told Reuters he would push to cut production by up to 2.5 million barrels per day.

Iran has taken a liking to astronomical oil prices, using its newfound wealth to fuel its nuclear program in defiance of the U.S. and the global community. But the country would need oil prices to stay above $85 per barrel to balance its books, according to a report released in August by the International Monetary Fund, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

Venezuela's capitalism-bashing Chavez has used his country's oil windfall to buy Russian weapons, going as far as to let the Russian navy practice in its waters. Russia reportedly is also helping Venezuela develop nuclear power.

Chavez said on Saturday that oil at $80 to $90 a barrel would be good enough to keep Venezuela going, Reuters reported, but analysts say the country has billions stashed away and will be able to withstand a price drop.

Gault, however, said the key to whether American consumers are once again going to have to worry about heating their homes and how far they drive is going to come down to one country.

"Its really going to come down to whether Saudi Arabia wants to cut production, because they're the ones that can afford to cut production," Gault said. "A lot of times the different members of OPEC wind up cheating on their quotas."

[Atua]

Hey look, supply and demand in action. If you want cheap oil, stop using it.

[biggunsar]

Greediest bunch of swine on the planet. No no Kafu, it's not enough that you have 5 Enzo's to play demolition derby with, that are parked next to your diamond encrusted Mercedes... let's jack up prices so we can all build a house out of crushed Bentley's! I'm bored don't you know?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442343,00.html

:bang::bang::bang:

Let it, whats going to happen is america, as oil climbs and climbs. Will try and develop new fuels.

I hope gas goes to 10 dollars a gallon. That way, america will get off it's ass quicker.

The quicker we get rid of oil, the faster those sand dwellers will beg to sell thier oil.

[Destrukto]

Hey look, supply and demand in action. If you want cheap oil, stop using it.

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.

[Blackfire1128]

Go fucking figure....................

[Destrukto]

This is why I always laugh at how naive people are when talking about the middle east and how we should be all friendly etc.., and have tea with Iran... These people wouldn't cross the street to piss on us if we were on fire, and use our own political correct machine against us when it suits them to push forward their own agenda's.

They are LAUGHING at the US 24/7.

[Weeking]

STFU, we pay more than double the price for fuel and ever more for cars than US-tards. And we don't nag when the oil price goes up. More money in the bank for our government.

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.

Lowering supply, you dimwit.

[Atua]

Oh noes, the people with oil want to make money off it. Help Help! gubberment, make them stop.
It was obviously stupid to build an entire infrastructure and industry on the premise that other countries will sell you cheap oil, without thinking ahead about 'gee what happens when these countries find out we will pay any price for their oil, and still want more'.

Until we get off oil, they will eat diamond studded cheerios for breakfast.
If I had oil, I'd want it to get expensive also.

[Toilet]

This is why I always laugh at how naive people are when talking about the middle east and how we should be all friendly etc.., and have tea with Iran... These people wouldn't cross the street to piss on us if we were on fire, and use our own political correct machine against us when it suits them to push forward their own agenda's.

They are LAUGHING at the US 24/7.

They also shoot at the US 24/7.

And if they dont, the US has to keep its pain quota, then the US shoots itself in the foot.

[SSguy]

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.

No no, hes right. That IS supply and demand without government interference. Capitalism at its best.

Its all great until it bites you in the ass.

[Knocky]

I say the next war SHOULD be about oil.

And this time, we KEEP the rigs.

[alfaroverall]

You guys should also realize their perspective. Their entire livelihoods, and their children's livelihoods-to-be, are dependent on a highly specific resource-one which will be approaching nonexistence by 2050, and will probably reach nonexistence before 2100. Cutting production really means trying to milk the operation for what it's worth before it comes time for you to find something else to provide your livelihood. (Or, less cynically, it means trying to keep the operation afloat long enough that you can find something else to provide your livelihood before the current operation falls apart.) You're just as much of assholes as they are if not more.

Their excessive spending, however, is pretty damn atrocious, I'll agree with that.
No no, hes right. That IS supply and demand without government interference. Capitalism at its best.

Its all great until it bites you in the ass.
Except that the elasticity of the demand of oil is extremely low (until people are literally being driven out of their houses, demand hardly drops at all when price rises), and competition among companies is all but nonexistent. It's capitalism of sorts, but not really.

[Toilet]

Their excessive spending, however, is pretty damn atrocious, I'll agree with that.

You know, they spend like hell in an attempt to keep some of their power when the oil is gone.

[Atua]

No no, hes right. That IS supply and demand without government interference. Capitalism at its best.

Its all great until it bites you in the ass.

Wait, what? Did you just say governments don't interfere with oil? Are you drunk?


It's pretty established that the demand side of the equation has the power. Cut demand and prices will fall. If there is no demand, the only thing they can do with the oil is swim in it.

[Dirty l3um]

Let it, whats going to happen is america, as oil climbs and climbs. Will try and develop new fuels.

New fuels are already out there. HHO is very easy to get from water... IE it is water in its simplest form. I blew up a balloon in my garage by way of electrolysis (then i blew it up with a match). its not hard, the problem is the government and the oil company's dont want this to happen because if we dont need oil, the middle east has NO output. you cant grow crops in a desert...


Its already there

[Skyborn]

Let it, whats going to happen is america, as oil climbs and climbs. Will try and develop new fuels.

I hope gas goes to 10 dollars a gallon. That way, america will get off it's ass quicker.

The quicker we get rid of oil, the faster those sand dwellers will beg to sell thier oil.

Whlie I agree that higher gas prices will increase incentive to improve alternative fuels, which I think is a good thing...

The only Middle East country in the top ten suppliers to the US is Saudi and its like #3.

[Destrukto]

If there is no demand, the only thing they can do with the oil is swim in it.

When they do, lets light it on fire. :ohno:

[Jezrith]

No no, hes right. That IS supply and demand without government interference. Capitalism at its best.

Its all great until it bites you in the ass.

It is, what people fail to understand though, is when you try to artificially manipulate markets you are going to end up shooting yourself in the foot. Keeping oil prices inflated just gives more market share to alternative fuels, then eventually the oil market collapses and you are in the poor house wondering where it all went wrong.

Nuclear and hydrogen FTW!

[Toilet]

The only thing they can do with the oil is swim in it.

Only if they want to drown...

Oil is ligther than water you know...

[Atua]

You guys should also realize their perspective. Their entire livelihoods, and their children's livelihoods-to-be, are dependent on a highly specific resource-one which will be approaching nonexistence by 2050, and will probably reach nonexistence before 2100. Cutting production really means trying to milk the operation for what it's worth before it comes time for you to find something else to provide your livelihood. (Or, less cynically, it means trying to keep the operation afloat long enough that you can find something else to provide your livelihood before the current operation falls apart.) You're just as much of assholes as they are if not more.

Their excessive spending, however, is pretty damn atrocious, I'll agree with that.

Except that the elasticity of the demand of oil is extremely low (until people are literally being driven out of their houses, demand hardly drops at all when price rises), and competition among companies is all but nonexistent. It's capitalism of sorts, but not really.


After the oil is gone they can sell...sand?

[Destrukto]

It is, what people fail to understand though, is when you try to artificially manipulate markets you are going to end up shooting yourself in the foot. Keeping oil prices inflated just gives more market share to alternative fuels, then eventually the oil market collapses and you are in the poor house wondering where it all went wrong.

Nuclear and hydrogen FTW!

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/mr_fusion.jpg :idea::eek:

[DocGonzo]

Hey look, supply and demand in action. If you want cheap oil, stop using it.

here's my question then...

3 months ago, oil was over $145 a barrel, now it's about half of that

is anyone seriously suggesting that WORLD demand dropped by 50% in 3 months?

or is it safe to say that artificial manipulation(OPEC) and the recent deregulation of oil futures as a commodity for speculation has something to do with distorting the actual market values?

[Toilet]

Nuclear and hydrogen FTW!

But suck, especially hydrogen.

Why is it people dont understand why hydrogen sucks?

[Jezrith]

http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/mr_fusion.jpg :idea::eek:

Great Scott!

[Skyborn]

After the oil is gone they can sell...sand?

Actually no...the sand in the middle east is so fine (at least in parts, Kuwait for example) that they actually have to import sand for construction projects...

[Atua]

here's my question then...

3 months ago, oil was over $145 a barrel, now it's about half of that

is anyone seriously suggesting that WORLD demand dropped by 50% in 3 months?

or is it safe to say that artificial manipulation(OPEC) and the recent deregulation of oil futures as a commodity for speculation has something to do with distorting the actual market values?

Yes, oil prices are very much speculative.
Who the fuck cares why the price is high. We use just as much of it when it's 150 dollars a barrel, as we do when it's 50 dollars a barrel. Good for them, they are using a scarce resource to make money. God forbid anyone makes money. It is very easy to rain on their parade, stop using oil.

[Atua]

Actually no...the sand in the middle east is so fine (at least in parts, Kuwait for example) that they actually have to import sand for construction projects...

They can sell sand dust then. We'll all go antiquing people for cheap.

[Dirty l3um]

Yes, oil prices are very much speculative.
Who the fuck cares why the price is high. We use just as much of it when it's 150 dollars a barrel, as we do when it's 50 dollars a barrel. Good for them, they are using a scarce resource to make money. God forbid anyone makes money. It is very easy to rain on their parade, stop using oil.

you obviously dont own a car

[Jezrith]

But suck, especially hydrogen.

Why is it people dont understand why hydrogen sucks?

Please tell us why hydrogen sucks. (this should be good for a laugh)

[Atua]

you obviously dont own a car

I own two, and commute daily.

And I love when the news interviews a lady who is just about to drive to the grocery store, at the gas station filling up her navigator, and she complains about gas prices.

The best is when said lady says something like 'Government should step in and do something', or 'Bush should help us'

[Dirty l3um]

Please tell us why hydrogen sucks. (this should be good for a laugh)

yea exactly, and HHO? 2 combustible gasses being used as a fuel? what a crappy idea!!!! as long as their contained its fine... you obviously know alot about chemestry

Thankyou toilet, for another crappy post

[m0j0mann]

Alternate theory.... they are trying to make their reserves last longer so their economies don't collapse, and so they can develop alternate forms of income.

That would be a pragmatic motive. Their pragmatism however, is probably in question due to the whole diamond-encrusted Mercedes thing.

Still, Iran is certainly investing in alternate energy. (lol)

[Toilet]

Please tell us why hydrogen sucks. (this should be good for a laugh)

Hmm...

Let me do it simple.

Electrical cars are more efficient, and the energy you use when you use hydrogen in your car comes from machines that split hydrogen from oxygen in water, and guess what, those also run on electricity.

So you actually waste power using hydrogen, compared to electricity.

[alfaroverall]

New fuels are already out there. HHO is very easy to get from water... IE it is water in its simplest form. I blew up a balloon in my garage by way of electrolysis (then i blew it up with a match). its not hard, the problem is the government and the oil company's dont want this to happen because if we dont need oil, the middle east has NO output. you cant grow crops in a desert...


Its already there
lol, water powered engines. That's bullshit science that defies fundamental thermodynamics. Water can be used as a medium by which energy (in this case in the form of electricity) can be used to power a motor. It is by definition less efficient since energy is always lost in the form of heat during the combustion process which reverts it back to the water form. This method may or may not be more economical (i.e. an electric motor system may be too expensive to be practical while an electrolysis motor could be much cheaper) and it may or may not be more efficient in practice (i.e. the potential difference in weight between the water electrolysis engine and the electric engine might cancel out the difference in raw efficiency due to F=ma). Those things are to be worked out by people who actually work in R&D and see how these things go. That conversion to "HHO" will magically generate energy from water is just bullshit.

Continue raging against the machine like an idiot, though, it's quite amusing.

[Toilet]

yea exactly, and HHO? 2 combustible gasses being used as a fuel? what a crappy idea!!!! as long as their contained its fine... you obviously know alot about chemestry

Thankyou toilet, for another crappy post


You obviously know nothing about physics.

[Dirty l3um]

Hmm...

Let me do it simple.

Electrical cars are more efficient, and the energy you use when you use hydrogen in your car comes from machines that split hydrogen from oxygen in water, and guess what, those also run on electricity.

So you actually waste power using hydrogen, compared to electricity.

electric cars run on electricity there skippy...

with a BATTERY (as found in every modern car) and electrolysis HHO cars are very possible. The last guy to make one got murdered though... oooh yea you cant forget an alternator to charge your battery.

[Toilet]

lol, water powered engines. That's bullshit science that defies fundamental thermodynamics. Water can be used as a medium by which energy (in this case in the form of electricity) can be used to power a motor. It is by definition less efficient since energy is always lost in the form of heat during the combustion process which reverts it back to the water form. This method may or may not be more economical (i.e. an electric motor system may be too expensive to be practical while an electrolysis motor could be much cheaper) and it may or may not be more efficient in practice (i.e. the potential difference in weight between the water electrolysis engine and the electric engine might cancel out the difference in raw efficiency due to F=ma). Those things are to be worked out by people who actually work in R&D and see how these things go. That conversion to "HHO" will magically generate energy from water is just bullshit.

Continue raging against the machine like an idiot, though, it's quite amusing.

There we have a smart person.

Though he is also capitalist, and thats a rare mix.

[Atua]

Hydrogen in it's current state is a shitty way to power cars.

Electrolysis is just another step where efficiency is lost. Might as well just use electric, and skip that step.

[Toilet]

electric cars run on electricity there skippy...

with a BATTERY (as found in every modern car) and electrolysis HHO cars are very possible. The last guy to make one got murdered though... oooh yea you cant forget an alternator to charge your battery.

Ever heard about Nicola Tesla?

Maybe Wardencliff, or how the fuck its spelled, hmm?

[Dirty l3um]

You obviously know nothing about physics.

your so right, because im not taking physics at college right now... i attended class from 9:25 till noon. what does physics have to do with combustible gasses? Are we talking about ways of holding the gasses? you can use a similar setup to what we have now, only the fuel injectors are upside down because the HHO will rise. the gass will rise into the chamber for explosion. Before that it will be held in a chamber, similar to the fuel rail in your car. please explain to me why hydrogen power sucks...

EDIT: I actually wrote a term paper in highschool on Nicola Tesla

[Toilet]

Hydrogen in it's current state is a shitty way to power cars.

Electrolysis is just another step where efficiency is lost. Might as well just use electric, and skip that step.

Another smart capitalist!

The world is falling apart!

Not really, but a lot of capitalists are dumb, while a few aint.

Same cant be said about socialists since those people can actually think about the well being of others + can see through the capitalist propaganda.

[Atua]

electric cars run on electricity there skippy...

with a BATTERY (as found in every modern car) and electrolysis HHO cars are very possible. The last guy to make one got murdered though... oooh yea you cant forget an alternator to charge your battery.

Electrolysis HHO cars are very possible, yet will never be as efficient as an electric car, so what's the point?

[Toilet]

your so right, because im not taking physics at college right now... i attended class from 9:25 till noon. what does physics have to do with combustible gasses? Are we talking about ways of holding the gasses? you can use a similar setup to what we have now, only the fuel injectors are upside down because the HHO will rise. the gass will rise into the chamber for explosion. Before that it will be held in a chamber, similar to the fuel rail in your car. please explain to me why hydrogen power sucks...

Read the fucking thread.

EDIT: I actually wrote a term paper in highschool on Nicola Tesla

Aha, did you then write about how his theory for a load of shit like radar was correct?

And that it was first invented 25 years after he proposed his theory, because no one was willing to fund him after the Wardencliff disaster?

[alfaroverall]

Hydrogen in it's current state is a shitty way to power cars.

Electrolysis is just another step where efficiency is lost. Might as well just use electric, and skip that step.
As I said, the money side of things and the weight side of things make it so that on-the-fly of electrolysis of water MIGHT be better than electric. It's probably not, but it's possible.

By the way, here's something neat for you all to think about:
http://pesn.com/2007/09/15/9500498_WhisperT_inflatable_electric_car/

[Eclipso]

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.
What are you crying about? you only get like 25% of your oil from OPEC anyways ....

[Rimayven]

OPEC...

Why does OPEC exist anyway? Why?

[Jezrith]

Hmm...

Let me do it simple.

Electrical cars are more efficient, and the energy you use when you use hydrogen in your car comes from machines that split hydrogen from oxygen in water, and guess what, those also run on electricity.

So you actually waste power using hydrogen, compared to electricity.

Close but so fail. The portability of electricity is extremely inferior to hydrogen. This is why the electric car never become a reality and hybrids are the best they have done so far. If you have a range > 200 miles, nobody is going to buy it. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely portable, just as portable as gasoline, it makes it much more suitable for individual transportation purposes on a mass scale.

You are correct, that hydrogen has to be produced because it does not occur naturally in free form, and thus has a lower energy coefficient, however using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen renders this whole problem moot.

[Atua]

Close but so fail. The portability of electricity is extremely inferior to hydrogen. This is why the electric car never become a reality and hybrids are the best they have done so far. If you have a range > 200 miles, nobody is going to buy it. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely portable, just as portable as gasoline, it makes it much more suitable for individual transportation purposes on a mass scale.

You are correct, that hydrogen has to be produced because it does not occur naturally in free form, and thus has a lower energy coefficient, however using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen renders this whole problem moot.

Why not just advance battery technology instead? Building nuclear power plants does not happen overnight, let alone enough of them to make enough hydrogen to power all the cars around. And nuclear power plants springing up all over the place bring with them their own problems.

[Toilet]

Close but so fail. The portability of electricity is extremely inferior to hydrogen. This is why the electric car never become a reality and hybrids are the best they have done so far. If you have a range > 200 miles, nobody is going to buy it. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely portable, just as portable as gasoline, it makes it much more suitable for individual transportation purposes on a mass scale.

You are correct, that hydrogen has to be produced because it does not occur naturally in free form, and thus has a lower energy coefficient, however using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen renders this whole problem moot.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/virus-battery-technology.html

There you go, now there is no need for anything but electricity, and especially not hydrogen.

[Rimayven]

Why not just advance battery technology instead?

Yeah! They need to advance technology!

[Dirty l3um]

Read the fucking thread.


So you dismiss what i said and will not validly argue your point? Maybe in a few years when batter technology progresses more, battery powered card will be the future, but at this point it time its too expensive. You will have to buy a new batter every year or 2 and it will be so fricking expensive.

At THIS point in time, electrolysis and HHO are a very possible alternative to gasoline. It probably wont happen on a large scale but an alternative nonetheless. The difference is, with a car battery doing the electrolysis and an alternator recharding the battery, all you need to power you car is the ever abundant resource H20.

Otherwise you will need your batteries to be charged by a powerplant somewhere, which is wasting other resources.

thankyou and goodbye

[Aragoni]

Gas in Sweden costs about twice as much as in United States. Stop bitching please.

[Shads]

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.

How the fuck do you create demand by upping prices? Some people are just fucking clueless I swear ...


As for high oil prices - drive less America. It might help you get rid of all that excess fat.

[Toilet]

So you dismiss what i said and will not validly argue your point? Maybe in a few years when batter technology progresses more, battery powered card will be the future, but at this point it time its too expensive. You will have to buy a new batter every year or 2 and it will be so fricking expensive.

At THIS point in time, electrolysis and HHO are a very possible alternative to gasoline. It probably wont happen on a large scale but an alternative nonetheless. The difference is, with a car battery doing the electrolysis and an alternator recharding the battery, all you need to power you car is the ever abundant resource H20.

Otherwise you will need your batteries to be charged by a powerplant somewhere, which is wasting other resources.

thankyou and goodbye

Look at my post above.

kkthxbaibai

[Dirty l3um]

Look at my post above.

kkthxbaibai
my post was a reply to that post which is no more valid than the rest of your babbling.

you have to be able to argue your point on forumfall, not say I WIN!!!

[Jezrith]

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/virus-battery-technology.html

There you go, now there is no need for anything but electricity, and especially not hydrogen.

Talk to me about this in 15-20 years when its ready for consumer applications, hydrogen on the other hand is ready today.

Gas in Sweden costs about twice as much as in United States. Stop bitching please.

L2MarketEconomics

Why not just advance battery technology instead?


Because one technology is working and proven today already and there other is not.


Building nuclear power plants does not happen overnight, let alone enough of them to make enough hydrogen to power all the cars around. And nuclear power plants springing up all over the place bring with them their own problems.

Given enough resources, we could have enough nuclear plants to power the entire country within 5 years. The other problems with nuclear are really not that big of a deal. They are way over blown.

[Blackfire1128]

Talk to me about this in 15-20 years when its ready for consumer applications, hydrogen on the other hand is ready today.


It does sound intriguing for other applications than automobiles, though.

[pidin]

Greediest bunch of swine on the planet.

My personal Wikipedia article for USA.

[Goty]

Some of you foreigners going on about America and its need to drive less simply do not understand the fact that the very infrastructure this nation is built upon relies heavily on personal use of transportation.

There are very few places here where car ownership is not necessary. Hell, I live in New York City and it's the first place I've been to where I didn't need a car to travel. Granted, it still takes me around an hour to travel anywhere using public transport - but at least I don't need to drive.

Try moving to just about anywhere else without a car and see how long you can last before you realize how hard it is to live when you can't make it to work. It's near impossible. If I had managed to move to Denver as I'd hoped, I'd have needed to start looking at cars myself.

The solution could be found in alternate fuels or a restructuring of our entire traffic system, as well as increased accessibilty to public transportation. Realistically, the solution will only come from alternate fuels, simply because cars are simply a part of American culture. The whole dirt road, Route 66 thing is something that is so ingrained in our culture, that being given a shitty car for a 16th birthday is almost a rite of passage amongst us.

I still remember my first shitty car... *sigh*

[Blackfire1128]

Some of you foreigners going on about America and its need to drive less simply do not understand the fact that the very infrastructure this nation is built upon relies heavily on personal use of transportation.

There are very few places here where car ownership is not necessary. Hell, I live in New York City and it's the first place I've been to where I didn't need a car to travel. Granted, it still takes me around an hour to travel anywhere using public transport - but at least I don't need to drive.

Try moving to just about anywhere without a car and see how long you can last before you realize how hard it is to live when you can't make it to work.

The solution could be found in alternate fuels or a restructuring of our entire traffic system, as well as increased accessibilty to public transportation. Realistically, the solution will only come from alternate fuels, simply because cars are simply a part of American culture. The whole dirt road, Route 66 thing is something that is so ingrained in our culture, that being given a shitty car for a 16th birthday is almost a rite of passage amongst us.

I still remember my first shitty car... *sigh*

All of this is QFT.

[Jezrith]

It does sound intriguing for other applications than automobiles, though.

No doubt its cool, but it doesn't even begin to present a solution that we can use today.

[Teth]

Never ever link fucking Foxnews as a legitimate source. Jesus Christ.

[Toilet]

Talk to me about this in 15-20 years when its ready for consumer applications, hydrogen on the other hand is ready today.

No point in hugely investing in a new infrastructure just because "its ready today".

Why not give massive funds to the scientists working with new batteries, so you cut the time down to 5-10 years?

L2MarketEconomics

L2Socialism

Because one technology is working and proven today already and there other is not.

It is working, it is proven, its just not ready for production, but could be soon with massive funds.

Given enough resources, we could have enough nuclear plants to power the entire country within 5 years. The other problems with nuclear are really not that big of a deal. They are way over blown.

Yeah, totally overblown.

For one, they totally cant leak, and they totally dont cost a fucking lot to keep contained.

Also, terrorists totally wouldnt wanna use nuclear waste material in dirty bombs, no no no.

[Blackfire1128]

No doubt its cool, but it doesn't even begin to present a solution that we can use today.

That's why I said for other applications.

[Dwhap]

Hey look, supply and demand in action. If you want cheap oil, stop using it.

OPEC is an international monopoly full of organized crime elements and it should be broken up.

If you don't think so then take this scenerio. What if the 5 greatest food producing countries were to say they were going to slow down the production of crops to drive up food prices around the world.. would this be fair? Maybe the US should fight back buy refusing to sell any food to OPEC nations...

[Blackfire1128]

Maybe the US should fight back buy refusing to sell any food to OPEC nations...

Lol.

[Feyrband]

OPEC is an international monopoly full of organized crime elements and it should be broken up.

If you don't think so then take this scenerio. What if the 5 greatest food producing countries were to say they were going to slow down the production of crops to drive up food prices around the world.. would this be fair? Maybe the US should fight back buy refusing to sell any food to OPEC nations...

just wait, russia is working on creating an OPEC cartel with the middle east for their natural gas.

this is just more reason to drill for our own oil and expand our alternative sources. sure itll take time, but while we got time, lets nuke iran and get that over with.

[Toilet]

The G7 is an international monopoly full of organized crime elements and it should be broken up.

If you don't think so then take this scenerio. What if the 7 richest countries were to say they were going to ban trade with a country to destroy its economy.. would this be fair? Maybe the world should fight back buy refusing to sell any oil to G7 nations...


Fixed for another perspective.

[Jezrith]

No point in hugely investing in a new infrastructure just because "its ready today".


Really? No point in building an infrastructure you know is going to work? I have heard some pretty stupid statements, but wow! Just wow!

Why not give massive funds to the scientists working with new batteries, so you cut the time down to 5-10 years?


Because you have no idea if it will be ready 5-10 years, you could very well throw all of those funds at it and still be 15-20 years out.


L2Socialism


I'll pass on learning to fail...


It is working, it is proven, its just not ready for production, but could be soon with massive funds.


Not ready for production = not working.



Yeah, totally overblown.

For one, they totally cant leak, and they totally dont cost a fucking lot to keep contained.

Also, terrorists totally wouldnt wanna use nuclear waste material in dirty bombs, no no no.


Exactly, all of those are totally way overblown and exaggerated chicken little scenarios. This isn't the 1970s and its not the cold war USSR.

[Dwhap]

Fixed for another perspective.

Hey asshole, If you want to make a point do it with your own words instead of misquoting other forumfall members...

[Bawlin]

Hey look, supply and demand in action. If you want cheap oil, stop using it.

Yea we did, and when this happened OPEC decided to cut production anyway. It's garbage in a worldly perspective and pretty much a dick move, but just another reason why we should become less dependent for oil on these fuckers.

Everyone buy gas quick!

[pidin]

OPEC is an international monopoly full of organized crime elements and it should be broken up.

The mono prefix means "only one". How can a group of twelve countries be a monopoly?

[Dwhap]

The mono prefix means "only one". How can a group of twelve countries be a monopoly?

The 12 countries are acting as a single organization which is why it's a monopoly (sort of, you are right that it's actually price-fixing which is also illegal in most modern economies).

The only good thing that will come out of this OPEC bullshit is that it will light a hotter fire under our ass to get off oil as the primary source of energy.

[Blackfire1128]

The mono prefix means "only one". How can a group of twelve countries be a monopoly?

They form an organization. The organization is the "one."

[nathanpinard]

Good for them, they are using a scarce resource to make money. God forbid anyone makes money.

It's what they are doing with that money that worries me. They aren't building a nuclear program to power cites or homes that's for sure.


Yeah, totally overblown.

For one, they totally cant leak, and they totally dont cost a fucking lot to keep contained.

Also, terrorists totally wouldnt wanna use nuclear waste material in dirty bombs, no no no.

Actually fusion nuclear power is what we would want to build. More expensive but considerably less waste.

[Toilet]

The mono prefix means "only one". How can a group of twelve countries be a monopoly?

If they, you know, group together to form a monopoly?

[pidin]

They form an organization. The organization is the "one."

They form a cartel, not a monopoly since there are more than one member in this organization.

[Toilet]

Actually fusion nuclear power is what we would want to build. More expensive but considerably less waste.

But....

Fusion isnt ready today.

So lets continue building tons uf uranium based nuclear power plants!

[pidin]

Hell, even cow fart can be transformed into fuel. Oops, looks like India will rule the world... :ohno:

[Jezrith]

The 12 countries are acting as a single organization which is why it's a monopoly (sort of, you are right that it's actually price-fixing which is also illegal in most modern economies).


I believe cartel is the word you are looking for.

EDIT - BAH! Pidin beat me to it...

But....

Fusion isnt ready today.

So lets continue building tons uf uranium based nuclear power plants!

Yes, let's. Its the only smart thing to do at this point.

[Blackfire1128]

They form a cartel, not a monopoly since there are more than one member in this organization.

I was just explaining how he came to the word "monopoly." It matters little whether you call it a monopoly or a cartel, the result is the same.

Though, I agree that cartel is the correct word here.

[Sunaj]

No crop can grow in sand so for the Cartel 1 bushel of wheat = 1 barrel of oil?

People can always walk but they cant always grow food.

Once they figue that out they will sell the oil at decent rates.

Oil problem solved. Till the idiot car makers start producing affordable alternative fuel cars for the mass population.

[bluthorn]

I say the next war SHOULD be about oil.

And this time, we KEEP the rigs.

^ Only if the OPEC heads are forced to work on the rigs :).

[Darkrabbit18]

Actually no...the sand in the middle east is so fine (at least in parts, Kuwait for example) that they actually have to import sand for construction projects...

ROFL. :lmao:

[Lysandor]

The mono prefix means "only one". How can a group of twelve countries be a monopoly?

He meant cartel.

[Lysandor]

Hell, even cow fart can be transformed into fuel. Oops, looks like India will rule the world... :ohno:

Masta Blasta rules Barter Town.

[jordanleroux]

In other words, is it a good thing I lost my license?

[alfaroverall]

Close but so fail. The portability of electricity is extremely inferior to hydrogen. This is why the electric car never become a reality and hybrids are the best they have done so far. If you have a range > 200 miles, nobody is going to buy it. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely portable, just as portable as gasoline, it makes it much more suitable for individual transportation purposes on a mass scale.

You are correct, that hydrogen has to be produced because it does not occur naturally in free form, and thus has a lower energy coefficient, however using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen renders this whole problem moot.
Hydrogen's not as portable as gasoline buddy. There's this thing called pressure. It's kinda hard to make. You need a lot of it for hydrogen to exist in a liquid form at reasonable temperatures. And you can't just have it in a gaseous form or a car accident will see to a catastrophic explosion every time.

What you just said is pretty much what I was saying, though. It may be more economical, more efficient (doubtful but possible), and more practical to use hydrogen instead of pure electric. It's hard to tell. Though the thing that I showed above shows that pure electric is a bit more practical than you're saying.

The GM Volt is an interesting model to me, though. It's like the opposite of current hybrids: a big electric engine with a small supplementary gasoline engine. It can go about 30 miles on pure electric and then has pretty much the range of a pure gasoline vehicle after that. It's not out yet but it's in development.

[pidin]

Masta Blasta rules Barter Town.

Priceless!

[Jezrith]

Hydrogen's not as portable as gasoline buddy. There's this thing called pressure. It's kinda hard to make. You need a lot of it for hydrogen to exist in a liquid form at reasonable temperatures. And you can't just have it in a gaseous form or a car accident will see to a catastrophic explosion every time.


Pressurization is easy to maintain, we use pressurized tanks for all sorts of stuff already. Using a pressurized tank hydrogen is just as portable as gasoline. It's definitely not as efficient as gasoline, or electricity but if we want to move off gasoline, hydrogen and nuclear power is about the only way to do it right now.


The GM Volt is an interesting model to me, though. It's like the opposite of current hybrids: a big electric engine with a small supplementary gasoline engine. It can go about 30 miles on pure electric and then has pretty much the range of a pure gasoline vehicle after that. It's not out yet but it's in development.


I'd be interesting in seeing what type of horses it throws out.

[Toilet]

Pressurization is easy to maintain, we use pressurized tanks for all sorts of stuff already. Using a pressurized tank hydrogen is just as portable as gasoline.

It also needs to be shock resistant.

Or else... boom boom at each car crash.

Its hard to make a shock resistant and pressurized tank fit into a car....

[Jezrith]

It also needs to be shock resistant.

Or else... boom boom at each car crash.


Gasoline tanks have this problem as well.


Its hard to make a shock resistant and pressurized tank fit into a car....

No, its not they have been doing this since the 70's.

[alfaroverall]

So you dismiss what i said and will not validly argue your point? Maybe in a few years when batter technology progresses more, battery powered card will be the future, but at this point it time its too expensive. You will have to buy a new batter every year or 2 and it will be so fricking expensive.

At THIS point in time, electrolysis and HHO are a very possible alternative to gasoline. It probably wont happen on a large scale but an alternative nonetheless. The difference is, with a car battery doing the electrolysis and an alternator recharding the battery, all you need to power you car is the ever abundant resource H20.

Otherwise you will need your batteries to be charged by a powerplant somewhere, which is wasting other resources.

thankyou and goodbye
Check my link above. They're designing a very lightweight pure electric vehicle that is more durable and faster than current gasoline vehicles and whose battery will last for many years, and plan to have it out on the market by 2010. Prototype versions are already winning races against Ferraris and such right now, so it's not just BS.
Gasoline tanks have this problem as well.



No, its not they have been doing this since the 70's.
It's many times harder for a hydrogen vehicle than it is for a gasoline vehicle. The pressures have to be many, many times higher just for the hydrogen to exist as a liquid. And once it exists as a gas, combustion begins very quickly. For an example of what I mean, find a chemistry lab and add a small piece of potassium metal to water. This is what you should expect to happen:
2K+2H2O->2KOH+H2
2H2+O2->2H2O
I believe the enthalpy change for the 2nd reaction is -286 kJ/mol H2 (it's been a while since I did the math with the literature values in front of me but that's what I remember), and it happens without any additional spark or anything at room temperature in air. -286 kJ/mol is very large relatively speaking; for octane (the main constituent of gasoline) it is about 5 times higher, but octane weighs 57 times more per mole, so per gram hydrogen releases almost 6 times the heat of octane and reacts much more readily if it is in the gaseous state (which octane is not at room temperature and 1 atm of pressure).

[nathanpinard]

Actually wait.

Screw oil. Screw electricity. Screw hydrogen and nulcear power.

Might as well skip to warp power. We could play Darkfall on the holodeck!

/extreme nerdism

[Toilet]

Actually wait.

Screw oil. Screw electricity. Screw hydrogen and nulcear power.

Might as well skip to warp power. We could play Darkfall on the holodeck!

/extreme nerdism

DONT U MEEN 0 POYNT ENERGZY DERIVED FROM UZING ZE BETINI MOTAR?

[Jezrith]

Ch
It's many times harder for a hydrogen vehicle than it is for a gasoline vehicle. The pressures have to be many, many times higher just for the hydrogen to exist as a liquid. And once it exists as a gas, combustion begins very quickly. For an example of what I mean, find a chemistry lab and add a small piece of potassium metal to water. This is what you should expect to happen:
2K+2H2O->2KOH+H2
2H2+O2->2H2O
I believe the enthalpy change for the 2nd reaction is -286 kJ/mol H2, and it happens without any additional spark or anything at room temperature in air. -286 kJ/mol is very large relatively speaking; for octane (the main constituent of gasoline) it is about 5 times higher, but octane weighs 57 times more per mole, so per gram hydrogen releases almost 6 times the heat of octane and reacts much more readily if it is in the gaseous state (which octane is not at room temperature and 1 atm of pressure).

I am not debating any of this, all I am saying is that solution to these problems were created back in the 70s. Look at the specs on this current even more advanced tank then what they were using back then (its a very small tank to boot).

http://car.pege.org/2006-hannover/hydrogen-gas-tank.htm

[hardboiled]

Meh, its their product. If they want to produce less then so be it, you don't have any right over their property.

[alfaroverall]

I am not debating any of this, all I am saying is that solution to these problems were solved back in the 70s.
A true solution per se? I disagree; there's a reason why they're still developing a good way to do this. Yes, they can do it now, but it's not as effective as they'd like it to be. Put differently, we're both right. There's a solution that's out, but developers want it to be better.

Looking at a post of yours above that I missed: I'm interested in how much horsepower the Volt gets as well. I think it'll probably be pretty high.

[ejnomad07]

I can't wait for Oil to be worthless. The middle-east will be nothing but sand.

[Jezrith]

A true solution per se? I disagree; there's a reason why they're still developing a good way to do this. Yes, they can do it now, but it's not as effective as they'd like it to be. Put differently, we're both right. There's a solution that's out, but developers want it to be better.


I could agree with that, one problem they still haven't solved is evaporation even at 10 atmospheres. But remember it's not like the gasoline powered internal combustion engine was getting 30 miles to the gallon when the Model-T came out. It took damn near a century to get the efficiency we see out of our vehicles today, if we would have used the same logic a lot of the hydrogen nay-sayers use, it would have been the mid-60's before anyone saw a commercial internal combustion engine on the market.

[Slypieguy]

Too bad the market doesn't really care what opec says right now

[alfaroverall]

I could agree with that, one problem they still haven't solved is evaporation even at 10 atmospheres. But remember it's not like the gasoline powered internal combustion engine was getting 30 miles to the gallon when the Model-T came out. It took damn near a century to get the efficiency we see out of our vehicles today, if we would have used the same logic a lot of the hydrogen nay-sayers use, it would have been the mid-60's before anyone saw a commercial internal combustion engine on the market.
But in those times there wasn't an internal combustion engine and so there were no automobiles (mostly). Right now there is an internal combustion engine, and so if that is currently better, then it should be used for the time being.

I do agree that R&D should be in full swing right now, though. We should be trying to get hydrogen fuel cell vehicles out on the road within the next 5 years or so and then hopefully pure electric vehicles would follow (since they are by definition more efficient).

Also, were the really using pressures as low as 10 atm? I'm surprised any hydrogen liquifies at pressures that low. A pity I can't find a phase diagram, though.

[Jezrith]

But in those times there wasn't an internal combustion engine and so there were no automobiles (mostly). Right now there is an internal combustion engine, and so if that is currently better, then it should be used for the time being.


Yeah, but they had horse drawn wagons! Who needs more than that! That was extremely more efficient compared to first internal combustion engines.


I do agree that R&D should be in full swing right now, though. We should be trying to get hydrogen fuel cell vehicles out on the road within the next 5 years or so and then hopefully pure electric vehicles would follow (since they are by definition more efficient).


The problem isn't really what is more efficient, but what is going to work now and get us as far away from foreign oil as possible. The problems oil dependency creates trumps energy efficiency any day of the week, imo. I'm all for continuing electrical battery research, but we need to do something today, not 10 years from now.


Also, were the really using pressures as low as 10 atm? I'm surprised any hydrogen liquifies at pressures that low.

Sorry that should have been 100 not 10. Critical pressure for hydrogen is 13.3 atmospheres.

[alfaroverall]

Yeah, but they had horse drawn wagons! Who needs more than that! That was extremely more efficient compared to first internal combustion engines.
I know you're just joking, but there's a major advantage of speed associated with an internal combustion engine versus a horse. You don't get an advantage like this going from a gasoline engine to a hydrogen fuel cell engine.
The problem isn't really what is more efficient, but what is going to work now and get us as far away from foreign oil as possible. The problems oil dependency creates trumps energy efficiency any day of the week, imo. I'm all for continuing electrical battery research, but we need to do something today, not 10 years from now.

True, I suppose I don't do quite enough reading on foreign oil and such.
Sorry that should have been 100 not 10. Critical pressure for hydrogen is 13.3 atmospheres.
Now that number makes more sense, heh.

[biggunsar]

HH0 prebuilt

http://www.punchhho.com/order.php

is it fake?

[stalwart]

I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing OPEC is doing...

[Xtra-Medium]

to OP
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/

[alfaroverall]

HH0 prebuilt

http://www.punchhho.com/order.php

is it fake?
lol...yeah, buy something from people who say it's a good idea to put fucking ACETONE in your car to boost its fuel economy.

Not even getting into the fact that hydrogen combustion loses more energy as heat than gasoline combustion does and is therefore less efficient...

[Jezrith]

I know you're just joking, but there's a major advantage of speed associated with an internal combustion engine versus a horse.


In the beginning it wasn't as much of an advantage as you think. The model-t produced 20.2 hp with a top speed of 40-45mph with a range of roughly 130 miles, but often suffered from having to stop and let the engine cool down during long periods of usage. Also, if you were under half a tank of gas you couldn't go up steep hills either. The average speed of a horse is 30 miles an hour has a shorter range before it needs a rest but it can go up steep hills even if it is hungry. There weren't a whole lot of roads when the model-t came out nor gas stations, but the horse could go anywhere and had a refueling station where ever there was water and grass.

Not to mention when it came to long trips, the steam engine had both beat hands down.


You don't get an advantage like this going from a gasoline engine to a hydrogen fuel cell engine.


But you do get a huge advantage both politically, environmentally and even to a lesser extent economically.

[alfaroverall]

In the beginning it wasn't as much of an advantage as you think. The model-t produced a 20.2 hp with a top speed of 40-45mph with a range of roughly 130 miles, but often suffered from having to stop and let the engine cool down on long trips. Also, if you were under half a tank of gas you couldn't go up steep hills either. The average speed of a horse is 30 miles an hour has a similar range before it needs a rest but can go up steep hills even if it is hungry. There weren't a whole lot of roads when the model-t came out nor gas stations, but the horse could go anywhere and had a refueling station where ever there was water and grass.

Not to mention when it came to long trips, the steam engine had both beat hands down.
Horses can go 30 mph with a buggy attached to them?

Other than that I agree.



But you do get a huge advantage both politically, environmentally and even to a lesser extent economically.
The environmental benefit wouldn't exist initially, since we'd have to use fossil fuels to acquire the hydrogen (whether from catalytic cracking of petroleum or from electrolysis which would currently be powered by coal plants). I don't quite see the economic benefit at the moment...

[Jezrith]

Horses can go 30 mph with a buggy attached to them?


No, but who says you have to ride a buggy to ride a horse.




The environmental benefit wouldn't exist initially, since we'd have to use fossil fuels to acquire the hydrogen (whether from catalytic cracking of petroleum or from electrolysis which would currently be powered by coal plants).


Nuclear FTW!


I don't quite see the economic benefit at the moment...


With cheaper nuclear power, comes hydrogen that is cheaper than gasoline meaning more money in people's pockets which equals good economy.

[alfaroverall]

No, but who says you have to ride a buggy to ride a horse.
True, but then you have the advantage of being able to transport goods at little to no loss of speed when you use the engine instead of the horse.





Nuclear FTW!
Except it takes 10 years to build a plant, we're building none of them, and anyone who tries suffers through so much litigation that they wind up paying all their startup capital to their lawyers.



With cheaper nuclear power, comes hydrogen that is cheaper than gasoline meaning more money in people's pockets which equals good economy.
But the nuclear's not here yet.

[NapalmEnema]

This new learning amazes me Sledevere...explain again how sheeps bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes? :confused:

[Titus Ultor]

True, but then you have the advantage of being able to transport goods at little to no loss of speed when you use the engine instead of the horse.

Model T's weren't much in the way of transport, and their performance definitely suffered when loaded up, much in the same way a horse does.

[alfaroverall]

Model T's weren't much in the way of transport, and their performance definitely suffered when loaded up, much in the same way a horse does.
But by comparison with a horse? So much of what the Model T had to pull was just the engine. Horses don't weigh as much as an internal combustion engine.

[Jezrith]

Except it takes 10 years to build a plant, we're building none of them, and anyone who tries suffers through so much litigation that they wind up paying all their startup capital to their lawyers.


Actually plants could be built in a as little as 4-5 years, and if we made it a national mandate, the fed could step in and for once clear away red tape instead of producing it (hey, its possible) we could be a nuclear nation in under 8 years. Is the desirable route to go, maybe not as it would take massive federal intrusion, but hey if we are getting it anyway, and its not going to stop it might as well be for something that is useful.



But the nuclear's not here yet.

It could be if there was a national will to do it.


But by comparison with a horse? So much of what the Model T had to pull was just the engine. Horses don't weigh as much as an internal combustion engine.


It was definitely a leap forward, but in reality it took awhile before there where more cars on the roads than horses, again the advantage in the beginning was not as big as you think it was.

[Lethn]

New fuels are already out there. HHO is very easy to get from water... IE it is water in its simplest form. I blew up a balloon in my garage by way of electrolysis (then i blew it up with a match). its not hard, the problem is the government and the oil company's dont want this to happen because if we dont need oil, the middle east has NO output. you cant grow crops in a desert...


Its already there

This is totally true as well, scoff all you want but quite frankly a part of me wants people to get so desperate that they'll start actually USING other fuel resources that we already have.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that oil companies and the american government in particular has taken steps to make sure that new re-newable resources don't get made so they can continue to milk the profits. Think about it energy resources make up a huge amount of money for them and if someone finally finds out about other resources then it would be an utter disaster for them and not only that it would be an un-taxable resource if it's re-newable.

The only reason that the government tax oil in the first place is because it's valuable the same goes for the oil companies that buy it, if more and more people started using something like solar or wind they would be broke for the most part because they'd get free energy for life.

The only problem is again the oil propaganda that's been plugged into peoples heads over the years no one thinks solar or wind can actually be used even though solar can apparently take care of a houses energy needs for three quarters of the entire year.

Nuclear power on the other hand CAN work the only problem is that you have to have staff that operate as disciplined as a military, anything less and the area and the plant will end up like Chernobyl within a year easily.

[alfaroverall]

Actually plants could be built in a as little as 4-5 years, and if we made it a national mandate, the fed could step in and for once clear away red tape instead of producing it (hey, its possible) we could be a nuclear nation in under 8 years. Is the desirable route to go, maybe not as it would take massive federal intrusion, but hey if we are getting it anyway, and its not going to stop it might as well be for something that is useful.




It could be if there was a national will to do it.



It was definitely a leap forward, but in reality it took awhile before there where more cars on the roads than horses, again the advantage in the beginning was not as big as you think it was.
People still hate nuclear because they're not well-educated about it. They think that a meltdown will happen like in Chernobyl, even though that was the result of laziness and cheapness on the part of the Russians. Two Mile Island was the only meltdown with modern safeguards that has occurred as far as I know, and none of that radiation escaped into the environment because the technicians did their jobs. (If there have been others, then they were probably not even as big of a deal as Two Mile Island, since I haven't heard of them.)

Lobbyists whose agendas are self-contradictory (ZOMG PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM A MELTDOWN MEANWHILE WE'LL BE BURNING COAL AND HAVING GUARANTEED DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT) make the government hate it too.

So good luck with making a national mandate.

Lethn: why would a renewable resource be non-taxable? Hydroelectric is taxed. Geothermal is taxed. Nuclear is taxed. And so on.

And don't worry about the issue of the staff. Nuclear plant technicians are pretty well-known for knowing what they're doing. The Chernobyl incident, as I said above, happened because the Russians blatantly didn't follow well-known safeguards to preventing it.

[Dwhap]

The average speed of a horse is 30 miles an hour

WTF are you smoking. Thoroughbreds can sprint short distances at 40-45mph. Take a 100+ mile trip on your horse you'd be lucky to get 15mph out of them....

[Kusghuul]

There's a stark difference between supply and demand, and intentionally creating demand by being greedy and completely selfish. Did you read the article? Nice blokes in the little Opec consortium, so glad they have the world by the short and curlies.

Not really. OPEC doesn't want to use up all its oil, so it produces a set amount a year. This causes prices to remain optimal. it's free-market capitalism.