What does bush plan to do about energy crisis?

[brad89]

Is bush planning on doing anythinng about the high rate of oil consumption? We guzzle so much gas every year, yet we aren't working so well with alternative energy. Why not? Sure, right now it isn't a big deal, but with oil oly depleting and population only growing, meaning the supply is decreasing and the demand is growing, so the price of it will skyrocket! We need to do something about it while we have time to!

[towjyt]

Is bush planning on doing anythinng about the high rate of oil consumption? We guzzle so much gas every year, yet we aren't working so well with alternative energy. Why not? Sure, right now it isn't a big deal, but with oil oly depleting and population only growing, meaning the supply is decreasing and the demand is growing, so the price of it will skyrocket! We need to do something about it while we have time to!

 

What do you suggest?

[brad89]

I suggest setting up some kind of government funded facility dedicated to the study of new fuel sources. Hydrogen seems the most promising, sonofusion, who really knows. Wind, Solar, Geothermic, all seem to have potential. He should do something about it! He attacks Iraq just to get some oil, and blames Saddam for nuclear threats. I am not saying Saddam is right, he uses children as human shields. But still, the only reason he did it was for oil! If he was that concerned, rather than sending in our people to die, why not create something more constructive for a new source of energy? (By the way, the reason I said all of that is because I hate Bush as president, not because I have a problem with our troops. Sorry if I pissed anybody off!)

[some nerd]

I guess Bush is doing what his advisory board suggests him to do. We talk about all the renewable energy source, but they are associated with either non-continous supply of energy like, Wind, Solar OR some environmental problems. I guess the only way to resolve energy crisis will be to go for nuclear fission and keep on investing in nuclear fusion. Investing in hydrogen energy is not a solution, though. I think for the time being, we will convert coal into oil or gas to take care of the rising problem.

[towjyt]

I suggest setting up some kind of government funded facility dedicated to the study of new fuel sources. Hydrogen seems the most promising, sonofusion, who really knows. Wind, Solar, Geothermic, all seem to have potential. He should do something about it! He attacks Iraq just to get some oil, and blames Saddam for nuclear threats. I am not saying Saddam is right, he uses children as human shields. But still, the only reason he did it was for oil! If he was that concerned, rather than sending in our people to die, why not create something more constructive for a new source of energy? (By the way, the reason I said all of that is because I hate Bush as president, not because I have a problem with our troops. Sorry if I pissed anybody off!)

 

I don't think you pissed anybody off, but the fact that you admit that your reasoning is based on a hatred for Bush does put your opinion into perspective.

 

I think that the market will take care of the energy needs that we will encounter without the government establishing another bureaucracy to bleed off 90% of the moneys that were allocated to solve the problem.

 

Greed has always worked in the past, I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.

[swansont]

Hydrogen seems the most promising

 

 

Hydrogen is not an energy source.

 

Bush (and congress) won't do much, because there's a lot of profit in oil, and he/they are for big business.

 

What they should do is raise the federal tax on gasoline and use it for deveopment of alternative sources, subsidies for hybrid cars, etc. and make other sources economically viable. But they won't because the US population can't see past the end of their nose and wouldn't stand for it, and reelection is more important than doing what's right. When gas gets to $3-4 a gallon on its own, then economics will drive the market all on its own, as towjyt says.

[towjyt]

Hydrogen is not an energy source.

 

Bush (and congress) won't do much' date=' because there's a lot of profit in oil, and he/they are for big business.

 

What they should do is raise the federal tax on gasoline and use it for deveopment of alternative sources, subsidies for hybrid cars, etc. and make other sources economically viable. But they won't because the US population can't see past the end of their nose and wouldn't stand for it, and reelection is more important than doing what's right. When gas gets to $3-4 a gallon on its own, then economics will drive the market all on its own, as towjyt says.[/quote']

 

Riiiiight.

 

That is exactly what they should do if they want an unemployment rate of 10%.

 

Who do you think pays the taxes anyway?

 

Big business?

 

Or their customers!

 

Guess who their customers are.

[ecoli]

When all the oil is gone, then they'll do something about it. Right now, Bush's pockets are lined with oil money. Hell, the government has started wars to preserve our oil interests, they won't care about alternative fuel when they can make more off of oil.

 

The only way to do it, is have the oil companies invest in alternative energies, then when the switch is made, they'll still be making a profit. When given this incentive, they'll make less of a push away from alternative energy.

[Pangloss]

If Al Gore or John Kerry were president right now we'd be in exactly the same boat (if not worse, assuming a Republican-controlled Congress). The problem is going to require a coordinated, long-term effort by both the executive and legislative branches to solve.

 

This is one of the reasons we need to move PAST petty partisan politics (like "Bush sucks").

[brad89]

If Al Gore or John Kerry were president right now we'd be in exactly the same boat (if not worse' date=' assuming a Republican-controlled Congress). The problem is going to require a coordinated, long-term effort by both the executive and legislative branches to solve.

 

This is one of the reasons we need to move PAST petty partisan politics (like "Bush sucks").[/quote']

 

Yeah, you are right, I was out of line (I still hate Bush), but anyway, I think big when it comes down to the control factor of government. I wonder myself why our world can't seem to just come together and solve its problems. If we had all of the scientists from each country just work together, couldn't we have just solved this problem a while ago? Our world is far from perfect, but one way to come closer to perfection is give up greed and help people in need. If oil companies are in such competition, than that means that people are going to pay because the oil companies are going to purposely hold back their production so that prices rise. When they do this, they make money while the people pay it all. They have to, the car has become to important to give up. The only way that this crisis will be solved is seriously, if people start thinking differently. Because energy is so important to human culture, why don't humans pitch in to help the cause? If people don't realize, I will help them to. We have generations of children still in line to be born. We as humans, should assure them that their lives go better than ours. If we start on our energy crisis now, we can reduce the fossil fuel consumption, reduce greenhouse gasses and pollution, literally have our energy problems set for the beyond the future, and spread the human race beyond earth. Once that problem is out of the way, we can focus on other problems. Next stop: World Hunger, afterwards: World Peace, and after that: Human Spacial Colonization. With this problem in our way, we can't focus on other ones.

[swansont]

Riiiiight.

 

That is exactly what they should do if they want an unemployment rate of 10%.

 

Who do you think pays the taxes anyway?

 

Big business?

 

Or their customers!

 

Guess who their customers are.

 

The taxpayers, which is why I said that they would never approve of this. These are the same taxpayers who buy SUVs and then complain about the price of gas. If gas were more expensive, maybe some of the customers would buy more fuel-efficient automobiles and we'd use less gas.

 

What exactly is the connection between a higher gas tax and 10% unemployment? Oil prices have gone up more than 50% in the last few years, and unemployment is 5-6%. If that had happened because of a tax, which would have kept more money in the US, that would somehow have caused a near doubling of the unemployment rate?

[-Demosthenes-]

Greed has always worked in the past, I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.

That pretty much sums it up.

[towjyt]

What exactly is the connection between a higher gas tax and 10% unemployment?

 

A higher gas tax means less driving' date=' which means less need to buy a new car, less tourism, more money put into the gas tank (for those who need to drive to work) instead of buying a new refrigerator, boat, or jet ski, then people who work in the plants that manufacture those products are laid off and the government finds out that they don't have the money to continue their entitlement programs, because of the [b']loss[/b] in revenues due to layoffs, so they spent the gas tax money on that and down the tube we go.

 

Our economy is just nicely into the recovery phase and the last thing we need is to do something silly to imperil that.

 

There is no energy crisis in the first place. As I said above, greed has always taken care of our needs and when an actual energy crisis occures, the big shooters will have already had their money invested in the technologies that will make fossile fuel nothing but a bad memory.

 

The very best thing the government can do is to stay the Hell out of the way and let the free market funtion like it should.

[bascule]

What do you suggest?

 

Step one: Require all cars manufactured/sold in the US be Flexible Fuel Vehicles by <insert arbitrary cutoff date here after feasibility research>

 

Step two: Actively promote ethanol fuels such as E-85. Offer tax incentives to gas stations willing to carry E-85 in addition to gasoline. Offer tax incentives to individuals who have their engines of their current cars modified to support E-85.

 

Instead, Bush is researching hydrogen cars, a technology which won't be feasible for public consumption for the next 30 years (and thus poses no immediate threat to oil companies)

[swansont]

A higher gas tax means less driving' date=' which means less need to buy a new car, less tourism, more money put into the gas tank (for those who need to drive to work) instead of buying a new refrigerator, boat, or jet ski, then people who work in the plants that manufacture those products are laid off and the government finds out that they don't have the money to continue their entitlement programs, because of the [b']loss[/b] in revenues due to layoffs, so they spent the gas tax money on that and down the tube we go.

 

 

And you ignored the second part of the question, that points out that our economy is in recovery despite a large increase in the cost of gasoline that sends most of the money overseas. The increase in price hasn't had the effect you predict.

[Skye]

Why can't hydrogen cars be viable now? We have hydrogen buses already, and cars are just like baby buses.

[swansont]

Why can't hydrogen cars be viable now? We have hydrogen buses already, and cars are just like baby buses.

 

It's not the viabilty of the vehicles as much as the fact that hydrogen from electrolysis does absolutely nothing to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, since you have to use fossil fuels to make the electricity to get the hydrogen. That's the first law of thermodynamics. And due to the inefficiencies involved, you have to use more energy to make it than you get back. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

[ecoli]

It's not the viabilty of the vehicles as much as the fact that hydrogen from electrolysis does absolutely nothing to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, since you have to use fossil fuels to make the electricity to get the hydrogen. That's the first law of thermodynamics. And due to the inefficiencies involved, you have to use more energy to make it than you get back. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

 

 

I know it's not done, but what's wrong with using solar power to electrolize hydrogen? This would seem pretty efficient, because solar powered cars have obvious shortcomings.

[Skye]

It's not the viabilty of the vehicles as much as the fact that hydrogen from electrolysis does absolutely nothing to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, since you have to use fossil fuels to make the electricity to get the hydrogen. That's the first law of thermodynamics. And due to the inefficiencies involved, you have to use more energy to make it than you get back. That's the second law of thermodynamics.

That's true, I was asking bascule about: Instead, Bush is researching hydrogen cars, a technology which won't be feasible for public consumption for the next 30 years (and thus poses no immediate threat to oil companies). I should have quoted that section as the H fuel idea was being floated around a bit. I don't think bascule was concerned with the energetics of hydrogen but rather the maturity of hydrogen vehicle engineering.

[revprez]

I know it's not done, but what's wrong with using solar power to electrolize hydrogen? This would seem pretty efficient, because solar powered cars have obvious shortcomings.

 

Cost. Hydrocarbons beat hydrogen by leaps and bounds at every stage except end use. You have to lick those problems before moving to a hydrogen economy; move too quickly and you'll do more harm than good.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

That's true, I was asking bascule about: Instead, Bush is researching hydrogen cars, a technology which won't be feasible for public consumption for the next 30 years (and thus poses no immediate threat to oil companies)[/i']. I should have quoted that section as the H fuel idea was being floated around a bit. I don't think bascule was concerned with the energetics of hydrogen but rather the maturity of hydrogen vehicle engineering.

 

What else do you want to research? Solar and nuclear power are well understood, and hydrogen hybrids are already entering the market. On the other hand, we will have to at least begin transitioning to an alternative energy economy in about thirty or so years; hydrogen appears to be the least of the worst alternatives to fossil fuels, so what's the problem?

 

Rev Prez

[john5746]

There is no energy crisis in the first place. As I said above' date=' greed has always taken care of our needs and when an actual energy crisis occures, the big shooters will have already had their money invested in the technologies that will make fossile fuel nothing but a bad memory.

 

The very best thing the [i']government[/i] can do is to stay the Hell out of the way and let the free market funtion like it should.

 

Ever heard of the Great Depression, or the Savings and Loan mess? Enron? The market goes in cycles, boom and bust. Government can smooth out those bumps and yes, it can make them worse.

[swansont]

I know it's not done, but what's wrong with using solar power to electrolize hydrogen? This would seem pretty efficient, because solar powered cars have obvious shortcomings.

 

 

You need to build out the solar infrastructure, and I've read critiques that claim that the cost of that is prohibitive under the current market conditions. Solar electricity is just too expensive at this point.

[towjyt]

Ever heard of the Great Depression, or the Savings and Loan mess? Enron? The market goes in cycles, boom and bust. Government can smooth out those bumps and yes, it can make them worse.

 

If you have heard of the great depression, and apparently you have, then you should be able to see that government has smoothed out the lumps in the economy.

 

The problem during the depression--which, by the way, was a world depression, and not an American invention, was a failed monetary policy.

 

As far as the energy crisis is concerned, greed will certainly save the day. The big time investors who have their money in oil know exactly how much is producable and they have a fair idea of what the long term consumption will be. You can bet your sweet ass that when it really starts to run out, they will begin to invest in whatever technology looks to have the most profit potential, hence we will always have energy production.

 

Actually, from a tree huggers point of view, the sooner we run out of oil, the better.

 

Don't lose any sleep over it son, by the time you are my age, you will have seen enough "crises" come and go that you will understand how this stuff works.

[towjyt]

And you ignored the second part of the question, that points out that our economy is in recovery despite a large increase in the cost of gasoline that sends most of the money overseas. The increase in price hasn't had the effect you predict.

 

Because a large portion of the working class are covered by increased cost of consumer products under a cost of living clause in a union contract.

 

In any event, if the oil companies collect more money because of an increase on crude, then that money is in turn spent on exploration and infrastructure whuch means jobs.

 

If the government collects money in the form of taxes, it results in a growth in the bureaucracy where little is accomplished other that the hireing of worthless brothers-in-law.