Harkin_Banks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 man there are so many f'ing experts on the internet, it's great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 About 67% of GDP and 90% of the population of California. Supply follows demand. We will use our superior GDP per capita, driven by our excessive consumption of fossil fuels, to outbid Canadians for their own water and leave you all high and dry... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 An item most folks seem to miss is that with alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, they have to be mass produced using electricity, which has to burn some type of energy. Conservation seems like a good way to go, but with the oil guys in charge they have only one way on their mind - more drilling. I be ok with a dollar a gallon tax to put towards kick-starting some conservation and alternative fuels projects. One place to start is the mileage standards in the US, which are pretty absymal. The consistent theme of this administration is that facts just get in the way. Whether it's a scientific evaluation, reasons to go to war, or domestic policy such as social security, the lies are continual and any dissent in the ranks is squashed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 NAFTA does not cover water! Try anything and we'll turn off the tap on the Columbia and make that portland-vancouver bridge obsolete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 An item most folks seem to miss is that with alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, they have to be mass produced using electricity, which has to burn some type of energy. Actually there are some catalysts in prototype that will get you hydrogen direct from methane or ethanol or whatever with no need for electricity. Also its a lot easier to store hydrogen than it is to store electricity. So you can have a solar cell that wouldn't itself be able to power a car making hydrogen, then fill up a car and run it off the stored hydrogen that solar cell made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Some actual data would allow these total non-statements wallow out of the speculative mire. Or do you smell these trends in the air? This is an internet forum not a review board for an academic journal or doctoral thesis. Where do we get these trends? Well, from what we read, or hear about from news reports, documentaries, and so on. Where do you get your information? Europe has a deep-dependency on nuclear energy. As I recall, France is the most dependent. As JayB suggests, a simple Google search will get you specific statistics. You'll find that many countries' dependency far exceeds the paltry 20% found in the US. In recent years, several European countries have moved towards eliminating most (or all) dependency on nuclear energy within the next 10-20 years. Now, however, as the day of implementation nears, and questions arise of the economic impact as well as the effects on increasing pollution and green-house gas emissions, many are questioning these decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 An item most folks seem to miss is that with alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, they have to be mass produced using electricity, which has to burn some type of energy. There's where my gas tax could go to! Actually there are some catalysts in prototype that will get you hydrogen direct from methane or ethanol or whatever with no need for electricity. Also its a lot easier to store hydrogen than it is to store electricity. So you can have a solar cell that wouldn't itself be able to power a car making hydrogen, then fill up a car and run it off the stored hydrogen that solar cell made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Also its a lot easier to store hydrogen than it is to store electricity. The best container for hydrogen is an enormous dirigible, decorated with large swastikas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkin_Banks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 the amount of hot air in this thread rivals anything a dirigible could carry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 We have a long way to go before gas prices are "ridiculously low". I've seen local prices between $1.80 / gal up to over $2.00 / gal. I think a drop to an average of around $1.60 would have a reasonable impact on people's pocketbooks without causing exorbitant (over)usage ("inefficiencies"). I am *for* regularly raising cafe standards on fuel efficiency. Definitely a good thing, because it puts a pressure to innovate where it is needed. Adding tax breaks or other economic incentives is worthwhile as well. Right now gas prices are still ridiculously low in the US. The average person drives 15,000 miles/year. Their vehicle gets 15mpg - 1,000 gallons of gass a year. $.20 drop saves them $200 a year - less than $20 a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The average person drives 15,000 miles/year. Their vehicle gets 15mpg - 1,000 gallons of gass a year. $.20 drop saves them $200 a year - less than $20 a month. I think the average this year was more like $1.90, not $1.80. So make that $300 a year. Multiply that by two for a typical two-car household. Maybe $600 doesn't mean squat to you, but for people making tough day to day decisions about their budget and savings, $600 a year is significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Also its a lot easier to store hydrogen than it is to store electricity. The best container for hydrogen is an enormous dirigible, decorated with large swastikas. Don't be silly, the best container for hydrogen is the core of Jupiter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogen Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Also its a lot easier to store hydrogen than it is to store electricity. So you can have a solar cell that wouldn't itself be able to power a car making hydrogen, then fill up a car and run it off the stored hydrogen that solar cell made. More efficient, not easier. Biggest problem facing the hydrogen fuel industry right now is that of storage and delivery. Compared to propane, hydrogen is more volatile and it rises (propane sinks) therefore hydrogen cannot leak even a little (unlike propane.) So the issue is to come up with a fuel transfer and storage system that is foolproof enough that truckers and gas jockies can't fuck it up. Nobody wants to foot the bill for developing hydrogen delivery systems till there is enough of a market for the hydrogen, and nobody wants to develop a product like a car for the consumer when there isn't fuel readily available. The people developing the cells forge ahead optomistically, sure that the problem will solve itself eventually when nobody wants to pay for gas anymore. Meanwhile, recent estimates on the reserves of oil contained in the Alberta tar sands have come in higher than many suspected. They are saying that the tar sands actually stretch all the way across the province from Fort McMurray, where they are currently mining, to beyond Grand Prairie. They estimate there is enough oil to supply all the worlds needs within the current rate of expansion for another 300 years! So, if you have stock in fuel cell technology, it might be time to reconsider. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I think the average this year was more like $1.90, not $1.80. So make that $300 a year. Multiply that by two for a typical two-car household. Maybe $600 doesn't mean squat to you, but for people making tough day to day decisions about their budget and savings, $600 a year is significant. Price does not effect gasoline habits for minor changes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4908148/ Relative to the rest of the world, relative to the problems it creates gas is still dirt cheap in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Gas prices weren't that much higher in Canada. $44 (Canadian) for me to fill up there versus roughly $30 to fill up here. Hardly enough to justify the self-righteous bloviating North of the border. Speaking of self-righteous bloviators from the North... When all of the talented people in high demand sector leave Canada seeking wages commensurate with their abilities the Great White North will be reduced to an economic status equivalent to a very cold South American country - dependent on raw materials exports to survive - foremost amonst which will be H20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The brain drain reversed itself years ago. Must be all the blue staters moving out of Jesusland. cj1000fs little graph doesn't show per capita gas consumption but total consumption, so it's comparing apples to oranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Price does not effect gasoline habits for minor changes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4908148/ Relative to the rest of the world, relative to the problems it creates gas is still dirt cheap in America. Americans typically do not save enough, or manage their finances responsible. In terms of gasoline usage/prices they don't change their habits, but still suffer the costs. Gas is more expensive in other countries because they add ridiculous taxes to the price. In WA we pay something like $.28 per gallon, in Europe they pay as much as 3-4 times what we pay in total - because of the taxation. I reject the notion that social engineers have a right to change my life in such a drastic way by applying draconian taxes to fuel - something which I can not live without. Perhaps government should tax drinking water at $2-3 per gallon, or raise electricity taxes by ten-fold as well? After all, the (over)use of water and electricity affect the environment in huge ways. Gee, how would that affect the lives of ordinary people? The social engineers don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogen Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Everyone of us drives way more than we need to. This is evidence enough that gas isn't more expensive than it needs to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wdietsch Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 That's population and GDP of California not LA county beeeeyotch! gee a little sensitive there Dru? If it matters, given the choice, I'd rather live in Canada than LA County Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Gas is more expensive in other countries because they add ridiculous taxes to the price. In WA we pay something like $.28 per gallon, in Europe they pay as much as 3-4 times what we pay in total - because of the taxation. I reject the notion that social engineers have a right to change my life in such a drastic way by applying draconian taxes to fuel - something which I can not live without. Perhaps government should tax drinking water at $2-3 per gallon, or raise electricity taxes by ten-fold as well? After all, the (over)use of water and electricity affect the environment in huge ways. Gee, how would that affect the lives of ordinary people? The social engineers don't care. Ah, so you prefer the taxes to be serreptitiously routed through your end of year local, state and federal tax bill? Instead of taking the money to build a new bridge out of my taxes - add it to the gas tax. Instead of taking money to build a new road out of my local tax bill - add it to the gas tax. This isn't social engineering, it's accountability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Everyone of us drives way more than we need to. This is evidence enough that gas isn't more expensive than it needs to be. Yep, and we should start by cutting all trips to the mountains. Climbing causes pollution to the environment, and we impact nature just be entering it. Leave no Trace, right. Don't go in the first place. I propose we tax all climbing gear with a 500% luxury tax. That would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogen Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Yep, and we should start by cutting all trips to the mountains. Climbing causes pollution to the environment, and we impact nature just be entering it. Leave no Trace, right. Don't go in the first place. I propose we tax all climbing gear with a 500% luxury tax. That would be a good start. Nah, just the gas will be enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Yep, and we should start by cutting all trips to the mountains. Climbing causes pollution to the environment, and we impact nature just be entering it. Leave no Trace, right. Don't go in the first place. I propose we tax all climbing gear with a 500% luxury tax. That would be a good start. Nah, just the gas will be enough. Nope, you are still getting out - proof that the gas taxes are not working. Climbing gear is a luxury item, like boats, it needs to be taxed as such. The best way to cut the excessive waste of climbers going into the mountains is to tax them out of this habit. Ditto for skiiers, snowmobilers, and all outdoor enthusiasts who use the roads to get to their destination of choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogen Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Nope, you are still getting out - proof that the gas taxes are not working. Climbing gear is a luxury item, like boats, it needs to be taxed as such. The best way to cut the excessive waste of climbers going into the mountains is to tax them out of this habit. Ditto for skiiers, snowmobilers, and all outdoor enthusiasts who use the roads to get to their destination of choice. Ah, I think I get your point. Do you think that the excessive gas tax is collected mainly to reduce consumption? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Nope, you are still getting out - proof that the gas taxes are not working. The question is are others reducing their gas consumption, not any one person. But then your just being a blowhard - you still haven't responded to my post above. Heaven forbid you recognize the social engineering that went into the autocentric society we inhabit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.