Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

$123 now and still rising...still no alternative in sight.

There wont be either, because the cheap easy to produce stuff that gushes out of the ground has mostly gone.

According to the President of the United States, America is "addicted" to oil. I believe there has been an unwillingness to face the bleak reality until its too late. And now it is too late to avoid a painful transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. The longer its left, the worse it gets. The real danger is that at some point, people will just not accept reality and society breaks down.

Steve 41oo wrote:

$123 now and still rising...still no alternative in sight.

There wont be either, because the cheap easy to produce stuff that gushes out of the ground has mostly gone.

According to the President of the United States, America is "addicted" to oil. I believe there has been an unwillingness to face the bleak reality until its too late. And now it is too late to avoid a painful transition to a low fossil-fuel economy. The longer its left, the worse it gets. The real danger is that at some point, people will just not accept reality and society breaks down.

I'm addicted to food too, Steve, but unless you have another better idea, I intend on continuing to eat.

I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.

McGentrix wrote:

Well, there ya go. Cyc's true feeling about the poor and middle class Americans.

That I expect them to take measures to help themselves, instead of expecting the gov't or someone else to help them?

Isn't that the line that you Republicans push all the time?

Cycloptichorn

okie wrote:

I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.

I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.

I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.

I personally think oil IS a renewable resource. It just renews very slowly.

My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices.

I would like the idea that drilling for oil would lower the price of a barrel at the spot markets.

But do you really believe, okie, the companies would sell US-produced oil cheaper than any oil from the world market?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I would like the idea that drilling for oil would lower the price of a barrel at the spot markets.

But do you really believe, okie, the companies would sell US-produced oil cheaper than any oil from the world market?

No, and we would of course want to receive an honest market price for our oil, just as everyone else does in the world market. But an additional million barrels per day may lower the price over what it would be otherwise in the future, and it also sends a message as to our future potential of production, which also could have an effect upon the futures market. Producing our own oil would provide jobs, help the economy, and improve our balance of payments as compared to the way things will go without producing our own oil. Not producing our own oil is a self defeating and terrible policy in many different ways.

Bringing this up now, in light of the recent vote to stop the government from buying a measly 70,000 barrels per day to provide relief in the market place clearly demonstrates the stupidity of the liberals claim that a potential million barrels per day is not worth going to the trouble to produce.

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.

I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.

Drill for oil to delay the rise in prices?

NOT a great long-term plan. Not even a good short-term plan. The price of oil has gone up by 400% or so since the start of the Bush administration. How much will have to be drilled out of the ground in order to recoup those price gains?

Better to start transitioning to another option, now, not later.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I thought you could, cyclops? Congress has been giving out tons of money to do just that.

I was under the impression that this didn't work. After all, that's what you guys keep saying. So which is it?

Cycloptichorn

Thats my question, which is it? My solution is to go out and drill for oil, like we have always done, to delay the rise in prices. After all, why pay more now, and later we will have had more time to develop better alternatives, or refine the alternatives that are out there.

And my opinion is that ethanol was a bad idea, given current technology, and I said so at the beginning of it.

Drill for oil to delay the rise in prices?

NOT a great long-term plan. Not even a good short-term plan. The price of oil has gone up by 400% or so since the start of the Bush administration. How much will have to be drilled out of the ground in order to recoup those price gains?

Better to start transitioning to another option, now, not later.

Cycloptichorn

You need to think in more than one dimension. We don't drill for more oil at the expense of transitioning to other options. This is always the false argument used by Democrats, and it is totally false. We drill for oil, we build nuclear, we mine coal, we produce natural gas, we build wind turbines, develop solar, we build hybrid cars, fully electric cars, and we continue to research all the other ideas and technologies under development, but we don't scrap the primary and most efficient energy source intentionally now, which is oil. Basically, we allow the market to determine the most economical and efficient energy mix. Anytime you short circuit yourself in this regard, you are shooting yourself in the foot, and that is what we are doing now.