Where is the US economy headed?

realjohnboy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You do realize that the current gas problems do not reflect a shortage of oil, but a shortage of refineries - which the oil companies refuse to build more of?

Cycloptichorn

Refuse to build or can't get permits to build? NIMBY in action?

BTW. the new head of my little burg's bus system sent up a couple of trial balloons during the past month. UVA students and staff can ride public transport for "free." UVA will kick in money to the city to compensate.
And then this week, he proposed making the system free for everyone. There would be an increased rate at the municipal parking garages for those who choose to drive.

They CAN get permits to build them anywhere. Just not to build them to release tons of pollution into the ecosystem. This costs more, and the oil companies say it's just not profitable. That's bullsh*t, though.

We have had the same bus system at the University of Texas in Austin for quite some time; university staff and students and profs can ride for free. It turned out to be a lot cheaper for the University, then building all those parking garages...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't think I agree with you about the reasons for the refiners' lack of capacity, but I realize that you, Cyclop, and others seem to know more about the oil industry than I do. Accordingly, I step back from that.

But I do know something about glass and light bulbs. I own 1108 West Main St. A 3 story building put up in 1947. Retail and offices. 30,000 sq ft.

A few years ago, I decided to replace the windows. I interviewed 3 companies, one of which had a sales rep who taught me all about glass. There have been amazing advances in glass technology.
I moved on to light. The flourescent lights. There have been and continue to be many new technological advances there. The upfront cost was a lot but the payback came quickly. We cut our electricity bill in half.

Everyone, well many folks, are looking for a silver bullet that will reduce the cost of energy and the consequences of using too much of it. There is no silver bullet. It is going to take many, many small steps.

johnboy

0 Replies

rjb, That's what we've done with most of our light bulbs, changed them to low energy bulbs, except the one in my computer room. One of these days...

0 Replies

Did yall know that in a flourescent light fixture there is a thingee called a ballast? It allows the light to turn on as soon as the switch is thrown. It uses 8 watts of electricity. The new generation of ballasts use something like 4 watts. That is now required in new or replacement jobs. How many flourescent fixtures are in the US? Millions upon millions.
I think that is cool.

0 Replies

I replaced the ballast in our kitchen flourecent lighting fixture a few months ago.

0 Replies

Interesting how Okie hasn't returned since being pounded into the dirt.

Republicans always 'cut and run' when faced with opposition to their delusional and false opinions.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Republicans always 'cut and run' when faced with opposition of delusional and false opinions.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Republicans always 'cut and run' when faced with opposition to their delusional and false opinions.

On the other hand, A2K posters -- Republican, Democrat, or Independent -- have real lives and sometimes can't get back to a thread. I myself have left a thread or two since coming here, and I'm sure that sometimes I was losing an argument when I did. I wouldn't have appreciated a nasty remark if one of my correspondents had made one to me because of this. Consequently, I don't appreciate your nasty remark now.

0 Replies

Thanks, Thomas. I do have other things to do, and sometimes when I check back into a thread, there are several pages to read. I am unaware of losing any argument. If its ANWR, I have no worries there, and if it is the poverty figures, I scored some points there.

I haven't commented on the oil refining. I think it is both refining and supply problems that are causing the crunch, obviously. If there was more supply, then there would have been more efforts to build additional refining capacity. And the tree huggers have opposed new refineries, just as they do virtually any industrial construction.

Majority opinion on this forum has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thanks, Thomas. I do have other things to do, and sometimes when I check back into a thread, there are several pages to read. I am unaware of losing any argument. If its ANWR, I have no worries there, and if it is the poverty figures, I scored some points there.

I think you ought to be worried about ANWR a little more, as you haven't shown how it is really all that important to drill there at all.

Quote:

I haven't commented on the oil refining. I think it is both refining and supply problems that are causing the crunch, obviously. If there was more supply, then there would have been more efforts to build additional refining capacity. And the tree huggers have opposed new refineries, just as they do virtually any industrial construction.

We only oppose those factories which pump tons of pollutants into the environment. Let me ask you, do you think it is wrong to ask producers to deal with the waste products of their production process? To ask them to pay for the damage they cause?

Quote:

Majority opinion on this forum has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong.

Sure it does. We're right, and you are wrong Smile

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Republicans always 'cut and run' when faced with opposition to their delusional and false opinions.

On the other hand, A2K posters -- Republican, Democrat, or Independent -- have real lives and sometimes can't get back to a thread. I myself have left a thread or two since coming here, and I'm sure that sometimes I was losing an argument when I did. I wouldn't have appreciated a nasty remark if one of my correspondents had made one to me because of this. Consequently, I don't appreciate your nasty remark now.

However he did post on several other threads so it's not like he was avoiding the board, just this thread, and I was questioning his reasons for doing that.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thanks, Thomas. I do have other things to do, and sometimes when I check back into a thread, there are several pages to read. I am unaware of losing any argument. If its ANWR, I have no worries there, and if it is the poverty figures, I scored some points there.

Yeah, it is ANWR you've lost.

At current prices we'd save $4 per barrel of oil OR 41 billion over a 30 year time frame. 0.19% of our trade deficit (which you said would have a huge impact, obviously you were wrong here too).

I fail to see the need or importance of drilling ANWR, yet you contend otherwise. I've provided ample evidence for my beliefs, and what you have provided has been refuted.

0 Replies

maporsche, I give up on arguing with people that have no common sense. I don't know your salary or pay, but would you like to give up about 15% of your pay? Or about 15% of the property you might own? Or 15% of the ownership of your car? After all, it doesn't matter, and is minor in the grand scheme of things. You could economize and make less money, use less property, etc.

Under your reasoning, let us shut down every oil well in Texas. After all, it is miniscule, and we can economize.

To be honest, I haven't looked at your numbers because it is nothing more than "figures don't lie, but liars will figure." Anytime you choose to ignore one of the potential elephant sized oil reserve areas on your own soil, then complain about how much we import, price or supply, you have lost your marbles.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

maporsche, I give up on arguing with people that have no common sense. I don't know your salary or pay, but would you like to give up about 15% of your pay? Or about 15% of the property you might own? Or 15% of the ownership of your car? After all, it doesn't matter, and is minor in the grand scheme of things. You could economize and make less money, use less property, etc.

Under your reasoning, let us shut down every oil well in Texas. After all, it is miniscule, and we can economize.

To be honest, I haven't looked at your numbers because it is nothing more than "figures don't lie, but liars will figure." Anytime you choose to ignore one of the potential elephant sized oil reserve areas on your own soil, then complain about how much we import, price or supply, you have lost your marbles.

First, it was 10% before, now it's 15%? Guess that's the 'liars figuring,' as the numbers seem to be changing.

But, even more, what's the cost of me getting a 15% raise? If it means it will screw up the environment or my life, then the answer is no.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thats the point. It will not screw up the environment. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule, a term you guys like to use, but in this case is actually applicable. I would need to look up the percentage, but it is only a very small fraction of the 10 or 15%, more like less than 1%.

Besides, if you wish to talk about impacts on the environment, it isn't oil wells that are a problem, it is the numbers of people. Big cities are some of the worst places, environmentally, than anywhere else, yet that is where the liberals hang out.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Thats the point. It will not screw up the environment. The footprint of wells in ANWR is miniscule, a term you guys like to use, but in this case is actually applicable. I would need to look up the percentage, but it is only a very small fraction of the 10 or 15%, more like less than 1%.

Bull sh*t. That's what the oil companies have always said, but the truth always turns out to be different. Just look at BP - massive problems in the same area.

The oil companies have made enough mistakes environmentally that they don't get the benefit of the doubt any more.

Quote:

Besides, if you wish to talk about impacts on the environment, it isn't oil wells that are a problem, it is the numbers of people. Big cities are some of the worst places, environmentally, than anywhere else, yet that is where the liberals hang out.

The concentration of people into areas where they can use mass transportation is immensely efficient compared to the distances traveled by the country-living folk. I think you are pretty much 100% incorrect here.

I ask you again: do you think it is wrong to ask producers to deal with the waste products of their production process? To ask them to pay for the damage they cause?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Mass transit is not that efficient. Slightly so, probably for buses, and moreso for trains. But I had a debate with Parados a long time ago, wherein I proved with data that the Denver area bus system is no more efficient than if every single passenger drove alone in a car that got around 30 to 35 mpg in the same route that they rode the bus. Granted, most cars do not average that, but more and more can. Add to this scenario the fact that many or even most passengers have to ride the bus further to get where they need to go than they would if they could drive directly, so does the equivalent average drop to 25 mpg, or even less? Add to this the smelly diesel, creating a brown cloud. You can argue that some people need the bus, but then the argument is one of convenience, not efficiency.

As far as disposing of waste products, I thought that is what the beloved EPA looks out after. Look, if you wish to roll back all the industry, to each his own. I do not. There are some things that we have to put up with, but bottom line, we still are living longer than the cavemen did.

I still say the big cities are like big festering sores on the environment.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Mass transit is not that efficient. Slightly so, probably for buses, and moreso for trains. But I had a debate with Parados a long time ago, wherein I proved with data that the Denver area bus system is no more efficient than if every single passenger drove alone in a car that got around 30 to 35 mpg in the same route that they rode the bus. Granted, most cars do not average that, but more and more can. Add to this scenario the fact that many or even most passengers have to ride the bus further to get where they need to go than they would if they could drive directly, so does the equivalent average drop to 25 mpg, or even less? Add to this the smelly diesel, creating a brown cloud. You can argue that some people need the bus, but then the argument is one of convenience, not efficiency.

This is just BS, because it doesn't count those who live in cities who walk to work, take the electric rail to work, or ride a bike like I do. For every person you take off of the road, you save that much more energy and pollution.

Also, many buses are powered by natural gas now and pump out practically zero emissions.

Even more so, the average MPG for cars on the road isn't anywhere close to 30 miles a gallon. Try 15 or 18. This really sinks your numbers.

Providing services such as water and electricity and natural gas are far more efficient in a densely populated area then in the country.

Will you please address my question: is it fair to ask producers to be responsible for the pollution they produce?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

To your question, yes, to a point. I think sometimes it is taken to the extreme. We are not arguing about doing something or nothing, but just how much and how, and in what way.

Not BS about the buses. The statistics are available if you wish to run the numbers.

0 Replies

It's obvious okie hasn't tried to ride on the Underground in London, the trains in Tokyo, or the Metro in DC during commute hours. Yeah, mass transit is the pits, because they're just not efficient!

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know