0
   

Gas Prices, Cleaner Fuels and the Consumer

 
 
RexRed
 
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 12:50 pm
I think the US government should not let domestic gas/oil go below three dollars a gallon.

Any extra money that is between the actual price of gas and three dollars should go to developing hydrogen technologies.

Why shouldn't the people who actually are pumping the gas into their cars be the ones who are researching cleaner fuels?

The price should never be allowed to go down below a certain amount. The profits should go to research, development and implementation of cleaner fuels and also creating earth friendly environmental and biological "sinks" to absorb CO2...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 665 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:01 pm
because the money would never get used for that. It would be redirected to some pork project for some corrupt congressperson.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:04 pm
McGentrix wrote:
because the money would never get used for that. It would be redirected to some pork project for some corrupt congressperson.


So we should not even try?
Hydrogen fuel is not what I would consider a pork project.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_2002_Dec/ai_95319870
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:07 pm
There are alternatives to gasoline in the here-and-now that are far more viable than Bush's hydrogen bait-and-switch scheme. One is electricity.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:08 pm
not saying we shouldn't try, but look what happened to the social security money. Congress can't be trusted with money, they have proven that for the last 200 years.

It would be best to have a private company research and get governmental grants.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:19 pm
Dartagnan wrote:
There are alternatives to gasoline in the here-and-now that are far more viable than Bush's hydrogen bait-and-switch scheme. One is electricity.


Electricity still has to be generated somehow...

Hydrogen replaces the environment with oxygen, electricity produces landfills full of batteries...

That is more a bait-and-switch to me.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:27 pm
If anything of the sort had a remote chance of happening it would have at least 30 years ago.

As long as crude is plentiful the 'necessity' of a wholesale auto energy source conversion is highly unlikely. It is a fantasy at this point.

Research is and always has been in progress for alternatives, we don't need to fix retail fuel prices to accomplish it. Dumb idea.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:33 pm
Yeah--crisis, what crisis?

But not to worry. If there is a good alternative out there, Toyota will market it to us...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:59 pm
Brand X wrote:
If anything of the sort had a remote chance of happening it would have at least 30 years ago.

As long as crude is plentiful the 'necessity' of a wholesale auto energy source conversion is highly unlikely. It is a fantasy at this point.

Research is and always has been in progress for alternatives, we don't need to fix retail fuel prices to accomplish it. Dumb idea.


We have no idea how long the oil supplies will be needed to sustain the future of the human race.

To use the oil up with no regard, when cleaner alternative renewable sources exist is tantamount to the murder and rape of earth.

No one but the earth owns the rights to the oil. No government, no world body should be allowed steal the earth's own bounty so careless and thoughtlessly.

Isaac Asimov said something to the effect that, oil should be the match that lights the lamp and not the substance within the lamp.

Just because it is there in the ground does not mean we have to just use it all up... bad logic... That logic could spell our doom.

For we may need a certain amount of actual oil to propel us on our journey to other hospitable places in the universe.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 01:59 pm
A minimum price does sound attractive. McGentrix is probably right about trusting congress with money, though. The excess would probably go to subsidize ethanol production, which I believe receives tax subsidies already. At any rate, some level of fuel price does seem to limit the popularity of low mpg vehicles.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Oct, 2006 02:10 pm
I'm not certain I would use this approach.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Oct, 2006 01:20 pm
plainoldme wrote:
I'm not certain I would use this approach.


Why shouldn't the largest oil consumers pay for the conversion to hydrogen?

They are the culprits messing up the environment with their hydrocarbons?

There are already government regulated taxes taken out of the sale of petroleum but, are these taxes earmarked for the immediate conversion to hydrogen based technologies?

Are these taxes enough?

I say definitely not!

If gas had been at three dollars a gallon for even a few years before the price hike that excess capital would have bought a hydrogen filling station in your own town and US independence from fossil fuels. What the heck do we have law makers for if they don't make the right choices for the US? The will of the people is different than our crooked policy makers.

Had we gone the path of energy autonomy, countries like Iran would have no markets whatsoever for their oil because we could produce enough domestically for several hundred years to fulfill our modest needs. Oil would nearly become obsolete... left in the ground to help protect the earth from the sun as a quick supply of CO2 if the human race ever needed it. We have our government making mammoth projects like creating NASA and sending man to the moon but where are they when we need to really do something NECESSARY...

Iran and Venezuela are counting on their oil revenues from the US, China, India etc. to propel them into world domination. Venezuela's Chavez just bought several BILLION dollars worth of military weapons from "mother" Russia. ALL THROUGH OIL REVENUE! But Chavez says he loves Americans but hates our president???? Why does he need all of those weapons for then, to fight one man?

AMERICA IS AT WAR WITH OIL!

The US/UN should restructure Opec and ONLY!!!!! buy oil from countries that are part of the coalition of the willing. The will of the US people should be fulfilled by our policy makers.

Not ONE red cent should go to Iran or Venezuela for oil.

We are empowering evil enemies with wealth, nothing could be no more insane!

It is time to take the earth's energy crisis SERIOUS before growing threats become impending threats...

It is interesting to note that every motor vehicle in the US would RIGHT NOW be hydrogen based if we had only taxed the oil consumers in this country more. Just as big business pays the taxes in this country they should also pay for the energy solutions (along with the consumers).

Kyoto should be revisited NOW. Energy autonomy should be a bigger priority than the war on terror. We are killing people because we have given them a gun that we paid for. How stupid!

America SHOULD have nearly no need for any foreign oil resources at all at this point...

MOST of the money that is has accumulated in the middle east over oil has been sacrificed for our energy autonomy.

I think instead of tactics on war we need tactics on oil and hydrogen. We are at war with an ideology of oil. We are fighting the idea that hydrogen is not feasible... Like going to the moon... It is, we've just got to go for it and begin our journey toward energy autonomy NOW... We will learn along the way but we must move MUCH FASTER than we have. This is the ideology that we must change in order to win the war against terror. America's wealth should be spent on our energy autonomy not our enemy. This autonomy will ensure the future of our country not bombs and wars.

Instead of money to make the war on terror bigger instead of trying to consume more oil revenues stop feeding the oil revenues. Consume less oil.

ONE less gallon of oil imported by the US is one less person killed in jihad, by communism or environmental catastrophes caused by global warming.

Crude oil should become outlawed or protected from use by 2010.

FREEDOM begins with oil autonomy...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gas Prices, Cleaner Fuels and the Consumer
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 05:32:03