U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2010, 01:44 PM
 
62,458 posts, read 27,779,745 times
Reputation: 7879

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Electricity isn't unreliable. I can count the number of power outages I've had over the last 5 years on one hand that lasted longer than a few minutes.
Consider yourself lucky. We have multiple-day (3-5 days) outages here every time there's a strong storm (several times a year), right here in the Chicago metro area. Electricity is unreliable here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2010, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,310 posts, read 18,887,954 times
Reputation: 6517
Its a subsidy that costs way to much and we get very little in return.
As some have said. Drilling for more is not the answer. I compare our fuel usage to our fed. Raising taxes isn't the answer if they refuse to cut spending and waste to match it. Increased tax revenues just means more money to spend.
Increased fuel availability just means its ok to continue to burn it. We need to invest in honest genuine research not the smoke and mirrors of ethanol. Bio diesels are viable, and the technology isn't too expensive.
Hydrogen would be the holy grail.
Another issue is the multitude of fuel mixes. I can understand the needs of the south versus those of the north. But every state seems to have their own mix that they demand. This is not only burdensome but a waste of effort.
Fuels we use in our automobiles. Go to a small country and learn a thing or two. Thailand for example. All taxi's burn propane, small trucks burn Deisel like the big trucks. Private vehicles will burn propane or gas. Why this makes sense? Because we produce a lot of natural gas. More than what we use.
Deisel is more efficient than gas so instead of averaging 16 mpg we can expect something more like 19 or 20. ( In small trucks) 2 wd even more.
Invest in infrastructure. Pay now or pay later. later always costs more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 05:35 PM
 
30,900 posts, read 24,229,648 times
Reputation: 17790
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
I disagree. Larger equipment require significant horsepower in the field will not run on electricity. Personal vehicles that do not haul heavy loads, maybe, when long distance is not a requirement. Oil will not disappear for more than 30 years.
actually electric motors can be made, and have been made, to haul heavy loads, think diesel-electric trains, electric street cars, electric subway trains, in fact the japanese and french bullet trains are electric powered. it really wouldnt take much to make ling haul trucks run on electricity.

Quote:
Electricity is unreliable at best for transportation as it limits range. Sunspots/flares, EMP's, grid failures, etc... . make it a less than optimal large scale alternative for total dependency. The damage of electricity and microwaves in our atmosphere are believed to be contributing to significant health problems (heart, brain function, and the development of some cancers) specifically.

Variety is best.
i agree that variety is best, but electric powered vehicles dont have to be range limited. look at the new york subway system, or the french and japanese bullet trains. these are not range limited and are fully powered by electricity and NO on board generator. there are even trains in the northeast corridor in this country that are electric only trains, and many street cars are powered by electricity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Obviously you haven't been reading my posts about large transportation and equipment nor of production and refining here. You also totally ignored hydrogen fuel cells, propane and other alternatives as well as the leaching of the soil by the growing of biofuels.
you do know that propane is a by product of oil refining dont you? as for fuel cells, they are still in their infancy, as is large scale hydrogen production.

in the end i agree that we need many different sources of energy, the more the merrier. however we cannot continue to subsidize an unsustainable form of energy just because archer-daniels midland or monsanto wants us to. if we are going to subsidize ethanol, we cannot limit it to corn only, otherwise it is an inefficient use of tax payer money. personally i would like to see the subsidies end completely, and let the free market work like it should.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 05:43 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
4,883 posts, read 7,120,340 times
Reputation: 1902
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Newsmax is reporting that conservative and liberal groups have hooked up to oppose ethanol subsidy.
That's very good news if true, sorry but Newsmax doesn't inspire faith, that said ethanol subsidies are just an attempt by politicians to pay off large agro corporations and doesn't do even a tiny bit to increase America's energy security. It takes more petroleum equivalents to make that ethanol then the amount of petroleum equivalents created by making ethanol. That is the process consumes more oil then is off set by ethanol use. It's an economic net negative but because it pays off a politically connected group (farm states and large agro-corporations) it gets the green light despite the fact that tax payers lose money on every drop and it makes America less energy secure. I hope they completely defund it.

That said the Senate vastly over represents farm states so I expect, in the end, this lunacy will continue and the tax payers will keep getting bleed dry so a half dozen companies can report increased profits even as the country as a whole loses money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 06:52 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,293,898 times
Reputation: 6451
Think it might be the Christmas Spirit, spreading Cheers, and making people Agree. This is good news, but will believe it when i see it happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 07:55 PM
 
29,988 posts, read 35,862,752 times
Reputation: 12719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
That's very good news if true, sorry but Newsmax doesn't inspire faith, that said ethanol subsidies are just an attempt by politicians to pay off large agro corporations and doesn't do even a tiny bit to increase America's energy security. It takes more petroleum equivalents to make that ethanol then the amount of petroleum equivalents created by making ethanol. That is the process consumes more oil then is off set by ethanol use. It's an economic net negative but because it pays off a politically connected group (farm states and large agro-corporations) it gets the green light despite the fact that tax payers lose money on every drop and it makes America less energy secure. I hope they completely defund it.

That said the Senate vastly over represents farm states so I expect, in the end, this lunacy will continue and the tax payers will keep getting bleed dry so a half dozen companies can report increased profits even as the country as a whole loses money.
How do you figure that the Senate vastly over represents the farm states? There are exactly two Senators for every state. Could it just be that every one of this nation's states have agriculture production to some degree? So, how is that overrepresentation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 07:58 PM
 
1,891 posts, read 2,179,786 times
Reputation: 909
I don't give a hoot either way; I want ethanol to be removed from our gasoline, like lead.

Ethanol is sugar to our engines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 08:02 PM
 
11,961 posts, read 12,435,936 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Excellent! See, we can work together to fight an all around BAD idea.

In the words of Obama... YES WE CAN. Hopefully biomass will find a way to pay for itself. I really like farmers taking stock of marketing energy potential. They're resourceful by nature. I've got a feeling they'll find a way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2010, 08:08 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,467,947 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
hemp.
Especially if we can grow more than other nations.

Hemp is as American as . . . well, America!

Other countries can't grow hemp, because they're socialist, but they could buy our products.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top