Gas and Bush [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Secretariat

11-10-2007, 05:28 PM

... "And this is typical of an administration [Clinton administration] that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time ..."

- GW, June 2000

Average US regular price - Clinton admin:
4 Nov 1991 - $1.09
8 Nov 1993 - $1.07
6 Nov 1995 - $1.06
3 Nov 1997 - $1.06
8 Nov 1999 - $1.23

Average US regular price - Bush admin:
5 Nov 2001 - $1.21
3 Nov 2003 - $1.53
7 Nov 2005 - $2.38
5 Nov 2007 - $3.01

Retail price of California gasoline since 2001:
5 Nov 2001 - $1.42
4 Nov 2002 - $1.56
3 Nov 2003 - $1.71
8 Nov 2004 - $2.34
7 Nov 2005 - $2.66
6 Nov 2006 - $2.40
5 Nov 2007 - $3.23

......

btw..how has Exxon done during this period? fill 'er up! as we face the wrost weekly point loss since 911 this past week, and the contuned devaluation of the dollar to the Euro. As I said, GW was and remains a disaster.

Snag

11-10-2007, 06:16 PM

Sec, what policy of the Bush Administration do you think "allowed" this to happen?

JustRalph

11-10-2007, 06:45 PM

yep, I am sure the president has control of gas prices.

If that is the case.......why didn't clinton knock it down to 40 cents a gallon when he was prez?

Tom

11-10-2007, 07:47 PM

Letg's see, which party keeps stopping home grown drilling and new refineries?
Hmmmm, could it be....the Wigs?

Naw, not the wigs,
Ummmmmm, the Communists?

Naw, not the commies.

Who could it be?
Who...could.....it......be???????

Secretariat

11-11-2007, 12:51 AM

yep, I am sure the president has control of gas prices.

If that is the case.......why didn't clinton knock it down to 40 cents a gallon when he was prez?

Well, apparenlty GW seemed to think the president has control of gas prices when he criticized Clinton for not keeping prices down in 2000 (read the quote in beginning of thread).

Prices rose a fraction over Clinton compared to the obscene rise during Bush (look at the figures in the beginning of the thread).

How can a Prez affect oil prices? Well:

1. Start a war in iraq and disrupt oil supplies dramatically.

2. Hold secret energy meetings with big oil, and not release information pertaining to those meetings. Huge windfalls (not for the taxpayer), but for big oil. Checked Exxon lately.

3. Talk about invading iran and place the Navy off their cost.

4. Implement trade polcies that help other nations compete wih us for MidEast oil.

These are a couple of ways in which a Prez can affect the price of oil.

btw..the price of a "barrel" of oil has skyrocketed. This is unrefined oil, pre- refinery Tom. Wake up and smell the greed.

Gibbon

11-11-2007, 02:22 AM

Start a war in Iraq and disrupt oil supplies dramatically... Lies, lies and more lies. As of Fridays close on the mercantile exchange, our globe consumes 86 million barrels of oil each and everyday. The Bush doctrine has ensured free flow, and safe delivery systems. Worldwide oil flows have steadily increased as demand for such an important commodity has grown throughout Bush's administration. China and India have as much need for petroleum as we do. Thanks to an ever expanding economic base, Bush has done this one thing right.

All major and most minor commodities are denominated in US currency. A large part of the price of petroleum is influenced by a weakening of our greenback.

Sec, you should direct your rage against Al Gore. He stifled development in advances of nuclear energy as currently used by France, Japan, and Russia. Thereby directly contributing to global warming.

But that was Gore's plan all along. Cause the condition, produce a propaganda documentary and share a noble prize in some obscure field along with a couple hundred others. :jump:

_________________________________
Formula for success: Rise early, work hard, strike oil. ~ Jean Paul Getty

jillybeans

11-11-2007, 02:34 AM

Gibbons...whose birthday do you celebrate on april 20th of each year? What a sad person you are.

Gibbon

11-11-2007, 02:54 AM

Two great Americans:
Colin Powell and Don Mattingly.

If you're referring to the other guy - you are seriously retarded.

Robert Goren

11-11-2007, 03:43 AM

It happened on Bush's watch, so he gets the blame. You better believe if prices had fallen, he would have taken the credit. So it is with all politicians. That said I don't think he has done enough to slow demand.

dav4463

11-11-2007, 06:44 AM

I thought when democrats got control they were going to stop these high gas prices. Well, they got in, but haven't done anything....as expected. So as usual, blame everything on Bush.

Tom

11-11-2007, 08:07 AM

Gibbon, good point about Gore and his mindless actions. HE is more responsible for oil proces than Bush. The man is a danger and needs to be put away in a locked box.:kiss:

Marshall Bennett

11-11-2007, 11:02 AM

jognlope

11-11-2007, 11:14 AM

Gibbon, not sure what you mean by "cause the condition," and this is a little out of field, but I was not seeing things and National Geographic did not hire Uri Geller to show me a thin beyond normal polar bear trying to catch seal and falling into the water because the ice couldn't hold him anymore. And yes I care about the polar bear's life more than any a lot of people, spending their children's college funds on SUVs and hording, hording, hording. The reason I care about the polar bear is that it lives by the rules, does not hord beyond necessary, is a beautiful animal and like all anmals, doesn't go outside the rules of survival unless forced to for survival.

Secretariat

11-11-2007, 11:21 AM

Marshall and Gibbons,

We’ve already seen gas jump .83 cents a gallon from last year, and the last I heard France, Russia, and Japan are paying the same basic price per barrel of oil from the mideast despite nuclear energy.

You’re both missing the basis of this thread. So here it is again.

GW’s own quote on the Clinton administration:

... "And this is typical of an administration [Clinton administration] that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time ..."

- GW, June 2000

So now you’re doing exactly what GW stated in 2000, refusing to accept reponsibility on this admisntration's track record. Which is unbelelivable since gas went up about $0.14 cents a gallon over Clinton’s term while in GW’s term it has gone up $2.80 cents a gallon.

So perhaps we can apply GW’s own words to his own adminstration:

... "And this is typical of an administration [GW administration] that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time ..."

- Secretariat, Nov. 2007 :bang:

Steve 'StatMan'

11-11-2007, 12:31 PM

So what you're really saying, whether you admit it or not, is that eveyone is pretty much a hypocrite when mixing gas prices and politics, including GW and yourself.

Tom

11-11-2007, 12:41 PM

Sec, what quotes can you find from 9 years ago to post a negative Bush net-byte?

I thought you were gung ho to save the planet from global warming?
Is it not a good thing to have high process stop gas/oil usage?

Gibbon

11-11-2007, 02:04 PM

not sure what you mean by "cause the condition," and this is a little out of field....... Sarcasm, naturally. However my premise is correct. It has been 30 years since the last energy crises and Dem's has suffocated alternative energy research. All except boutique energy such as solar and wind. {Although both parties are guilty.} We still don't have a sensible energy policy to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. We have the technical means but not the WILL to do so. This is despite the fact we have sold third generation (pollution free) nuclear designs to our allies.

We’ve already seen gas jump .83 cents a gallon from last year, and the last I heard France, Russia, and Japan are paying the same basic price per barrel of oil from the mideast despite nuclear energy. Big Red, This can be a little confusing. The aforementioned countries pay high state {read federal} taxes to fund overall govt. expenditures. Russia is an exporter of petroleum and many other natural resources. France and Japan primary source of electricity is from clean nuclear power. Because of this alternative source of energy, their total GDP dependency on oil is less than 5%. Petroleum places such minuscule stress on France and Japan's overall economies that doubling the price from current levels is insignificant.

Contrast Americas' total GDP dependency on oil at nearly 20%. Pain baby!!! At the very least, Dems have the power to open Anwr (http://www.anwr.org/features/forbes.htm).

________________________________
Go Big Blue

Gibbon

11-11-2007, 02:21 PM

Almost forget....

Those of you who practice Al Gore's new religion;
This volcano (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indonesian-volcano-blasts-back-to-life/20071109094609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001) spews more greenhouses gases in one day then all of humanity in 2years. Must be Bush setting it off.

Krakatau, one of dozens of volcanoes in the sprawling Indonesian archipelago, last erupted in 1988, but its eruptions have never approached the ferocity of its parent.

Steve 'StatMan'

11-11-2007, 04:00 PM

Almost forget....

Those of you who practice Al Gore's new religion;
This volcano (http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indonesian-volcano-blasts-back-to-life/20071109094609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001) spews more greenhouses gases in one day then all of humanity in 2years. Must be Bush setting it off.

Who's going to pay to plant 10 million trees to cover the Gore-style Carbon Offset for this? (and then, where would they plant them all?!)

Guess the 'Volcano God' didn't sign the Kyoto(whatever) Greenhouse Gas Treaty either.

Secretariat

11-11-2007, 06:22 PM

So what you're really saying, whether you admit it or not, is that eveyone is pretty much a hypocrite when mixing gas prices and politics, including GW and yourself.

No, what I'm saying is GW criticized the Clinton adminstration for the inability to keep gas prices down during his adminstration. (I think GW's quote speaks for itself - see first post in thread).

Now if one accepts GW's assertion that there is responsiblity on the part of the Executive to control gas prices then he has vastly failed according to his own quote.

Frankly, I think the President can only minimally control normal fluctuations of gas, but he can follow policies that escalate the price dramatically as he has exemplified.

Here's a few -

1. The Iraqi Blunder
2. The failure to set mpg standards for conservation of fuels.
3. The secret energy meetings in which conservation groups were excluded.
4. The trade policies that have made countries like China and India become serious energy competitors with us.

It's no surprise that in a recent Gallup Poll GW has surpassed Nixon as beign recongnized as the worst President of all time.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Topping_Nixon_Bush_disapproval_drops_to_1107.html

"Topping Nixon, Bush disapproval soars to highest level ever recorded in Gallup poll
RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday November 7, 2007

For the first time, George W. Bush has surpassed Richard M. Nixon in unpopularity in the Gallup Poll, receiving the highest "strongly disapprove" rating for a president in Gallup's history."

Tom

11-11-2007, 06:33 PM

Bush's approval rating is as irelevant as the dem congress. It means nothing., He is not running.

The current congress's AR is a joke, though. It underscores the 100% failure the dems have been. An undergraduate coop group could have outperformed the defeatocrats.

ceejay

11-11-2007, 06:38 PM

Remember the part of of the bill of rights that Americans have the right to cheap gasoline and energy in general. It's in the second amendment along with the right to arm bears. ;) ;)

Don't forget the weak dollar as a cause of prices which makes oil, priced in US$, a lot cheaper in EUROs keeping demand high in Europe.

$100 here we come! :cool: GW may be the only oilman to lose money in the Permian basin but I think even he could make money now!

Snag

11-11-2007, 06:53 PM

Frankly, I think the President can only minimally control normal fluctuations of gas, but he can follow policies that escalate the price dramatically as he has exemplified.

Here's a few -

1. The Iraqi Blunder
2. The failure to set mpg standards for conservation of fuels.
3. The secret energy meetings in which conservation groups were excluded.
4. The trade policies that have made countries like China and India become serious energy competitors with us.

Sec, you are kidding, right?
1. What ploicy of "The Iraqi Blunder" caused the escalated price?
2. The president doesn't set mpg standards.....doesn't Congress do that?
3. What part of "secret" meetings do you know about that the rest of us don't?
4. What trade policies have we made that made China and India become "serious energy competitors with us"?

You like to throw s... on the wall to see what sticks... please back it up with some facts.

Gibbon

11-11-2007, 07:15 PM

The secret energy meetings in which conservation groups were excluded. You mean radically fanatical left wing groups such as 'Sierra Club' or “Greenpeace.'
BTW: one of the original founders of Greenpeace now supports nuclear energy. Here (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuclear.html) and here (http://world-nuclear.blogspot.com/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-explains-nuclear.html)

The Iraqi Blunder Nothing whatsoever to do with current energy prices. Saddam's Iraq was a mere 2% of world oil markets. The need to build more crude oil refineries blocked by the Clinton mafia is a cause of current troubles. And the precipitous drop in the value of our currency.

The trade policies that have made countries like China and India become serious energy competitors with us. The worlds economy is growing. The worlds population is growing. Conservation is a good ideal but more humans on our planet have real needs.

Sec, when your hippie beatniks get together and bash all things Bush may I remind your the overwhelming majority of real historians call LBJ the worst Pres. we've ever had in office.

______________________
One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda. ~ Douglas MacArthur

Steve 'StatMan'

11-11-2007, 07:38 PM

Well, Sec, when are you going to travel to the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve where the Alaskans, the oil companies and many want to search for oil to cut our foreign demand, but you don't want it to be explored because it is a national preserve, and therefore you own it (do I need to find your past quote?).

You KNOW now why oil, baring anything dwarfing the Iraq invasion, will NEVER be priced at the Clinton era levels again. China and Russia have dramatically increased their demand for oil and are shelling out the money to drive the price up.

I don't need to read your links, right or wrong, to know why the price of oil is high now. I've never believed that a president alone controls the oil prices.

There were others, not you but your o/t brethern, who were crying before the 2004 election the Bush was manipulating the gas prices before the election.

ceejay

11-11-2007, 08:03 PM

China and Russia have dramatically increased their demand for oil and are shelling out the money to drive the price up.

FWIW Russia is a hugh net exporter, #2 in fact. #4 consumer.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm

Steve 'StatMan'

11-11-2007, 10:47 PM

FWIW Russia is a hugh net exporter, #2 in fact. #4 consumer.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm

Thanks, I stand corrected. I am confused a bit with their dealing with Iran. Thought they were dealing with them on petroliem. Maybe it's nuclear. Maybe both. I know they're taking a more agressive public stand against the U.S. over various action options in the region regarding Iran and their nuclear intentions (whatever they actually are). I thought at least part ot that was to avoid disruption of Iran oil to Russia, not solely a good-hearted gesture to prevent human tragedies in that region.

Oh well. Carry on, Carry on.

ddog

11-11-2007, 11:42 PM

You mean radically fanatical left wing groups such as 'Sierra Club' or “Greenpeace.'
BTW: one of the original founders of Greenpeace now supports nuclear energy. Here (http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuclear.html) and here (http://world-nuclear.blogspot.com/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-explains-nuclear.html)

Nothing whatsoever to do with current energy prices. Saddam's Iraq was a mere 2% of world oil markets. The need to build more crude oil refineries blocked by the Clinton mafia is a cause of current troubles. And the precipitous drop in the value of our currency.

The worlds economy is growing. The worlds population is growing. Conservation is a good ideal but more humans on our planet have real needs.

Sec, when your hippie beatniks get together and bash all things Bush may I remind your the overwhelming majority of real historians call LBJ the worst Pres. we've ever had in office.
______________________
One cannot wage war under present conditions without the support of public opinion, which is tremendously molded by the press and other forms of propaganda. ~ Douglas MacArthur

Due to the continuing crisis there almost anyone would concede a 10-15 dollar hit to the per barrel price.
Iraq could certainly be pumping much more had things worked out better.
I assume your 2% was from the last couple of years or the emabrgo period.

A barrel saved is just as good to the US as a barrell consumed and probably cheaper even with tech costs added in and possibly would generate some increased job opps stateside.
Last I checked more refineries wouldn't do any good yet, we are pumping/shipping all that can be at the present time.

chickenhead

11-12-2007, 01:50 AM

ddog

11-12-2007, 01:57 AM

plug in hybrids and all electrics + nuclear = problem solved

everything else is ring around the rosy, you yank my crank I'll yank yours, waste of time discussion. Talking about Bush, Clinton, Putin, Brittney, Iraq, none of that matters. We have the solution. We need to Implement it. Period.

nukes- 15years out if possible politically?
hybrids = maybe 20-25 percent if pushed?
electric=only for your scooter.

Don't oversell the tech that can be brought to bear on this.
people have been doing that for 20 years or more.
also keeping up with growth - dominantly oil based in US for next 30 years at least.

chickenhead

11-12-2007, 02:08 AM

ddog

11-12-2007, 02:15 AM

You're right, what was I thinking. Let's just complain about shit. And wait.

Thank you for your contribution.

I give you a 20 year solution....you got something better?

Fk I thought solving the energy crisis in 20 years was pretty good. Especially since I required basically zero new technology, except a lithium ion that doesn't explode.

I am not saying wait, i wish we had started 20 years ago.
When was the last nuke built?
How much of current supply is nuke output?
what gives you hope that will change in less than 15 years?

I don't hink you realize the extent of the actual energy requirements of the country.
Hell 15 years ago windmills were going to do the trick and solar.
And those are what portion now?

Be carefull not to jerk your own chain.

chickenhead

11-12-2007, 02:22 AM

I am not saying wait, i wish we had started 20 years ago.
When was the last nuke built?
How much of current supply is nuke output?
what gives you hope that will change in less than 15 years?

I don't hink you realize the extent of the actual energy requirements of the country.
Hell 15 years ago windmills were going to do the trick and solar.
And those are what portion now?

Be carefull not to jerk your own chain.

Hmm...maybe we should support politicians who support nukes? And maybe speak out against those who oppose them?

I think ~25% of my mix is nuclear right now. (edit: verified@ 24%. Fossil Fuels: 44%) That is with no new reactors built in my lifetime. That could easily increase, if we put our minds to it. Nuclear has been and continues to be the best viable large scale electricity producing alternative.

Just to take my situation as an example, if we doubled our nuclear output, we'd cut our FF use in half. Do you really think it would be that difficult to double nuclear output, considering NO new reactors have been built in decades? It's technologically and financially VERY EASY to do.

Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings -- President John F Kennedy

ddog

11-12-2007, 02:48 AM

Hmm...maybe we should support politicians who support nukes? And maybe speak out against those who oppose them?

I think ~25% of my mix is nuclear right now. (edit: verified@ 24%. Fossil Fuels: 44%) That is with no new reactors built in my lifetime. That could easily increase, if we put our minds to it. Nuclear has been and continues to be the best viable large scale electricity producing alternative.

Just to take my situation as an example, if we doubled our nuclear output, we'd cut our FF use in half. Do you really think it would be that difficult to double nuclear output, considering NO new reactors have been built in decades? It's technologically and financially VERY EASY to do.

Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings -- President John F Kennedy

I show about 20 percent of electric is provided by nuke, that is not one to one to OIL.
Fossil fuel is a differnt matter as you are bringing in coal,etc. into the mix.
I would say you would have a better chance of coal plants than getting more nukes built.
It's not very easy to get done or it would have been done.
This is not a tech problem, that is true.
But it is a politcal problem and unless you can turn that and only pain and a crisis will normally turn that then I thinnk you are at least 30 years out.

It's not what could be done but what you can get done that counts.

You have not scratched at the GDP growth rate of say 3% a year and the unit per GDP on the energy side that will take as well as the replacement rate of current vehicle technology to shift off oil based needs.

It's late here and I could go on , maybe we can pick up later.
I don't disagree with much you are advocating , just the expectation of the timeline and amount of energy replacement you are really going to get.

Tom

11-12-2007, 07:34 AM

chickenhead

11-12-2007, 10:14 AM

What do you replace corn with as one of the top food sources in the world?

I like corn, to eat. If you're talking about biodiesel....if they can start making biodiesel from switch grass and whatever else they're working on, great. It won't be cheap tho. Mehtanol, Ehtanol, whatever else...it's basically buying votes at this point so far as I can tell.

No reason the ICE part of a hybrid can't be a small diesel engine running some form of biodeisel.

Tom

11-12-2007, 10:15 AM

I think the solution lies in running cars on filtered hops!

chickenhead

11-12-2007, 10:21 AM

It's not what could be done but what you can get done that counts.

I have no idea how hard it will be (to build nukes)...as there has really been no concerted effort whatsoever to do it.

As for oil replacement, I don't know why you think 20% is a natural ceiling for hybrids. It's a better technology. It can certainly much higher than 20%. If we wanted to nudge things, a tax on imported oil, raise the CAFE standards dramatically, and use the money from the tax to subsidize purchase of high MPG cars......you could blow that market up over night. Again, if we wanted to.

That is my point in all of this, its not a technology problem. It's not a financial problem. The only problem is we don't want to do it. So I hate listening to people complain about it.

Lefty

11-12-2007, 11:29 AM

Secretariat

11-12-2007, 06:46 PM

sec, the dems are the ones that have PREVENTED us drilling for oil on our own shores. Don't you find it ironic that your party prevents us from drilling in the Atlantic and now CHINA will be doing that very thing a scant 90 milers from Fla?

Lefty,

The Republicans have been in control of Congress and the Executive for the first six years fo GW's administration and now you're whining over the last year. GW coudl have issued an executive order to drill at ANWR if he thought it was a national security issue. He didn't. Why? Simple, it's political for him. When are you going to wake up?

look at my first post in this thread which is GW's quote (not mine) and his castigation of the Clinton adminstration and their failrue to hold gas prices within 0.22 cents over the Clinton adminstration while udner GW the cost has skyrocketed. The truth is in the numbers Lefty. It's not hard to simply use GW's own words agaisnt him since his record has been so abysmal.

Secretariat

11-12-2007, 06:48 PM

Bush's approval rating is as irelevant as the dem congress. It means nothing., He is not running.

No, he's only vetoing Chidren's Health care and perpetuating one of the greatest blunders in foreign policy ever committed, and taxing future generations to boot to pay for it.

Secretariat

11-12-2007, 06:59 PM

Sec, you are kidding, right?
1. What ploicy of "The Iraqi Blunder" caused the escalated price?
2. The president doesn't set mpg standards.....doesn't Congress do that?
3. What part of "secret" meetings do you know about that the rest of us don't?
4. What trade policies have we made that made China and India become "serious energy competitors with us"?

You like to throw s... on the wall to see what sticks... please back it up with some facts.

There is so much on this. Here's a start to begin your research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/business/worldbusiness/17oil.html

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701987_pf.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/news/international/china_trade/index.htm
(It began with Nixon but has become obscene under GW)

btw.. Gibbons should probably read these as well.

Snag

11-12-2007, 08:07 PM

1. The mideast tension you refered to is between Turkey and Iraq. Is that a result of the "Iraq Blunder" you blamed?

2. Your article states that Congress set the standards and minimum targets for CAFE not Presdient Bush. Care to show me otherwise?

3. VP Cheney's task force issued a 170 page report as a result of the meetings. What is it about the people that attended do you want to know about and why?

4. Nothing was said in your link about energy. It talked about how jobs and technology going to China. How does that make them compititors of our energy policy?

You continue to dodge and have not supported your original post or followup. Why?

Tom

11-12-2007, 10:47 PM

No, he's only vetoing Chidren's Health care and perpetuating one of the greatest blunders in foreign policy ever committed, and taxing future generations to boot to pay for it.

Perpetuating the lie still, Sec?
Children?

Is this another define "is"???

Oh, Iraq.....violence down 80% since the surge. AlQeda outsed from Baghdad. Saydr ready to commence talks with Petrayous.

Lefty

11-12-2007, 11:48 PM

No, he's only vetoing Chidren's Health care and perpetuating one of the greatest blunders in foreign policy ever committed, and taxing future generations to boot to pay for it.
I would hope that you know better. He's not vetoing children's healthcare. That prgm will receive millions of extra dollars, thanks to baseline budgeting. He's vetoing the concept of giving a prgm that's being misused in many states even more extra dollars than it's going to get. When will derms, in and out of power stop their frigging lying?

Gibbon

11-13-2007, 01:43 AM

Gibbons should probably read these as well. Sec, I read most all of your posted links. I’m always willing to challenge my strongly held convictions. “An unexamined life……..”

This is all a matter of perspective. If I might summarize your links – Cheney is a stooge for big oil. I say good! I understand the immense importance petroleum plays not only in our economy but the worlds growing economies. I want a hunter/killer within the current administration to ensure free flowing supply lines. It is in our best interest.

Americas' 300 million population is growing. Our economy will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Sec, we are in desperate need of more energy NOW. If it was up to me I’d leave Iraq, invade the real seat of Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia. And as a byproduct acquire cheap oil. Our planet would be much safer.

Give Hillary a chance and Iran will defiantly manufacture nukes. As of this post it is abundantly clear Madam Evita Peron displays complete ignorance of alternative energy sources. If just 25% of our energy needs came from Bio Fuels, corn, a commodity, would be as expansive as gasoline. If the same 25% drove electric cars, what would we do with highly environmentally toxic metals in car batteries?

_________________________
"America's number one energy crisis is Monday morning."

Lefty

11-13-2007, 01:48 AM

Gibbon, everything is mostly "kneejerk" with libs. They never think things through so far as to arrive at the "battery" question.

chickenhead

11-13-2007, 09:31 AM

Gibbon, everything is mostly "kneejerk" with libs. They never think things through so far as to arrive at the "battery" question.

And you have? Lithium Ion batteries are non-hazardous, and even so, the metals can be recovered. For Ni-Cads, there are recycling procedures to recover the cadmium. Recycling isn't all that widespread right now, usually only on recalled batteries...but there is no reason to assume expired car batteries from hybrids will end up in landfills (every reason to expect batteries from cars will end up in landfills much less than throwaway consumer product batteries). Most all of this will be handled by the dealerships. Having the battery packs recycled is not that big a hardship. It's not rocket science.

shanta

11-13-2007, 10:58 AM

Home heating oil this morning here in Westchester - $3.29 a gallon and it is not cold yet.

How long til the news reports old folks dying in their homes from freezing to death because they couldn't afford to heat their homes?

:( :(

delayjf

11-13-2007, 11:50 AM

I believe part of the problem with Ni-Cad and its enviromental impact is in the production.

GW coudl have issued an executive order to drill at ANWR if he thought it was a national security issue. He didn't. Why? Simple,
Holy cow, I could just hear the moans from liberal land had he done that.

Sec, with regards to "Bush and Gas", that's politics, to someone who doesn't know better they might believe it. Remember when the Democrats had the whole country believing Gingrich wanted to starve poor children to death, same tactic.

Lefty

11-13-2007, 11:59 AM

I believe part of the problem with Ni-Cad and its enviromental impact is in the production.

Holy cow, I could just hear the moans from liberal land had he done that.

Sec, with regards to "Bush and Gas", that's politics, to someone who doesn't know better they might believe it. Remember when the Democrats had the whole country believing Gingrich wanted to starve poor children to death, same tactic.
yeah, sec says simple. Uh,huh.

Lefty

11-13-2007, 12:02 PM

Chick, i'd say more than the libs. Every solution to the oil prob comes with its own set of consequences.

Gibbon

11-13-2007, 05:41 PM

And you have? Lithium Ion batteries are non-hazardous, and even so, the metals can be recovered. For Ni-Cads, there are recycling procedures to recover the cadmium.........It's not rocket science. No, it’s not rocket science. It is chemistry and metallurgy.

What do you propose? We should take our digital camera battery and swap it into our automobiles? Great! How does one do that?

At the very least Google electric car battery designs. Plenty of links to specification of modern car battery construction.

Debunking Auto Myths with Jay Leno
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4212797.html

Usually enjoy your posts but that uninformed post is beneath you.

_______________________
Marriage has no guarantees. If that's what you're looking for, go live with a car battery. ~ Erma Bombec

chickenhead

11-13-2007, 05:56 PM

not sure what you're referring too exactly, I think I'm reasonably well informed on battery technology. What was I wrong about?

chickenhead

11-13-2007, 06:08 PM

when it comes to recycling of batteries, don't confuse what is profitable with what is possible.

Lefty

11-13-2007, 06:13 PM

What is possible is never gonna happen in a meaningful way unless it's profitable.

chickenhead

11-13-2007, 06:28 PM

What is possible is never gonna happen in a meaningful way unless it's profitable.

A few things:

1)Bull market in metals: Looked at any prices of commodities? A lot of things that weren't profitable are now. Go look up the 3 yr chart of lead, for instance. LEAD! I wonder if the price of these batteries consituent components will continue to icnrease if they are used increasingly in autos? What do you think? They might just strain the market even more.

2)I think the scrap value on batteries (say Li-ion) is something like $100 a ton. That is what they are worth, from recovery point of view. So if you have them, they are already profitable, but the transport costs wipe you out. They are also legal to throw in a landfill. Guess what happens if it become illegal to throw them in a landfill? It is now cost effective to recycle them :jump:

3) Remember, our baseline of comparison is not nothing, it is oil. Whatever the costs of battery technology, the pollution, etc, remember to weigh it against oil, what that costs us, and what pollution that causes. You can't judge these things in a vacuum.

4) It's happening, already. All I'm saying, is we're going to add pluggable technology to hybrids, and begin to transition onto the electric grid for some of our auto-motivation needs. That's a good thing. And it's already happening. But if all we do is build more coal plants to source that electricity...well...then we haven't done much good at all.

Secretariat

11-13-2007, 06:41 PM

yeah, sec says simple. Uh,huh.

No Lefty, GW says simple. You need to go back and look at GW's quote in the first post in this thread speaking about the Clinton's admisntration inability to keep oil prices low. And yet, GW's own performance on the price of oil has been disastrous. The price of gas doesn't lie. Perhaps you're not driving anymore, and don't need to deal with heating oil.

delayjf

11-13-2007, 07:07 PM

And this is typical of an administration [Clinton administration] that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time ..."
In his defense, he was right wasn't he? Gas prices did rise and, in fact, he never said what it was that Clinton didn't take responsibility for, now did he? :D

ddog

11-13-2007, 10:08 PM

I have no idea how hard it will be (to build nukes)...as there has really been no concerted effort whatsoever to do it.

As for oil replacement, I don't know why you think 20% is a natural ceiling for hybrids. It's a better technology. It can certainly much higher than 20%. If we wanted to nudge things, a tax on imported oil, raise the CAFE standards dramatically, and use the money from the tax to subsidize purchase of high MPG cars......you could blow that market up over night. Again, if we wanted to.

That is my point in all of this, its not a technology problem. It's not a financial problem. The only problem is we don't want to do it. So I hate listening to people complain about it.

Chick

There have been efforts to get licensing/permits all that, they have just been shot down so badly that the industry can't move on them without somekind of congressional help, which given the politcs, i don't see coming.

I actually was in favor of this back when Carter was president.
People give him crap but he was way ahead on energy - despite the politcal flim-flam of the "malaise" tag and all that B.S.

As to the bio-fuel stuff, everything I have seen so far on that is so resource(read water) intensive (which will be hotter than oil in 10 years) that what you get out is not worth what you put in resource wise.

That's the problem with a lot of the solutions, once you get to units in per units out you are in a negative sum game.

That's also why it's foolish to get too wrapped up in the "vast" oil reserves that are trumpeted in the press from time to time.

Good ol USA has vast resources in the midwest and in old dead fields, but the problem is it takes more to get it out than it yeilds up in resources once you pull/float/pump it out.

Huge tax on oil would push US into recession i think , not that we are not heading there already I am afraid.

Cafe,higher mpg standards all that were proposed and blown away by lobbyists.

I agree , lot's of approaches could be tried, but I think the complainning is not party/person specific but more a feeling that nothing gets done really even if it's not the perfect path to take.

ddog

11-13-2007, 10:16 PM

A few things:

1)Bull market in metals: Looked at any prices of commodities? A lot of things that weren't profitable are now. Go look up the 3 yr chart of lead, for instance. LEAD! I wonder if the price of these batteries consituent components will continue to icnrease if they are used increasingly in autos? What do you think? They might just strain the market even more.

2)I think the scrap value on batteries (say Li-ion) is something like $100 a ton. That is what they are worth, from recovery point of view. So if you have them, they are already profitable, but the transport costs wipe you out. They are also legal to throw in a landfill. Guess what happens if it become illegal to throw them in a landfill? It is now cost effective to recycle them :jump:

3) Remember, our baseline of comparison is not nothing, it is oil. Whatever the costs of battery technology, the pollution, etc, remember to weigh it against oil, what that costs us, and what pollution that causes. You can't judge these things in a vacuum.

4) It's happening, already. All I'm saying, is we're going to add pluggable technology to hybrids, and begin to transition onto the electric grid for some of our auto-motivation needs. That's a good thing. And it's already happening. But if all we do is build more coal plants to source that electricity...well...then we haven't done much good at all.

I am not 100% sure , but I think a case can be made for the overall cost - longterm and some risk factored in(there just is) that coal would actually be a better near term solution than Nukes for the next 30-60 years to drive the grid.
Even though we got shot down in western KS a while back(not the last word I hope) on building a super coal fired plant here.
Nuke would have never even gotten as close as we did on the coal fired.
there is still some hope.
the only reason it didn't get done was the KS governor angling for points with Hillary in 08.

Gibbon

11-14-2007, 12:31 AM

Master Yoda,

At this stage of development, current top performance batteries in term of efficiency and power production are NiMH and Lithium Ion. Both are lead free and almost acid free. The future probably belongs to Vanadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery) battery designs currently in test phase at several leading Australian universities. NiCad contain large amounts of nickel for their size, a known toxin, cadmium is poison, NiCads are hard to recycle and slow charge time coupled with a tendency to become ‘lazy’ over time spell its doom.

To the best of my knowledge, current levels of technology allow NiMH and Lithium Ion powered vehicles to recharge approximately 200 times {warm weather climates} before the need to replace battery. Current recycling methods allow for 55/65 percent component reuse. What does this mean in practical terms? A small vehicle, lets say Honda Accord, lasting 150,000 miles or so, will require $30,000 {thirty thousand} in total battery maintenance.

If Vanadium fails to deliver promises then Hydrogen (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/bmw-h2r3.htm) powered engines and Fuel Cells hold the most interest. If we had a sensible energy policy, we would divert taxpayers resources {read corporate welfare for big oil} and continue to develop nuclear for our large cities and Fuel Cells for personal needs.

No matter who takes the WH in ’08 this will not happen. We are stuck with relatively cheap fossil fuels until another 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis) wake up call.

________________________
I have no doubt that we will be successful in harnessing the sun's energy... If sunbeams were weapons of war, we would have had solar energy centuries ago. ~ Sir George Porter

chickenhead

11-14-2007, 01:17 AM

Prius utilizes NiMH, they certainly don't eat 30K worth of batteries. The NiMH battery pack can do 180K miles. These aren't full discharges (by design)...so how many full discharges are possible is not really the question. They do many multiples of 200 partial discharges, which is what is required. Where I said NiCad earlier, I meant NiMH, that was sloppy.

I will read more on Vanadium.

I should be clear, I do not think all electric (with no onboard charging) is on the horizon to any large degree any time soon. Nor hydrogen.

Plug in hybrids are on the horizon, are here now. Even adding 5-10 miles worth of all electric capability to a hybrid has enormous impact on overall gasoline consumption due to our actual driving habits. It's a very easy efficiency increase (in an area where easy increases are very hard to come by), and should be taken for all it's worth.

JustRalph

11-14-2007, 06:00 AM

anybody thought about the fact that Americans don't want tiny little hybrid cars? Why do you think SUV's are still selling while gas is crossing 3 bucks a gallon?

chickenhead

11-14-2007, 09:45 AM

anybody thought about the fact that Americans don't want tiny little hybrid cars? Why do you think SUV's are still selling while gas is crossing 3 bucks a gallon?

hybrids don't need to be tiny, they are the size of all the best selling cars in the US. Americans need to decide: would I rather drive something with poor gas mileage, and contribute to us being both beholden to some very nasty foreign govts and contribute to a weaker economy...or would they rather drive something that gets better mileage, and tell the Saudis to go f themselves? And enjoy a stronger economy?

But you're right, the decision is ours to make. $3.50 regular here in CA right now.

lamboguy

11-14-2007, 10:23 AM

i don't know if bush is responsible for the price of oil or not, but i know the $ has come down from 125 to 75 while he has been president. not sure this is his fault or not.

when you decide to have wars and government programs you must either raise revenues or print paper. they have decided to print the paper. it only means that there is less respect for the promise of the paper, therefore increase in prices of all things that come from places outside the united states.

seems to me that the people with foreign currency are buying the things in the united states, real estate, stocks, bonds, and even horses.

now if they can hustle the foreigners into buying all these things and then screw them in the end and get away with it, it turns out to be a great plan!

chickenhead

11-14-2007, 10:27 AM

i was messing with the yen for awhile, done with that the other day at 110. This is where I should have been all along. yuan.

hcap

11-14-2007, 05:03 PM

This looks interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/12/scihydro112.xml

"Now scientists have developed a method that relies on bacteria in a specially designed reactor that can efficiently produce hydrogen fuel from any type of biodegradable organic matter, so that a glorified compost heap could protentially provide an abundant source of the clean-burning energy."

"Using acetic acid, a common waste product of industrial fermentation, the authors' reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. "This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process," says Prof Logan."

Also

http://seekingalpha.com/article/53429-is-akeena-the-next-solar-flare

"Analysts at UBS securities are predicting a quadrupling of polysilicon supply in the next two years as more factories come onstream to supply the voracious market demand for polysilicon wafers.

The single biggest cost to solar cell makers - and the single biggest detriment to solar adoption today - is the high price of raw polysilicon. It is 70% of a solar cell maker's cost structure. Even companies like Suntech (STP) - which have their entire 2007-08 inventory sold out - must go to the expensive spot market for 25-50% of their wafers. The cost of wafers is what has sunk the share prices of the smaller solar cell makers: China SunEnergy (CSUN), Canadian Solar (CSIQ), Solarfun (SOLF).

All that's about to change. UBS estimates the cost of raw silicon for wafers is going to fall 66% over the next 3 years, from $300/kg to $100/kg. Solar has overtaken the market share for raw silicon once held by the semiconductor industry (for decades). This acceleration in polysilicon supply will reduce the materials cost for solar cell makers to 25% from today's 70%. That cost savings ($) can go right to the bottom line: strengthening profit margins, reducing prices for consumers, and making solar adoption more widespread. Solar can be more affordable, more doable, and on a parity with oil in 5 years. Demand for this new energy today is unprecedented. Industry estimates are for 50% year over year growth; yet it is not even 1% of the world's energy source."

.................................................. ......................................

If we had a few hundred billion to set up a Manhattan or Apollo style project,
alternatives such as these could be successful.

ddog

11-14-2007, 11:49 PM

http://www.eprinc.org/publications.html

Back to the bio fuel thing.
This is a decent overview of the policy I think.

Especially the April 4th revision and make sure to get down to page 18 and down.

riskman

11-15-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sec
The Iraqi Blunder
GIBBON SAID:
Nothing whatsoever to do with current energy prices. Saddam's Iraq was a mere 2% of world oil markets. The need to build more crude oil refineries blocked by the Clinton mafia is a cause of current troubles. And the precipitous drop in the value of our currency.

Peter Siris aka "the guerrilla investor"
"A decade or so ago, we started to live beyond our means. We bought bigger houses, more cars and big-screen TVs. Our government cut taxes, so people could buy more. Other countries thrived by exporting to us. But with lower taxes, less savings and the cost of the war, we started to run out of money.

Not to worry. We borrowed from the people who were selling us goods. OPEC financed our deficit, because they needed to sell us oil. The Chinese financed our deficit, because they needed to keep exporting their goods. The Japanese financed our deficit, because they wanted to sell us Toyotas and Sonys.

When the Fed lowered interest rates to address the subprime crisis, many of these countries had had enough of buying our debt. As rates came down, they earned less interest financing our debt. They could take their money to places with higher rates, like Europe.

When they did, the dollar quickly dropped. The countries financing our debt lost tens of billions. Some, like those who produce oil, jacked up the prices of their products.
Now we're like someone living in a McMansion with an adjustable-rate mortgage and a home equity loan to buy two new SUVs. We are in big trouble if the bank or, in this case, other countries, call our loan.

As a nation, we cannot live beyond our means, pay for a war and cut taxes. Someone must make tough decisions to cut spending and get our budget under control. "

hcap

11-17-2007, 07:24 AM

Leave it to faux to show us the way. Fair and balanced up the kazoo.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_HuV_NHMdPd0/Rz53IvjCo0I/AAAAAAAAAdU/2zsvoS5l0JU/s400/fox+pelosi.jpg

ezrabrooks

11-17-2007, 07:28 AM

Leave it to faux to show us the way. Fair and balanced up the kazoo.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_HuV_NHMdPd0/Rz53IvjCo0I/AAAAAAAAAdU/2zsvoS5l0JU/s400/fox+pelosi.jpg

Thanks for the info...I hadn't realized that (gas prices being up)...

Ez

PaceAdvantage

11-17-2007, 10:45 AM

Leave it to faux to show us the way. Fair and balanced up the kazoo.Huh? These "tactics" are exactly the type of distortions you guys use against Bush and the Republicans. Turn about is fair play, don't you think?

But when you think about it, it is fair and balanced reporting, as we have been told repeatedly that the Republican controlled Congress was a "BIG OIL" friendly machine....and now that the Dems have had control for a while, it's only fair to point out that oil prices are SKYROCKETING once again.....

If it was fair to criticize Republicans when they were in charge, it's only fair to criticize Democrats when they man the ship.

The question is, what are the Dems going to do about this? You told us the election of Dems into power in Congress was a MANDATE from the American people. So far, the Dems have done nothing. What happened to the MANDATE? Why aren't they LOWERING OIL PRICES right now!

What is going on out there? Cavuto is right to point this out. As a taxpayer, I demand to know why the Democrats who control congress haven't fixed every ill that exists in America!!!

hcap

11-17-2007, 12:35 PM

Average US regular price - Bush admin:
5 Nov 2001 - $1.21
3 Nov 2003 - $1.53
7 Nov 2005 - $2.38
5 Nov 2007 - $3.01

The misadventure in Iraq is the main culprit
George W Churchill is the main culprit for that.

Gas has been steadily rising ever since.

So the Dems are responsible? :eek:
In as far as they allowed this war to proceed. Yes
But even NOW if they could reverse 4 1/2 years of lunacy, the repugs would block.

They have been obstructing most dem bills by a veto proof minority ever since.

This is not a minor upswing in prices. This is driven by the chaos bush has begun. Your man is the man responsible. Obviously you and faux could not use a standard'CLINTONDIDITTOO" So we have a "PELOSIDIDITTOO"

As a taxpayer, you should demand to know the truth rather than echoing the idiots on faux bonehead news. Hey maybe Rudy can interpret for ya.

Show Me the Wire

11-17-2007, 01:34 PM

Oh so when I triesd to explain that past actions from past Dem administrations caused some of the current problems you would have no part of it, continually saying it the current leadership is the responsibility party for what happens now. Now the current party in power is not responsible for current events,because of the Presidents past actions.

Hogwash, you can't have it both ways. I posted prior to the mid-term elections that it would be a blessing if the Dems won majority control,because people would see the total incompetence of the party's leaders. What is the Dem controlled congress approval rating? 11%?

I wouldn't want to be the Dem candidate trying to distance myself from the party.

Tom

11-17-2007, 03:03 PM

The party in power does NOTHING, except continually prevent drilling for domestic natual gas and oil, blocking refinery construction, and stopping nuclear power, then cry like babies when the price goes up.

There is nothing as pathetic as a lib. Nothing.

JustRalph

11-17-2007, 04:45 PM

JustRalph

11-16-2010, 05:56 AM

Where are you Sec? Closing in on 3 bucks in Md

Make that call to your messiah and see what he can do, come on, cut us a break

... "And this is typical of an administration [Clinton administration] that refuses to accept responsibility. This is amazing. They've been in office for seven years, the price of gasoline has gone up during their period of time ..."

- GW, June 2000

Average US regular price - Clinton admin:
4 Nov 1991 - $1.09
8 Nov 1993 - $1.07
6 Nov 1995 - $1.06
3 Nov 1997 - $1.06
8 Nov 1999 - $1.23

Average US regular price - Bush admin:
5 Nov 2001 - $1.21
3 Nov 2003 - $1.53
7 Nov 2005 - $2.38
5 Nov 2007 - $3.01

Retail price of California gasoline since 2001:
5 Nov 2001 - $1.42
4 Nov 2002 - $1.56
3 Nov 2003 - $1.71
8 Nov 2004 - $2.34
7 Nov 2005 - $2.66
6 Nov 2006 - $2.40
5 Nov 2007 - $3.23

......

btw..how has Exxon done during this period? fill 'er up! as we face the wrost weekly point loss since 911 this past week, and the contuned devaluation of the dollar to the Euro. As I said, GW was and remains a disaster.