Fuel Prices...

[Jocko]

I disagree with your conclusions, but wanted to note that your "buggy whip" line was very clever.

That's it? You "disagree"? I point out in detail how you have utterly misapprehended how the free market works, and you "disagree"?

Boy, color me underwhelmed.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think, when Tricky mentioned some hard choices, there's one that really would work that noone wants to admit and thats population control

The right to infest the world with your spawn is not spelled out in the constitution.

If noone had any babies for five years it sure as hell wouldnt hurt the environment. It sure wouldnt cause an increase in fuel demand. It wouldnt cause MORE of these damn apartment houses to be built all over what nature we have left

Methanol and birth control, my solution

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think, when Tricky mentioned some hard choices, there's one that really would work that noone wants to admit and thats population control

The right to infest the world with your spawn is not spelled out in the constitution.

If noone had any babies for five years it sure as hell wouldnt hurt the environment. It sure wouldnt cause an increase in fuel demand. It wouldnt cause MORE of these damn apartment houses to be built all over what nature we have left

Methanol and birth control, my solution

Cool, but not a practical solution.

In fact, not even a viable solution.

Humans need ever more energy per capita.

 

[hammegk]

Methanol and birth control, my solution

Methanol as birth control would have greater chances of success.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Cool, but not a practical solution.

In fact, not even a viable solution.

Humans need ever more energy per capita.

Forever? Or just up to a certain point?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Methanol as birth control would have greater chances of success.

The cynic in me says that its hard to keep the girls away with a methanol powered hotrod

 

[DanishDynamite]

Forever? Or just up to a certain point?

Forever or until we die out, whichever comes first.

 

[CapelDodger]

(Yes, the oil companies are the driving force behind alternative energy). We also are big investors in wind power, being a major partner of Green Mountain Energy, a local energy provider which has windmill farms in and around the panhandle of Texas.

The more forward-thinking oil companies have recognised that they're in the energy business.

That is very important, but it is a long-term plan which will require major changes to our infrastructure. We're gonna have to wean ourselves off oil. It can't be cold turkey.

A plan implies planners and executors, which means overriding the free market. That implies a serious swerve in the direction politics has taken over the last few decades. Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Cheap transport has radically changed societies and economies in the past - ox-carts, the horse, canals, railways, internal-combustion. The problem with car-based societies is that they're not sustainable. Gasoline and diesel have unique properties, such as energy-to-weight ratios and relative ease of handling. But they depend on a resource which was finite in the short- to medium-term.

Hydrogen strikes me as a massive distraction. The aim there is to maintain the car-culture, which would not have arisen if it had been originally based on hydrogen. Batteries show more promise if that's the aim.

 

[CapelDodger]

Methanol and birth control, my solution

Ethanol as birth-control, that's the brewer's solution.

I've heard it said that alcohol is not the solution, and I agree. Alcohol is a solvent. A solution also requires a solute, which is the tricky bit.

 

[Mark]

I have not been there, and I don't see how that matters. If you HAVE, then you should have no problem telling me, right?

Come on, Mark.... quit stalling. What infrastructure should be in Yosemite?

I am not stalling. Keep in mind that I realize you will disagree with me...and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. OK?

The reason I wanted to know if you had been there was so I would know how much I have to describe conditions there. Traffic in the Summer is horrendous...it's like visiting LA in the pines; it is often bumper to bumper. The smog is awful and is causing severe damage to the trees. As of now there are over 1 thousand buildings there, and 30 miles of roadway. That is insane for such a small area. Here is what I would like to see:

A) Eliminate the restaurants, car repair shops, and other utterly superflous businesses. I am fine with keeping the visitor center, chapel, and things of that nature. Also the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge. But a grocery/supply store should be adequate. If someone wants to go to a restaurant, go somewhere else. Fresno leaps to mind. Gas your car outside the park; it's not that difficult, I promise.

B) One extreme suggestion has been to eliminate cars in the Valley altogether, and restrict entrance via shuttles. I personally think this is extreme, but can see where it may become necessary at some point.

C) But it is possible that entrance to the Valley may have to be limited via a sort of lottery/waiting list system. This is already the case with camping there. This saddens me, especially since it will make it virtually impossible for me to go there since I cannot plan that far ahead (job issues). But I don't really see how it can be avoided. As wilderness areas continue to disappear, there will be increased pressure on the ones we still have.

Happy now? I am not interested in your arguments against any of this. You already said you wouldn't object to oil drilling there, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this subject.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Im with mark, I think

If I gotta chose between the environment or MORE people, Ill go with the environment thank you

 

[Jocko]

I am not stalling. Keep in mind that I realize you will disagree with me...and I have zero interest in trying to convince you otherwise. OK?

The reason I wanted to know if you had been there was so I would know how much I have to describe conditions there. Traffic in the Summer is horrendous...it's like visiting LA in the pines; it is often bumper to bumper. The smog is awful and is causing severe damage to the trees. As of now there are over 1 thousand buildings there, and 30 miles of roadway. That is insane for such a small area. Here is what I would like to see:

A) Eliminate the restaurants, car repair shops, and other utterly superflous businesses. I am fine with keeping the visitor center, chapel, and things of that nature. Also the Ahwahnee Hotel and Yosemite Lodge. But a grocery/supply store should be adequate. If someone wants to go to a restaurant, go somewhere else. Fresno leaps to mind. Gas your car outside the park; it's not that difficult, I promise.

B) One extreme suggestion has been to eliminate cars in the Valley altogether, and restrict entrance via shuttles. I personally think this is extreme, but can see where it may become necessary at some point.

C) But it is possible that entrance to the Valley may have to be limited via a sort of lottery/waiting list system. This is already the case with camping there. This saddens me, especially since it will make it virtually impossible for me to go there since I cannot plan that far ahead (job issues). But I don't really see how it can be avoided. As wilderness areas continue to disappear, there will be increased pressure on the ones we still have.

Happy now? I am not interested in your arguments against any of this. You already said you wouldn't object to oil drilling there, which pretty much tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this subject.

Good God. All the answers except the very simple one I asked for.

What infrastructure would you keep in Yosemite, Mark? There's a couple of hints buried in there, but I'm looking for a simple list. Please answer this very simple question and quit wasting cycles trying to divine my meaning. It's puerile.

 

[Tricky]

I think, when Tricky mentioned some hard choices, there's one that really would work that noone wants to admit and thats population control.

I once started a thread positing that overpopulation was the chief cause of most of humanity's problems. I still hold that opinion, but it might sideline this topic. If you wish to start a new one though, I'll participate. However, I'm not into forced population control. Something will eventually take care of the problem for us if we don't do so ourselves.

The more forward-thinking oil companies have recognised that they're in the energy business.

You are correct, sir. Realistically, they're the best people to handle changes in our energy structure, both from a know-how and an available capital point of view.

A plan implies planners and executors, which means overriding the free market. That implies a serious swerve in the direction politics has taken over the last few decades. Hold onto your hats, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

Yes indeedy, it is going to be a very bumpy ride. I don't think of it so much as overriding the free market as I do having the foresight and capital to plan for things that, in the short term, are going to look like a hole in the ground that you toss your money into. It took us quite a few years and quite a few bucks to build the network of pipelines and gas stations that we have now, plus providing secure storage of what is a very volatile and dangerous compound. Even if the technology for alternate fuels were available today, it would take a long time for it to be implemented.

Cheap transport has radically changed societies and economies in the past - ox-carts, the horse, canals, railways, internal-combustion. The problem with car-based societies is that they're not sustainable. Gasoline and diesel have unique properties, such as energy-to-weight ratios and relative ease of handling. But they depend on a resource which was finite in the short- to medium-term.

I don't know for sure that car-based societies are not sustainable. It depends on lots of factors, including, as Pipeline points out, population. If we had a killer pandemic or a worldwide famine, we might find that we had enough fuel for quite some time.

Hydrogen strikes me as a massive distraction. The aim there is to maintain the car-culture, which would not have arisen if it had been originally based on hydrogen. Batteries show more promise if that's the aim.

At present, it is. One problem with hydrogen is that it takes so dang much of it to do anything because it contains so few BTUs per unit. (As a side note, most people don't know that more than half of the passengers on the Hindenburg survived because the hydrogen fire was not that hot, and because it is lighter than air and immediately rose after escaping.) Batteries hold hope, but not if you have to use some other source of energy to charge them.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Having at least SOME of this offloaded to alcohol couldnt hurt

 

[BPSCG]

I am not stalling.

Not stalling??? Stalling is all you ever do. Stalling is what you do best.

If you were a car, you'd be a 1982 Yugo with a pound of sugar in the gas tank.

If you were a plane, you'd be a Cessna trying to do an 80 degree climb.

If you were on 60 Minutes, you'd be Lesley Stahl.

I asked you at least three times what destruction drilling in the ANWR would cause, and all you would answer was, "What about Yosemite?"

Jocko has asked you three times what infrastructure you would keep in Yosemite, and you answer, "Look! A kitty cat!"

I've dug tree stumps out of the ground with less work than digging a straight answer out of you.

The last time I saw a place with more stalls, there were horses in it.

 

[Mark]

Not stalling??? Stalling is all you ever do. Stalling is what you do best.

If you were a car, you'd be a 1982 Yugo with a pound of sugar in the gas tank.

If you were a plane, you'd be a Cessna trying to do an 80 degree climb.

If you were on 60 Minutes, you'd be Lesley Stahl.

I asked you at least three times what destruction drilling in the ANWR would cause, and all you would answer was, "What about Yosemite?"

Jocko has asked you three times what infrastructure you would keep in Yosemite, and you answer, "Look! A kitty cat!"

I've dug tree stumps out of the ground with less work than digging a straight answer out of you.

The last time I saw a place with more stalls, there were horses in it.

Pardon me for not following the script you and Jocko want me to follow. If you only want me to answer your questions (while not answering mine) the way you want me to, why not just answer them yourselves?

 

[BPSCG]

Pardon me for not following the script you and Jocko want me to follow.

Sorry, but you set the agenda when you claimed:

Most estimates says there is only 6 months to 2 years of oil there. And drilling there would have little or no imoact on prices. We need long term solutions, not short term destruction.

I dismantled the first sentence in that claim (I notice you haven't revisited it), and I asked you to be more specific on what ANWR destruction you were talking about in the third. At which point, you decided to try to lead me down your little Yosemite rathole, as if Yosemite has anything at all to do with fuel prices.

Why don't you just admit that you in fact have no earthly idea what damage, if any, would be caused by drilling in the ANWR?

 

[Mark]

Sorry, but you set the agenda when you claimed: I dismantled the first sentence in that claim (I notice you haven't revisited it), and I asked you to be more specific on what ANWR destruction you were talking about in the third. At which point, you decided to try to lead me down your little Yosemite rathole, as if Yosemite has anything at all to do with fuel prices.

Why don't you just admit that you in fact have no earthly idea what damage, if any, would be caused by drilling in the ANWR?

Asked and answered, counselor. Again, I realize you wanted a particular answer from me so you could refute it. Sorry to disappoint you.

And your estimates for how much oil is in ANWR is heavily disputed, so presenting it as established fact is disengenuous at best. What a surprise.

 

[BPSCG]

Asked and answered, counselor.

Where???

And your estimates for how much oil is in ANWR is heavily disputed,

I gave you links to my figures. Where are yours?

 

[BPSCG]

Okay, it appears Mark has decided to bail on this thread; he's given up not answering my questions in this thread in favor of not answering Manny's in a thread of his own.

So, in answer to Mark's claim that, "We need long term solutions, not short term destruction [of the ANWR]," I offer this graphical representation of the ANWR.

Each pixel represents about 280 acres of the approximately twenty million acres in the ANWR.

The area in red represents the approximately 17.5 million acres of the ANWR - an area about the size of Maryland, Vermont, and New Hampshire, combined - that are permanently closed to any development.

The area in black - about 1.5 million acres - represents that part of the ANWR that is available to development.

The area in green - you'll have to look closely; it's at the bottom right of the black area - represents the roughly 2000 acres that would be needed for all the oil drilling proposed there. That 2000 acres is about the size of Washington Dulles International airport.