Why Foreign Oil? Ask the Dems.

Discussion in 'Economy' started by Hobbit, Jun 21, 2006.

  1. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. theHawk
    Offline

    theHawk Registered Conservative

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,901
    Thanks Received:
    2,072
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Germany
    Ratings:
    +5,789
    Short answer is because liberals are the biggest fucking hyprocrits in the world.
    I have yet to here any liberal stand up and explain why they won't let our energy companies use our own resources when all they do is bitch about our dependancy on arab oil.
     
  3. Huckleburry
    Offline

    Huckleburry Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    285
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +20
    The concept of foreign oil is a myth. Oil is a fungible good and traded on a truly global market. Delivery contracts are sold on a few futures exchanges months before the oil is actually drilled. Therefore, the origin of oil is irrelevant. Oil drilled in Venezuela is exactly the same as oil drilled in Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, because the world consumes so much oil it is nearly impossible to control which oil goes where. If OPEC ceases shipments to the US, Venezuela and Russia will pick up the slack as futures prices soar on American exchanges. The increase in price in US will cause all non OPEC member contracts to be purchased by Americans, resulting in a crowd out effect in other markets. Countries other than the US will then move to OPEC oil because the futures price will, initially, be lower. Over time futures prices will reach a new equilibrium and the trade will continue. While it is politically convenient to yap about our dependence on foreign oil, logically, it makes no sense. Goods traded on a global exchange have no home, hence the label: fungible good.
    Drilling for oil will increase our GNP. However, it will not reduce our dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise. Oil contracts will still be sold on futures exchanges and still purchased by the highest bidder.

    The Way Forward:

    The problem is our dependence on oil and the answer cannot be to simply drill more. Drilling more passes the problem on to the next generation and, unlike the generation before me, I believe it is time we stop being pussies and tackle the problem head on. Kicking our oil addiction means finding a replacement. At the moment, there is no substance on earth that can completely replace oil. Therefore the solution must be multi dimensional.

    Ethanol is beginning to show promise as an alternative. Yes it is subsidized but so is oil, moreover the technology behind ethanol is being developed and produced in the United States giving our economy a bit of a boost.

    Nuclear energy is useful but problematic. Spent fuel is a serious security and environmental threat and we must balance our need for energy against these security and environmental problems. I am not saying that we should not develop nuclear energy but I do think that we need to continue to research the area and begin developing meaningful solutions to the waste problem.

    Wind power needs to be developed further. Minor amounts of research have yielded huge gains in turbine efficiency and demonstrated the technology’s potential to a be a huge source of potential energy.

    Solar, I know nothing about.

    Conservation is a dirty word in our society and its time we change that. The key to reducing our oil dependence is learning how to live with out it. Hybrid cars are a step in the right direction but more needs to be done. Office buildings consume huge amounts of energy and we have the technology and know how to dramatically reduce their energy consumption. It is time we do so. Ultimately, our dependence on oil will be reduced when we begin measuring our happiness by something other than consumption. When we de-link the connection between our material well being and our well being then we will begin to reduce our dependence on oil. Until then we will continue to suckle from the oil tit until it runs dry.

    Huck
     
  4. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Ethanol is way too expensive and impractical. It's too corrosive for existing pipelines, and it would require practically all arable land to be converted to growing corn or whatever. Then you have to remember that it requires vast amounts of water, petroleum fertilizer, and heat to process. Plus it has a significantly lower energy content, which means worse mileage; and cars have to be specially built for it, or retrofitted. It's a boondoggle and an ecological nightmare foisted upon us by Archer-Daniels Midland and the corn lobby.

    Hydrogen is also a joke. It requires vast amounts of electricity, super expensive fuel cells which use exotic metals like Palladium and Platinum, and storage is bulky and difficult. Like ethanol, it cannot be run through existing pipelines, and it is much more expensive per mile than gasoline or diesel.

    Batteries are actually going to be our best bet...long term. There are a number of companies which are currently developing fast-charging (5 minutes or so!) superbatteries. EEStor in Austin has one that will charge up in five minutes, creates little heat, is environmentally friendly, lasts nearly forever, has great range, and works well in temperature extremes. But this will take a good while to get into mass production.

    So what can we do in 10 years or less? We can make synthetic gas and diesel out of coal. Yes, coal. It's cheaper per mile than all these (except batteries, eventually), it can be made to burn cleaner than existing fuels, and it can run in existing cars. Best of all, North America is pretty much the Saudi Arabia of coal. And we already have a well-known, established manufacturing process for making it.

    http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/TPH/WTPHG606/

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    BUT COAL IS TEH EVIL AND STRPMINES AND RAPING OF MOTHER EARTH AND IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT CAUSE HE'S IN BED WITH BIG COAL AND I'M A HIPPIE!!!
     
  6. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
  7. BaronVonBigmeat
    Offline

    BaronVonBigmeat Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +160
    Exactly. That's what I find so amusing about the ranting and raving and panicking amongst the left. When gas was under a dollar a gallon (not so long ago!), they wanted massive taxes to encourage alternative fuels. Well, now the cost of gas is pretty high, just like they wanted. And just as common sense would predict, alternatives are being heavily researched by private concerns. Do people really think that capitalists are going to sit around watching Exxon rake in legendary profits, without coming up with ways to get a piece of that? Sure, the transition is going to be costly and slow. And government is going to change that? No, government is the epitome of costly and slow.

    And another thing. Government funding of alternative energy is actually detrimental to getting new sources of energy, clean or otherwise. The more our government funds pie-in-the-sky rubbish like hydrogen or ethanol, the less attractive it is to develop realistic private alternatives. Why should I invest in coal-to-gas, when their competition is heavily subsidized? If government subsidized pizza, then we'd have fewer places selling burgers. Government funding is based on politics, and private funding is based on practical reality. Hydrogen, ethanol, etc. are expensive for a reason--they use more resources than the alternatives.

    If there is any role for government, it is in reducing the "tradgedy of the commons", ie air pollution. The best way to do that would be a yearly tax based on the number of polluting molecules emitted per mile for a given vehicle in areas that have pollution problems. That would be relatively simple and avoid micromanagement, which is a sure recipe for bad results.
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Cold fusion. Get er done.

    I know, I know..
     

Share This Page