Good news, for a change

Fine. You people all happy about this should be the ones who support the President's war on terrorism then. You should all be calling for the assasination of Saddam. You should all be yelling at the top of your voice that we should own our very own Arab desert somewhere.

Because you're celebrating the United States allowing itself to continually and in perpetuity be held hostage to OPEC.

And don't start throwing "alternative energy" crap around until you're commuting in an electric car. Oh, don't eat lettuce imported from California today...it was carried to you at one point by a diesel powered train.

This country is so fucking suicidal...

Not to mention it was an illegal alien who happened to pick it for you!

That and then pesticides!

And mutated bugs!

And from ruined soil!

And from the 9th largest economy in the world!!

Kronos some will never learn....we just gotta face that awful truth.

Very good points. I absolutely agree.

None at all. In fact since the 1970's here in California we have enjoyed the cleaning up of our air due to better fuel efficiency through complete combustion -MTBE environmental problems aside.

But those who hate the internal combustion engine have no idea and in fact seem totally clueless to the problems involved with turning the whole world to another form of powerful propulsion.

And haven't you heard of CAFE Standards yet? Or have you been too busy out pedaling your generator to hear the news?

No, you're dead, flat wrong.
Obviously this would not have freed us from dependance on foreign oil, but it's a start. You're reasoning being that since it's such a small amount, it's not worth it. You need to look at it as one part of a plan to become self reliant.
And please quit perpetrating the lie that little caribou and baby seals would have been harmed if drilling had occured. The drilling would have taken place in a remote, unpopulated area that closely resembles the surface of the moon. NOBODY lives there. A few natives go through to hunt and that's about it.
It's a moot point now, anyway. The exreme environmentalists infected this entire debate with lies and misinformation. So you guys can ridicule kronos and his thoughts on the subject, but he's dead on.
Congratulations on helping to fool the American people.

Just so the rest of you know, Call's comments are nothing more than a summary of Ann Windbag's article this week. Jeez. I'm done, and going back to the sewer. BTW, I ride public transportation to and from work and walk whenever I can. So look at my high horse! wah wah wah

America actually gets very little oil from OPEC. Petroleum demands are met, for the most part by Venezeula, Alberta, and America itself. So what's this argument about?

Who relies on OPEC(Europe and Japan)?

The oil lobby in Washington looking for an excuse to drill in National Parks?

A straw-man policy do detract attention from more salient issues?

The sad thing is that there are Democrats who find nothing really wrong with the drilling but its their fanatical environmentalists whispering in their ears.

The drilling, everyone will now admit, would not harm the wildlife. They've drilled before, the moose were fine, and Mother Earth is in balance. Alaskans want the drilling for some much needed jobs. And now, after bitching about the lak of jobs, this gets shot down.

Do we really think that China, Russia, or a thousand other countries would tie their own hands when it comes to making use of natural resources in their own land? I certainly don't.

Its sad that so many here equate "oil drilling" with "evil". When electric cars and solar powered appliances are affordable and efficient I'll be first in line. But since that's nowhere near close to happening, I'd rather not have our oil held hostage by the most psychotic region in the world and Venezuela were there's seemingly a coup every other day.

The sad thing is that there are Democrats who find nothing really wrong with the drilling but its their fanatical environmentalists whispering in their ears.

I don't think the people arguing against drilling in park land are fantics. Many have University degrees in things like geography and aboriginal law. This doesn't make them level headed, but certainly suggests that there's more at work than fanatical environmentalism.

PS, you just called a bunch people on these boards radical environmentalists.

The drilling, everyone will now admit, would not harm the wildlife.

No, everyone will not admit that.

They've drilled before, the moose were fine, and Mother Earth is in balance.

Even if one ignores the loaded language, this is still a half-truth.

Alaskans want the drilling for some much needed jobs.

Oil jobs will create a boom-bust econemy. What happens when the wells dry in ten years?

And now, after bitching about the lak of jobs, this gets shot down.

What a travesty!

Do we really think that China, Russia, or a thousand other countries would tie their own hands when it comes to making use of natural resources in their own land? I certainly don't.

I certainly wouldn't model my environmental practices after either of those countries. So your point is?

Its sad that so many here equate "oil drilling" with "evil".

Is that really a quote, or are you stirring shit up?

When electric cars and solar powered appliances are affordable and efficient I'll be first in line.

Good.

But since that's nowhere near close to happening, I'd rather not have our oil held hostage by the most psychotic region in the world and Venezuela were there's seemingly a coup every other day.

I doubt the immense Venzuelan oil monopoly is affected by coups. I also doubt this entails reliance on OPEC. OPEC supplies Europe and Asia. And alternative/more efficiant energy sources are readily not dreams for the future. Efficiant products can be reality as soon as the will make them occurs.

Strange how the North Slope and Athabaska are still pumping after all these years.

Ok...bye bye.

Im so glad they struck that down. That would just be another thing to add to my list of fucking retarded things GWB has done.

And I think this sums the opposition viewpoint pretty well.

Hate to break it to you, but the preservation of you counts on the preservation of the wilderness and animals.

The thing I love is when environmentalists block the construction of -or even the proposals for- new hydroelectric dams. Clean generation of electric power and they fight it tooth and nail.

The Sun? 'Won't pull trains, fly jet airliners, power factories, or light up enough homes and computers in the Northeast or Southwest to be considered the only alternate.

Wind? Best left to Sailboats and wheat grinding. Those wind farms are a blight on the California countryside. They also kill many birds of prey each year. Oh, they also don't provide enough power to have justified their cost both in terms of real power generation and environmental degradation they've caused the hillsides of the Coastal Range.

There's more but why try. The only true way of stopping our dependance on oil is to send us all back to the pre-industrial revolution times. And the fact that you're reading this on a computer and probably listening to a cd right now means that ain't about to happen.

Read a Geography text jabba. Or the Ingenuity Gap by Thomas Homer-dixon which is, if I may add my opinion, an excellent book(so far).

Solar energy is not particularly useful. A solar-panel network would be many times the size the city it would theoretically power. Not very appealing—though bringing the energy requirements of a city in-line with a solar-network output might be an idea. Wishfull thinking aside, the sun's energy is dispersed to the point of uselessness.

And kronos, everything in moderation. Complete reliance on Hydro, Solar, Coal, Nuclear, Fossil-fuels, Wind, Tidal, or any sort of power is silly. Efficiancy is the key, in my opinion, not building enough hydro-electric dams to meet the geometrically increasing demand for energy.

Efficiency is indeed always the key. In spending, in power output of an engine, in work, everything. And there is an invention that I really love: Amorphous crystal solar cell shingles for residential application. The idea is to shingle your house to a certain degree with highly efficient amorphous crystal solar cells connected in series to a nickel-cadmium battery storage system. I've seen these systems. They work fabulously. They're extremely expensive. They simply look like another row -or several rows- of shingles. No ugly blight on the roof of your house.

These things produce enough power that in some cases you can actually send power back to the grid. I love that.

But only to augment today's system and in individual dwellings. You cannot justify A)The space required to construct a solar collecting station B)Cost per Megawatt hour.

Do you realize the scope of those new and improved CAFE standards? Do you realize that you'd be eliminating our Nation's most popular family vehicles? Do you also realize that you'd wipe out more than 100,000 auto-related jobs? And do you also realize you'd be constraining millions of small business people with limited methods of doing future business? These are people who make this country move and work. Not Government.

No pickup, van or SUV built today could survive a requirement to make mandatory 35 miles per gallon.

You see, people started buying the SUV when? After the first CAFE standards all but eliminated the large family car back in the 70's. People who had large families had no other choices but to buy what was available. And back then it was pretty much the Chevy Suburban. Seeing the growing popularity of such vehicles after the Station Wagon was all but forced out of existence by the Federal Government automakers began making the SUV the new family wagon.

So what do you propose millions of families buy? As it is our air in California is cleaner than it has been in over two decades thanks to our strict SmogII regulations -which, even though it's a hassle and a racket, have made our environment a better place in California.

So why would you want to decree that people no longer have a choice? People want and need SUV's, trucks, and vans. Do you propose a locksmith use a fucking Yugo? A glazier use a VW Beetle?

People who do the work every day that must be done to keep America rolling, working, safe, and prosperous, would all be hurt by this NEW CAFE standard.

Besides, the support for increased CAFE standards is a minority at best in America. If people were told they wouldn't be able to buy a new pickup or van next year for their contracting, farming, catering, locksmithing, or delivery business do you think the Senator who voted to put them out of business would be re-elected?

It's amazing what people don't know or realize when they give knee-jerk approval for what they think is "reasonable" legislation.

Q: Please explain to me how preserving a wildnerness reserve for animals preserves me, please?

A: Read a Geography text jabba. Or the Ingenuity Gap by Thomas Homer-dixon which is, if I may add my opinion, an excellent book(so far).

I thought that posting directly below your question clarified the topic I was addressing. I did make a series of following posts, however, and probably confused things a bit.

While the Ingenuity Gap is not discourse on wilderness preserves, it does address their relevance. But you got me, I was pimping a book. A good book. And it is very relevant to this discussion, but in broad ideas sense, not wholly specific to "solar energy" or your "lifestyle."

Did any one know of one of the riders on the bill called for all gas to have a 10% ethanol mixture.

This is bothersome to me specialy when there are only four companies in the US produce ethanol.

So there was a little more involved with this than just Alaska.

If you add ethanol to gasoline you have to increase the fuel flow to the engine by 10% -through increased orifice size of either the main metering jet or the individual fuel injectors, not a simple conversion. Which creates a situation where fuel usage actually increases. So what is the benefit there?

Plus, the fuel is a little more dangerous to handle in that the flash point lowers.

Besides, methanol makes a better fuel, and only if taken alone -not mixed.

Ethanol is more corrosive to engine parts thereby decreasing an engine's useful life. Ethanol -like MTBE- tends to dry out non-metallic fuel supply lines, creating a situation of increased fire hazard potential. Ethnanol tends to dry out diaphragms and seals, lowering a component's useful life. Not to mention the useful life of the vendor's pumps, helping to increase the cost to the consumer.

Kronos that was my point. If this bill wasn't shot down that is something we all would have to deal with.

You wouldn't be implying "each according to his need", would you? If so I now know from where you're coming.

And I take it from you're response that you really really don't get the scope of the new and improved CAFE standards and the implications to the industry and to our economy.

I have no oil stocks, nor do I have investments in any particular auto manufacturer -that I know of. So I don't have any personal stake in my position regarding this issue...save for the fact I was in the auto industry at a certain level.

You don't have to take my word for this, and I'm not a shill for the industry -seeing as how I only drive a vehicle now and do not have anything to do with the industry. But the proposed new more stringent CAFE standards would be a devastating blow to the economy and a considerable restriction of the freedom American people have to choose the vehicle they desire.

Research it yourself. There's plenty written. Check out the SAE(Society of Automotive Engineers). Check out or write to someone in the ASE(Automotive Service Excellence).

You completely missed the point about people who do work with their trucks and vans. You really think they should have the choice of vehicle taken away from them all to serve the purpose of getting Gore elected? Because that's the platform on which he's running.

Unbelievable.

And Americans have the choice to buy what they desire. In California those vehicles get an average 15mpg or better and still have clean emissions with huge power output -what people want.

Anyway, the fact of the matter is people in this country drive what they want. The market is there, people buy. Hundreds of millions of cars out there, a huge percentage SUV's, vans, trucks. Many are used by entrepeneurs to do their daily business.

But if their vehicles are legislated out of existence -which is conceivable through new CAFE- then when they go to replace them in the not too distant future they wouldn't have any choices, at all. I wasn't talking about CAFE outlawing presently operating vehicles. Everybody knows this. We're talking about the future. And if the future holds no choices because the manufacturers cannot produce what they used to, don't you think that would have a detrimental effect on out economy?

The fact of the matter is it would.

My dad's about to start a new business. If the new CAFE were in place now, in five years when he goes to get a new truck there would be no new trucks to buy. Why? Because the manufacturers have had to stop producing them...by "law".

My 6-cylinder Ranger gets 18mpg when I'm not standing on the throttle. But it hasn't got the capacity my dad would need to carry out a small business of the type he's about to start.

You couldn't make a truck that could carry a thousand pounds and still get a fucking 30mpg! It cannot be done at the current level of technology and for the price range of the average American. You just couldn't!

So it's either accept the new CAFE and condemn future busines.

Or reject new CAFE and keep researching to look for a powerplant breakthrough. It's inevitable. But to constrain an industry into a timeline is dangerous and potentially devastating.

It's like making it law that you personally must be able to squat 500 pounds by July. Sure, it's possible for everybody to squat 500 pounds, but for many it might take years.

Oh, you say it's not possible for everybody to squat 500 pounds? Hmmmm...well, you've got to. It's the law.

Now don't you think you'd fight an unjust, unreasonable, and frankly undoable law?

Oh well, this is falling on deaf ears or blind eyes. And the fact is it's a useless argument. CAFE standards are already in place. There's no need for such draconian increases in an already costly measure.

$2700.00 on average by the way was the cost of CAFE in the first place. That's $2700.00 that YOU had to pay. You think the automakers like increasing the price tag? They don't like it anymore than you do because the sales could potentially drop. It's not in their interest to raise prices due to legislation.

Besides, what do Senators know about making cars?

Oh yeah, there's a whole lot more regarding just how much power can be effectively produced from a unit of fuel but this discussion obviously wouldn't be interested.

Sure, it's possible to get 30mpg. But the horsepower produced decreases geometrically the higher the mileage per unit fuel.

Unless you're turbocharging(and water injecting, because the latent heat of water actually far exceeds the latent heat of gasoline). And even then there is a point of diminishing return.

But this discussion has only been interested in the legislation, as if it's the legislation that's going to save us from ourselves.

There are hard realities that people just don't want to care about(such as the latent heat of water, but who's counting calories?). They'd rather own the issue, harp on the fact that "this isn't being done", and decry opposition as being a bad thing.

The fact is: This isn't on the American agenda.

To put it bluntly, higher CAFE standards will...

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Limit consumer choice in purchasing vehicles. Manufacturers will be forced to make popular performance and luxury cars, as well as SUVs, light trucks and minivans, smaller, less powerful, and less useful in terms of hauling and towing capacity.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Result in less vehicle availability and higher prices. Vehicles noted as gas guzzlers will inevitably be phased out in order for manufacturers to meet increasing government-mandated fuel economy standards. Additionally, CAFE increases will inevitably saddle we consumers with higher vehicle prices.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Lead to more deaths on our nation’s highways. Increased CAFE standards for larger vehicles will force consumers into smaller cars with higher accident fatality rates.
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not conserve energy. Total gas consumption depends on factors such as total miles traveled, the make-up of the overall vehicle fleet and gasoline prices, NOT simply on new vehicle mileage standards.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

Yet the NTSB statistics don't bear this out.

But you still fail to see the real point: Small business would be hurt the most. Try carrying a 1500LB case of glass. If you have to use trucks that don't have any really usable torque or are built so lightweight that their suspension can't handle the load you'd be forced to break open the case and make several trips to get the glass to the jobsite. Thereby increasing usage.

What is gained?

You'd have to lighten up the structure of the vehicle as well as creating an almost impossible to use engine.

Any reasonable person knows that eventually a powerplant may be created that both does not use petroleum and which has as much usable power as today's V-8's. That research is already ongoing I guarantee.

"Motivation"? We've seen what Government-led "motivation" is all about...and the Berlin Wall doesn't exist anymore. Government has no business...in business. "Motivation" should be profit profit profit. Unless you are the Government there is no profit in Government control over means of production.

"Government control over means of production"?
Hmmm...'sounds vaguely familiar.

"Government has no business...in business." Sometimes you make me wonder if you really would have better liked to lived in the 1920's.

I never said it cannot be done. I've personally seen demonstrations of fuel mileage and what indeed can be accomplished.

I'm saying Al Gore has no idea what he's saying when he says that the internal combustion engine has to in effect be outlawed...right after he gets out of his limosine with the V-8 engine, having his furniture delivered by a truck with a big engine, eating lettuce delivered to his own restaurant by a truck with a big engine.

His stance is one of pandering to political forces that will get him elected at all costs. If one of those costs is to do disservice -no, damage- to an entire American industry then so be it.

As I have iterated prior: I have no problem with research and reasonable fuel economy goals. Unreasonable timelines are ridiculous.