Amen brother... (and I'm not ever religious)

SoldiersMum wrote:[
never was the horse and buggy outlawed because automobiles were coming sometime in the future.

Amen, Mum.  Thanks for pointing this out.

Drilling now is imperative.  
Freeing the market to evaluate, test and develop new, alternate sources of energy is imperative.  
Discontinuing subsidies for obviously poor alternative fuel sources like ethanol from corn is imperative.  

Any new source to power our cars is 10 to 15 years down the road.  Hybrids might decrease the rate of increase in fuel consumption by some small percent but that alone is insignificant.  Their market penetration is small.  And we aren't going to power 18-wheelers off hybrid engines any time soon.  

Nobody opposes conservation.  We just recognize that our whole economy is based around people getting around with automobiles.  Changing this fact will require a long, expensive process to produce effective, acceptable alternatives to driving.  Again, this solution will take tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars and decades to implement.  

I am planning to switch to the bus to get to work again several days a week.  I used to take public transport daily for nearly 8 years but I now work in a part of the county not well served by public transport and my job requires a certain mobility so I can't take the bus every day.

Eyas wrote:
I was speaking of shortage defined as any time demand exceeds supply, as opposed to surplus where supply exceeds demand; both working to determine the equilibrium.  Increases in price, of any good, is caused by what is called "shortage" in economics; but, no, it's not a Shortage in the sense of requiring rationing, or of literally not having any oil.  

Either way, shortage is a relative term.  

If I recall, my econ profs always used the terms "equilibrium" and "disequilibrium" rather than shortage and surplus.

paleocon wrote:

Eyas wrote:
I was speaking of shortage defined as any time demand exceeds supply, as opposed to surplus where supply exceeds demand; both working to determine the equilibrium.  Increases in price, of any good, is caused by what is called "shortage" in economics; but, no, it's not a Shortage in the sense of requiring rationing, or of literally not having any oil.  

Either way, shortage is a relative term.  

If I recall, my econ profs always used the terms "equalibrium" and "disequilibrium" rather than shortage and surplus.

Talk about HYSTERICAL. And you try to claim you're not an IVY LEAUGE ELITIST?

Layla 27 wrote:

paleocon wrote:

Eyas wrote:
I was speaking of shortage defined as any time demand exceeds supply, as opposed to surplus where supply exceeds demand; both working to determine the equilibrium.  Increases in price, of any good, is caused by what is called "shortage" in economics; but, no, it's not a Shortage in the sense of requiring rationing, or of literally not having any oil.  

Either way, shortage is a relative term.  

If I recall, my econ profs always used the terms "equilibrium" and "disequilibrium" rather than shortage and surplus.

Talk about HYSTERICAL. And you try to claim you're not an IVY LEAUGE ELITIST?

Actually, now that you mention it, I do find you hysterical.  

I don't recall ever claiming anything about my educational achievements or venue.  Did you not learn "big words" in college?  I mean it is patently obvious you didn't learn to spell or compose logical, coherent sentences so the fact that you find five or six syllable words difficult or "funny" is to be expected.  Sorry your parents wasted all that money.

A pictorial representation of ANWR and the proposed drilling site.  Note that the map actually overstates the size of the area proposed for development.  If the map used the actual size, to scale, you would NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IT ON THE MAP!!!

Note the size of ANWR is about the same size as the state of South Carolina.  The proposed area for development is 3.125 square miles.  We can't spare 3.125 square miles of tundra from an area the size of South Carolina.  

Who are the radicals?  

See the map here.

Exactly.  The environmentalist have no rationality.  Take the tree people at Berkeley.  They have been in the trees since I graduated a 1.5 years ago.  All for a few trees.  Nuts!

Renewable energy is an essential and growing contributor to the energy portfolio of the U.S. It is not, however, a viable replacement for fossil fuels. Instead of dreaming of a fantastical world of windmills and golden beams of sunshine powering our energy intensive economy, the U.S. would be better served by realistic policies that incorporate a greater percentage of nuclear power combined with domestically produced fossil fuels as a means of achieving energy independence.

[SIZE=10pt]http://www.beyondthemargin.net/2008/06/demand-for-drilling.html

GoBoilers wrote:Exactly.  The environmentalist have no rationality.  Take the tree people at Berkeley.  They have been in the trees since I graduated a 1.5 years ago.  All for a few trees.  Nuts!

Renewable energy is an essential and growing contributor to the energy portfolio of the U.S. It is not, however, a viable replacement for fossil fuels. Instead of dreaming of a fantastical world of windmills and golden beams of sunshine powering our energy intensive economy, the U.S. would be better served by realistic policies that incorporate a greater percentage of nuclear power combined with domestically produced fossil fuels as a means of achieving energy independence.

Well, it looks like we agree on a number of things.  

The loonies at UCB are irrational AND representative of algore and his buddies.  

There is no substitute for fossil fuels at least for the present.  Maybe in 10 to 15 years a significant portion of our energy will be non-carbon based.  Maybe.  Renewable energy, other than nuclear power, has largely turned out to be a pipe dream.  But, I don’t mind people spending their own money to look for better alternatives.  

The new solar plants I mentioned in another forum are expensive to build and operate.  But, as other prices increase they become relatively more competitive.  I expect we will try 5 or 10 new technologies over the next decade and several of them will ultimately fail in the marketplace.  One important question is how much the government will mess up the market by subsidizing ultimately dead-end technologies.  That makes the whole process more painful and may actually prevent us from developing useful alternatives.