Posted on 02/02/2006 8:54:40 AM PST by Reagan Man
While I strongly agree with President Bush’s emphasis in his State of the Union speech on increasing America’s energy independence, I think his use of the phrase “America is addicted to oil” was quite unfortunate.
Not only does it smack of Green Party rhetoric—with all its anti-development baggage—it misleadingly suggests that there is something bad about America’s need for oil.
The simple truth is that our modern, industrial society would not be capable of functioning without copious amounts of inexpensive energy. Unless and until Americans eschew their fear of widespread nuclear power, the only viable source of this energy is oil.
And despite the political instability in the Middle East and elsewhere, oil is still plentiful and cheap by any reasonable historical standards. That is why we continue to import so much of it from abroad, instead of developing additional, and more expensive, domestic energy sources.
Finally, let’s not forget that politicians and policy analysts have been issuing dire warnings about America’s “addiction” to foreign oil for at least three decades, and today we’re richer and more powerful than ever. So I think less rhetoric and more sober thinking is required before we start throwing even more taxpayer money at “alternatives” to oil, such as solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. etc. etc.
None of it is practical at this time. The second someone develops an engine that can compete with the internal combustion engine, you'll see people stampeding to that technology. Right now its in its infancy and way too pricey!
You ought to try working in the industry. I have a commie brother who is a professor at a California college.
He drives a hybrid with a bumper sticker, "How many lives per gallon?".
You can't even argue with these people.
Name a vehicle that only gets 12 mpg
I get 18 mpg while towing a 12,000lb load (I have a Diesel)
I can see where a Gas 1 ton truck geared for towing might get 12 or less but if that is what you need to get a job done thats what you need.
TT
If I pick up a shovel and start digging tomorrow, I can -- in theory (assuming I can live forever, or am replaced by someone else doing the exact same thing) -- eventually move a 10,000-foot mountain from one place to another, one bit at a time. But if the rate at which I am digging is extremely small in comparison to the overall quantity of what is being moved, then for all practical purposes I can never really complete this task. It would be hundreds -- if not thousands -- of years before anyone even noticed that that the 10,000-foot mountain was only 9,995 feet tall.
Oil could very well be the same way. We have no idea how much oil there is in the ground, and at the rate we extract oil and discover new sources it is likely that oil could be the equivalent of this 10,000-foot mountain.
It's also worth noting that while coal is "non-renewable" and wood is "renewable," coal actually replaced wood as the fuel of choice in the eastern U.S. in the mid-1800s. This is because the amount of wood required to generate the same amount of energy as a ton of coal was so large that trees had effectively become non-renewable -- since they were being cut down at a rate that far exceeded their ability to replenish themselves.
By the way, this idea that the formation of "fossil fuels" is a one-time event, never to be repeated, is false. Thomas Gold is going to eventually have the last laugh when all the scientists are forced to admit that he was right.
Nobody is stopping you from doing that very thing.
When you start demanding that government acts as your agent in your personal crusade, then I start to get concerned.
I disagree. The sun's energy is the cheapest and most available form of energy on earth. It is free once we get beyond the cost of capturing and storing it's energy.
LOL. Agreed, there are plenty of automobile manufacturers out there churning out cars that far exceed 12 MPH!
I wouldn't rule it out. Well said.
All free market economies should be using the most cost effect energy source available. To do otherwise would be economic suicide.
Right now, oil is it.
I would add, though, that we're really talking about two different things here -- oil as a combustible product, and oil as a lubricating material. All of the uses you describe relate to the lubrication uses of oil, not the combustible uses.
It sounds like you know a lot about this. How does synthetic motor oil stack up against traditional motor oil as a lubricant?
Not sure. I'm still learning about it. I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, but I'm working with a client on building one of these re-refining plants.
Not sure. I'm still learning about it. I'm a lawyer, not an engineer, but I'm working with a client on building one of these re-refining plants.
Legislative or regulatory actions can only go so far. The simple truth is that a fossil-fuel turbine is the most cost-efficient means of producing energy today. Until that reality of the physical world changes, all this talk about "alternative energy sources" is pretty pointless.
The technology for more efficient energy sources is available but because of the conditions of the planet, it won't be released. Morgan Freeman described it in "Chain Reaction". The world can't handle the new technology that would result in economic chaos. Technology is let out little-by-little. Frankly, it's time. For example, I work with a person who went to a 60s World Expo held in Las Vegas. At that time, picture telephones were on exhibition. Unfortunately, at that time, the cost of people having one was almost prohibitive for that time period. Nowdays, with cell phones, it's becoming a reality. So we're talking about 30 years passing before we call a person up and watch them talk to us.
I wonder how much energy Kerry and his hag wife consume. Six large homes. Many large vehicles. Trips all over the world.
Nah, energy conservation is for the little people.
You can't have it both ways. Its either free or it costs something. Until the experts and the money people give us a viable way to capture the suns energy and turn into a cost effective fuel source, the Sun will remain a best of friends with plants, tanners and sun worshipers.
>We waste billions of gallons of oil...
Ok, layman's question here - what do they do with the used motor oil people turn in to auto parts stores, or service stations, then?
I thought it was cleaned, and then reused in some capacity.
Unfortunately, you're right. Oil is it but it shouldn't be. The oil companies keep producing the oil and the auto companies keep producing vehicles that require the by-product. Factories are upgraded to keep using the oil. It's circular usage. The cycle must be broken.
This was recognition that relying on foriegn oil makes our economy strategically vulnerable, as Iran has aptly demonstrated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.