• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Wants Research to Wean Vehicles off Oil.....

The Constitution is outdated and doesn't address many modern issues, so no... if you can't tell the difference between a 250 year old document and modern day laws, you have issues.

The constitution is supreme to modern day laws. If you think its outdated and doesnt address something, there is a process to amend it.
 
Perhaps I'll be proven wrong but I would bet very highly that bio-fuels will never be the next generation of transportation fuels. I highly suspect the answer comes in the form of progressively improving electric cars matched with more efficient, higher output, electrical grid that incorporates solar (especially if you can get solar satellites and microwave transmission), nuclear, natural, gas, coal, etc.

Nuclear energy is still the most efficient. But people are scared of it. Meanwhile France is laughing as they generate 80% of their power with nuclear.
 
Nuclear energy is still the most efficient. But people are scared of it. Meanwhile France is laughing as they generate 80% of their power with nuclear.

Nuclear energy has a ton of externalities that are affecting the cost in the United States and as a result gas is cost superior to nuclear. There are a lot of things we could and should do to unleash our nuclear potential.
 
Nuclear energy has a ton of externalities that are affecting the cost in the United States and as a result gas is cost superior to nuclear. There are a lot of things we could and should do to unleash our nuclear potential.

All forms of energy we have available should be utilized to their fullest in order to stop dependence on imports for our energy needs...
 
Perhaps I'll be proven wrong but I would bet very highly that bio-fuels will never be the next generation of transportation fuels. I highly suspect the answer comes in the form of progressively improving electric cars matched with more efficient, higher output, electrical grid that incorporates solar (especially if you can get solar satellites and microwave transmission), nuclear, natural, gas, coal, etc.
I think you will see them all. For instance: in airplanes, bio-D makes sense, as, of course, does JetA. Once the current wave of ultra-greed subsides, you might see ships using a combination of petro fuel and kites (not kidding) to take slower voyages on a lot less fuel. Solar in some climates is about to become competitive with fossil fuel electricity - and even cheaper for off-grid remote installations (really good storage technology that will allow up to three weeks without sun), and on it goes. There is a LOT of room left to invent and innovate.

On the coal front, if you asked me today it might be in situ coal gasification - some good size projects going together now.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear energy has a ton of externalities that are affecting the cost in the United States and as a result gas is cost superior to nuclear. There are a lot of things we could and should do to unleash our nuclear potential.

Very true. I was speaking in the abcense of oil. Of course, then theres issues like electric motors not being able to power everything. Planes for example.
 
All forms of energy we have available should be utilized to their fullest in order to stop dependence on imports for our energy needs...

Sure, but I don't mind imports, I favor a true market approach not a command energy economy.
 
Sure, but I don't mind imports, I favor a true market approach not a command energy economy.

Would you remind me of what "true market" approach we have in this country as it relates to energy exploration and/or production?
 
Very true. I was speaking in the abcense of oil. Of course, then theres issues like electric motors not being able to power everything. Planes for example.
there are actually some practical light sport airplanes flying now on electric power. But, just as for long distance cars and trucks, airplanes still work best with something very like diesel.
 
I think you will see them all. For instance: in airplanes, bio-D makes sense, as, of course, does JetA. Once the current wave of ultra-greed subsides, you might see ships using a combination of petro fuel and kites (not kidding) to take slower voyages on a lot less fuel. Solar in some climates is about to become competitive with fossil fuel electricity - and even cheaper for off-grid remote installations (really good storage technology that will allow up to three weeks without sun), and on it goes. There is a LOT of room left to invent and innovate.

Solar has huge problems with un-subsidized cost and major technological barriers related to battery capacity, no down time on energy generation, and effective ways to link it into the grid. I think we wont really see solar come about as a spot electricity provider until the 2020's. As for planes, whatever the cheapest most efficient fuel is is what makes sense, which at the moment his high octane jet propellants, though I think there may be some possibility of electrical replacement in a few decades. For shipping we are talking about an industry where burning bunker fuel (API below 18...) is still the superior option I don't think you will see a switch anytime soon.

We have huge reserves of hydrocarbons, massive reserves of nuclear fuel, and the possibility of even greater expansion of access to these resources. I think we will continue more or less as we have for the next 20 years as we slowly transition to spot production with solar and newer style nuclear reactors. The only realistic chance for replacing hydrocarbon's as a primary source of electricity is in a major breakthrough in solar efficiency and battery technology (and dramatic falls in un-subsidized cost), an adoption of nuclear on a large scale, or a breakthrough in something we cannot plan on expecting like fusion.

What alternative energy advocates tend to overlook is the need for mass generation at low costs in a way that can easily integrated. I'm fairly optimistic about the impact new technologies will have (as well as our capacity to exploit existing resources), but it is important to be grounded and realistic.
 
Would you remind me of what "true market" approach we have in this country as it relates to energy exploration and/or production?

What is almost unique in this world is that in the US, everyone and anyone is free to compete freely to lease any reservoir and produce it (within the law), selling the product as they see fit on the open market. Other than royalties on BLM and State lands, the government's only involvement is enforcing regulations. In most of the world, oil is a state-owned and controlled resource and even they many private companies produce it, the market is a lot less "free" in most cases. It is very special.
 
What is almost unique in this world is that in the US, everyone and anyone is free to compete freely to lease any reservoir and produce it (within the law), selling the product as they see fit on the open market. Other than royalties on BLM and State lands, the government's only involvement is enforcing regulations. In most of the world, oil is a state-owned and controlled resource and even they many private companies produce it, the market is a lot less "free" in most cases. It is very special.

Can coal be freely used to fuel power plants? Can a nuclear power plant be freely built? Are we free to drill for oil and ng? Regulations are the sole reason for our energy trade imbalance. There is no free trade or usage as it relates to our energy resources. We're simply content sending our dollars to countries that would like to destroy us as a nation. See how smart we are...
 
Solar has huge problems with un-subsidized cost and major technological barriers related to battery capacity, no down time on energy generation, and effective ways to link it into the grid. and I think we wont really see solar come about as a spot electricity provider until the 2020's
Without talking out of school, I wasn't speaking of the future. There are NOW solar projects going together in several countries with US and Canadian technology that are cost competitive with similar scale fossil fuel energy and can run as I said up to 3 weeks without sun at full rated capacity (due top storage system - quite new). Because these are base load capable, grid integration is a simple matter of electronics.

As for planes, whatever the cheapest most efficient fuel is is what makes sense, which at the moment his high octane jet propellants, though I think there may be some possibility of electrical replacement in a few decades.
Just to be technically correct, there is no "octane" rating for jet fuel. It is essentially just plain kerosene (and if you DID test for an octane value - would be far lower than the worst of Mexican gasoline). Battery technology is a long way short to use electric power on commercial airplanes or even light aircraft that have to travel any distance. Motor technology is also no where near where gas turbines have reached for power density.

For shipping we are talking about an industry where burning bunker fuel (API below 18...) is still the superior option I don't think you will see a switch anytime soon.
Bunker (that means ANY fuel used in vessels - not just residual fuels) has constantly switched to more highly processed (as in lower sulphur) fuels and many ships now use lighter IFO 180 or 380...all of the way up to MDO (Marine diesel) - but that usually in smaller vessels that use same engine tech as heavy trucks and gensets. What IS being done now is burning LNG or CNG as a fuel supplement to clean up emissions. But, still impossible to beat the efficiency and cost effectiveness of a residual fuel engine.

We have huge reserves of hydrocarbons, massive reserves of nuclear fuel, and the possibility of even greater expansion of access to these resources. I think we will continue more or less as we have for the next 20 years as we slowly transition to spot production with solar and newer style nuclear reactors. The only realistic chance for replacing hydrocarbon's as a primary source of electricity is in a major breakthrough in solar efficiency and battery technology (and dramatic falls in un-subsidized cost), an adoption of nuclear on a large scale, or a breakthrough in something we cannot plan on expecting like fusion.
I think self-sustaining (as in energy net positive) fusion reactors are still a way off, but Candu have been building and converting uranium fueled reactors to mostly thorium bundles (using uranium to stabilize reaction). There is some neat work is nearing commercial level for sub-critical mass gas cooled ("pebble bed") reactors. I would put us still very close to the START of nuclear energy development.

What alternative energy advocates tend to overlook is the need for mass generation at low costs in a way that can easily integrated. I'm fairly optimistic about the impact new technologies will have (as well as our capacity to exploit existing resources), but it is important to be grounded and realistic.
Absolutely.
 
Indeed, and some more so than oil at present. Where is the wisdom of making a costly transition to techs that depend upon non-renewables that are more scarce than oil?

It is only your opinion that other elements are more scarce than affordable oil. And you deny the damage burning of fossil fuels does to the environment that all our livelihoods depend upon.

You haven't shown that. Since when hasn't the solar industry received government subsidy?

How Much Solar Panels Cost - Energy Informative

100 pennies is still only one dollar. We could double the number of those who pop a panel on their roof and it still would be insignificant to the overall system.

Poppycock, I've cut my grid power usage in half. Cutting our need for grid power in half would be huge!



Once again, those discoveries have been made. The alternatives are here. Oil and coal remain dominant because they have the highest efficiency and are the cheapest in price. In terms of vehicle fuel, again - the discoveries have been made, but the efficiencies are off for the non-petro fuels or the tradeoff in their use is unacceptable.

Once again you deny the increasing costs of fossil fuels and the damage they are doing to the very environment that all our livelihoods are tied.


I personally have used alternatives for quite some time before I stopped driving. Started with propane, then went to SVO/WVO. Finally settled on B80 when it hit the Sun stations. But it's too much hassle for most folks and the state screwed the pooch heavily thinking they were helping with their own bio-diesel initiative. They started requiring that all diesel fuel sold in the state have a 5% bio-diesel component. Overnight it stripped the stocks of commercial bio-diesel and pegged the price upward. Thanks guys!

Electric is the way to go! That will be our next car purchase. And I can charge it from the solar panels on my roof. No middle east wars required! :cool:
 
This guy is a freaking idiot!

We have tons of natural gas,vehicles will run

on it nicely and it is cleaner than gasoline.

Makes perfect sense to spend tons of $ on

electric cars when we can't build power plants!:sarcasticclap

Good evening, Penn1954.

:agree: The article is touting 1.4 additional miles per gallon as a plus? 1.4 miles? So BHO wants to spend $200 million dollars on research for this? Just when you think you have heard it all....:( The man loves spending money, but then we already knew that. If people kept their maintenance and oil changes up to date, that would immediately improve gas mileage, according to any knowledgable mechanic. And whatever happened to his last year's big solar panel push....
 
Can coal be freely used to fuel power plants? Can a nuclear power plant be freely built? Are we free to drill for oil and ng? Regulations are the sole reason for our energy trade imbalance. There is no free trade or usage as it relates to our energy resources. We're simply content sending our dollars to countries that would like to destroy us as a nation. See how smart we are...
Within that law, we ARE "reasonably" free to do all of those things. If you bother to look at US energy production over the last two decades, you would notice that it fell until about 5 years ago and has turned around - thanks to new completion techniques (hyrdo frac-ing) that, as you might know, are being challenged by environmentalists. NOBODY in industry or government wants to send US dollars offshore for energy. However, anyone looking at the facts would realize that our energy consumption is far past a sustainable level. We don't need alternate energy sources, we need to wake up and stop waste so damn much of it.

Given the choice to allow wholesale destruction of the environment as Big Oil has done in Nigeria, Central America, etc. vs. the kind of sustainable development we have here, I can understand MOST of the regulations we have. However, to produce oil profitably, we really need to see $100 a barrel in our marketplace. It is profitable - for most conventional crudes - but not nearly as profitable as a place where you bribe a few government officials and just rape and pillage.

Let the price double, and everyone wins: we can produce more oil profitably, reduce dependence on imports, reduce consumption and alternatives become free market viable.
 
Last edited:
Within that law, we ARE "reasonably" free to do all of those things. If you bother to look at US energy production over the last two decades, you would notice that it fell until about 5 years ago and has turned around - thanks to new completion techniques (hyrdo frac-ing) that, as you might know, are being challenged by environmentalists. NOBODY in industry or government wants to send US dollars offshore for energy. However, anyone looking at the facts would realize that our energy consumption is far past a sustainable level. We don't need alternate energy sources, we need to wake up and stop waste so damn much of it.

We will have to agree to disagree with all points you just posted. Any increased production has occurred in spite of the federal government, not because of it. and the federal government is content to export our dollars rather than utilize resources we already have...
 
Good evening, Penn1954.

:agree: The article is touting 1.4 additional miles per gallon as a plus? 1.4 miles? So BHO wants to spend $200 million dollars on research for this? Just when you think you have heard it all....:( The man loves spending money, but then we already knew that. If people kept their maintenance and oil changes up to date, that would immediately improve gas mileage, according to any knowledgable mechanic. And whatever happened to his last year's big solar panel push....


Do you prefer sacrificing our young men and women to keep affordable oil flowing to our shores? How much did the Iraq war cost taxpayers? $3 trillion they say with the long term care required for the wounded and maimed.
 
We will have to agree to disagree with all points you just posted. Any increased production has occurred in spite of the federal government, not because of it. and the federal government is content to export our dollars rather than utilize resources we already have...

Another case in point that has a lot of people upset is spending our money to rebuild infrastructure in foreign countries when our own is crumbling due to age and neglect. :(
 
Do you prefer sacrificing our young men and women to keep affordable oil flowing to our shores? How much did the Iraq war cost taxpayers? $3 trillion they say with the long term care required for the wounded and maimed.

Of course not! So why hasn't the pipeline from Canada been fast-tracked?

As far as Iraq is concerned, both parties voted in favor of that war after impassioned speeches by both parties on the floor in Congress. I have a friend whose only son was killed in Iraq. They hold an annual money-raising event in his honor, and those thousands of dollars are given to those who spend it on treatment of wounded and maimed vets. They are the patriots, IMO!
 
Old enough likely to be your daddy! How old are you son? :cool:

Old enough to know that people don't wanna sacrifice soldiers for cheap oil.

42
 
Of course not! So why hasn't the pipeline from Canada been fast-tracked?

As far as Iraq is concerned, both parties voted in favor of that war after impassioned speeches by both parties on the floor in Congress. I have a friend whose only son was killed in Iraq. They hold an annual money-raising event in his honor, and those thousands of dollars are given to those who spend it on treatment of wounded and maimed vets. They are the patriots, IMO!

Were you under the impression that any of the oil from the pipeline would be used by the US?

Your attempt to place blame for Iraq does not speak to the point I made about our blood for oil policy in Iraq. I think McCain put it best, "My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."
 
Old enough to know that people don't wanna sacrifice soldiers for cheap oil.

42

The neocons didn't expect the Iraqis to fight back. After all they had no navy or airforce, We destroyed all that in the first Gulf war. They thought it would be a cakewalk.

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002

"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003

"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003"

Dick Cheney on War & Peace
 
Back
Top Bottom