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

Catawba · Mar 19, 2013

clownboy said:
We were talking about energy generation and we were also talking about oil use.

Yeah about how electric cars could reduce our need of oil.

You haven't shown any correlation between the two. The price of solar and wind have been reduced by increased subsidy, not a lessening of manufacturing cost.

The price, without tax credits, has gone down on solar panels by 1/5 since I started pricing them 5 years ago. When I bought them last year they were only $1 per watt, all while the price of gasoline went up.

Not "so many of us", a few of us. And what we generate is nowhere near our need. So the vast majority rely upon transmitted power from a distant location.

The point is, that is changing as more people like myself install affordable onsite systems.

First, that 49% is a little high, regardless, you're trading one shortage for another. Electric cars rely upon rare earth metals that internal combustion engines don't. Let's just take ONE of them - lithium. Are you of the impression that lithium is of unlimited supply or renewable?

The 49% is from government statistics. With new research, we may find other more abundant materials that work better than lithium. That's the point of research.
Affordable oil is finite as well and burning it for transportation is damaging the environment.

Catawba · Mar 19, 2013

apdst said:
Your docs don't show anything, except that the information was composed by someone who doesn't have a clue how the tax code works, nor a single iota about how businesses are run in this country. It's propaganda and nothing more. You should be embarressed that you actually used that info to support your argument.

I'll tell you like I told Fenton, if there are no subsidies, then they won't miss them when they are gone, will they?

clownboy · Mar 19, 2013

Catawba said:
If there are no subsidies, then they won't miss them when they are gone, will they?

Are you seriously proposing ending the write off for capitol improvements and site construction from all businesses? Or are you intending to target just one?

Helix · Mar 19, 2013

American said:
Were you even alive then,

yes. i was born in the mid 70s.

American said:
you didn't even have a PC sitting on your desk back then.

not until about 1982, when the school let me borrow a TRS80.

American said:
You people always seem to think you're smarter than everyone else. The idea of Lithium-ion was only in the lab at that point. Hydrogen fuel cells were only found on Apollo missions, care to find out how much they cost back then? There is nothing late here at all.

i'm not arguing that the transition from oil could have been accomplished instantly. i'm saying that if we had started seriously addressing it back then, we'd probably have a different transportation energy model by now.

apdst · Mar 19, 2013

Catawba said:
I'll tell you like I told Fenton, if there are no subsidies, then they won't miss them when they are gone, will they?

Can you possibly imagine how redundant that statement is? This is what your argument has been reduced to?

apdst · Mar 19, 2013

clownboy said:
Are you seriously proposing ending the write off for capitol improvements and site construction from all businesses? Or are you intending to target just one?

Catawba wants to use the Constitution for toilet paper and screw the oil companies for political reasons.

apdst · Mar 19, 2013

Helix said:
yes. i was born in the mid 70s.

not until about 1982, when the school let me borrow a TRS80.

i'm not arguing that the transition from oil could have been accomplished instantly. i'm saying that if we had started seriously addressing it back then, we'd probably have a different transportation energy model by now.

If it was viable, it would have happened.

Helix · Mar 19, 2013

apdst said:
If it was viable, it would have happened.

we've already covered this.

clownboy · Mar 19, 2013

Catawba said:
Yeah about how electric cars could reduce our need of oil.

And increase our need for other far more limited supply non-renewables. TANSTAAFL.

Catawba said:
The price, without tax credits, has gone down on solar panels by 1/5 since I started pricing them 5 years ago. When I bought them last year they were only $1 per watt, all while the price of gasoline went up.

As have the subsidies on them also increased. Again the lower cost to you is not due to lower manufacturing costs but a higher government subsidy.

Catawba said:
The point is, that is changing as more people like myself install affordable onsite systems.

Miniscule effect due to the weaknesses I have mentioned in our electrical system (transmission and storage).

Catawba said:
The 49% is from government statistics. With new research, we may find other more abundant materials that work better than lithium. That's the point of research.
Affordable oil is finite as well and burning it for transportation is damaging the environment.

Actually, government figures I've see range from 42-47%, but that's just a quibble. No matter, you're still trading in real time today a shrinking non-renewable resource with a non-renewable resource that is in vastly smaller supply.

apdst · Mar 19, 2013

Helix said:
we've already covered this.

I know we have, which makes me wonder why you keep harping, "if only we had been working on it years ago, we wouldn't be using petro-fuels anymore".

If alternative energy worked, the oil companies would be all over it by now.

clownboy · Mar 19, 2013

Helix said:
i'm not arguing that the transition from oil could have been accomplished instantly. i'm saying that if we had started seriously addressing it back then, we'd probably have a different transportation energy model by now.

Agreed, and there were many who said the same back in the 70s. But then the price of oil went down again and the cost of these alternatives was too great in contrast. That comparison is no different now.

And let's not forget the known human element. Remember that joke where the punchline is, "can I keep doing it until I just need glasses then?". It's like that.

cannuck · Mar 19, 2013

apdst said:
I know we have, which makes me wonder why you keep harping, "if only we had been working on it years ago, we wouldn't be using petro-fuels anymore".

If alternative energy worked, the oil companies would be all over it by now.

Alternative energy (or at least SOME) "works", just not economically when oil is so far undervalued. Show me $200 a barrel and I will show you 300,000,000 more Americans who will become alternative energy converts, and thousands of businesses that are participating in that market - all without ANY need for government to stick it bumbling nose into the marketplace.

Oil companies ARE indeed becoming energy companies, both in the US and internationally, precisely because they DO see a future for alternatives. Sad part is, Big Oil is just as much of a whore as anyone else, and they will go where the free ride is as well (i.e. significant involvement in idiotic ethanol crap and as well heavily subsidized wind energy projects - BTW one of the things ENRON did very deeply, as well as nuclear).

Catawba · Mar 19, 2013

clownboy said:
Are you seriously proposing ending the write off for capitol improvements and site construction from all businesses? Or are you intending to target just one?

You haven't been paying attention. Oil companies get more written off than regular businesses through additional tax breaks provided in 1916 and 1926.

Catawba · Mar 19, 2013

clownboy said:
And increase our need for other far more limited supply non-renewables. TANSTAAFL.

Pfft! All elements are limited!

As have the subsidies on them also increased. Again the lower cost to you is not due to lower manufacturing costs but a higher government subsidy.

You didn't pay attention. The price went down, without tax credits.

Miniscule effect due to the weaknesses I have mentioned in our electrical system (transmission and storage).

An ever increasing effect.

Actually, government figures I've see range from 42-47%, but that's just a quibble. No matter, you're still trading in real time today a shrinking non-renewable resource with a non-renewable resource that is in vastly smaller supply

I never said it would be done overnight! And the more breakthrough discoveries, the quicker the transition away from expensive and damaging fossil fuels.

Mr.Nick · Mar 19, 2013

Helix said:
yes. i was born in the mid 70s.

not until about 1982, when the school let me borrow a TRS80.

i'm not arguing that the transition from oil could have been accomplished instantly. i'm saying that if we had started seriously addressing it back then, we'd probably have a different transportation energy model by now.

There is truly no desire to get off of oil - this whole "we need to get off of oil" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Maybe you and 30,000,000 other voters want to get off of oil - however you're a voter and you will vote for anyone that panders to your desires and politicians know that so they will tell you what you want to hear. Hell, they will throw taxpayer money at the issue so they can pander to you and then claim they created jobs and then tell those employed by their farce they're lucky and they need to vote to keep the money flowing from the taxpayer to employ him/her...

There is no oil shortage, AGW doesn't exist but politicians need both to exist so they can pretend to "save the day" (get themselves reelected to their cushy jobs)...

jonny5 · Mar 19, 2013

Cephus said:
We're not, but that has nothing to do with the Constitution, does it? We can pass laws and hold people accountable to those laws entirely without the Constitution, nations have been doing that since the dawn of human civilization.

The constitution IS the law which were supposed to hold people account to. So YET AGAIN, if youre saying it doesnt matter, then how are we supposed to hold them accountable?

Kushinator · Mar 19, 2013

apdst said:
If alternative energy worked, the oil companies would be all over it by now.

Try again!

If alternative energy provided short-term profitability, oil companies would be all over it by now. This a major motivation behind mothballing promising research.

Mr.Nick · Mar 19, 2013

A car in motion generates way more energy than what a basic car battery can hold. Why not have bigger batteries or multiple batteries to capture the extra juice? Not to mention you could put "pin wheels" on the inside of a cars grill that would spin via air creating even more energy.. The heat generated by an engine could also be used.

I suppose my point is that a vehicle generates so much energy but the typical vehicle only recycles 10% of the energy it creates.

One shouldn't have to plug their car into a wall outlet - that is just stupid and unnecessary.

There is no such thing as "free energy" however in theory a car could recycle it's energy....

Catawba · Mar 19, 2013

Mr.Nick said:
A car in motion generates way more energy than what a basic car battery can hold. Why not have bigger batteries or multiple batteries to capture the extra juice? Not to mention you could put "pin wheels" on the inside of a cars grill that would spin via air creating even more energy.. The heat generated by an engine could also be used.

I suppose my point is that a vehicle generates so much energy but the typical vehicle only recycles 10% of the energy it creates.

One shouldn't have to plug their car into a wall outlet - that is just stupid and unnecessary.

There is no such thing as "free energy" however in theory a car could recycle it's energy....

Many new vehicles are now routing energy that would be lost back into the batteries. One example currently being utilized is the energy produced from braking. More research means more possibilities in that area.

apdst · Mar 19, 2013

Kushinator said:
Try again!

If alternative energy provided short-term profitability, oil companies would be all over it by now. This a major motivation behind mothballing promising research.

Enter the conspiracy theory.

Kushinator · Mar 19, 2013

apdst said:
Enter the conspiracy theory.

It has nothing to do with conspiracy, but with the ability to derive profit. Energy efficiency is not profitable for energy providers. This is simply a matter of fact.

Fenton · Mar 19, 2013

Catawba said:
If there are no subsidies, then they won't miss
them when they are gone, will they?[/
QUOTE]

Why shouldn't oil companies share the same tax brakes companies like Apple and Google share ?

Because people like you have a displaced amount of irrational hatred over oil and the companies that produce it, crack it and sell it ?

Oil is actually in demand, which is more than I can say for photovoltaic or wind energy.

Fenton · Mar 19, 2013

Kushinator said:
Try again!

If alternative energy provided short-term profitability, oil companies would be all over it by now. This a major motivation behind mothballing promising research.

Oh pleese Kush.

Its profitable for the government too.

Whats the tax on a gallon of gas ?

Kushinator · Mar 19, 2013

Fenton said:
Oh pleese Kush.

Its profitable for the government too.

Whats the tax on a gallon of gas ?

The government is not a for-profit entity. Try again.

Mr.Nick · Mar 19, 2013

Catawba said:
Many new vehicles are now routing energy that would be lost back into the batteries. One example currently being utilized is the energy produced from braking. More research means more possibilities in that area.

Tesla had some ideas and theories... Too bad he was thought of as a "crackpot" back in his day.

Also, magnets/electromagnetics are another interesting solution..

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

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

clownboy

Helix

apdst

apdst

apdst

Helix

clownboy

apdst

clownboy

cannuck

Active member

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Mr.Nick

jonny5

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Mr.Nick

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

apdst

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Fenton

Fenton

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Mr.Nick