What does bush plan to do about energy crisis?

[swansont]

Because a large portion of the working class are covered by increased cost of consumer products under a cost of living clause in a union contract.

 

In any event' date=' if the oil companies collect more money because of an increase on crude, then that money is in turn spent on exploration and infrastructure whuch means jobs.

 

If the government collects money in the form of taxes, it results in a growth in the bureaucracy where little is accomplished other that the hireing of worthless brothers-in-law.[/quote']

 

 

It's nice to see you don't let little things like facts get in the way.

[towjyt]

It's nice to see you don't let little things like facts get in the way.

 

Face it Swansont, you might be a physics expert, but you don't know squat about the US economy.

[bascule]

What else do you want to research?

 

Researching hydrogen isn't a bad thing. Not pushing E-85 is. E-85 is a fuel any existing gasoline vehicle today can run on with only slight modification. There's absolutely no reason why every car being manufactured today isn't mandated to support E-85 and other non-gasoline hydrocarbon fuels.

 

Furthermore, E-85 is currently selling for approximately $1.50/gallon versus $2+/gal in most areas.

[bascule]

And for those of you talking about where to get hydrogen, our best bet is from coal, not electrolysis:

 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/2b2.pdf

[swansont]

Face it Swansont, you might be a physics expert, but you don't know squat about the US economy.

 

 

I do know something about economics, but more importantly, I can usually recognize BS whan I see it. And I'll leave you to wallow in your leavings.

[revprez]

Researching hydrogen isn't a bad thing. Not pushing E-85 is. E-85 is a fuel any existing gasoline vehicle today can run on with only slight modification. There's absolutely no reason why every car being manufactured today isn't mandated to support E-85 and other non-gasoline hydrocarbon fuels.

 

Furthermore' date=' E-85 is currently selling for approximately $1.50/gallon versus $2+/gal in most areas.

 

1. The page explicitly states that the MALA isn't responsible for misrepresentations.

 

2. E85 has about 10 percent less energy content that gasoline.

 

3. Even if we take these prices at face value, your saving less than thirty cents on average in a minimally populated state where the gasoline price hovers around two bucks.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

And for those of you talking about where to get hydrogen' date=' our best bet is from coal, not electrolysis:

 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/2b2.pdf[/quote']

 

Our best bet is from natural gas and oil, which accounts for more than seventy percent of bulk hydrogen production.

 

Rev Prez

[towjyt]

I do know something about economics, but more importantly, I can usually recognize BS whan I see it. And I'll leave you to wallow in your leavings.

 

Well--OK.

[some nerd]

Our best bet is from natural gas and oil' date=' which accounts for more than seventy percent of bulk hydrogen production.

 

Rev Prez[/quote']

We dont have much oil and gas that is the problem at the first place. Only thing we, US or world, have in plenty is coal so that can be used to get the hydrogen. But if you do that, anyway you are causing same environmental problems. So in a near term it is a possible solution becasue we dont have gas/oil so we will convert coal into hydrogen. However if you look into long run when coal is not there, then we have to have new source of energy be it solar or nuclear...

[revprez]

We dont have much oil and gas that is the problem at the first place.

 

No, we--that is, the entire world--do not have much oil and gas, which is why we'll eventually have to transition. And that will require a major restructuring of the economy to reduce point of sale cost.

 

So in a near term it is a possible solution becasue we dont have gas/oil so we will convert coal into hydrogen.

 

And, in the near term, its also possible to meet US power consumption needs for a sixth of a year by detonating a single 1 MT device into a 50% efficient thermocouple. It's just not smart.

 

Rev Prez

[jgerlica]

Skipping the whole political quagmire, I'd like to throw out one tested idea... Slap a propane carb on say a chevy 350 and the heads off a 305 to raise compression. Then amazingly, the flash point of ethanol is only 180 degrees f, so it is quite simple to mate the fuel to the existing technology. BTW, my old scottsdale gets similar milage to a Honda Civic. Of course I'm still using evil Max-life motor oil....so I suppose I haven't totally defeated OPEC. I suppose I could stop being cheap and use synthetic though.

[-Demosthenes-]

Eventually something will happen and things will change other energy forms will be found when we need them. I think that a lot of people are just impatient. If it's not a big enough problem that people are changing, then we don't need to worry about it yet. I'm sorry it's boring to look at life that way, but it is very true.

[Ophiolite]

If you walk out onto a freeway into the path of an oncoming truck, which is travelling at 60mph, things are just fine up till the moment of impact. Sure you can see it coming, but its not there yet, so what's the problem. That guy waving his arms over on the hard shoulder, screaming at you to get out of the way - he's just impatient. Never mind, you wont be bored for much longer.