first off, before reading the rest of this post, i give my highest recomendation that you spend 1:22:51 of your time and check out this documentary:

http://www.stage6.com/user/ChotaPapa/video/1780719/Eco-Movie-4

its probably the best documentary ive ever seen. blows "an inconvenient truth" out of the water, and makes al gore look like a child pornagrapher. its probably the smartest and most honest look at oil/ the energy crisis available.

a few things that really stuck with me:

1) the US has 2% of the world's oil reserves, consumes 25% of the world's oil, and imports 2/3 of its oil. obviously that is gonna have HUGE implications on our foreign policy. suddam hussein's real crime wasnt huminatarian or possessing illegal WMD's. does anyone believe that if iraq had been optimizing its oil output and selling it to the US that we would have invaded. no chance in hell.

2) one barrel of oil, containing 42 gallons and sold at an exchange for less than $100 dollars, contains the energy equivalent to that of 12 men working for one full year. when you think about that, no wonder we are willing to commit genocide over it. also, oil is ridiculously under priced. when you can drive your car 2 miles and only consume ~20 cents of gas (assuming 3.20 a gallon) and you can lug hundreds of pounds of stuff with you, its a no brainer. if option 1 involves driving and fossil fuels, option 2 which doesnt involve driving and fossil fuels is gonna be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay worse than spending 20 cents.

3) there are alot of indicators that we have already achieved peak oil output, or will in the relatively near future.

4) the human race's population exploded with oil, and life as we know it is bound to oil. when oil runs out, if we dont have plan b figured out, no way can we provide for 6 + (it might be way higher than that when we get to this problem) billion people. the video speculates we might be able to provide for 1.5 to 2 billion people. so what happens to the other 5 billion?

5) the financial market is completely bound to oil, too. every company traded at the NYSE assumes cheep oil is available. when that assumption is no longer true, those companies are overpriced. with rising oil prices, were already seeing some pretty tumultuous times with stocks. in the last two weeks, weve seen lows that we havent seen in years. and oil trading at a hundred dollars a barrell might be concidered cheep in the very near future, so what happens to the market then?

=============================================

so video is pretty mind blowing. it mentioned how JFK said lets go to the moon and then we went to the moon, and that a president could do the same thing today w/ weaning us off oil (though one dude says it would be more equivalent to colonizing pluto). right now, i dont see any of these presidential candidates stepping up to the plate. barrak would probably be the most likely, but he isnt showing his cards on pretty much any issue, so thats mere speculation/ hope.

but before you go to the cellar and hang yourself, ive already come up with the solution, hinted at in the video.

all we have to do is build a solar pannel ~ the size of texas and orbit that shit in the atmosphere. then, using technology developed by Tesla a hundred years ago, we're gonna broadcast that solar energy all over the world. fueling up your car, changing batteries, plugging in power cords, will all be distant memoreis. everything will just run. and incase your wondering if you can get a little taste of that energy $, the answer is no, douchebag. im gonna give away the energy to all. obviously, im gonna need $ to maintain the solar panel and related infrastructure, but that will come from the UN.

also, if you want to make a little do on the side, i would heavily suggest buying some CL (Light Sweet Crude Oil) futures options calls. buy them for the latest date available. i havent looked at prices, but whatever the premium, if you bought a call option for, say, 2015 at a strike price of $100 / barrel, well, oil for 100 a barrel in 2015 might be the steal of a lifetime. you could make an absolute fortune if you put a few thousand dollars in now and didnt mind sitting on it for 10 or so years.

but thats not exactly solving the problem.

incase your saying "b-diddy, you nancy, this will all just work out. weve gone through energy crisese before, this is no big deal".

this is a big deal. we went through a crisis in the 70's when we realized we had already peeked our oil production, but then we realized we could just rape the rest of the world's oil. and as soon as opec started playing ball, problem solved, or so we thought.

the problem today is that we pretty much know where all the oil is. yes, there is some in alaska that we could tap, but thats not a solution. and yea, better technology makes oil that we cant get to / not feasible more available.

but even with that, and all other sources of energy (pretty much all alternatives are pretty fataly flawed), new energy becoming available has pretty much flatlined/ dropped off, while demand is still increasing exponentially. unless we find energy on the moon, or something, were facing a pretty f'd up situation, IN OUR LIFETIMES.

one last thing from the video that really got the hook in me: will our grandkids ever fly in a plane? almost certainly not. only the top 00.1% will probably beable to afford to fly then.

also, if you want to make a little do on the side, i would heavily suggest buying some CL (Light Sweet Crude Oil) futures options calls. buy them for the latest date available. i havent looked at prices, but whatever the premium, if you bought a call option for, say, 2015 at a strike price of $100 / barrel, well, oil for 100 a barrel in 2015 might be the steal of a lifetime. you could make an absolute fortune if you put a few thousand dollars in now and didnt mind sitting on it for 10 or so years.

but thats not exactly solving the problem.

uh, exactly how much money are we talking?

well, 1 futures contract of CL is 1000 barrels of oil. 1000 x $100 is $100,000.

if oil goes up to $150 a barrel, that would be $150,000.

but could oil really go up that high?

oil was trading at $50 a barrel 2 years ago. in 2015 it could be trading at $500 a barrel for all we know.

so i need to invest $100,000?

no, in futures you invest on margins. to buy an oil futures contract, the exchange overnight margin is $4,500. but we are buying futures option calls, not futures. (buying option calls is buying the right to buy such a contract at such a date at such a price). the only risk would be the initial investment, which would covrer the premium on the contract (the consideration in exchange for the righ to buy the contract). i dont know what options are trading fore these days, but the ability to buy multiple options contracts is within most people's means.

oil went up to 102 / barrel yesterday. breaking a significant resistance level at 100. how high can it go?

As high as they want it to. The American Ego will still pay, and still want vehicles the size of Texas to prove it can handle anything.

I've always wondered why people are all, "Welll, hey, man, the politicians have gotta do something about this problem. I keep waiting for them to tell me what to do and they won't"

AND, HOW many cars are now in production that get good gas mileage? I'm talking over thirty. And, HOW many of us need to live 45 miles from where we work so our kids can "have a better place to live"? AND how many of us REALLY need more than 1 or 2 kids?

AND, how many of us get in our cars and go toodling around all weekend with no purpose in mind???

If Americans wanted to, we could save an incredible SHIT TON of gas just by modifying our habits.

But of course, we are waiting for a politician to say that, and he (or she) won't because that turns the mirror back on us and means that the guy who says it becomes an EX politician real quick.

JImmy Carter said "wear a sweater" and it became a national embarrasment.

I drive a shitty little biodiesel pickup truck from 1981 that gets 45 mpg and I walk everywhere I can. I live in the shittiest apartments in town because they're right across the street from campus and within walking distance of a stop & go and a dollar store, so I can get most of the essentials like TP, butter, milk, etc. Its not the best situation but I'm saving a ton of money and a ton of fuel, so I'm happy with it.

I've always wondered why people are all, "Welll, hey, man, the politicians have gotta do something about this problem. I keep waiting for them to tell me what to do and they won't"

AND, HOW many cars are now in production that get good gas mileage? I'm talking over thirty. And, HOW many of us need to live 45 miles from where we work so our kids can "have a better place to live"? AND how many of us REALLY need more than 1 or 2 kids?

AND, how many of us get in our cars and go toodling around all weekend with no purpose in mind???

If Americans wanted to, we could save an incredible SHIT TON of gas just by modifying our habits.

But of course, we are waiting for a politician to say that, and he (or she) won't because that turns the mirror back on us and means that the guy who says it becomes an EX politician real quick.
We live about 25 minutes from Denver, but we take the light rail into town everytime we go to an event to save gas consuption, and also to put money back into the pockets of those building mass transit. The trouble is most cities don't have great mass transit systems.

We also bought a 4 cylinder Mariner to save gas (we had to have a 4 wheel drive vehicle with room for our 100 pound dog, but not a big SUV). It gets 25 MPG, good for a SUV. Our Focus gets 35 MPG.

When was the last time anyone here took a bus?

http://thesunnah.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/bus.jpgI DO! How bout yoo?

Elementary school.

The driver was a creepy Michigan State fan and kept telling me I could sit on his lap every time I got on.

A few years ago when I actually lived somewhere with a bus route that went where I needed to go.

When I lived in Chicago, I took the bus all the time. For a few weeks, I think Jesus was on my bus.

Modern automobile transport is becoming both economically and environmentally unsustainable. Governments are losing the ability to maintain roads, drivers don't want to pay for gas, and the whole thing is just incredibly wasteful. All of us have our own combustion engines and the only thing those engines do is transport an average of 1.2 people in their own car.

The environmental answer is the easy one - put the engines in the hands of a few tightly regulated companies, that way the government doesn't have to regulate the little guy to death. Fuck it, I'll gladly give up my car to take a train as long as it takes me everywhere I want to go.

Here's my next car. A two seater, 8 feet long, over 40 MPG, built by Mercedes, and the mid range price is about 14G. Perfect for a town like Omaha where you spend about 11 minutes getting to work in the morning.

http://images.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2006/112_news060628_01z+daimler_chrysler_smart_car+pass enger_side_view.jpg

The problem with that is the stupid soccer moms in their Excursions and Escalades will kill you while talking on their cells phones.

The problem with that is the stupid soccer moms in their Excursions and Escalades will kill you while talking on their cells phones.
Not sure why, but "cells phones" made me laugh.

When was the last time anyone here took a bus?

Two days ago I was on the Ann Arbor Commuter.

When I lived in Chicago, I took the bus all the time. For a few weeks, I think Jesus was on my bus.

Jesus is always on your bus.

i rode detroit busses when i used to live w/ my mom (until i bought a big SUV).

i seriously have driven less than 10 miles in the last year or so. in chicago there is no need for a car. and honestly, the thought of driving in chicago (or even detroit) really sounds stressful now. i would only want a car if i lived in the country. probably the next car i buy will not run on crude oil. meaning its gonna be a while.

No seriously, there was this Hispanic guy in long robes, long hair, a beard, and carrying a wooden cross that got onto the bus every night.

One night the bus was completely empty except for me and some 80-year-old drunk Irish guy. And the Hispanic guy gets on the bus. The drunk old guy just stares at him silently for a few seconds, and then he turns to me and says "Jesus Christ!" Even Haysoos started cracking up.

lol

To answer my own question, I used to commute into downtown detroit for years on the bus. Granted, this took a fortunate combination of having a job at the nexus of all the routes and living near a route that was well serviced.

During various stretches it was either detroit or smart buses depending on where I was living at the time.

Under those circumstances I found it to be a welcomed alternative to driving to work. A stress-free time to relax, read the newspaper, catch a nap, whatever.

After my job moved to the burbs, that idyllic public-transportation-enhanced situation ended as there is no bus service between where I live and my office. On the upside, it's only three miles away.

These days, bus trips are relatively few and far between for me but on the occasions when I did venture one, they showed up when the schedule said they would and were clean/well maintained.

I'd use them more often but the schedules in the burbs are really only made to serve standard commuting hours.

futures oil contracts almost got to 107 dollars overnight.

the most heavily traded option right now is april oil at 110 / barrell.

no doubt, this has alot to do with a flimsy US dollar. ive heard experts say expect it to drop back down to the 80's over the summer when the dollar gets back on its feet (and when demand will go up... hmmm).

$4/gal gas on the way...

When our demand goes up in the summer, they usually blame the refinery situation and regional seasonal blends for the price spikes. So we'll get screwed no matter what happens to the price of a barrel.

whats amazing is that analyists are saying this is just a buble caused by a cheep dollar... which is true in that the dollar has gotten its ass kicked for a while now, as everyone knows.

but seriously, whenever a news story comes out about how al the janitor didnt turn off the lights at the refinery on his way out, gas prices prices skyrocket.

my guess, and this is only a guess, if oil does go back down to 80/ barrell this summer, it will be there just for a minute, where everyone will be liquidating everything they own to get in on the action, and that 80 / barrell will be right back in the mid 90's in no time.

incidentally, if you bought an futures contract at $80 / barrell and it went up to 95, that would be a 15 dollar swing per barrell, and a win of $15,000. do to margins (leveraging) you could do this with just a few thousand dollars.

or, if you believe the experts, and think were headed back down soon, you could make even more if you bought near the top, say at 110 and then rode it down to 80, $30,000.

When our demand goes up in the summer, they usually blame the refinery situation and regional seasonal blends for the price spikes. So we'll get screwed no matter what happens to the price of a barrel.

another school of thought is that our demand wont go up this summer. no one has money. no one is going to be driving large distances at 4 per gallon.

i think ive read reports about gas prices not affecting demand as much as expected (maybe im confusing zip rants and real reports). i think 4 dollars might be the sticker shock that puts a dent in demand.

I'm paying 3.83 a gallon out here for diesel. Writting that hurts. Then peeps wonder why my crown moulding is so expensive.

3.99 for diesel today. Fuuuuuuuuuuhhh

I'm paying 3.83 a gallon out here for diesel. Writting that hurts. Then peeps wonder why my crown moulding is so expensive.

There is so much going on in that post. It is hilarious, both parts. Full of irony, and probably as good a post about what kind of people Americans are as any long wined editorial you'll ever see. Well done, Tahoe!

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I aim to please.

Here's a discussion that will give even the most jaded carbon burner a serious boner for solar power:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88239836

http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x147/dspiewak/war038.gif

Hey Zip, heres another. I paid 4.02 a gallon for diesel yesterday. And peeps wonder why the hardwood floors I install are so damn expensive.

Out of curiosity, why is diesel so disproportionately high relative to unleaded? Are the refinery costs and demand curves really that imbalanced?

I have NO idea. When prices are low (which hasn't been in a long long time) diesel goes way lower than unleaded.

I need a diesel for the pulling power climbing to 7000ft in about 70 miles with a load. Not every day but when you need it, you need it.

I have NO idea. When prices are low (which hasn't been in a long long time) diesel goes way lower than unleaded.

I need a diesel for the pulling power climbing to 7000ft in about 70 miles with a load. Not every day but when you need it, you need it.You were in the Air Force, do what you've been trained to do: find somebody from the Army to do it for you. That cable isn't going to watch itself, Airman.

http://news.zdnet.com/2422-13568_22-192842.html


Silicon Valley's Luxim has developed a lightbulb the size of a Tic Tac that gives off as much light as a streetlight. News.com's Michael Kanellos talks to the company about its technology and its plans to expand into various markets.

A freaking tic tac.

Keep in mind that LEDs can produce remarkable light as it is. For the most part, we don't encounter high-powered LEDs, but you'll find them in newer traffic lights, headlights, etc. The key to this stuff is the power usage and heat dissipation. How useful is a Tic Tac-sized bulb if you need heat sinks you could fry an egg on?

The key there is how much of the energy you put in gets converted to heat vs how much gets converted to light. The more effecient the bulb is, the less heat you get, so this becomes less of an issue as you go from conventional to cfl to led to tictacs.

mmm tic tacs

I like the cinnamon ones

The key there is how much of the energy you put in gets converted to heat vs how much gets converted to light. The more effecient the bulb is, the less heat you get, so this becomes less of an issue as you go from conventional to cfl to led to tictacs.
You realize that this Tic Tac sized light is roughly as hot as the surface of the sun at its core, since it's creating a tiny bit of plasma inside it by a microwave kind of process? You may not be able to put two of 'em in a desk lamp side by side, unless you plan on a short career in welding and screwing up RF stuff. Its efficiency derives from how it heats, and it takes 250 watts from what I read, but it's definitely not a "cool light" source like CFLs.

You realize that this Tic Tac sized light is roughly as hot as the surface of the sun at its core, since it's creating a tiny bit of plasma inside it by a microwave kind of process? You may not be able to put two of 'em in a desk lamp side by side, unless you plan on a short career in welding and screwing up RF stuff. Its efficiency derives from how it heats, and it takes 250 watts from what I read, but it's definitely not a "cool light" source like CFLs.
At a given lumen level it's going to be cooler than a less efficient light.

When you use fewer watts to achieve the light level and convert more of that wattage to light as opposed to heat, it will always result in a cooler light than a less efficient alternative.

It's pretty much a simple matter of wattage in and heat/light out. No matter what technology is in the middle, it's about how much of your wattage is converted to those two things.

Tahoe, diesel in Toledo has been consistently 4.09 or above, and in Dundee where my parents live, its 4.29 the last I saw.

Diesel prices are so high because they know people will have to pay them. There is no reason at all that it should be 80 cents more than gasoline. When gas originally started its upward from 1.79 to 3$ a few years ago, diesel stayed under 2 dollars. Then, when gas was hitting the 2.80-3$ mark, diesel was still around 2.39. Then all of a sudden it went through the roof, and people kept paying for it, so its not coming down any time soon. Pretty much, the people selling diesel realized the supply and demand, waited for people to start buying diesel-powered vehicles because it was cheaper and more fuel efficient (like I did), then started raising prices. That's why I just walk everywhere now.

now this is what im talking about. wtf? i bet this dude doesnt even read these boards, and look at him. wtfdetroit needs to step its game up on the energy opportunity.


Algae: 'The ultimate in renewable energy'

ANTHONY, Texas (CNN) -- Texas may be best known for "Big Oil." But the oil that could some day make a dent in the country's use of fossil fuels is small. Microscopic, in fact: algae. Literally and figuratively, this is green fuel.


Plant physiologist Glen Kertz believes algae can some day be competitive as a source for biofuel.

1 of 3 "Algae is the ultimate in renewable energy," Glen Kertz, president and CEO of Valcent Products, told CNN while conducting a tour of his algae greenhouse on the outskirts of El Paso.

Kertz, a plant physiologist and entrepreneur, holds about 20 patents. And he is psyched about the potential algae holds, both as an energy source and as a way to deal with global warming.

"We are a giant solar collecting system. We get the bulk of our energy from the sunshine," said Kertz.

Algae are among the fastest growing plants in the world, and about 50 percent of their weight is oil. That lipid oil can be used to make biodiesel for cars, trucks, and airplanes. Watch how pond scum can be turned into fuel »

Most people know algae as "pond scum." And until recently, most energy research and development projects used ponds to grow it.

But instead of ponds, Valcent uses a closed, vertical system, growing the algae in long rows of moving plastic bags. The patented system is called Vertigro, a joint venture with Canadian alternative energy company Global Green Solutions. The companies have invested about $5 million in the Texas facility.

"A pond has a limited amount of surface area for solar absorption," said Kertz.

Don't Miss
In Depth: Solutions
SciTechBlog
"By going vertical, you can get a lot more surface area to expose cells to the sunlight. It keeps the algae hanging in the sunlight just long enough to pick up the solar energy they need to produce, to go through photosynthesis," he said.

Kertz said he can produce about 100,000 gallons of algae oil a year per acre, compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans.

Using algae as an alternative fuel is not a new idea. The U.S. Department of Energy studied it for about 18 years, from 1978 to 1996. But according to Al Darzins of the DOE's National Renewable Energy Lab, in 1996 the feds decided that algae oil could never compete economically with fossil fuels.

The price of a barrel of oil in 1996? About 20 bucks!

Government scientists experimented with algae in open ponds in California, Hawaii, and in Roswell, New Mexico.

But that involved a lot of land area, with inherent problems of evaporation and contamination from other plant species and various flying and swimming critters. Darzins said NREL switched from algae research to focus on cellulosic ethanol. That's ethanol made from plants like switchgrass and plant stover -- the leaves and stalks left after a harvest -- but not edible crops such as corn and soybeans.

Valcent research scientist Aga Pinowska said there are about 65,000 known algae species, with perhaps hundreds of thousands more still to be identified.

A big part of the research at the west Texas facility involves determining what type of algae produces what type of fuel. One species may be best suited for jet fuel, while the oil content of another may be more efficient for truck diesel.

In the Vertigro lab, Pinowska studies the care and feeding of algae for just such specifics. She said even small changes in the nutrients that certain algae get can help create a more efficient oil content.

And she said a knowledge of algae's virtues goes way back.

"Even the Aztecs knew it was beneficial; they used it as a high protein food," said Pinowska.

The other common commercial use of algae today is as a health food drink, usually sold as "Spirulina."

I'm too sexy for my pond

And who knew that single celled plants could be such "hotties" when it comes to sex? Kertz said it's a real "algae orgy" under the microscope.

Some algae reproduce sexually, some asexually, while many combine both modes. In some green algae the type of reproduction may be altered if there are changes in environmental conditions, such as lack of moisture or nutrients.

Intriguing details like that keep Kertz and other scientists searching for more and different algae. While dusty west Texas may not be the best hunting grounds, he said he is always on the lookout for samples in puddles, streams or ponds.

Locating algae processing plants intelligently can add to their efficiency. Locating algae facilities next to carbon producing power plants, or manufacturing plants, for instance, the plants could sequester the C02 they create and use those emissions to help grow the algae, which need the C02 for photosynthesis.

And after more than a decade hiatus, the U.S. government is back in the algae game. The 2007 Energy Security and Independence Act includes language promoting the use of algae for biofuels. From the Pentagon to Minnesota to New Zealand, both governments and private companies are exploring the use of algae to produce fuel.


But Al Darzins of the National Renewable Energy Lab said the world is still probably 5 to 10 years away from any substantial use of biofuels.

"There's not any one system that anyone has chosen yet. Whatever it is has to be dirt, dirt cheap," said Darzins.


http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

At a given lumen level it's going to be cooler than a less efficient light.

When you use fewer watts to achieve the light level and convert more of that wattage to light as opposed to heat, it will always result in a cooler light than a less efficient alternative.

It's pretty much a simple matter of wattage in and heat/light out. No matter what technology is in the middle, it's about how much of your wattage is converted to those two things.
Nukes are very efficient at generating light, but amazingly impractical because it turns out the heat dissipation sucks. :)

now this is what im talking about. wtf? i bet this dude doesnt even read these boards, and look at him. wtfdetroit needs to step its game up on the energy opportunity.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/01/algae.oil/index.html

if this thing generates ~2500 barrels of oil/acre/year, we are talking turkey.

if the US consumes 700 million barrells annually, we could cover that with just 280,000 acres^2.

the article didnt get too much into cost, but it all seems practical.

the only downside of this is probably the bukdow's of the world holding queerbait protests about 'save the algae'. goaddamn queers.

that and, technology is moving so fast we probably dont want to put our eggs in one basket when this maybe will be a relatively stupid idea in 5 years. rather than using, say 500,000 acres of land, perhaps 5 thousand acress is dedicated instead... or 5, depending on the gov.

Nukes are very efficient at generating light, but amazingly impractical because it turns out the heat dissipation sucks. :)

There's a lot of "heat out" from a nuke but then again there's a lot of "energy in" too...

goaddamn queers.
There has to be some way of mocking someone who does insanely warped stuff other than referring to them as queers, faggots, or gay. I'm not a upset about insulting language (obviously) but it's just not accurate to say that people who do dumb shit are acting gay. For example: there's nothing gay about Jimbo Wales, the guy who runs Wikipedia, but I still feel the urge to call that guy a faggot. We have got to come up with a good word to describe things like that.

I've tried to make it a habit of saying lame instead of gay, as in "wow, your car died, that's gay". Just out of courtesy to my gay friend, he gets kind of annoyed with it.

Instead of faggot you can say fucker, bitch, douche bag. Another one I've heard thrown around a bit, if you want to sound more creative, is douchenozzle.

I've tried to make it a habit of saying lame instead of gay

Saying lame is so gay.

Pffft, that shit is Ryan Seacrest.

I bet when Zekyl calls someone a loser he makes an L with his index finger and thumb, then puts it up to his forehead.

I don't even remember the last time I called someone a loser. I usually go with "fucking idiot"

hey, this stuff is all great, but i dont see any of it getting us back to an answer to the energy question.

getting back on topic...

1 of 20 1. Exxon Mobil
• See more Fortune 500 data for Exxon Mobil
Fortune 500 rank: 2
2007 profit: $40.61 billion
Exxon Mobil, the world's biggest oil company, posted a 2007 profit that was almost twice as much as that of the next company on this list, General Electric.

It is the highest-ever annual profit from a U.S. company, a record Exxon also set in 2006 and 2005.

Earnings rose 2.8% from 2006 on a sales increase of 7.4%.



#1 most profital company oil, 2 of the top 3 are oil companies. the free market is killing the little guy on both ends. gotta windfall tax this bullshit right fast.

btw, gas is trading at 117 on the exchange right now. no reason not to think its gonna keep going up. some people say well head back down due to a dollar on the rebound, or hedge funds taking their big money out of the market... that may be. but right now the market is still very bullish.

All I need is a bar, a job and a coney island within walking distance and I can tell exxon and the man to shove it. Energy crisis solved.

Tahoe, diesel in Toledo has been consistently 4.09 or above, and in Dundee where my parents live, its 4.29 the last I saw.

Diesel prices are so high because they know people will have to pay them. There is no reason at all that it should be 80 cents more than gasoline. When gas originally started its upward from 1.79 to 3$ a few years ago, diesel stayed under 2 dollars. Then, when gas was hitting the 2.80-3$ mark, diesel was still around 2.39. Then all of a sudden it went through the roof, and people kept paying for it, so its not coming down any time soon. Pretty much, the people selling diesel realized the supply and demand, waited for people to start buying diesel-powered vehicles because it was cheaper and more fuel efficient (like I did), then started raising prices. That's why I just walk everywhere now.

Paid 4.39 ???? I think it was yesterday. I'm driving my F-150 more than the diesel.

IMO, there is no good way for the USA to reduce gas prices other than short term measures like releasing strategic reserves. In the long term, the US needs to phase in large gas taxes. This will keep prices high, but shift some of the profit from the oil companies and oil exporting countries to the US govt., which could reduce other taxes to offset. In the long run, this will lead to better choices when people buy cars and for automakers to develop more efficient cars. Ideally, this will stimulate development of altenative fuel vehicles as well. People need to assume that prices will remain high when they buy cars, because, once they own a new car, their demand for gas is locked in for a few years. The continued US dependence on foreign oil after the gas shortages of the 70s and leading to the most recent wars in the mideast will probably be regarded as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in US history.

IMO, they only way to reduce CO2 emissions is tax, tax, tax. Like I said, you can reduce other taxes so that people aren't hurt too bad economically, but the best way to get people to use solar panels or other technology is to increase the cost of status quo energy. THese information campaigns are worthless unless they are softening people up to pay more for traditional energy in the future. The auto (especially the big 3), coal, and oil industries will fight tooth and nail to prevent any of these taxes from going into effect.

IMO, there is no good way for the USA to reduce gas prices other than short term measures like releasing strategic reserves. In the long term, the US needs to phase in large gas taxes. This will keep prices high, but shift some of the profit from the oil companies and oil exporting countries to the US govt., which could reduce other taxes to offset. In the long run, this will lead to better choices when people buy cars and for automakers to develop more efficient cars. Ideally, this will stimulate development of altenative fuel vehicles as well. People need to assume that prices will remain high when they buy cars, because, once they own a new car, their demand for gas is locked in for a few years. The continued US dependence on foreign oil after the gas shortages of the 70s and leading to the most recent wars in the mideast will probably be regarded as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in US history.

IMO, they only way to reduce CO2 emissions is tax, tax, tax. Like I said, you can reduce other taxes so that people aren't hurt too bad economically, but the best way to get people to use solar panels or other technology is to increase the cost of status quo energy. THese information campaigns are worthless unless they are softening people up to pay more for traditional energy in the future. The auto (especially the big 3), coal, and oil industries will fight tooth and nail to prevent any of these taxes from going into effect.

I think it's approaching the realm of fantasy to believe that other taxes would be reduced enough to avoid a crushing blow to people at the lower end of the income scale.

Well, I said that taxes should be phased in over time, so that people know what will happen. This would give them a chance to buy more fuel efficient cars and such to mitigate their costs. Anyways, in general, you want to tax activities that have social costs that exceed private costs, (e.g., gas, electricity, cigarettes, alcohol, guns) rather than activities that have social benefits (e.g., labor). You could easily tie carbon tax revenue to an increase in standard deductions to offset effects for poor people. The downside of carbon/gas taxes is that you might put the big 3 out of business. This is a much bigger concern to me than the catostrophic effects you foresee for poor people. I think that is an exaggeration. In general, a gas tax would shift more revenue from oil companies to government revenues. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

I think that is an exaggeration. In general, a gas tax would shift more revenue from oil companies to government revenues. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

I'm afraid I have to argue with that. Pile taxes on gas and they get passed directly to the consumer. Nothing gets shifted away from the oil companies. The only shift is out of our pockets into government coffers.

The above statement is wrong because the oil industry is supply limited. When you tax something that is supply limited, the tax burden is split between the producers and the government. The price will go up, but not in the 1:1 correspondence that you suggest. This is why so many economists (conservative and liberal) argue that the gas tax holiday is horrible policy. Oil prices are skyrocketing because demand exceeds supply and because of speculation. If the US and Europe were to annouce plans to increase gas taxes, this would reduce speculation buying and long term demand, which would decrease prices that could be charged by oil companies and the revenues collected by Middle Eastern countries and Venezuela. In fact, those countries could drop production any time they feel like it and the West would be totally fucked, similar to the 1970s.

Europe's gas taxes are already sky high and the US doesn't have a monopoly on demand. Countries like china and india aren't going to join the tax frenzy nor will their demand taper off.

The idea is right back where it started as a punitive, regressive blow to the taxpaying public. Also, it's not just gas. The price of nearly everything goes up with energy costs.

And Europe smartly buys small cars and uses mass transit much more effectively. Europe got it right!!!

edit: also, imagine where gas prices would be if Europeans used as much gas as Americans

Mostly because europe had a wholly different set of circumstances. None of that of course supports the idea that europe will join hand in hand with the US to jack up gas taxes.

Either you want to do something about carbon and oil dependence or you don't. As far as I klnow the euro taxes were developed to reduce air pollution and reliance on foreign oil, so I don't see much difference. Gas prices will continue to rise as china, india, etc. develop and as easily accessible supplies dwindle. There is nothing we can do to stop the price rise. We can slow the price rise by using less fuel ourselves. This article explains a revenue neutral tax program in British Columbia that is excellent IMO.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/02/19/bc-provincial-budget.html

"The principle is simple," said Taylor. "Tax carbon-emitting fuels to discourage their use, and give the money back to people, back to businesses, so they have control. They can make their own choices about how the tax affects them."

The tax will earn the government an estimated $1.85 billion over three years, but Taylor said the plan will be revenue neutral. The government will give all of the money back to taxpayers in the form of tax breaks, she said.

Income tax rates for the first $70,000 earned will be cut by five per cent in 2009, giving B.C. the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada for those earning less than $111,000.

The corporate tax rate will also be cut one per cent to 11 per cent in 2009, and 10 per cent in three years, making B.C.'s corporate tax rates on par with the lowest in Canada.

In total, businesses in B.C. will pay a total tax rate of 25 per cent when federal and provincial taxes are combined, making B.C.'s corporate tax rate 10 per cent lower than the U.S. average, said Taylor.

She also said that in June the government will issue a $100 rebate to every adult and child in the province to offset the cost of the carbon tax.

by the way, if you want to make a fortune, you should move to Alberta Canada. It could become the largest oil producer in the world over the next decade. The median income is 1.5x the Canadian average and it is severely labor and housing limited. The oil from the region was not economically viable at <$20-$40/ barrell. At $100/barrell, the region should become like CA during the goldrush (albeit a cold a barren CA with a huge male to female ratio).

Alberta is sometimes referred to as "Canada's Texas" and that's reason enough for me to want to live somewhere else.

The best part is that while squeezing oil from sand will turn the area into a vast toxic wasteland, canada is so sparsely populated no one will notice.

The only reason to live there would be financial. I believe it is in the Arctic Circle and the average temp in the winter is around -20C. No sun in the winter, little darkness in the summer. The environmental damage caused by the mining is also rather extreme with huge moon-like craters. It is literally in the middle of nowhere, and I would guess is almost devoid of women. I imagine the whole experience would be surreal, and could drive one insane.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Sections/Travel%20Section/Summer%20Travel/060608_shining_vmed_1p.widec.jpg

The only reason to live there would be financial. I believe it is in the Arctic Circle and the average temp in the winter is around -20C.
I've been to Calgary and Banff (and I've studiously avoided Edmonton). All but one of the times I've been to Alberta, it was cold enough that you didn't need to convert between Celsius and Fahrenheit. It was just fucking cold! :)

http://www.desmogblog.com/dscovr-mission-to-be-gutted

Mini nuclear plants (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos)


Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. 'Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,' said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. 'They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $250 per home.'

Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. 'It's leapfrog technology,' he said.
The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. 'We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.'

'You could never have a Chernobyl-type event - there are no moving parts,' said Deal. 'You would need nation-state resources in order to enrich our uranium. Temperature-wise it's too hot to handle. It would be like stealing a barbecue with your bare hands.'



Other companies are known to be designing micro-reactors. Toshiba has been testing 200KW reactors measuring roughly six metres by two metres. Designed to fuel smaller numbers of homes for longer, they could power a single building for up to 40 years.

#78 is the best news I've seen in a while.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html

Convicts on bikes and hamster wheels.

Where's my fucking Nobel Prize?

At a given lumen level it's going to be cooler than a less efficient light.

When you use fewer watts to achieve the light level and convert more of that wattage to light as opposed to heat, it will always result in a cooler light than a less efficient alternative.

It's pretty much a simple matter of wattage in and heat/light out. No matter what technology is in the middle, it's about how much of your wattage is converted to those two things.

Actually, it's a matter of current in, heat/light out. I don't know too many houses, places, with a varible voltage in. Therefore only the amount of current the load draws can change.:dismissed:

On a more serious note....

Heat pumps. Next time you replace your air conditioner, replace it with a heat pump. The difference in upfront cost between the standard air conditioner and a heat pump shouldn't be more than $100-200. You will make that up in your first winter. I have delved deep into the world of thermal physics over the last couple months for my job, and that is my conclusion. I can elaborate if anyone cares.

This motor spins with magnets and batteries
Posted by Jeff Kart | The Bay City Times November 20, 2008 09:31AM

Tim Wheeler seems to have done the impossible, inventing an electromagnetic engine that runs almost on its own.

He showed off a prototype of the "EME," for Electro Magnetic Energy, on Wednesday in Bay City.

"It does a lot more than what I'm showing you or telling you," said Wheeler, a 43-year-old "jack of all trades" from Burt near Birch Run.

His small, patented motor sips power from six motorcycle batteries while also recharging them. It works by using positive and negative charges to push and pull magnets mounted to a shaft inside a plastic case. There's a recovery system that prolongs the battery life.

Wheeler says the EME could be scaled up to power everything from automobiles to appliances, running for up a year without being plugged in.

He and others involved with TWM Technology in Bay City are looking for investors or government funding to continue their research.

So far, they say they've sunk three years and more than $50,000 into a large version of the EME installed into a 1951 Ford pickup.

That big engine runs, using the same six batteries, but needs work, because it was built with metal parts. A key to the EME is using plastic so as not to interfere with the magnets, said TWM President Todd Thorp, a Bay City native who now lives in Saginaw.

"I want to put it into actual production," Wheeler said of his invention, and eliminate all or most of the use of gasoline in America.

The hope is to license the technology and have another company make the motors.

For now, Wheeler said he makes a living hauling scrap, fixing cars and doing other odd jobs.

He says he was "raised in a scrapyard" and came to understand electricity at a young age.

"We use the full effect of the magnetic field, unlike any other motor," he said.

The prototype EME has been shown to be up to 82 percent efficient, he said. Wheeler said he's run the little motor for an hour and only used 2 percent of the battery power.

Wheeler started working on the motor "out of curiosity."

The prototype was made by hand, in his garage, with about $100 worth of parts. He thinks larger versions could be built and sold for less than gas-powered engines.

The prototype could be used to move a moped at speeds of up to 50 mph, said Henry Johnson, a Bay City real estate broker that hosted Wednesday's showing.

Johnson is part of Angel Marketing in Burt, which is trying to promote the EME. The group also includes T.J. Swihart of Bay City, a retired scientist from Dow Corning Corp.

So far, Johnson said he's contacted General Motors, Ford and Chrysler officials about the EME, but they haven't been willing to talk to him - yet.

Wheeler's next goal is to rebuild the large motor and show it off on the roads of Michigan.

Thorp, a former small business owner, said he's committed to the EME partially because of his 4-year-old son, Zackary.

Unlike gas engines, which pollute the environment, the EME runs clean, without as much as a tailpipe, he said.

"Air quality for the future," Thorp said of his motivation. "Not just for him, but for everyone."

Cuba solved this problem:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/06/20/cuba-s-carbon-footprint-is-smaller-than-its-bootprint.aspx
<laughs>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/faculty_staff/bernitsas/Res_inter.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/name/faculty_staff/bernitsas/Res_inter.htm

Sweeeeet.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10121082-54.html?tag=mncol

http://blog.earthwindpower.net/ -- published out of Royal Oak