http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … _over.html
I was reading about this years ago! The story says the Saudis have overstated their oil reserves... but the fact is every country is probably guilty of this to some degree... it just isn't wise to show potential enemies your hand! Girecentis recent enlightment, shouldn't America be drilling every where we can? Obama is gambling with the economy of this country and the stability and security of this nation as well with his bone headed and foolish energy policies!
We need a Chinese metaphor. Chinese Roulette?
I see lack of resources, rapidly growing Chinese middle class and dominance on manufacturing lower cost goods, US and world economics, and military concerns with China as being our biggest threats to the livelihood and well-being of the US and allies.
It doesn't surprise me that the Saudis would exaggerate their resources. We may be guilty of similar within our own borders.
I think that current and future administrations should be pushing, encouraging, and rewarding alternative fuels and energy production. As a country, we need to be more self-reliant and that includes businesses and individual households. The hard part is changing human behavior. Many of us are 'old dogs' and we're not very willing to 'learn new tricks'.
You've correctly stated the problem, but the solution is wrong. People just don't understand how small our oil reserves are. If we drill in ANWR, at full production it would supply 5% of US demands for about 10 years before being completely depleted. That's a drop in the bucket, with little change in prices. In addition, by depleting what little supplies we have, we are showing our own hand and making ourselves weaker. If OPEC discovers we have gone through all of our own reserves, that makes it easier for them to put upward pressure on prices, because they will know we have no alternative source.
The better solution is decrease demand. This can be done by putting more resources into alternative energy. Switch the energy grid over to wind, solar, and nuclear over the next couple of decades. Encourage the development of fuel efficient cars and electric cars. These are long-term changes that will be more beneficial to the United States. Increasing domestic drilling now is just a stop-gap that jeopardizes our future by taking away that small cushion we have in case world oil supplies collapse.
"Encourage the development of fuel efficient cars and electric cars."
Electric cars are not the answer to the problem.
Batteries have to be recharged.
Fossil fuels will still be used to do that.
The cost of the cars is approximately the same as fuel burning vehicles and they do less.
Did you miss the part about making major changes to the energy grid with wind, solar, and perhaps most importantly nuclear power? Although coal is a better solution for the power grid than oil, we don't HAVE to use coal to make electricity, that's just how we do it now. There are many countries that use very few fossil fuels for their power grid.
"The cost of the cars is approximately the same as fuel burning vehicles and they do less."
I'm not sure what you mean by "they do less". I guess they are worse at some things. They do tend to be slower right now. They don't have the range of most gas vehicles. That's all changing though as the technology advances. Electric sports cars are becoming more common, and with the instant torque you get from an electric motor they are actually quicker in real-world driving (as opposed to race track driving, where 200 mph speeds are common) than gas-powered vehicles. The issues with range are being worked on, with significant improvements in just the past 10 years.
I'm not saying that 100% of cars and trucks need to be electric. Advances in diesel technology have not only made the engines much cleaner than they were decades ago, but also far more efficient. Trucks are very popular in the United States, and just increasing the fuel economy on those trucks by an average of 25 to 50% (which is very possible) would have a tremendous effect on our overall fuel demands.
"Did you miss the part about making major changes to the energy grid with wind, solar, and perhaps most importantly nuclear power?"
No I didn't miss it, who pays for these changes to the energy grid?
Tax payers pay and they will based on computer models showing that we are destroying the earth by using fossil fuels.
People like Al Gore become rich (richer) selling a hoax that we are destroying the environment.
Nah, drill baby, drill...
Who paid for most of the existing power grid? Who pays a huge part of the tab for the drilling infrastructure, such as the Alaskan pipeline? If you think free enterprise bought all of this, you're living in a fantasy world Jim.
I may have payed for it and it works great.
Why would I want to pay again?
you're right, a lot of that was NOT built by the government.
But that does NOT prove that those endeavours (or more profitable ones) would NOT have taken place WITHOUT government.
Roads = created by private institutes
Electrical grids - private
Money - private
time zones - private
Education - private.
Just cuz the government pays for something doesn't mean it wouldn't exist (or be more expensive) than without government.
Governments can't create wealth, they can only reallocate it.
Certainly private enterprise has done those things, but at a much smaller scale than the government. Government spending projects always have the potential to fail, but they also accomplish great things when they succeed. As I type this, I'm using many different technologies that would not exist if it weren't for government grants from the United States government. The internet itself was an offshoot of a government project. Private enterprises are generally too small to embark on major projects that are on scale with government projects. How many companies would have jumped at the chance to spend billions of dollars to build a system of networked computers 40 years ago? Zero. How many companies have built an electrical grid that services a large number of people without using government assistance for both costs and to obtain land? These things are possible without government, just not very likely.
DB, your correct. I would also point out that a LOT of those projects had their origin in Military spending. The interstate, the internet, etc. So many are quick to point out defense budget cuts forget how often the military is a "test market" for such projects. They also forget how a military need for technology is then translated to commercial application.
Didn't one of the leading computer companies once predict a global demand for PCs in single figures?
"I'm using many different technologies that would not exist if it weren't for government grants from the United States government."
You have NO way of proving that.
Why can't governments create wealth?
What roads have been created by private enterprise, a few forest roads, farm roads and the like!
Public roads have been built by the local community but how is that different to a road being built by a government?
The locally built road will go where the locals want it to go, if that doesn't suit the majority of users, tough.
"What roads have been created by private enterprise, a few forest roads, farm roads and the like!"
Toll roads that took 1/4 the time it takes State governments to build them.
Title of one of Glenn Becks books here.
Thanks for the reminder Jim, I had forgotten how in the land of the free you couldn't just get in your car and drive.
the first roads of the US were built privately.
hell, the first roads in HISTORY were built privately.
What were the first roads in the US? I would have thought the first roads built by Europeans would have been built by settlers to make it easier for them to move around town. In this is in fact true, then the first roads built by settlers could be considered the product of a communist endeavor.
The first roads in history weren't roads as we would know them and were very local. The first roads that we would recognise as roads were built by eg the Romans to name but one. They were very much government endeavours.
The first privately built US roads suffered from a minor defect, they didn't go any where. It wasn't until the 1950s I think, that the US had a complete interstate highways system, built by the government and not by private enterprise.
The first US roads went where they needed to go, as did the people who built them, horses hooves and wagon wheels and feet pummelled the ground and hardened and kept it cleared by mere continued use, even the American Indians had essentially roads through wooded thicket areas on which they migrated season to season.
So why was there no inter state highways until the 20th century?
Mud tracks are fine for covered wagons but not so hot for fast cars and heavy goods, were did private enterprise cater for them?
Why did the railways open up the US? Surely private enterprise should have done that, all those private roads criss crossing the country!
You said quite clearly that the first roads in America were roads to nowhere, your response hre does not support your prior statement, you have skipped forward about a hundred years and more for *hep.
And the railroads were built with largely private money based on largely private vision for the future and robbed by largely private bandits back in the day.......
Er, why doesn't my response support my previous statement?
How have I skipped forward about a hundred years?
I know the railways were built with private money, why was that private money not used for roads? Oh and they are still being robbed by largely private bandits
any time a government official does anything they are playing roulette with the economy.
For every dollar the government spends, it must FIRST take the money from someone else, and then choose to spend it on something that the people chose not to spend it on themselves.
What does this mean?
It means that the government steals money, and then spends it on things that people don't really want.
By definition, the government is a waste of money.
I can't speak for any region except the western US, but our power grid is already using a diversified mix of energy sources. Wind, solar, nuclear, coal.
More fuel efficient vehicles help wean us off our oil addiction while new fuel technologies come on stream.
It's called progress and it's a good thing!
Drill baby drill is soooo 2008
The reality is alternate energy is a very small part of the grid and will remain so for some time. Wind turbines can't be everywhere and is not without it's problems, solar is so inefficient it really isn't a viable alternative yet and also is limited by location, nuclear if you read the link hasn't seen a new plant constructed in years and certainly isn't being fast tracked by this administration, electric cars still require electricity which for the most part is generated by burning coals something the Obama administration has been discouraging, besides, the batteries in the cars are mainly made from materials that come largely from China and Africa. The reality is we have to rely on oil and coal for the foreseeable future at least until we all replace our incandescent bulbs with toxic mercury filled CFLs! LOL
You are wrong on this. I worked for the grid operators of California which shares resources with all the western states.
Uh, no I'm not!
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/p … nergy.html
Solar supplies less than 1% of the country's total demand.
I was talking more about photovoltaic power which is very inefficient and expensive with the panels for the most part being manufactured in China. By thermal solar is also a very small part of the grid and will remain so. It requires a lot of land and needs to be located in places with an abundance of sunshine like the desserts in CA, NV and AZ... In any case it will be a long, long time if ever that these technologies will replace fossil fuels for electricity production.
Wrong again. Solar Power is one of the hottest (no pun intended) industries in California. Even the electricity providers are supporting solar. It is NOT inefficient and is plentiful in our region. The technology exists to adjust power sources (wind, solar, coal, gas, nuclear, etc.) to keep the energy flow constant.
This is not future technology. It's here now and being used every day.
My hat is off DB Cooper and MM for some great answers on energy alternatives. There is no single magic bullet to getting off oil dependency. But like the drug pusher, the oil industry is fighting tooth and nail to make sure we don't kick the habit.
Lol all this talk about roads! Okay so roads are good and government built roads... there job is done we don't need them anymore! Lol I'll tell you what it's a good thing government isn't responsible for providing us with food especially in light of their energy policy!
by dutchman19516 years ago
Could we make it on amix of things like sharing, bartering, charity, or would we destroy each other? Your Thoughts if you care to? Thanks
by tobey1006 years ago
I've finally had my fill of people preaching electric vehicles (EVs) as the salvation of the world. It might make a body feel 'green' but it actually does nothing in terms of conservation or 'saving' the...
by Cassie Smith5 years ago
You have to laugh. You've got our president pushing electric cars and here come's a TIME article siting a new study in Environmental Science & Technology saying that those electric cars aren't so clean after...
by SkiFACE6 years ago
Your answer please....
by My Esoteric2 years ago
"It was because of the self-interest of [certain] individuals or groups of producers were often at odds with the public interest that the proper task of legislatures who are concerned with the public interest to...
by Moderndayslave4 years ago
With wages adjusted for inflation either stagnant or losing ground and commodities and the cost of living going up. Is the US economy being systematically gutted or is this just a coincidence? What's your opinion and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.