The End of the Oil Age 1100
geekstreak quotes "'The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil.' Ways to break the tyranny of oil are coming into view. Governments need to promote them."
Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
I love the Economist. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice sentiment, but I'm sure some big corporation, or perhaps some lobbying coalition of corporations will probably patent the technology, then lobby to make certain patents never expire. Even much of major university research is now funded by corporations and results in patents.
Think I'm paranoid? Ask the RIAA how long they think a copyright should be good for. So no wars, just draconian lawsuits that continue the inequitable distribution of energy, food, and wealth.
They really think this will work? (Score:2, Insightful)
The real cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Middle East (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil isn't going away anytime soon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, point of this slightly incoherent post: Fuel cells are cool, but, unlike oil, they are not an energy source and therefore will not replace oil. Hopefully something will, though.
If it's ready to happen, it will, despite gov't (Score:3, Insightful)
Did governments need to promote the alternatives to stone? A thing whose time has come shouldn't need "help". In fact, I'd argue that having government in your corner is often the worst thing that could happen.
Re:Purpose? (Score:1, Insightful)
The tyranny of oil? WTF?! If it wasn't for such dinosaur remnants we wouldn't have progressed into an industrialized society for Chrissakes.
You could substitute "oil" for "slavery" in your rant too, but most people today feel that slavery is tyranny.
Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oil is big not because of "big business" but because of big subsidies and big tariffs and big embargoes and big regulations and big requirements: all government interventions that prevent other technologies from being promoted or even discovered.
Big business never lasts -- look at what happened to the kerosene industry: it fell apart before the government could call it a monopoly.
Articles such as this refuse to show the real cause for monopolies and technologies that refuse to die even though they are outdated: government.
Continuing to vote Democrat or Republican or Green will only lead us down the trail of more tyrannical choices made for us under the guise of "democracy." We are not a democracy, we are a union of States where the individual should never be trumped by the masses -- unless that individual is harming another in visible and provable ways.
Don't blame the gas companies, they are only taking advantage of what you and your ancestors did: allow government to reach its evil hand into my life.
Oil is only part of the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, oil dependence is an economic and political problem. Yes, fossil fuels are an ecological disaster. But switching to cars powered by hydrogen, solar or whatever is not going to stop us from turning the world into a place where you can't walk to the corner grocery store without worrying about being run over. Can we put some geek energy towards solving that problem, please?
Re:Middle East (Score:1, Insightful)
HydrogenMan defeats OilMan (Score:4, Insightful)
How hard would it be to install a nuclear reactor on an oil rig in international waters and start splitting seawater?
Re:They really think this will work? (Score:1, Insightful)
Not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that but the oil companies are smart enough to realize there not in the oil business but the energy business. Point to example, BP/Amoco is the world's largest seller of Solar panels. Why anybody would think that these companies would stand by and not partake in new energy technology is beyond me.
Re:My car (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, it's MUCH more economical to buy a high quality car that's 5 years old and maintain it until it gets damaged beyond economic repair, the maintenance costs do not even approach the level of depreciation you get on a new car.
The car industry knows this, and plays us accordingly (that's why it costs $200 to replace that door seal on your 10 year old Honda Accord with 150 000miles on the clock).
Chickens++; Egg.hatch(); (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh fantastic! I just zip right on down to the Ford dealership and pick myself up a Hydrogen powered car. Then I can go to the nearest gas station and fill it up with liquid Hyrdogen. I'm sure it'll be cheaper than the $1.40 a gallon I paid to fill up my car this morning.
Lets get real here, people. Nobody knows for sure if fuel cell cars will actually work in the marketplace. There are lots of hurdles to overcome like safety issues (New for 2005! The Buick Hindenburg XT!), distribution and production issues for Hydrogen, not to mention the fact that fuel cells may be a tough sell to consumers as long as they can buy gas at a reasonable price.
Fuel cells may be a good idea...they may be a fantastic idea. Or they could be the next Segway. A wait and see attitude is more prudent here before we go throwing out 100 years worth of research and development on the internal combustion engine.
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
Because a monochromatic world of simple good and simple evil filled with shadowy bogeymen and vast conspiracies is easier for many to accept than the more complicated worldview known as "reality".
Re:And don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
Cars on liqufied petroleum gas (Score:3, Insightful)
With gas increasingly becoming an expensive commodity, people are turning to other means for powering their gasoline engined vehicles. A European country (Italian?) already makes car conversion kits, which cost about $50, take about 2 hours to attach, and allow the car to run on liquefied petroleum gas (butane) commonly used as cooking gas. A cylinder of LPG fits comfortably in the trunk, lasts upto 200 miles, and can be exchanged for a new one at the gas station. A switch allows you to switch between gas and LPG on the fly....I've actually seen this work...if you want to switch from LPG to petrol, you turn the switch to OFF, allow the car to stall slightly and turn it to the petrol position...that's it....as easy as that. Not only is LPG a cleaner fuel, but it is also typically 5-6 times cheaper than normal petrol.
Another point.US is also one of the few countries where 2 wheeled vehicles like motorbikes/scooters are almost non existent. They are pretty widespread in European counties like Spain and in Asia. Not only are they more fuel efficient, but release lower amounts of polluting gases (atleast the 4 stroke versions, 2 stroke engines release more harmful gases for the same amount of fuel). I have noticed a growing use of scooters in the US, atleast in and around college campuses.
They tried that (Score:5, Insightful)
About the same time, fuel efficiency jumped from 10 miles per gallon to 25.
For the last 30 years, nothing has changed for fuel efficiency (a little here and there, but let's face it, not on a huge scale).
Why? No economic incentive. But if another fuel crisis occured, you can bet that Necessity would mother quite a few inventions to increase fuel efficiency. Especially when car makers find they can make more money doing so.
And that's what it's all about: money. Cars won't be more fuel efficient, people won't buy more car efficient cars until they have a pocketbook reason to. Right now, even though gas is expensive, it's still "cheap" compared to what it should be for inflation's sake.
Re:Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Middle East (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you. However, They are going to have to learn to base their economy on something else (like maybe stealing high-tech jobs from india). Also we are not going to eliminate the need for oil overnight. GM won't start rolling out fuel-cell powered cars for another 4-6 years. Few people will be able to afford the initial version and it will be a few more years before they are as cheap as every other car and enough infrastructure is in place that you can refuel your car every 10 miles in a coast to coast trip. (Not that your car needs to be fueled every ten miles, but so that you aren't stranded if you run out) Also people will want to keep their classic cars so the need for oil will never be eliminated, just drastically reduced.
In a similar vein, people that use oil for heating their home will not be running out to change to something else. I expect most people to wait until their oil burning furnace breaks down before replacing it with a more modern technology unless there is a large incentive to switch($$$).
Re:Middle East (Score:3, Insightful)
"guardian" might collapse? Oh quelle tragedie! Not. Most middle eastern oil revenue never makes it to the people anyway which is why most of them br are dirt poor while their leaders drive around in top of the range Mercs.
Re:Middle East (Score:2, Insightful)
if the oil economy fell apart, there wouldn't be any money to spread the problems. it would be like any african civil war: out of sight, out of mind, and not my problem
Re:Oil isn't going away anytime soon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, why is that the Government's job?
In fact, Government interference with pollution controls is one of the major reasons our cars are so inefficient. Diesel engines are considerably more efficient and reliable, but they have trouble meeting pollution regulations.
Re:My car (Score:3, Insightful)
Given today's modern lifestyle, I can't see many cars from the 70's lasting that long, under the same maintenance scheme. Sure, extra-diligent care can make old cars last forever, but for the everyday driver, that task has become much easier lately.
For the record, I followed the tack you noted, and picked up a 97 Subaru Outback, which hit the sweet spot of affordability, durability, and functionality.
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Catalytic cracking from methanol is another possibility. Energy must be used to refine and manufacture the catalysts( and those catalysts expire, requiring energy to dispose of), as well as to produce the methanol. See above reference to the second law. The quickest dodge around the outside of the second law in this case is to use some naturally occuring process to reduce the energy need. That's why 90% of the "wood alcohol" produced today is produced from. .
Oil!
Ah, but what about that bioethanol the article talks about, I hear you cry. That isn't made from petroleum oil.
No. It isn't. Then why is it so expensive? Because of the energy needed to grow the plants ( do you know how much fuel is used in farming?) and the energy needed to produce the ethanol from the plants. See the second law.
Effectively all hydrogen on earth is in a bound molecular compound. Energy must be added to free it. See the second law. Producing hydrogen will always be done at an energy loss.
From whence will we derive the energy to make up that loss?
Ummmmmmmmm, oil?
There's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't win. You can only break even. Oh yeah, and you can't break even.
There are many benefits to be derived from using hydrogen as a fuel. Saving energy from other sources isn't one of them. The big energy companies, even those specializing in oil and nuclear, are going to frikkin' love the "hydrogen economy."
It's going to allow them to sell us more oil for less benefit than ever before.
KFG
True premise, faulty conclusion (Score:2, Insightful)
The age of oil will end when a more economical alternative is found; not before.
The article focuses solely on the first-world, too (Score:2, Insightful)
OPEC could simply shop their oil to fast-developing nations with huge populations without the government infrastructure and finances to foster a shift from oil to hydrogen based power. I'm thinking India, Brazil, and China will become OPEC's best friends in the event that the US and other Western industrial powers gradually move towards hydrogen-based energy sources.
It's all well and good to celebrate the move towards hydrogen-powered automobiles in the US and other current industrial powers, but to assume that the OPEC cartel and nations with oil-based economies will become irrelevant in the near future is a huge (and dangerous) oversight on the part of the Economist, IMO.
Re:Not likely (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no great conspiracy - but, it is also obviously not in the oil industries best interests for the world to get "unhooked" off of oil. They have a huge investment in manufacturing, storage and other physical plant facilities, and transportation of oil. Plus - its easy money. Sure they are going to have their fingers in a couple of other pies (solar panels for example), why not? If you think that means they wouldn't very much prefer the world continued to use fossil fuels as the primary means of transportation, you're dreaming. They will take what steps they can to ensure it remains that way for as long as possible, their investors would demand nothing less.
No conspiracy. Just business.
Biodiesel not even mentioned (Score:3, Insightful)
This article is just one in a long line of many that only pays attention to trendy, non-practical technologies like fuel cells (a battery-powered car is still cheaper and faster than any fuel cell car) and bioethanol, while completely ignoring the practical, relevant, and current technologies like biodiesel.
Re:The article focuses solely on the first-world, (Score:3, Insightful)
I imagine western Europe will switch to hydrogen economies long before it happens in north america.
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
However, that is still a good thing. It may or may not improve current environmental condidtions (efficiency of scale, concentration of pollutants, etc), but it is still overall a good thing. In this scenario, cars are then ready for greener fuels.
Let's say that in 2050 we perfect cheap solar/wind/fusion/total conversion/cosmic ray harvesting/whatever as a "green" energy source. If cars are already set up to use hydrogen as a fuel, the general populace is all set to take full advantage of that new green source. Large companies will have incentive to shift to the new tech because it's cheaper and gives good PR. The general populace won't care, because it doesn't affect their daily activities. If cars are all set on gasoline, people will resist the shift. Get the resistance to the new tech out of the way now, because we can.
Re:So it goes... (Score:5, Insightful)
But then again, I'm an evil oil-man, and will be by his evening to collect all of your children and pets to torture. It's what we eeeeeevil people do. Stretches my credibility, what?
Re:And don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
From 1996-2001, the Iraqi oil revenue was a total of less than 51 billion. It will cost significantly more than $10 a year to maintain a 'colony' in Iraq. Even assuming upkeep was nothing, and there were no costs after today in Iraq for the US, it would take more than a decade to "pay off" the invasion costs. There are cheaper ways of acquiring the oil than that. Many other countries simply put money in Sadam's pocket, and leased rigs. This is much more cost effective. I think a lot of what the administration has said was bullshit, but I don't buy the blood for oil policy either. People should wisen up and realize that there ARE more important things to the administration than money (i.e. power).
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:2, Insightful)
End of the energy age (Score:3, Insightful)
The end of oil is inevitable because the importance of energy is declining.
Re:It will happen eventually (Score:2, Insightful)
Our entire society is based around petrochemicals. Everything from the plastic our machines are made of to the energy that it runs off of, to the chemicals that are used in the process. Most drugs (ibuprofen, acetominiphen for two examples) are made from petrochemicals.
Running out of oil does not mean a fast change to some other energy source. It literally means the end of civilization. There are an innumerable number of things that we simply cannot make without petrochemicals. Not "it's more expensive to make alternatives" but "there are no alternatives".
The only solution to this is really limiting our use of petrochemicals for fuel and delegate their use to materials -- and heavy recycling of those materials. However, the short-sighted nature of Americans, East Asians, and Europeans means that this will probably not happen.
Re:Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT. (Score:5, Insightful)
If these subsidies were removed and the true cost of driving was more accurately reflected at the pump the free market could produce better alternatives much faster. As things are now, trying to develop alternatives that compete with an entrenched industry that is heavily subsidized by taxes is extremely difficult, if not foolish.
Re:My car (Score:4, Insightful)
The point is its all feasable - Ive mentioned the wind power bit [bwea.com] (USA) [awea.org] before - costs down to $0.03/kw/hr & falling - just turn it into Hydrogen, or power batteries direct if cheap/light enough. Its actually not gonna be that hard, just requires the will. Increasing taxes on petrol helps, but is not enough in itself. Actually I think costs could come right down as technologies improve (like PC's)- our kids could all be driving powerful SUVs running on cheap green electric/hydrogen, laughing at their dads who fought wars over oil..
Why not push combustible Hydrogen? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think the masses will want to switch over to fuel cell vehicles, but I think that people will have no problem switching to combustible H2 because they don't lose any advantages that they have with traditional vehicles. It's even possible to convert our current vehicles to H2 power with minor modifications.
All we need is to have H2 filling stations as prevalent as we now have gasoline stations. That's much more realistic than having people have to switch to fuel cells, which people won't want to do.
Re:Oil isn't going away anytime soon. (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you using this technology? If it is such great technology, the government would not need to promote it. In a free economy, a business would build it and sell it, and make billions.
1) Develop technology to curb need for oil.
2) (Wait for government to promote?)
3) PROFIT!
Re:No difference for a long while, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
(my fellow) Americans are (somewhat) irrationally afraid of nuclear. As a consequence, our safety standards are very, very high. This increases total cost of generating power beyond the cost of other power generating techniques. If Americans were a bit less nuclear-paranoid, we might be able to look rationally at some of the emerging/new techniques at safely and cheaply generating power.
C//
Re:Chickens++; Egg.hatch(); (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:My car (Score:3, Insightful)
Add up your car's yearly expenses -- car payments, gas consumpsion, maintainance/repair (tires too!), insurance, registration -- then divide by 12... you'd be surprised just how large that $ amount is for most people. And when there's only a difference of a $100 or so a month between keeping the junker in use now and buying a NEW car -- guess what someone is going to do?
I've got a 18 year old toyota pickup with about 120k miles on it. Other than two clutches and a new starter over the life of the car, I've had no other major work needed. My wife keeps pestering me to get a new car because "we can afford it". There's just no reason to -- yet. My last truck had nearly 330k miles when I sold it.
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:3, Insightful)
The earth is *not* a closed system. Reflect on this a while before continuing your second-law litany.
C//
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:5, Insightful)
But it gets better.
Hydrogen as a transport medium has three big advantages over electricity: transmission is relatively lossless, hydrogen can be stored far more easily than electricity, and hydrogen is better suited to powering small mobile engines, such as those found in automobiles. On the first point, roughly 40% of electricity generated in Canada (admittedly a worst case) goes into line losses. The number in the U.S. isn't that much lower. Ergo, hydrogen production can be moderately inefficient compared to simple electricity generation and still break even on efficiency grounds.
Most importantly, however, cars that use hydrogen generated from burning coal, oil or gas would be far more energy-efficient and less poluting of the atmosphere than gasoline powered automobiles. The reason for this is simply that large stationary power-plants are much easier to load with all kinds of fancy efficiency-enhancing, polution-reducing technology than cars are. Small, mobile power plants suffer from all kinds of practical engineering constraints (weight, size, cycle-of-use,...) that don't affect big stationary power plants.
--Tom
Re:No difference for a long while, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the main barrier to nuclear power is not economical, it's political. No elected official wants to risk his (her) reelection by building a new nuclear plant.
Re:No difference for a long while, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are three ways to "use electricity directly in the car":
Currently "store it and take it with you" is best done with a NiMH, NiCad, Lead-Acid, or some other kind of battery. In a eletric car like the GM EV1 well over half the weight of the car was battries. Battries that take a long time to charge, and wear out in just a few years (and cost more then many people were willing to pay for the car!).
Hydrogen Fuel Cells are merely another form of "store it and take it with you", but we think we can store way more power per pound, and that the fuel cells will last much longer and even be more efficent then current battries. Oh, and recharge much faster.
It is no more or less versatile since it is pretty much just another kind of battery. However it is hoped that it will be fantastically lighter, more efficent, faster to charge, and cheaper then existing battrey systems.
It may not be technically correct to think of Hydrogen Fuel Cells as a "much better battrey", but it is a very useful mental shortcut.
Re:Oil isn't going away anytime soon. (Score:3, Insightful)
3 quick ways to reduce oil consumption:
- Get everyone to drive at or below the speed limit, instead of well over it.
- Stop producing mini-tank SUVs like the one Arnold "The Gropenator" Schwartzenegger drives.
- Encourage people to walk more (with the added benefit of reducing obesity, - 2/3 of all americans are overweight Centers for disease control [cdc.gov])
There was a guy being interviewed on the news this morning about a program to bring down obesity by removing junk food from schools - mind you, he didn't have much credibility IMO because of his several chins.Re:No difference for a long while, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, people should be pushed to think of hydrogen as a new form of extremely efficient battery, and more importantly, one that *never* needs to be replaced. This is because the 'battery' consists entirely of the fuel it contains, and can be broken down very cleanly.
Once you start thinking about it that way, moving to a hydrogen economy is basically moving to a 'battery economy', from a 'generation on-the-fly' economy.
Or something.
yes but the Saudis contribute to CONSERVATIVES (Score:2, Insightful)
You have Bin Laden's investments in Carlysle Group (arms dealers and arms lobbyists) -- the other major investment family of repute BTW is the Bush family.
You have "appreciation" oil wells donated to the Bush's, by wealthy Middle East fascists.
You have a government that REFUSES to investigate Saudi Arabia for state sponsored terrorism AND finance and people links to September 11.
Anyone remember the closed-door sessions regarding pre-911 "Phoenix memos"? The "liberal" media did a fine job letting that one be swept under the rug.
The Bush cabal are even WILLING to deflect suspicion of Saudi Arabia over to IRAQ with some well-phrased misrepresentations of the truth (but Bill Clinton lied about sex so I guess this is somehow OK).
It seems to me that mass-production of methanol as a fuel is CHEAPER (again, in volume) and more evironmentally friendly than oil and would employ hard-working Americans. It's too bad US farmers cannot lobby together.
If a president is going to betray his country to protect right-wing religious terrorists, he should at the least be impeached.
Note to moderators: Not a troll just because you disagree. All of this information is independently verifiable (though you may not find it on Fox News
Re:No difference for a long while, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hydrogen fuel cells (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you tell the weeds in my yard that the 2nd law says thay can't grow because no one is giving them energy. That would save me the trouble of expending energy to halt their growth.
The earth is not a closed system. The sun pumps in tons of energy to the earth. Plants convert it into other forms of energy and grow. Sure right now it might take more energy to make ethanol from corn than is currently stored in the ethanol, but we can make the process more efficient. That's what the whole arguement is trying to make our energy production as efficient as possible.
Re:Good for you! (Score:3, Insightful)
But I agree on the debt - everything I buy is either cash, or if I feel like it, on the credit card (destined to be paid off every month). It's great not having any "real" debt (beyond the aforementioned credit card, which I am in debt in for like 10-20 days max, at a time).
Re:Oh really? (Score:2, Insightful)
The 2 to at most 3 times the caloric intake increase for riding a bike, is miniscule compared to energy needed for discovery, extraction, storage, transportation, refining and retailing of petroluem. Obviously, petroleum has a very high return on energy invested, but ultimately it will run out and cause far more impact to the environment in the process.
Re:My car (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like BOTH those insurances add in to the expense of driving a car. No car, no liability insurance needed.
Energy Corp and Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with the world going over to some alternate source of energy is twofold:
1). The first-mover problem. The first corp switching to methane/gerbil/whatever power on a large scale will make all the costly mistakes, much to the delight and edification of their competition, so I can imagine a
2). Don't forget that we need a source for PLASTIC. Right now our enormous chemical industries guzzle down oil like you wouldn't believe, and we still need to find an alternative for that. And with the way fractional distillation works, if you separate enough oil to get gloop to make plastic out of, you get as a side effect lots and lots of, well, gasoline. What are they supposed to do with it?
I do favor alternate energy sources (heck, alternate plastic sources too, if any) but let's not forget that it will take really hard work to cut over, and that it's not as simple as tossing up a couple of windmills. The energy corps today aren't using oil just because they like polluting. Here's some guy's take [denbeste.nu] on the problem.
Re:Middle East (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't build 4-door sedans or boring-ass 4-seat 2-door cars that get back and forth to work at a whopping top speed of 65MPH (Insight or Previa anyone?) at first. Build something for people that enjoy driving first.
Showcase the benefits of the technology. Showcase the fact that it's efficient to operate, but first and foremost showcase the fact that it's very very light, agile, and has enough torque to make a big farm tractor envious, and gear it so the Ferraris get nervous. Give me a fuel cell/electric car that has so much torque it can rip tires apart. Then build me some better tires.
Build the commuter cars later. Buid the fun cars first to show off what you can do, then build a commuter car that's almost as good, and use the lessons from the sports car to build the sedan, or more likely the SUV.
Good News! (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, that's great! You've only got 149,950 more years to go!
I barely trust our governments and society to properly dispose of yesterday's newspaper, let alone radioactive waste that will be dangerous for millenia.
-Zipwow
The End of the Oil Age (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The Midcontinuental Riff Zone, an oil pool the size of the Alaskan North Slope ranging from Kanas to the western tip of Lake Superior.
There are oil wells 45 miles west of Des Moines Iowa and I personally witnessed shaker trucks working north of Fort Dodge.
2. Project Plowshare. A joint US-Canadian venture to use atomic energy to free up oil trapped in the Alberta Tar Fields, which hold half the known oil in the world. Detonated 15 Sept 61, this supplied huge quanties of oil resulting in straight run gas at the pump for 17 cents per gallon.
I was in college then and clearly remember filling up my Honda65 with a quarter (and getting a nickel change).
3. A 1972 patent granted to Boise-Cascade for garbage to oil convertion. They used 2 low-boy trucks to haul the cooker to their timer sites where they cooked down timbering waste into diesel fuel and asphalt.
After the patent expired in 1989, University of Arizona built a continuous feed pilot plant that worked just fine. It was reported in Popular Science before a news blackout.
This is the process by which Mother Nature makes oil and the reason oil exploration turned to previously unsuspected places (like the North Sea).
So, when all else fails, tell me the day we run out of Garbage and I'll tell you the day we run out of Oil.
EK
Re:Err.. King Bush II is an Oilman (Score:3, Insightful)
Was there a war in iraq when he was selected?
Was there a policy in place to stop events like 9-11 from the clinton administration that was ignored?
Negative statements? Have you seen Rush/O'Reilly/Coultier? Lol, hypocrite.
Why can't republicans/conservatives understand that by providing help to all (the "christian" thing to do btw) helps everyone, rich included. Did you notice that when Bush version 1.0 was sent packing Clinton raised taxes? (Remember Bush 1.0 did to "Read my lips", lol another hypocrite). Amazingly the economy grew at a record rate between when Clinton was elected and Bush 2.0 was selected. Now we are in a downward spiral that only benefits the Dick's (Cheney) of the world.
I am not being ambiguous when I say bush 2.0 is a fucking moron, his speeches, policies, and actions prove that to be true.
Here's a good article for you:
US Homelessness and Poverty Rates Skyrocket
While Billions are Spent Overseas on Occupation
By: Jay Shaft---Coalition For Free Thought In Media
7/30/03
As I watch far away images of body bags being filled, I see much closer images of bodies. I went by a local park the other day and it looked like a concentration camp crossed with a mass murder scene.
There were people in rags and covered with filth lying scattered all over the place. At least twenty people were on crutches, had parts bandaged, or with open wounds not even covered. They were all hungry and a large majority was sick.
All around this city I live in, and nationwide, the level of homelessness and poverty is growing alarmingly. From the last counts and estimates nation wide, there has been at least a 35-45% increase in homelessness and poverty. The increases have come over the last two years with the biggest increases being in 2002 and especially in the first six months of 2003.
Add to that the barely subsisting or borderline homeless/poor and we start to see a very alarming trend that shows no sign of going away. Over 30% of Americans are on the borderline of poverty. A lot just do not quite make the cut to receive food stamps or some kind of benefits and live on a razor edge of desperation and starvation.
I have talked to people that run food banks, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. Places like Day Star, Catholic Charities, St, Vincent De Paul, and many other major support agencies. They all tell me they have seen a vast increase in people that would starve or be without clothes if not for their services.
The most shocking sight to see is homeless and starving children, living right near some of the richest neighborhoods!!!!! Right here in "humanitarian" America, home of the worlds largest "humanitarian" and "liberating" force (or is it FARCE?).
This country is putting more and more of our citizens on the brink of homelessness and desperate poverty. In addition, it seems that we have pushed countless others over the brink and into the bottomless pit of despair and need. All you have to do is look around, open your eyes, and you will see the vast sea of hungry and destitute.
I have seen more and more children and families out on the street or in feeding centers and at food handouts. To think that the world's richest country allows this to happen is Sickening! To think that we turn a blind eye to starving children because it is easier to tolerate than do something about it!
We cannot afford to hire teachers, build new schools, or even maintain the ones we have. Our children slip farther into the void of illiteracy and neglect. We are the lowest among the industrialized "first" world nations in literacy scores! Many "third" world countries now have higher literacy rates than the U.S.
We are setting ourselves up to turn the world's richest country into a third world quagmire. This country is sinking into a swamp of drowning poor and so-called "Economically Challenged!" The rich meanwhile buy bigger S.U.Vs (self indulgent ubi
Don't wait for the bastards that be! (Score:2, Insightful)
I just got back from Germany and fell in love with the Smart car by Swatch/Mercedes. When will they start selling them in the US? They use 1/3 the road space and 1/4 the gas and look fun as hell to drive.
Make sure the next SUV you see leaves with a key inflicted wound down the side of it's greasy flank.
Even rooftop panels aren't clean. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even rooftop panels aren't "clean".
They trap virtually all the light that strikes them and turn most of it into local heat. (Several times more energy comes out as heat than comes out as electricity.) Meanwhile the energy that made hydrogen is eventually releleased as heat when the hydrogen is used.
The surface area they cover would normally have reflected much of that light back into space unaltered. Especially in deserts, which are the logical place to build large solar collection farms. That would result in a LOT of "global warming".
And none of which takes into account the pollution and energy use from manufacturing the panels in the first place. (I've seen claims that current panel designs take more energy to make than they produce in their service lifetime, though that somnds dubious, and would certainly be improved on if the panels are ever to become a major energy source rather than a convenient way to supply energy to remote locations.)
Re:Oh really? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, heavy people do burn a lot of calories. What goes in must come out, and since heavy people eat a lot, they also burn a lot.
Either way, humans have a major advantage over cars in that humans only move ~70kg of flesh, while cars move 3,000kg of metal and plastic. If you're doing moderate power biking, you'll burn about 300 calories/hour and go perhaps 20km/hour. A litre of gasoline holds about 7,500 calories, so the energy equivalent of gasoline will power a human for 25 hours or 500km.
Good luck making a 500 km/litre car. The best production cars get about 33 km/litre, and a hummer gets 4km/litre. That's over a 100-1 advantage for the bike. Bikes still beat the best car Europeans can make by 15-1.
With fuel to power a biker from NYC to LA (10 litres, or 10kg, a Hummer would make it out of Manhatten and into the suburbs of NJ before running out of a gas 15-30 minutes later. The 3-litre/100-km car that Volkswagen makes would make it into Pennsylvania after running for several hours. The bicyclist would make it all the way, and take about 20 days (12 hours/day).
Another way to look at it is the power. A human delivers about 600W peak, and needs about 100W to power the bicycle. A Hummer can give about 250,000W, of which perhaps 75,000W are needed to keep it at highway speed.
Even when you price the bike's fuel using human food, it's still cheaper. Let's say rice/pasta is 50 cents/kg, and it's mostly starch (4 calories/gram or 40% of gasoline's energy density). Gasoline is 25 cents/litre (US price w/out tax). The bike will need 25kg of rice, or $12.50 of rice. The Volkswagen will need 150 litres or $37.50 of gasoline, and the hummer will need 1,250 litres, or $312.50 of gasoline.
Any way you look at it, bikes win on both net energy, gross energy, and even when the food is bought retail, money, and it even beats the best car out there.