Upgrade.

[Cbrider]

Sad, but true. On the upside, though, I think she would fit in the trunk of a Civic.

Lol, incidentally enough, the trunk on the thing is huge- its bigger than my Integra's hatchback. You know that's not my style though, not enough time as is!

[MVPlaya]

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue, all I see is a series of unresearched sentences without even an attempt at any logical reasoning to support the claims you make. No idea what I'm arguing against here besides a series of poorly researched claims.

Shale oil is of a higher quality than most wells though I noticed you did drop the word, "extraction", which alerts to me to your environmental and social perceptions. I don't agree. At any rate, culls miraculously just naturally happen when resources are threatened, so I don't think you have to worry about your precious Rockies for many generations into the future, or whomever they target to live on.

My argument is that extracting shale is worse for the environment than extracting oil, so long-term reliance on oil is damaging to the environment and human health as companies switch to harder and harder to mine sources of oil with greater costs. There's a reason most companies abandoned shale oil in the 80's, it took too much energy and cost too much, but as new oil fields are getting harder to access and the price of oil rises, they are more willing to go for 'oil sources' that they would not have wanted decades ago.

Shale oil takes significantly more energy to extract than regular oil, especially in-situ shale mining. The result is a higher usage of CO2 emitting energy sources in the production process, and oil shale needs to be heated to 700 degrees Fahrenheit to get the Kerogen to turn into a liquid that can be used as oil, making the refinement more energy intensive per barrel as well. This increases both the cost and the environmental impact of reliance on shale oil as a replacement to gas oil.

Secondly, shale oil creates significantly more byproducts (nitrogen and sulfur compounds, as well as uranium and zinc) which pollute the environment, damage local ecosystems, and can lead to health problems for humans due to exposure.

Where do you think it's been designed to go? Why spook the populace with martial law when you can limit their travel, create new leech industries, and bump up the price of plentiful crude under the guise of "saving the planet"? The effect of fossil fuels are negligible on the environment contrary to the Spin Doctors output.

How does this even make sense.

Look, firstly: gas oil has already limited where you can go. You are limited by an energy grid that your vehicle relies on. Same with Diesel. So switching to a gas-electric hybrid keeps you in the exact same grid, it simply increases the range you can travel without needing to refuel inside that grid. There is absolutely no logical reason on earth whatsoever to believe that switching to a hybrid is somehow a conspiracy to limit travel. In fact, the fuel efficiency would do the exact opposite as you can travel further now.

Secondly, electric vehicles (which I assume you must be referring to since your criticism is ridiculous in the context of hybrids) operate on a larger grid than oil. The number of electrical outlets in the world is greater and wider in range than the number of gas stations. So if you can find a socket to plug your car into, you can basically take your car wherever the hell you want. There are limitations on this, people who have their own garages can charge their vehicle at their home at night, an option not available to some due to them not being able to afford homes with garages or living in denser population areas without easy access to electrical outlets, but if the technology becomes widespread enough, the grid will follow. Business follows where the dollar goes.

The main downside to electric vehicles is that they currently have a smaller travel range, but advances in both energy consumption and battery packs are quickly increasing electric only vehicles to have ranges that rival conventional gasoline powered cars.

Thirdly, electric vehicles are designed by countless engineers all across the world, whether in the Netherlands, Germany, the United States, Japan, Korea, Russia, England, or wherever else. These are all vastly different governments, with vastly different political goals, and with vastly different philosophies inside their countries. The idea that somehow some evil sinister group of people benefits in a way that limits your liberties if you use an electric vehicle is absurd and unwarranted. If you want anyone to take a claim like that seriously, you're either going to have to provide some strong evidence or give a whole lot more analysis. As it stands, you just made some ridiculous conspiracy argument without any reason for anyone to believe what you say.

All energy sources are no cleaner than petrol based in either their effects on the environment, manufacture of implements, or disposal of waste.

Firstly, hybrid vehicles are already better than petrol only engines simply by using a lower amount of petrol.

Secondly, energy derived from non-hybrid vehicles comes from larger combines that are a lot more powerful and efficient at generating energy than the engine in a Ford car. Keep in mind that the oil delivered to you is reliant on the maintenance of a gas network which has its own operating costs and expenditures (which affect its environmental impact), such as maintaining the gas station, shipping the oil, driving the oil to your local gas station.

Thirdly, energy from the grid comes from more sources than petrol, as it also includes nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro (although hydro can be very damaging to the environment as well).

Fourthly, energy from the grid is more mutable. Petrol is petrol, there are no feasible advances that are being pushed for by companies to produce less damaging petrol. However, electricity allows for much more technological innovation, the grids can be upgraded themselves (see: Supergrid), the sources that power the electric grid can switch to more environmentally efficient technologies, such as wind, solar, and clean-fired coal, or even techs such as nuclear / hydro-electric. Hell, there could be a technology none of us have even heard about that becomes commonplace in 20 years and hooks into the electric grid thats established. There is much more room for technological innovation with an electric grid than with a gallon pump.

Fifthly, electric engines are more efficient at expending energy for travel, resulting in less energy needed than gasoline powered engines to travel an equal distance.

Nope. That's a fallacy pushed by the desire to inspire and scare animals into smaller more manageable cages.

The idea of cages is a fallacy pushed by the desire to scare people away from environmentally friendly technology.

See? I can make these unwarranted assertions too. How about you actually write some reasoning alongside your claims.

[Doc Durian]

I really don't understand what you're trying to argue, all I see is a series of unresearched sentences without even an attempt at any logical reasoning to support the claims you make. No idea what I'm arguing against here besides a series of poorly researched claims.

You're unwilling to understand. You've been brainwashed. It's not your fault and I don't blame your impressionable mind for throwing objectivity to the wind (pun intended).

Incidentally, "unresearched sentences" or "poorly researched claims"? ... don't mince words, kiddo. Say what you mean if you're aware of what exactly that is.

My argument is that extracting shale is worse for the environment than extracting oil, so long-term reliance on oil is damaging to the environment and human health as companies switch to harder and harder to mine sources of oil with greater costs. There's a reason most companies abandoned shale oil in the 80's, it took too much energy and cost too much, but as new oil fields are getting harder to access and the price of oil rises, they are more willing to go for 'oil sources' that they would not have wanted decades ago.

China has overcome the hurdle. The technology is currently there for shale.

Shale oil takes significantly more energy to extract than regular oil, especially in-situ shale mining. The result is a higher usage of CO2 emitting energy sources in the production process, and oil shale needs to be heated to 700 degrees Fahrenheit to get the Kerogen to turn into a liquid that can be used as oil, making the refinement more energy intensive per barrel as well. This increases both the cost and the environmental impact of reliance on shale oil as a replacement to gas oil.

Again, China.

Secondly, shale oil creates significantly more byproducts (nitrogen and sulfur compounds, as well as uranium and zinc) which pollute the environment, damage local ecosystems, and can lead to health problems for humans due to exposure.

How dare a nation produce such undesirable "by-products" as nitrogen, sulfur, uranium, and zinc amongst others. Those rat bastards, eh? Have them sourced and mined properly like the rest of the world.

How does this even make sense.

Look, firstly: gas oil has already limited where you can go. You are limited by an energy grid that your vehicle relies on. Same with Diesel.

False.

Do try to think outside your box.

Traditionally manufactured petrol fuels rely on the grid for processing. Anybody with a bit of nonce and a few basic preparations can make their own fuel out of any organic matter. Those people can truly leave the grid... at least in practice. Authoritarian and commercialism aspects actively attempt to thwart this, though.

So switching to a gas-electric hybrid keeps you in the exact same grid, it simply increases the range you can travel without needing to refuel inside that grid. There is absolutely no logical reason on earth whatsoever to believe that switching to a hybrid is somehow a conspiracy to limit travel. In fact, the fuel efficiency would do the exact opposite as you can travel further now.

Try carting around enough photovoltaic cells and wind turbines to keep your electric car off the grid

You can't.

Case closed.

Secondly, electric vehicles (which I assume you must be referring to since your criticism is ridiculous in the context of hybrids) operate on a larger grid than oil. The number of electrical outlets in the world is greater and wider in range than the number of gas stations. So if you can find a socket to plug your car into, you can basically take your car wherever the hell you want. There are limitations on this, people who have their own garages can charge their vehicle at their home at night, an option not available to some due to them not being able to afford homes with garages or living in denser population areas without easy access to electrical outlets, but if the technology becomes widespread enough, the grid will follow. Business follows where the dollar goes.

I have nothing against hybreds except that they have been designed as a means to an end which I find revolting... a reshuffle of the petroleum market, higher prices for smaller amounts, military expansionism (do you think they're going to make hybred or particularly "grid based" tanks, jets, and missiles? heh), and a defacto martial law enforced by travel range, permitting, and economic station in life.

Efficiency is great... if it's just that. But seeing as there is no real shortage of oil, it only faciliates to prop up the unsecured US Greenback and the market/media/tyranny stranglehold. Hence why we see the current Global Warming swindle (whoops, it's "climate change" now... I forgot.) being foisted on the lambs.

The main downside to electric vehicles is that they currently have a smaller travel range, but advances in both energy consumption and battery packs are quickly increasing electric only vehicles to have ranges that rival conventional gasoline powered cars.

The main downside to electric vehicles is the false advertising and the hype. Energy transfers.. it isn't created from nothing. The fuel cells require mining operations, refinement processes, and manufacture. This will never be green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal...etc are all the same. Gains in efficiency will never surpass the real cost of utilizing it on a mass scale.

Although there is one clear biological alternative.... I leave you to ponder what that could just be... if you're willing and capable.

Thirdly, electric vehicles are designed by countless engineers all across the world, whether in the Netherlands, Germany, the United States, Japan, Korea, Russia, England, or wherever else. These are all vastly different governments, with vastly different political goals, and with vastly different philosophies inside their countries. The idea that somehow some evil sinister group of people benefits in a way that limits your liberties if you use an electric vehicle is absurd and unwarranted. If you want anyone to take a claim like that seriously, you're either going to have to provide some strong evidence or give a whole lot more analysis. As it stands, you just made some ridiculous conspiracy argument without any reason for anyone to believe what you say.

Shush, kiddo. You're showing your age.

Get out.. travel a bit... actually drink the water with the locals and you'll see that here is only one political goal and one world being enslaved for it.

Or go to grad school and become the best unintentional Kapo you can be.

Firstly, hybrid vehicles are already better than petrol only engines simply by using a lower amount of petrol.

:rolleyes:

Secondly, energy derived from non-hybrid vehicles comes from larger combines that are a lot more powerful and efficient at generating energy than the engine in a Ford car. Keep in mind that the oil delivered to you is reliant on the maintenance of a gas network which has its own operating costs and expenditures (which affect its environmental impact), such as maintaining the gas station, shipping the oil, driving the oil to your local gas station.

And hydrogen is better exactly why??? hahahaha

Thirdly, energy from the grid comes from more sources than petrol, as it also includes nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro (although hydro can be very damaging to the environment as well).

So is laying out enough photovoltaic cells to power a world, mining enough radioactive materials and refining them so as to burn them and leave radioactive hot potatoes across the face of the earth. How about putting up wind and wave turbines? How many would it take before real climate change happened? lol

There is nothing environmentally friendly bar the reference I made earlier for which you should ponder about... if you're brave and smart enough.

Fourthly, energy from the grid is more mutable. Petrol is petrol, there are no feasible advances that are being pushed for by companies to produce less damaging petrol. However, electricity allows for much more technological innovation, the grids can be upgraded themselves (see: Supergrid), the sources that power the electric grid can switch to more environmentally efficient technologies, such as wind, solar, and clean-fired coal, or even techs such as nuclear / hydro-electric. Hell, there could be a technology none of us have even heard about that becomes commonplace in 20 years and hooks into the electric grid thats established. There is much more room for technological innovation with an electric grid than with a gallon pump.

As we've gone over earlier, pupil...energy does not create itself and it is not transferred 100 percent efficiently, nor will it ever be. You may think it's perfectly feasible to rob Peter to pay Mary, but it's still erroneous

Fifthly, electric engines are more efficient at expending energy for travel, resulting in less energy needed than gasoline powered engines to travel an equal distance.

Yeah yeah yeah... whatever.

I hope math isn't your major, although you do so love your line item references... firstly-fifthly-eighthly.

The idea of cages is a fallacy pushed by the desire to scare people away from environmentally friendly technology.

See? I can make these unwarranted assertions too. How about you actually write some reasoning alongside your claims.

Al?

(and he did make such a pretty penny from that venture of creating a personal fiscal energy source for his pockets out of mostly thin air. That's efficient energy transference if you ask me. He set the bar high for the rest of his cronies. )

The facts remain.

Firstly, There are plenty of renewable oil based fuel sources.

Se-c-o-n-d-ly, they don't stringently require one to stay on the grid.

Thirrdddddly, They are more efficient at energy transference than anything else we have or could expect to have for some time.

Fourthlyyyyy, Governments and Market Forces don't have our best interests at heart and are known liars, thiefs, and murderers. They also won't hold themselves to the same strict diet of supposedly clean energy. It means more petroleum to fight bigger battles and keep a bigger thumb on an increasingly mined populace.

Sixthly, humans are generally dumb pack animals. We are the fuel source. We are their meat and we're more than happy to be managed and kept renewable although we do have our moments of greatness occasionally. Just look at the failed Influenza jab panic. I danced a happy impromptu jig when that aborted omelette blew up in their face. Let's see what their plan B will be. heh

[Cbrider]

I hope you guys realize that no matter what conclusion you come up with, its still a CAR.

[vashti]

I think I must have ADD. No way can I maintain the attention span to read all that.

[tooxshort]

I have an SUV ... attack me!!

[Doc Durian]

I have a straight 6 4x4 with dual jerry cans.

Let's have an off the grid party.

[Cbrider]

I have an SUV ... attack me!!

The Earth Liberation Front will be speaking with you soon.

[MVPlaya]

You're unwilling to understand. You've been brainwashed. It's not your fault and I don't blame your impressionable mind for throwing objectivity to the wind (pun intended).

Incidentally, "unresearched sentences" or "poorly researched claims"? ... don't mince words, kiddo. Say what you mean if you're aware of what exactly that is.

Kiddo is better educated and higher earning than you, gramps. I'll say exactly what I mean: you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I don't blame you, you learned a couple cool conspiracy theories and lack the ability to see outside of your lens. Product of your environment.

China has overcome the hurdle. The technology is currently there for shale.

Again, China.

This is an idiotic argument. I said shale is more damaging than oil, you responded that China mines shale. That doesn't disprove anything I said. China mines shale, which is more damaging than oil. Get it? Btw, [url=http://www.oilcrisis.com/TarSands/]it takes the energy equivalent of two gallons of oil to get three gallons out of tar sands[/url], its much less efficient than current oil sources. There's a reason China mines shale, liquifies coal, and displaces millions of its citizens so that it can flood its valleys to create the world's largest hydroelectric dam - which destroying entire cities:

China is desperate.

Thats why China is doing these things. Thats why [url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235,00.html]well over 5,000+ people officially die each year mining coal in China[/url]. Because China lost the geopetrol competition with the US, with the US outmaneuvering China on several oil pipelines that they wanted, but couldn't get because we got them first. They need energy, so now they are forced to invest in more expensive and difficult energy resources.

They have not overcome a hurdle, they have become desperate enough to face higher costs.

How dare a nation produce such undesirable "by-products" as nitrogen, sulfur, uranium, and zinc amongst others. Those rat bastards, eh? Have them sourced and mined properly like the rest of the world.

Except they don't source and mine these properly, because the operational costs on shale are already so expensive that its hard to cut a profit. You can't really sell shale under $70 a barrel, and the harder you try to minimize the pollution you create, the less likely you are to make a profit in the industry, so you cut corners.

False.

Do try to think outside your box.

Traditionally manufactured petrol fuels rely on the grid for processing. Anybody with a bit of nonce and a few basic preparations can make their own fuel out of any organic matter. Those people can truly leave the grid... at least in practice. Authoritarian and commercialism aspects actively attempt to thwart this, though.

Firstly, it takes electricity or power to create oil, which, if you have it, you can just as well use it to charge an electric vehicle. Anyone can transport a generator, photovoltaic cells, or hell, burn that oil for electricity in a generator to charge a car. Both technologies have their own ways to function outside of the grid.

But more importantly, its rather silly to think that being able to grow your own corn is what is saving us from authoritarianism. This is one of the least relevant arguments you can make. Oil is saving us from a one-world government. Which apparently already exists. Hilarious. I guess conspiracy theories don't have to make sense, you just have to want to believe, huh.

Try carting around enough photovoltaic cells and wind turbines to keep your electric car off the grid

You can't.

Case closed.

Try carting an entire corn field or oil well with you to keep your gasoline car off the grid.

You can't.

Case closed.

I have nothing against hybreds except that they have been designed as a means to an end which I find revolting... a reshuffle of the petroleum market, higher prices for smaller amounts, military expansionism (do you think they're going to make hybred or particularly "grid based" tanks, jets, and missiles? heh), and a defacto martial law enforced by travel range, permitting, and economic station in life.

Petrol vehicles already have every single limit in place, so there is nothing new 'scary' that hybrid vehicles are doing. And you keep hinting at these scary conspiracy theories around you, but look: everything you do is within a grid. You are posting on loveforum, you work your job, you send your kids to school, you have a credit card, you own a telephone. Do you seriously ****ing believe that growing your private corn farm in the middle of the Arizona desert is all thats keeping you from police state right now? Your anger is seriously misplaced.

As for the petroleum market, if our cars switch to hybrid, we won't have to mine all these expensive sources of oil - like shale or liquified coal - which would keep oil cheaper. Reduced demand = reduced price. Its Economics 101.

Efficiency is great... if it's just that. But seeing as there is no real shortage of oil, it only faciliates to prop up the unsecured US Greenback and the market/media/tyranny stranglehold. Hence why we see the current Global Warming swindle (whoops, it's "climate change" now... I forgot.) being foisted on the lambs.

Yeah let me explain economics, here:

There's always a "shortage", demand outpaces supply, thats why the price of oil is as high as can give them the most profit. Many people would like to buy more oil, but they restrict their usage because they can't afford it at this price. The more oil there is, the more demand, the less demand, the lower the price of oil. So shortage is arbitrary in this context, to increase or decrease the supply, or to increase or decrease the demand - will all effect the price of oil, regardless of whether or not oil has a "terminal shortage."

And how "efficiency" --> "because of the lack of oil" ---> "props up the unsecure dollar" & "media monopoly" --> "therefore we invent global warming" is the most ridiculous chain of logic I have ever read. You're going to have to learn to explain yourself a little better, because no one but you has any idea what you even by that.

The main downside to electric vehicles is the false advertising and the hype. Energy transfers.. it isn't created from nothing. The fuel cells require mining operations, refinement processes, and manufacture. This will never be green nor sustainable. Hydrogen, Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Geothermal...etc are all the same. Gains in efficiency will never surpass the real cost of utilizing it on a mass scale.

Everything has false advertising and hype. I agree that electric vehicles aren't as environmentally friendly as advertised, but they are a step up from what we already have, and the electric grid is more mutable than the petrol grid, allowing more innovation to occur in the source of the energy, since it won't require changing the engine of every single car on the road. Its easier to build a new plant than to get 10 million people to change their engines, fueling habits, and car types.

I'll agree that hybrids still aren't where they should be. There are costs to the batteries, but the technology has improved tremendously the past 10 years.

I also don't see how you can say Wind and Solar are not sustainable. Considering Wind and Solar are renewable and some of the least utilized sources of electricity, considering wind powers 20% of Denmark, 13% of Spain and Portugal, and 7% of Germany (World's second largest exporter). Solar, as well, is highly utilized by a lot of nations, 90% of homes in Israel use solar powering because of Israel's poor relations with their local oil exporters in the Middle-East.

I think you are too eager to write off a lot of energy sources, and oddly defend a worse energy source in the process.

Although there is one clear biological alternative.... I leave you to ponder what that could just be... if you're willing and capable.

I've read of many biological alternatives. I hope you're not referring to ethanol-derivatives like corn biofuel. E20-E85 will only cause new humanitarian problems.

Shush, kiddo. You're showing your age.

Get out.. travel a bit... actually drink the water with the locals and you'll see that here is only one political goal and one world being enslaved for it.

Or go to grad school and become the best unintentional Kapo you can be.

Okay, I'll bet you I have citizenship in more nations than you (3), speak more languages fluently than you (4, + one dead language), have lived in more countries than you, and traveled to more countries than you.

I will absolutely agree with you that there are transnational political trends, both in capitalism, militarism, mass media, that are superceding the political wills of nations and causing people to follow a different tune, especially when it comes to organizations like the WTO and the IMF. However, I don't believe that just because there are some people out there who are eager to take away your rights that you should be skeptical of every change in front of you, some changes are good, some changes are actually scary to the powers that be (GE owns NBC, GE causes tons of global warming), Detroit has high influence in Congress, though it has waned in recent years, Detroit opposes higher fuel standards and tries to deny global warming.

There are a lot of different political momenta going on in this world and to conflate them all as one single political momentum is simplistic and ignorant.

And hydrogen is better exactly why??? hahahaha

Hydrogen shares some of the costs but doesn't emit pollution in consumption, and emits less pollution in mining as well.

So is laying out enough photovoltaic cells to power a world, mining enough radioactive materials and refining them so as to burn them and leave radioactive hot potatoes across the face of the earth. How about putting up wind and wave turbines? How many would it take before real climate change happened? lol

There is nothing environmentally friendly bar the reference I made earlier for which you should ponder about... if you're brave and smart enough.

Everything has a cost. Nuclear energy has a high cost but with proper storage the pollution is minimal and manageable, and the energy created has a lower environmental impact than equal energy creation via coal or gas.

I see nothing wrong with blanketing unused space with photovoltaic cells. Instead of roof tiles put solar panels. Instead of blowing up rocks to get to the shale, cover a space with solar power. Even if not as an absolute replacement, these technologies, in conjuction with the processes already going on, reduce both our emissions and dependance on non-renewable substances.

As we've gone over earlier, pupil...energy does not create itself and it is not transferred 100 percent efficiently, nor will it ever be. You may think it's perfectly feasible to rob Peter to pay Mary, but it's still erroneous

I think you should spend less time trying to teach and more time improving your reading. My argument was never that energy creates itself or is transferred perfectly, my argument was that, and I'll bold it for your convencience:

THE ELECTRIC GRID IS MORE MUTABLE, THUS BETTER SUITED FOR TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

I thought the central argument would be obvious, but I have a feeling with some you need to make it a little clearer.

So I don't care that energy transferrence isn't perfect, it can be improved, like I said, we can improve our electric grid (see: Supergrid, or any of the countless other technologies), we can input new fuel sources. Having a world filled with petrol engines creates more barriers to innovation than having a world where cars plug into electric sockets. Greater innovation allows for greater chances for technology to do its job, unlike the current system which is retarding technological development.

Yeah yeah yeah... whatever.

I hope math isn't your major, although you do so love your line item references... firstly-fifthly-eighthly.

(One of) my Bachelors was in Econ. My Ph.D will be also. And I'm glad you realize there's no point to even try to dispute that argument.

[MVPlaya]

Al?

(and he did make such a pretty penny from that venture of creating a personal fiscal energy source for his pockets out of mostly thin air. That's efficient energy transference if you ask me. He set the bar high for the rest of his cronies. )

You're completely right, environmentalism is a conspiracy invented by Al Gore to... to... to.... to.................................

Its nice to try to co-opt the lefts rhetoric, but anti-environmentalism has a much clearer economic gain than environmentalismm, and fits the narrative of cronyism much more clearly. Its a nice try though.


By the way, I won't deny that there are some who join environmentalism purely for their economic benefit (the benefit to environmentalism is much smaller than being a global warming denier and joining the world's largest energy system: oil, but there's something there). There are people who market products as green when they really aren't, who try to create a green 'image' without changing their products at all, or create shoddy products solely because there are large funding sources that they can compete for. There are always bad apples, but in general, the movement towards more efficient energy, less pollution, and less oil consumption is always better. Even if you want to stick your head in the sand about global warming, the human health impacts of pollution are dead obvious to see.

The facts remain.

Firstly, There are plenty of renewable oil based fuel sources.

Se-c-o-n-d-ly, they don't stringently require one to stay on the grid.

Thirrdddddly, They are more efficient at energy transference than anything else we have or could expect to have for some time.

Fourthlyyyyy, Governments and Market Forces don't have our best interests at heart and are known liars, thiefs, and murderers. They also won't hold themselves to the same strict diet of supposedly clean energy. It means more petroleum to fight bigger battles and keep a bigger thumb on an increasingly mined populace.

Sixthly, humans are generally dumb pack animals. We are the fuel source. We are their meat and we're more than happy to be managed and kept renewable although we do have our moments of greatness occasionally. Just look at the failed Influenza jab panic. I danced a happy impromptu jig when that aborted omelette blew up in their face. Let's see what their plan B will be. heh

1) No, oil is by default non-renewable. You are referring to oil substitutes (I hope), like biofuels, which have significant human costs. Believe me, I once thought biofuel was the solution to our woes, but then I saw what it did on a limited scale, then the research started pouring in, the data from 3rd world nations, the effect on food, hunger, starvation, crop-development, water usage, and pretty clearly it became obvious that if biofuel became the new standard, that we'd create a serious ****ing problem of epic proportions. Until someone finds a better crop that can be mass-produced cheaply without the economic downsides of crop-shifting biofuel is not going to be a solution, its simply going to create different problems.

2) No one cares. You are on the grid just about every moment of your life, and its just as possible to create electric generation off the grid as it is to create oil. Neither is convenient, but both are possible. There are pluses and minuses to both, but in the end, I don't think anyone would care.

3) This is untrue. Firstly, renewable energy sources like solar reduce the impact of lost transferred energy, unlike in oil refinement. Secondly, oil has a high cost to extract, refine, send, consume. Thirdly, oil vehicles are less efficient at utilizing the energy generated to travel equal distances as electric or hybrid vehicles. Fourthly, oil is increasingly becoming less efficient (see moving to shale, tar sands, most liquified coals). And fifthly, energy grids can improve with technologies.

4) The corporations already don't have our best interests at heart in making us drive gasoline-powered vehicles. So why the hell is this vague and generic criticism of yours only applicable to hybrids/EVs? Your argument isn't even consistent. And hell, if we can reduce the amount of oil consumed, people won't constantly be so tempted to wage war over oil, and the geopolitical importance of oil will go down, not to mention the power held by OPEC.

5) Counting is your friend.

6) I'm curious. Do you have anything to contribute to politics besides being a naysayer, claming everything is a conspiracy, and calling everyone sheep? Do you have any solutions for pollution, rising oil prices, CO2 emissions? Or do you find it just easier to just stick your head in the tar sands?

[Doc Durian]

Kiddo is better educated and higher earning than you, gramps.

That's nice.

I'll say exactly what I mean: you don't know what the **** you're talking about. I don't blame you, you learned a couple cool conspiracy theories and lack the ability to see outside of your lens. Product of your environment.

If you say so.

This is an idiotic argument. I said shale is more damaging than oil, you responded that China mines shale. That doesn't disprove anything I said. China mines shale, which is more damaging than oil. Get it?

What's to get? I've pointed out a nation who have been consistently improving their processes when the US and other western nations have only recently begun to get back into their formerly turfed shale oil programs. What's truly idiotic is that I must physically make the link for you to get it. Shale oil and tar sands have been traditionally more costly to produce and were much more environmentally abrasive just a couple short decades ago, granted. But they've quickly gained ground and the tech is constantly evolving. They're likely soon to employ microwaves for agitation benefits and that's aside from their recycle programs.

Btw, [url=http://www.oilcrisis.com/TarSands/]it takes the energy equivalent of two gallons of oil to get three gallons out of tar sands[/url], its much less efficient than current oil sources. There's a reason China mines shale, liquifies coal, and displaces millions of its citizens so that it can flood its valleys to create the world's largest hydroelectric dam - which destroying entire cities:

China is desperate.

I didn't ask for your views on China's longstanding indifference to its people. We're talking about the process and the material. Stick with the program, bucko. Any alternative energy source tapped on a grand scale, in any nation will have similar effects. It's unavoidable. If you put up enough wind or wave turbines, air and ocean currents are altered. If you lay out enough solar cells to power a people or tap geothermal in mass, similarly sized environmental changes occur.

Thats why China is doing these things. Thats why [url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1595235,00.html]well over 5,000+ people officially die each year mining coal in China[/url]. Because China lost the geopetrol competition with the US, with the US outmaneuvering China on several oil pipelines that they wanted, but couldn't get because we got them first. They need energy, so now they are forced to invest in more expensive and difficult energy resources.

They have not overcome a hurdle, they have become desperate enough to face higher costs.

correction: slightly higher costs which their experience in the process is reducing every year. Of course, it's not a 500,000.00 USD Honda Hybred...That's supposedly green despite the real costs which went into manufacturing it, so it's ok....lol

Except they don't source and mine these properly, because the operational costs on shale are already so expensive that its hard to cut a profit. You can't really sell shale under $70 a barrel, and the harder you try to minimize the pollution you create, the less likely you are to make a profit in the industry, so you cut corners.

The EROI's vary according to quality, extraction technology, and the like. Your 70 USD could easily apply to crude sourced from a less than ideal location or method.

Try again.

Firstly, it takes electricity or power to create oil, which, if you have it, you can just as well use it to charge an electric vehicle. Anyone can transport a generator, photovoltaic cells, or hell, burn that oil for electricity in a generator to charge a car. Both technologies have their own ways to function outside of the grid.

Stop the presses! You're suggesting it's a 1:1 proposition now? hahahaha.. priceless

But more importantly, its rather silly to think that being able to grow your own corn is what is saving us from authoritarianism. This is one of the least relevant arguments you can make. Oil is saving us from a one-world government. Which apparently already exists. Hilarious. I guess conspiracy theories don't have to make sense, you just have to want to believe, huh.

Corn? Who mentioned corn prior to all this? I did mention organic matters... That darn box has got you really snookered.

Try carting an entire corn field or oil well with you to keep your gasoline car off the grid.

You can't.

Case closed.

There it is again! The miraculously growing internet thread corn. Pops up without rhyme or reason.

Petrol vehicles already have every single limit in place, so there is nothing new 'scary' that hybrid vehicles are doing. And you keep hinting at these scary conspiracy theories around you, but look: everything you do is within a grid. You are posting on loveforum, you work your job, you send your kids to school, you have a credit card, you own a telephone. Do you seriously ****ing believe that growing your private corn farm in the middle of the Arizona desert is all thats keeping you from police state right now? Your anger is seriously misplaced.

Well I'll be corned. The corning never stops.

Yes, I think it's safe to assume and agree together that I am now currently posting at love forum. The rest of it is just you fishing.

and... If you're suggesting that the internal combustion engine has made all the technological leaps it can, that would a very silly statement to make. Worse than "corn!".

As for the petroleum market, if our cars switch to hybrid, we won't have to mine all these expensive sources of oil - like shale or liquified coal - which would keep oil cheaper. Reduced demand = reduced price. Its Economics 101.

Maybe you should explain Econ 101 to OPEC... they don't appear to be listening and never have... but why should they? The US would hate to have it's dollar hedged on 20 dollar barrels at any rate.. it's not like they have much gold or silver behind anything... nor an open ledger. Boy oh boy did I nearly shard myself laughing at the US when it was forced to return the stores it was safekeeping for other nations last year after decades of remaining untouched. Think of how many various sources they had to reconstitute, reform into known dimensions, and stamp on a spur of the moment. Too funny.

Yeah let me explain economics, here:

There's always a "shortage", demand outpaces supply, thats why the price of oil is as high as can give them the most profit. Many people would like to buy more oil, but they restrict their usage because they can't afford it at this price. The more oil there is, the more demand, the less demand, the lower the price of oil. So shortage is arbitrary in this context, to increase or decrease the supply, or to increase or decrease the demand - will all effect the price of oil, regardless of whether or not oil has a "terminal shortage."

yes, yes... supply is limited to a level of sought demand... there are not shortages... just manipulations, environmental movement facism, and spin doctoring. Tell us something we don't know.

And how "efficiency" --> "because of the lack of oil" ---> "props up the unsecure dollar" & "media monopoly" --> "therefore we invent global warming" is the most ridiculous chain of logic I have ever read. You're going to have to learn to explain yourself a little better, because no one but you has any idea what you even by that.

Ask your professor.

Everything has false advertising and hype. I agree that electric vehicles aren't as environmentally friendly as advertised, but they are a step up from what we already have, and the electric grid is more mutable than the petrol grid, allowing more innovation to occur in the source of the energy, since it won't require changing the engine of every single car on the road. Its easier to build a new plant than to get 10 million people to change their engines, fueling habits, and car types.

I'll agree that hybrids still aren't where they should be. There are costs to the batteries, but the technology has improved tremendously the past 10 years.

As has shale and oil sand techs.

I also don't see how you can say Wind and Solar are not sustainable. Considering Wind and Solar are renewable and some of the least utilized sources of electricity, considering wind powers 20% of Denmark, 13% of Spain and Portugal, and 7% of Germany (World's second largest exporter). Solar, as well, is highly utilized by a lot of nations, 90% of homes in Israel use solar powering because of Israel's poor relations with their local oil exporters in the Middle-East.

As an adjunct, they're fine. As a broadly encompassing venture, they'd disrupt wind currents, surface and atmospheric temps and render the world worse off.

The pollution created as a manufacturer by-product would extreme as well.

I think you are too eager to write off a lot of energy sources, and oddly defend a worse energy source in the process.

On the contrary, I'd love solar cells to make the next big shrink. I spend 6 months of the year living off 2 x 80 watt panels and would welcome a lighter and smaller cargo.

I've read of many biological alternatives. I hope you're not referring to ethanol-derivatives like corn biofuel. E20-E85 will only cause new humanitarian problems.

CORNED AGAIN! lol

Okay, I'll bet you I have citizenship in more nations than you (3), speak more languages fluently than you (4, + one dead language), have lived in more countries than you, and traveled to more countries than you.

That's nice.

I will absolutely agree with you that there are transnational political trends, both in capitalism, militarism, mass media, that are superceding the political wills of nations and causing people to follow a different tune, especially when it comes to organizations like the WTO and the IMF. However, I don't believe that just because there are some people out there who are eager to take away your rights that you should be skeptical of every change in front of you, some changes are good, some changes are actually scary to the powers that be (GE owns NBC, GE causes tons of global warming), Detroit has high influence in Congress, though it has waned in recent years, Detroit opposes higher fuel standards and tries to deny global warming.

There are a lot of different political momenta going on in this world and to conflate them all as one single political momentum is simplistic and ignorant.

Political science is obviously not one of your majors or minors.

Hydrogen shares some of the costs but doesn't emit pollution in consumption, and emits less pollution in mining as well.

Norilsk? heh...

Everything has a cost. Nuclear energy has a high cost but with proper storage the pollution is minimal and manageable, and the energy created has a lower environmental impact than equal energy creation via coal or gas.

Spent fuel is a ticking time bomb which can't be safely handed down to the next generation without deadly accidents occurring along the way. Intentional or natural.

I see nothing wrong with blanketing unused space with photovoltaic cells. Instead of roof tiles put solar panels. Instead of blowing up rocks to get to the shale, cover a space with solar power. Even if not as an absolute replacement, these technologies, in conjuction with the processes already going on, reduce both our emissions and dependance on non-renewable substances.

I agree, at least in part. The emissions are a joke. Volcanoes regularly spew out more emissions than we can as whole.. sometimes many years worth. But I'm for anything which keeps us off the grid and out of gulags. Unfortunately, every action has an equal but opposite reaction.

The Elitists won't and don't permit widespread grid abandonment. It destabilizes their grip.

[Doc Durian]

You're completely right, environmentalism is a conspiracy invented by Al Gore to... to... to.... to.................................

Its nice to try to co-opt the lefts rhetoric, but anti-environmentalism has a much clearer economic gain than environmentalismm, and fits the narrative of cronyism much more clearly. Its a nice try though.

How could a laugh at Gore lining his pockets with other peoples ignorance be construed as him creating the environmental movement?

Your red herrings are duly noted.

By the way, I won't deny that there are some who join environmentalism purely for their economic benefit (the benefit to environmentalism is much smaller than being a global warming denier and joining the world's largest energy system: oil, but there's something there). There are people who market products as green when they really aren't, who try to create a green 'image' without changing their products at all, or create shoddy products solely because there are large funding sources that they can compete for. There are always bad apples, but in general, the movement towards more efficient energy, less pollution, and less oil consumption is always better. Even if you want to stick your head in the sand about global warming, the human health impacts of pollution are dead obvious to see.

Global temps have begun to drop. It's called "Climate Change" now. Didn't you get the memo?

1) No, oil is by default non-renewable. You are referring to oil substitutes (I hope), like biofuels, which have significant human costs. Believe me, I once thought biofuel was the solution to our woes, but then I saw what it did on a limited scale, then the research started pouring in, the data from 3rd world nations, the effect on food, hunger, starvation, crop-development, water usage, and pretty clearly it became obvious that if biofuel became the new standard, that we'd create a serious ****ing problem of epic proportions. Until someone finds a better crop that can be mass-produced cheaply without the economic downsides of crop-shifting biofuel is not going to be a solution, its simply going to create different problems.

I don't care about your mock human interest statement. People die. Get over it and move on. It's not like you or I do anything real to help the needy. The difference though between us is that I don't pretend to care.

2) No one cares. You are on the grid just about every moment of your life, and its just as possible to create electric generation off the grid as it is to create oil. Neither is convenient, but both are possible. There are pluses and minuses to both, but in the end, I don't think anyone would care.

It's easier than you would think... but that's hardly a surprise now is it.

3) This is untrue. Firstly, renewable energy sources like solar reduce the impact of lost transferred energy, unlike in oil refinement. Secondly, oil has a high cost to extract, refine, send, consume. Thirdly, oil vehicles are less efficient at utilizing the energy generated to travel equal distances as electric or hybrid vehicles. Fourthly, oil is increasingly becoming less efficient (see moving to shale, tar sands, most liquified coals). And fifthly, energy grids can improve with technologies.

It's obvious that you have some psychological screw loose which compels you to adhere to Greenie leaps of non-logic for whatever reason. :rolleyes:

4) The corporations already don't have our best interests at heart in making us drive gasoline-powered vehicles. So why the hell is this vague and generic criticism of yours only applicable to hybrids/EVs? Your argument isn't even consistent. And hell, if we can reduce the amount of oil consumed, people won't constantly be so tempted to wage war over oil, and the geopolitical importance of oil will go down, not to mention the power held by OPEC.

America is propped up by OPEC. Watch your words... you may get an unwelcome visit. lol

Yes, corporations are fockwads. No, the continued evolution of the internal combustion motor doesn't require capital investment, proprietary non disclosure agreements, or infrastructure. Corporations have realized that the battle has been lost, so they've started a new game with all the pieces stacked in their favour. Governments have been quick to latch onto the wave since stable wars can be more efficiently waged economically through supposed carbon taxes. They're in bed together and you're they're future adopted son, MV. I feel your impending death bed shame for you, brother.

5) Counting is your friend.

That's nice.

6) I'm curious. Do you have anything to contribute to politics besides being a naysayer, claming everything is a conspiracy, and calling everyone sheep? Do you have any solutions for pollution, rising oil prices, CO2 emissions? Or do you find it just easier to just stick your head in the tar sands?

AKA: If you're not part of our solution, you're part of the problem?

Like I said earlier, actually analyze the world around you. Don't wait to have your head further filled with muck.

The truth is out there, Corn Dawg.

[IndiReloaded]

Before Doc and MVP decline further, I think I'll make a couple of important points:

1. 32 National Science Academies the world over confirm a human contribution to global warming. In fact, there are NO dissenting organizations, tho there are a handful that are awaiting further data. Most nations agree, including China (mentioned specifically by Doc). The synthesis reports released in 2007, stated clearly global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries. They attribute a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.

So, Doc, I'm sorry but the world's scientists disagree with you. I know you aren't a scientist and therefore only have your belief and opinion to base your statements on, but there is data out there to examine, the reports are available online. Feel free to educate yourself, independently of any educational institution. Refusing to do so simply b/c it disagrees with how you'd like the world to work is tantamount to giving up the 'freethinking' you claim to highly value. Basically, it makes your statements the equivalent of religion and I think you are smarter than that. Don't decide before you actually have any proof and then accuse others of being brainwashed. Unless you are making an informed decision, you are the biggest self-brainwashed person posting here. The raw data is out there, go look at the temperature trends for yourself and read what others (who have actually SEEN the data) have to say.

2. ALL countries around the world are seeking "green" energy solutions. While Doc is right, Entropy IS, and one always has to pay the piper in some form, there are some promising alternatives being developed. Fact is, fossil fuels are finite. Acknowledging this only takes a basic understanding of the process by which they are created in the first place and then realize we are using them up faster than they are being made. As our energy demands continue to increase (US & China are particular energy gluttons, tho so are most developed nations) we need to examine alternatives.

3. There are some interesting developments happening re: revisiting Stirling engine technology. I was privy to a fascinating TED-type presentation recently and there are some really cool advances being made. For a long while, engineers thought this was the equivalent of a perpetual-motion machine, but the new adaptations are really very clever. I will leave the details for those who want to investigate further.

[Junket]

I'm wary of anything now.

I had read recently that recycling many materials requires an enormous amount of water, which we all know is also becoming more scarce in some places.

[Cbrider]

I'm wary of anything now.

I had read recently that recycling many materials requires an enormous amount of water, which we all know is also becoming more scarce in some places.

Well yes, but we don't generally recycle in the Sahara desert. I heard that hurricanes are becoming scarce around Louisiana.....what do you think?