Am I a Liberal?

[walt]

Night train, I agree with you,,,to a point. I cant afford a hummer nor the gas to go in one! But the bottom line is it is none of our business. If one can afford it congrats. As for dependance on forgian oil,, ALASKA is right there, but the lib-tree huggers are pitching a fit! We, who drive, dont mind busting someone's chops about driving a hugh SUV, yet we would not think about personal planes/jets. I cant say if your a lib,, as for me I'm just jelious, I wish I could have one!!:bbg:

Hey Paul,

Reminds me I spent 8 years in Cinci. Also bought a '75 VW camper there just before leaving for Colorado. That camper's been over just about every logging trail and town between Colorado and New Mexico since then. A 4-cylinder air cooled engine. I still use it and it's in great shape. Never missed the horsepower even at 12,000+ elevations and in the worst snow storms in CO. Guess they're just designed that way. Unfortunately they're no longer made because of the demand for HORSEPOWER.
:cheers:
If you ever get to La Normandy, tell Steve Komisar to put a beer on my tab.

[Spexvet]

Night train, I agree with you,,,to a point. I cant afford a hummer nor the gas to go in one! But the bottom line is it is none of our business. If one can afford it congrats. As for dependance on forgian oil,, ALASKA is right there, but the lib-tree huggers are pitching a fit! We, who drive, dont mind busting someone's chops about driving a hugh SUV, yet we would not think about personal planes/jets. I cant say if your a lib,, as for me I'm just jelious, I wish I could have one!!:bbg:

Paul,

I hear they found oil under Blue Ash and will start drilling next week.

What's that? Did I hear you say "not in my back yard"?;)

[mrba]

mrba, nothing beats pure HP - I hear herion is pretty good, too, but I don't shoot up. I hear it's not good for me, in the long run.

I find the weight loss advantages too good to miss.

[walt]

I think that with incentives, we could have been past batteries, wind, solar. You just don't know. What we do know is that virtually all progress stopped, and we have ended up driving SUVs! They have only slightly higher MPG ratings than a 1971 Coupe DeVille. But if we'd had our brightest minds on the problem for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS, surely we would not be in the position we are today.

I agree, with reservations.

Back then it was the overnight escalation of gas costs due to OPEC embargo scaring the hell out of people.

As the embargo ended, people went back to higher horsepower. Neither govt nor industry had an alternate fuel source or technology offering the same performance at the same price as gas at that time. Even after the years of govt programs, everything was still "on the come". Quite simply, after the embargo ended, consumer demand disappeared.

Industry saw no immediate return in investing in further research, and govt met with resistance in allocating funds for future technology with no immediate consumer demand or support.

Had the problem been handled an the scale of NASA, things might have been different, but there are a lot of giant financial interests involved in such a transition, none of which viewed this favorably for obvious reasons.

I'd love to see what we could by now have had in an all-electric or hydrogen engine.

As far as some of the vested interests in the status quo of gas combustion -

Detroit
Oil companies
Every gas station and repair garage
Automotive after-market
Ike's "Military-Industrial" complex (Today's "Military-Industrial-Security" complex
Must be a million more...

Maybe the good news as of today is the cost per barrel now at $42 with no end in sight. That ought'a rattle some cages.

Prediction - In a year, you won't be able to even give an SUV away, and if we again see lines at the pumps, people will be caving in their windows. Then you'll really need a Hummer just to get the hell out'a town alive.
:cheers:
RE: a NASA-like program...

NASA was not originally formed for space research. It was in reaction to the USSR's successful launch of Sputnik, the world's first satalite. Kennedy started NASA as a response to a perceived foreign security threat and received nationwide support. The R&D spin-offs since then have been fantastic.

If the fear of Sputnik could launch NASA, is it realistic to think that finally liberating ourselves from that blood-sucking oil dependence might be enough to launch a similar program?

Inquiring minds don't want to know.

[mrba]

Prediction - In a year, you won't be able to even give an SUV away, and if we again see lines at the pumps, people will be caving in their windows. Then you'll really need a Hummer just to get the hell out'a town alive.

I doubt it. Gas prices are determined my many nefarious forces... hence they are artificially sustained. If Prices go to high, people would stop buying SUV's, and Detroit (one of the nefarious forces) will excircise its power to lower prices.

What?!!! Yeah thats right. Detroit has market power in the oil biz.

[walt]

Keep it up, y'll get another Brownie. Or a *itch-Slap.

[walt]

What?!!! Yeah thats right. Detroit has market power in the oil biz.

And the vaseline biz? :p :p :p

[Spexvet]

I agree, with reservations.

Back then it was the overnight escalation of gas costs due to OPEC embargo scaring the hell out of people.

As the embargo ended, people went back to higher horsepower. Neither govt nor industry had an alternate fuel source or technology offering the same performance at the same price as gas at that time. Even after the years of govt programs, everything was still "on the come". Quite simply, after the embargo ended, consumer demand disappeared.

Industry saw no immediate return in investing in further research, and

the Republican controlled

govt met with resistance in allocating funds for future technology with no immediate consumer demand or support.

Had the problem been handled an the scale of NASA, things might have been different, but there are a lot of giant financial interests involved in such a transition, none of which viewed this favorably for obvious reasons.

I'd love to see what we could by now have had in an all-electric or hydrogen engine.

As far as some of the vested interests in the status quo of gas combustion -

Detroit
Oil companies
Every gas station and repair garage
Automotive after-market
Ike's "Military-Industrial" complex (Today's "Military-Industrial-Security" complex
Must be a million more...

Maybe the good news as of today is the cost per barrel now at $42 with no end in sight. That ought'a rattle some cages.

Prediction - In a year, you won't be able to even give an SUV away, and if we again see lines at the pumps, people will be caving in their windows. Then you'll really need a Hummer just to get the hell out'a town alive.
:cheers:
RE: a NASA-like program...

NASA was not originally formed for space research. It was in reaction to the USSR's successful launch of Sputnik, the world's first satalite. Kennedy started NASA as a response to a perceived foreign security threat and received nationwide support. The R&D spin-offs since then have been fantastic.

If the fear of Sputnik could launch NASA, is it realistic to think that finally liberating ourselves from that blood-sucking oil dependence might be enough to launch a similar program?

Inquiring minds don't want to know.

They're already giving away SUVs - 0 finance and cheap leases.

I beleive it was Ike who consolidated NASA from the programs in each military branch (history channel or Deception Point by Dan Brown)

I agree with you in that Americans will go with the best/easiest/cheapest way. That's why Burmese sweat shops and Walmart exist. It's a shame we can't look ahead, suck it up, and have the discipline to do the difficult things that would make our country even better. AN IDEA: use trash cans, not the shoulder of the interstate.

[mrba]

use trash cans, not the shoulder of the interstate.

I occationally yearn for my earlier days...

[karen]

Don't they?

Too funny- I actually said that outloud when I read that and then scrolled down to discover that we agree!! :) Who knows what's next??

[Spexvet]

Too funny- I actually said that outloud when I read that and then scrolled down to discover that we agree!! :) Who knows what's next??

they pay for more gas, not more for gas.

[walt]

the Republican controlled.

Yea, but it really doesn't matter. For example, check out Clinton's high-powered contribution to the energy problems...

http://www.tennessean.com/education/...nt_ID=54794437

These programs turned into a great boondoggle being milked to death by just about every hide-binder alive.

Case in point regarding cars... Back then, threre used to be an annual electric car show and parade in St. Louis. The parade was provided to allow exhibitors to flaunt their innovations by driving them through a couple mile course around downtown. GM was such an exhibitor, but although receiving about $500,000 for R&D annually from the govt, their beautifully designed car always had to be dragged back to the finish line. In contrast, our privately financed "unCar' always made it.

I agree with your observation about the Republications. My guess is the Dems would have kept the pork going.

[chm2023]

Prediction - In a year, you won't be able to even give an SUV away, and if we again see lines at the pumps, people will be caving in their windows. Then you'll really need a Hummer just to get the hell out'a town alive.
:cheers:
RE: a NASA-like program...

NASA was not originally formed for space research. It was in reaction to the USSR's successful launch of Sputnik, the world's first satalite. Kennedy started NASA as a response to a perceived foreign security threat and received nationwide support. The R&D spin-offs since then have been fantastic.

If the fear of Sputnik could launch NASA, is it realistic to think that finally liberating ourselves from that blood-sucking oil dependence might be enough to launch a similar program?

Inquiring minds don't want to know.

Al Gore suggested in his book (can't recall name) that the US should establish a goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine in 20, or maybe 25?, years. A la the space program. He was roundly ridiculed.

Setting a long term, stretch objective for your country. Geez, what kind of leadership is that????

One of my favorite cautionary tales is the story of Lee Iococca--in the late 60's he was asked about the trend the Japanese were just starting to seize upon: the small, economical, fuel efficient car. His response: "Americans want leather".

[karen]

they pay for more gas, not more for gas.

Ah but darling, in my book that means they are paying more for gas! (guess that's my conservative side talking ;) )

[Spexvet]

Yea, but it really doesn't matter. For example, check out Clinton's high-powered contribution to the energy problems...

http://www.tennessean.com/education/...nt_ID=54794437

These programs turned into a great boondoggle being milked to death by just about every hide-binder alive.

Case in point regarding cars... Back then, threre used to be an annual electric car show and parade in St. Louis. The parade was provided to allow exhibitors to flaunt their innovations by driving them through a couple mile course around downtown. GM was such an exhibitor, but although receiving about $500,000 for R&D annually from the govt, their beautifully designed car always had to be dragged back to the finish line. In contrast, our privately financed "unCar' always made it.

I agree with your observation about the Republications. My guess is the Dems would have kept the pork going.

Walt,
The link above took me to the O'Leary page.

And the heck is a hide-binder???

[walt]

Walt,
The link above took me to the O'Leary page.

It was supposed to. She was Clinton's contribution.

And the heck is a hide-binder???

A mule-skinner.

[mrba]

Al Gore suggested in his book (can't recall name) that the US should establish a goal of eliminating the internal combustion engine in 20, or maybe 25?, years. A la the space program. He was roundly ridiculed.

You guys should read up more on eliminating gas engines. I listen to a late night radio show where a PHD Engineer discusses various technologies with respect to the environment. He is very common sense etc, and he says that developing batteries for cars that are MORE ECONMICAL than gas is loads of time away.

You realize those power cells have to be recharged, which means coal plants have to burn more coal to make the juice to recharge the batteries.

Coal plants produce 2000 tons/year of Uranium and Thorium.

Your power cell nirvana is not the answer.

[walt]

You guys should read up more on eliminating gas engines. I listen to a late night radio show where a PHD Engineer discusses various technologies with respect to the environment. He is very common sense etc, and he says that developing batteries for cars that are MORE ECONMICAL than gas is loads of time away.

You realize those power cells have to be recharged, which means coal plants have to burn more coal to make the juice to recharge the batteries.

Coal plants produce 2000 tons/year of Uranium and Thorium.

Your power cell nirvana is not the answer.

Another case for nuclear. But guess who's against that.

[mrba]

Nuclear has it's costs too. Everything has a cost. A family of five produces enouph nuclear waste in 20 Years to fit into a thimbal. In my mind that is the better solution than coal. I would rather control and store the nuclear waste than pump it into the air as with coal.

There is also a lot of natural gas in Alaska that is not accessable stateside due to politics (the pipe through Canada is a big mess). This natural gas is being let off into the atmosphere, totally wasted. it is a natural side effect of oil drilling.

I think the storage at the Yucca facility in Nevada controversy is a joke. I would submit that in 100 years we would safely be able to transport the waste off of the planet. This 1000000000 years of storage requirement is hogwash.

Amazing what a conservative knows about environmental challenges. But we all want to fry the planet secretly for our own profit!:hammer:

[Spexvet]

It was supposed to. She was Clinton's contribution.

A mule-skinner.

Ok I get the O'leary reference. Now what's a mule-skinner?:hammer:

[Spexvet]

Another case for nuclear. But guess who's against that.

I agree - go nuclear or hydro. Investigate alternatives all the while.

[walt]

Ok I get the O'leary reference. Now what's a mule-skinner?:hammer:

Derogatory throwback to the frontier days for snake-oil salesmen. Closest analogy today would be those wonderful folks who will sell you aluminum storm windows and siding, blacktop your drive, or paint your house with water colors. (Ever hear of the Williamsons?) All at below market, and all guaranteed to last until they leave town. Most recently reappearing in Iraq as insurance salesmen selling worthless insurance to the troops.

[Spexvet]

Derogatory throwback to the frontier days for snake-oil salesmen. Closest analogy today would be those wonderful folks who will sell you aluminum storm windows and siding, blacktop your drive, or paint your house with water colors. (Ever hear of the Williamsons?) All at below market, and all guaranteed to last until they leave town. Most recently reappearing in Iraq as insurance salesmen selling worthless insurance to the troops.

got it

[chm2023]

You guys should read up more on eliminating gas engines. I listen to a late night radio show where a PHD Engineer discusses various technologies with respect to the environment. He is very common sense etc, and he says that developing batteries for cars that are MORE ECONMICAL than gas is loads of time away.

You realize those power cells have to be recharged, which means coal plants have to burn more coal to make the juice to recharge the batteries.

Coal plants produce 2000 tons/year of Uranium and Thorium.

Your power cell nirvana is not the answer.

Bet you would have cornered the buggy whip market.

All breakthroughs require a lot of time and a lot of resources--note your PhD says it's loads of time away. And the key requirement is that scarcest of all resources, vision. This of course being that rare ability to look forward and not back.

Who, in the 60's could have foreseen the revolution in communications and computerization? Assuming that things will always be as they are now is foolish. As someone earlier (Walt?) noted, think if we had started developing ideas and investing in research back when Carter proposed this, where would we be now?

[chm2023]

http://www.fuelcells.org/

Check out the "answers" area. Not a lot of techno-talk, pretty interesting stuff. My advice to any of the younger O/B folks, add some players in this area to your portfolio.