User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 70

Thread: Gas Prices

  1. #41
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    ^^

    This my opinion as well. Humanity will always be the sole engineer of its own demise. :/

    I am still hoping on NASA to solve that problem and make way for leaving this planet.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  2. #42
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Point of order... the percentage is not nearly that high.

    Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hits Another High Years After Recession's End





    You have no idea what you are talking about.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Finland


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geograp..._United_States


    The US is 28.5 times the size of Finland.

    This isn't just about gas to get to work, it's about the gas to get every product we use to where we live.

    And increase in gas prices hits US citizens harder than it does the citizens of any other nation on Earth.

    We are more reliant on imported products, and the ability to ship those products vast distances across our nation than anywhere else.

    It's easy to tout European models of civil design, but it's another thing entirely to be able to employ those models in a cost effective manner in a vastly different and vastly larger country.
    Since i need to tell you the same thing i had to tell to that other guy, ill just quote myself from the post you already quoted from.

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    If you would had read further, you would realize that my suggestion was raising taxes for the public, while not raising them for corporations in order to keep the price of food from raising. But you were too busy going on your emo rant that you missed it, its also quite amusing that you are calling me the ignorant one
    Not going to degrade myself on explaining complicated things that you clearly arent able to comprehend and then start arguing about those things.

    Only thing i have to say about this is that its a shame that your great country is acting so idiotic
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #43
    On a mission Usehername's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    3,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Point of order... the percentage is not nearly that high.

    Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hits Another High Years After Recession's End





    You have no idea what you are talking about.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Finland


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geograp..._United_States


    The US is 28.5 times the size of Finland.

    This isn't just about gas to get to work, it's about the gas to get every product we use to where we live.

    And increase in gas prices hits US citizens harder than it does the citizens of any other nation on Earth.

    We are more reliant on imported products, and the ability to ship those products vast distances across our nation than anywhere else.

    It's easy to tout European models of civil design, but it's another thing entirely to be able to employ those models in a cost effective manner in a vastly different and vastly larger country.
    While I agree that this point it has some degree of merit that can't be ignored, as I'm sure does INTP, I think yours is largely an ignorant and ethnocentric POV. Compare the USA to Canada: your country is a fraction of the size of Canada's land mass plus your country is 10x more dense than ours in terms of population. Why are you guys sucking so hard at smart energy systems compared to us, when we're so much bigger and more spread out?

    Answer: It's because Americans have economic and political heavyweights that Canadians don't have, and these heavyweights heavily defend the boundaries of their systemic privilege. Your great nation is being screwed over by their own elites. And the only way around it is to do the things Europe is doing and adjust for your situated differences. Which is what we're doing in Canada. Your country is not so special or unique that it can't follow successful models from Europe, and that's a good thing. If you want your country to be as great as it can be, then you guys have to stop buying into the American exceptionalism myth and just do smart things really well. Like, take a successful model, make adjustments, and implement it in pursuit of a greater America.
    *You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
    *Faith is the art of holding on to things your reason once accepted, despite your changing moods.
    C.S. Lewis

  4. #44
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I see no reason why container ships (and ships generally) above a certain size shouldn't use nuclear reactors (with proper security measures). I think nuclear energy is vastly under-utilized globally, and that the problems/fears people have of it are vastly exaggerated.
    That's an interesting idea. And I totally agree that nuclear energy has tremendous potential. Most peoples fears are totally irrational.

    There is simply no cost effective alternative which provides similar performance to gas in land vehicles, and planes.

    Electric Vehicles take too long to charge, don't have enough range or comparable performance, and the pollution emitted from the process used to make the batteries is pretty bad.
    There is a ton of oil out there that we aren't allowed to get, such as in the outer continental shelf. America also has enormous natural gas resources, a lot of which are unused. America is also the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we have coal to liquid technology. Right now most of our coal consumption is power plants, and coal-fired power plants cause significant pollution.

    Here are my thoughts: We should drill for oil and natural gas wherever it's viable. Increase the availability of natural gas and make it more convenient to own natural gas powered vehicles. Gradually phase in more nuclear electricity production and free up more coal resources for coal liquefication.

    Also, scientists have made genetically engineered E. coli that make fuel. The E. coli is in a vat of water and fed plant matter, and its excrement floats to the top and is skimmed off. The excrement is virtually the same as petroleum, but it has no impurities, unlike the stuff that you get out of the ground. This is only being done on a small scale right now.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  5. #45
    Senior Membrane spirilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    InTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp
    Socionics
    INTj Ni
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Thread TL;DR, but I wanted to put in my recommendation for nuclear power. I think that's the only tech that has a chance of delivering power at density and longevity enough to satisfy human growth and demand. Solving its safety downsides should be where the effort is going. But instead much of the western world is burying its head in the sand over it.
    intp | type 9w1 sp/sx/so

  6. #46
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Why are you guys sucking so hard at smart energy systems compared to us, when we're so much bigger and more spread out?
    This has mostly to do with the time table of our emergence as the global leader.

    We came into dominance shortly after WWII, and consequently, our legislative system is geared toward a world that resembles that post WWII pre-fall of the Soviet Union.

    Much of our controlling legislation is geared toward a world that we unquestionably dominated.... a world that no longer exists.

    When what you have been doing has led to you being king of the globe for the last 60 years, it becomes much harder to change legislatively, lest the plebs argue that we are casting off what made us great. Not the reality of "we are getting rid of whats holding us back". When you've ruled the world for as long as we have, change becomes much harder, because much credence is given to those laws that led to your dominance whether or not those laws are still beneficial in the modern world.

    If you would had read further, you would realize that my suggestion was raising taxes for the public, while not raising them for corporations in order to keep the price of food from raising. But you were too busy going on your emo rant that you missed it, its also quite amusing that you are calling me the ignorant one

    Not going to degrade myself on explaining complicated things that you clearly arent able to comprehend and then start arguing about those things.

    Only thing i have to say about this is that its a shame that your great country is acting so idiotic
    Oh I read it. I just discounted it on account of the toxic nature of most desires to raise taxes in the current political environment.

    We will be lucky if we can raise revenue enough to stay solvent, let alone fund an entire R&D campaign in alternative energy, when the economy and more pressing domestic fiscal matters are as salient as they are.

  7. #47
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    Thread TL;DR, but I wanted to put in my recommendation for nuclear power. I think that's the only tech that has a chance of delivering power at density and longevity enough to satisfy human growth and demand. Solving its safety downsides should be where the effort is going. But instead much of the western world is burying its head in the sand over it.
    I still think solar is a good option (or at least a good supplement,) especially since buildings aren't going to be going anywhere anytime soon. The issue is trying to translate a huge solar facility into a better small scale one for the average consumer with quick results (none of the "you save X amount of money after this many years.")

  8. #48
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    Thread TL;DR, but I wanted to put in my recommendation for nuclear power. I think that's the only tech that has a chance of delivering power at density and longevity enough to satisfy human growth and demand. Solving its safety downsides should be where the effort is going. But instead much of the western world is burying its head in the sand over it.
    I dont even think that safety is the biggest problem, the much bigger problem is waste disposal. Here you have a good historical example: America is a very huuuuge country, you can dispose waste anywhere. Germany is not and when the first waste needed to be disposed, people had to search for a place to store it for a very long time. And when they had found one, the local farmers started protesting. You could have basically dumbed it anywhere, the place is so small that there would have been always people who went protesting. This protests then grew so massive and became a historical event which led to the foundation of the green party, which are today with around 10% votes part of our government.

    And thats the biggest problem with nuclear: where to with the waste. Its not only burnt out reactor coils, all the stuff that comes into touch with the radioactive material, like reactor housing, coolant all that is waste, which does kill people slowly and gruesome if you come in contact with it. Tho the press tries to disclose the whole Fukushima accident, if you do a little internet reasearch and look for what is going on in that region, you'll find a huge contaminated area, which doesnt immediantly kill people but slowly lets the cancer grow.

    I am not into banning research on nuclear energy, but regarding the additional waste its no problem solver for the future. that would turn our planet into a very dirty and partly damaged place. Its like sawing on the branch you sit on.

    They did a calculation for my country and found out that we easily could replace within a few years our whole energy consumption with wind energy converters. More efficient electronics speak in favor of that technology. Most basic problems is short term supply and what to do when the wind doesnt blow. For that we'll need accumulator tanks which do store converted electrical energy. Such things often being water storage tanks need to be build first of course. So its a very slow process.

    I see the whole renewables and energy efficiency movement from a more pragmatic point of view. Its a huge chance to make a lot of money, especially wind turbines are a chance for poor farmers to regain some of their strength. So far you can make a lot of money with the energy supplied and you barely have to put physical work into it, just working capital.

    You shouldnt miss that opportunity for industrial growth. Even if the world later wasnt intrested in your renewable products, they will still buy your machines and stuff cause they are the most energy efficient and make your production cheaper. This a huge step towards technological leadership.
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  9. #49
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    If it's any consolation, the price is around U$$ 8/gallon in Brazil. 100% compound taxes ftw.
    Gas is not for the poor - they must use public transportation and be eco-friendly.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  10. #50
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    - if the price is doubled, a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford to work, bus fares would rise and so would the number of empty stomachs, etc, etc. It's not as simple as raising prices. I don't know what it's like in your country, but here people don't always live within a ten minute walk of where they work. I think this may be too much for some people to understand because there are many factors involved and not every European and urban dweller on this forum seems to comprehend the complexity of the problem. It would take so long, that it's not worth actually listing since I'm currently using electricity that requires oil for it's production, and I'm trying hard to limit my consumption. If you really want to know, then make a list of every reason you can come up with for why people don't live close to where they work. And I'll give you a starting point: housing, food, fuel, clothing, water, (etc, etc) are more expensive in areas where the concentration of jobs and people is greater.

    - Local urban communities could pass ordinances to make some areas car-free pedestrian/bicycle zones or limit it to commercial/government vehicles. This would encourage people in urban areas to walk and bike a bit more and discourage using cars frivolously.

    I live in a townhouse community and many days I'll walk about 40 meters to a coffee shop, where I do most of my work. I see some of my neighbors who live next to me pulling out of our private drive, onto a state road, then into the coffee shop parking lot, head for the drive thu for their coffee, then immediately return to their homes. Raising gas to $8 per gallon will probably prevent some of these wasteful trips, but it will also hurt millions of people who must commute to work.

    National regulation of transportation does not make sense here, take a look at the our geographic diversity and the varied layouts and range of our cities and towns. Then look at the last 20 laws our legislative branch has passed concerning complicated issues.....It's too much for the stooges we have in congress...they would simply fuck it up or use it to further their partisan agendas or subsidize their favorite political contributors.

    - As far as the crappy transportation goes: there's no way that public transportation in the US will ever be as efficient(i.e. affordable/plausible) as in a small european province or a tiny island nation. The infrastructure here has been built to accommodate individual, motorized transport specifically because of our geography, for the profit of the automotive industry and the convenience of consumers among other factors, including legislation from the first half the last century. The cost of converting our infrastructure to one that's geared towards public transportation is too high. We can't even afford to convert to the metric system yet...

    Like the commuter culture we've developed, public transportation and it's flaws are a result of many factors, research on this topic can be enlightening for you ignorant swine. Either way, the entire world human population depends on oil and it's byproducts, for food production, medicine, shoes, tires, fuels, electricity, housing, etc. Without oil, and even with a complete conversion to nuclear power, we cannot sustain 6-7 billion people for very long. Seeing as how almost everything we use in modernity depends on oil, any major changes to transportation here in N. America will have to be preceded by advancement in technology and shifting of profits from the old, oil-driven combustion engine to something that is dramatically less dependent on oil. Nuclear power coupled with electric vehicles, thus far and with limits, is the only solution that makes any sense. Do you have any better ideas?
    New Zealand has pretty much all of these problems (shitty public transport, car culture, bad urban planning, sprawling cities etc) and we're paying approximately US$6.50 a gallon and our GDP per capita is over US$20,000 less than America.

    Personally, I think rising petrol prices in the US is, if anything, good for technological developments in fuel economy or even new forms of energy. Previously there hasn't been the pressure of cost in the US to motivate innovation and all the brilliant ideas that could come out of high prices. It will also force the American government to invest more in public transport and to set up better systems, as well as encouraging Americans to be more frugal with fuel usage, thereby reducing carbon emissions globally. It might seem tough but this is an opportunity.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

Similar Threads

  1. Vincent Price
    By TenebrousReflection in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2016, 04:25 AM
  2. Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket”
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 135
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 11:41 PM
  3. How much does gas cost?
    By miss fortune in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-30-2008, 07:07 AM
  4. Commuting Prices
    By Eileen in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-24-2008, 04:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO