What I wish GWB would do.

koryo

Member
Aug 31, 2001
198
0
0
Remember (well, not firsthand), that pledge JFK made in 1960 about sending a man to the moon by the end of the decade?

I wish GW would do a similar thing, and make it the #1 national priority to make crude oil to the 21st century what whale oil was to the 20th. Irrelevant. I wish he would come out and say "By 2020 (whatever) we will develop something to use for energy instead of oil", and put something in place to make it happen. OK, I'll leave it up to his speechwriters to make it sound a little more inspiring.

I'm serious, though. As long as oil, domestic or foreign, is the industrialized world's primary source of energy, we will be slaves to guys like Osama bin Laden. What if we woke up one day to find out he had overthown the Saudi government? It could happen. Does anyone understand how hosed we'd be? It would make Tuesday seem like stubbing your toe. Even if we develop our own energy independence, as long as the oil boys have the $$$ rolling in our problems with them will not go away. Our best weapon in the long run is to develop something else we and the rest of the world can use as a primary energy source, destroy the international market for crude oil and return guys like OBL and Saddam to doing whatever guys like them did in 1900.

That's the best revenge we could ever have.

This could take 20 or 30 years, but we could do it. We have the brains, all we need is the will to start it and stay with it. What we need is a sustained long term program, not one that goes away every time the price of oil falls to $10 a barrel. Maybe it's a nutty idea, but it's no nuttier than the idea of putting a man on the moon was in 1960.

If you need an incentive picture those poor doomed people standing in the burned out upper floors of the WTC. That picture will be with me for the rest of my life.

 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,433
204
106
Thats a good step.
Tis true Nato doesn't seem to want to get into all those African wars going on right now cause we have no vested interest.
But whatever you do you have to get the same emount of energy as a $4-6 barrel of oil because thats about the cost of Mid-East production.
If you can't come up with an equivalent alternative in that price range you will create and economic disadvantage and further cripple the economy.
 

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
GM and Ford both already roll out E85 as we speak.
 
Last edited:

Valnir

Member
Oct 15, 1999
186
0
0
We need to go beyond just Oil. We need to be able to be completely self reliant. We rely on other countries way to much. We need to be able to be continue to thrive even if we have to cut off trades with some countries. As is if the Arab countries decide to stop trading us oil, our economy will be quite screwed.

Btw, IMO we should put serious money into Fuel Cell research since it can be used in everything batteries to engines to the fuel source for power plants. It uses hydrogen gas and it's emissions is water. Also the developmental engines were supposedly getting nearly 100 mpg.
 

koryo

Member
Aug 31, 2001
198
0
0
I guess my main point is that I wish GW would push it to the point of national obsession. Make it almost a holy obligation to those who died to see it through, even though he will be long (as President) then.

He's an oil guy, though. My fear is that when he thinks "need energy" it translates to "find more oil".

Maybe he'll surprise me. You never know.
 

Valnir

Member
Oct 15, 1999
186
0
0
The Oil companies could care less what fuel we produce as long as they make money. However the infrastructure needs to be in place for it to work, ie something needs to use it. Of course they would fight this simply because they would have to spend a lot of money to convert their plants to support a new fuel.

Another problem is that the Car companies will fight it to because they will have to change alot of their manufacturing processes too. And to ensure nothing ever happens the Car companies will use the arguement that if they have to change their plants they might as well go an even more automated manufacturing process thus making huge numbers of people's jobs expendable. This in turn would make any politician fighting for this type of change very unpopular with the labor groups.
 

koryo

Member
Aug 31, 2001
198
0
0


<< The Oil companies could care less what fuel we produce as long as they make money. However the infrastructure needs to be in place for it to work, ie something needs to use it. Of course they would fight this simply because they would have to spend a lot of money to convert their plants to support a new fuel.

Another problem is that the Car companies will fight it to because they will have to change alot of their manufacturing processes too. And to ensure nothing ever happens the Car companies will use the arguement that if they have to change their plants they might as well go an even more automated manufacturing process thus making huge numbers of people's jobs expendable. This in turn would make any politician fighting for this type of change very unpopular with the labor groups.
>>



I'm afraid I agree with you on this. Maybe we can send them to the front lines when Osama lands in New York Harbor.

That's exactly why we need the President to push this as a patriotic duty. Don't bet on it, though.
 

bunker

Lifer
Apr 23, 2001
10,578
0
71


<< Another problem is that the Car companies will fight it to because they will have to change alot of their manufacturing processes too. And to ensure nothing ever happens the Car companies will use the arguement that if they have to change their plants they might as well go an even more automated manufacturing process thus making huge numbers of people's jobs expendable. This in turn would make any politician fighting for this type of change very unpopular with the labor groups. >>



Car companies would not fight it. They have been trying to come up with an economical solution to use fuel cells for quite some time now.
 

sciencewhiz

Diamond Member
Jun 30, 2000
5,885
8
81


<< We need to go beyond just Oil. We need to be able to be completely self reliant. We rely on other countries way to much. We need to be able to be continue to thrive even if we have to cut off trades with some countries. As is if the Arab countries decide to stop trading us oil, our economy will be quite screwed.
>>



Are you willing to pay the higher prices that an isolationist economy entails?
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,387
8,154
126


<< We need to go beyond just Oil. We need to be able to be completely self reliant. We rely on other countries way to much. We need to be able to be continue to thrive even if we have to cut off trades with some countries. As is if the Arab countries decide to stop trading us oil, our economy will be quite screwed. >>



So you want us to be like Japan up until about 1600? :confused:
 

Hard_Boiled

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,154
0
0
I totally agree, we are going to run out of oil someday anyways, we should at least take strides to cut down our consumption. The Middle East is such a warzone, we should distance ourself from it as far as possible. I posted a thread about this myself on Tuesday or Thursday but it didn't get much attention. Basically I think after we find those responsible for Tuesday's attacks and exact our justice, we should distance ourselfs as much as possible from the Middle East.

It should be much easier for consumers to stop using so much oil or switch to cars that run on alternate fuel sources than the military with all it's jet planes and such. A jet plane uses more fuel in a few weeks than a person could possibly use in their whole life.