Full Page NY Times Ad / Anti-oil

[kach22i]

I love the part about the Model-T going further on a gallon of gas than the fleet wide average of today - and I like Bill Ford.

[Superman]

That's a fine and honest ad. Probably nothing could improve our national security posture more than energy independence, not to mention our place in worldwide citizenship. Contrary to some folks' perception, I am not simply an enemy of capitalism. I like aspects of capitalism. But right now, it seems clear to me that we are being fleeced by this industry, the media industry and several other notables. Unfortunately, these concepts seem to be WAY beyond the ordinary voter's ability to grok.

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by Superman
But right now, it seems clear to me that we are being fleeced by this industry, the media industry and several other notables. Unfortunately, these concepts seem to be WAY beyond the ordinary voter's ability to grok.

Nothing works better than living by example.

Lets all sell the Pcars - and get Tercels (47MPG) then buy a small woodlots and start chopping.

10 acres will provide enough wood on a rotating basis to heat a small home..

[cowtown]

I'm glad this FreedomFromOil group supports nuclear power expansion. That's the only energy source that could possibly wean us off ME oil, so it follows that this group must be in favor. Otherwise, they'd just be pie-in-the-sky hypocrites.

I look forward to seeing their next full-page ad supporting a national nuclear fuel storage facility.

[Eric 951]

bicycles for everyone!

[Tishabet]

Couldn't agree more with cowtown.

[Superman]

Gaijindabe, great idea. I'm fairly confident we'd be happier that way.

Colin, I'm hesitant to attempt to engage you in a straightforward respectful discussion, but frankly I am indeed supportive of atomic energy at this time. They can be relatively safe. Fuel is cheap. Waste is small and can be concentrated further. Battery technology is coming up fast. Other technologies such as biodiesel are becoming a "happenin'" thing. Vehicles could be more efficient. A substantial proportion of the gridlocked vehicles I see daily here in the nation's second-worst traffic region have a single occupant and weigh something around 5000 lbs. Not sure why that's a good idea, except that the occupant's status and sight-height are elevated. Went to the baseball game last night and should have taken the bus. I honestly wish busses were more common and convenient. I'd say we could cut our dependence on foreign oil in HALF fairly quickly if we set this as a goal.

I wonder who would oppose that.

[Superman]

Fusion is a hot technology to try to tame, but we're headed there. If we wanted to do it, we could quench our energy thirst entirely using this, and battery technology, before my kids reach my age.

Guess whose toes that would step on. President and VP? Anybody tracking the dispute over our Energy Policy? Dubya and Big Dick are not in agreement with the dems, or the reps on this one.

[dhoward]

Originally posted by Superman
Snipped...

Guess whose toes that would step on. President and VP? Anybody tracking the dispute over our Energy Policy? Dubya and Big Dick are not in agreement with the dems, or the reps on this one.

So you're implying that these two guys are the reason we're in the predicament we're in?
I thought more of you than that....

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by cowtown
I'm glad this FreedomFromOil group supports nuclear power expansion. That's the only energy source that could possibly wean us off ME oil, so it follows that this group must be in favor. Otherwise, they'd just be pie-in-the-sky hypocrites.

I look forward to seeing their next full-page ad supporting a national nuclear fuel storage facility.

I think the amount of oil we get from the Persian Gulf is something like 25%, or at least it was a couple of years ago.

This group seems to claim that 70% of our overall oil consumption is due to transportation. If thats true its easy to see that increasing the efficiency of the transportation fleet by around 1/3rd would eliminate the need to source oil from the ME on paper.

Of course if all other (non ME) sources are expected to diminish then this won't hold true. And it would never happen instantaneously, so this is something of a 'pipe' dream, but are you saying that a notable drop in oil consumption would have no effect on our reliance on ME oil?

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by Superman
Guess whose toes that would step on. President and VP? Anybody tracking the dispute over our Energy Policy? Dubya and Big Dick are not in agreement with the dems, or the reps on this one.

If it were that easy to just invent this new technology and make it affordable, the oil companies would be the first ones onboard. They have the most to lose if someone else beats them to the technology and makes oil obsolete, but they have the most to gain if they create and market the new tech.

Of course, even after they create this new technology, eliminate pollution, save whales, and bend over for every liberal in this country, there'll still be conspiracy theories about "big nuclear" or "big hydrogen"

[dhoward]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Snipped...

Of course, even after they create this new technology, eliminate pollution, save whales, and bend over for every liberal in this country, there'll still be conspiracy theories about "big nuclear" or "big hydrogen"

That's "big nuke-yu-ler.."

[kach22i]

Originally posted by cowtown
I look forward to seeing their next full-page ad supporting a national nuclear fuel storage facility.

They could be full of hot air, looks like they are pushing hydrogen if you read it.

http://www.ran.org/news/newsitem.php?id=842

Nuclear power is a proven technology to generate large amounts of electricity, but before it could be expanded, the energy industry would have to overcome longstanding public fears that another accident, like those at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, will occur. Solutions also need to be found for disposing of radioactive spent fuel and safeguarding it from terrorists..............................One concept is to pump compressed air into an underground cavern. When electricity was needed, the air would be released, and the air pressure would turn a turbine to generate electricity.

The other group - news clipping:

http://www.globalexchange.org/war_peace_democracy/oil/2535.html

The FTC's rules have proved toothless when it comes to greenwashing. In 1999, the FTC took no action against the Nuclear Energy Institute, another lobbying organization, even after finding the institute guilty of false claims that nuclear power is "environmentally clean" and creates electricity "without polluting."

[bryanthompson]

Bob Barnett, retired petroleum engineer, written testimony submitted to the senate committee on appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, April 26, 2005:

The greatest potential for improving our energy plight lies in increasing the productivity of the mature oil fields within our borders. Of all the oil that has even been discovered in the US, about two-thirds of it remains in the ground. This amounts to more than 400 billion barrels!! Are we to write off this resource simply because the major oil companies are no longer interested? More production of this oil only awaits the application of new technology and improved techniques.

In addition to the obvious security and trade balance benefits, a concerted effort to produce the known energy resources within our own country would create an unprecedented economic impact. It would create many thousands of jobs and require billions in services, supplies, materials of all kinds, equipment, pipe, chemicals, etc.

[stomachmonkey]

Supe,

80 years ago we had great mass transit infrastucture in this country.

But certain companies wanted to sell more tires, cars and petroleum products.

So Firestone, GM and Standard Oil formed trusts that bought up most of the trolley lines and converted them to bus lines even though the trollies were efficient and profitable.

Excellent documentary on it, "Taken For A Ride" Check it out if yo can find it.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
If it were that easy to just invent this new technology and make it affordable, the oil companies would be the first ones onboard. They have the most to lose if someone else beats them to the technology and makes oil obsolete, but they have the most to gain if they create and market the new tech.

You are right and wrong at the same time. I recently watched part of a broadcast on the energy topic. Bill Clinton was there, Ted Turner and a few others - have it on tape, still watching it. Bill said it best, he said (paraphrasing): Oil companies are well organized, connected and entrenched in politics and policy. Alternative energies are underfunded/undercapatilized, disorganized and small business.

Bill went on to say that every time an alternative energy (windmill/solar panel) doubles in use, cost goes down 20%.

[bryanthompson]

My boss lives up in Madison, where they did something cool with wind farms... The power company took the initiative and started a small wind-farm and allowed people to voluntarily subscribe for the wind-generated power. It was more expensive, like $1.10 instead of $1/KW/h (just picking an arbitrary number here), but it wasn't a significant amount. The program basically sold out immediately and they expanded their wind farms. I think he said that the power at his house is now almost 100% provided from wind.

The beauty of that program was that it's totally voluntary. If I, as a right-wing nut job, decide that I don't want their leftie wind-powered agenda, I don't have to pay for it. No criticism for those who don't want in, just some people actually doing what they think is right. I think that's the model all of this should be going for.

Don't force me to give up my gas-guzzler, directly convince the power companies that there are enough people like you to make it worthwhile for them to make alternative power available. After it works, I'll subscribe

[88BlueTSiQuest]

I was really hoping to bust them on something, but they were smart not to have pictures in front of their main business.

Someone who lives in or around San Francisco should go by there and take a picture of their parking lot, so that we can see if they are even upholding their own 'freedom from oil' campaign.

I'm willing to bet, that picture would have a parking lot filled with SUVs.

2017 Mission Street, #303 - San Francisco, CA

[bryanthompson]

Jack, are you kidding? It's a guy in his parents' basement. Good luck finding a real office

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=2017+Mission+Street,+%23303+-+San+Francisco,+CA&spn=0.005412,0.007522&t=k&hl=en

[Moneyguy1]

No one mentions geothermal. Imagine harnassing the power of a Yellowstone....