actually, they don't... not any company can just build power plants. just like cable... there is only one cable company accessible to all.. grande still barely covers any of san antonio...
Printable View
actually, they don't... not any company can just build power plants. just like cable... there is only one cable company accessible to all.. grande still barely covers any of san antonio...
cecil I was just about to post something like that
basicly what happeend with electricity with enron in calfi is happening with oil
artifically the price is getting mulitpilated
What Enron did was flat out illegal, and that should be watched over. But that is not the same as deregulation itself. Government mediation within markets ends up costing the consumer in the long run.
Democrats want to bitch about the environment and they want cheap energy too. You can't have it both ways and you have to pay for something of that nature.
just think of the energy we'd be saving if true enviromentalist actually practiced what they'd preach... less cars on the roads with save our planet stickers on them, less light pollution at night since they wouldn't be buy energy from the evil energy companies and less liberals online since they wouldn't be buying ISP access from the evil corporate communication companies... bah..
haha... but so, soo true!
I don't see how Republicans can sit around and gloat about how they are selling us out to the Chinese with debt, making us all even more oil dependent on MIddle East oil, and coming soon, indentured slaves to credit companies, but it seems to me that the enviromental types are the ones REALLY solving the worlds problems...not the corporations.
more...Quote:
CORTE MADERA, Calif. -- Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage.
It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret - a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel.
Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car.
Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb - all for about a quarter.
Seattle.PI
that is nothing. for 800 bux anyone with a diesel vehicle can convert their car to burn used cooking oil that restaurants pay companies to haul away.
You just don't get the meaning of words 'environmentally friendly', do you?Quote:
hat is nothing. for 800 bux anyone with a diesel vehicle can convert their car to burn used cooking oil that restaurants pay companies to haul away.
batteries are worse for the environment than anything else.. how evironmentally friendly are they?
:lmao
it's been 24 hrs.. what is your reponse to this nbadan?
Why do you and others continue to attack tahoe owners? Have you done any research as you preach to others? My Tahoe gets 21 MPG and that is considerably better than some of the others. Is it just because you can't afford one? Get an intellegent take on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Calf tongue used to be cheap until the people found out it was actually a delicacy. Your used vegetable oil would follow the same course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Let's put the blame where it belongs:Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Least Efficient Pickup Trucks
Dodge Ram1500 Pickup, 2WD 10 cyl, 8.3 L, Auto(4) 9C/ 12H
Least Efficient Sport Utility Vehicles
Mercedes-Benz G55 AMG, 4WD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(5) 12C/ 14 H
Least Efficient Minivans
Kia Sedona, 6 cyl, 3.5 L, Auto(5) 16C/ 22H
Least Efficient Passenger Vans
Ford E150 Club Wagon , RWD 8 cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4) 13C/ 17H
Least Efficient Cargo Vans
Chevrolet Astro , AWD 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H
Ford E150 Econoline, 2WD 8cyl, 5.4 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H
GMC Safari , AWD 6 cyl, 4.3 L, Auto(4) 14C/ 17H
Chevy Tahoe:
MPG: City: 16 Highway: 20
:lmao
Ok, Ok, my bad.
Tahoe is the generic word we use for an SUV based on the popularity. But I will correct myself. According to Joch's stats, all the Dodge Ram driving assholes will be poor as fuck.
Are you sure about this? Why must it cost in the long run?Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
don't remind meQuote:
indentured slaves to credit companies,
its more because Tahoes are like the SUV poster boyQuote:
Let's put the blame where it belongs:
Look at the Energy Bill that was just passed CBF. That is mediation in the market. The government is trying to control the energy market by passing tax brakes and credits in order to pursuade companies to do certain things.
And what sucks most of all, is that energy bill gets press for having a hybrid car tax credit, but what is overlooked is how much money is giving to the companies in the form of exploration and drilling tax breaks.
So, we lose the tax money that comes in. Thats not that big of a deal, the government wouldn't spend it well.
And in exchange for a shitty hybrid tax credit, the oil companies get a shitload of breaks.
Anything run by the government is inevitably run very poorly. Look at SS. Private firms would have turned that money and made it profitable very easily but the government doesn't do shit but SPEND it. There were tons of safe investments that would have allowed that money to grow.
Take government provided health care. Canda's system has wait times of over a month to see a damn doctor for a simple procedure and the costs run at an astronomical rate because people do not have to choose when a doctors visit is nessecary. When it is "free" it is always nessecary.
If the government intervenes in today's oil markets - more than it is already doing - it will only serve to hurt us. Cheaper oil is going to mean more consumption, and a smaller damned for renewable energy. And if it subsidized by the government, then thats money we are spending either way in taxes.
This government's job isn't to provide cheap commidities.
I see.
But it's difficult to get the public to accept the idea of non-artificially low gas prices, because we've had them our whole lives. I remember spending .89. even in the .70's once.
If we did let the companies set their own price in accordance with demand, and gas went sky high, wouldn't you get pissed off Manny? Or would you be satisified knowing that people are finally 'paying' for their gas?
There are things I do (sometimes, not weekly or anything) that I would not be able to do if gas went to like 5 dollars a gallon or something like that.
What this country needs is an alternative fuel. Back in the oil crisis of the 70s and maybe early 80s, there was a fuel being sold for automobiles that was made from corn, I think. The name was ethanol? Anybody remember this. I don't know why they quit selling it---maybe it was not economically feasible to produce.
They still make ethanol fuel. I know of a company, I believe called FS(farm services) that has pumps that sell it. I don't know if just anyone can use it, and it is some miles away from where I live. I think that the government runs more effectively than we think. Who is hurt most during a recession? The poor, and it's not by accident. While the fat cats are getting loans, and tax cuts out the ass, the working class poor get laid off, cut off from unemployment, and a tax refund of 300(oh wow) dollars. Next more jobs are created, but the wages are depressed due to high unemployment rates. A lot of the good jobs, are now barely living wage jobs in an underdeveloped nation.
shrub's paymasters in the oil companies aren't into non-oil energy, duh. They'r makin windfall $B's with oil at current prices. The energy bill, more corporate welfare with $15B in tax breaks for energy companies rolling in unearned, inflated oil profits.
==========================
August 5, 2005
Too Much Pork and Too Little Sugar
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that's out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.
Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn't enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least - like oil companies - and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.
And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game - from China, India and the former Soviet empire - are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.
Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.
Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.
Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.
The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 - on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.
We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry - as China and India become high-impact consumers - and we should lead it.
Many technologies that could make a difference are already here - from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Representative Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we've been going backward every since" - even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It's auto mechanics."
It's also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Mr. Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half. ... During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."
The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.
The sum of all lobbies. ...
It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?
=================================
The Republican insanity continues.
I think you're on crack. Give me one example of where they do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil collins
They still do sell it. You can get some in the flat-country but the octane level is wrong for most cars. Either way, ethanol is not the long term solution either because it takes much effort and ironically enough, oil to convert, what is it? Wheat? Whatever into ethanol fuel. Nothing beats cheap oil. Only, it's not so cheap anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by beirmeistr
I'm not sure I can provide an acceptable example, but let me know. A lot of what I spouted off is from one of Michael Parenti's book, and I'm not sure which. I can sometime skim and try to find his examples. If you mean corporations getting loans and tax cuts, look at the airline industry after 9-11. Nevermind all the profits from the good years, one terrible recession and big daddy government comes in with the handouts. What happens to factory Joe when he gets laid off and there are more people than jobs in his town. He can get 6 months of unemployment(that he paid into), but no big loans or handouts. Unemployment goes up, wages go down. I don't know if I did, or could answer your question, perhaps I just reaffirmed your belief that I'm on crack.
I don't see an example of 'efficient government' there. I see an example in the airline industry where companies are able to maintain their outdated, inefficient, unprofitable business models because they know the government will bail them out when things get bad. That doesn't help consumers or taxpayers. It helps employees in the short term, but inhibits growth in the long term that would create more jobs, and place upward pressure on wages as skilled workers become scarce.Quote:
Originally Posted by cecil collins
As for factory Joe, now, rather than his plant closing and being replaced by one in Japan or Mexico, Joe lives in Ohio or Michigan and the new plant is in Texas or Alabama. Factory Joe could get his job back if his state had laws similar to the states whose economies are growing and creating high-paying jobs, but his area is over-regulated by government and is dominated by unions that have become corrupt and bloated, and are themselves in cahoots with the government.
Where government steps in and helps is in the short term. If somebody loses their job, they usually can't wait six months to a year without income, or just uproot their family and follow the jobs the way Sioux could follow the buffalo. But protectionist policies and regulation in the long term hurt the economy. If Washington had done more to thwart the import market for autombiles, for example, we still wouldn't have all these Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai plants in the South creating all these new jobs.
SS=RUNNING SURPLUSESQuote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
private pension funds=UNDERFUNDED, going bankrupt by being pushed onto a GOVERNMENT garunettee corportation
so in fact the government has contuined to make surpluses on socialk secruity currently and for a while and the busineesses are the ones that have had their great pension funds fail
the facts shwo the exact opposite of what you claimed