Re: Time to cut our dependence on and therefore our interest in the...

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:mIOdnehPm9VzD5reRVn-1A@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:



 Unless you are advocating allowing the price to

rise so far that average people cannot afford it.


If the predictions are correct, the price of the stuff will rise, so at some point in the future, the average person will not be able to afford the gasoline they use...it is just a matter of time, unless we come up with an alternative to oil. 

And you think that's a good thing?

Fact remains, our society and lifestyles have been built around the personal transportation vehicle and unless we are going to make wholesale changes in those lifestyles, which I assert are highly undesirable, your solution is impractical. It is shortsighted to simply think of the issue a making choices in transportation. It isn't.


No it isn't. If people stop buying automobiles that use so much gasoline, then industry will respond. First people will stop buying those gasoline powered cars. Then the auto manufacturers will retool, and start selling alternatives, or they will go broke.

What alternative, Jerry, what alternative? Jerry, you just don't wake up one day and say, "Oh, we need a new power source to replace the internal combustion engine, and then, poof, we have it by dinner time." It takes DECADES, Jerry, DECADES to develop a completely different power source in which oil is NOT in the food chain.

Why do you have such a difficult time understanding that concept?

And since some are arguing


that we will run out of oil, then unless there is an alternative, the whole economy collapses. But before that happens, the price of the stuff will continue to rise, and more and more alternatives to using oil will take its place.

Jerry, as yet we have NO, repeat, NO alternative to the use of fossil fuels as a fuel for personal transportation vehicles, and for the generation of electricity to the degree that we require that.



That is right, because there is no economic incentive to make the changes. 

Well, that is true.

The alternative will come when there is a need, not before.

(sigh). You really have no concept of the time lag between research and development, do you?


yes, there is a lag time. But the auto manufacturers already have some alternatives to a car that uses pure gasoline. The only reason they are not selling them in large volumens is simply because the market for them is not there in large enough quantities to lower the price. But, we are talking about a situation where the price of oil is very high (much higher than it is today), then people will stop buying gasoline powered cars, and if the demand is there, the manufacturers will start selling these alternatives.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the alternative is NOT anything that uses gasoline, but something that uses a completely new power source, which has not been invented yet. Current solutions use current technology which NOTHING new. Why do you not understand that?

 I remember as a

young kid in Tokyo after the Second World War. The citizens of Japan had no gasoline. Did transportation come to a complete stop? No it did not. The people simply converted their internal combustion engines to run by burning wood (don't ask me how that works, since I do not know....but that was a pretty common sight, until they were able to use gasoline again).

Stanley Steamers were in use in this country and discarded as inefficient. What you describe is a return to that for the short term. We are not talking about emergency measures for the short term. We are talking about a long range solution. Please try to understand that.


That is why we are still buying gasoline powered cars...they are cheaper and more efficient than any alternative. But I was simply pointing out that in a crunch, there are ways around a real shortage of gasoline, if it happens in a real short period of time, but at some point industry will be able to catch up with alternative modes of transportation.

Jerry, without a viable alternative, the crunch will be for the long term, not for the short term. Why do you not understand that?

For that matter, if there were not people who are



willing to buy that oil, then there would not be people who produce and sell the oil. As for the SUV argument, that also seems to me to apply to a whole bunch of things we use. For example, since all of us are retired on this newsgroup, do we all really need to have spent our earths valuable resources, using the very computer we are now using? Think about what raw materials that were used in the construction of this "toy"? How about the electericity that is consumed while we are using this "toy"? And this toy only lasts a couple of years before it is replaced, either because it does not work well anymore, or because we want something that is a little faster....wasting valuable resources perhaps? You should come to my house and take a look in my garage....quite an accumulation of old computers, displays and other computer stuff that no longer works. Do you travel? How much "limited" resources does that require? If no one travelled for pleasure, how much resources would we save?

Your example is ill placed because there is not the waste of finite resources. An SUV uses far more gasoline than standard vehicles, and if the owner has no use for the characteristics of the vehicle which require that use, then the owner is a wasteful inconsiderate.


All resources that are no renewable are finite resources, and we use an awful lot of finite resources besides oil.

Not so. many are renewable as we are discovering. And while some resources are also finite, the only one of present concern is oil.


Yes, and there is alternatives in the oil business also, like shale oil and coal tar.

Jerry, do you not understand that these are also OIL and carbon based fuels, and are nothing new?
(sigh )


			Alan

.

Relevant Pages