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

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ydGdnaoDpK8TlpTeRVn-gA@xxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


It certainly does matter, Jerry. You posted what will happen and I asked you if you thought that it was a good thing if people could not afford gas. Kindly answer the question.


And I said, it really does not matter, because if demand for oil outstirps supply, then by definition the price of the oil will rise and you either have to figure out a way to not have to buy the stuff, or you suffer the consequences.

I know what you said, Jerry. You don't need to repeat it. But I then asked you if you thought the consequences of people not being able to purchase gasoline as a result of YOUR solution was a good thing. don't you wish to answer the question? Your avoidance leads to the conclusion that you don't want to answer the question out of fear of being taken to task for it.

I have also said that you first have to make the assumption
that manufacturers will not give consumers an alternative to using a product that depends on oil...which it just seems to me is highly unlikely because if they are not able to offer an alternative, then by definiton they will not be able to sell the stuff that they do offer, and they will go belly up.

We know what you said. You don't need to repeat it. The discussion has now moved to a different question, that you are avoiding. don't you wish to answer the question?

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.


Jerry, kindly identify the power source which will replace oil. You are strangely silent on this. Please do not avoid the question.

That depends on how serious a problem it presents it seems to me.

No, Jerry. You clearly stated, a number of times that we could get some alternative. You seemed to allude that we could get this new alternative rather quickly, since you casually dismissed any lengthy research and development.


How "quicky" depends on how fast prices rise it seems to me. Are you implying that the price will, say triple or quadruple in price in say a one or two year period of time in the near future? If that should happen, I would agree with you, there would be some pretty serious dislocations happening.

So you are asserting, then, that when the price rises to some unacceptable level, then suddenly we will have an alternative? Jerry, what have you been smoking? We don't suddenly wake up one morning and say, "Oh, we need a new fuel alternative," and poof, we have it by dinner time. Jerry, development takes DECADES. Have you no concept of the time required? We simply cannot wait until prices rise to unacceptable levels. If we want to continue to permit our technology to function, we must start NOW, while the problem is NOT a crisis.

So I have a legitimate right to ask you what this alternative is.
Kindly specify it, as it is a natural consequence of your position. If you aren't prepared to identify it, then your entire argument fails.


No it does not.

It certainly does. Your argument is based on the inference that we can develop a completely different alternative to oil in relatively short time. That is a farce.

  It depends again on how fast the problem occurs.

Wrong. It depends on how long the R & D takes. You clearly have no concept of what our technology is capable of in a given amount of time.

As I said
above, if the problem occurs in a relatively short period of time, before anyone can react, then your scenario holds true. 

That is precisely what is going to occur with your ridiculous plan.

But I do not think that is
likely to happen.

Why? That is EXACTLY the outcome if your foolish ideas are followed, and we do appear on that course now.

 And it

also seems to me it also depends on how fast the shortage occurs.

Well, kindly tell us when you think we should begin that R & D.


When it is necessary, not long before. 

Tell us Jerry, when will that become necessary?  How will we know?

Remember Carter's initiative? What
percentage of the money spent on that effort ever resulted in large scale use of what was developed at the time? 

Very little, unfortunately.

It takes a combination of things to
happen before a new technology is widely accepted and used.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, when there is NO oil to fuel internal combustion engines, there will be NO need to accept another fuel source.

Solar power as
an example has been available for an awful long time. The problem with solar power is, we are not willing to convert to the use of solar power, either because of the fixed cost associated with making that transition, and are not willing to put up with the simple fact that solar panels on top of hourse look ugly.

Jerry, suppose there wee no electricity to heat and power your house and solar panels were the only alternative? Case closed.

But, if the alternative is to pay considerably more for
our electricity because it is generated by oil burning facilities, then people will make the necessary transition to solar power, and will decide that the cost savings far outweighs the fact that these things make a house look ugly.

right now, since there is another alternative, we can consider cosmetic factors. But if the resource is unavailable, looks won't count for anything.

Hybrid cars are not widely used, because not enough people are
willing to buy them. But if the price of oil starts to skyrocket, then at some point in that price spiral, people will decide that the cost of operating a gasoline powered car in to worth it, and will start to buy alternatives to gasoline powered cars, like hybrid...perhaps even cars powered by electricity. And shoud that happen, then the price of those cars will drop dramatically, and even more people will make the switch.

Hybrid cars will gain acceptance because the price of gas is rising. But you still miss the point. Oil is still being depleted.

 If it

happens over a period of time, then prices will rise over a relatively long time, which will give the auto manufacturers (as an example) time to start making alternative modes of transporation.

Jerry, given current estimates, we will have between 75-100 years, which may be reduced if we continue to build gas guzzling, and quite unneeded, SUV's. So, now, Jerry, kindly identify that alternative mode of transportation and tell us, by your detailed knowledge, what the proposed time of development will be.


If that is a good estimate, then I am even less concerned about the coming shortage...if it occurs, because not one of use can say what will be developed in that period of time. And I would argue that then there is no need to "jump start" the R&D effort.

Jerry, you have absolutely no frame of reference, and consequently have absolutely no concept of the time for R & D of a totally new fuel source which doesn't even exist now. I cannot discuss this further with you because you lack the appropriate background frame of reference.

If not, kindly detail your frame of reference and tell us why, given your assertions that we can develop this new fuel source with relative rapidity. And remember, gut feelings don't count. Please detail hard evidence, if you please.

 They already sell hybrid

cars,and electric cars, just not a whole bunch of them. It may take four or five years to ramp up to large scale production, but that it seems to me, also depends on how big the demand is, and what happpens to the demand for gasoline powered cars.

Hybrid cars do not offer a solution. At best, they offer a small number of additional years. That has already been discussed in a thread between myself, Dr. Reactionary Bob and Alvin Toda.


They do not offer a long term solution, if the shortage occurs fast enough, but it does offer an interim solution, which gives the manufacturers time to find an even better alternative.

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the shortage is here and growing worse. You have no concept of how long R & D takes, and given that, we have no further basis for discussion. Development of a new fuel source which at present DOESN'T EXIST, will take DECADES. With the oil scheduled to be depleted within 75-100 years, with which you have agreed, don't you think the time to start that R & D is NOW? Considering the lengthy development time?

(sigh)

			Alan
.

Relevant Pages