What if?

[LJRead]

Last evening I happened to look at the prices of film style Hasselblad cameras.  Use to be that they were very expensive, but now, with digital technology, the price is way down.  You can buy a camera back for them which gives you digital, but this finest of cameras is now worth very little especially if current used prices are adjusted for inflation.

With new technology, will the same happen to bikes.  The interesting  thing (to me) is that with bikes one can have the very best for what seem like reasonable prices.  A Black Shadow for $40K to 100K,  mint condition British bikes for 10K to 20 K.  This suggests that there are still a  lot of really high grade bikes around, if market conditions are anything to judge by.

Now if some new system, or the established electric powered one, takes hold, will the price of these marvelous antiques go way down?  It happened to Hasselblad, why not to bikes?  This seems to be a by-product of the electronic age.  Old computers, top of the line in their time - now go to the junk heap,  same with every other electronic device. Old means only five or ten years old, sometimes less. 

We may be just seeing the start of a new revolution in bikes including more use of light metals, more efficient forms of power, even stylistic changes.  Will all the old bikes then be fit for only museums or the junk heap?  Oh, it couldn't happen, you say - but I never would have thought I could buy the very best camera ever made for less than 500 inflated bucks!!!

[ace.cafe]

If gasoline infrastructure goes away,so will the gasoline powered vehicles, unless they change to another fuel that is supported by the new infrastructure.

If it all goes electric, and gas stations are no more, and only electric re-fill stations are available, that is the end.

It's the same with the Hasselblad. The "infrastructure" moved away from film and to digital media.
Large format film cameras are not very portable, and have limited appeal in this new day and age.
So, they faded away.

The lenses and mechanisms of a Hasselblad are still great, and with a digital back on a Hasselblad, you still have a great camera, although a bit large.

[geoffbaker]

And a bit expensive. You can spend nearly $40k on a Hasselblad digital back..

But yes; if electricity becomes cost competitive with gasoline for transport, and people switch to them, at some point you will see a tipping point.

it was the same with Nikons. I could never afford a Nikon F3 or F4, the cream of the professional 35mm film camera crop; once digital took over I was able to buy a F3 with a sportsfinder in great shape for very little money!

[LJRead]

What impresses me most is how fast these changes are occurring.  Back in about 1996 or so I saw my first digital camera.  The Crown Prince had been presented one by a delegation from China and was enjoying himself taking photos at the Miss Va'vau beauty contest (his Highness's girlfriend won).  I thought about it and also heard that the digitals couldn't get up to the resolution of film, so no threat (ha!).  We had an overnight photo development place here then, but now there just isn't one, and now resolution of digital is indistinguishable from film.  Al the pros are going digital.  And the digital revolution took maybe five years to advance and spread from the early days of less than 3 megapixel resolution.

Anticipating problems getting film developed, I brought with me to Tonga a complete darkroom and a suitcase filled with various formats of cameras.  I don't quite know what to do with them now.  They take up space and gather dust.

So, like Ace points out, maybe in the not so distant future filling stations as we know them will be on their way out and charging stations will be the norm.  It seemingly  can happen in the blink of an eye.  The EVs now being produced are probably like the first digitals, with more sophisticated and useful models to follow.  There have recently been TT races held for EV motorcycles in England, with respectable times around the track made. 

Now the Black Shadow has particular value as a rarity.  What happens if gasoline becomes less available?  Suddenly even the greatest bike, like cameras such as the Leica, or Nikon or Hasselblad,  becomes somewhat of a dinosaur.  Even though of show quality, and maybe rarely ridden, it is the ability to ride them that helps them to retain their mystique and value.

And the new generation won't be like us older folks, they won't have been born into an era of the British bike.  We have a few younger members here, like doomed 1, but a generation is passing and new technology just beginning to encroach.  We are in the early days of a revolution, just like back in the mid 1990s we were in the initial stages of a digital camera revolution.  Exciting, but also very sad.

[Geirskogul]

I don't want my bike to become obsolete (it kind of already is, but you know what I mean) before I even pay it off!  I'm 21 and I'd really like to get many years out of it before I have to get rid of it.

[geoffbaker]

LJ, the generational thing is the important one.

We older fogies will all wax nostalgic about the era of classic bikes and the sound and smell of gas powered vehicles ..

But if technology tips towards the battery, and all of a sudden there is REAL research money being put into it by all the major players...

well, kids are going to be talking about the thrilling sound of the electric engine as it screams past 140 mph...

Gas bikes will be a thing of the past because they won't be AS GOOD in the opinion of the new generation, the electric bikes will be faster, with better acceleration (amazing torque in an electric engine) and will be easier to maintain and cost less.

This is of course assuming engineering improvements and development... which comes naturally to the dominant system...

The kids will be talking, just as we did, about how much things have improved ...

And the manufacturers will be careful to 'retro' style them, for those kids who leaf through the old bike magazines and admire the style and design of the older bikes...

[LJRead]

The money for development and production shouldn't be a problem as transportation of this nature is one of the biggest money-makers of all time, and there are already new companies there to fill the need.  It is exactly like the digital camera revolution and look how fast that spread.  Five or ten years from now should see some interesting changes.  Even the big petroleum companies won't be able to hold it back, especially if people begin to see it as in many ways better.

I still have my old slide rule, and at the time I was in engineering school, I had a longer one, good to three decimal places (big deal), now for less than ten bucks I can buy a simple calculator that will out perform it for most uses.  Used to have a typewriter too,  was right in at the beginning of word processing, with first a tape recorder, then floppy discs (a disc player was around $300 in those times, equivalent to the cost of a whole computer with gigabytes of storage now).  And yet things like cameras and typewriters etc. are small change compared to cars and such.  There is money to be made and people wanting to make it.

The central part of the new technology is electronics oriented, and things in that field move very quickly indeed.

Maybe good to have a diesel, hey?  You can always make your own fuel and go for a ride.  We need to get the most out of what we are riding now because there will come a time...

[Ice]

Not worried a bout electric transportation myself.

 Battery technology to equal the performance size and weight of a simple tank full of gas is centuries away if ever attainable.

 The electrical grid can't handle every one charging up every day. The cost to upgrade it to that level would be prohibitive.

 The total cost (when infrastructure upgrades included) and pollution to travel one mile burning electrons is greater than using Dino fuels unless the electricity is nuclear generated.

Today we have diesel pick up trucks and cars that drive like or out perform  gassers.
 Diesel is "here", now.
 Look at the performance specs of this production bike. http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/models.htm










 

[Geirskogul]

Not worried a bout electric transportation myself.

 Battery technology to equal the performance size and weight of a simple tank full of gas is centuries away if ever attainable.

 The electrical grid can't handle every one charging up every day. The cost to upgrade it to that level would be prohibitive.

 The total cost (when infrastructure upgrades included) and pollution to travel one mile burning electrons is greater than using Dino fuels unless the electricity is nuclear generated.

Today we have diesel pick up trucks and cars that drive like or out perform  gassers.
 Diesel is "here", now.
 Look at the performance specs of this production bike. http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/models.htm


Unless you're in a third world country, the electric grid certainly can handle charging everyone at once.  Most home systems, and grid systems within cities, are overbuilt.  Charging a vehicle doesn't use much more power than an extra refridgerator or two - those use TONS of electricity.

"Centuries" away?  Pfff.  More like decades, at most.  Electric vehicles have been around for more than a century; all they needed to get off the ground was a push from somewhere, and the peak oil dilemma combined with international conflict certainly has given that push.  Advances have been made in less than the past year that make me excited for the future.  Combine that with the recent discovery of the super-efficient solar polymer, and you have yourself a new energy system.

Diesel is great, but diesel, hydrogen, or hybrids are only a stopgap for full-on solar and wind systems.




 

[REpozer]

I believe Ice is correct. I look to wind and solar as supplements to coal fire electricity.

The practical answer would be to follow France and gear up production of nuclear  electric power plants. Yes I did say France.

How many of you would be willing to fly in an airplane that is solar powered? Yeah my thoughts exactly, we have no problem getting on board a Dino  engine powered aircraft .

[LJRead]

Thanks for the link to the diesel motorcycles, Ice - so light in weight yet so powerful.

With the amount of money and potential profit involved, I would say we should see significant progress in the next five years.  Like I mentioned above, with digital cameras, we are now taking some real steps in that direction, floundering a little, as is to be expected, but once it gets rolling -watch out-  it will roll!

Wonder if the miltry is investing in electric motorcycles yet.  Certainly they must be exploring the techology.

Much of the grid may be replaced by individual systems on scattered homes and even solar and wind based systems on recharging stations out in the boonies.  It may be there will be less dependence on the grid, or else the grid will be better organized for multiple inputs.

No, I see these as early days still, but with a very solid foundation for future growth.  And I am of a very conservative nature.

[luoma]

I don't think we are going to see electricity take over from gas, coal, etc., until something entirely new comes into the picture. Generators and batteries are ancient technology. They can only be improved upon so much before they have to step aside and make way for the next tech. All forms of production currently include a tradeoff of some kind. Take hydrogen, it takes a lot of electricity to produce the hydrogen so that it can be converted back into a lesser amount of electricity. Something big is coming, and when it does, we will all be surprised.

Film and cameras continued to improve over the years, and before there was such a thing as digital imaging, no one would have predicted it. It completely displaced the old tech.

[geoffbaker]

Ice sounds like most skeptics... "centuries away"... people thought air vehicles were impossible and nuclear fission a scientist's imagination.

Current grids can handle electric vehicle charging easily - it happens at night typically, when grid demands are low.

I would say we are twenty years away. Perhaps because they say we are only twenty years away from nuclear fusion, for that matter.

[Ice]

Ice sounds like most skeptics... "centuries away"... people thought air vehicles were impossible and nuclear fission a scientist's imagination.

Current grids can handle electric vehicle charging easily - it happens at night typically, when grid demands are low.

I would say we are twenty years away. Perhaps because they say we are only twenty years away from nuclear fusion, for that matter.

Hi geoff. I fancy myself as more of a realist than skeptic.

 10 gallons of gas weighs around 75 pounds and lets the average gasser compact car go about 320 miles while carrying two adults and a couple bags of groceries.   My diesel rabbit can go about 525. 
  Its going to take a quantum leap in battery technology to cram enough electrons into a package that measures  and weighs the same as my fuel tank.
We just can't achieve that kind of energy density with today's battery technology.




 

[LJRead]

Probably parallel systems will run for some time to come, as they are now, with batteries catching on, but mainly for local use.  Maybe the changeover won't be as rapid as the camera example, but luoma has a good point that we just don't know what is coming, though I think some of the more radical ideas are being pursued right now.  The guy that invented a lot of the solar technology is busily at work on a radical new form of battery, I believe.  If something really efficient and able to match or come close to that fuel tank Ice mentions (in all present vehicles) then the field of electric transport could mushroom very quickly.

[geoffbaker]

I think the quantum leap that is coming isn't in technology or even in vehicle design; it's in appropriate use.

When you think about it, almost all vehicles purchased bear no real relationship to the actual needs of the user in terms of the distance driven. Instead, buzzwords such as 'muscle', looks, 'sport', 'crossover' etc demonstrate that cars are sold through marketing concepts, not purchased based on need.

I think when we really start to size our vehicles to our commuting needs, we will find that a very large proportion of users could switch to a battery technology easily.

When Americans start buying based on need, not on what Detroit wants to sell us - that will be the quantum leap.

I think most American families could easily and appropriately trade in one of their vehicles for an electric vehicle for short commutes, leaving the other(s) for long distance travel, weekend getaways, that kind of thing.

When we start doing this, the savings - and energy efficiencies gained - will be enormous.

And it is starting to happen, already. Here in Tucson I've seen a considerable change in the past four years, with many more small vehicles (Smartcars etc) on the road, electric vehicles, gas and electric powered bicycles zipping along the bike paths, whole fleets of Vespas and small scooters... it's been a VERY noticeable change.

[Geirskogul]

Whole reason I bought a RE.  75mpg instead of 25.  The 5k it cost me was better towards a bike I can ride 3/4 of the year than a car, after considering maintenance and fuel cost differences.

My car works just fine (knock on wood)

[Ice]

 Again it goes back to cost and efficacy.

We need the Quantum leap.

 The future battery needs to be the same size,weight and give the same range as 10  to 20 gallons of fuel, charge in 5 minutes, last for not less than 300,000 miles and be replaceable by the do it yourself-er for less than $2,000.

  The future battery vehicle needs to be as cost effective as current vehicles for the total life cycle or the used value will be lower to the second hand purchaser.

 If the future battery car does not offer the same performance and versatility as current motor vehicles at the same cost, only a minority will be interested.

 Smart cars are alright but do not meet the transportation needs of the majority.  Buying one would be a waste of money for many.

 Take my Jeep Cherokee for example. It gets 20 MPG combined average with four people aboard. To separately move the same people the same distance for the same fuel each would need to achieve 80 MPG individually. With my Diesel Rabbit its more like 200 miles per gallon per individual.

 For us to use two smart cars or electrics we would use up twice as many tires and we would spend twice as much on insurance and other taxes. Never mind the initial purchase price difference.

 If the future car is not markedly better and equal in all costs to the current car, no amount of advertising from Detroit,Munich or Tokyo will convince the public majority to buy it en mass.

 Sadly the future cars we were promised as children in the early 1970's have yet to be realized. I am however optimistic that if they don't arrive in my life time that maybe my children or grandchildren will get the benefits that future cars may provide.
 

[geoffbaker]

Smart cars are alright but do not meet the transportation needs of the majority.  Buying one would be a waste of money for many.

 Take my Jeep Cherokee for example. It gets 20 MPG combined average with four people aboard. To separately move the same people the same distance for the same fuel each would need to achieve 80 MPG individually. With my Diesel Rabbit its more like 200 miles per gallon per individual.

 For us to use two smart cars or electrics we would use up twice as many tires and we would spend twice as much on insurance and other taxes. Never mind the initial purchase price difference.

But again, we come back to making a car that meets our needs. There is nothing essentially wrong with your Cherokee - except that if you are  like 90% of the commuters on the road (count them yourself this morning!) you are driving a vehicle that weighs 4500 lbs to transport a SINGLE person less than thirty miles. That's what we do; most of the time we are driving a vehicle capable of hauling six or seven people and merely moving ourselves. Vastly inefficient. And if we got suckered by Detroit marketing - we're driving the sport version with the V8 instead of the V6 and oversized tires and the 4WD option (which if we are honest is never ever used).

I had a Nissan Xterra, same issue. We all have.

What I suggested was not ADDING to our vehicle fleet but merely exchanging one of our two (or three or four) SUVs and sedans for one ultra-efficient vehicle, ideal for what most of us do most of the time.... drive by ourselves on short commutes. There are no extra tires to buy - in fact, we would save money because the efficient car's tires will be much cheaper than the big fat oversized WRANGLERS or GRABBERS or Uniroyal MANHANDLER tires that came stock with the old Xterra or Cherokees... 'cause we got suckered.

And we would quickly find some advantages... for those short rides into town the small car is ideal - easy to park, easy to manoeuver, and of course cheaper to run.

I see ultraclean diesel as the intermediate step.

The second step is that Detroit could build TOMORROW, without any engineering leaps, turbodiesel hybrid  (TDH) Cherokees and Lincolns and Cadillacs that would get not 16-20 mpg but 35-40.... with, repeat, NO quantum engineering leaps necessary. Of course, Detroit being Detroit, and therefore retarded, they won't, but then the Japanese and the Germans (as VW has already announced) will already be busy selling giant efficient Tuareg SUVs and TDH Tacoma trucks... so Detroit will follow, filing lawsuits (to keep their lawyers paid) and complaining bitterly about government regulations...

The third step will be appropriate use matched to actual need. Natural selection favors it ultimately - some cities already reward the small car driver in many areas with benefits such as lower taxes, cheaper parking,  and toll breaks, along with special lanes etc. As we all compete for dwindling resources (space in inner cities) and cities fight growing pollution issues, there will be more and more reasons to drive efficient small cars.

It is coming.

[1Blackwolf1]

  Corruption/buy outs/ under handed dealings by both the US Automakers and oil magnates back in the 50's stiffled a V-8 car that attained over 85 mpgs.  Finaaly the world is getting SOMEWHAT wiser to what they really need.  Most modern diesels can run run on alsmost anything oil based especially if there are turbine.  We teseteds M1 tanks back in the early 90's and found they could run on basically any cooking oil to synthetic based fuels.  We just have to demand more and not buy anything until it's available.  Will.

[ace.cafe]

If we went back to the 55mph national speed limit, we could all ride our Bullets on the highway!
 

[REpozer]

Good thinkin Ace.
 I've already pumped up my tires and got me a tune-up.
I might also try a swimers cap to cut down drag.

[geoffbaker]

Well, I couldn't, ace...

How about 50?

[1Blackwolf1]

  Interesting idea.  trouble is only the law abiding would drive at that speed.  I know police of all jurisdictions that say it wouldn't help much to reduce the speed limit.  Of course it would make the government more money in the long run through fines.  I am really surprised it hasn't been done yet though.  It saved a lot of fuel the last time we had that law.  But I do agree 55 is a much more social speed to drive at.  Will.

[Geirskogul]

Going 75 versus 55 is a 40% increase in speed, and not many people will be able to add that much time (a 28% INCREASE in time taken) to their commute if they are used to going 75 or 80.  I'm fine with 55, but I don't have to get any place in a hurry, and it's fun in my car.  I'm not against dropping the speed limit, but it will never happen.

[Coronach]

What impresses me most is how fast these changes are occurring.

Technology moves in fits and starts. Just because there is rapid development in something now doesn't mean the technology won't mature and the rate of change won't slow down considerably- until the next leap forward or paradigm shift.

This is why I'm not worried about alternative energy. When the need presents itself (read: when gas gets expensive and stays expensive), creativity will kick in.

Mike

[PhilJ]

The 55 IS a good idea. The first time we had the 55 law took a while to get used to slowing down. The when it was lifted I was uncomfortable going 65. Wow and I wasn't old then.

Till I got y RE I rode Beemers over the years and was accustomed to running highway speeds. When the RE became my love and I drove over the same roads as the BMWs, I found that for all those years I had been missing a very lot of interesting sights.

[geoffbaker]

I always thought conservatives believed the 55 mph limit to be an unconscionable infringement on their Constitutional right to go very very fast...

This is why I'm not worried about alternative energy. When the need presents itself (read: when gas gets expensive and stays expensive), creativity will kick in.

Mike

So here's a truly shocking thought... let's get a head start.

A national tax of $5 per gallon. Proceeds either fund alternative vehicles or pay off the deficit, you choose.

(claps hands over ears; I can already hear the shrill cry of angry conservatives, all in favor of energy independence and efficiency... until they actually have to do something about it...)

[Kevin Mahoney]

Geoff, Geoff, Geoff,
I take a break and here you are causing trouble again!!!

When Americans start buying based on need, not on what Detroit wants to sell us - that will be the quantum leap.
While a great conspiracy theory, Americans buy what they want not what Detroit wants to sell us. Ergo - Cars are available from Hybrids to Escalades and people get what they want. Free market at work.

I always thought conservatives believed the 55 mph limit to be an unconscionable infringement on their Constitutional right to go very very fast...

By the very definition of conservative they would be the ones wanting to go slower.

As I reccollect, the biggest complaints about the double nickel speed limit was from trucking companies. Since they get paid by the mile I can see their point. I didn't really mind 55 myself, although in the Western States it is a bit off the wall.
Has anyone done the calculation about how much fuel would or would not be saved by this? Of course you get better mileage at 55, but you also are running the car sucking up fuel longer? It really gets interesting when you read some of the new studies showing that in many cases public transportation is leaving a larger overall carbon footprint than cars. I think higher ridership may help mitigate some of this.

Lastly, I own a Suburban (22mpg at 55). Other than the fact that I tow trailers I bought it as a defensive measure. In Phoenix it is so dangerous to drive (even on city streets), the extra money was worth it to me to give my family a better survival rate.

[geoffbaker]

Yeah, I never had anything against the 55mph but now we have another generation raised to go fast, and they would hate it.

Your Suburban, using turbodiesel and hybrid technology could easily get 35mpg... if Detroit wanted to build them that way.

Maybe some day they will get the message.

As I said earlier, VW plans on being the biggest car company in the world, with a fleet of vehicles getting 80-100 mpg on clean turbodiesel technology.

You would think someone in Detroit might get their head outta their...

But that's why they have lawyers, so they can sue instead of think.

Actually, Detroit markets large cars to us because Detroit does NOT KNOW HOW to make a profit on small cars, they never have; which is why they have been losing so badly to their competitors. That is what is going to have to change in the next couple of years if they want to survive. They limped along giving away the small car market so long as they could sell you a Suburban... that thinking won't work anymore.

Regarding your 'defensive' purchase of the Suburban; that argument (for the safety of my family) has some problems IMHO... let me explain...

My sister, about fifteen years ago, when she had three young kids, clinically suffered from depression. One of her symptoms was that she would go on shopping binges because they made her feel better (I don't remember the clinical name but I'm sure you do, it's pretty common). Her argument was always the same ... she would buy stuff "for the kids" and "for their safety" (she spent a lot one summer on fire alarms and new doors etc, all for better "safety"). And then she purchased a new Volvo wagon she couldn't afford, for the 'safety of the children'.  We ended up - literally - doing an intervention, because she had maxed out her cards and was borrowing from other family members who didn't know what was going on...

My point being that there is ultimately no end to the 'defensive' argument... if a Suburban is safer for your family, then a Rolls-Royce would be safer yet, and best of all... a M1A1 tank would be a better, more logical purchase.

All I'm saying here is that there ARE other factors that need to be weighed in; and as a parent I know we all have to make tough decisions ... and there were times (winter driving in Maine) I was uncomfortable driving my child to school in my little Toyota... but I couldn't afford anything else, so that's what I did. I've driven in Phoenix and Boston and NYC and SF and LA and Miami in small cars, and myself - and my daughter - survived happily. I could argue that small is equally safe in many ways - it doesn't JUST come down to crash tests after all, there are issues such as manoeuverability to consider as well. (My little AWD car certainly avoided accidents where I saw trucks flip and roll) Then of course, small targets are harder to hit ... and ultimately, a tanker truck will flatten a Suburban just as flat as a Prius.

I'm not saying that you are wrong - I'm merely saying there are other factors, and I am sure there are Phoenix famiies driving to school in hybrids and biodiesels who would argue that in the biggest sense, their choice is the safest of all... they are doing something to give their children better air, for example, and isn't that, really a safety issue too, in the long run?

Hope this hasn't sounded offensive, it wasn't meant to be.

And maybe a new Audi diesel might have a better crash rating than a Suburban, you should look into it

And as I said right at the start... there are no technological hurdles to building a Suburban that gets 35mpg or better using turbo diesel and hybrid technologies... Detroit just hasn't been bothered, because they are dominated by a lazy, overfed, overpaid 'muscle car' CEO/engineer mentality that has consistently looked to big car sales for their profit margin, ignoring the more difficult challenges of small car profitablity - something no other car makers have ignored...

I've got nothing against big cars. Many people need, them, after all, not just for safety but to pull trailers and work on ranches and so on. My argument is there is NO reason they can't be EFFICIENT big cars. We could easily have 45mpg Escalades and 35mpg Tacomas and Tahoes... and pretty soon, if VW has its way, we will.

[Kevin Mahoney]

You would think someone in Detroit might get their head outta their...

Now would that "someone" be OBAMA who seems to be doing the hiring and firing or the Taxpayers in general?

[geoffbaker]

You would think someone in Detroit might get their head outta their...

Now would that "someone" be OBAMA who seems to be doing the hiring and firing or the Taxpayers in general?

There are some bright spots; I think Ford will do OK as it resuscitates the Taurus (an excellent midrange car they let die to focus on Expeditions etc) and moves forward with the Focus.

GM could still pull a rabbit out of the hat with the Volt; but it needs to be cheaper.

Mostly, they need to take their best engineers who aren't musclecarheads and get them focused on developing the economies of production that have let the Japs and Germans make a healthy profit on every small car they make... which Detroit has ignored.

Currently, with the new union deals, they can easily compete with Toyota and VW... but only if they invest in lowering production costs, something they have not historically been good at doing.

If they fail ultimately, it won't be the unions fault, or the governments fault - it will be the failure of Detroit corporate culture, with its overpaid CEO's, it's vast arrays of lawyers, and its lazy selfassurance that whatever they want to make, Americans have no choice but to buy...

The other car companies are in on a secret Detroit hasn't figured out yet..

When you can build a small car and make a profit on it, then you make a profit on the big cars and trucks too... it's the only sane way to run a car company.

[geoffbaker]

Geoff, Geoff, Geoff,

I always thought conservatives believed the 55 mph limit to be an unconscionable infringement on their Constitutional right to go very very fast...

By the very definition of conservative they would be the ones wanting to go slower.

just noticed this one Kevin...

If that definition was true, then conservatives would be conservationists as well, and we KNOW that ain't true...

Being a conservative, in my observation, has never been about conserving ANYTHING (let alone speed)... it's about blowing your resources just as fast as you can and calling it the 'free market' at work...

[Ice]

just noticed this one Kevin...

If that definition was true, then conservatives would be conservationists as well, and we KNOW that ain't true...

Being a conservative, in my observation, has never been about conserving ANYTHING (let alone speed)... it's about blowing your resources just as fast as you can and calling it the 'free market' at work...

Perhaps a new frame of reference is needed.

This thread has gone way of topic.

Lets not confuse the issue and change the subject.  So back to " The Future Care ".  

 In the early 70's the OPEC oil embargo was full on . Dad could only gas up on odd days and we were told by the futurist  pundits that we did not have enough oil to make it to the 21st century . The assured us that that we would all drive the battery powered cars. The technology was being developed. That the break trough was just around the corner. 35 years is a long wait.

 The future is now and the future car is still not here.

 Until the Future Car arrives I think the modern clean burning TDI Diesel ( like you see in pick up trucks) is a viable option. When price of Hybrids can be brought to affordability for the common man, we could see more of them as well.

This http://www.legendarycollectorcars.com/featured-vehicles/smokey-yunicks-hot-vapor-fiero-51-mpg-and-0-60-in-less-than-6-seconds-see-and-hear-it-run-in-our-exclusive-video/ is another option that could serve our needs as a stop gap
until the quantum leap in battery technology occurs.

[Coronach]

The general problem that "conservatives" (I'll throw libertarians into the mix as well) have with the national 55 MPH speed limit is the idea that the federal government is doing something that it has no authority to do, which is regulating travel on the roadways of the several states. Witness how they have to do it- they withold funding if states do not comply. Why do they do it this way? Because they have no direct means of mandating it. When you have to do an end-around on the constitution to achieve your goal, your goal is not constitutional.

Now, do individual states have the right to each set a 55MPH speed limit? Obviously, since that's how it was achieved last time. And, does fed.gov overstep its constitutional authority in other areas on a daily basis? Yes.

Mike

[clamp]

I heard that Ford,--or was it GM?   has a room full of standby fitters on 40 dollars an hour just sat watching telly. These people are supposed to be able to take the place of someone going sick on the production line. Probably get overtime too.

      Its this wasteful attitude along with the corporate jet travel for the top executives that has bought the whole thing down.

     It does'nt matter that they have built tanks for the last 40 years. They can not compete no matter what they build.

     I heard the Volt is already built with inferior batteries so that a new wave of new Volts can be release shortly afterwards.

    Again typical Detroit attitude and wrong.

[Coronach]

This is why I'm not worried about alternative energy. When the need presents itself (read: when gas gets expensive and stays expensive), creativity will kick in.

So here's a truly shocking thought... let's get a head start.

A national tax of $5 per gallon. Proceeds either fund alternative vehicles or pay off the deficit, you choose.

So, your solution to naturally low gas prices is to make them artificially high? Remind me never to vote for you. Add in the peril that we have seen quite plainly over the last year or so, that of governments that quickly develop a dependency on gas taxes and will seek to raise revenue "lost" when people use more efficient vehicles, and I think I can say with certainty that this is a truly horrible idea. Not to mention that the people it will hit hardest are the people who are lower class and lower middle class and drive to work for a living.

Here's a better idea; let market forces work. When gas hit $4.00 a gallon, we saw a sea change in people's driving and purchasing habits. Gas guzzling land yachts were on the auction block for pennies on the dollar, and you could not find a Prius or Civic sitting on a dealer's lot for more than a week. The market changed overnight, and it didn't require a single drop of government ink or legislative meddling to get it accomplished.

It just happened.

Mike

[geoffbaker]

Let me see if I got this right... you want 'market forces' to solve this problem.

We've had the same problem for ninety years and market forces haven't solved it yet; here's why...

So long as gas is extractable, the people owning the land (OPEC) will charge as much as they can get away with to maximize profits - and cut production to artificially induce higher prices, whenever prices are low.

When gas gets too high and demand cuts back (people start buying efficient cars) OPEC immediately raises production, drops prices, and floods the market. People go back to inefficient cars, because they cost less.

That's market forces for you  and it will stay this way until gas runs out. Period.

We're talking about doing something that is in our nation's interest - not OPEC's (or Alaska's for that matter). This CANNOT be done purely by bowing to the gods of 'market forces'

So the government plays a role in setting an agenda and a goal, based on public demand as expressed in majority votes (electing a President committed to energy independence, not just one who talks about it) and figures out how best to achieve that goal.

As the goal is energy independence, one certain way is to artificially raise prices and use the revenues to fund either alternative vehicles or alternative fuels or an expanded electric grid, whatever.

Nothing complex about it.

But if you wait for market forces to fix this, you'll be waiting forever.

Just like if you wait for market forces to fix pollution - market forces don't care about pollution, people do.

Market forces don't care about anything except producing goods at the lowest price. So market forces would (and did) prefer slavery, as a system... except that we, as individuals, don't like that idea so we vote for a system that keeps market forces in check in certain areas.

Sometimes I really wonder why I have to keep explaining capitalism to conservative capitalists? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'market forces' are and how they work. I've had conservatives seriously tell me that market forces will solve pollution through the 'cap and trade' market (because they don't understand that the cap and trade market is a fiction, merely a way of government controlling pollution by creating a system that sort of looks like a market but is simply regulation at work.) I've had capitalists explain to me that they think the Chinese entrepreneur shouldn't be penalized by any tariff system and free market forces should be left to manage our trade with China.... - as if the Chinese entrepreneur isn't subsizided by a centralized Communist government, as if his workers aren't barred from any collective bargaining activity (because they don't need it living as they do in a worker's paradise); as if the Chinese entrepreneur doesn't contract out work to Chinese prison industries where Tianamen Square activists are still serving their twenty year sentences for asking for freedom... We aren't dealing with 'free market' forces in our China trade; we're dealing with a central Communist government manipulating its population with the goal of simply conquering our markets through government control ... which our capitalists like because it means cheap goods, that's all.

Now you're saying that capitalism will solve a problem where Arab oil producers can always artificially control the price of oil (and have controlled, since the formation of OPEC)... and how precisely can we do that? Short of invading?

We can't. All we can do is decide that as a nation, we don't have to play their game.

The solutions are obvious, and simple.

OPEC is, for the most part, a group of dictators running a cartel which is different from the drug cartel only in that it's legal and can cross any border. When they need more gold toilets in their palaces, they jack up the price. They are the largest funders of terrorists worldwide, who have killed thousands of Americans already.

Your solution to the problem? Let 'em keep doing it, it's "market forces" at work.

Remind me not to vote for you!

[REpozer]

You left out one very important aspect to the free market system.
Domestic oil exploration and production.
That would solve allot.

[geoffbaker]

You left out one very important aspect to the free market system.
Domestic oil exploration and production.
That would solve allot.

I doubt it, repozer.

The cost of production in the US is high because either we are dealing with tertiary oil extraction methods (already depleted fields) or the fields are located in extremely expensive territory - permafrost regions or offshore.

So long as OPEC (read, Saudi Arabia) can simply flood our markets with cheap oil whenever they want, they can bring exploration to a halt... every time.

Unless of course you want to subsidize domestic exploration through artificially cheap leases or tax cuts... but no, that's NOT market forces, dude... that's that pesky evil old gummint interventionism...

CAN'T HAVE THAT, now can we??

[REpozer]

Unless of course you want to subsidize domestic exploration through artificially cheap leases or tax cuts... but no, that's NOT market forces, dude... that's that pesky evil old gummint interventionism...
CAN'T HAVE THAT, now can we??

We could turn on the red flashing light and call it an emergency. No not  new taxes,....Yes , bailouts. Man we would be drilling in no time.

 I think all the new jobs being created will be in new politics.

[geoffbaker]

And bailouts will be paid through ... deficit borrowing

And deficit borrowing will be paid through... taxes.

There really is no rabbit hole, and no magic act. We're just fooling ourselves.

The Democratic party is the party of taxes.

The Republican party, because it supports deficit financing without bothering to arrange to get the income to pay for such financing, is now officially the party of deferred taxes, which means it is the party of higher taxes, because, after all, deferred taxes equal taxes plus interest. Lots of it.

Eventually, most everyone will figure this out.

Now here's a thought.

How about we just tax foreign oil?

By artifically raising the price of foreign oil, we allow domestic oil value to rise without such taxes... which means exploration and profits for domestic oil producers.

And we cut our dependence on the Saudis.

And we use the revenue to give Billy-Jo and Bubba a "cash-for-clunker" low interest loan so they can trade in their Power Wagon for a Jetta TDI and because they're getting four times the mpg - even at $7 a gallon - it ends up costing them no more than it did before.

Of course, Detroit could profit from it, if they only made efficient cars... duh...

No, let's stick with market forces which are making the Saudis the richest people on earth and funding terrorism worldwide.

Much better.

[Coronach]

Allow me to Fisk this one...

Let me see if I got this right... you want 'market forces' to solve this problem.

Yes. Market forces will solve it, whether any of us like it or not. Market forces are reality. What market forces will do depends on how we try to distort them. You can put all sorts of rocks in a stream, but water will always flow downhill. Same idea at work here.

We've had the same problem for ninety years and market forces haven't solved it yet; here's why...

So long as gas is extractable, the people owning the land (OPEC) will charge as much as they can get away with to maximize profits - and cut production to artificially induce higher prices, whenever prices are low.

Right. OPEC is a cartel, but it does not control all of the oil. It can only control its portion of the oil, and the control is not absolute. Can it contract supply to drive up price? Yes. The only way this is different than any other supplier is the breadth of their control.

When gas gets too high and demand cuts back (people start buying efficient cars) OPEC immediately raises production, drops prices, and floods the market. People go back to inefficient cars, because they cost less.

Yes. And they can do this very easily because we adamantly refuse to extract our own oil. If we have enough production capacity to meet a significant portion of our own demand, they lose power. Can we out-produce OPEC? No. Can we completely remove that "lever"? No.

That's market forces for you  and it will stay this way until gas runs out. Period.

Right, and I don't really have a problem with it, as long as we remove restrictions on domestic production, because OPEC's power to drive prices up and down would be reduced.

We're talking about doing something that is in our nation's interest - not OPEC's (or Alaska's for that matter). This CANNOT be done purely by bowing to the gods of 'market forces'

Market forces are like the laws of physics. Ignoring them will cause you pain, and tinkering with them can cause an explosion. This can and will be solved via market forces, just like everything else. The only question will be how much misery and woe we will cause people until we let the market work.

OPEC manages to distort the market by holding a large percentage of the supply. We (by "we" I mean the West) further distort the market by not producing more, in essence driving their percentage up. Even with OPEC holding a huge percentage, they still are bound to the market. As you said, when they ramp up the price too much, we respond by developing alternative energy sources, and they're forced to increase production and drop price.

So the government plays a role in setting an agenda and a goal, based on public demand as expressed in majority votes (electing a President committed to energy independence, not just one who talks about it) and figures out how best to achieve that goal.

Let's see what the government has done...

E85. How's that for stupid?

CAFE standards. OK, fair enough, but they're not needed. When gas prices go up, demand for efficient vehicles goes up, and the problem is solved far more elegantly than having a "Car Czar" get government's sticky fingers further into the business world.

Taxes. Look at how government has responded to the fuel tax revenues dropping from people buying more efficient cars. It's laughable, and telling, all at once.

As the goal is energy independence, one certain way is to artificially raise prices and use the revenues to fund either alternative vehicles or alternative fuels or an expanded electric grid, whatever.

Until the revenue drops because we are actually using less gas. My main objection to this, though, is the idea that we need government to solve the problem. No, we need private industry to solve the problem.

Nothing complex about it.

But if you wait for market forces to fix this, you'll be waiting forever.

Nonsense. Remember peak oil? There's a real belief that OPEC may not have the excess production capacity to flood the market again. Look at the price drop since the last year- that's decreased demand, not increased supply.

Just like if you wait for market forces to fix pollution - market forces don't care about pollution, people do.

I agree with you here. One thing cap and trade has going for it is it puts a market demand on cleanliness. It's an artificial market, as you say, but it is still a market- but that's about the only thing it has going for it.

Market forces don't care about anything except producing goods at the lowest price. So market forces would (and did) prefer slavery, as a system... except that we, as individuals, don't like that idea so we vote for a system that keeps market forces in check in certain areas.

Sometimes I really wonder why I have to keep explaining capitalism to conservative capitalists? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what 'market forces' are and how they work. I've had conservatives seriously tell me that market forces will solve pollution through the 'cap and trade' market (because they don't understand that the cap and trade market is a fiction, merely a way of government controlling pollution by creating a system that sort of looks like a market but is simply regulation at work.)

C&T's market can work, but the entire market is a fiction, arbitrarily created and just as arbitrarily distored. It also further centralizes power into megacorporations, since they're the ones who can afford to play the game.

I've had capitalists explain to me that they think the Chinese entrepreneur shouldn't be penalized by any tariff system and free market forces should be left to manage our trade with China.... - as if the Chinese entrepreneur isn't subsizided by a centralized Communist government, as if his workers aren't barred from any collective bargaining activity (because they don't need it living as they do in a worker's paradise); as if the Chinese entrepreneur doesn't contract out work to Chinese prison industries where Tianamen Square activists are still serving their twenty year sentences for asking for freedom... We aren't dealing with 'free market' forces in our China trade; we're dealing with a central Communist government manipulating its population with the goal of simply conquering our markets through government control ... which our capitalists like because it means cheap goods, that's all.

No argument here. Capitalism and the market only works when both sides are playing by capitalist rules. OPEC is violating capitalist rules by being a near-monopoly on a commodity, and we enable them by refusing the develop our own resources. We can't outproduce them, but we can blunt the sting. If they lean on the lever too much, we use less, and they risk slitting their own throats, so they back off.

Now you're saying that capitalism will solve a problem where Arab oil producers can always artificially control the price of oil (and have controlled, since the formation of OPEC)... and how precisely can we do that? Short of invading?

Oil is a finite resource. OPEC probably lacks the ability of flood the market again, and even if they do have it, oh, the horror! Cheap oil! If we're really afraid of these shenanigans, step one is to take the peaks and valleys out of the commodity market by controlling more of the supply. DRILL.

We can't. All we can do is decide that as a nation, we don't have to play their game.

The solutions are obvious, and simple.

DRILL. And, if they are still able to drive up price and keep it up, allow the market to push us to more efficient vehicles, like it just did. When that fails to take the sting out, alternative energies will become economically viable. OPEC is left with with the choice of dropping price, or being squeezed out of the market.

There are some who think that the US is playing a very, very deep game with respect to fossil fuels. We have a decent chunk of oil, either in ANWAR or in offshore reserves. We also have a HUUUUUUUGE supply of coal, which can be synthesized into liquid fuel (or used to provide electrcity for other purposes). We use comparatively little of either, preferring to buy OPEC's share. When OPEC runs dry (and that may happen sooner than we think, as their "proven reserves" are at least partially fiction), they will have a chunk of our money, and we will have a nice supply of fossil fuel salted away.

I dunno. This ignores the whole CO2 thing, but there are sequestration methods being developed that may well allow us to burn coal with relative impunity (at a lower EROI than just sending it up a smokestack, sure). The real problem with that theory is the relative fungibility of commodities.

OPEC is, for the most part, a group of dictators running a cartel which is different from the drug cartel only in that it's legal and can cross any border. When they need more gold toilets in their palaces, they jack up the price. They are the largest funders of terrorists worldwide, who have killed thousands of Americans already.

True, and we enable them play the game by just buying the oil and doing nothing else.

Your solution to the problem? Let 'em keep doing it, it's "market forces" at work.

Remind me not to vote for you!

No, my solution is to unshackle our industry, get government out of it, and allow the private sector to handle it. You say "OPEC just slashes prices!" to undercut alternative energies like cheap oil is a bad thing. That's us threatening to cut off their lifeline. Their response? Ramp up production, drop price. Problem solved- temporarily.

Long term solutions will happen when they lack the ability to drive down price. Will we be hurt economically when this happens until we adjust? Yes, if we have no ability to produce our own supply for short-term use. This is why domestic production capacity is so vital.

Mike

[Coronach]

And bailouts will be paid through ... deficit borrowing

And deficit borrowing will be paid through... taxes.

There really is no rabbit hole, and no magic act. We're just fooling ourselves.

The Democratic party is the party of taxes.

The Republican party, because it supports deficit financing without bothering to arrange to get the income to pay for such financing, is now officially the party of deferred taxes, which means it is the party of higher taxes, because, after all, deferred taxes equal taxes plus interest. Lots of it.

Eventually, most everyone will figure this out.

This is my major malfunction with the Republican party. They have lost all credibility on fiscal responsibility under GWB. Of course, Obama is doing worse, but that's hardly a good thing.

Now here's a thought.

How about we just tax foreign oil?

By artifically raising the price of foreign oil, we allow domestic oil value to rise without such taxes... which means exploration and profits for domestic oil producers.

And, we pass the taxes on to the people who can afford it the least, the people who were struggling to make ends meet when gas was $4.50 a gallon. Upper middle class and the fat cats? They're fine. The average schlub with a commute gets crushed.

And we cut our dependence on the Saudis.

And we use the revenue to give Billy-Jo and Bubba a "cash-for-clunker" low interest loan so they can trade in their Power Wagon for a Jetta TDI and because they're getting four times the mpg - even at $7 a gallon - it ends up costing them no more than it did before.

So, the solution is to take away with one hand and give with the other? I'd prefer to not play the shell game.

Of course, Detroit could profit from it, if they only made efficient cars... duh...

Detroit does. Not as many as the Japanese, but that will change, without CAFE standards, if gas stays expensive.

No, let's stick with market forces which are making the Saudis the richest people on earth and funding terrorism worldwide.

Much better.

No. Let's blunt their power by being able to make up shortfalls in supply with our own production. They're able to play the "oops, production just fell, now pay me $100 for a barrel" game because we can't make up a shortfall. If they're left with production falling (artifically) and prices NOT rising to match, they will be unable to play that game for long. Can we match their production long term? Obviously not. But if they're forced to actually take a pay cut to even play that game, they'll be less likely to play it. Furthermore, if they actually do run dry, we need our own supply on line to keep the lights on.

[geoffbaker]

OK, I'm not going to respond point for point only because, darn it, it means way way too many boxes, OK?

We actually agree on some points (China, GWB).

But you are making a number of completely unsupportable assumptions.

1) That OPEC is losing the power to flood the market. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. The problem with OPEC is that it a combination of two things, evil and greed. I think the main 'governments' that produce most of the oil - a collection of Western hating, pro-terrorist 'princes' who rule with absolute authority and treat their women worse than dogs - are simply evil. Unfortunately, a number of other oil producing nations who are more or less decent - Canada, Mexico, Norway, Britain, Venezuela, Alaska ( ) go along for the ride and are happy to jack up prices whenever requested to make a few extra bucks; that's the greed part. But - and here's the important thing to remember - Saudi Arabia alone sits on at least one-fourth of the world's known oil reserves (the Ghawar fields); add in the rest of the Middle Eastern market (Bahrain, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq) and you can control the market. And they do.

In fact, the truth is that OPEC is becoming MORE powerful not less, because there are two sides to the equation, not one.

On the one hand, they control a large percentage of the supply which gives them great power.

On the other hand, india and China's rapid industrialization means that America no longer is the central focus of the other part... the demand. Instead of being the One Big Client (which confers a lot of power) we are now merely one in a growing number of clients begging for oil... and having to offer better prices in order to get it.

2) You make the entirely unsupportable claim that we are capable of producing enough oil for our own needs. Not true; there is not a single area - not ANWAR, not offshore - that currently has enough known reserves to do this. And they've been doing exploratory drilling on the North American continent for 90 years now, so there is very little that hasn't been tested. In fact most experts agree that ANWAR and offshore drilling - if fully exploited - will only offer a small percentage of the oil we consume on a daily basis. And this doesn't even cover the fact that wherever we drill, it's going to be EXPENSIVE, which means OPEC, by turning on the pumps a little harder at their easily accessible oil fields and feeding the pipelines that were built back in the 50's and are all paid off - can use their cheap oil to make the math impossible to work.

(Of course, we can make it work with enough gummint subsidies, but I'm figuring you don't support that, it isn't 'market forces')
Lastly, ANWAR holds perhaps 10% of America's oil consumption. By expanding now, we can bring that ten percent online by 2030... and guess what; by then Prudhoe Bay will be exploited; so that instead of gaining ten percent, at best we will probably LOSE a couple of percent.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that renewables, not fossil fuels, are the key...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against more drilling. Hell, my folks get a check for a few cents whenever oil goes up, from quaternary production in Waggoner, OK; an old farm my grandad had.

It just won't be enough.

Now, if we went on a massive program of increasing our efficiency, we could actually decrease our need fairly rapidly to the point that current production would be sufficient... it is, as has often been stated, comparable to the Manhattan project, a vast investment... but the returns would be worthwhile.

We CAN produce Hummers that get 35 mpg.
But market forces won't do it.
WE CAN solve this problem; but not by letting OPEC tell us what to do.

And just drilling WON'T solve it sorry.

Coal gasification projects have been about as successful as ethanol, which is to say they are billion dollar boondoggles giving money to the poor pitiful coal industry to spend on skyboxes and getaways, with no actual end product in sight that isn't worse, in terms of cash investment vs return, than ANY alternative energy system out there, including wind, solar or hey probably capturing cow farts.

Here's something to think on...

Right now, TEP (Tucson Electric Power) pays real dollars to me if I install photovoltaics, or gives me rebates if I insulate or apply some other energy saving technology to my house which results in lower electric bills.

Why do they do something so crazy as to pay me to reduce the money I send to them each month? Because it has long been known that it is actually much cheaper and much easier to apply known techological efficiencies to the issue of supply and demand than it is to build new power plants. TEP gets a much bigger bang for their buck by having me install a water heater jacket than they do by building another five billion dollar coal plant.

THIS is the solution.

80 mpg small cars, and 45 mpg big cars. Ultra-efficient energy use at home and during the commute.

I've reduced my energy consumption (both in terms of commuting and in household use) by 50 percent by some very easy steps. We installed energy efficient lighting, turn ALL our electric devices (including modems and switches and hubs and those kind of things) off at night; we installed motion and time sensor switches; we cut our water use by installing foot operated sink valves; we stopped using the dryer; we harvest our water instead of sending it to the sewer. We bought LCD monitors and we got really good at turning things OFF. Result... major decrease in electric, gas and water utility bils.

For the commute; we bicycle four or five days a week instead of driving; and I use the RE for groceries, not the car. Those military panniers are handy.

This isn't difficult. And supported by an intelligent national energy policy (as opposed to the secret one sold to US oil interests in 2000 by Dick Cheney) we can actually make this LESS expensive for the average worker, rather than MORE expensive.

But drilling alone won't answer. Market forces favor the people who own the market... keep giving your money to the Saudi princes so they can buy white women as slaves and support terrorists... I'm done with that.

My bicycle operates on foot power. My RE on biodiesel made locally. My next investment will be a clean burning ultra efficient diesel car (maybe an old jetta) converted to run on biodiesel. Lastly, enough photovoltaics so i'm a net zero on the grid... putting back out as much as I use.

I'm happy to talk about all these issues, but we need to be DOING things too.

And 'freeing up market forces' won't fix it. No matter how many holes you put in the ground.

You know, the problem is that 'market forces' are dumb. I mean, way down, back-holler sister-kissing STUPID. Market forces react not to what will happen tomorrow (despite the fact that we can see it coming) but ONLY to what happenned YESTERDAY.

If market forces were smart, the railroad barons would have bought the road infrastructure, and the road barons the airports... and so on... doesn't happen. They peak, and fail, and a new entrepreneur and a new paradigm moves in.

If market forces really worked, then by default, GM would have had the Chevy Volt on sale in 2003, with an ad campaign all ready for those high gas prices in 2004 and 2005,. Why didn't they? Because market forces say "hey, we make money selling big pickups, lets sell more of them"... until the day that the market crashes and then they say "Boy do we have a lot of big pickups... hey, what went wrong, dude? Guess it's time for the big TruckTober Sellathon again!".

That's ALL market forces do.

It takes intelligent human beings working outside pure 'market forces' to solve these problems; because market forces don't know how.

The answer is here. Renewables and alternative energy and increased efficiency. We just need to get cracking.

Oh, yea... I should add since you brought it up, Obama isn't worse, he is MUCH MUCH better. The dollars are scary, i'd agree; but that is largely because of the mess inherited from GWB, the economic collapse CREATED by GWB which is drying up tax revenues and making the projections worse... and lastly, because he is actually being honest with his budget.. he is no longer hiding all the war spending in other budgets... shocking.

Did I forget to mention we don't torture anymore, and we're not likely to go to war just because it looks like it might be fun? That's a good thing, too.

[Ice]

 We can produce more than enough oil from under the good oll' USA.
That we can't is just more of the same old propaganda. Domestic oil is taxed at a higher rate than imported oil. That little gem dates back to the last half of the 1930's It was an incentive to save "our" oil for us just in case of war.
 
 Currently we are paying farmers to not grow certain crops in order to keep those foods profitable to grow.
Here is what I propose. Lets check the feasibility of ending those subsidies and let the farmers raise oil seed crops for bio diesel production on the land that is not being used for food and textile production.
 
 In concept it males sense to me.
More profit for the farmers. Less or possibly no imported oil. More people back to work supporting and servicing the effort through direct and ripple effect jobs.

Just a thought.

[geoffbaker]

We can produce more than enough oil from under the good oll' USA.
That we can't is just more of the same old propaganda. 

You know, saying this doesn't make it so. I have pointed out that there are no known oil reserves to make up for even the current decline in American oil production; that ANWAR, fully exploited, won't make up for the decline in Prudhoe Bay oil... and you just brush it off as 'propaganda'...

Proof please... or it's you who are just talking 'propaganda' ... or, as Colbert has defined it...'truthiness' ... something you wish were true, a political position taken without the need to be held down by actual fact...

On the other hand, your biodiesel argument is a very sound one. In Tucson, currently we are only tapping ONE percent of the existing used vegetable oil market in biodiesel production, which means we can nationally increase biodiesel use 100 fold before we even need to plant a single oil bearing crop... there is plenty of pontential there...as with many other renewables including wind and solar.

Plus improvements in energy efficiency on a national level can easily extend our current oil production, for decades...

But drilling isn't the answer... it doesn't even buy us time...

[ace.cafe]

The Bakken Formation in the US holds alot of oil.
The recent estimates of how much is recoverable from it have dramatically increased since the estimate done in 1995. This is primarily because of improved drilling and extraction methods which have been developed, and continue to be developed.

The current research done by Dr. Leigh Price(deceased) is being peer reviewed posthumously. There are approvals to publish already submitted by some peer reviewers.
This estimates a "mean" reserve(between the highest and lowest) estimate of 416 Billion barrels of oil in the Bakken Formation.
This makes it the largest known oil formation in the world.

How much is recoverable?
Dr. Price estimates 50% recoverability, with currently known methods.
This level of recovery would put it close to equal with the Saudi Arabian oil fields, which are currently the largest recognized oil reserves worldwide.
Lowest estimates range from 3-10%, which are old estimates that were done many years ago before the extraction methods we now know existed.
There are reasons to believe that as this formation grows to greater use, the work will generate some new improvements in extraction ability over the years, thus leading to even greater yield.

The estimates are that it can be produced at a cost of $16 per barrel, which is well under the oil prices we see today.

With the other known existing oil reserves in the US being estimated at 173 Billion barrels, and adding in even half of the Bakken Formation, the US holds by far the largest oil reserves on the planet today.

And with Canada being the second largest current oil reserve in the world, behind Saudi Arabia, and Mexico being #17, there is more oil reserve in the North American land mass than anywhere else.
Foreign oil was tapped because it was cheap, and didn't require domestic resource drain. There is no shortage of oil here in North America, as far as "reserves" are concerned.

[LJRead]

Heard something about the Canadian shale oil reserves which are also huge.  Then there is the idea of using natural gas.  We do need to get away from Middle East oil, for sure.

On another topic, someone pointed out that the early advances in computers was all sort of amateur driven, the big industries had little to do with it.  The problems of today are problems of big business as well as big business stifling smaller outfits.  The big bailouts were GM, AIG, Citibank, big brokerage firms and the bubble or bubbles they produced led to the failures of the smaller outfits.  Goeff makes a good point in saying that GM should have had a Volta like car going years ago.  All that money thrown at what?  Then garage based outfits come along and show the big idiots how it should be done.  There is economy of scale in that these big outfits, through things like mergers and acquisitions, supposedly save money in things like administration, but something important is lost in the transition.

It must be frustrating for z company like GM to see rank amateurs doing things better and more efficiently than they have.  So they grab on to the shirt tails of the small players and try to either slow them down or just keep up.

The U.S. needs far more diversification into small businesses.

[geoffbaker]

What ace doesn't mention - once - is that we aren't talking OIL in the Bakken, we're talking SHALE OIL. There is just a tiny bit of a difference... the first is easily extractable; the second, depending on the amount of oil in the shale layer - is extractable only at vast cost with no known production technology to do so cost effectively - yet. Right now, they are using conventional drilling, but they know full well that can only tap a tiny fraction of the Bakken Shales.

From the wikipedia..
"While these numbers would appear to indicate a massive reserve, the percentage of this oil which might be extracted using current technology is another matter. Estimates of the Bakken's technically recoverable oil have ranged from as low as 1% — because the Bakken shale has generally low porosity and low permeability, making the oil difficult to extract — to Leigh Price's estimate of 50% recoverable.[11] Reports issued by both the USGS and the state of North Dakota in April 2008 seem to indicate the lower range of recoverable estimates are more realistic with current technology."

Frankly, I put shale oil right up there with ethanol and coal gasification... boondoggles designed to extract government money for large wealthy corporations, on the rich promise of technology yet to come.

Currently - today - the Bakken is generating how much oil? 7 million barrels were extracted in 2007, the latest figures I can find. That's in a YEAR, not a day...

Let's hope it generates a lot of oil. But I doubt it. I am sure it will generate SOME, but will it be enough?

If I started saying "Gee, solar could easily generate 100 times its current potential, given some yet-undiscovered silicon geometry and using some yet-undiscovered new principles of production"... we'll you'd laugh me out of here.

But when asked where we're going to get our oil... you give me essentially the same response.

Such is the wishful thinking of the right these days...

I believe the greatest promise lies in our agricultural productivity, We and the Canadians alone have enough agricultural land available to actually generate renewable biofuels to meet our needs... and we can do that... FOREVER.

Tie it into photovoltaics and wind... and our need for fossil fuels could evaporate, permanently.

[ace.cafe]

Geoff,
The "lower range" they are talking about is 280 Billion barrels.
The "mean" is 416 Billion barrels.

There are wells currently producing from the Bakken Formation, yes the shale oil, which are producing over 35,000 barrels per DAY. Right now!

That's over a million barrrels a year from these alone, and these are small fractions of what could be done.
The technology is there today, to extract 50% of it, with the current horizontal drilling techniques and the hydraulic pressure techniques.
And the cost is below market to produce, which is why they are producing it.
If the lawsuits to prevent drilling would stop, there'd be alot more oil coming out..

[geoffbaker]

Ace, as I said the problem is they aren't extracting shale oil. They still haven't figured that out. What they are doing is drilling for pockets, and they are finding some oil (mostly in one layer actually beneath the Bakken shale, so not technically a part of it at all. They took out 7 million barrels in 2007- a tiny drop in our consumption of 31 BILLION barrels annually... so they are currently producing less than 0.02 percent of our needs from this oil. Hardly something even a tiny oil company is going to get excited about.

Unfortunately, the Bakken is very low porosity which means unlike oil sands, where if you drill in one area the oil will seep down so you can keep extracting oil... in the Bakken, there may be a billion barrels of oil around you, locked in the shale, but all you can drill for is the single pocket you found. The oil won't migrate.

Which means that the vast majority of the Bakken oil remains locked up in shale, and you can't drill for that. You have to strip mine it, and figure out how to heat/break/pressurize or in some other way to extract the oil.

And they haven't figured that out yet... there is no current technology on the market to bring shale oil in at current prices. Sorry.

I know of not a single 'environmental lawsuit' involving the Bakken.

Environmentalists aren't stopping this... scientists haven't figured out how to do it, that's all.

And it is entirely possible they won't. So I suggest we get back to talking about real alternatives available to us TODAY - natural gas, biodiesel, solar, wind, nuclear... what have you.

If the Bakken shale oil formation starts producing commerical oil out of the SHALE - NOT out of oil pockets - I will personally be ecstatic.

But I can't say I would build a national energy policy around the POSSIBILITY that someday someone may crack the Bakken shales...

[enfield_33]

"Oh, yea... I should add since you brought it up, Obama isn't worse, he is MUCH MUCH better."   

The Chosen ONE will lead us out of the abyss.   

[geoffbaker]

Nah, he's just a guy who's better than the moron you voted for that put is into the abyss in the first place, that's all.


Woops, my apologies. I forgot that apparently, not a single conservative ever actually voted for Bush (at least, we cant find anyone willing to admit it these days).

Talk about a Messiah, a man who won an election with nobody voting for him! Now THAT is a miracle...

[Ice]

Nah, he's just a guy who's better than the moron you voted for that put is into the abyss in the first place, that's all.


Woops, my apologies. I forgot that apparently, not a single conservative ever actually voted for Bush (at least, we cant find anyone willing to admit it these days).

Talk about a Messiah, a man who won an election with nobody voting for him! Now THAT is a miracle...

   A man with no executive branch experience. Never even a small town mayor.
May have committed treason as a senator with middle east visits  before the "election". Citizenship has never been been satisfactorily proven to the public.
1.5 MILLION dollars in lawyers fees spent blocking investigations.

 Miracle is not the word I would choose.

[geoffbaker]

   A man with no executive branch experience. Never even a small town mayor.
May have committed treason as a senator with middle east visits  before the "election". Citizenship has never been been satisfactorily proven to the public.
1.5 MILLION dollars in lawyers fees spent blocking investigations.
 Miracle is not the word I would choose.

Dude, the miracle I referred to was not Obama, but Bush's election considering no Republican has since admitted voting for him.

Every story you repeat here (citizenship, blah blah blah) are all just wacko right wing blogosphere stories... if any of them had any legs, FOX news would have run with them every night for the whole year, he never would have been elected... how much do you imagine the RNC spent trying to chase down and prove this bull? You can be assured they spent MILLIONS and would have spent a billion if they thought it could have changed the election... and these stories have been out there for years...

These are just small, nasty whispers from small minds. Unproven, because they are untrue. But some people really don't care about the truth, when it comes to this kind of thing... anything will do as long as their objective is served...

[LJRead]

There is no possible controversy regarding Obama's citizenship that I cn see since his mother is a born and raised U.S. citizen.  I have two children who have a foreign mother and me, a U.S. citizen from birth and they are citizens, pure and simple. We did have to obtain a 'certificate of foreign birth' for one of them as she was born here in Tonga.

Obama doesn't have a free hand to straighten up the past mess since he has of necessity become part of the system.  Even McCain said recently that he is making the proper moves - meaning, I guess, proper under these dire circumstances.

There are racists who will never accept him, no matter what, and there is a large conservative base led by people like Rush Linbaugh who are like sheep being led to believe what these TV personalities tell them to.  Racism in America runs very deep, BTW, and won't be solved by electing one black president.  It isn't cool to express racist tendencies, so not much is there on the surface, but underneath it runs very deep.   So combine the right wing propaganda with a basic racism and you are going to get some very stupid criticism of Obama.  I'm personally proud of the way he handles himself, though I would hope for economic changes in the future, particularly in the area of diversification of American manufacture, and getting back our status as a manufacturing nation which makes quality products.  We do need to get away fro bottom line economics to quality driven economics.

[geoffbaker]

You make a good point about McCain, LJ.

McCain is a decent, honest, moderate Republican with impeccable credentials. Not only does he approve of Obama, I think he genuinely likes him. He gives him good grades so far.

True moderates of ANY belief, color, or politics will see Obama for what he is; a vast improvement over the lunacy that was the Bush Administration.

Now on the far right, we can expect no such honesty when it comes to Obama; they are absolutely dedicated to digging out any dirt no matter how infantile or ridiculous it is. And that is what we are seeing here. The huge beam in their eye is NOTHING in comparison to that tiny mote in Obama's....

[Ice]

There is no possible controversy regarding Obama's citizenship that I cn see since his mother is a born and raised U.S. citizen.  I have two children who have a foreign mother and me, a U.S. citizen from birth and they are citizens, pure and simple. We did have to obtain a 'certificate of foreign birth' for one of them as she was born here in Tonga.

Obama doesn't have a free hand to straighten up the past mess since he has of necessity become part of the system.  Even McCain said recently that he is making the proper moves - meaning, I guess, proper under these dire circumstances.

There are racists who will never accept him, no matter what, and there is a large conservative base led by people like Rush Linbaugh who are like sheep being led to believe what these TV personalities tell them to.  Racism in America runs very deep, BTW, and won't be solved by electing one black president.  It isn't cool to express racist tendencies, so not much is there on the surface, but underneath it runs very deep.   So combine the right wing propaganda with a basic racism and you are going to get some very stupid criticism of Obama.  I'm personally proud of the way he handles himself, though I would hope for economic changes in the future, particularly in the area of diversification of American manufacture, and getting back our status as a manufacturing nation which makes quality products.  We do need to get away fro bottom line economics to quality driven economics.

 Some time spent googleing around will raise your eye brows. Ignore the opinion and rhetoric on either side and dig for verifiable facts.

Here's how it looks so far.

 His father was Kenyan. Under British  Kenyan law at the time his children are Kenyans wherever they may be born.  His step father was Indonesian. Under Indonesian law at the time when his step father claimed him he was automatically made a Indonesian citizen until his 18th birthday. On that day adopted foreigners  need to either file the documents to renounce their Indonesian citizen ship and reclaim their former citizenship or by default accept the permanence of the Indonesian citizenship.

 No documents have surfaced to show he filed that choice.

 Many millions of dollars have been spent on both sides of the lawsuits and still no verifiable answers.

 For the truth seeker, the issue is not one of race. It is about legal qualification.

 To automatically dismiss out of hand the seeking of truth as a form of racism/sexism/cronyism/ or any other "ism" could be construed as narrow mindedness. Therein lies the rub. The old specter of "if your not with us your against us".
 
 In many circles dissenting opinions are not tolerated. Decisions based on feelings seldom mesh with decisions based on sound rational thought, reason and logic.
 
 People are egotistical and self centered. Such is the nature of man.
It is nigh on impossible for most  to make the distinction between being wrong and being in possession of incorrect information. 

 Express an opinion or raise a question that does not go along the herd and out come the insults like racist,bigot,un enlightened,ignorant, un educated etc. etc.. It make the
lesser person feel better about themselves to put others down.

 Watch out for that wherever your quests for truth take you.

Also be warned that free thinkers are not always welcome where they some times find themselves. It makes some uncomfortable.

That Fannie May and Freddy Mac were ordered to make loans to individuals of unsound finances was poor judgment at work and one more example of a flawed system. If that hadn't happened we likely would not have had a stimulus package.

 I believe the stimulus money should have gone to the legitimate citizenry of the US
A kind of trickle up economy if you will.
 The paying down or off of personal debt would have been a real shot in the arm of the financial institutions.
 The purchase of consumer goods and services would have boosted the producers and providers.
 The sending of our children to college would be an investment in our future.
The starting of countless small businesses would have been good for us as a people
in more ways than I can count

 Instead it went to fortune 500 companies that make campaign donation$.
No $urpri$e there. Again covering up one mistake with another.

Que in the Who's Pete Towsend singing,,,, < meet the new boss,,,  he's just the same as the old boss >

[geoffbaker]

As you say, ice, millions have been spent.

If they can't make a case after spending those millions... then, in my deeply considered legal opinion, they should shut the f*** up.

The RNC had plenty of time and all the money in the world and serried phalanxes of the best and most expensive lawyers in the world, and years to do the hatchet job, and yet they failed to make it enough of a story to even get much airing on FOX.

Give it up. Beyond a certain point - it isn't truth seeking - it's narrow minded dogmatism that will not ever accept the possibility of being wrong. That ain't truth seeking... it's fanaticism taken to the nth degree.

Regarding racism; LJ did not call you - or anyone else - racist in regards to Obama. But there is no doubt that racism plays a part for many of the people in this country when it comes to having a black leader... we've all heard the unedited comments made by many voters ("I would never vote for a black man to be my President" was just one toned down comment that made the national news). You don't have to look far on the web to find amazingly racist sites attacking Obama...

Racism is real, it is here, and it was, and will continue to be a factor in how many perceive Obama.

Often, people are very careful to cloak their criticism to hide its racist origins. The people constantly making reference to Obama as a Muslim, which apart from being untrue speaks to the far-right religious racism of the KKK and others; they find every means to denigrate him without actually using racist terminology; but in my experience, there is a deep well of racism that really is driving a lot of this criticism. And when you listened to the Palin rallies when older white gentlemen faced the cameras angrily shouting "Hussein Hussein Hussein"... you could feel the river of race hatred running beneath it...

Ice; no-one called you a racist; LJ just made a perfectly valid point which I think is true, that racism is a big factor in many people's opinions of Obama.

If you choose to take it that way, I think that just makes it your problem, no-one elses. But really, you shouldn't.

[Ice]

No worries Geoff.
 I did not take LJ's  race comment as personally directed. I deduce its his take from his perspective more or less, on a generalization of a segment of the populace.
 
 Also no dogmatici anything in my mind. Just wish obama's lawyers would release the documents. That would answer the questions once and for all.
 What would the harm be if there was nothing to hide?

[LJRead]

Certainly, I did not refer to anyone here as 'racist' but only wished to point out that some, at least, of the constant barrage of criticism that Obama is exposed to has a racist base, or is contributed to by racism.  Over the years, even in my long tenure in universities, I have often been appalled at the racism expressed by colleagues.  Like I said, it runs deep.  It crept out a few times during the election campaign, but most treated it like the hot potato it is.  McCain refused to be a part of it, Rush Linbaugh was right in there making racist waves.

There is only one way to lose your U.S. citizenship if you are one naturally born, and that is to renounce it.  Thus, Obama could have been given foreign citizenship at the request of his parent or step parent, and that would not remove his U.S. citizenship.  I have been told by U.S. consulate members that if I want to hold dual citizenship, just don't make an issue of it to U.S. authorities, but even then they simply might not accept the foreign citizenship as valid, but the U.S. one certainly remains valid - so all this rubbish is smoke and mirrors.

My verifiable facts come direct from a horse's mouth, the U.S. Ambassador serving Tonga.

The fact that Obama had an American mother gives him American citizenship regardless of what other citizen ships might have been conferred.  You can google all sorts of opinion and rubbish these days, and you can even pass it on in the guise of truth, but the law is the law.

There is a new generation coming which is far more free in its thoughts than the older ones, but the older ones hold most of the power, and racism plays a part.

I can't imagine anything that his lawyers would want to hide, except maybe they wish to keep some modicum of personal privacy for their client.    

[LJRead]

OK, just a further note.  Indonesia is like Tonga in that (it used to be) you had to turn in your U.S. passport if you applied for and were given Tongan citizenship.  But that is an issue outside of the U.S., and, as I said, the U.S. authorities could care less about issues pertaining to Indonesia or Tonga or most other places.  Thus, the Indonesian authorities could consider Obama an Indonesian citizen if he, in fact, renounced his U.S. citizenship to them, but the U.S. authorities would still mark him down as one of ours.  He would have to actively renounce it to the U.S. authorities, and, I am quite sure, that with Bush controlling things from the WH, if he had ever done so, they would have made an issue of it.

What bothers me is just what Goeff alluded to, this constant implication that because of his middle name and foreign parentage, Obama is a Muslim, which many Africans an Indonesians are.  Thus is they can disparage his citizenship, they can firm up their evil intent to portray him as a Muslim and a black one at that.  Pretty stupid stuff, isn'e it?

In the democracy thread that clamp started, I posted a letter from a 4th grade teacher that was, IMO, racist to the core, yet said nothing overt about racism.  This is exactly what I mean about the racist undercurrent.  The letter was emailed to me by an old HS classmate and he and one other took it as a reasonable letter that said it all (what they too believed).  I fired back at them and doubt if I'll ever hear from them again.  I won't put up with racist bullshit - too many dear friends who are people 'of color' that I admire and love - including my dear wife and two of my dear children. 

[Ice]

Certainly, I did not refer to anyone here as 'racist' but only wished to point out that some, at least, of the constant barrage of criticism that Obama is exposed to has a racist base, or is contributed to by racism.  Over the years, even in my long tenure in universities, I have often been appalled at the racism expressed by colleagues.  Like I said, it runs deep.  It crept out a few times during the election campaign, but most treated it like the hot potato it is.  McCain refused to be a part of it, Rush Linbaugh was right in there making racist waves.

There is only one way to lose your U.S. citizenship if you are one naturally born, and that is to renounce it.  Thus, Obama could have been given foreign citizenship at the request of his parent or step parent, and that would not remove his U.S. citizenship.  I have been told by U.S. consulate members that if I want to hold dual citizenship, just don't make an issue of it to U.S. authorities, but even then they simply might not accept the foreign citizenship as valid, but the U.S. one certainly remains valid - so all this rubbish is smoke and mirrors.

My verifiable facts come direct from a horse's mouth, the U.S. Ambassador serving Tonga.

The fact that Obama had an American mother gives him American citizenship regardless of what other citizen ships might have been conferred.  You can google all sorts of opinion and rubbish these days, and you can even pass it on in the guise of truth, but the law is the law.

There is a new generation coming which is far more free in its thoughts than the older ones, but the older ones hold most of the power, and racism plays a part.

I can't imagine anything that his lawyers would want to hide, except maybe they wish to keep some modicum of personal privacy for their client.    

Hi JL.
 
 I still think the documents should have been released. That would have nipped the question in bud. Instead the DNC has had access to them blocked at the cost of millions. Why ? For what purpose ?  McCain had no problem releasing his service records containing far more personal and medical information than a birth certificate or a passport. Why do people keep secrets ? To hide things.

 Decisions made and verdicts rendered on those type of matters are not made under current law but on the applicable law(s) at the time the event occurred.

 The DNC likes to dismiss the question as a race issue. That tactic can be very affective as that subject is indeed a hot potato topic for many.

The citizenship question remains in the minds of many. It is still unanswered.
It will remain so until the documents are released.
To free thinkers and seekers of truth it remains a quest for truth.

Like you LJ I don't put up with racist BS. I don't use mine as a crutch either, although I could.

[geoffbaker]

thanks Ice, I'm glad you did not take it that way.

Here's a thought.

Any debate on this issue is and should be entirely open and free and as you say that is what truth-seeking is.

And the RNC and its allies had about two years, and plenty of money, to do their research.

In January 2009, Obama was sworn in as President.

From that moment on, continuing to try to argue this case, and make an issue of it....

1)  Impugns the office and status of the Presidency of the United States
2) negatively affects the morale of our men and women serving our Commander and Chief, throughout the world, our soldiers, diplomats and covert operatives
3) damages the stature and standing of the United States in the eyes of the world
4) aids and abets our enemies both domestic and abroad
5) emboldens our enemies in our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan

and for these reasons, is of course, treason.


Leastways...

if we were talking about a Republican president... this is what I would be hearing, every day, from people of your political persuasion... of this, I am absolutely and utterly convinced. Funny, isn't it?

[LJRead]

Maybe I don't understand what you are getting at, Ice.  To me it is a non-issue.  If the documents in question were to be released, and if they said that the Indonesian or the African authorities had given Obama citizenship, many would take it that he had lost his American citizenship and was no longer a citizen, which clearly is not true.  So perhaps they didn't want to muddy the waters of what they too saw as a non-issue, but one that could be misconstrued.  

Time to get on with the long pull ahead of us.

And talk about misconstruing.  What about the stupidity over Obama's middle name, Hussein.  What was it that some lady said about Obama during the campaign?  That he was a Muslim, I think she said, and McCain corrected her and followed up by saying Obama is a good man.  It is these radical fringe elements that will allow themselves to be stirred up by a middle name or such that scares me and may scare the DNC.

So you are saying that by releasing these documents, whatever they say, the DNC would be clearing the air.  They probably think they would be allowing an issue out of something that shouldn't be made an issue of. 

It is sort of like the videos of prisoner mistreatment by troops in Iraq that Obama refused to release.  We all know what the videos contained, and many would say that they should be released, but that would give radical people around the world focus that they shouldn't be given.

[Ice]

 Many say that  this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY does
the following ,

"1)  Impugns the office and status of the Presidency of the United States
2) negatively affects the morale of our men and women serving our Commander and Chief, throughout the world, our soldiers, diplomats and covert operatives
3) damages the stature and standing of the United States in the eyes of the world
4) aids and abets our enemies both domestic and abroad
5) emboldens our enemies in our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Use your own judgment.

 The citizenship issue is still unresolved. For the free thinker, It is not a personal attack. Middle names or spirituality have nothing to do with it either.  Is the candidate qualified for the job as defined by the US Constitution ? It still remains a an unanswered question.

If there is nothing to hide then why the secrecy ?
 Where is the openness and accountabillity that a free society demands of its own and is entitled to ?

[geoffbaker]

Nice deflection, Ice! Of course, you both ignore my point while trying to replace it with your own...

As a truthseeker, I think we need to first see the documents from the secret 2000 energy policy meetings where Cheney sold the national energy policy of the US to the highest bidder (and where one of the released documents, interestingly, is a map of Iraqi oilfields ?  ).

We need to find out more about collusion between the Bush campaign and Enron's price gouging of the California market, which spiked energy costs just in time for a campaign based on the fear of a possible energy crisis;

We need to see all the documents from the VP's office regarding the Plame Affair, in which all participants now claim Alzheimers; but in which officials in the VP's office commited treason by leaking the name of a CIA operative for political gain;

We:need to look at the hard drives of the duplicate email system installed at the White House which allowed them to circumvent the first system, which was open to legal scrutiny;

We need to review all the Justice department paperwork over the internal scandal where the Bush Administration illegally fired State Attorneys for "cause" when in fact they were fired for partisan reasons.

We need to investigate the additional scandal where DJ hirings were illegally screened based on pro-Bush sentiments (a policy which the DJ actually admitted was both illegal and criminal but declined to investigate further)

We need to investigate exactly how it was that Abrahamoff was allowed to spend 200 days in the White House, using it as his office, while conducting his 50 million dollar ripoff where he took Southern Evangelical church money and used it to promote Indian casinos, all with the support of the RNC and obviously, the White House...

We need to investigate the process that shut out balanced intelligence agency estimates of war costs and extent, but let the White House develop its own 'studies' instead which suggested that the war would take months, cost only $80 billion, and need only 135,000 or so troops. The resulting lies of course have cost us 5,000 American soldiers lost in a six year war that has cost trillions of dollars.

Well, the list could just go on forever, couldn't it?

Thoughtful, intelligent truthseekers really need these answers. It would really clear the air if they would just release all these ten million documents...

Once we get all this cleared up, let's return to the Obama citizenship issue, shall we?

[enfield_33]

A "free-thinking" or "truthseeking" person should, IMHO, be more objective in their thoughts.  Spoken and written words such as:  "the moron who used to be President" or other snide and sarcastic comments like:  "BO stinks as President" are indicators of less than free-thinking.

Having passion for one's opinions is great as long as flames don't continually burn the threads.  Only spouting your side and not acknowledging another doesn't really solve anything. 

Although it does indicate that we aren't riding motorcycles as much as we should be.

[geoffbaker]

"Where is the openness and accountabillity that a free society demands of its own and is entitled to ?"

Ice, this one stuns me. We've just left behind an Administration which Nixon era appointees (a very secretive Administration) ALL agree is the most secretive administration in the history of the United States... and you are now demanding openness and accountability from one that is far more open and accountable? After a prolonged silence from the right from 2000-2008 on this issue? That's remarkable.

Very strange. Your protestations sir, are both too late and directed at the wrong Administration. And, I suspect, entirely disingenuous.

Once we've gone back and cleared up all the dirty little secrets of the past Administration ... well, then I welcome you to renew your call for openness and accountability - something I very much doubt you demanded during the Bush years...

[Ice]

A "free-thinking" or "truthseeking" person should, IMHO, be more objective in their thoughts.  Spoken and written words such as:  "the moron who used to be President" or other snide and sarcastic comments like:  "BO astinks s President" are indicators of less than free-thinking.

Having passion for one's opinions is great as long as flames don't continually burn the threads.  Only spouting your side and not acknowledging another doesn't really solve anything.  

Although it does indicate that we aren't riding motorcycles as much as we should be.

 I concur.
Those would be examples of expression of feelings.
I agree.
 

[Ice]

"Where is the openness and accountabillity that a free society demands of its own and is entitled to ?"

Ice, this one stuns me. We've just left behind an Administration which Nixon era appointees (a very secretive Administration) ALL agree is the most secretive administration in the history of the United States... and you are now demanding openness and accountability from one that is far more open and accountable? After a prolonged silence from the right from 2000-2008 on this issue? That's remarkable.

Very strange. Your protestations sir, are both too late and directed at the wrong Administration. And, I suspect, entirely disingenuous.

Once we've gone back and cleared up all the dirty little secrets of the past Administration ... well, then I welcome you to renew your call for openness and accountability - something I very much doubt you demanded during the Bush years...

 Geoff, Please do not take this personal. We have never met. You do not know my mind. I believe you are making assumptions.  I have always demanded accountability.

This administration requires considerable watching like all before it. Congress too.

 It may have been Benjamin Franklin who said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

 Yes, getting an accounting of the doings of past administrations is a good idea. Bleating about Bush ,Clinton,Carter,Nixon etc. takes the focus off the present.

 I believe our energies should be primarily focused on fixing the mess we are in now. We are in deep and sinking fast.

Fixing the dire situation that is now is the best use of those energies.
Not apologizing for, or covering up for, any administration past or present.

If any one feels the need to see that position as entirely disingenuous then the point was most likely missed.

 

[ace.cafe]

Well, my take on it is that Obama already announced  a while back that he has no intention of looking into any of the Bush administration "funny-business".
So, that's pretty interesting unto itself.
And it tells me that this is simply "business as usual", and that more abuses will follow under this administration, who will then expect the next Prez to ignore their "funny-business".

I think the common vernacular term would be "institutionalized corruption".
And that is the trend which needs to be broken.
And if it has to be broken under this administration, some will cry and some will rejoice. But, it needs to be stopped, right now.

[geoffbaker]

 Bleating about Bush ,Clinton,Carter,Nixon etc. takes the focus off the present.

 I believe our energies should be primarily focused on fixing the mess we are in now. We are in deep and sinking fast.

Fixing the dire situation that is now is the best use of those energies.
Not apologizing for, or covering up for, any administration past or present.
 

You're absolutely right, Ice, I don't know you and we haven't met. So I have to come to my conclusions based on what you say here and how you say it. Here and now.

I totally agree we need to fix things

I agree that bleating about the past is a waste of time - up to a point. I'm not revisiting the secret bombing of Cambodia or Bush Senior's ties to the Sauds. I'm interested in the things that are still affecting us, including the current war and the current fiscal crises.

My point is that for you to present yourself as an unbiased, nonpartisan voice of reason and truthseeking... well, you need to do it in EVERY adminstration that needs it, not merely the ones that you happen to disagree with politically.

So are you truly truth seeking?

Or is this merely partisan political opportunism, an attempt to "take down" one administration after supporting and backing and remaining silent about the failures of another?

All I can say is your voice, like allmost all those on the right on this forum, has been strangely silent until Jan 20, 2009. Now maybe you were avoiding the political side here for good reasons; or maybe you only joined recently, I don't know. BUT...

It seems to me there's a simple way for one to demonstrate the non-partisan nature of their 'truth-seeking' and it would naturally be clear in their writings... IF...

They would criticize Obama for what he is doing wrong (continuing the deficit spending, for instance) but be careful to point out, each and every time, that Obama, has, after all, been in power a mere six months and that many of these problems were created by others... any true understanding of the nature of the problems facing us leave no question that the Bush legacy is one of absolute incompetence, malfeasance, ignorance and criminal activity (including war crimes)... and to package this into a sentence that begins "Well Bush was bad but Obama is worse"... as you did with your very first posting on this thread that I remember .... really lays out two things... firstly that you are spending as little time as possible actually adressing the ROOT of the problems we face but instead are focused on attacking the current incumbent -  and secondly that somehow, in your mind, you are able to put the Bush record and the Obama record into the scales of justice and come out with Obama as "worse"...

So time for a quick recap:

Bush Administration: 9/11 - 3,000+ US civilians dead and blamed on intelligence failures. Osama bin Laden, eight years later still alive and sending postcards. They took us to war in Iraq under false pretences. 5000 troops killed,Leaked the name of a covert op. Scandals: Justice hirings, justice firings, Abrahamoff, secret Energy policy meets, Enron & energy crisis, all the many lies about length & cost of war; torture and 'flying prisons', Patriot Act attack on our rights; fiscall IRResponsibility, financial crisis, housing crisis bank crisis auto crisis. ... this list could go on for pages and we all know it.

Obama: Not solving all of these within six months...
and ... Are his citizenship papers in order?

This is balance? Hardly.

Laying blame at the correct doors always helps demonstrate the writer's balance, politically.

Sorry, you aren't doing this. So I have to question the nature of your "truth seeking".

And as I said earlier; anyone on the right demanding an open government after eight years of the most secret government in history... well it's enough to choke a horse, that's all.

Maybe you spent each and every day of the Bush Administration writing letters demanding his impeachment and calling for accountability. If you're this excited about Obama's birth certificate, then I can only assume that a truth teller would have just been going WILD during the Bush years of torture, lies and mayhem....

So, tell me about it. Please. Let's open ALL these doors, the ones of recent past scandals that still affect us today... and those that need to be opened, today.

[Ice]

This sums it up better than I can so I will borrow it.
 My apologies to all if I offend by doing so

Well, my take on it is that Obama already announced  a while back that he has no intention of looking into any of the Bush administration "funny-business".
So, that's pretty interesting unto itself.
And it tells me that this is simply "business as usual", and that more abuses will follow under this administration, who will then expect the next Prez to ignore their "funny-business".

I think the common vernacular term would be "institutionalized corruption".
And that is the trend which needs to be broken.
And if it has to be broken under this administration, some will cry and some will rejoice. But, it needs to be stopped, right now.

 I am wary of any and all politicians who fail to uphold their oaths of office or fail to keep their promises.
 
My previous posts do not make me a fan boy of any politician.

 I joined the forum on march second of this year so you will find no posts pointing out the shenanigans of previous administrations.

I would like a full accounting of past administrations. Believe me when I say I will not forget.

 Right now we have big, big problems to solve and no viable plan of action.

 

[geoffbaker]

And out of pure curiosity, exactly how will spenidng millions trying to ferret out anything about Obama's birth certificiate (reminds me of the endless search for ANY dirt on Clinton, over many years and 50 million dollars, which netted nothing while the terrorists were plotting...)...

exactly how will that solve our grave and real present problems?

Perhaps we should stick with issues such as how best to regulate banking, how to get the auto industry back up and profitable, and how to end this bloody war...

Just a thought...

[clamp]

Hillary will be in Phuket Thailand next week, along with other big wigs with lots to say but nothing to do. The government are clamping down and will have Draconian rules to stop any demonstrations like last time.

     People will die on this one.

[Ice]

And out of pure curiosity, exactly how will spenidng millions trying to ferret out anything about Obama's birth certificiate (reminds me of the endless search for ANY dirt on Clinton, over many years and 50 million dollars, which netted nothing while the terrorists were plotting...)...

exactly how will that solve our grave and real present problems?

Perhaps we should stick with issues such as how best to regulate banking, how to get the auto industry back up and profitable, and how to end this bloody war...

Just a thought...

  Not all truth is dirt and not all dirt is true.  I believe the majority of Americans are not so naive as to not be able to discern the difference. The news media is a different breed of animal though.

Fact:
 The documents that answer once and for all  the citizenship question either way remain secret. 
  Why ?
Fact:
 Millions of Americans want to know the answer.


 Banking ; That's a can of worms.
Many have suggested dismantling the Federal Reserve as a start
Others have suggested that we not force the lenders to loan to unqualified buyers.
 
 The auto industry:  We could try applying the same restrictions here on imported vehicles that the producing countries place on ours. I.E. If country "A" places a 200% tariff on US vehicles, we could place a 200% tariff on vehicles imported from country" A" that could be a start.  Just a thought.

[geoffbaker]

The citizenship issue stinks to me of Clintonian-era Republican "governing through allegation"... when ANYTHING will do so long as it has a chance of damaging your opponents, so USE it!

That's hardly nonpartisan, and I'll tell you something else... many MORE millions neither care nor want to see a repetition of that kind of behaviour from the other party. Obama was voted in by people who want to see this mess get fixed... and who don't want to see us waste our time (AGAIN) on minor issues morphed into endless allegations and investigations and muckraking - all with no substance and all justified by "well, if you'd just answer all our questions..." (a never ending process with an infinite amount of questions) ... that's governing through allegation.

Meanwhile, of course, we have real problems that need to be addressed; and if the minority party chooses again to drag this nation into endless, pointless muckraking as they did in '98, while our real problems get worse and our enemies get stronger... well, they will lose ALL credibility... AGAIN.

And who will come forward to head this insanity, again? Good old Newt... the most disgraceful politician in America. A man who demanded we dig out all the dirt on Clinton's sex affairs while having one of his own while his wife was dying; a man who came to power bringing ethics charges against the House Speaker and who stepped down over EXACTLY the same charges... a man who stopped government because he wasn't invited to ride up front in AF1. Selfish, egotistical, arrogant, entirely dishonest and slimy. He's thinking of running for President in 2012... does he think the American people have no memory?

Oh well here we go again!

I certainly have no interest in this story; I think it is neither important nor credible. Now if you bring me a story in which Obama is secretly planning to take us to war on trumped up WMD charges... well I'll be happy to look into it.

Re autos: I'm all for tariffs.

You call for openness and accountability in government. I'm afraid that it isn't going to happen... if there is one lesson the Dems are slowly and painfully learning, it is that open government in this partisan era means simply letting your enemies slowly pick you to death. There are those who don't see terrorists as the enemy; no, the current President is the enemy, and any means used to destroy him must be good... because these kinds of people are summer patriots; entirely patriotic and supportive when their party is in power; and angry secessionists and haters when their party is out.

So I'm afraid the era of open government is over; the standard response will always be, from now on, to declare executive privelege. The Reps have finally taught the Dems that lesson...

But I can assure you, the new administration is far more open than the last one; so that's a good thing.

[LJRead]

This thread has certainly gotten off track.  And now it is getting redundant as well.  What interest me is the way in which society is changing through things like obsolescence of products like cameras, changes in buying practices and employment through the internet, and things like transparency which is bound to change as the word gets out through the internet.  It is the 'What if?'  of life now that interests me.  In addition, it is what can be done to bring more rationality and simplicity to our daily lives in the midst of the chaos that is foisted upon us.

I do like the way that Royal Enfield seems to be keeping its collective chin up through all this - a really bright spot in this gloomy world, isn't it?  Refreshing really.

[Cabo Cruz]

"I do like the way that Royal Enfield seems to be keeping its collective chin up through all this - a really bright spot in this gloomy world, isn't it?  Refreshing really."  LJRead

Br. Larry, I like it; I like it a lot...

[rideOn]

I've always disagreed with the B.S. belief to avoid discussions on politics and religion. Two topics that can positively affect. I think I've voted straight party maybe once in 30 years of voting. I try to be objective, but we all get caught up in values or whatever. The day that Reagan was first innaugerated, the Iran hostages were freed. His admin. later gave Sadam lots of dough to help in keeping tabs on Iran. Sadam didn't. I 'm wondering if the latest Irag war was a US attempt to boot him and set up these bases to lkeep tabs on Iran and get what we paid for years ago. Iran sure is becoming a hotspot with nukes. I don't believe the US will leave Iraq completely. From the American Indian wars to the European and pacific wars, the US military has never left completely.

The UN's world view is similar the the US in regards to rights and freedoms for everyone. My little town has quite a bit of gang activity. The police have insiders and posts around about to closely monitor gang activity. Gang initiation ranges from raping girls in the Wal=Mart parking lot, to break-ins to shootings. Most often, these activities are broken up. Sometimes cops get hurt. If the police didn't get involved, it would be difficult to predict how far the gang activity would escalate. Sometimes, the darkness has to be kept in check.

Maybe Iraq was intelligence failure or maybe they just told us crap to gets troops in there. We are often the government's mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed crap!

Bush Administration: 9/11 - 3,000+ US civilians dead and blamed on intelligence failures.

[LJRead]

Freedom seems to be going out the window these day - freedom to choose, and along with that, freedom to learn and know the truth.  Democracy of any form will only work with a knowing voter base.  There has definitely been a conspiracy to keep us from knowing the truth of what is going on, and to gradually undermine our freedom of choice.  How can we choose if we are spoon fed pap?  These green shoots in the economy, the stupid scare over 'swine' flu.  Misinformation produced by various companies wanting to sell unsafe products such as pharmaceuticals,  Lies put out by banks and Wall street so that they could cash in.  Manipulation of the marketplace so both short selling and long selling money men can profit by conspiracy.  Regulations put in so that certain segments of the population can profit.  It is getting out of hand!

[RAKe]

I hate to rain on the political diatribes, but the original purpose of this thread--the evolution of technology, including transportation, is definitely an interesting conversation.  The evolution of gasoline-powered vehicles into both diesel- and electric-powered vehicles is all well and good, but an important advance in the future of transportation has yet to be mentioned (even missed by ace.cafe!).

There is a pending revolution in the concept of propulsion underway that will render the reigning oil barons obsolete (ASAP!!).  The laser-guided weapons technology of Gulf War I and since has further developed into laser propulsion.  At the White Sands Missile Base in New Mexico, one particular genius has long since developed an atmospheric and aerospace flight concept that allows a vehicle to travel using neither a powerplant nor propellant.  How about laser-guided and laser-powered travel from a fixed base of supply?

NASA has been working on it for well over a decade, and I have heard that some important news is forthcoming regarding “lightcraft” (lasercraft) technology, and I can only hope it will advance as rapidly as computers did upon their ntroduction.  Lightcraft, as currently designed, will adopt a flying saucer configuration (H.G. Wells was a 19th/20th-century Nostradamus, wasn’t he?) that will consist of a fixed saucer within a spinning saucer (to maintain balance) that will travel in any direction perfectly-centered along a “square-shaped” laser beam.

The most important factor in the whole concept is that this pending mode of travel will utilize proven technology, which will expedite its continued development.  But the notable problem thus far is that the current research models travel on a 10,000-watt laser beam, and to power a craft large enough for human travel, 100-kilowatts will be required—ten times the power!  But advances are being made frequently, so it is only a matter of time.  Hopefully, our existing technology will not become obsolete too soon.  I still have an internal-combustion hovercraft to finish!!

[geoffbaker]

I don't see laser powered propulsion as a possibility except in deep space. Heating of the atmosphere, atmospheric interference... millions of blinded people... all of these argue against using lasers to propel anything

I think two much more realistic scenarios are

1) magnetic levitation/propulsion systems. These are already tried and true and run many trains around the world; but the extreme example exists in the military's "rail gun" application, where a magnetic device is used to run a projectile up to speeds of tens of thousands of miles and hour. This could realistically be used to create a large scale maglev orbital system which could throw very large objects into space without the need for rockets or internal propulsion systems of any kind.

2) the space elevator. Originally envisioned by Arthur C Clarke, the idea was a structure several hundred miles in height capable of lifting objects into orbit. The problem was that the materials needed to build such a platform needed to be hundreds of times stronger than anything we'd ever imagined....

until, that is...

they discovered in the 90's something called carbon nanotubes (also known as fullerite and buckyballs in different incarnations) which have over two hundred times the atomic strength of steel. By atomic strength I am referring to the POSSIBLE strength of absolutely pure steel on an atomic level; which is many, many times stronger than any steel we know how to make today. Carbon nanotube technology could be used to build buildings on such a scale, and is probably the most exciting development in nanotechnology to date!

[RAKe]

I would argue that lightcraft (lasercraft) technology will, in our lifetimes, become widely accepted, if not commonplace, and nanotechnology is indeed a significant component of those advances.  The levitation/propulsion system(s) mentioned have a niche for urban and mass travel, but require a substantial infrastructure, limiting their utilization for individual transportation. 

The space elevator was an interesting concept for vehicles seeking to “escape” the atmosphere and travel in space.  In fact, it was President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that initially utilized laser technology in conjunction with an on-board hydrogen propellant in order to launch a craft into a “low-earth” orbit (I suppose just outside the stratosphere).  The vehicle proposed by SDI was essentially beam-powered propulsion centered on a parabolic reflector fitted to the bottom of the craft, which was designed to propel the craft through the atmosphere into the aforementioned orbit.  The primary problem with SDI as developed was the question of beam quality with distance.  I do not know the extent of SDI’s feasibility, but it sure did terrify the Soviet Union, and aided in bringing the Cold War to an end.

The modern research of Leik Myrabo of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute is much more advanced, and a number of propulsion systems are being researched for future atmospheric travel.  How about an on-board laser propulsion system as part of a larger nuclear power production system?  Such a propulsion system could be developed and downsized for individual transportation.  If the waste disposal dangers of such a system can be effectively addressed, nuclear travel could one day become much as gasoline is today.

A system using magnetohydrodynamics will convert laser energy to electricity, and will build upon the rapidly evolving electric vehicle technology while allowing for individual vehicle travel.  A system being researched by Seoul National University is developing laser propulsion using atmospheric air as a propellant.  Sounds promising, but the research is in its infancy.
 
All of these systems are combining with other advancing technologies (such as the individual vehicle levitation provided by hovercraft) to charge into the future of transportation.  As fiercely individual as we motorcyclists are, I expect that our primary desire (freedom in the wind) will in some manner be incorporated into these advances.

[geoffbaker]

I really believe sometime soon we will all drive pollution-free vehicles for our regular commutes and travel...

We'll just keep our loud, smelly RE's just for the fun of it...

[LJRead]

Interesting comments by Rake and Goeff about laser and magnetic propulsion ideas, but the problem I see is in the shear size of anything needing to be done.  During the Great Depression, it was Hoover Dam and a huge undertaking that was, and one that couldn't have been achieved without government.  Ideas on mass and individual transport are the same way if anything radical is to be achieved and that means several things.  Number one would be a system so well worked out that it could be instituted without a lot of changes going forward, and even allowing for some change in the initial design.

I tend to prefer working alone, which means I know I'm limited in what I can achieve (though I sometimes surprise myself with just how much one person can achieve), but at the same time I admire those with management skills and those who like to work in teams. 

Initially it will be experimental pilot schemes on a small scale, but finally it will take commitment on a rather large scale.  Already states are lining up behind very fast trains for travel, and for this the technology is well advanced and in use in Japan and other places, but the more advanced ideas are going to take time and work to develop.

[rideOn]

We'll just keep our loud, smelly RE's just for the fun of it...

Reminds me of the old Rush song Red Barchetta. A guy's grandfather kept alive an old car after the 'motor law' and sneaks a ride. A sci-fi narrative be not be so 'fiction' after all.

[geoffbaker]

Interesting comments by Rake and Goeff about laser and magnetic propulsion ideas, but the problem I see is in the shear size of anything needing to be done.  During the Great Depression, it was Hoover Dam and a huge undertaking that was, and one that couldn't have been achieved without government.  Ideas on mass and individual transport are the same way if anything radical is to be achieved and that means several things.  Number one would be a system so well worked out that it could be instituted without a lot of changes going forward, and even allowing for some change in the initial design.

I tend to prefer working alone, which means I know I'm limited in what I can achieve (though I sometimes surprise myself with just how much one person can achieve), but at the same time I admire those with management skills and those who like to work in teams. 

Initially it will be experimental pilot schemes on a small scale, but finally it will take commitment on a rather large scale.  Already states are lining up behind very fast trains for travel, and for this the technology is well advanced and in use in Japan and other places, but the more advanced ideas are going to take time and work to develop.

I read an article last week in Scientific American which suggested that by using biofuels we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 50%, without using any additional cropland or competing for food production (using biodiesel, and biofuels made from any cellulosic biomass - including yard waste, construction waste, agricultural waste..) and that it could be done for less than $1 trillion - or well under half what we've spent on Iraq...

Seems to me that's doable ...

[RAKe]

LJ, how’s it going out there in paradise?  Regarding the government funding of projects, it is true that the deep pockets and the prior research of government are often required for a project the size of laser-guided and/or laser-powered travel.  But to complement any huge government investment into any idea, it is the numerous citizen scientists and inventors who contribute in small ways that facilitate the introduction of a product.

For instance, because of my aerospace background, I am deeply interested in hovercraft, which applies aviation technology to ground-based transportation.  I am sure you realize that hovercraft, or Ground Effect Machines (GEMs) have advanced considerably since their inception some fifty years ago.  There are now military, commercial, and individual uses for hovercraft (I am waiting for some manna from heaven so I can afford to build my first), and I foresee that the platform-based design of these vehicles with a lift system underneath the craft will adapt itself well to advances in platform-based propulsion systems of the future (such as laser-powered lift and propulsion systems).

There are any number of manufacturers designing and producing some really advanced GEMs. SevTec and Universal are among them—have you ever checked out the Hoverwing on the Universal site?  It employs stubby wings to enhance hovercraft abilities and performance.  I would suggest that laser propulsion technology will adapt itself well to GEMs, and I expect that as laser propulsion systems are advanced, such vehicles will be retrofit with the latest in propulsion systems.

LJ, although I now operate on a scale much like yours (minus the wealth of experience), I intend to begin with my existing set of plans from Universal Hovercraft, and as I gain experience with such construction, I will adapt my hovercraft using aluminum alloys and my unique ideas.  I will also stay abreast of the advances in propulsion systems and see if it might be possible to make such an upgrade in the future.  Who knows, either of us might become the next Preston Tucker—developing improved systems so valuable that the larger companies come to us for our design?  For what it is worth, an individual named Bourke has for decades now been trying to promote an advanced internal combustion powerplant.  I have ordered his plans, evaluated his idea, and it seems feasible to me.  His powerplant could be the link between what we now have and laser propulsion!  Nobody knows, but along with corporations, it is the thousands of inventors in their garages that hold the key to the future.  So continue with that rickshaw—who knows, GM executives might be visiting Tonga.

[ace.cafe]

I have a rather different take on the situation.

I think that much of the "solution" may come from the communications industry.
Since the advent of the computer, many things have changed.
In many cases, people no longer need to commute to workplaces, and I think that will increase as time goes on and comm tech improves even more.
Also, much of industry has moved to other countries, so factories are not playing as large a role as before.

The concentration of large populations in the cities is losing it's raison d'etre. There is now not much reason to be piled on top of each other in cities, nor have the need for mass transit to "go there".
Cities have basically outlived their usefulness, and are on the way out as relics of times gone by.
As a result of this, I don't see the importance of large mass-transportation infrastructure which is primarily intended to serve commuters into mass-population hubs.
I think we'll see this drop off as more and more people "telecommute" by working at home on their computers. Or be involved in computer-based commerce.
Certainly there will be a good market for efficient delivery vehicles as more and more commerce and shopping are done via the internet.

Yes,there will still be some need for commuting in some cases, but I think it will drop off quite a bit in the years to come, and that will help to alleviate the fuel situation.
Probably, individual discretionary transportation needs will become a bigger segment of the transportation industry.

Perhaps even something like the "teleporter" from Star Trek might even be possible at some point, and eliminate transportation needs for anything except pleasure driving.

[rideOn]

Perhaps even something like the "teleporter" from Star Trek might even be possible at some point, and eliminate transportation needs for anything except pleasure driving.

Arthur Clarke, the Space Odyssey author, was a mathematician and physicist who never believed that Star Trek's transporters would materialize, no pun intended!  He believed transporters would have to remain mechanical.

I do agree that telecommuting is changing transportation habits. I also agree with the exodus from the cities. As a former manager with Tactor Supply, I saw the numbers and watched the company grow to a top 10 retailer capitalizing on the movement of people to rural areas with the ideals of self-sufficiency.

[geoffbaker]

Space elevators are simple technology in need of a strong enough material... which we now have.

Teleportation, sadly, violates lots of physical laws we know. (You can't move matter at the speed of light without creating a singularity the size of the universe, you can't transport vast distances instantaneously without building up a staggering amount of inertial energy)... I'm like Bones, you aren't EVER going to MIX up my molecules and throw them across space..