F... gas prices

It could be just that simple. Read this (http://www.newsweek.com/id/140066) very interesting Newsweek article. I don't believe the process will be quick, cheap or easy, but with trillions of dollars to be made, the incentive and investment dollars are there.

Also, I'm not sure what role the government should play in this mess. Remember, our government is the one that tried to kill Castro with exploding cigars, couldn't deliver drinking water to Katrina victims, and pays $500 for toilet seats. What makes people optimistic that they can solve a problem that greedy multi-billion dollar companies can't?
Now? Not much. This is a problem for the market to solve and the American people to bear in the interim (via high gas prices). I was speaking historically and from the perspective of, does it make sense to turn over more land (or off-shore rights) to the oil companies when they've shown so little interest, historically, in coming up with alternatives. I understand the economic argument for handing over the drilling rights, but I think it's short-sighted, because the current course is not sustainable and there has to be some incentive to change it.

Interesting article. There was also a National Geographic article (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text) a while back that discussed some of the hurdles to biofuels.

but saden, its NOT about the oil. and sheriff, im not blaming the oil crisis on the gov't. but these guys are supposed to be the genius's they claim to be, they should have been looking at alternatives as far back as the 70's. its funny how all of a sudden its a big issue, to everyone.


I have been told that production from Iraq will increase and gas prices will decrease because of the supply and demand nature of the oil business. Are you tell me I'll be paying just as much at the pump? *gasp* It can't be..

Now? Not much. This is a problem for the market to solve and the American people to bear in the interim (via high gas prices). I was speaking historically and from the perspective of, does it make sense to turn over more land (or off-shore rights) to the oil companies when they've shown so little interest, historically, in coming up with alternatives. I understand the economic argument for handing over the drilling rights, but I think it's short-sighted, because the current course is not sustainable and there has to be some incentive to change it.

Interesting article. There was also a National Geographic article (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text) a while back that discussed some of the hurdles to biofuels.
How do you sell alternative fuels when they are more expensive than gas? The answer is simple. You can't. Now that gas has gone up so much it startes to bring alternatives into play and I think we will see allot of new ideas hitting the market. There just has not been a market for alternatives. I also think we would be surprised how much has allraedy been spen on alternatives.

Being that the technology for an electric car existed in the 80's, I really can't see a scenario where some sort of alternative plan isn't already in place in some way or form.

Now, I realize that gas prices are going to have to carry out their course before it makes sense for energy companies to provide different methods of turning a profit, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a gradual evolution of the main sources of energy over the next ten years.

One big problem that I don't think enough people are talking about is whether our current power grids can support the massive transition from fossil fuels and natural gas to electric everything. Obviously, no matter what the source of energy is (nuclear, hydrogen, solar, wind, etc), it has to be converted into electricity to be useful to us. That, I think, is going to be the biggest challenge of moving away from oil and natural gas.

And I do think drilling in ANWR will help soften the transition a lot. I am not sure if its worth it though, maybe we do need a nice swift kick in the fact to wake us, as a people, up.

When health care, drug policy, and many other topics are debated, you often hear people say "We're the only developed country that..." or "In Europe, they...". Well, we're the only country in the world that has decided to put it's own natural resources off limits. If we don't get the oil out of ANWR, the Russians will figure out a way to slant-drill it a-la Mr. Burns. This should be the easiest decision in the history of our government.

How do you sell alternative fuels when they are more expensive than gas? The answer is simple. You can't. Now that gas has gone up so much it startes to bring alternatives into play and I think we will see allot of new ideas hitting the market. There just has not been a market for alternatives. I also think we would be surprised how much has allraedy been spen on alternatives.
That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

You previously noted that the cost of developing and bringing cheap alternative fuel sources to market is exorbitant. If that's true, the government would presumably have to have shelled out hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in subsidies or tax breaks to fast-track the process. Right?

People are inherently short-sighted. Congressmen and women look to the problems facing the country now and that will emerger prior to the next election cycle. CEOs of public companies look to the next quarter's profits so they don't get their asses handed to them by their shareholders and boards. Your average Joes don't buy solar panels, even though it will save them money over the long haul and otherwise generally act in their short-term best interests. Our government acts the same way. It sucks, but that's the way I see it.

That's where I believe the government should have played a role in providing incentives to develop cost-effective alternatives over the last 35 years.

Woulda coulda shoulda. I'm not sure how that helps us now?

As bad as it is here right now, I was listening to BBC radio the other day and they were talking about 5 GBP/liter. Converting GBP to $ and liter to gallon, that gives an equivalent price point of $37.28 per gallon. That is insane.

Woulda coulda shoulda. I'm not sure how that helps us now?
About as much as your post contributed to this thread.