Real way to fix the gas prices

[cch5432]

BTW maybe HHSDad's kool-aid thread did something, because in a thread on OIL PRICES we have people agreeing with each other.

[True blue (and gold)]

We have plentiful substitutes for most oil-based products. There is no reason that the container industry cannot go back to using more glass, steel, and aluminum. There are no currently viable alternative sources of energy suitable for widespread use, except nuclear and other fossil fuels such as coal.

 

I favor avoiding the nuclear option as long as possible. I am in favor of continuing to develop nuclear technology in case we run out of other alternatives.

 

I may have missed this from some other thread, but why do you want to avoid nuclear energy?

[AcesFull]

I may have missed this from some other thread, but why do you want to avoid nuclear energy?

Mostly because of the issues of transporting and disposing the waste products of the process and the large potential loss of life in the event of a major accident or terrorist attack. I would rather conserve our uranium supply and use coal for power generation.

 

If we fail to develop a good alternative to nuclear fission energy before coal supplies begin to dwindle, then the nuclear option would still be available.

 

I have an open mind on the nuclear issue but I am not convinced that the risks outweigh the benefits - at least not yet. Hopefully, fusion or an even more advanced technology will be developed within the next few decades.

[miragesmack]

I've givin up hopes of cheaper prices. If we use less, China gladly scoops in and takes the fuel we don't use, and prices stay high. The oil companies (and the politicians who support them)don't care, they just want money. They don't care that 5 airlines have go down this year alone. They don't care that all the auto plants are struggling. They simply don't care. Not even if people die, they simply don't care.

 

Gas prices go up on a whim. When oil went down a few bucks a few days before the derby, I saw several stations go up to $3.89. Then, when that appeared too high, they went down to $3.75. That morning, they were all around $3.48 ish. If that's what happens when oil drops several dollars a barrel, what will happen when it goes up?

 

It's always been this way too folks. If you go back in history, three companies targeted electric mass transit in favor of getting more buses on the roads. They created an actual list they called a "hit list", which listed all the major cities they wanted to eliminate electric trains and trollies. They lowballed, bought politicans and used every trick to stop cheaper transportation, simply to make more money. Those companies were GM (who sold the buses), Standard Oil (fuel) and Firestone, who provided the tires. Nothing has changed, and it's been 50+ years since that happened. As someone who loves old cars, boating, stuff like that, it is a very depressing future for my hobbies.

 

Can you imagine if all products could do what they do? If there is a Tornado, hurricane or earthquake ANYWHERE in the world, lumber companies would quadruple the price of lumber the next day. Or ATT would triple their phone rates the week before Thanksgiving or Xmas, then drop them back down afterwards. Or the water companies (where I work) would triple water prices in a drought, then lower them to normal rates in wet conditions. Or sell bottled water for %5 to Katrina victims, and deny them water if they have no money. If it is so hard to imagine those scenarios, why do we put up with it with oil?

[PepRock01]

Mostly because of the issues of transporting and disposing the waste products of the process and the large potential loss of life in the event of a major accident or terrorist attack. I would rather conserve our uranium supply and use coal for power generation.

 

If we fail to develop a good alternative to nuclear fission energy before coal supplies begin to dwindle, then the nuclear option would still be available.

 

I have an open mind on the nuclear issue but I am not convinced that the risks outweigh the benefits - at least not yet. Hopefully, fusion or an even more advanced technology will be developed within the next few decades.

 

 

I don't have a link, I might if I dedicate myself to finding it, but there were some scientists that had developed a different form of fission reactor that did not use uranium in rod, rather it used pellets of uranium that are covered in carbon, once the uranium is used up, they seal themselves and can be quickly and safely disposed of.

 

I think nuclear power IS a good idea myself.

 

 

Late edit:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

I know wikipedia isn't the best source, but the references for the article are clearly stated at the bottom of the page.

[MoreheadEagle]

Mostly because of the issues of transporting and disposing the waste products of the process and the large potential loss of life in the event of a major accident or terrorist attack. I would rather conserve our uranium supply and use coal for power generation.

 

If we fail to develop a good alternative to nuclear fission energy before coal supplies begin to dwindle, then the nuclear option would still be available.

 

I have an open mind on the nuclear issue but I am not convinced that the risks outweigh the benefits - at least not yet. Hopefully, fusion or an even more advanced technology will be developed within the next few decades.

 

I think I agree with you on this particular issue. If we can find a way to store the nuclear waste safely then great but as of right now we don't. I also think clean coal is going to be something that can only help our energy independence and will help KY.

[cch5432]

On nuclear, I had a professor last semester who was a big time an environmentalist, as much as they come. He was incredibly against nuclear because although there are no negative environmental factors now, apparently they have not developed containers that last long enough to hold the nuclear waste products. So if we tried, eventually the containers would detererioate and the nuclear waste would contaminate our water, or air, or whatever it does (depending on where we store it)

[AcesFull]

I don't have a link, I might if I dedicate myself to finding it, but there were some scientists that had developed a different form of fission reactor that did not use uranium in rod, rather it used pellets of uranium that are covered in carbon, once the uranium is used up, they seal themselves and can be quickly and safely disposed of.

 

I think nuclear power IS a good idea myself.

 

 

Late edit:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

I know wikipedia isn't the best source, but the references for the article are clearly stated at the bottom of the page.

Thanks for the link, PepRock. That is an interesting article. I will do some more reading later but it sounds like the pebble bed reactor addresses a lot of safety concerns.

 

I am not too concerned about the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. The risk of accidents or terrorist attacks on shipments of nuclear waste to disposal facilities is a greater concern to me. It sounds like the pebble bed reactors increase the volume of waste but make handling it simpler and safer - so presumably a less attractive terrorist target.

[PepRock01]

Thanks for the link, PepRock. That is an interesting article. I will do some more reading later but it sounds like the pebble bed reactor addresses a lot of safety concerns.

 

I am not too concerned about the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. The risk of accidents or terrorist attacks on shipments of nuclear waste to disposal facilities is a greater concern to me. It sounds like the pebble bed reactors increase the volume of waste but make handling it simpler and safer - so presumably a less attractive terrorist target.

 

 

Pebble bed reactors may not end up being the answer, but I think that they are a step in the right direction and with proper funding and research I personally think they could go a long way to helping the U.S. in our ravenous appetite for power. They aren't perfect and need some more work, but from what I have read I think they might be a step in the right direction until proper fusion reactors can be developed.

[bballfamily]

Yes, but we do tax the profits that companies make off of exports. So if this is built into the cost of the export, we do indirectly tax exports.

 

Then it is a tax on profits, not an export tax. With twisted logic like that, it is no wonder no one pays attention to the Constitution or that when they do they just make up interpretations to fit their needs and have us in the mess we are in these days.