Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

With Iran having a headlock on the entire world, and the rising prices of gas, why aren't we phasing out gasoline powered vehicles? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate a pace for everyone? At this rate, I could literally see the price of gas rise to $10.00 per gallon. Why not, California pays an average of $5.00 per gallon.

Originally posted by Stoic
With Iran having a headlock on the entire world, and the rising prices of gas, why aren't we phasing out gasoline powered vehicles? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate a pace for everyone? At this rate, I could literally see the price of gas rise to $10.00 per gallon. Why not, California pays an average of $5.00 per gallon.
Well...there are a couple things wrong here.

First off Iran isn't setting the pace, they're as much under the sway of oil prices as we are, just they have slightly more control as they're one of the large (but not the largest) suppliers. Saudi Arabia can and will offset anything Iran does at least in the short term. And in either case we get most of our oil from Canada.

Second off electric powered cars require fossil fuels or nuclear power.

Because that wouldn't be the very profitable for the multi b(tr?)illion dollar oil industry.

More to the point we'd probably just burn coal to make the electricity. So while it would be a more local energy source it would be worse for the environment and thus wouldn't get far with the Green Lobby as powerful as it is.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

Second off electric powered cars require fossil fuels or nuclear power.

This.

I like the idea of fuel cell tech. But like all initial technology, it'll be much more expensive to implement than using current fossil fuel tech.

If one's interested in investing in future technology, they could always buy themselves a hydrogen powered car, but those things are expensive. (And good luck finding a hydrogen station!).

Originally posted by cdtm
This.

I like the idea of fuel cell tech. But like all initial technology, it'll be much more expensive to implement than using current fossil fuel tech.

If one's interested in investing in future technology, they could always buy themselves a hydrogen powered car, but those things are expensive. (And good luck finding a hydrogen station!).
And at the moment hydrogen runs into the same problem. The only way we can currently make it in sufficient quantities is by...you guessed it, burning fossil fuels.

Of course if we managed to set up mining facilities on the moon we could get some of that sweet sweet Helium-3.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Second off electric powered cars require fossil fuels or nuclear power.

No, they can use electricity from any source.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, they can use electricity from any source.
I wasn't clear, I realize you can get it from any source (hell you could theoretically charge up using potatoes and gatorade). It's a question of potential. How many reliable sources are there at the moment that could reach all parts of the country?

Wind or Hydro? Nope.

Nuclear, maybe.

Solar? Admittedly I'm not up to date on the advancements but I'm willing to to bet it hasn't reached the point where we could power all or most of the nations cars with it.

Coal seems the most likely suspect. Or natural gas. Or oil.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Wasn't arguing that. But how many reliable sources are there at the moment that could reach all parts of the country?

Wind or Hydro? Nope.

Nuclear, maybe.

Solar? Admittedly I'm not up to date on the advancements but I'm willing to to bet it hasn't reached the point where we could power all or most of the nations cars with it.

Coal seems the most likely suspect. Or natural gas. Or oil.

Most people who seriously advocate electric cars also want to diversify our energy portfolio. At the moment, in the US, the majority of energy for everything is going to come from coal. That's not a permanent state of affairs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most people who seriously advocate electric cars also want to diversify our energy portfolio. At the moment, in the US, the majority of energy for everything is going to come from coal. That's not a permanent state of affairs.
Granted. But Stoic's tone is similar to that of many people I've heard who seem to think that political intransigence/"the big bad oil companies" are the only thing keeping us from saying **** off to the Middle East and ending Green House emissions by getting clean electric cars that don't require any fossil fuels.

I could be mischaracterizing him though.

How long do you see it taking before we could get a system of electric cars (i.e. more than 50% of all cars in the nation) that don't derive their power from some form of fossil fuels?

Or if the answer is not in the foreseeable future, maybe lower the bar and just say less than half of the power from fossil fuels.

Well, they managed to make a hydrogen maker (a hydrolysis machine) that is the size of a common box (something you could carry in your arms) and runs off of solar power, and costs less than $1000 per unit. An Australian company did this. You just have to pay for the water bill AND buy all the containers (connectors, hose, etc) needed to store the hydrogen and oxygen. You'll have to replace the filters every so often just like a water filter.


The storage containers cost between $500-$3000 dollars.



I would assume a scaled up version to power the home and car would need to be 4-5 times as large as would the storage containers. But that's another discussion.

more research needs to be focused on magnetism and anti gravity.

If this is all true, it's pretty eye-opening...

zIKiGsaEkqc

Agree with above

Originally posted by Stoic
With Iran having a headlock on the entire world, and the rising prices of gas, why aren't we phasing out gasoline powered vehicles? Why are we allowing Iran to dictate a pace for everyone? At this rate, I could literally see the price of gas rise to $10.00 per gallon. Why not, California pays an average of $5.00 per gallon.

It is easy said then done.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is easy said then done.

Most things worthwhile are easier said then done.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well...there are a couple things wrong here.

First off Iran isn't setting the pace, they're as much under the sway of oil prices as we are, just they have slightly more control as they're one of the large (but not the largest) suppliers. Saudi Arabia can and will offset anything Iran does at least in the short term. And in either case we get most of our oil from Canada.

Second off electric powered cars require fossil fuels or nuclear power.


Thanks for bringing me up to speed. I was only going by what the media feeds the general public. From what I've heard on the local news, Canada is a major importer but we do not yet have a direct line to their oil reserves, and that it will take time to build, as well as the supposed fact that we have not yet cemented any deals with the Saudi's. The only thing that was stated was that Iran has decided to stop selling oil to several European countries. This is the headlock that I was writing on.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It is easy said then done.


Up til now, we have been what seems to be reactive, and not proactive in our approach to solve this dilemma. I never said that it would happen over night, but there are electric cars in existence. Omega may be correct that this may be worse for our Eco-system as burning coal is dirtier than burning oil, but is it certain that this would be the only way? Could it indeed be the oil conglomerates that also hand a hold over this planet? We have reached peak oil over here in the US, and it has been estimated that within the next 15-20 years, that this will also be the case in the middle east. Will we as a people allow ourselves to walk silently into the dark as reactive people, or will we ever begin to be proactive?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because that wouldn't be the very profitable for the multi b(tr?)illion dollar oil industry. This.

Originally posted by Stoic
Canada is a major importer but we do not yet have a direct line to their oil reserves, and that it will take time to build

wut?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/11/30/tp-border-quebec-us-7425691.jpg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wasn't clear, I realize you can get it from any source (hell you could theoretically charge up using potatoes and gatorade). It's a question of potential. How many reliable sources are there at the moment that could reach all parts of the country?

Wind or Hydro? Nope.

Nuclear, maybe.

Solar? Admittedly I'm not up to date on the advancements but I'm willing to to bet it hasn't reached the point where we could power all or most of the nations cars with it.

Coal seems the most likely suspect. Or natural gas. Or oil. we have recently invented 100% efficient solar panels. Where as normal solar panels are like 20% efficient iirc

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
we have recently invented 100% efficient solar panels. Where as normal solar panels are like 20% efficient iirc

No, we have not. There can never be a 100% efficient solar panel.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
If this is all true, it's pretty eye-opening...

zIKiGsaEkqc This

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, we have not. There can never be a 100% efficient solar panel. Just No.

Infact i was wrong we have invented solar panels Over 100% efficient

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/19/scientists-create-first-solar-cell-with-over-100-percent-quantum/

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Just No.

Infact i was wrong we have invented solar panels Over 100% efficient

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/19/scientists-create-first-solar-cell-with-over-100-percent-quantum/

You have been had.

http://junkscience.com/2011/12/20/solar-energy-finally-100-percent-efficient/

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have been had.

http://junkscience.com/2011/12/20/solar-energy-finally-100-percent-efficient/ Phuck

Originally posted by inimalist
wut?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2010/11/30/tp-border-quebec-us-7425691.jpg


On the news last night, it stated there there has yet to be built a pipeline from Canada to the US. Is this false information?

Originally posted by Stoic
On the news last night, it stated there there has yet to be built a pipeline from Canada to the US. Is this false information?

The president will not allow it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The president will not allow it.


Really? Where does this information come from?

Originally posted by Stoic
On the news last night, it stated there there has yet to be built a pipeline from Canada to the US. Is this false information?

no, you are right, no way for Canadian oil to get into America

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png

Originally posted by Stoic
Really? Where does this information come from?

I watch the news. Try goggling it.

There already is a pipeline from Canada to the U.S. The Keystone Pipeline exists, it was the extension that was postponed.

(Reuters) - Facing intensifying election-year attacks over rising gasoline prices, President Barack Obama sought to shift the spotlight onto oil and gas companies on Thursday by pushing for the repeal of U.S. tax breaks that benefit the industry.

Obama's speech in New Hampshire, in the backyard of leading Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, was part of a White House strategy to blunt a bid by Republicans to blame a spike in energy prices on the president's energy policies.

With the issue posing a potential threat to Obama's re-election prospects in November, his administration has been at pains to say it is doing everything it can to bring down costs, even as it stresses that market-driven price rises are largely beyond its control.

"I've directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers, from helping to relieve bottlenecks ... to what's going on in the oil markets," Obama said. "And we will keep announcing as many steps as we can in the coming weeks."

Global oil prices have been rising sharply because of stronger demand from the United States, India and China and worries about supply disruptions from Iran. There are rising tensions between the major OPEC producer and western nations over the aims of its nuclear program.

That has caused pain at the pump for Americans, who have now endured more than a month of gasoline price rises, and sparked fears that prices could rise even further, from an average cost of $3.74 a gallon now to up to $5 this summer.

"Anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn't know what they're talking about, or isn't telling you the truth," Obama said, hitting back at criticism from the campaign trail and from Republicans in Congress.

ROMNEY SAYS OBAMA TO BLAME

But Republicans say the president has hobbled domestic oil exploration and dismiss his administration's observation that U.S. oil output is at a record high, arguing this was thanks to the action of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Romney, speaking in Fargo, North Dakota, accused Obama of trying to "blow one past folks" with his argument about increased domestic production, and said the administration does not deserve credit for that.

"Far from taking credit, he should be hanging his head and taking a little bit of the blame for what's going on today," Romney said.

In a recent national poll, Americans spread the blame for rising gas prices broadly, citing a host of factors including the Obama administration, Congress, politics in general, and unrest in the Middle East.

The poll by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post found 18 percent of those surveyed said Obama was to blame, while 14 percent blamed oil companies or domestic producers. Twenty-four percent said they did not know.

The survey was conducted over the phone from February 23-26 among 1,005 adults.

Speaking at a community college in Nashua, Obama pushed again for Congress to repeal $4 billion in subsidies to the oil industry, calling it a "giveaway" that should be redirected to bolster alternative energy sources, including wind, solar and batter power.

Obama has targeted the oil and gas industry in populist speeches in which he portrays himself as the defender of Americans against huge energy corporations "making record profits off us right now."

He dismissed the "phony promises" of his opponents to lower gas prices, and highlighted his administration's investments in clean energy technologies to help reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

But Obama remains vulnerable to criticism from Republicans for having rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which was to transport Canadian oil through environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska on the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

On Monday, the White House said it welcomed a fresh proposal by TransCanada to build a southern leg of the pipeline and refile an application for the northern part of the route, including the U.S.-Canada border crossing.

A number of leading Democrats in Congress have pushed the Obama administration to tap reserve oil supplies, known as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), to help bring down gas prices, a move that Republican lawmakers oppose.

The White House has so far avoided commenting on the issue. On Thursday, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, told reporters it did not appear to him "that the president believes using SPR would have any meaningful effect on gas prices."

Why don't we do x y z:
In short: indirect costs:
Let's use bio ethanol to offset the price of gas!
To make it we use corn
Now we have gas from corn but it took a year or two to convert all the corn over.
In the mean time now there isn't sufficient corn to use as feed for animals
And the costs to feed cows and chickens etc goes up
Which raises prices at the grocery store...

Trickle down effects.
As to solar... You have to consider what goes into the panels. They didn't magically arrive out of nowhere...

Take for example batteries. They have platinum in them. Where are we gonna mine the metal necessary to make more efficient batteries...

And if you wanna make all those solar panels where are you gonna get all
The land. Who are you going to buy or use claim of right against?

Assuming abundant free land what about the copper wiring. Did you know it costs more to make a penny than it is worth due to the amount of metal in it? Think about that and all the people currently stealing power lines for their copper.

And the environmental effects of carving out huge amounts of land and replacing it with acres of solar panels.

And the oils and other products to make the glass and panels? Does that magically come out of nowhere?

Did you also realize a couple of previous prominent solar panel companies have gone out of business in the last few years because it is the technology is not cheap to mass produce?

Of course it would be great to build solar etc. who's willing to pay for it and run it? And if the tech fails?

Originally posted by inimalist
no, you are right, no way for Canadian oil to get into America

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/nonrenewable/images/exhibit4-21.png

Unrelated but I strongly wish the US would get more oil from Canada (safely, of course) and less from pretty much every other nation on that list.


I also wish we would move away from oil because I don't like the pollution it causes.