An idea by T. Boone Pickens who's time has come under Trump
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Personally, I believe in what Freeman Dyson believes. In 50 years or so, a whole new energy source will be developed that will effectively destroy the need for fossil fuels.
It's my understanding that it's twice as efficient to use electricity in cars than it is to us gasoline. One reason is that the heat generated in the process is not lost when electricity is created in a power plant, unlike when you run a gas car. And there is another reason that I forget.
How much did the Middle East wars cost the US over the past 25 years? A few trillion? You think we engaged in those for human rights reasons? We have bases over there to this day I believe.
Once again Boom, you're wrong. It must grow tiresome for you. I am not for Trump's tariff system. ATL and I had just this discussion yesterday. You can look it up. I do like Trump's tax policy of lowering taxes for corporations and businesses. Very stimulative and pro growth. We have to get GDP to 3.5% or higher to sustain our social spending. Otherwise we go broke very quickly as interest rates are rising.
Lowering corporate tax rates are manipulating the market? Why are you opposed to creating jobs in the U.S. This is exactly why you and Hillary lost the last election.
As I posted, if electric rigs can get it done and the market decides to go that way, I am all for it. I love the job creation. Why you don't is shocking. Did you support Obama's stimulus? My guess is that you did.
The difference here Boom, is that this will actually create jobs vs. Obama's failed stimulus.
The Middle East is much more than your mind allow you to consider. It is a tinder box ready to explode. If it does, it creates world wide economic chaos. It creates millions upon millions of migrants. It could kill millions and millions of people. What would the cost to the world be under that scenario?
We spent the equivalent of trillions during WWI and WWII. We spent trillions during the Cold War. All because the cost of doing nothing was far, far higher.
He said this at least a decade ago on 60 minutes. just give me the trucks to convert.
To change my '14 f250 is 2500.00 & would do so if had more stations & if they just add natural gas to the big trucks it improves the fuel economy & air particulates
China manipulates their currency. Do you know what that means? Let me explain since I know you weren't an Econ major. China intentionally lowers the value of their currency against the U.S. dollar using a variety of methods. This makes goods made in China and sold in the U.S. much cheaper for the U.S. consumer. It also has the reverse effect of making U.S. products much more expensive in China.
If China devalues their currency by let's say 15%, we should figure out some way to return that original value. to their products. Otherwise they are engaging in unfair trade practices. I hope that is what Trump will try and accomplish with new trade agreements with all countries including China.
Don't know, you may be right. What about the cost difference? How is that factored into your analysis? Not just purchase price difference, but ongoing maintenance, etc. I have read that electric cars are more expensive up front and less expensive much later. A financial analyst can do the projections and determine the better investment.
I don't know the answer. I do know that we need to get back to equilibrium. Do you disagree?
Do you know if we have engines capable of running on either fuel, gas or nat gas?
Your understanding is twice, uh? Do go on. I hadn't considered the heat loss at the plant. There is heat loss at power plants. Stand by a furnace wearing a coat, even on a cold day. Look at the stuff coming out of the stacks (hint, it's steam.) I was just thinking about the electricity that is lost from transmission through the lines. Stand under power lines, that's not magic that makes your arm hair stand up. Rare earth ores (batteries) don't mine and process themselves. Batteries have to be manufactured. Battery powered battery manufacturing factories? Just build a perpetual motion machine and call it a day.
The only reason it would cause economic chaos is because the world is so dependent on oil. Bad stuff happens in parts of Africa that don't have oil and we don't seem too concerned.
There is a section of the world that is important because of oil and they use their oil money to export religious fundamentalism. It seems just plain common sense to me to try to get off oil for that reason
I said you were for tariffs....you said I couldn't find anywhere that you posted in favor of tariffs....I knew you favored tariffs on China....I asked....you gave a Econ lesson....so, long way round, you are totally for government manipulation and control of aspects of the market IF you agree with the cause and the leader implementing them. For example: when Obama wanted to manipulate the market in order to drive energy away from traditional sources to greener sources....you claim he's a socialist and overstepping his power. But......it was just the wrong cause and the wrong leader.
Next you will post about how man made climate change is not settled science and how the EPA regulations were a bs way to implement the change and it's all apart of a global liberal conspiracy.
I based that on 0:55 to 2:10 of this video. Maybe he's BSing but I'm guessing not.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...e86755b990c4558d68455b7e40880515&action=click
Parts of Africa have huge amounts of oil, Nigeria for example. Other parts, not so much.
So why were you against Keystone? Less dependence right? Why are you against exploitation of all of our natural resources to gain independence? We could even export lots and lots of LNG to Europe to lessen dependence on both Russia and Middle East oil. I love it.
But you completely ignored the other points I made. The Middle East is a tinder box. If it explodes, millions killed. Millions of migrants (where do they go). Economies destroyed, not just from the loss of oil. Like it or not, Middle East instability is in our national security interests.
I don't recall being for or against Keystone. You may be thinking of someone else. I'm not against using our national resources. But I want to use them smartly. One of our natural resources is brains to figure out how to do things better. Another is sunlight.
So we should prop up theocracies that use oil money to export Islamic fundamentalism all over the globe because if we don't their society will endure some turmoil? No thanks. What's the worst that can happen, religious fundamentalists will be in charge but will be poor than before? That sounds like an improvement to me. Maybe if the religious fundamentalists in charge get poor then the people will throw them out.
Remember 9/11? 15 of the 19 were Saudis. It was funded by bin Laden, who was from a wealthy Saudi family that got rich from oil (actually from construction but the construction was a result of the oil money). I don't like religious fundamentalism of any kind.
Great, you found one overtly political site that you know a priori is going to be against anything "environmental" that trashes EVs and another site that basically says, it's not a simple answer which is better. And that is right now when EVs are still in the steep part of the efficiency improvement scale while gasoline cars are a mature technology that are going to make incremental improvements at best. I think you're making my point.
I don't think Musk is BSing, I think that was misleading. The same source carries to all powered devises. Either way, when your on empty it's time to power up one way or another. In terms of range (distance/refill) the better efficiency would no doubt be on display. Electric cars do lose heat, but nothing like a tail pipe. Ceding that point based on most of the autos currently available, I read where some car makers (Mercedes comes to mind) aren't that interested in electric and continue to develop increasingly efficient engines. I like Elon Musk despite all the government incentives and other back scratching he receives. He should market his own Cologne. *snicker*
I don't think you know very much about the region, with all due respect. There are many ways for the region to spiral out of compete control. Let me give you just a few that would cause catastrophic damage to the world.
1. Iran gets the nuke and the missiles to deliver them. Iran has a stated desire to restore the Persian Empire, a vast territory. They also have stated their belief in the return of the 12th Imam. Here is a brief summary:
Like Bernard Lewis of Princeton, the Kairos authors said Ahmadinejad seems to believe “that the hand of God is guiding him to trigger a series of cataclysmic events which could precipitate the return of the 12th Imam. Only time will tell if this is his true conviction; but if he does hold such a view, his possession of nuclear weapons is a particularly scary prospect.”
So Iran could easily start a nuclear war to achieve either or both goals.
2. The Saudi's and the Israeli's are not going to sit around while Iran develops nukes and the missiles capable of delivering them. The Israeli's in particular, have great intelligence. The Saudi's have already agreed to fund Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities to destroy them. This would start a likely Middle Eastern war of large dimensions.
3. If Israel doesn't attack Iran, the Saudi's will be forced to go nuclear to protect themselves. Iran is Shia and the Saudi's Sunni's. The Saudi's will not let the Shia take over vast parts of the Middle East. War would likely be the result.
We must be wise in our dealing in the Middle East. The world depends on it as it becomes more and more unstable.
The only reason those crazy countries can think about doing anything big is because they bring in a lot of oil money and they have for a long time.
Iran was under sanctions for many, many years. Very, very little oil money. They want the nuke. Israel has no oil. Neither does Egypt. The Gulf States have the oil. You need to learn more about the Middle East before making broad proclamations that aren't necessarily accurate.
Iran is evil. Their intentions are evil. Whether it's restoring the Persian Empire or preparing the way for the return of the 12 Imam, it is going to lead to disaster, Imo.
BTW, the crazy countries are not the Gulf States. Yes, they have radical citizens and they have a religious ideology that demeans basic human rights. But they won't start wars. The war monger are in Iran, Syria and Palestine. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon are very reasonable.
Obviously I meant the other one. I hadn't seen it before but looking around on it shows it's a political site. Believe it or not there is a lot to be learned on the web by just reading stuff that is meant to just give people info instead of trying to get people to vote a certain way.
That gives me an idea. I ought to try to get everyone (or as many people as possible) on this board to pledge to not read (or watch) anything political for one full day. A whole week would be nice but it's not realistic because people find politics to be such a drug they go to it constantly. Maybe I'd have a shot at convincing a few people do skip it for a day.
Iran only got sanctions after they got rich from oil long before that. They'd be too poor to think nukes otherwise. I agree iran is bad, so why do you want the world to stay on oil and keep making them rich?
I posted a political site? I thought I just posted a clip of Elon Musk. I never post sites like the one you posted. Sites like that (and their equivalent on the far left) are a complete waste of time IMO. Complete. When you know with certainty beforehand that a site is going to slant everything they post in a way to push a particular political view then what is the point?
Iran was a pauper nation during the sanctions. They have NEVER been a wealthy country, like the Saudi's or other gulf states for example.
Even after the sanctions were lifted, look at Iran's ranking:
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gdp-capita.php
Keep in mind that Iran's economy is centrally planned. No or not much innovation. Spend an inordinate amount of money on their theocracy. Relatively poor nation.
Yes, just about all internal combustible gasoline engines can run on both , just change the intake manifold & flip a switch
So nat gas can work across the country. It may require some distribution lines be built assuming they are cost effective for the pipeline company. Then in areas where nat gas is not available, the rigs can switch. Beautiful.
Actually a person can put a hook up at home , takes about 8hrs to fill unless they add a pressure pump . Down side seem to lose some power compared to gasoline, hurts in off road mode or in hilly states if pulling a big Load.