May 15th "gas protest" nonsense

[kapkomet]

The Goracle is abosulutely the best president we never had, isn't he?

[southsider2k5]

The Goracle is abosulutely the best president we never had, isn't he?

 

Well, he is no me...

[Texsox]

The Goracle is abosulutely the best president we never had, isn't he?

 

I know I wish I had voted differently

[mr_genius]

I know I wish I had voted differently

 

you should start selling "Don't blame me, I voted for the Goracle" bumper stickers.

[EvilMonkey]

I know I heard somewhere that the comingling of the monies began before the 80's, I want to say it was kennedy that did it, to balance the budget. I'll look for that info later.

[Texsox]

you should start selling "Don't blame me, I voted for the Goracle" bumper stickers.

 

I guess I should start selling a Blame me, I voted for Bush.

[longshot7]

I voted for Nader. Blame me.

[Balance]

Great idea.

 

Now here is the problem.

 

What is this energy source? Can it be mass produced? Can you get filling stations to retrofit so it can deliver it? What is the cost of this source? What is the cost to the average American to replace or retrofit their vehicles to run on this energy source. What is the environmental costs of mass production of this new "green" energy source.

 

Until these are answered, America is still going to use Oil at a high demand. So we need to address oil production still until an alternative can be named.

Sorry to take so long to reply. Work and all.

 

In my humble opinion, the best solution is to increase the use of electric cars. We already have the infrastructure in place to distribute electricity to power these cars. And with breakthroughs in battery technology, the weight and range problem is largely solved.

 

We can generate the electricity with whatever source we want, from coal to solar to nuclear to wind to hydroelectric to geothermal and so on. Obviously, not all of that is "clean" energy, but as we continue to innovate new technology for generation, we'll produce more power with less pollution and greenhouse gasses.

 

Take the Tesla Roadster, for example. It's a completely electric car. It can go more than 200 miles on a single charge. It costs $92,000, but it can compete with any supercar at that price point and above in terms of performance. (See www.teslamotors.com ) Tesla plans to make an electric luxury sedan at a $50-60k price point by 2009, and a more accessibly-priced family sedan after that. It's conceivable that within 6 years, we could have access to a fully-electric car for our daily driving.

 

Take a look at the Tesla website. The roadster uses energy at an equivalent of 135 miles per gallon. So yes, it still burns coal/uranium/wind/sun/etc. for power, but it does so a lot more efficiently than a gasoline powered car, and does so without any gasoline.

[mr_genius]

I guess I should start selling a Blame me, I voted for Bush.

 

na, no one will buy those.

 

you wanna go with the Goracle stickers.

[Texsox]

na, no one will buy those.

 

you wanna go with the Goracle stickers.

 

Talk about a vote that didn't matter. My area is about 95% Democrats and Texas leaned a lttle toward Dubya in the last election. I knew before casting my vote that my County would be overwhelming to the Dems and the electoral college vote would be to Bush.

[BigSqwert]

Balance, I'll be keeping an eye out for the Tesla sports sedan. It has definitely peaked my interest. If all goes well I'll have solar power in a few years and hopefully the Tesla. That would finally cut out oil for me. Screw big oil and the middle east.

[kapkomet]

Balance, I'll be keeping an eye out for the Tesla sports sedan. It has definitely peaked my interest. If all goes well I'll have solar power in a few years and hopefully the Tesla. That would finally cut out oil for me. Screw big oil and the middle east.

Do you have anything plastic? That's made of oil. Certain clothes? Oil. Etc. etc. etc.

 

I agree that some of these things will make a huge dent (which, it needs to), but I'm curious if we could ever get off of oil for good...

[southsider2k5]

Do you have anything plastic? That's made of oil. Certain clothes? Oil. Etc. etc. etc.

 

I agree that some of these things will make a huge dent (which, it needs to), but I'm curious if we could ever get off of oil for good...

 

Sure we will, once it runs out...

 

Its coming where it is getting to the point where there is going to be a commericial viablity to step into this marketplace with a completely new product, especially when it comes to transportation. If you think about the technological change that has happened in the last 125 years all around us, and then look at the basic car engine, which really hasn't changed at all, it is kind of amazing. I really think the auto factory as we see it today, won't exsist in 50 years. I think we will have a completely different mode of transportation that no one has really thought of yet.

[bmags]

wait, a facebook group made someone mad?

 

and...i'm rootin for biomass...goooooo biomass!

[kapkomet]

We put crap and garbage in an "engine", and we go go go...

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to add a related point... ComEd tells me (when I asked) that in 2008 they will have a consumer-choice program for electricity generation. You'll get to choose your source. Just FYI.

[southsider2k5]

We put crap and garbage in an "engine", and we go go go...

 

Back TO THE FUTURE!

[Balance]

Balance, I'll be keeping an eye out for the Tesla sports sedan. It has definitely peaked my interest. If all goes well I'll have solar power in a few years and hopefully the Tesla. That would finally cut out oil for me. Screw big oil and the middle east.

As soon as one of those Teslas gets in my price range, I'm jumping on it. The luxury sedan they're planning, called "White Star" at least for now, may be the one. Or maybe I'll have to wait until they produce the next cheaper one. But I'm going to get an electric car, I'm sure of it.

[vandy125]

As soon as one of those Teslas gets in my price range, I'm jumping on it. The luxury sedan they're planning, called "White Star" at least for now, may be the one. Or maybe I'll have to wait until they produce the next cheaper one. But I'm going to get an electric car, I'm sure of it.

Just curious. Does Tesla have any competition with this? I would love to see a couple of different car companies get involved and see the competition lead to better/cheaper products. If one hits my price range, I would definitely get one.

[YASNY]

Well, this gas protest sure worked.

[Balance]

Just curious. Does Tesla have any competition with this? I would love to see a couple of different car companies get involved and see the competition lead to better/cheaper products. If one hits my price range, I would definitely get one.

I'm unaware of any other car company seriously trying to implement an electric car. But hopefully, Tesla will be successful, and that will bring in the competition.

[BigSqwert]

I'm unaware of any other car company seriously trying to implement an electric car. But hopefully, Tesla will be successful, and that will bring in the competition.

Chevy Volt

[Balance]

Chevy Volt

While it's not a pure electric car, I think it's a step in the right direction. I don't know if Chevy is doing anything more than paying lip service, though. We'll see....

[NorthSideSox72]

Chevy Volt

That's the plug-in car, yes? Cars that just pull a charge from elsewhere and use it up aren't really doing much to help either the environment or your gas bills. It just shifts the energy demand from the road to the power plant.

[southsider2k5]

A more interesting "protest" of sorts against high energy prices...

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4828035.html

 

U.S. lawmakers take a jab at OPEC

House legislation would label oil cartel's actions as illegal

 

 

By DAVID IVANOVICH

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

 

TOOLS

Email Get section feed

Print Subscribe NOW

Comments Recommend

WASHINGTON — The House took aim at the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Tuesday, voting overwhelmingly to brand the cartel's efforts to control world oil prices illegal.

 

And with support of the legislation strong in the Senate as well, President Bush soon could be thrust into the unenviable position of siding with OPEC producers at a time of painfully high gasoline prices.

 

As American motorists forked over a record average $3.21 a gallon — according to the most recent AAA survey — the House voted 345-72 Tuesday to approve a bill that would authorize the attorney general to sue the OPEC countries in U.S. courts.

 

Dubbed the "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2007" or "NOPEC" bill, the measure would amend the Sherman Act to make it illegal for foreign governments to try to limit oil and gas production to try to control energy prices.

 

Championed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., the bill would essentially make it illegal for foreign nations like those in OPEC to operate a cartel.

 

Under federal law, foreign governments cannot be sued for failing to comply with federal antitrust laws.

 

"We don't have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas," Conyers said. "We can do something about ... this anti-competitive, anti-consumer behavior. And we are."

 

Proponents of the legislation point out that the OPEC countries account for more than 40 percent of the world's conventional oil supply.

 

The Energy Information Administration, in a report looking out to 2030, predicted OPEC's share of conventional oil production will grow slightly over the coming years.

 

While the cartel has had much trouble over the decades controlling oil prices as much as envisioned, the organization has proven far more adept in recent years.

 

Indeed, the London-based Centre for Global Energy Studies this week credited OPEC's decision to restrict its output for keeping oil prices above $60 a barrel.

 

 

In the Senate

While the House was the first to act, OPEC is no more popular on the other side of Capitol Hill.

 

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee — with members from across the political spectrum — unanimously approved comparable NOPEC language.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been stitching together various energy proposals with plans to bring a major energy bill to the floor next month.

 

While the NOPEC provision is not currently part of that package, Senate staffers say the bill might well be amended on the floor to include the NOPEC language.

 

"It is long past time for this to become law," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Tuesday.

 

White House officials, however, are already raising the prospect of a veto if the measure ever reaches the president's desk.

 

The Office of Management and Budget warned the bill "has the potential to lead to oil supply disruptions and an escalation in the price of gasoline, natural gas, home heating oil and other sources of energy."

 

Administration officials say the OPEC countries' assets in the United States would be the likely targets if a court were to award damages in a suit. And that "would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners."

 

 

Business opposition

At least some business interests vehemently oppose the measure.

 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in a letter to House members, argued that the measure would set a "dangerous precedent," while Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, described the legislation as "very strange."

 

Cavaney argued that lawmakers could likewise be accused of withholding oil production, since they have refused to let operators drill off most of the nation's coastline.

 

"They're criticizing others for the very actions they've done," Cavaney said.

 

Some officials in the oil-producing countries already have expressed concerns that "a nation caught up in the throes of a populist movement" might look to seize plants and even nonenergy assets here in the United States that are owned by these foreign governments or their affiliated companies, noted Kevin Book, an energy analyst with Arlington, Va.-based Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. And those fears could prompt a flight of capital.

 

 

Locally located

Many of those foreign assets, of course, are in Houston, the center of the nation's energy industry.

 

Houston-based Motiva Enterprises, for instance, is a joint venture between Shell Oil Co. and Saudi Aramco.

 

Asked about the House vote Tuesday, Motiva spokesman Stan Mays said: "Motiva is watching the bill closely and will assess how it would impact our business should it become law."

 

Houston-based Citgo is the U.S. arm of Venezuela's national oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela. Citgo spokesman Fernando Garay said: "Due to the complexity of the issue, we will need to review that document in its final form before making any comment."

 

A spokesman for OPEC in Vienna, Austria, did not respond to questions about the legislation Tuesday.

 

 

An uncomfortable position

For the Bush White House, who critics have long accused of favoring the oil industry, being presented with a NOPEC bill would make for an unwelcome political position.

 

Indeed, the administration was already under attack Tuesday.

 

"The Bush administration's threat to veto this bill is just further proof that the administration favors the international oil cartel over the American consumer," Conyers said.

 

But no matter how uncomfortable, "the president would have to veto the bill because of the international implications it has," argued Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations for the Independent Petroleum Association of America.

 

 

Enough to override

The House vote Tuesday far exceeded the number needed to override a presidential veto. But Fuller suspects lawmakers might approach the issue "slightly differently" if a vote to override were seriously being considered.

 

Among Houston area lawmakers, the ones to vote against the bill were: Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands; Rep. Ted Poe, R-Humble; and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson.

 

Brady said he dismissed the bill as "a political gimmick that won't lower gas prices a penny."

 

But Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, spoke up in favor of the measure, calling it a "thoughtful piece of legislation."

 

[email protected]