Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-984941 … g=nefd.top
At the Detroit auto show, attendees are going to be talking about the magic 100 mile per gallon mark.

EcoMotors will be at the show to talk about its diesel engine which it says will let cars go 100 miles a gallon by 2011. At that level, you could get across the country and only have to stop once for gas.

Other interesting things I have seen.:
The World's Fastest Electric Car
https://i9.tinypic.com/73dgks3.jpg
AC Propulsion's tzero roadster is a reason to not give up on the electric vehicle. The tzero does 0 to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, according to the company, and it does it on only 200 horsepower because of its light weight and torque.
(Pricey but on the right path)


This one looks really interesting: Opel Eco-Speedster





My question is this: Lets say hypothetically that the pressure for alternative fuels really has a dramatic impact on the demand for oil (less demand). How will that change the dynamics of the middle eastern economies. Will the price per barrel simply quadruple to maintain the Dubai palaces? Will the Saudi Princes panic since they will have no one to invite into their countries for exploitation?

It has always been my belief that poverty helps create an environment for terrorism recruitment. People in desperate situations are easily sold on the ideas of blame. Historically the failures of world leaders have been justified by blaming a foreign people (scapegoats)... Or as the saying goes, "nothing unites a people like a common enemy". Ironically giving the ME less attention and having a smaller presence could be just as costly as interventionism.

We are being told by some that simply leaving the region (both physically and economically) will solve the problems. I think it's time to dispel that theory. Certainly the western world would be better off if it was not reliant upon the non-progressive ways of the middle east. However, in most cases, it has been the leaders of the Middle East who have opened the doors for westerners to rape their re$ource$. You would have to be completely ignorant of Middle Eastern history to think that their woes would just up and disappear without a western presence.


What say you?



Usually when we discuss alternative fuels we focus strictly on environmental issues. I thought I would switch it up a bit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
BVC
Member
+325|7130
Well, we'll always need some oil for plastics, so there will always be demand for some oil...but then its not like all oil comes from the middle east, and we can produce oil from bio-waste.  Plastics aside, for the last few years I've been of the opinion that one or more popular oil alternatives would fuck the middle east, and that if the west really wanted to stop Islam, this would be one of the best ways to go about it.  Naturally some countries would fare better than others; those more able to adapt wouldn't be hit so hard, but decline would be the general trend.  I can't even guess whether there would be more or less conflict, TBH.

Last edited by Pubic (2008-01-14 01:07:31)

Morpheus
This shit still going?
+508|6434|The Mitten

Kmarion wrote:

Historically the failures of world leaders have been justified by blaming a foreign people (scapegoats)... Or as the saying goes, "nothing unites a people like a common enemy"...

What say you?
I've noticed that too, and thought more about it due to my college Communications class (us-them thinking, etc. etc.)

It seems to me that in order to keep America strongly unified, we do need a "common enemy", otherwise we are more open to infighting.

I haven't done a whole lot of research, but it seems to me it went Nazis (WW2) --> Communists (Cold War) --> "Terrorists" (Op. Desert Storm and D.S. II)



As far as the alternate fuels go, its really up to the oil companies. They probably see enough money can be made the way it is*, and don't care to spend money in research, which loses them profit (for a while, at least)

*Most Americans have cars that need gas, and the cars that don't are too expensive/impractical. Some Americans have cars(suvs) that need even more gas.
EE (hats
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6927|Connecticut
A car that gets 4 times the MPG? Wow, I can't wait for them to hit the street so the price of diesel goes up 4 times as much. Wait, since diesel is just about the same thing as the fuel that heats many homes they get to inflate that too. Its a good thing I have natural gas.  They need to look more into hydrogen technology IMO.
Malloy must go
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

Kmarion wrote:

My question is this: Lets say hypothetically that the pressure for alternative fuels really has a dramatic impact on the demand for oil (less demand). How will that change the dynamics of the middle eastern economies. Will the price per barrel simply quadruple to maintain the Dubai palaces? Will the Saudi Princes panic since they will have no one to invite into their countries for exploitation?

It has always been my belief that poverty helps create an environment for terrorism recruitment. People in desperate situations are easily sold on the ideas of blame. Historically the failures of world leaders have been justified by blaming a foreign people (scapegoats)... Or as the saying goes, "nothing unites a people like a common enemy". Ironically giving the ME less attention and having a smaller presence could be just as costly as interventionism.

We are being told by some that simply leaving the region (both physically and economically) will solve the problems. I think it's time to dispel that theory. Certainly the western world would be better off if it was not reliant upon the non-progressive ways of the middle east. However, in most cases, it has been the leaders of the Middle East who have opened the doors for westerners to rape their re$ource$. You would have to be completely ignorant of Middle Eastern history to think that their woes would just up and disappear without a western presence.


What say you?
Reducing reliance on the middle east can only be a good thing. The masses in the middle east hate us because of our dabbling there and they are our problem, not the leaderships of the countries (mostly puppets who have close to zero popular support). So ditching the middle east is a good thing on two fronts: a) the folks on the ground will have less reason to hate us and b) we are largely economically independent of goings on in the middle east. No middle eastern leader could possibly rally popular support from us LEAVING THEM ALONE. That would simply be impossible, not least because the leaders have zero popular support as it is. Sure they may raise prices but that would just show us all the more what a poison oil is and how we desparately need to develop other fuels if we are to retain our own independence and sovereignty.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7192|Argentina
At the moment we rely on oil.  The cars with electric engines, hydrogen, alternative fuels, etc, are far from being as fun to drive as the gasoline cars.  We need to work on alternative fuels, but right now I prefer to make 20 mpg with my car.  Regarding your question about the impact on the ME, I think they are not in panic at all, since the alternative fuels aren't ready yet to replace oil.

Last edited by sergeriver (2008-01-14 02:39:37)

Dersmikner
Member
+147|6933|Texas
Exxon, et al, will simply use the power of their oligopoly and raise the price of gas to $20 a gallon. They don't give a shit how much oil there is, how many refineries there are, or what the supply is, they're going to raise the price based on demand such that their profits are the same.

I bought a diesel truck several years ago when the price of gas was $1.25 a gallon. Diesel was $.80 a gallon at the same time. About 1/3 less than standard gasoline. Because diesel vehicles get better mileage, suddenly you started seeing a spike in sales of diesel vehicles. Volkswagen came out with the bug, and several auto manufacturers started making diesels. Now with gas at $3.00 a gallon diesel is at $3.25. Does it make any sense that it was 30% less and now it's 10% more? Nope. It's the oil companies taking full advantage of pricing power.

Has anyone else noticed that when Exxon claims that they have to raise the price of gas to $3.50 because supply is restricted (blaming it on the war or terror threats or whatever) they magically also have record profits that quarter?

I'm in East Texas, the oil and gas mecca of the United States, and our entire economy is based on oil and gas, and I am still perfectly willing to believe that there's bullshit afloat with the big companies, I don't care what my neighbor says.

The only way around this deal is electric fuel cells or hydrogen based fuel cells or something. As long as we're buying gasoline, even if we're getting 200 miles to the gallon the oil companies are going to raise their prices to match.

If they were selling 1,000,000 gallons a day at $2.00 a gallon, and all of a sudden we're only buying 100,000 gallons, they're just going to raise the price to $20.00 a gallon.

They're evil. I'm the world's biggest free market guy, but I'm not sure there's a free market in the oil and gas industry. Aside from that, I'm all for gouging for profit, but we just need to get the hell away from gasoline entirely or they're going to suck every dollar they can out of our pockets, and it doesn't make a shit if we find a planet made entirely of gasoline or an oil field the size of Antarctica, they're going to charge whatever they want, and we're going to have to pay it. Electric cars, FTW.

Last edited by Dersmikner (2008-01-14 08:05:36)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7035|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My question is this: Lets say hypothetically that the pressure for alternative fuels really has a dramatic impact on the demand for oil (less demand). How will that change the dynamics of the middle eastern economies. Will the price per barrel simply quadruple to maintain the Dubai palaces? Will the Saudi Princes panic since they will have no one to invite into their countries for exploitation?

It has always been my belief that poverty helps create an environment for terrorism recruitment. People in desperate situations are easily sold on the ideas of blame. Historically the failures of world leaders have been justified by blaming a foreign people (scapegoats)... Or as the saying goes, "nothing unites a people like a common enemy". Ironically giving the ME less attention and having a smaller presence could be just as costly as interventionism.

We are being told by some that simply leaving the region (both physically and economically) will solve the problems. I think it's time to dispel that theory. Certainly the western world would be better off if it was not reliant upon the non-progressive ways of the middle east. However, in most cases, it has been the leaders of the Middle East who have opened the doors for westerners to rape their re$ource$. You would have to be completely ignorant of Middle Eastern history to think that their woes would just up and disappear without a western presence.


What say you?
Reducing reliance on the middle east can only be a good thing. The masses in the middle east hate us because of our dabbling there and they are our problem, not the leaderships of the countries (mostly puppets who have close to zero popular support). So ditching the middle east is a good thing on two fronts: a) the folks on the ground will have less reason to hate us and b) we are largely economically independent of goings on in the middle east. No middle eastern leader could possibly rally popular support from us LEAVING THEM ALONE. That would simply be impossible, not least because the leaders have zero popular support as it is. Sure they may raise prices but that would just show us all the more what a poison oil is and how we desparately need to develop other fuels if we are to retain our own independence and sovereignty.
In regards to A). I'm not so sure about that. Logically it makes sense to us. But the inevitable economic turmoil would create a greater need to associate blame. Self accountability rarely comes from leaders. They must explain away their failures at all cost. It's been happening for thousands of years. The impoverished are ripe for the shaping of young impressionable minds. I asked these questions honestly in the OP, with no agenda. I could see this going two ways I guess. Both predictions seem like possible directions to me.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Skorpy-chan
Member
+127|6780|Twyford, UK
I say they need to push biodiesel from food waste instead of crops. I dislike the way the price of food is rising.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6990

Kmarion wrote:

In regards to A). I'm not so sure about that. Logically it makes sense to us. But the inevitable economic turmoil would create a greater need to associate blame. Self accountability rarely comes from leaders. They must explain away their failures at all cost. It's been happening for thousands of years. The impoverished are ripe for the shaping of young impressionable minds. I asked these questions honestly in the OP, with no agenda. I could see this going two ways I guess. Both predictions seem like possible directions to me.
In a sense you might be right given that they might think the west came along, raped them for everything they had and then dumped them on the roadside - a kind of 'spirit of revenge' might ensue. To be honest though we are hated if we're there and we may be hated if we aren't but to leave our economies to the whims of Saudi princes and greedy Sheikhs is something that needs to be addressed period. It compromises our independence.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard