$7 a gallon in January??!!!

[crashbb]

Then you can read my answer to him, no need to repeat it with you.

Bavaria is a her not a him.

Hence the Cranky Old Lady rather than Cranky Old Man.

 

[Purseval]

It is not 'response to a crisis' - it was a PLAN - one which took decades to implement and execute. The reality is that population density in Europe (and most of the world) is far higher than in America, and plans had to be made to deal with that. Infrastructure takes decades to build.

Having your entire country reduced to rubble also helps. That hasn't happened over here yet so we have to displace millions of people in order to do what they've done in Europe. They tried to build an east-west connector less than 20 miles long in my area, one that is desperately needed to cut down on traffic. They gave up when they saw it would get every politician replaced before an inch of asphalt was laid down. You said the magic word to what we need to accomplish your model: regime, as in a totalitarian government. I don't see that happening anytime soon. A major depression might accomplish the goal---millions of homes foreclosed so they don't have to worry about right-of-way and plenty of government created jobs to build new infrastructure. Not sure I'd want to do it that way but it's possible.

The reality is that there needs to be a variety of energy sources, not dependence on one or two sources. At least Europe has made an effort to diversify, one which is paying off now.

You have your plan based on what's available and you've been able to implement it, sort of. We already have a variety of energy sources we just try our best not to be able to use them

 

[crashbb]

Having your entire country reduced to rubble also helps. That hasn't happened over here yet so we have to displace millions of people in order to do what they've done in Europe. They tried to build an east-west connector less than 20 miles long in my area, one that is desperately needed to cut down on traffic. They gave up when they saw it would get every politician replaced before an inch of asphalt was laid down. You said the magic word to what we need to accomplish your model: regime, as in a totalitarian government. I don't see that happening anytime soon. A major depression might accomplish the goal---millions of homes foreclosed so they don't have to worry about right-of-way and plenty of government created jobs to build new infrastructure. Not sure I'd want to do it that way but it's possible.



You have your plan based on what's available and you've been able to implement it, sort of. We already have a variety of energy sources we just try our best not to be able to use them

You do know that not every single city in Europe was leveled recently (i.e during WWII or more recently), don't you? Nor are they all (or even mainly) totalitarian governments?

 

[vegasnative]

Awwh man, you guys took all the fun out of this thread!

 

[bavaria]

Awwh man, you guys took all the fun out of this thread!

I would be happy to put it back! And I was reminded why I don't usually take the energy to post on the Community Board - definitely not worth my efforts to try and hold a rational discussion!

 

[bavaria]

Having your entire country reduced to rubble also helps. That hasn't happened over here yet so we have to displace millions of people in order to do what they've done in Europe. They tried to build an east-west connector less than 20 miles long in my area, one that is desperately needed to cut down on traffic. They gave up when they saw it would get every politician replaced before an inch of asphalt was laid down. You said the magic word to what we need to accomplish your model: regime, as in a totalitarian government. I don't see that happening anytime soon. A major depression might accomplish the goal---millions of homes foreclosed so they don't have to worry about right-of-way and plenty of government created jobs to build new infrastructure. Not sure I'd want to do it that way but it's possible.

The ignorance on this thread is not even worth my time engaging any more, frankly. I tried on the first few and the last few pages.

I have been fortunate to travel around the world several times and to see every week something different, and am willing to have an open mind.

My energies are better spent elsewhere.

 

[crashbb]

I think that the Flintstone's had the best energy saving idea - those cars with no bottoms and you run to get it started. I think I had a toy like that when I was a kid, but I may be making that up. I know I had a Green Machine - those were great.

Anybody else have fun toy cars/bike things as a kid?

*doing my best to bring back the fun.

Oh and Bavaria - I just finished some Laura Secord chocolate (French Chocolate is very yummy).

 

[BelleBoo&AmisMum]

You do know that not every single city in Europe was leveled recently (i.e during WWII or more recently), don't you? Nor are they all (or even mainly) totalitarian governments?

Shhhhhhhh, don't burst the ignorance bubble!

The town my DH is from has a few 500+ year old buildings, the Nazi's came through there and it managed to stay standing.

 

[bavaria]

Wasn't there something called a 'sit and spin'? But oh, wait, that wouldn't help you to move forward, would it?

Don't eat all the Laura Secord - who will save you when your neighbours realise that you are sitting on all those riches?

(as frantically googling ensues by those not aware of the role of Laura Secord in Canada and America's collective history)

 

[bavaria]

I think that the Flintstone's had the best energy saving idea - those cars with no bottoms and you run to get it started. .

Why do I somehow think that crashbb drives a red van?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg_Y26mf34

 

[MrsPete]

*Just to add and clarify...Obama "supposdly" said that when he takes over in January gas prices are gonna sky rocket. Those words came out of his mouth during some annoucement he had made.

My husband works in the energy industry, so we've had reason to follow both presidential candidates' thoughts on the future of energy. I think whoever told you this was confused: Right now much of our country's energy comes from coal. Obama DID say that he essentially intends to make it so expensive to use coal that we'll see an end to that type of energy in the near future. He DID specifically use the phrase "costs will skyrocket". He justifies this by saying that the money taken in will be used to develop newer, cleaner-burning fuel alternatives. He has interest in alternative energy sources that are wonderful in theory, but are not particularly useful in reality (for example, wind power); he has not really taken a strong stand on nuclear energy.

Of course, cleaner fuel sounds like a great idea, but right now is an awful time for the American public to absorb the cost of this improvement. People are already reeling from gas prices, mortgage problems, and the credit crunch -- and on top of that we're supposed to start paying "skyrocket" prices to heat our homes? It's akin to patching a hole in your living room wall while ignoring the fact that your kitchen is on fire.

Anyway, he was talking about HOME ENERGY, not GAS PRICES, but I can see how these two things could be confused as the conversation was passed from person to person to person.

However, it makes no difference. We NEED gas for our cars. We NEED energy for our homes. By his own admission, prices are going to go up, and it's going to hurt the middle class badly in the same way that gasoline prices have hurt us in the recent past. So while what you heard was wrong in detail, it was correct in theme.

Here's an Obama quote from a news site (if you don't want to accept this as a genuine write-up, just google "obama energy skyrocket", and you'll find plenty of similar things):

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

 

[crashbb]

Why do I somehow think that crashbb drives a red van?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg_Y26mf34

You gotta love Quebecers!!

 

[Purseval]

Goodness, you are refusing to consider any options, aren't you? What works for the rest of the world cannot be all bad and some of it could and can work in America. Or show us some American innovations if you are so resistant to accepting foreign innovations.

You haven't mentioned one thing we haven't already either tried or are working on. You don't seem to understand that when we tried to put up a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts a prominent political family had it killed because it would have disturbed their view. When we tried to expand our nuclear capacity they had it killed. When we tried to expand our refining capacity they had it killed. You see, we don't need to be held hostage to the whims of whatever dictator happens to be running some oil or gas country at the time. Europe does, it's much more of a crisis mode for you. We could be energy independent and spend plenty of time working on alternatives. Our enemies all live here.

Yes, the price per litre is higher for diesel, however the fuel efficiency is so much greater and hence offsets the higher prices. Many in Canada have realised that and diesel sales are increasing there at a greater rate.

No it doesn't, not here. The cost of a hybrid doesn't justify the energy savings either. When you come up with the right mix of cost and efficiency people will flock to it. I'd love to see it, right now it just isn't there.

Why don't you make a suggestion or bring forth some ideas for innovation, instead of just saying why everything will not work? It works for the rest of the world, at least we are making an effort.

Since you are such a world traveler I'd love for you to point out the country that is cleaner, more efficient and does a better job of protecting the environment with the same type of industrial output. Sure, Switzerland is beautiful, try living off of their exports. And Germany once had great forests that covered the entire nation, now there is a tiny sliver you can barely pick out on a map. It's easy to knock us from afar but we're not doing too badly.

 

[crashbb]

You see, we don't need to be held hostage to the whims of whatever dictator happens to be running some oil or gas country at the time. Europe does, it's much more of a crisis mode for you. We could be energy independent and spend plenty of time working on alternatives.

So that explains why the US did so well during the OPEC crisis.

Oh wait, it didn't.

 

[Purseval]

I think that the Flintstone's had the best energy saving idea - those cars with no bottoms and you run to get it started. I think I had a toy like that when I was a kid, but I may be making that up. I know I had a Green Machine - those were great.

Actually my commute would allow that kind of a car if I wasn't so lazy. Same with a bike. Instead I use a 49cc motorbike that I put gas in once a month, whether it needs it or not. I could actually go every 2 months but since the gas crisis I've been hoarding to fill my 1-gallon tank. A twist of the wrist and I'm there. Pedaling sounds eco-friendly but when it's 90 degrees outside with 70% humidity even a short commute leaves you soaked with sweat. With my motorbike I don't have time to sweat.

 

[bavaria]

It's easy to knock us from afar but we're not doing too badly.

I'm not knocking America - I am very careful not to do that.

However you are doing a great job of it yourself. You have yet to produce one thing which has been done right on this thread - all that I have seen is a litany of excuses of what will not work for America.

I am very certain that there is innovation and development towards an energy policy in America. I know that there are wind farms in Texas and in California. I know that there are emission control standards. America is doing a lot that is right, but you haven't listed any of that here, nor have you discussed any of the innovations that America has had and is working towards.

 

[Purseval]

So that explains why the US did so well during the OPEC crisis.

Oh wait, it didn't.

Of course it didn't, we don't develop the sources we have we import it instead. I once heard that that it was part of some grand strategy by one of those shadow government groups like the Bildenbergers to keep importing until we use up the rest of the world's oil then use our oil to dictate whatever terms we wanted. Big time black helicopter-tinfoil hat stuff.

 

[Purseval]

I'm not knocking America - I am very careful not to do that.

However you are doing a great job of it yourself. You have yet to produce one thing which has been done right on this thread - all that I have seen is a litany of excuses of what will not work for America.

We've done plenty right. I already said we're cleaner, more efficient and more technologically advanced and I challenged you to name a country that does it better. You didn't, so I'll assume we agree. However, the challenge is making it even better. We've tried your suggestions and I also believe you agree that all of them together would only amount to a trickle of what we need. Come up with something unique and you'll have the proverbial better mousetrap.

I realize that may sound ignorant to you but I'm just being realistic. Find me something worth bankrupting a few million people for with European-style gas prices and I'll be happy to consider it.

 

[Disney8704]

Thanks so much for this post. It clears a lot up. I was under the impression that the cost of home energy would go up, that is why I had to ask about the whole gas prices issue. I did find it hard to believe somewhat that the gas prices would jump that much, but then again, these days, you can just never know.

Do I like what Obama wants to do with our energy bills? Heck no. Our gas and electric bills are already high enough! And yes, we try our best to cut down. Turn lights off when we dont need them, have the heat on at 70 degrees, AC for summer set at 78 degrees. At night it gets so cold that I just keep it at 70 degrees, but during the day, I also run our ceiling fans to help push the heat down, and during the summer to help put the AC down. As for summer at night, AC goes off and windows are open. We also have all our lights using the energy saving light bulbs. During the summer I try not to cook using our gas stove and oven to save money, so we grill a lot. However when I do cook, all yr round, I always cook enough food that will last for 2 nights. With all the extra steps to help keep our energy bills down, we still owe between $150 - $200 per gas and electric bill, every month. And our gas and electric company is raising their rates next yr, as they raise their rates every year. So between that and if Obama gets what he wants, we could be looking at $250 - $300 per bill, each month.

I just dont see how its even possible to save any money unless you do everything solar. My parents have wind power at their house and they pay $250 every month for electric. They have no gas in their house. They thought maybe something was wrong with their bill or whatever. They had people come out and check everything out, making sure everything is working ok, and it is. They to try to conserve as much as possible as well.

Weither it be gas prices or energy bills, something is about to go up in price. And I think IMHO, people arent ready for these big bills that are coming our way. A lot of people dont have jobs anymore, people can barely make their rent and house payments. And Obama wants to raise costs?

My husband works in the energy industry, so we've had reason to follow both presidential candidates' thoughts on the future of energy. I think whoever told you this was confused: Right now much of our country's energy comes from coal. Obama DID say that he essentially intends to make it so expensive to use coal that we'll see an end to that type of energy in the near future. He DID specifically use the phrase "costs will skyrocket". He justifies this by saying that the money taken in will be used to develop newer, cleaner-burning fuel alternatives. He has interest in alternative energy sources that are wonderful in theory, but are not particularly useful in reality (for example, wind power); he has not really taken a strong stand on nuclear energy.

Of course, cleaner fuel sounds like a great idea, but right now is an awful time for the American public to absorb the cost of this improvement. People are already reeling from gas prices, mortgage problems, and the credit crunch -- and on top of that we're supposed to start paying "skyrocket" prices to heat our homes? It's akin to patching a hole in your living room wall while ignoring the fact that your kitchen is on fire.

Anyway, he was talking about HOME ENERGY, not GAS PRICES, but I can see how these two things could be confused as the conversation was passed from person to person to person.

However, it makes no difference. We NEED gas for our cars. We NEED energy for our homes. By his own admission, prices are going to go up, and it's going to hurt the middle class badly in the same way that gasoline prices have hurt us in the recent past. So while what you heard was wrong in detail, it was correct in theme.

Here's an Obama quote from a news site (if you don't want to accept this as a genuine write-up, just google "obama energy skyrocket", and you'll find plenty of similar things):

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

 

[kaytieeldr]

You haven't mentioned one thing we haven't already either tried or are working on. You don't seem to understand that when we tried to put up a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts a prominent political family had it killed because it would have disturbed their view

Oh, please. The Kennedys - oops, I mean the prominent political family - live in Hyannisport. The wind farm is/was planned for off the coast of Nantucket or Martha's Vineyard. Even the powerful prominent political family can't see THAT far offhsore from the family compound.

No, it's the pretentious, NIMBY, island residents who think their view will be obstructed.