• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A scary strategic problem - no oil

Baker,

While your information is enlightening, I am looking at a 2004/05 Tahoe as representing my requirements the best. For about the same amount of money though, (or less) I can buy a Toyota Sequoia, with approximately the same capabilities. The rub?

The Toyota's fuel economy is far superior to the Chevy, and it retains value quite a bit better too. Considering I tow a boat, camper and carry building materials for my cottage quite regularly as well, the full size is a plus.

While I realise that Toyota parts are more expensive, as I only intend to own this vehicle for 5 years max, this is not really an issue for either vehicle. The shop rate in Edmonton for Chevy and Toyota is the same (100$/hr) for warranty required maintenance.

I would like to buy North American, keeping money and jobs here, but when it will cost me approximately 8,000$ (estimated difference in cost of ownership over 5 years) to do so, I really have a hard time justifying it.

Why should I buy American? (I am trying to be convinced here !)
 
The paradiGM model looks good!

I would not have believed that 30mpg from a Tahoe was possible.

1) How often will the batteries (the 42V one that powers the veh) fail, is their operation affected by the cold, and how much do they cost to replace?

2) Will the warranty on this new vehicle be sufficient to address concerns about it's unproven drivetrain, and;

3) Will this truck be priced similarly to the LS (V8 4WD) Tahoe?

 
Although you might not be in the market for a really big truck, Oshkosh also has a hybrid drive system sized for HLVW sized vehicles:

http://www.oshkoshtruckcorporation.com/about/tech_innovations%7Epropulse.cfm

Oshkosh is a leader in the development of next-generation hybrid propulsion systems in heavy trucks. ProPulse® is an unmatched hybrid electric drive system that dramatically improves fuel economy, reduces emissions, improves life cycle costs, and serves as an on-board AC generator with enough output to power an entire airfield or hospital.

"This leading-edge technology is the first significant step toward the development of an entirely new generation of highly mobile and incredibly efficient trucks. Our focus is on enhancing performance characteristics while making trucks environmentally friendly," said Robert G. Bohn, Oshkosh's chairman, president and CEO.

The ProPulse system uses a unique, modular series-hybrid arrangement to simplify the transmission of power to the wheels. The diesel engine powers an electric generator, which provides direct power to the wheels, eliminating the torque converter, automatic transmission, transfer case and drive shafts. The system has no batteries, using ultracapacitors for energy storage instead. A regenerative braking function stores engine energy and then uses it to assist in the next braking operation, reducing wear and tear on the brake system.

ProPulse has applications for Oshkosh's entire line of products, including defense, refuse hauling, fire and emergency, and other commercial markets. Oshkosh has applied for patents on various aspects of the ProPulse design.

No word on fuel economy or one to one comparisons between regular trucks and ones powered by the ProPulse system.
 
Hybrid Diesel Electric or Gas Electric systems are interesting enough, but BMW has a different take on the Hybrid idea: use the heat generated from the engine to raise steam! A small steam engine is incorporated into the drivetrain, offering a claimed 15% reduction in fuel consumption, as well as a boost in overall power and torque (designing the transmission would be very interesting).

Possible objections would be the steam engine and "boiler" are dead weight until the car warms up, and in urban commuting and short drives to the mall, this would be a serious objection, since there would be a lag between starting the engine and getting the working fluid up to the boiling point for the steam engine to kick in. Trucks, busses, delevery vehicles, trains and cars fitted out for extended use (taxis and police cars come to mind) would benefit, however. The steam engine could be declutched and run as an APU for a short time after the engine is shut down as well.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4936/
 
Sherwood,

I might go over, because the wife wanted to. I'm more partial to the Hot Rod Show. I'll PM you if we're going over.
 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581824890/104-4759890-6395103?v=glance&n=283155
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888

We have entered the age of the resource war. It is unfortunate that it has come to this.

Ever since the creation of the Model T the Oil companies have known that there are alternative fuels other then Oil. Even Henry Ford wanted the Model T to run on Hemp Oil.

Unfortunatly history took it's course in the name of the all mighty USD. Greed.

Now the Oil companies have put our earth in a major jam.

* * * Canadian Soldiers; Do not allow yourselves to be used as a pawn in the future wars for Oil. * * *
Canada has not forgotten Pascendale and Dieppe. Canada does not want to see our brave men and women of the forces to be wasted in a terrible game of chess.

I sincerely hope that when it comes to fighting for the US in Iran, Syria, Venezuala etc or fighting here in Canada against American Imperialism I hope you make the correct decision. In the halls of Northern Command the US Military Industrial Complex is at the present time planning the Annexation of Canada.

www.globalresearch.ca
 
Revelations2005,

You've got a thread already running with your chicken little conspiracy theory. I suggest you keep all your rhetoric there. Stop spamming the board with this stuff. This is the only warning your getting on this.
 
clasper said:
Overall it's a pretty muddy debate, but a few things are clear: oil is non-renewable, and will run out at some point.  Alternative energies will be required some day, and recent oil prices suggest alternatives are needed quite soon.

My focus is on China (since it's producing most of the worlds goods/junk) and it's huge demand on oil. I have no doubt that there will be a show- down in the not too distant future over the world oil supply. I don't think alternative energies will be sufficient to curtail that scenario = based on world population growth, and insatiable appetite for oil.
 
From Instapundit:

GOOD NEWS THAT I HOPE IS TRUE: Roger Stern has an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences arguing that oil is, in fact, plentiful, and that supply issues are politically driven. PDF version is available here: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0503705102v1
 
Interesting, if dense, read.

If I understand one of their conclusions correctly, taxes on petroleum products are actually beginning to artificially favour alternate sources of energy, without necessarily ensuring that these alternative energy sources are viable or economical.  Thoughts?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Interesting, if dense, read.

If I understand one of their conclusions correctly, taxes on petroleum products are actually beginning to artificially favour alternate sources of energy, without necessarily ensuring that these alternative energy sources are viable or economical.  Thoughts?

Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, and energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors).

It is an interesting conumdrum (and obviously more complex than a one line summary can give), since the United States spends something on the order of $100 billion per year on imported oil. With that amount of money flowing out of the country, you would imagine there would be every incentive to turn things around, but this isn't true, and hasn't since the 1973 oil embargo.
 
So, after the Isrealis try to take out the Iranian nuclear capability and the Iraniansthen  close the gulf using their Sunburn anti-ship missles (thanks a bunch for that, Russia!), how much will oil cost per bbl?

Tom
 
TCBF said:
So, after the Isrealis try to take out the Iranian nuclear capability and the Iraniansthen  close the gulf using their Sunburn anti-ship missles (thanks a bunch for that, Russia!), how much will oil cost per bbl?

Tom

I'll call Ralph Klien and ask how much he wants  ;D ;D ;D

Update: Some people are believers in the alcohol economy. My own personal take is that they are not adding the energy inputs of fertilizer and other petrochemicals needed for modern high intensity agriculture (we are talking about raising enough biomass to fuel the transportation economy of the United States), but nevertheless:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp
 
a_majoor said:
I'll call Ralph Klien and ask how much he wants  ;D ;D ;D

Update: Some people are believers in the alcohol economy. My own personal take is that they are not adding the energy inputs of fertilizer and other petrochemicals needed for modern high intensity agriculture (we are talking about raising enough biomass to fuel the transportation economy of the United States), but nevertheless:

http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18976/article_detail.asp

Very interesting article from Robert Zubrin.  There were a few holes in the economics of his Case for Mars (which was 15 years ago), but he's learned quite a bit since then.  He's still politically naive, but you can bet the physics behind what he's saying is bang on- he's analyzed all of the inputs for modern agriculture (and realized that agriculture is incapable of providing all of the alcohol required for the economy).
 
Getting off the oil wagon or at least getting a new and secure supply away from the middle east is becoming more and more pressing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602030807.asp

Three Pillars of Wisdom
Finding our footing where lunacy looms large.

Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie.

Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel.

Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state.

All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10-percent smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power.

Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad."

Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.

Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy.

Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives.

Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it. And the rest of the Islamic world, nursed on the daily "apes and pigs" slurs, can just scarcely conceal its envy that the Persian Shiite outsider will bell the cat before they do.

The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans.

Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor.

The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D.

The only mystery is not how bizarre the news will be from the Middle East, but why the autocratic Middle Easterners feel so confident that any would pay their lunacy such attention.

The answer? Oil and nukes — and sometimes the two in combination.

By any economic standard, most states in the Middle East — whether characterized by monarchy, Baathism, dictatorship, or theocracy — have floundered. There are no scientific discoveries emanating from a Cairo or Damascus. It is tragic and perhaps insensitive, but nevertheless honest, to confess that the contemporary Arab world has lately given the world only two new developments: the suicide-bomb belt and the improvised explosive device. Even here there is a twofold irony: The technology for both is imported from the West. And the very tactic arises out of a desperate admission that to fight a conventional battle against a Westernized military without the cover of civilian shields, whether in Israel or Baghdad, is tantamount to suicide.

Meanwhile, millions of Africans face famine and try to inaugurate democracies. Asia is in the midst of economic transformation. Latin America is undergoing fundamental political upheaval. Who cares? — our attention is glued instead on a few acres near Jericho, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the succession patterns of Gulf Royals, and the latest ranting of an Iranian president who seems barely hinged, and without petroleum and a reactor would be accorded the global derision once reserved for Idi Amin.

So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists.

The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism.

Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both.

The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy.

Encouraging democracy is still vital to offer a third choice other than dictatorship or theocracy — especially when we now recognize the general Middle East rule: The logical successor to a shah is a Khomeini; a Zarqawi wishes to follow a fallen Saddam; a propped-up Arafat ensures Hamas; and a subsidized Mubarak will lead to the Muslim Brotherhood. Puritanical zealotry always feeds off autocratic corruption — as if lopping hands and heads is the proper antidote to military courts and firing squads.

And we also know the political blame game at home: Past realist failures at propping up dictators are postfacto reinvented as sobriety, while the messy and belated democratic correction is derided as foolery. Even the election of Hamas and the honesty it brings are welcome news: Support the process, not always the result, while stopping the subsidy and dialogue if such terrorists come to power. Let them stew in their own juice, not ours.

In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable.

Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: Had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well.

In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His latest book is A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.
 
  http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200602030807.asp
       

 
Interesting observation: rising pump prices are not affecting consumer behaviour in the way expected by classical economists, but there are other factors.

http://www.forbes.com/home/columnists/2006/04/20/energy-costs-gasoline_cx_ns_0420schulz.html

Why The Pump Isn't More Painful
Nick Schulz 04.20.06, 11:30 AM ET

When it comes to gas prices, the media too often know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Flip open a paper or turn on the TV and you'll learn that gas prices are rising again. "Stormy 6 Weeks Ahead," says CBSNews--and warns consumers to expect "pain at the pump." MSNBC says, "Further surge in gas prices expected." "Summer is approaching--and gas prices are already climbing," MSN Money tells us. And this week, crude oil hit $70 per barrel. The culprits include rising demand, pinched supplies, uncertainty over future crude prices and instability in the Middle East and Nigeria.

But what's more interesting about these stories is what they don't tell you. For example, the Associated Press reports that "surveys indicate drivers won't be easing off on their mileage, using even more gas than a year ago." Now why is that? If prices are rising, one would expect consumers would use less.

The answer might be in some of the long-term trends that the short-term media lens is too cramped to see. Energy prices may be rising, but energy itself is much less important to consumers and to the overall economy than it once was.

According to the Bureau of Economic Affairs (see chart here), American consumer spending on energy as a fraction of total personal consumption has declined considerably since 1980. Whereas 25 years ago, one in every ten consumer dollars was spent on energy, today it's one in every 16. In other words, what it takes to heat and cool our homes and drive to and from our jobs and vacation destinations is relatively less costly than it was then.

This goes a long way toward explaining why even when gas prices rise this summer--higher than they were throughout the 1990s--people will still be driving more; it's much more of a value than it was a generation ago.

What's more, so-called energy intensity is declining rapidly. That means we produce more with less energy. According to Economy.com, "The U.S. economy has undergone major structural changes over the last two decades, becoming more energy efficient, thus reducing its overall dependence on energy. … The energy intensity of the U.S. economy has declined by roughly 40% since the first oil crisis (as of 2001)."

These trends are healthy for the economy. They also put the lie to President George W. Bush's recent unwise rhetoric about America's oil "addiction." The nature of addiction typically is that it becomes all-consuming, eating up a greater share of one's life and livelihood. But the long-term trends of American consumer spending reflect something different: Energy is becoming less important to the overall economy over time.

Of course, no one likes to pay more at the pump. And with some analysts predicting oil per barrel going up to $75 or higher in the near future, we might see retail prices go up further still. But unlike a generation or two ago, these increases won't prompt the broader economic pain they once did.

Nick Schulz is editor of TCS Daily.
 
Here's a link to a well-reasoned article in Reason magazine (no pun intended).

http://www.reason.com/0605/fe.rb.peak.shtml

Jim :)
 
The US and Canada could be self sufficient in oil within two years by doing the following :
1.US - coal liquification
2.Canada- liquificiation of tar sands

The cost of a liquification plant is $1.25b  per 22,000 barrel/day. These plants are modules so a 50,000 barrel/day plant is $2.5b. Cost is $25 to $30 a barrel to liquify coal/tar sands. Plant should be built on a site with large proven reserves to keep transportation costs at a minimum. Montana for example has 120 billion tons of proven coal reserves. This technology can be used to liquify oil shale as well. I think this is the best short term way to make our countries entirely independent of foreign oil.
 
Market incentives will help bring about many of the alternative ideas that are being touted here, increase production of existing resources and perhaps unleash a few ideas no one has thought of yet:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200604280845.asp

The Greatest Story Never Told
Even the oil saga can’t disrupt this upbeat economic page-turner.

As all the pollsters are telling us, there’s an inverse relationship between rising gasoline prices and President’s Bush’s falling approval ratings — most especially his approval rating on the economy. Of course, these polls describe a certain national angst over energy that harkens back to the dreadful 1970s. But there’s a better reality out there: Namely, the upturn in gas prices simply is not stopping the economy the way it did three decades ago.

Today’s economy may be the greatest story never told. It’s an American boom, spurred by lower tax rates, huge profits, big productivity, plentiful jobs, and an ongoing free-market capitalist resiliency. It’s also a global boom, marked by a spread of free-market capitalism like we’ve never seen before.

The political resolution to the disconnect between fear (high energy prices) and reality (a great economy) remains to be seen. But as the data keep rolling in, the economy continues to surpass not only the pessimism of its critics, but even the optimism of its supporters.

Recent data on production, retail sales, and employment are stronger than expected. The latest durable-goods report shows huge gains in orders for big-ticket items like airplanes, transportation, metals, machinery, and computers — even cars and parts. These orders suggest that the economic boom will continue as far as the eye can see. And there’s more: The backlog of unfilled orders, the best leading-indicator of business activity, gained 12 percent at an annual rate in the first quarter. With this kind of real-world corporate activity in the pipeline, highly profitable businesses will be doing a lot of hiring in the months ahead in order to expand plant and equipment capacity. Just what the doctor ordered.

As for the energy angst, President Bush recently outlined a sensible pro-market mid-course policy correction. He is suspending the ethanol tax mandate that forced gasoline distributors to switch to the corn-based fuel from the MTBE oxygenate. This ethanol regulation was one of the great energy-policy bungles of all time. Neither refiners nor transporters were anywhere near ready to implement this misguided mandate, which drove up pump prices by 50 cents in just a few weeks. Energy secretary Sam Bodman was warned by industry leaders — like much-maligned former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond — that the ethanol-switch would be a disaster. But Bodman didn’t listen, although, according to the polls, it seems like America did.

But with Bush’s recent action, futures prices for unleaded gasoline are already retreating, and it wouldn’t surprise if the whole ethanol-price-hike effect was reversed. Crude oil is also declining in the aftermath of the Bush announcements, which included the decision to stop the crude-oil fill rate for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At the margin, government deregulation is giving markets more latitude — always a good thing.

The big point here is that free markets work. Rising prices from the global boom will lead to more conservation, less consumption, and more production, but only so long as government stays out of the way. Instead of blaming ExxonMobil for high gas prices, irate motorists and voters should blame Congress for mandating, regulating, and taxing against energy.

Indeed, bashing big oil won’t create a drop of new energy. Nor will confiscating Lee Raymond’s bank account. Actually, over the past fifteen years, ExxonMobil’s total investment has exceeded the company’s earnings, according to Washington analyst James K. Glassman. Meanwhile, all the evidence from time immemorial shows that gas prices are set by market forces, not manipulation at the production level. So-called price gouging is nothing but a political red herring. Windfall profits taxes and special tax subsidies will only diminish energy investment, not increase it.

Energy is best left in the hands of the free market. With this in mind, Congress should allow environmentally friendly drilling in ANWAR and the Outer Continental Shelf, more LNG terminals, and the creation of nuclear power facilities. Deregulation works: Just look at the boom in Canadian oil sands.

President Bush can also build on his new energy policy with more pro-growth measures that will extend the economic boom: Get rid of the ethanol tax for good. Repeal the tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil and elsewhere. Repeal the multiple taxation of dividends and cap-gains, and abolish the death tax while you’re at it. Exercise the budget veto pen to stop bridges and railroads to nowhere. Go back to the Reagan economic model of a strong dollar to hold down inflation and lower-tax-rate incentives to promote economic growth. That model will work as well today as it did twenty-five years ago when it launched the long prosperity boom we continue to enjoy.

Most of all, let free markets work. This is the new worldwide message of freedom, prosperity, and optimism.

— Larry Kudlow, NRO’s Economics Editor, is host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200604280845.asp
       

 
Here's a bit of optimism for you:

In the 1960s, there was a raging debate in the computer science field whether or not a computer would ever be able 'smart' enough to play chess.
Many of the top computer scientists said it was far too complex for a machine, and always would be.
40 years later computers can beat the best human players in the world.

I think our technology is advancing so fast, that when it really becomes important and profitable, alternate energy will come to the fore. It will probably be something we haven't even considered yet. (If you had talked about electricity or photography or radio to someone 50 years before they were invented/discovered, they would have thought you were crackers).

Of course, in the future we will probably also have to deal with berserk terminator robots ... :o
 
Back
Top