Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Wonder how much higher it has to get before the SUV owners start cryin at the gas pump?  :confused:

*******

Oil prices climbed to a new record on Monday amid strong demand, worries about the nation's fuel supplies and security threats in Saudi Arabia.

After hitting $64 during trading Monday, the price of U.S. benchmark crude for September delivery closed at $63.94 a barrel, up $1.63 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That eclipsed Friday's record high close of $62.31 a barrel.

Crude futures today briefly rallied even higher, to $64.27 a barrel, then edged back. Light, sweet crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange was down 6 cents this morning to $63.88.

"Setting a new record in oil is like a broken record - it keeps happening over and over again," said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst for Alaron Trading Corp. in Chicago. "I think we're on a path to hit $70 a barrel."

Flynn and others said Monday's price surge was triggered in part by plans to close temporarily the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia in response to what it said was a "threat against U.S. government buildings in the kingdom," reports Los Angeles Times.

According to Reuters, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog was to hold an emergency meeting in Vienna after OPEC's second biggest producer Iran restarted work at a uranium conversion plant, defying the European Union and running a risk of U.N. sanctions.

In the world's top exporter Saudi Arabia, U.S. missions were shut for a second day because of security concerns. Britain said militants were in the "final stages" of planning attacks.

"By far the biggest jolt to the markets has come from the geopolitical front," said Edward Meir, an analyst at Man Energy.

"We think that the bigger source of tension is emanating from the Iranian situation," he added in a report.

Despite the rampant oil price there is no sign yet of demand letting up. Worries that the world's biggest consumer the United States may run short of gasoline after a string of unexpected refinery closures has contributed to the price surge.

"Investors who were unduly negative about the prospects for the world economy at the start of the second quarter have been rapidly reappraising and revising their forecasts as we've moved through the third quarter," said Andrew Milligan, head of global strategy at fund manager Standard Life Investments.

haha.. im wont cry at teh pumps.... mine is rather good on gas.... for some reason

Its gonna damage the economy :nervous: Can't we just get along with our Arab brothers and sisters?

nope.... so lets bomb them some more........

I can't wait till a move is made against Iran due to their Nuclear Arms program, then that is somehow translated into bombing for oil........

 :hihi:  And this time TAKE THE OIL!  Shit, everyone hates us already anyway so let's atleast get something out of it.  :P

It'll hit $90 during the next 18 months.  The US government will only address the supply side of oil.  They give subsidies to big oil companies to search for new sources of oil even though the oil industry is the most profitable industry in the US.  The biggest factor in rising market prices is the demand side.  China and India oil consumption is growing tens of percent annually.  Yet, the US government does very little to curb demand; they even promote expanding demand.  If you purchase an SUV (for "business purposes"), the government will give you a $25,000 subsidy which makes buying a hummer cheaper than many sedans.  The latest energy bill was a big joke; it does very little to get the US off of its appetite for oil.  I'd like to see the elimination of SUV subsides with increased subsides for buying a hyprid and more money for hydrogen fuel cell development.   

thank the big W for that .. at least clinton era green plan was adressing green and high effecancy veh's.....as wella s alternate fule sources

Fuckin' A man. I'd like to go a step further and just eliminate SUVs! Fuckin retarded, wasteful, and useless.

May as well, this Administration needs another diversion for our stupid Citizen Joe from questioning the failure and purpose of Iraq.

Aug 10, 3:19 PM (ET)

By BRAD FOSS

Oil prices zoomed higher Wednesday, touching a new high of $65 a barrel, with buyers focused on refinery snags and shrinking U.S. inventories of gasoline.

The latest rally - crude futures have risen 14 percent in three weeks - highlights just how nervous the market has become to just about any threat to output, even though analysts say the country has adequate levels of fuel in inventory to offset routine supply disruptions.

The heightened sensitivity comes amid strong demand in the United States and China, the world's top consuming nations, where high prices have only tempered rising fuel consumption slightly.

"People talked about $60 crude slowing economies around the world. But here in the U.S., (Federal Reserve Chairman) Alan Greenspan is telling us the economy is doing great and getting stronger," said James Cordier, president of Liberty Trading Group in Tampa, Fla. "It bodes well for crude testing the $70 range."


Even so, Cordier said he has been stunned by the recent runup in oil and gasoline prices and the lack of any response from motorists. Gasoline prices averaged $2.37 a gallon nationwide last week, while demand picked up by 1.4 percent from a year ago, according to the government data.

Cordier said prices at the pump may continue climbing "until consumers are crying uncle, which they're not."

Energy markets have been extremely jumpy about a spate of refinery outages in recent weeks, though analysts and industry officials said refinery snags are not out of the ordinary for this time of year, when plants run hard to meet peak gasoline demand.

"Hiccups are an unfortunate reality of operating refineries," said Bryan Caviness, who follows the industry for Fitch Ratings in Chicago.

"There have not been any more than what you typically see, but the impact (on prices) has certainly been greater than what you've seen in years past."

The transition of power in Saudi Arabia last week following the death of King Fahd has also unnerved markets, as did the security-related closure of the U.S. embassy earlier this week in the world's largest oil-producing nation.

Light sweet crude for September delivery climbed $1.93 to $65 a barrel in afternoon trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the highest level since Nymex trading began in 1983.

While oil prices are about 40 percent higher than a year ago, they would need to surpass $90 a barrel to exceed the inflation-adjusted peak set in 1980.

OPEC has pledged to pump more oil if needed, though the market has tended to brush off such talk. That's because worldwide demand is averaging some 84 million barrels a day, excess production capacity is limited to about 1.5 million barrels a day and the type of oil available - sour crude - is not the preferred variety for making transportation fuels.

"The market was used to having 4 to 5 million barrels in spare capacity some 10 years ago and people would still like to have this cushion available, but this is not the case anymore," said Manouchehr Takin, an analyst with the Center for Global Energy Studies in London.


The latest supply report from the U.S. Department of Energy showed that crude oil inventories grew by 2.8 million barrels last week to 320.8 million barrels, or 10 percent above year ago levels. The supply of distillate fuel, which includes heating oil, also increased, rising 2.6 million barrels to 129.9 million barrels, or 6 percent above last year.

The agency data showed a 2.1 million barrel decrease in the nation's supply of gasoline, putting inventories at 203.1 million barrels, or 4 percent below last year.

U.S. refiners operated at 95 percent of capacity, a slight decline from the week before.

Some traders say a spate of U.S refinery troubles - the latest reported by BP PLC (BP) on Wednesday - is evidence the industry and its aging infrastructure are having difficulty maintaining output at high levels. A BP spokesman wouldn't comment on how much production would be lost, though the unit that went down because of a leak has the capacity to process 80,000 barrels of fuel per day.

Mary Rose Brown, a spokeswoman for San Antonio-based refiner Valero Energy Corp. (VLO), said she has been getting calls from the financial media about minor production snags that in years past would not have received any attention. "Everybody's asking, so we tell," she said.

But Fitch's Caviness noted that "a side benefit" of refiners' willingness to talk about even the smallest production glitches is that it makes energy traders jumpy, and tends to push prices - and hence refiners' profits - higher.

In other Nymex trading, gasoline futures gained nearly a cent to $1.8320 a gallon, while heating oil inched up to $1.7839 a gallon.

In London, September Brent on the International Petroleum Exchange was trading at $62.22 a barrel, up 24 cents.

---

Associated Press Writers Edith Balazs in Budapest, Hungary, and Gillian Wong in Singapore contributed to this report.

MIAMI -- More than 600 truckers gathered in their big rigs Wednesday to protest the rising gas prices in South Florida, NBC 6's Hank Tester reported.

(http://tinypic.com/ac31x4.jpg)

The trucks, which included tractor-trailers, dump trucks and box trucks, gathered at the intersection of Okeechobee Road and the Florida Turnpike in Miami-Dade County.



Traffic in the area was at a standstill as the trucks started a caravan headed toward Miami City Hall.

The trucks traveled 20 miles to present a petition requesting a fuel surcharge break for independently owned trucks.

The truckers claim that the high cost of gas has made it impossible for them to earn a living.

"The airlines are charging passengers. The steam ship lines are charging the shippers. Everyone who's got clout is getting a surcharge," said Ron Carver of the Teamsters Union. "But the truck drivers who have to buy their own fuel are going into bankruptcy because they don't have the clout to demand this. So they're here today asking Congress to pass a mandatory fuel surcharge to keep them afloat."

The drivers told NBC 6 that the shipping companies that contract them to haul to the Port of Miami pay around 85 cents per mile. With the high cost of gas, operating per mile could cost 60 cents.

"A lot of people are making money on this business -- the shipping line, the owner of the company, the marine terminal. They make a lot of money but we are poor," driver Luis Rivera said.

Rivera owns his own rig and contracts with shippers who he says do not adjust per mile fees to cover the increase in gas. For Rivera, what's left is not much of a living for he, his wife and kids.

"She says that this business is really wrong," Rivera said. "We don't have any money, no possibility, no American dreams. We can do nothing."

Both Telemundo 51 and NBC 6 put in calls to local shippers who contract with the drivers. None wanted to talk to the media.

Commissioner Tomas Regaldo has promised to pass the trucker's petition on to federal lawmakers.

Lets just say Im glad I dont have a car. lol Public transporation rules - well, in Paris at least. 50 euros a month and I can go anywhere in Paris and close suburbs, anytime, anyday.

As for SUV owners, they are already cryin, SLC. lol On French TV the other night they showed a report saying hybrid cars sales have increased a lot in the past year or so in the US. I think thats a very good thing. A good GMC Suburban - Ive seen one in Paris the other day, not very practical to find a parking space lol -, Cadillac Escalade or a Lincoln Navigator does rule though. Just kiddin.

See the problem in America is, unless you are in a big city, public transportation sucks!!! I'd do it in a heartbeat, if I could get anywhere, but it's just not feasable.....

EXACTLY!  I have lived in a city and didn't have a car and it was great, but now that I'm not in a big city, I can't do that.  Also, I have 2 sons that play hockey and the older one is on the travel team so we need a vehicle large enought to carry us, luggage, and that huge hockey bag!

but basically, what is oil for ?
cars ? all this war for cars ?
so we can go to the movies ? so the mom can drive her kids to soccer ?

cause yeah, oil is energy, but basically, energy for cars and nasa rockets ?

If this war was just about stealing their oil then why aren't we getting any cheap oil?

You're a complete idiot.

 i love teh fire that is in these new posters...... keeps me young..... i jut wish they would all show up at once... that way i dont have to yell and yell and yell.......LOL

i can see your point on the why were not seeing the cheap prices. i look at it this way. the general population will not see the cheap prices, it is about securing stragic reserves for the military machine. some next gen ground veh's that are in testing are hybrids, and some are fuel cell, but for teh most part military veh's are fuel chuggers, very low milage per gallon. and with the West being based off of big business which most have some type of tie in to the oil industry they will make a huge profit.


and one thing to keep in mind even though demand for oil is on the rise for fuel dont forget that oil is a required material for about 75% of all things man made. almost all teh lightweight materials require oil for production, machines require it to be lubed.... etc......

yeah Prom (can i call you prom?) ... alkanes are still a basis of our industry .. but we're using less and less ...

it's just that , basically, we want this oil so bad so we can drive our cars ... to go from a point to another. why can't we stay still ? :lol:
we GOTTA move ! !!

 :o :o :o :o

yes you may call me prom......... but that dont mean were going steady... :rofl:

We use oil for all kinds of things, not just fuel.

Oil contributes to making our electricity, plastics, pesticides, agriculture, modern medecines, water distribution, all computers and other high tech devices......it goes on and on. Our entire society depends on oil.

The distribution of food is another thing that worries me.......Oil is needed to deliver food, in America we rely on this, Canada even more so.

If the sole purpose for the war in Iraq was to get access to oil reserves then why did the US waste their time going anywhere near bagdad?  They could have gone in and taken the southern oil fields and had enough oil to supply the US for the next thirty years.  Also if they just wanted oil, they could have taken saddam out and installed another dictator that they could control.

As for the military needing oil, that's not really an issue in this. It is true that military vehicles use a large amount of oil, the abrahams tank gets around a half a mile per gallon which is why they get transported everywhere on the back of a truck.  The US produces around 50% of the oil they use and the two largest sources of oil imports to the US aren't even from the middle east, they are canada and mexico.

The idea that the main motivating factor in the war was the aquisition of oil fields is a smoke screen dreamed up by the left to hide their opposition to the removal of a bloodthirsty tyrant.

only one question who wants to go dig up the last 4 threads on iRAQ/oil as a reason.......valid assments, though i am starting to become surprised at the amount of neo-cons that are joining this board........ i must ask where do you all come from

As far as in America we happen to come from the Majority, based on the last 3 major elections.

Let's hear it for the red states.  ;D

 got to ask.. cause election voting in the US makes almost no sence over all...... of the 3 you speak of..... 1 was the reelection of Clinton.....???? who is a dm correct...... but you and your collages... foolish imo.... but wait.... based on pop vote didnt bush loose 2000?...... no wait it was won by bush ... through some legal filpping..... or something.....so would that not mean that only the clinton reelection.. and the last your were the majority?

but really based on a 205 million person voter base.. some 80 million didnt even vote.... give or take a mill...... between bush and kerry not even 120 mill votes were cast..... and ya know what thats a pretty big margin that didnt vote.... if they all voted for 1 other person they could have elected anyone they wanted... and not got touched by bush or kerry.... more then a third didnt vote.. lol   thats funny

The popular vote is not what the US elections are based on.  The candidate who wins in each state get the electoral college votes for that state and whoever have the most votes from the electoral college is the winner. 

It is true that President Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000 but he did win the popular vote in 2004.  Since you mentioned clinton it is worth reminding you that he didn't win the popular vote in 1992 or 1996.  The last president to win the popular vote was President Bush snr in 1988.

As for people who didn't vote. You can't count votes that weren't cast.  They all could have voted for gary coleman for all we know.  If people wish to vote, they can.

We hate America! Down with America! All Americans are evil! Boo..hiss!

Now I feel like I fit in around here. ::)

Wanna borrow my "Che lives" tshirt? :P

only if it's XL

Fuck anti-american people. Fuck anti-european/ asian/ middle eastern/ african, etc. people. Plain and simple.

As for the rest, you guys should just move to a big city and sell your car! ;D Ok I know it's not that simple but you see the point. Or at least get a hybrid car. Like SLC said, oil is not just for cars, but if people could use their car a little less, or not have one at all (for those who live in big cities), that would make a HUGE difference in the middle to long term.

I decided to stop talking about politic on the internet because I consider that lots of people (but not all of them) don't have enough knowledges to speak seriously about that. I suggest you to do like me, I can see you start to get annoyed (like I used to be). It's a loss of time. If some people are anti-americans or anti-whatever, let them in their ignorance. You will never make them change their mind.

I understand this, and know it to be true. You can't tell anyone anything unless they are ready to hear it. If you hate America, fine, whatever. I really don't give two shits for your opinion. They're like assholes you know. It does seem like every other thread either starts out with that being the topic, or it just gravitates to that end, though.

Will said it correctly. Don't waste your time hating someone. It's the most worthless emotion.

A majority with a 38 percent approval rating.

Let the black and white speaker have the floor..........

Just because somebody speaks out against their country, does not mean they hate their country.

There is nothing MORE PATRIOTIC then standing up and demanding accountability from the people who run this country.

The price of oil per barrel has gone up what? 40% in the last 2 years? This is tremendous, and we better get real about it, or we are going to be in for a hard economic downturn.

I see a lot of right wingers coming aboard here to insult and point fingers, but I see little, if any real hard facts, or logic.

I'll take logic, common sense, decency, and what is right, over rabid finger pointing anyday.

So demanding accountability=speaking out against your country? :confused:

Yes.

I guess you definition of "speaking out against your country" would be bad.

In my book, calling somebody on a pack of lies, and war crimes, is the most patriotic thing I can do.

The legal definition of what you're doing is sedition and during world war 2 would probably have gotten you locked up.

Kitano, the definition of what you've been force fed is propaganda.

I sure am glad that we have such a wonderful rail system in this country to help offset the gas prices.  Oh wait, that's Europe, not oil junky US.

You may not have noticed this but your trains run on diesel.  Higher oil prices mean higher ticket prices on your "workers transport". ;)

Funny...that sounds like the country we are trying to liberate.  :hihi:

Your Amerika sure is different than mine. Sounds like you'd prefer a dictatorship, lock 'em up if you don't like what they say.

 

my trains runs on electricity, that comes from nuclear plants.

it's not like george bush and his coal .... ?___?

ps: you don't deserve the name Kitano ....

Thats why we are trying in France at least to get our public transportation to work exclusively on electricity, so we dont have to rely on oil for that.

Edit, damn, missed a page and didnt see Bessam's reply lol

Very true. if axl could hear that and give a call to Slash... ::) ;D But well, it's kinda off-topic, it was just a little mention. 8)

Owned!!!!

(http://tinypic.com/ae1rw6.jpg)

Maybe we should take note of the Europeans? Or no?

well if we are going to profile tehm........

Nuclear is the way to go I think, but we are so far away from anything like that here. I am afraid we will dick around until it's too late. There is a chance oil could be used up one day............

 the chance is rather high..... lol


but for really clean nuke.... we should be looking towards India... tehy got some new type of plant that they are building..... going to be amazing... uses some rather abundant material that is found in regualr dirt..... but in the best concentrations with uranium......... god i wish i could remember it...... time to goolge.......thorium


there ya go

hers teh link

http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

3 times more abundant then uranium

Very interesting.....

Based on the reserves it appears that  Australia is the next country we will liberate after we team up with India...... :hihi:

Seriously though, that is very interesting. I wish somebody here would put money into R and D and have a working model in the next 10-15 yrs. Oil will run out eventually. Even if it does not right away, the time leading up to the end of the hydrocarbon man can, and will be...ugly.

agreed here....its funny were looking at different things for power production for my provience for teh short to mid term future..... so were going to do my hydro... but if we can get something going with india it would be great for us to do be at the leading edge in canada.... and well NA.... and the way we are we would gladly help out the poor impovrished country of the US with our magical technology

Gasoline Futures market going berserk

At one point they hit $3 a gallon wholesale for delivery in Sept/Oct. That means Euro-style pump prices are coming to America. Time to sell your gas hog is now.

A one dollar a barrell jump usually takes months to happen, and now we are seeing it daily. No telling what is going to happen.

I wish I had never sold my old 1981 Mercedes diesel. That thing was awesome in it's on right: old, cool, big, slow, safe, easy to work on, cheap, and reliable...but I also could have converted it to run on veggie oil. I may start looking for one soon.

Here is an interesting older article....


While U.S. backslides, France has cut oil use

October 7, 2004

By Jad Mouawad New York Times

The United States, land of gas-guzzling SUVs and air-conditioned McMansions, might do well to turn to the country Americans love to hate for lessons on how to curb its reliance on imported oil: France.

Now that oil has reached at least $50 a barrel and the world is coming to expect relatively high oil prices to last a long time, experts say that a rethinking of America's wasteful ways is once again an urgent undertaking.

And like it or not, France, whose perceived diplomatic obstructionism in the run-up to the Iraq war provoked a boycott of French products, has displayed a quality ripe for import: an impressive tenacity in waging what the French call the war on gaspi, short for gaspillage, or waste. It has also done so in a way that the United States has not been able to: over the long term.

Spurred by the oil shocks of the 1970s, France embarked on a vast state-led drive to flush as much oil from its economy as possible. With the national slogan at the time, "We don't have oil, but we have ideas," it accelerated the shift of electricity production from oil-fired power plants to nuclear reactors, increased taxes on gasoline to the equivalent of $3.75 a gallon, encouraged the sale of diesel-powered cars and gave tax breaks to energy-hungry industries like aluminum, cement and paper to shift from oil to other fuels.

It worked. In contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France's record.)

"Americans have completely abandoned their efforts at energy conservation over the past decade and have been incredibly carefree about oil consumption because they believed they would get access to cheap energy ? through force if necessary," said Pierre Terzian, an energy specialist who runs the Paris-based consulting firm PetroStrategies.

The contrast between French resolve and American abandon in recent years is sharp. The United States, too, took the high road in the 1970s and early '80s, when the combined effect of the 1973 oil embargo, the growing power of OPEC and the Iranian revolution of 1979 created long gas lines and raised the prospect of an oil producers' stranglehold over the American economy.

The price of Arabian light crude rose from $1.85 a barrel in 1972 to $40 in 1981, or $80 in today's dollars.

Americans responded with a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph, a home-insulating boom and a blossoming of energy-technology start-ups to help businesses cut their energy bills. Vast improvements came in the home-appliance industry: Refrigerators, for example, now consume a third of the energy needed 30 years ago.

But slowly, the nation resumed old habits. By the late 1980s, with the economy booming and oil prices below $20 a barrel, gas guzzlers were back, cars raced along highways at 75 mph with impunity and new vehicles' average mileage per gallon, which had almost doubled to 27.5 in 1987 from 14 in 1972, slipped back to 24 mpg, compared with Europe's 36.

In the 1990s, the United States, which represents roughly 24 percent of world economic output and an even lower share of industrial production, nonetheless accounted for a third of the growth in demand for global oil.

A big reason for the policy divide, said Amy Jaffe, the associate director of Rice University's energy program, is a cultural contrast of two sharply opposed ways of looking at the world.

"In the United States, we try to control things over which we have no control, like Russia or Saudi Arabia, instead of looking at what we could do inside," Jaffe said. "We're like drug addicts. We're looking around for another dealer instead of going to detox."

But with oil now at $50 a barrel, double what it was two years ago, and with many analysts expecting substantially higher energy prices in the next decade than during the 1990s, some experts are saying that both government and industry are going to need to do some fundamental rethinking of some basic policies.

"The lack of emphasis on demand in the past 20 years in the United States has a lot to do with the predicament we're in now," said Ashok Gupta, an economist with the National Resources Defense Council. "We need to look at what it will take to get manufacturers to offer technologies that people want."

One obvious step, which politicians are loath to even mention, would be to increase taxes on gasoline. Here again, the divergence between the United States and Europe is instructive. To encourage the use of mass-transit systems and finance their development, European governments impose generally high taxes on gasoline. French drivers pay more than $5 a gallon for gasoline, $3.75 of that in taxes, compared with $1.90 a gallon on average in the United States, with only 41 cents of that going to taxes.

To be sure, the depiction of the United States as the world's energy wastrel and of France as a model of virtue can be overdrawn. All developed countries have significantly improved their energy efficiencies in manufacturing and construction since 1973. Moreover, oil's slice of global energy demand has fallen to 35 percent today from 45 percent 30 years ago.

Still, oil will remain the main source of energy for decades to come, and official projections still show oil consumption in the United States rising by 43 percent by 2025.

But rising prices could go a long way to damp demand.

"The question is, How much do prices have to increase for attitudes to change?" said Gupta of the National Resources Defense Council.

I read that the price of oil will hit 112 $  to 120 $ wich means that Venezuela will take over the world... nah just kidding, but they will keep on pissing USA off.. hehe

                                   @;---,----.--.-,-.-,-.,-------- TPR

They could wreck us financially as could China and Japan. If we piss these guys off enough with our plans for world domination, they could attack our economy and it could be devastating. Just a small percentage of our oil supply being cut, or slowed even could make prices sky rocket.

 ::)

What plans?

That's what u get for being late to meetings!

Well with 5 meetings a day I sometimes have to pick and choose. :P

Well certainly Venezuela and the rest of the countries members of the OPEP (I dont know how you write it in English, but its the organization or countries producing oil) are in a very powerful place, lets hope that they take advantage of their position specially Venezuela...

Chavez rules...

                @;---,----.,-.-,-.-,.-,-,-------- tpr

Many of these countries hold huge amounts of our debt, and if they choose to dump it, we could be in for real trouble. These nations understand that war not need be fought with bullets and bombs, but rather economically. They (as many other countries) are growing tired of our actions and probably willing to do something about it.

We are the largest debtor nation on earth. We have spent the farm, and live on credit. Over the past three decades, we have given China and Japan trillions and trillions of dollars in cash in exchange for cheap junk (and great cars), much of which they put in the bank. We have given them the means and the power to destroy us simply by continuely bidding up the price of oil.

If the Chinese and Saudi quit buying our debt, never mind dumping it, it could cause a serious economic depression in this country. Which I think (sadly) we are headed.

The whole world is suffering because of U.S.A. ambitions maybe its time of a change....

                                     @;---,.---.,--------tpr)

That is absolutely correct.  Nuclear is cleaner and more efficient than most everything else.  Too bad the left killed the development of nuclear plants in the 80s.  Now we are behind.  Furthermore, the government does not allow plants to reuse spent fuel which makes us have to find a place to store it.  I think nuclear is the way to go for places like the US, however, I dont believe it is the place to go in other countries because they dont have the regulation and quality controls to make sure that it is safe.

LOL, how so?

I do not know what the LOL is for??  It is a pretty much common knowledge.  During the 80's the left protested and had a campaign that led people to believe that Chenobyl would be the rule rather than the exception.  It was a campaign based on fear that misled the public.  It still exists among the left whenever nuclear power is brought up.  Believe me, my father works in the industry and he is bombarded by questions about it all of the time.  I was actually surprised to see some here advocate its use. 

The whole debate was resurected during the deregulation fiasco over the recent years in California.  There is still a big lobby against it.  Think about it, what other reason is there to be against it.

well, in the end, the us might not be so far behing, because with the new technologie (ITER) that the japanese and french are working on ( http://www.iter.org/index.htm - and the center will be near my second home town Aix en Provence, south of france)

the old fashionned Fission nuclear plant might be out dated.
Fusion creates less radiocactive material and is much more effecient.

so the us can hop on the train now.

No links, facts, articles, anything? Just your word on all this huh?

LOL is because your notion is absurd.

So you claim the protest from the left actual shot down the use of nuclear power as an alternative resource? Even though Reagan was president for 8 yrs, followed by Bush for 4.

Then, with W already into his second term, still no real push for nuclear power? Wow, the left must have some amazing strength that has a hangtime of almost 20 yrs!!!  :hihi:

It couldn't be because Bush I, and W are in cahoots with big oil....Naaaah...that couldn't be it.  :hihi:

Once again, the left have ruined it for everybody. Not only that, but they ruined it 20 years ago for everybody today!

Amazing!  :o

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4rgRWWMS-rQJ:www.eco.utexas.edu/Homepages/Faculty/Cleaver/357Lgarzachap3.pdf+antinuclear+power&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The fact that you are challenging my assertion is what is amazing.  My father has worked in the industry for 30 years so I am pretty familiar with it.  You can agree or disagree with the assertion, but Im not basing my opinion on an article I read but from someone that knows the industry and from my own perceptions as someone that has had an interest in the nuclear industry.  If you want links or articles you can look for yourself because I am not here to try and convince the unconvinceable. 

Can you not handle one bit of criticism of the left?  The right is fucked up to.  They are a big part of the reason why we have no alternatives to gas guzzling cars.  Both sides can be criticized for the energy crisis, not just Bush and Halliburton.

Yes, look it up.  There hasnt been any facilities built since three mile island fiasco.  Those on FAR left deceived the public about the safety and environmental effects of nuclear energy.  It is a campaign that continues today about nuclear energy.  Besides, most plants are approved on a state wide basis and then are regulated federally.  The left goes and protests anywhere one is about to be built by convincing the public that there will be a meltdown.  It happens all the time.  Where I have lived in California there are nuclear plants that produce the energy, and everytime they are about to extend the license of the plant there is protest after protest.

It has nothing to do with the presidency.  Companies try to get them built and states deny them. 

LOL, I am surprised it took you this long to blame it on Bush and big oil.  LOL.  You do know that many of the big oil companies are also the owners of many of the nuclear plants.  Besides, as I pointed out California has denied such plants because of their safety not because of big oil.  I do not think you would suggest that California, perhaps the most liberal nation in the country, would be in bed with big oil would you?  The fact that you would blame it on Bush and big oil is amazing to me, but not surpising.

Why else were such plants not built?  Most areas nuclear plants have been denied they are not competing with oil energy, but they are competing with coal, hydroelectric and other sources of energy.  You are very arrogant in your posts, expecially considering how your post clearly shows your lack of knowledge about the types of energy that nuclear competes with, and the fact that these plants are being stalled at the state level and not the national level.  Ironically, you will find that those states that are pushing for nuclear power are those that tend to have the biggest oil industries.

For someone that claims to be such an independent thinker, you should look stuff up yourself before trying to tear apart a post just because they use the term "left".  Certainly you do not ask for such evidence when the right is being criticized.  I enjoy many of your posts on Iraq and other things and I think your right on much of that stuff, but not everything is the result of Iraq, Bush, and big oil.  I am not going to tell you how to post, but it sure would be great if you could discuss a topic with an open mind without bashing or ridculing anyone that disagrees or has a difference of opinion than you.

The fact that you are challenging my assertion is what is amazing.  My father has worked in the industry for 30 years so I am pretty familiar with it.  You can agree or disagree with the assertion, but Im not basing my opinion on an article I read but from someone that knows the industry and from my own perceptions as someone that has had an interest in the nuclear industry.  If you want links or articles you can look for yourself because I am not here to try and convince the unconvinceable. 

haha, wow, how dare I question you.... ::)

Please try you appeal by authority with somebody else.

Democrats just backed a bill to push for more nuclear power not to long ago anyway.

Can you not handle one bit of criticism of the left?  The right is fucked up to.  They are a big part of the reason why we have no alternatives to gas guzzling cars.  Both sides can be criticized for the energy crisis, not just Bush and Halliburton.

I'm not blaming Bush and Halliburton for everything, nor am I letting the left on the hook on everything. It is Clintons fault, for instance, for the rise of SUVs and more waste, as he didn't require suvs to have a mpg standard.


 However you claiming it's the lefts fault for the lack of progress on nuclear energy is not going to fly here.

Don't change the subject and claim I can't take criticism, that isn't the point.

  The fact that you would blame it on Bush and big oil is amazing to me, but not surpising.

I'm not. You are blaming it totally on the left, which is false statement, backed with "my father....."

For someone that claims to be such an independent thinker, you should look stuff up yourself before trying to tear apart a post just because they use the term "left".  Certainly you do not ask for such evidence when the right is being criticized.  I enjoy many of your posts on Iraq and other things and I think your right on much of that stuff, but not everything is the result of Iraq, Bush, and big oil.  I am not going to tell you how to post, but it sure would be great if you could discuss a topic with an open mind without bashing or ridculing anyone that disagrees or has a difference of opinion than you.

Your generalization is what got me to post. Claiming it's all one sides fault is bullshit and you know it. You can attack me anyway you want, but you know darn well it is everybodies fault that nuclear energy isn't being used. Not just the left. Again I didn't say everything was a a result of Bush and big oil. Oil companies have their hands in all kinds of up and coming energy sources, however it doesn't stop them from churning out record profits from the cash cow currently in place now, ie OIL.

Why else has not one plant been built since Three Mile?  It was scare tactics by the extreme far left factions.  Believe it or not.  If you dont believe me than search yourself for why there has been no plants built.  It was misinformation about the safety of the plants.  Of course with anything there are numerous factors that lead to a result, but the one the one that was the most influential was the protests and misinformation campaign about the safety of nuclear plants. 

Perhaps I should have said the far left, but the fact of the matter is that it came from left wing factions.  In fact, it still exists.  I think its good that the dems voted for the energy plan, however, it wasnt the dems in Congress that I was referring to, it was left wing special interest groups.

Sorry for sounding so adversarial, but it was simply a response to what I read as a post mocking my post with no substance in which to mock it.

I'm not mocking you.

Bustin' your balls, yea, mocking no.

Look, of course there are people against nuclear power, there still are, but that does not mean it is the left's stance on that issue. Nor does it mean, the 'left stopped it from happening, or proceeding'.

The main concern is what to do with the waste, which I agree, needs to be done correctly, with no looking the other way when it comes to accountability.

Fair enough.  Ill just bet we run into the same barriers when the next plant starts to be built.  Your right though, the considerations nowadays are terrorism and waste.  The waste issue, however, is only a problem because the government does not allow us to reuse spent fuel as other countries do.  I dont blame Nevada for not wanting the cast storage there, but not sure where would be a better place??

The NV thing is understandable. Nobody wants it anywhere. The biggie to me, is watching them transport it. Nobody wants the stuff coming through their town either....I think more people are changing over to the Nuclear option. Dems who were against it (for disposal reasons) have begun to swtich. People are realising that we are too dependent on oil. We are on a downward ratio...We find one barrel for every four we consume.

I read up on it before I was going to move to LV, but now...I'm pretty far away from there, so I haven't read on it in a while.

Something has to give quick. I did the math and even if the price of gas doubled, I could still go on. I'd work a touch more, or adjust my spending, or both. No big deal. But I don't own a 8 cylinder SUV either. I swear I see more people driving SUVs down here in Florida then Utah (where it would actually be needed). I must wonder what type of hit these people will take? Average consumer driving a Yukon is getting what? 10 mpg in town? How big a tank? And how often to fill up? I bet they are paying 80 bucks a week before this started. That is 240 bucks a month. Price goes up 25% and then they are making as much as their SUV payment on gas. When do people look in the mirror and ask if this makes sense anymore?

People are also snatching up cheaply built McMansions on interest only loans, burning away electricity they don't need to live the "American dream". I mean...how wasteful are we becoming here? I have a 2000 sq ft home and 1/4 of that I don't know what to do with. It's too much for me, and I have two kids and two dogs. I already told my wife that when we buy the home we are going to stay in, we really don't need much more than 1800 ft. Anything more, would be wasteful.

I guess the theme Americans need to learn is: just because we can, doesn't mean we have to do have it. Our diet and obesity in this country is a great example of how we think too, ie MORE MORE MORE.

Just like those before us, it will take a hit to the pocket book to change, or at least demand it.

The interest only loans crack me up.  Some people are just stupid.  I guess in California they are just praying that they get equity through an increase in the housing market.  However, too bad it has started to sputter.  The thing is, not only are these people on interest only loans, but they have adjustable rates.  Right now they can barely pay the interest payments with their adjustable rate.  As soon as rates continue to increase these people arent going to make their payments, and they are going to have no equity (cause housing prices are no longer increasing, and they only are paying off interest).  It almost seems to be the PERFECT STORM for the housing market.  Since I am not an owner, I am eagerly awaiting this storm in order to get into a house in an expensive area.

Your quote about living on debt to live the American Dream is very true out here.  I see all of these people with new 700 thousand dollar houses with two new SUVs in the driveway.  These are families with a combined income of about 60k or less.  They are going to be hit hard.  Americans do live on far too much debt, and its going to hit some soon, but not us.

SLCPunk for president!!!? :hihi: :hihi:

You're right about a lot of Americans wanting more than they can afford.? I see it a lot.? There are people that make 1/2 as much as I do that have twice as much and I wonder how they do it.? Well, all their credit cards are maxed out and they are in debt up to their ears.

I'm proud to say that I pay cash for my vehicles, owe very little on my 4 bedroom house/4 bath house, and pay off my credit card every month.? I make double payments on my house every month so I can get rid of that.? Currently other than that, my biggest expense each month are my taxes! ::) (although gas is a close 2nd.)

Right on!! You are one of the few out there who do this.

A good book is "The millionaire next door" talks about how so many people in these homes really have no liquid money and they are in debt to their eyeballs.

I am with you and will try to pay off my home in under ten years. I want to experience life, not be a slave to the banks. What kind of life is that? The worst thing I see people do is pull money from their homes to pay cc debt, then rack up more debt. So they are using their home as an ATM machine and then doing it all over again. I wonder if people have gone insane in this country? haha, I'm serious though, how are these people going to retire?


I read how the median home price in California is 500k. That two young people, each making 50k each, use 70% of their income on an interest only loan, to buy a fixer upper. I mean, Jesus man, time for a reality check!! This is nuts.

Interest only loans are ok if you are an investor I think. But, that is part of investing, you can loose your butt. An everyday home buyer to do this is nuts. I know a guy who has a 4 option loan type setup, he can pay interest only, less than interest (but interest is then tacked onto the interest the next month!!!), the normal payment, or inbetween. Uhhh....hello? Which one do you think he chooses? He uses the extra money to party with...dumb.

(http://tinypic.com/amz32a.jpg)

By Ron Scherer and Adam Karlin Tue Aug 16, 4:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - As gasoline breaks the $2.50 a gallon barrier, creative energy-saving ideas are beginning to flow from US business that could help Americans spend less at the pump.


? More companies are helping employees cut out-of-pocket fuel expenses through telecommuting programs.

? A campaign in Atlanta pays commuters $3 a day for three months if they switch to "clean commutes," such as bicycles and van pools.

? The car-sharing companies that are springing up offer a significant number of gas-sipping hybrids.

? The owner of some Milwaukee gasoline stations is giving a discount to cabdrivers who buy his brand of gas.

Yes, Americans, even with their long love affair with the SUV, are also starting to look for ways to cut down on gasoline expenses that are hitting as high as $500 a month.

"We are on the cusp of change," says Mark Routt, a senior consultant at Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Wakefield, Mass. "Looking back over the last year, Americans have had a taste of higher oil prices that have only gone up, and now they are starting to dial in lifestyle changes."

Indeed, the catalyst to this newfound interest in conservation is the soaring price of oil, which was close to a record $67 a barrel on the futures exchange Monday.

With two more weeks in the summer driving season, regular unleaded is now $2.55 a gallon nationally, according to GasPriceWatch.com.

Americans say the prices are strapping them financially. On Friday, an Associated Press-AOL poll of 1,000 adults found that 64 percent say gas prices will cause them money problems in the next six months.

According to an analysis by Mark Wolfe, director of the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, gas prices will cost a family with two cars $533 more this year than last - $917 more than two years ago.

"For people who are low income, this is like your entire salary increase goes to energy and for those on fixed income, it's even worse," says Mr. Wolfe.

At least according to anecdotal evidence, the price spike has Americans investigating ways to cut down on their bills.

In Milwaukee, Andy Khullar, who owns 18 gasoline/convenience stores, is giving a discount to a large taxi fleet when the drivers buy his brand of gas. "Everyone is watching their pennies," Mr. Khullar says.

Some motorists are opting for car- sharing companies, which offer members a fleet of cars that can be reserved on an hourly or daily basis. One such company is Seattle-based Flexcar. Its flat fee includes, among other things, gas, which isn't as big of a cost to the company as some might think: Sixty percent of the Flexcar fleet are hybrids.

"Business is good for us," says Lance Ayrault, Flexcar CEO. "I don't know if we can directly attribute it to spiking gas [prices]. Certainly as gas approaches record highs, we get a lot of inquiries."

Another approach is evident in San Ramon, Calif., where the Bishop Ranch Business Park is throwing every inducement managers can think of at commuters so they won't drive to work solo. Almost 30,000 commuters clock into one of the 350 companies in the business park. But with the incentives funded by the park's developer and Chevron Corp., 30 percent of employees don't drive to work by themselves.

Van-poolers, for instance, get half of their van-pool fees rebated after committing to the service for three months, according to Marci McGuire, transportation manager for the Bishop Ranch transportation center.

On top of that, free buses shuttle workers 55 times a day from Bay Area Rapid Transit stops to Bishop Ranch and back. And if an emergency calls an employee away, he or she can take advantage of six free taxi rides. "Only about 2 to 3 percent of people use that service per year. But it's the biggest objection people have to giving up their car," says Ms. McGuire. "They say, 'I have children in school. I have to drive!' "

Those who take the plunge into car- and van-pools often find it worthwhile. That's the case of Kellie Prince Anglin, who works for Fiserv, an Atlanta financial services firm. She estimates that she used to pay $500 a month for gas for her Dodge Durango.

But in three months of van-pooling, Ms. Anglin estimates that her monthly gas expenses plummeted to $170. She also enjoys the increased free time in the morning. "I have a laptop with a wireless card, and I find myself working some on the way in. We even play Trivial Pursuit in the van one or two times a week," she says.

Both Fiserv and the local Clean Air Campaign pay 20 percent of the van-pool fee.

For yet others, the campaign contributes the sum of $3 a day for a "clean commute."

Still other companies are trying to help employees cut gasoline expenses by participating in telecommuting programs. In the Atlanta area, such companies as Georgia Power, General Electric Energy, and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta are allowing employees to work at home.

"There is a lot more interest in the programs across the board because of the high gas prices," says Michael Halicki, communications director of the Clean Air Campaign, which recently sponsored a study of the issue. The survey, which will be released this week, found that employees working at home reward their employers with extra hours of work. "They get up to 20 percent more work from them than from office-bound counterparts," he says.

The price of gas over in the US is still waaay lower than here in Europe.. I'd like to know what people over there would say if the price was lifted from what you have now, to the numbers we have here...

Over here, in Finland, the average cost for one liter of fuel was 1,268 euros. Now that is 1,565 dollars. And that's for one liter.. A liter is about 0,26 gallons, so when you do the math, a gallon of gasoline in Finland for example costs 5,93 US

And of course, like everywhere else, the price is going up.

They'd shit themselves. We already have people spending 500 bucks a month on gas, yet they drive on. So how much more of a hit is it going to take for these people to give up the gas whore SUVs (part of what got us in trouble in the first place)?

I have to wonder what number will put us in a recession. 3.5 gallon? 4.50 gallon? 5.0???

By inflation standards, we are lower than we are 20 yrs ago too. But that still doesn't mean it won't hurt people in the pocketbook when these prices increase. In America, most people's money is all accounted for before they even get it. So any little financial change, could be a big bump.

Again, with speculative prices around 3 a gallon wholesale, it may get UGLY soon. I think many Americans (if they are not already) will turn to their creidt cards to pay the higher gas/energy bills. The gas cards will just extend more credit and we'll just charge away.

I was doing the math today and if the price went up to 5 bucks a gallon, I'd still be ok, but sure as heck would be carpooling more often.

If it does get that high, I'm buying a benz diesel and converting it to run on veggie oil. If I do, I'll post pics here. :peace:

Good question - it would have to get super high for me to make my sons quick playing hockey and for me to quit work so the driving would be cut down.   Well, I could find a smaller vehicle to drive to work, but not for hockey.  Actually, we have one big vehicle and one small one.  Since I drive the most, I usually drive the smaller one except for hockey.  That's the best that I can do for now - unless I want to start strapping my kids to the roof of the vehicle.  :hihi:

haha, I have thought about this with mine. But not to save on gas.... :hihi: