No diesel in sight for the US? - Page 2 - Defender Source
Defender Source  

Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 09:20 PM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECR
So you don't think the oil company lobbyists have any pull with the US government (George Bush) and you don't think the the Bush administration listens to their needs/desires?
I think you are insane, but to each his own. There are a ton of folks who think Bush is great, go for it.

When someone says George Bush it means the Bush administration. Taking it lietrally to mean "one man" is idiotic. That would be like saying George Bush and Geroge Bush (the man) alone runs the USA and does each and every job required to run his administration. Get real.

So "The Bush administrations" policies on oil and their tapping into US oil reserves, that in turn drive aspects of the futures market, has no bearing on oil and gas prices?
Only about 95% of the free thinking world disagree with you there.
I am constantly amazed by the sheer lack of research that affects people’s opinions now a days. You need only a very meager understanding of the oil industry to know what the Bush administration (or any administration) can’t do a damn thing to affect the price we pay at the pump, minus signing into law actual legislation. Can you name what legislation Bush has signed to affect oil prices? How about the independent investigation question I already posted? How about this, how much of our strategic reserves has Bush released in the last few months that has caused the oil prices to drop?

Guess what, Bush hasn’t changed anything in the last 6 months. “Huh, but Bush and his people control it!!!!” Seriously, pick up an economic text book and start reading. Even if had released huge amounts of reserves, it would barely affect the price. The futures market determines the actual price per barrel which is what determines the price. What affects the futures market? All kinds of things. What is lowering the price now? Simple, there were massive finds of new oil reserves in the southern Gulf of Mexico using new drilling techniques pioneered by the evil bastards themselves, the EVIL oil companies.

And yes, the oil industry is very powerful, so is the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Alternative Energy companies, ACLU, Teachers Unions, you name it. Besides, the entire premise of your reasoning is flawed because you think oil companies actually care who wins elections. Trust me, oil companies have as much pull with the Democrats as they do with Republicans. They will saddle up with whoever is in power as all lobbyists do. And I don’t make up figures, but 95% agreeing with the tin foil hat crowd is just a tad high.

And Wap,

It is very important to always keep in mind that the Government is in no way responsible for advancements in technology or just about anything for that matter. We live in a capitalistic society where advancements are driven by profit. And it is one hell of a great motivator and is responsible for us Americans having the most comfortable life on Earth today. It is not the Governments responsibility. We use oil because oil is cheap, and we will continue to use oil until either it gets so expensive that the alternative is cheaper, or if a much better system is created. And our market will create it. Don’t fall into the mistake of looking to Government for solutions because you will be waiting a long time.

Okay, that was a long rant, I will get off my soapbox, but I leave you with this ..........
Attached Images
 
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #22  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 09:48 PM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
Government can influence new technology research, and does. When Bush took office, ALL government grant programs
for new technology in alternate energy and alternate fuels, were denied, reversed, and stopped.

The big tax refund from our "surplus" , for all Americans which he promised, never happened. What did happen was huge tax breaks for the foreign and US oil companies, and weapons manufacturers. Government does influence market. Government's relation to the European , and Asian nations ie: the international markets, does have an influence on the US markets. Otherwise I would be smoking Cuban cigars right now.

My point of course, is not to bash him, she or that. My point is that most intelligent Americans are not satisfied
with being treated like idiots. All I hear is the digressions of politicians. If you understand lawyers and their tactics, you will understand politics. We need newscasters who will not cater to idiots, and who will not demean the intelligenceof the public. News debates on policies that work or that do not? non existent. News debates on political strategies toimprove the economy, win or pull out of the war..none. News on the war? in Afghan? no real news. News on internationalpositions vs the US?..none.

I feel like I am being censored. I watch Tele-France and the BBC for any kind of news, if I want to hear anything besides the woes ofParis Hilton and her smut mutt.

How does this relate to Diesel engines? Diesels will and can burn veg oil. They average high MPGs. Veg oil emissions are negligent compared to petrol. If anyone thinks the EPA is there to protect us from bad emissions, to help save our air...is mistaken. The EPA IMO is the petrol engine police for the oil companies and the US auto industry.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 09:59 PM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
[QUOTE=thewap]Government can influence new technology research, and does. When Bush took office, ALL government grant programs
for new technology in alternate energy and alternate fuels, were denied, reversed, and stopped.

The big tax refund from our "surplus" , for all Americans which he promised, never happened. What did happen was huge tax breaks for the foreign and US oil companies, and weapons manufacturers. Government does influence market.QUOTE]



Sure Government can retard a market, but just about the only way it can help it is to get the hell out of the way.

But more importantly, post a link to where exactly you found that Bush has cut all new technology spending. Any link at all, that has actual figures. You are just plain wrong on this! We may just not see eye to eye on a few things, and there's no problem with this, but your facts on this are just dead wrong. Same goes with whatever you mean by "surplus". There was never a surplus, nobody ever said there was, and everybody who actually paid taxes got a refund.
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #24  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 10:19 PM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
As Ronald Reagan memorably uttered, "There you go again...." President Bush made some surprising promises in the SOTU about supporting development of alternative energy. Merely two days later, news leaks of Bush budget cuts to these same federal programs.

From the President's State of the Union promise-fest, delivered just a few days ago...."To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.

....We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. "

VERSUS....

From the New York Times today ...."The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 10:49 PM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
As Ronald Reagan memorably uttered, "There you go again...." President Bush made some surprising promises in the SOTU about supporting development of alternative energy. Merely two days later, news leaks of Bush budget cuts to these same federal programs.

From the President's State of the Union promise-fest, delivered just a few days ago...."To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.

....We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. "

VERSUS....

From the New York Times today ...."The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

This is why I asked for actual numbers. A budget cut according to the New York times is a "decrease in the percentage of growth". Seriously, you said that all "ALL government grant programs
for new technology in alternate energy and alternate fuels, were denied, reversed, and stopped."

This is important because it is frameing your mindset. Please show me where with actual figures I can find this. Like I said, this is just simply not true.

Follow-up Post:

Okay,

I did the research. All available on the Department of Energy website: http://www.energy.gov/ The pdf's were giving me trouble and I couldn't cut and paste so I have to summarize:

The total budget for the D.O.E. did decrease 2% from Fiscal year 2005 to 2006 to settle at 23.4 Billion. However, funding for research on Alternative fuels rose 22% to 771 Million.

So basically, not only has he not cut spending on alternative energy, he has risen it more than any other president in history. This is why you always have to find actual numbers.

Remember what started all of this, there are plenty of REAL reasons to hate Bush. Let's stick with those!
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 10:50 PM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
I will try to find articles on back when he took office. I remember that was the first thing he did, cut all the budgets of all gov. grants to alternative energy and tech. This article is recent.

Energy.gov is a politically motivated government website. Figures and $ #'s do not tell the real story. How the funds are used , when, why and by who.

Bush bashing is not my motive here Buckon. My position is that A.holes are on both sides of the fence, supported by more morons. My concerns are not about conservatism, or liberalism, they are about Americanism. The more we are treated
like idiots, the more control any government has over it's people. Our forefathers understood this. Conservatives and liberals formed a united American front, and defeated the controlling powers. Of course they did not have the vote, or the internet. It was a goverment of rebels, made of conservatives and liberals. It is the essence of American personality.
Stereotyping is political propaganda; ie "Liberal" etc..

Our government is supposed to lead the way in Federal economic and international issues, especially in times of crisis. Like I said.. I think we all have a problem... and it's deeper than Rep. vs Dems.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 10:56 PM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
I will try to find articles on back when he took office. I remember that was the first thing he did, cut all the budgets of all gov. grants to alternative energy and tech. This article is recent. I will check archives if you want.

Bush bashing is not my motive here Buckon. My position is that A.holes are on both sides of the fence, supported by more morons. My concerns are not about conservatism, or liberalism, they are about Americanism. The more we are treated
like idiots, the more control any government has over it's people. Our forefathers understood this. Conservatives and liberals formed a united American front, and defeated the controlling powers. Of course they did not have the vote, or the internet.

Stereotyping is political propaganda; ie "Liberal" etc.. Our government is supposed to lead the way in Federal economic and international issues, especially in times of crisis. Like I said.. I think we all have a problem... and it's deeper than
Rep. vs Dems.

Thats cool. I agree with you. I just wanted to correct your figures, because like you said, propaganda gets accepted over reality quite a bit these days.
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old November 2nd, 2006, 11:45 PM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
This is a 2001 article, with some mention of Bush's policy on alternative energy. BTW which is linked to his effort
to open up the artic circle for oil drilling. Proceeds of the oild drilling would go to alternative energy programs, while alternative energy programs would get severe budget cuts. Make sense? To politicians maybe, to lawyers even more so.
The reality is that Bush wants to drill the Artic for oil. Conservation and alternative energy groups would not allow it.
Tying the Artic Circle drilling with 50% profits promised to go for alternative energy, allows the admistration to
get into the Artic for oil. Now the trick is to see where the profits go, if really at all for serious alternative energy or not.
Then again, once we are in the Artic, they can change the profit spending to other "more important issues".
such as 4 billion a week for a war that is quite controversial. I have travelled to Afghanistan, and the middle East.
Why the f.ck we would spend 4 billion a week on war in the area is beyond me. Unless you are a crusader..

I attached pdfs :
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bush1.pdf (182.7 KB, 64 views)
File Type: pdf Bush2.pdf (205.0 KB, 328 views)
File Type: pdf Bush3.pdf (277.1 KB, 73 views)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 01:11 AM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
This is a 2001 article, with some mention of Bush's policy on alternative energy. BTW which is linked to his effort
to open up the artic circle for oil drilling. Proceeds of the oild drilling would go to alternative energy programs, while alternative energy programs would get severe budget cuts. Make sense? To politicians maybe, to lawyers even more so.
The reality is that Bush wants to drill the Artic for oil. Conservation and alternative energy groups would not allow it.
Tying the Artic Circle drilling with 50% profits promised to go for alternative energy, allows the admistration to
get into the Artic for oil. Now the trick is to see where the profits go, if really at all for serious alternative energy or not.
Then again, once we are in the Artic, they can change the profit spending to other "more important issues".
such as 4 billion a week for a war that is quite controversial. I have travelled to Afghanistan, and the middle East.
Why the f.ck we would spend 4 billion a week on war in the area is beyond me. Unless you are a crusader..

I attached pdfs :

Not to be a broken record. But once again, this is just an excerpt from a far left leaning artical with almost no actual figures. The ones they do show up to a 3% or 700 million decline in funding. And a 10 billion increase in clean coal technology. Even if we believe a partisan piece like this, there is nothing here to show anything like what you said:

"When Bush took office, ALL government grant programs
for new technology in alternate energy and alternate fuels, were denied, reversed, and stopped."

I think thats its just time for you to admit that you mis-spoke. Everything I have read on this matter shows he increased funding, including the actual published 2006 budget. I mean, lets be fare, this guy has spent money on just about everything. I posted up governement numbers showing exactly what is spent. Guess what I found, Bush has even spent more money on studying climate change than Clinton ever did. Huh.

On the rest of your post. Your going a little too far left. Everytime someone jumps to the war with absolutely no reason to bring it up is a dead givaway. But thats cool.

Once again, you can have any political leanings you want. Just have the facts before you make up your mind. If half the liberals in this country knew how liberal Bush actually was, it would shock them.
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 06:55 AM
snuffer's Avatar
snuffer
Status: Offline
Randy Black
'95 D 90 SW
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tulsa Ok USA
Posts: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
This is a 2001 article, with some mention of Bush's policy on alternative energy. BTW which is linked to his effort
to open up the artic circle for oil drilling. Proceeds of the oild drilling would go to alternative energy programs, while alternative energy programs would get severe budget cuts. Make sense? To politicians maybe, to lawyers even more so.
The reality is that Bush wants to drill the Artic for oil. Conservation and alternative energy groups would not allow it.
Tying the Artic Circle drilling with 50% profits promised to go for alternative energy, allows the admistration to
get into the Artic for oil. Now the trick is to see where the profits go, if really at all for serious alternative energy or not.
Then again, once we are in the Artic, they can change the profit spending to other "more important issues".
such as 4 billion a week for a war that is quite controversial. I have travelled to Afghanistan, and the middle East.
Why the f.ck we would spend 4 billion a week on war in the area is beyond me. Unless you are a crusader..

I attached pdfs :

Why we don't put enogh troops in there to do the job is beyond me. Unless it has something to do with the politicians that will do or say anything to see the war fail.

Peace, love, dove ain't gonna work with these folks. Are you serious about the Crusader comment?
__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 08:37 AM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by snuffer
Why we don't put enogh troops in there to do the job is beyond me.
Peace, love, dove ain't gonna work with these folks. Are you serious about the Crusader comment?
Well I agree with not enough troops and gear, seems like another vietnam. I just don't agree with the way we are going about it..going after terrorists. Taking hold of the middle East is not a new concept. It has been tried since ancient history to no avail (ie; crusaders). I feel we jumped the gun by reacting so fast. Laying low militarily, setting an international
plan first, letting the fu.kers (terrorists) think they are not in imminent danger, and then striking them at the right time seems like it would have been a better plan. Going into Iraq...for what? I remember specifically that the terrorists were
linked to the Saudis. Yet the Saudis are our allies, and we're at war with Iraq, which BTW was funded militarily by yours truly.. us.

My point is that everyhing is not black & white, and that there is too much gray. And no, I am not a bleeding liberal.
There is nothing more that I would like to see the ones responsible for the attack of our cities, being hung quartered, and cooked at the BBQ. I am just concerned that we are being kept un-informed, and that we are being led by a bunch of idiots. I miss the o'l days with true Republicans, and true Democrats. I don't believe we have either these days.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 09:13 AM
rover4x4's Avatar
rover4x4
Status: Offline
Phillip
1995 SW #487/500
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Old North State
Posts: 7,523
Registry
I think washington has a lot to do with fuel prices availibility. Why have "they" passed new laws about low sulfur diesal and the auto makers have struggled with meeting these new guidelines with the low sulfur diesal. The recent push in alternative fuels bio diesal etc seems to have had little support from the government. Diesal is more efficent and cheaper than gasoline every where else in the world, its a cheaper fuel to make. Why wont the US embrace the alternative fuels and diesal power unless it was making big bucks on gasoline. Ethanol is a joke IMHO. There are folks with the VW TDI's that are getting as much as a thousand miles on a tank. Look at how much better the guys with the diesals here are doing in terms of fuel comsumption than the gas burners. And as far as washington trying to clean up the diesals why wouldnt they sign up for the Kyoto Protocol and do more to curb green house etc. etc.
__________________
Poor gas mileage gets you to the best places on earth
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 10:02 AM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
here is the 200-2002 Fed science budget in Pdf.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf budget2002.pdf (52.2 KB, 79 views)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 11:19 AM
Buckon37s's Avatar
Buckon37s
Status: Offline
Buck
Re-Fendered 90
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Temecula, CA, USA
Posts: 3,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
here is the 200-2002 Fed science budget in Pdf.

Thanks. You keep proving my point though. There was never a massive cut like you had stated. Take a look at your figures, which are not directly related to Alternative Energy by the way, but I will include the ones on your list that might be.

Science Programs grew from 2000 to 2001 by: 8.7%
Energy supply grew by 20.3%
Fossel Energy R&D grew by 33.7%

Then from 2001 to 2002 it declined respictively:
-2.9%
-32%
-26.8%

So even if we accept wholy your numbers, which increased dramatically over the next 4 years, there is an actual decrease in spending on just one catagory. And only 12%.

Basically, your first assertion: "When Bush took office, ALL government grant programs for new technology in alternate energy and alternate fuels, were denied, reversed, and stopped." This was not only incorrect but the exact opposite happened. When Bush took office he increased just about everything. Add this to my numbers which are from this year, and it shows that this president has done more for alternative energy than any other president before him.

I won't keep pounding this in, but I hope it at least alters your perception which apparently was based on incorrect assumptions.

Follow-up Post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rover4x4
I think washington has a lot to do with fuel prices availibility. Why have "they" passed new laws about low sulfur diesal and the auto makers have struggled with meeting these new guidelines with the low sulfur diesal. The recent push in alternative fuels bio diesal etc seems to have had little support from the government. Diesal is more efficent and cheaper than gasoline every where else in the world, its a cheaper fuel to make. Why wont the US embrace the alternative fuels and diesal power unless it was making big bucks on gasoline. Ethanol is a joke IMHO. There are folks with the VW TDI's that are getting as much as a thousand miles on a tank. Look at how much better the guys with the diesals here are doing in terms of fuel comsumption than the gas burners. And as far as washington trying to clean up the diesals why wouldnt they sign up for the Kyoto Protocol and do more to curb green house etc. etc.
This is very simple to answer, the Kyoto protocals were an absolute joke that assigned penalties to Developed nations that made us pay a fine or buy "points" from other countries. The points were not distributed fairly because of course "China and India are poor developing countries and need a break" waaah. So what the agreement actually was, was a big shakedown on industrialized nations. And it worked just like that. Britian has bought "points" from China to cover its emmissions every year. And guess what, the emmissions have not gone down at all. Basically, Kyoto was nothing but a scam. Thats why our senate voted 99 to 0 (one no vote) to not sign Kyoto. Thats every Democrat in the senate voting against it.


As to Diesel, the reason there are not more of them is customer driven. Almost everything is customer driven. We pay little for gas here in the US and most of the time, the customer does not want to pay 10,000 more for a diesel when it would take them 5 year of driving to get back that amount in gas savings. As gas gets more expensive, Diesel will be more prevelent.

But the thing that really frosts me and this is one thing I agree with Liberals about is the oil lobby has managed to suppress clean coal production. Clinton made a mountain in Utah made completely of clean coal a national park. It had enough coal to power Diesel motors with coal dust for 100 years. And coal dust burns almost perfectly clean in a Diesel. That would have been awesome, oh well.
__________________
2009 King of the Hammers

BUCK Wild Racing
Driver: Me
Co-driver: Pat Quirk
Team 911

Rover Tracks
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PSC
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
DJ Safety
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
West Coast Rovers
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reel Driveline
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Made it further than half of the other guys, but the Hammers won.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 11:31 AM
thewap's Avatar
thewap
Status: Offline
Marc
'95 D90 SW#106
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Highmount, NY
Posts: 834
Registry
Ok Buckon I will meet you half way and state I mispoke. I should have said stopped and reversed progress in the budget
of alternate fuels and sciences. I respectfully disagree with Bush doing more than any other Prez on alternate fuel, and allotted funds are different than expended funds. Alternate tech & fuels to Bush, translates more to nuclear power, and drilling the artic. His budget is a shill. Given funds to real alternate fuel research, and developped programs, that reflect a realistic effort on this admistration to end dependance on fossil fuel oil, is non existent. At least none that I can see.

Now in all fairness, I haven't seen a dedicated program developped by the Dems, just a lot of talk. Money talks, and the oil companies have it. The diesel engine and it's capability of burning an alternate fuel is not fantasy subject to trillions of dollars research. Processing soy bean oil is not einstein intense. If free enterprise rules fuel in the USA, then I would be interested to see any free enterprise attempt to distribute veg oil on stand nationally, or any other fuel for that matter.

For me, a real alternate fuel gov. sponsored program is very important. 1. the oil countries would revert back to playing in the sand. 2. they could bomb themselves if they are not happy with the state of their economy 3. We wouldn't be obsessed with the whole bunch 4. The air would be cleaner, 5. the shieks could turn the oil fields into museums of jurassic Park, and 6. Not only our engines would improve MPGs, but our cooking will.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 02:42 PM
ECR's Avatar
ECR
Status: Offline
East Coast Rover Co.
Just Defenders, nothing else.
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockland, ME, USA
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewap
My position is that A.holes are on both sides of the fence, supported by more morons.Like I said.. I think we all have a problem... and it's deeper than Rep. vs Dems.
Ahmen (and I'm not religious).
It isn't a Bush, Rep, Dem or Hillary thing... hating Bush doesn't mean you automatically want Hillary. I can't imagine anything worse than Bush, until I think of Hillary.
Its that type of "one of the other" thinking that is part of the problem.

Follow-up Post:

From the web... take it or leave it...

On March 5, 2003, Senator Carl Levin, the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, released a report prepared by the minority staff that reveals why gasoline prices soared under the Bush administration. It has to do with the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and some odd decisions by the Department of Energy (DOE) after consulting with White House officials.

According to the Senate Report, the Bush administration added forty million barrels of oil to the nation’s reserves in 2002. That wouldn’t be a problem in and of it self. But the purchases represented an extreme change in energy policy; they were made in a strong market, with a tight supply of oil, which increased demand, which in turn pushed up the gasoline prices to their highest levels in twelve years.

The Senate report said in a one-month period in mid 2002 the Bush administration purchases caused crude oil prices to soar, raising the cost of heating oil by 13%, jet fuel by 10% and diesel fuel by 8%. The bottom line was the Bush policy change cost citizens between $500 million and $1 billion.

When crude oil jumps from $20 a barrel to $30, the Senate report says, the costs to U.S. taxpayers are an additional $1 million per day. “Over three months, the additional cost of filling the SPR approached $100 million,” which will ultimately be borne by U.S. taxpayers.

Why did Bush do it? For one thing, he was advised to do it. It has to do with the secret National Energy Policy advisory group headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney has steadfastly refused to release the names of those who advised the administration on energy matters. However, according to an article published in the Sunday Herald in Scotland (October 6, 2002), by Neil Mackay, it was former Secretary of State, James Baker who personally carried an advisory report to Cheney in April of 2001. Assembled at the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy of Rice University, the task force consisted of oil and energy executives. The report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century is referred to simply as the “Baker Report” or “report” below.

The report advised the new president, “At a minimum the government should aim to fill all of the nearly 700 million barrels of [reserve] capacity it currently has available.” Later, the National Energy Policy report recommended that the President wait until exchanged SPR barrels were returned and then he should determine whether offshore Gulf of Mexico royalty oil deposits to the SPR should be resumed. So after September 11, 2001, George W. Bush vowed to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) to capacity.

The Baker report was not irresponsible, it also warned the president, “One problem with trying to refill the reserve at this time when markets are strong is that any purchases made by the U.S. government would add to the current tight supply.” In other words, prices would go up!

At one point, the Baker report recommended that purchases of reserve additions be accomplished through direct “budgetary allocations.”

Trying to teach a new president the facts on SPR oil rights and wrongs must have been a heady proposition. There were many object lessons in which to point. The Baker report singled President Bill Clinton’s use of his “discretionary authority to lease oil to the market on a time-swap or exchange basis” as an example of a no-no. First, according to the Baker experts, Clinton’s exchanges reduced the size of the SPR at a time when more oil might have been needed. Next, the report chided, a president must not earn “far less in interest” than he could have, by using better methods. Perhaps Clinton’s biggest faux pas according to the Baker experts is that he used the drain-down of the reserves “to address winter heating-oil inventory concerns,” which indeed reduced heating oil from $37 to $31 per barrel. That was a big no-no. The Baker report advises a president must not use the SPR as “a market buffer stock to damp prices and price volatility.” (Translation: A president must not help the poor to heat their homes at a reasonable price at the expense of oil company profit taking.)

Hence in the National Energy Policy report, the NEPD Group “recommends that the President reaffirm that the SPR is designed for addressing an imminent or actual disruption in oil supplies, and not for managing prices.” (At page 8-17.)

That recommendation signaled a significant policy change: it denied the president the right to withdraw oil at times when prices are unusually high due to manipulation of the market.

What were the superior choices left for the President? The report advises taking advantage of “the market’s forward price structure…if the market structure were backwardated, with future prices lower than current prices, the government would be able to replenish the reserve with more oil than it had leased on an auction basis. If the market structure were in contango, with future prices higher than prompt prices, the government could lease its cheaper spare storage capacity to industry, thereby also providing revenue to build government-owned reserves at a later time.”

But the method the Bush administration chose was to fill the SPR without regard to crude oil prices at all but simply at a constant rate of speed. The result was extremely high prices for gasoline and increased charges to be born by the taxpayers. The Bush administration denies this. But the method they chose did not add any additional reserve oil to the nation’s strategic supply. So why do it? Oil companies were happy, after all oilmen contributed $26.7 million to Bush’s campaign in 2000 and another $18 million for the 2002 election.

Another possible reason is this: The only way to get oil companies willing to make investments in drilling new sources of oil is to keep oil prices high. The nice thing about this methodology is that criticism can be so easily deflected as a White House spokesman did in a recent interview, by claiming the “purchases were for national security reasons.”

Whatever the motivation, this much is clear: American citizens had to pay and are still paying a hefty price for gasoline and home heating oil. In the end, regardless of the lip service Mr. Bush may offer to the American people on how he is benefiting all citizens, the facts show he benefits those corporations who made large contributions to his campaigns.



Documentation & Links


1. Neil Mackay’s article in the Sunday Herald, October 6, 2002,
http://www.sundayherald.com/print28285

2. U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve: Recent Policy Has Increased Costs to Consumers But Not Overall U.S. Energy Security by Minority Staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This is a 294 page report in a PDF file. See Senator Levin's summary at:
http://levin.senate.gov/issues/index...lInvestigation
And see Sen. Levin's Press Release: http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroo....cfm?id=209139
Or click here for another source of the complete report: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...8hrg/85551.pdf

3. The Baker Report, Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century. In a PDF file.
The report is no longer available at: http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/P...y/energytf.htm

4. National Energy Policy report: In a PDF file.
Or click here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/
__________________
Email:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do not check PMs. Call or email if you need something.

ECR is not a parts source. We are not in the mail order business.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 02:47 PM
weissbrewer's Avatar
weissbrewer
Status: Offline
Stephen Johnson
94 AA D90
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Conway NH USA
Posts: 149
diesel alternatives

Brning Veg oil from Fryers at my brew pub in My two Dodge cummins!!!20 + MPG w/ full size ext cab 4x4 one tons!!!also burning Bio oil in my two boilers for heat And brewing. If 15% of the country went alternative the rest of the world would wake up pretty quick....
Edit I almost forgot I am no tree hugger, pretty much a liberal republican(social issues) who cant stand to see the obvious overlooked.(refractified oils in diesel use)
__________________
94 AA Yellow D 90 ST/ disco 200TDI installed!Luvin 300+ miles per tank

1982 Series 3 HCPU gone but missed
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 02:55 PM
MonLand
Status: Offline
Loic Fabro
95 D90 - 96 Disco -06 LR3
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Herndon, VA - USA
Posts: 1,642
Registry
And I started this thread..... Still want my LR Diesel engine! :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by weissbrewer
Brning Veg oil from Fryers at my brew pub in My two Dodge cummins!!!20 + MPG w/ full size ext cab 4x4 one tons!!!also burning Bio oil in my two boilers for heat And brewing. If 15% of the country went alternative the rest of the world would wake up pretty quick....
Edit I almost forgot I am no tree hugger, pretty much a liberal republican(social issues) who cant stand to see the obvious overlooked.(refractified oils in diesel use)
Just curious: is there any law today that prevent anyone from burning or selling oil to put in cars?
I know that in France, it is plain illegal to use any fuel not authorized by the state (and I know that the EEC is against that law! ;-) ).

Also, I am not a chemist, not an environmentalist or any other position that will give me any power/special knowledge. But I think it will be hard to get rid of the oil company in short period of time. A lot of products are byproduct of the oil processing. Tires, asphalt,.... have major percentage of components coming from the crude oil processing.

I am sure money drives the world today. That include politicians, political parties,... and even myself. I go wherever I get the most money and buy whatever seems to cost me less (well..... Still unsure why I am sticking with LRs as they seem to do the opposite on every count! Maybe I just needed something to balance my life :-) ).
__________________
Quote:
I have an ex MoD and an ex wife. The two no longer conflict with each other.
Quote:
it is not hoarding it is selective collecting
---
MonLand
1995 D90 NAS
1996 Discovery NAS
2006 LR3 NAS (hers, but comfy! :) )
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 03:00 PM
ECR's Avatar
ECR
Status: Offline
East Coast Rover Co.
Just Defenders, nothing else.
D-90 Source Vendor
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rockland, ME, USA
Posts: 4,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonLand
Just curious: is there any law today that prevent anyone from burning or selling oil to put in cars?.
I don't know, but if it ever gains mass appeal you know they'll find a way to tax it!
__________________
Email:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do not check PMs. Call or email if you need something.

ECR is not a parts source. We are not in the mail order business.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old November 3rd, 2006, 06:32 PM
snuffer's Avatar
snuffer
Status: Offline
Randy Black
'95 D 90 SW
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tulsa Ok USA
Posts: 753
"Ahmen (and I'm not religious).
It isn't a Bush, Rep, Dem or Hillary thing... hating Bush doesn't mean you automatically want Hillary. I can't imagine anything worse than Bush, until I think of Hillary.
Its that type of "one of the other" thinking that is part of the problem."ECR



Unfortunately at election time it does come down to "one or the other". I wasted my vote on Perot several years ago because I wanted something other than business as usual. Look what that got us.

So I guess you are saying oil prices are controlled by politicians to a greater degree than by the marketplace? The war was pushed on us in order to drive up demand for oil or was it because we want to take the oil from Iraq? Oil prices are low now because an election is upon us and we have already forgotten what we paid for gas 6 weeks ago? I don't claim to have the answers but yours don't make a lot of sense to me.

Sure government policy has an effect on the prices we pay for things, milk, bread, gas, cars, and this has taken many years, I just don't think they can take all of the credit you give them. Or at least not any one administration.
__________________
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. -Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Defender Source > Non-Technical Discussions > Misc. Chit-Chat

Tags
diesel, ht

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More on diesel / manual conversions Delta95 Defender Technical Discussions 37 September 4th, 2008 11:31 AM
Ex-MOD 2.5 diesel 90 EndlessEarth4WD Misc. Chit-Chat 18 January 26th, 2006 01:34 PM
Can you fab a diesel exhaust like a V8 exhaust? solihul Defender Technical Discussions 8 September 7th, 2005 04:09 PM
Defender 90 diesel engine and Electronics? x0054 Defender Technical Discussions 1 July 30th, 2005 10:43 PM
shop going under, diesel engines artm Defender Technical Discussions 0 May 12th, 2005 04:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Copyright