IT Employment optimize

IT must prepare for $200-a-barrel oil and a rise in remote workers

Admins start your VPNs! As oil and gas prices soar, IT organizations should prepare to support more remote workers.

Admins, start your VPNs! As oil and gas prices soar, IT organizations should prepare to support more remote workers.

On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs analyst Arjun N. Murti predicted that oil prices may hit $150 or even $200 a barrel in the next six months to two years. Murti believes this "super-spike" will be driven by a lack of adequate growth in supply and could lead to demand rationing in developed nations (particularly the United States). Whether Murti's prediction comes to fruition or not, fuel prices and transportation costs are likely to continue their steep rise for the foreseeable future--barring the unlikely discovery of new, easily-accessible oil reserves or the rapid development of alternative energy sources.

As transportation costs rise, organizations and workers will look for ways to reduce travel. For many employees, this will mean working from home to eliminate the daily commute. As I wrote in response to IBM's prediction that the "virtual workplace will become the rule", I'm not convinced the traditional office workplace is in immediate peril, but I believe a hybrid model will emerge. Employees will work from home a few days each week.

Today's lesson: Start preparing now

Many IT organizations, particularly in large enterprises, already support a distributed workforce. IT leaders within this category should ensure their infrastructure has the capacity to support increased demand. IT departments not currently supporting remote users should begin exploring their options now. At the very least, you should make certain your network can support existing remote workplace technologies. Also, IT will not be immune from this trend. IT leaders must develop the skills and techniques required to manage a distributed workforce.

Here are resources that can help you support and manage remote workers:

About

Bill Detwiler is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and Tech Pro Research and the host of Cracking Open, CNET and TechRepublic's popular online show. Prior to joining TechRepublic in 2000, Bill was an IT manager, database administrator, and desktop supp...

155 comments
pcbradshaw
pcbradshaw

Since we're talking the corporate universe of the United States (a.k.a. Instant Gratification, INC) don't be too surprised if the spike of increase, albeit temporary costs, to create and implement all that remote access will equate to OUTSOURCE THE BUMS to the stockholder. After all, why should million/billionaires lose a few thousand dollars?

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

the price of oil causes inconvenience here, it causes food riots and people not affording gas to run irrigation pumps there, so they may not want to outsource to a country if angry mobs are rampaging.

scrawford
scrawford

VPN remote access is a good solution for enabling remote workers to access on-premise applications and data. The IT challenge is supporting remote users. Web-based applications specifically, and the software as a service model in general, are ideal solutions for outsourcing the applications themselves, as well as the helpdesk support associated with them.

SaraVN
SaraVN

Is it just me, or does it make sense for companies that can't afford to give their employees raises, or at least as much of a raise as they deserve, to let their employees work from home a few days a week to save there gas, and there by decreasing their living expenses? It seems to me that it's a great way to fight gas prices, traffic problems, our dependence on the Middle-East and help our environment AND save money on the bottom line, to let employees work from home a few days a week. This is especially true if the office is not in a location that public transportation is not practical? (Such as the office we moved to last summer).

NotSoChiGuy
NotSoChiGuy

...that a good economic stimulus plan would include 'Energy Rationing Credits' to firms that allowed their employees to work remotely...thus, saving on oil and other traffic related expenses (less accidents on the road ways, I'd imagine...less wear/tear on roads, less traffic means those that drive don't waste gas in jams, etc). One of those things that could bring both sides of the political aisle together (democrats would like the eco-friendly aspects, as well as helping people save some costs...conservatives would like that the breaks are actually going to the businesses, that could invest that money elsewhere). Of course, that all being said, if the legislation were to ever get put up, it would probably get so fattened with pork barrel proposals that it would either get voted down or fail miserably if passed.

raju.rawat@burrenegypt.
raju.rawat@burrenegypt.

My company is exercising this VPN. Many thanks for the other related articles-whitepapers-facts it was very useful and to be honest, we do need this paperwork in scenarios which enable us to make accurate verbal talks in meetings. Thanks man

Scaramoosh
Scaramoosh

If sky-rocketing oil prices result in a massive increase in working from home. The question is.., For how long will the current infrastructure support this predicted and increaingly likely enormouse increase in traffic?

adelacuesta
adelacuesta

in on the rise, 10GB that is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_gigabit_Ethernet Bicycle is the alternate form of transpo. tell it to the folks who reside in PA and works in NYC...

dodell
dodell

I'm not saying bikes are for everyone, but most of us could replace some of our short trips by car with bike trips. Hopefully someone living in PA and working in NY is going by commuter rail. If not I recommend looking for a job closer to home or a home closer to job.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Jobs closer to home may not be available; neither may [u]affordable[/u] homes closer to the job. Commuter rail is not generally available, or even an option, outside the largest metropolitan areas. Outside Harrisburg or Philadelphia, there is no train service from PA to NYC, and that's Amtrack, not commuter rail. Most mid-size cities have all they can do to keep bus transit affordable to both the taxpayers and the riders. Check housing costs within 50 miles of NYC, LA, San Francisco, Atlanta, and many other large cities. My wife's cousin lives in Hesperia and works in the City of Orange, only 70-75 miles away. Commuter rail is not available. He spends 5-6 hours each day on his commute, with the 15 miles closest to home taking about 20 minutes. This was the closest house he could find that cost less than $200K.

alex.a
alex.a

If only we had listened to President Jimmy Carter when, 30 years ago, he told us that the automobile had to be completely reinvented, we would not be dependent on petroleum-based fuels today. An alternative has to be found and made practical (and affordable) NOW! Resistance from the petroleum industry must come to a halt.

2rs
2rs

Hey, Alex - you sure pressed our hot button!! I never thought I'd live to see the day that I'd yearn for $2 gas, let alone $3! I support 3 folks who actively work remotely, who know to push the power button on their tower, & have absolutely NO concept of how the Magic happens. (I am continually amazed at what they can accomplish!)Therefore, trying to understand the gibberish when they HAVE to finish whatever they are working on NOW & can't describe what program they are using, & have no patience when I ask questions - well, I'm not known for my diplomacy. I also realize that some people are born with the capability to grasp theory & those born without, so try to interact appropriately. Thanks for the tips on requirements!

alex.a
alex.a

Yes, it's been a great discussion. From the free exchange of ideas come solutions. And there were worse Presidents than Jimmy Carter. There's one sitting in the White House right now.

maecuff
maecuff

Thanks to Neil. And it applies as well. BTW, Neil, I thought of you when we moved last fall. The street name we moved to is Berkshire. I found that amusing.

neilb
neilb

You insufferable little git! The only real ally that you have in this stupid war is Britain. We're with you in Afghanistan, too. Why? What's in it for us? I certainly don't expect any gratitude on any level as you, the US, have demonstrated too many times in history that you don't see any "special relationship" between our countries. Quite the reverse. We do, by the way. stupid, aren't we? You, Locrian_lyric, really are an ignorant berk (please look that one up).

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Saddam was no kind of threat except in his own mind and the minds of the gullible, led by the unscrupulous. Does that "British lion" comment mean you think I'm British? If so, it explains why you are so wrong on so many other issues of fact.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

No civilization has been destroyed by going to war too early. Go to war too late, and all is lost. From Sir Winston Churchill. Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. How sad that the mighty British lion has become a pussycat.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

But I was in the USAF then and was enjoying the two largest pay raises by percentage the military has seen in the last four decades.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Ask any soldier. Edit: I would like to have been a fly on the wall during the discussions between GWB and the Joint Chiefs before the shooting started. I'm willing to bet that every one of them was saying "It won't be a problem to take out Saddam. What do we do afterwards?" and not getting a straight answer. The only people I can think of who didn't consider the consequences of invading Iraq were the ones pushing the damn thing in the first place.

jdclyde
jdclyde

as we were under Carter. Everything you read about people that are and have been close to him, he is a bigger dick that Al Gore. And then the whole flowers on Yasar Arifats grave instead of dropping a duce on it..

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

How is it close? Given the circumstances facing the two and their respective legacies to the country, I'll give the nod for worst to GWB, who went to war when he shouldn't have, and let Carter, who didn't go to war when he should have, slide. You can say that al Qaida and Iraq are Carter's legacy to the world, but GWB, with guidance from Rummy and Dick and typical American "We know what's good for you" arrogance, has made things infinitely worse. Carter tried to leave a positive legacy by funding alternative fuels research, but that was repealed by Reagan.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

US grant, MAYBE, Wilson? Definately. GWB... er.. uhn.. possibly, but it's close.

jdclyde
jdclyde

now THAT is something you don't hear often, and the people that do, well, have a hard time keeping a straight face. Remember, at that time we were also going to run out of oil within 20 years. We should have listened to them about that too..

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

first announced on Earth day, 1969

neilb
neilb

Whatever the reason for the Arabs leaving the new Israeli state, the Israelis certainly have been very reticent to let them back in. There are huge numbers of Palestinians with title deeds to houses and shops in Israel who have been dispossessed. Thus we have what we have. Neil :(

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

just not for 5,000 to 15,000 years. remember, 1969 we didn't have weather satellites, sophisticated computers... they were wrong, get over it. they once believed the earth was flat. that doesn't invalidate the round earth (theory?) now.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

You can't confuse him with fact, he's already made up his mind. Edit: There is some question as to who expelled the Palestinians. Ask the Palestinians who did it, they'll say "The Israelis, of course." The Israelis will tell you it was the Arab states not differentiating between Jews and Palestinian during the 1948 war. I haven't studied it in depth, but I've a feeling it was a combination of these two and many other factors.

JamesRL
JamesRL

Britain was also a little busy at the time trying to get out of India. British authorities in Palestine had been the subject of terrorist attacks by Jewish groups - see the bombing of the King David hotel. And the UK actually withdrew saying it could not accomplish its mandate, and acceded to the UN who created the partition. James

JamesRL
JamesRL

You complain about how the Ottoman empire was carved up, and you decry what happens, while you blithely ignore the fact that US has made many similar mistakes, more recently. Take Vietnam - during WWII America made a point of suggesting that former colonies that rebelled against Japan would earn their freedom. The US trained Vietnemese in guerilla tactics, sabotage, ambush (inlcuding Ho Chi Minh). Then after the war, when France wanted Vietnam back, it was the US who caved. Bet that looks great in hindsight. I too would be very happy to see the US stop trying to meddle in world affairs and look more directly after its own. The US was directly responsible for its share of brutal dictators - the Shah of Iran was as brutal as Saddam, but owed his existance to US support. Ditto the brutal regimes in El Salvador and the killing squads who terrorized the people. But the problem is that in Washington, governments always argue that it is their business. James

neilb
neilb

all of that happened and even then we didn't have a lot to do with Iran so we can knock that one off the slate of looney states that we are "responsible" for. Saudi Arabia is nothing to do with us and they are as looney as you can get. Iraq and most of the other states in the area had been part of the Ottoman Empire - not ours - and we Brits were given the mandate to deal with the former possessions by the League of Nations. Syria was a French mandate, as was Lebanon. Palestine and Jordan were part of the British mandate. What were we supposed to do? We didn't conquer them, we didn't invade them and we gave them their independence as quickly as we could. Took about ten years to unload most of them. We cut the original mandates up as best we could and they didn't seem to want to bomb us until Israel was created and the US began to poke its nose into the region. Indeed, the biggest mistake was Israel which we carved out from the Palestine mandate. Israel wasn't in any way "real" but an arbitrary Jewish Homeland born out of collective European guilt (justified guilt, certainly) for the Holocaust. During the formation of Israel, over half of the population was expelled when the state was created and that set the scene for everything that has followed. We should have interfered when the Arabs were expelled. But we didn't. I wasn't there and I don't know why we did or didn't act. For that, we are at fault. What the alternatives were, again I don't know but the land now occupied by Israel wasn't really ours to give or ours to stand by and let the Israelis take. As for the rest, if you're going to get all het up when arguing you really, REALLY need to read a little history before flailing about with references to the British Empire being the cause of the trouble that you're in. It's almost getting to a "Hitler" post. You, the US, make a habit of what you're doing now. [Cough]Vietnam[Cough]. Neil :)

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

In other words, you don't get to butt into our politics. I, for one would be GLAD to see the US of A get off of foreign oil, sit firmly in her own boarders, stop being the world police and let the rest of you kill each other off without dragging us into the messes YOU created. Who was it that carved up the ottoman empire and CREATED all these loopy nations in the ME? HINT: It wasn't the USA.

neilb
neilb

Yeah, I know that but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Please explain it to this poor, ignorant chap who does not have the good fortune to be one of God's chosen. Thank you... Neil

neilb
neilb

But not the right to tell you you're being stupid. Saddam Hussein do NOT attack YOU. If you wish to broaden the reasons for justification of the war then you may do so but I do not have to agree. Israel may be YOUR ally - although maybe you should choose your friends a little better - but they are certainly NOT mine. Israel was never given as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. Abu Nidal was never given as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. "Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire". The cease fire was not signed only by the US. "(...)was backing HAMAS" No evidence whatsoever. "(...)and the martyrs bregade" No evidence whatsoever. Both are anti-Israeli groups and not relevant in this discussion. If you wish to start a discussion on Israel, be my guest as I'd appreciate the opportunity to get stuck in. "was in talks with Osama" Evidence, please, and not hearsay and wishful thinking. "being a general pain in the ass." Yeah, reason to kill 100,000 people isn't it? Payback is an interesting concept. Should the UK have refrained from crossing over the border to the Republic of Ireland chasing the IRA whilst doing a bit of random destruction. "Shock and Awe" would certainly have put the frighteners on Dublin. After all, the Irish constitution was built on the original IRA and it wasn't until 1998 that the Republic voted to amend Articles 2 and 3 of its constitution so that the territorial claim was amended with a recognition of the Northern Ireland people's right to self-determination. Should we have kicked the crap out of them in the 1970s? Is this is how a civilised country behaves? Just asking... Neil :) Yes, I read it. I didn't answer most of it as it's a case of "been there, done that, got the bullet-proof vest".

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

apparently not. Either that or you are being willfully ignorant. Iraq was harboring terrorists. This included Abu Nidal and one of the principles of the first WTC attack. Saddam was backing HAMAS heavily, and financing a proxy-war against us and our allies. Oh, and btw, y'all lost the right to tell US what to do over 200 years ago. You're no longer an empire, get over it.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

And because Bush jr wanted to show Daddy how it's done. Every reason we were given for going to war with Iraq has been proven wrong, debunked, or shown as a lie. Saddam was not a threat to anybody; his military was emasculated, he was contained under strong surveillance, and every time he moved he got slapped.   No, it's not Georgie's fault, after all, we made him kingPresident, didn't we? Is it any wonder he lied to us? Every candidate that has told the truth to the American people during the primary campaigns has been rewarded with ignominious defeat. Is it any wonder we can't get decent Presidents?

neilb
neilb

So, tell me. What were you "paying back" the Iraqis for? I'm not going to go into the WMD bollocks yet again. The yellowcake was left over from before Gulf War One. We know that Iraq USED to have a nuclear programme because the Israelis toasted their reactor in 1981. That is where the yellowcake and the centrifuges came from. I you can explain how it took over twenty years for the Iraqi nuclear programme justified the second Gulf War then I'll give up now. However, I repeat my question: PAYING BACK FOR WHAT? What did the Iraqis do to YOU? Neil :|

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

We FOUND WMD mobile labs, we FOUND centrefuges, we FOUND Mustard gas, yellowcake and all the signs that he had the stuff. We acted on the intel that we had. Saddam also had a few months to hide the stuff(Gee, how did Syria's military might suddenly increase an order of magnitude) We found jet fighters buried in the desert. Saddam violated the terms of the cease-fire, was backing HAMAS and the martyrs bregade, was in talks with Osama, was harboring Abu Nidal, and being a general pain in the ass. Oh, and he was also connected to the FIRST attack on the WTC, and harbored the one that got away from us (I don't remember his name right now) So, excuse us if we don't say "mother may I" when someone is backing folks who want to kill us. and if you think there were only 19 people involved on 9/11 or a half-dozen on the attacks on the underground or in spain you are out of your mind. The USA has been taking punches from these muslim maniacs for thirty years now. Yes, payback is a bitch, isn't it?

neilb
neilb

Listen up, George. And the rest of you... If you invade a country for no good reason (being generally pissed off with Muslims and Arabs is not a good reason) then you probably deserve everything that's coming. People don't like being invaded. Hasn't ANYONE got it, yet? No invasion = no insurgency! There were no Weapons Of Mass Destruction. None. Given that only 29 people caused the 911 plane crashes and only half a dozen nutters blew up the London Underground, the "because we're fighting them over there we don't have to fight them over here" argument is SUCH a crock of crap that it makes my head spin to think that anyone would swallow it. No good will come of any of this. When we kill the ones who want to kill us, we kill some who are not trying to kill us which increases the number who want to kill us and so then we have to kill the ones who always wanted to kill us and the ones who want to kill us now. So, if we cannot leave until they stop killing us and they will not stop killing us until we leave, WHAT THE F*CK DO WE DO? Obvious, my Little Deathmongers, we get out NOW! Fewer will die. Isn't that a good reason? Neil :)

jck
jck

1) War is not pretty. There's gonna be dead people and blood, and they're not gonna all be solely military. Deal with it. 2) If your friends allow your enemies to hide in their homes and businesses, you should no longer have friends. 3) If it moves, and it's not your friend...shoot now, ask questions later. 4) In time of war, respect for religion is not a consideration. The only consideration is victory, so that those who do not have religious freedom may do so. 5) If you don't know if someone is your friend or not, they are not your friend. 6) Keep plenty of ammo. 7) Give me beer...oh wait...that's my rules of drinking at home... lol Anyways...if we are there to clean up the country, then we can't be playing footsie with all sorts of political correctness. Tell the Iraqi people...as soon as you...or your neighbor...or your relative...stop housing the enemy and providing them cover...and you start turning them in so they can be stopped from blowing up your shops and streets...then we'll leave when you do that. Otherwise, we're gonna search you...and your wife...and your daughter...and your sheep...and your house...and if something moves and we've told it not to...we kill it.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

as SHOULD have been done day 1. loc's rules on war 1)You don't go to war unless you are willing to kill every living thing. 2)You don't renig on rule 1 once the war has started. 3)'overtures' to peace are not peace, and do not renig rules 1 or 2 4)Dirty tactics should bring overwhelming retaliation. 5)There is only one rule of engagment when you're on the ground (see rule #1) 6)You win the hearts and minds of the enemy AFTER he is no longer your enemy. 7)Thirsting for peace only brings more war. 8)The quickest route to peace is through showing your enemy you are willing to engage in total war.

jck
jck

a) the fact that we have no clear, feasible goal of things to achieve that the military can plan for to do their job well. In essence, the Bush administration is having the military serve as a stop-gap measure right now to prevent all out civil war rather than using them to train military and police so that establishing any form of government there is possible. b) that all sorts of American contractors are going in and out of there making tons of profit, while the fighting men and women over there in the US military don't even get assigned a flak jacket as standard issue. My friend and other military wives do things to raise money to send their loved ones equipment that, in my opinion, the military should standardly issue it's troops when moving into a combat area. But what really makes me mad? Our people are being maimed and dying over there...because of poor planning by an administration that didn't plan and think. I think we need someone as president who knows what they are doing, if we are going to be involved in this thing for a long time to come. We need someone like MacArthur or Eisenhower as president...not a Gomer Pyle like we have now. (and no, that is not a slam against the USMC lol)

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

I agree with much of what you've said, now that I understand the context. Since you have friends and family over there, I am sure you are as furious as I am over "Death by rules of engagement".

jck
jck

If there were a better candidate, i'd vote for someone else too. Oh well. So goes the endless soap opera that is American politics.

jck
jck

Please go back and read my post. I never once degraded a troop...or any troops. The full mission that Bush stated was never accomplished. I have not only friends in the military in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but 2 relatives currently serving in Iraq. Not to mention, I'm the son of former Army and my father's two brothers who were retired USN and USAF, not to count most of my uncles who served WW2 and Korea. I was raised by and around military all my life. I will never EVER fault the troops for doing their job. I just fault the overpaid numbskulls who give the military their directive, i.e.- the current presidential administration.

jdclyde
jdclyde

Bush has been showing himself to be a liberal weenie in disguise for a long time, and is spending our money like a Kennedy in a wh0rehouse. He had some good ideas, but poor exectution. He allowed the war to become politically correct, which accounts for the undersized deployment in the first place and things went down from there. Obama will take our damaged economy and deliver the killing blow. Look at all the extra spending he wants to do, where will the money come from? No, I do not support McCain. Anyone that is in favor of opening our borders is not someone that will get my vote. This year I have the choice, a symbolic vote for a meaningless third party or a "suicide vote" for the Dem so they can REALLY screw things up, giving the chance of a real candidate in 2012 to run against Hilary [i](who I believe is only still in to try to damage Obama enough to keep him from winning so she CAN try again in 4.)[/i]

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

don't denegrate them simply because you despise GWB. I don't like him either, but I have friends over there and am cognizant of the old phrase "loose lips sink ships". If you want an interesting exercise, cross-reference negative stories in the news about our troops, and the intensity of attacks by insurgants. I'd tell you what you'll find, but then you'd tell me to provide proof, some I'm telling you how to do your own research. I have, but I'm curious to see if anyone else will bother.

jck
jck

You finally have admitted Bush is dragging himself down? WHOA! Welcome to the "dark side", young skywalker! lol Actually, Bush doesn't need help bringing himself down. He and his administration are doing that all quite well. lol Now...who to vote for...McCain...or Obama...do I want a relatively inexperienced senator from Illinois who went to a church that had a crazy pastor, or a long-term senate politician who once called his wife a c*** (derrogatory female term...you figure it out) because she told him it looked like his hair was thinning? I'll take the Democrat for 4 years, Alex. ;)

jck
jck

of course, if I said I was going to rid a country of chemical and biological weapons that didn't exist...and then a year later said "They're all gone! I did it!" I could be president then too. Fact is, Bush himself stated they were not only going to remove Saddam but the terrorist element there. He got rid of Saddam. However, he hasn't rid Iraq of the terrorist element...and probably never will. As for "Mission Accomplished", Bush even said in that speech referring to their duties and goals in Iraq: "Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide." How can a mission continue, if you have accomplished that mission? And people thought Dan Quayle was bad lol

jdclyde
jdclyde

with details. Well, I suppose it isn't even good enough to rate being a "good" rant... so will have to go with just a leftist rant. ;\ Changing objectives and hinderance from "home" are all details we are not suppose to think about as a big part of why things got as bad as they did. Drag it down, make SURE it isn't successful, anything to drag Bush down further than he can drag himself.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

It did. The problem occured when the politicians decided to hamstring our military AFTER the war was won. That bred the insurgency which we have been fighting against ever since.

jck
jck

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" Remember that one on the navy ship? Talk about scams. lol

jdclyde
jdclyde

go back and look at what the "issues" were each year and it is amazing that I am even here to type this. The econuts have been hoping for the end of the world for a long time. They even have Charles Manson among the earlier environmentalists, so they stand in good company.

mike_patburgess
mike_patburgess

I agree totally with your statements. We could be self sufficient in alternative forms of energy by now if they would have listened. I invite you to look at the special regarding "who killed the electric car". It was an eyeopener for me with corruption at the highest levels.

glgruver
glgruver

are very safe. The technology has come to the place where electricity could be produced that would fulfill the 1950s era statement that electricity would become too cheap to bother metering. One by-product of this process is something called Hydrogen...Hmmmm, suppose you could run cars, busses and heat buildings with this "waste product" like they do now in Iceland? Wouldn't our modern day Petroleum Industry love that? Actually, the current regulatory structure is as much to blame for the current mess as anything else. Yes, there need to be regulations in place, but as is the case with anything else our Government gets into, the process becomes more important than the end results. American ingenuity built this great land of ours and unleashed, it can do so again.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

so I read up on it. A couple of points stood out for me. You have to store the waste to glassify untreated for tens of years, was one. My favourite though was. As a bonus you don't have to worry about any radiation being carried about by flora and fauna, because it kills everything in the vicinity anyway. This was sort of put a across as a useful side effect. I wish it was a goer, but while stuffing it into tins and dumping it somewhere else, is the acceptable waste disposal solution, I'm against. I despise Nimbys so seeing as I don't want to live next to one or it's dump. I can't in good conscience pick it as an option because it's what you see when you open your curtains of a morning.

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

to all those 'quids' and we'll have 400 billion 'Squids'! Fried Calamari rings for everyone! :) Seriously my wife told me what it means. I was confusing it with the other non-metric subdivisions of the british pound. (should be a kilogram now) I see it as a solution to glassify the waste and bury it but they make such a big deal over it lasting forever is just silly. But I agree, the cost of decomm and waste disposal should be born directly by the companies. Plus the mining and refining of yellowcake often uses vast amounts of fossil fuels. the TVA's refinery comes from dams but that same juice could go to power houses instead.

Tony Hopkinson
Tony Hopkinson

problems. We have absolutely no way of properly dealing with what waste they produce, sweeping it under the carpet doesn't count! But even if you are prepared to accept the high cost of waste disposal, often missed off the cost per joule calculation, you never see them factor in decomissioning costs. UK's I think at last estimate for it's aging plants was 400 billion quids. Guess who's paying for it, no, it's not the electricity company, or their share holders. Course you can say the same about any power plant, (ones driven by waste incinerators are scary) it's just that nuclear ones have clear up costs several orders of magnitude bigger than others. Fission keeps getting touted, because it's there, not because it's a good idea. It's not even a long term solution.

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

while waste volumn for nuke plants is less, it is more concentrated and perceived as more of a problem. and they let it sit next to plants alot as they haven't got it solved on a national level here in US. While much is less radioactive than wood ash, low level waste dumps are fav targets for NIMBY - not in my back yard. It is true there are comparisons. I'm not dissing nukes totally for that reason: coal mining waste forms huge lakes of toxic waste with much huger volumes at times and broke in Georgia, wiping out a small town. Bush admin stopped investigation / criminal prosecution for poli reasons. Liability limits on property damage (property rendered uninhabitable) are currently solved in US by subsidies from govt: i.e. the govt has agreed to pay billions if meltdown / releases. This is not exactly free market. Fuel: price going steadily up for yellowcake. need I say more?

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

80% of france's power is nuclear, it is cheap, clean, few emissions and SAFE. you just get your knickers in a knot every time you hear 'nuclear'

dodell
dodell

Don't believe the arguments you hear for nuclear power. It's just a way for huge companies like GE and Haliburton to make huge profits. Nuclear power is the most expensive way to produce electricity right now and it's not getting any cheaper. How many times will you fall for that too cheap to meter bs? Germany is producing power today from solar with a similar climate to Seattle or Portland. Solar panels have come a long way from what they were 20 or 30 years ago. Now they can produce electricity even when it is cloudy.

torturednacho
torturednacho

Well Just watching Fox News, and Oil is Now @ $123 a barrel. Goldman Sachs Said $200 in 2 years.

catseverywhere
catseverywhere

Several people have made cars that run on water. I can be done overnight. So anyone telling you anything other has an agenda. Al Gore should be screaming about this, if he were for real, had a real argument and actually cared. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU

dodell
dodell

Dude, there is no way to get energy from water without a nuclear reaction. You can't burn water. Splitting the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen takes energy (it does not give energy).

neilb
neilb

If you use a small amount of energy from an internal combustion engine to electrolyse water and inject the Hydrogen and Oxygen produced back into the fuel/air mixture of the engine - [b]any[/b] hydrocarbon-air engine - 5% will do it, the very much higher combustion propagation speed of burning hydrogen so alters the characteristics of the engine that you can advance the ignition timing closer to TDC and get more power. I know it's not what you meant to say but the world needs more than Chemistry 101. Dude... :D

doug.montgomery
doug.montgomery

Electrolsys is only 14% efficient. How much coal do you have to burn to get that clean vehicle? 3 times as much as just burning the coal to begin with. Not a solution.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I thought I was having a rational discussion.

catseverywhere
catseverywhere

As for why automakers haven't 'jumped all over this one' use your imagination. Here, I'll help: running everything on water means NO $$$ for Big oil, the pipeline technically with a single spigot, the control this gives = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Get it? http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/263.html Truth is much stranger than fiction. In 1980 I spoke for an hour and a half with then presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. We discussed the single choke point the oil model gives the power elite, including how all food can be controlled with oil. No oil, the (increasingly centralized, and why?) food supply doesn't move. Food is a weapon to folks like him. Without the dependency of nearly all systems on oil, the oligarchs lose all control. It is that plain and simple. Please wake up. Hearing anything about food shortages and rationing HERE IN THE UNITED STATES in the news lately? How's the wallet holding out? The squeeze is on, the present goal is the destruction of this independent union of states so an interim "North American Union" can arise from the ashes of an intentionally tanked dollar.* This ain't the forum for those details. But water... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1OWDcWoXHs Yeah, it is being done. There are a few entrepreneurs beginning to sell conversion kits on the internet. * please tell me you do know the "federal reserve system" is a foreign-owned private, for profit corporation... ?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I watched the video. The guy lives in Clearwater and appears to be the "fellow in Florid" you mention. Now, where are the statistics? How efficient is it? How much power has to go in to get power out? If it's that great, why haven't the auto manufacturers jumped on the wagon? The CAFE standards will become much more strict, even for light trucks in the next four years, so automakers have great incentive to use any technology that will allow them to maintain sales and increase fuel economy.

catseverywhere
catseverywhere

Dude, did you watch the video? They are driving cars around on distilled water right mow. A fellow in Florid did it a while back but he's disappeared. Some Japanese researchers are doing it right now. It is being done, it could be done everywhere almost overnnight. You do not know what you're talking about.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

..as well as most of the interior of the car? Without petrolium we don't have: Plastics. Paraphen (wax) most electronics numerous drugs. It's not as simple as you think.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Without petrolium we don't have: Plastics." Today, most plastics are made from, believe it or not, corn.

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

capture CO2 at large emissions sources. make homes, buildings, consumer goods out of the carbon in it. and cars out of carbon fiber. mass production will make it cheap. and bene is that cars made of it get way more mpg, as much lighter. it is more brittle than steel but 7x stronger. sure we don't want to be driving in cars that act like corvettes (made of fiberglass) when crash, but impact crumple zone design, and design for repairability - on the future car show, the carbon fiber car body was made of something like 7 parts total which can be quickly replaced. the body uses enzymes & other chemicals to build structures out of carbon. we can simply grow apartment buildings. this will reduce the co2 in the air and hence reduce a/c costs in warm climates

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

on the same page. Most of the guard rail bruising I see is somewhere in the span of the rail and not at the beginning of the rail. Over the past three years and 150k miles, I have only seen a guard rail impact plate severely damaged once. That site now boasts a couple of crosses (apparently both alcohol and youth were contributing factors).

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

The reason that they absorb the impact is that they have breakaway components. Many of them now have an impact plate at the beginning of the rails with breakaway posts anchoring them to the ground. The reason for the plate is to provide a broader point of impact, as the newer cars are so light, the rails would go through them like spears, even with the curved ends. The crumple zones don't protect you from that. Lighter gauage aluminum and breakpoints that require less force are now common. Of course, the tradeoff is they now provide less protection to heavier vehicles.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

If they were, a series of posts would be just as effective. Guardrails are intended to keep vehicles from leaving their designated traffic lane; to do this, they flex and guide a vehicle while absorbing crash impact. http://tinyurl.com/4fmxm9

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

Don't forget that as they become lighter, the guard-rails on the highways need to be replaced, as they will not break away as intended, but serve as inflexible barriers.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

With Oil at 125+ a barrel, solutions that were once cost-prohibitive are now cost-effective. I say throw everything *and* the kitchen sink at the problem. Get the gvt out of the way, if they try to 'fix' this problem one damn more time, we're sunk for sure!

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

sadly, we'll have to keep pumping oil for quite a while till we can use other sources that don't foul our nest so to speak. there are recent big oil finds in montana I think it was plus huge nat gas finds in midwest also. the Saudis have been pumping five million barrels of seawater a day into their largest well to boost production but this well has been pumping since 1948 so their dirty little secret is that they are running out of oil. CO2 makes a very good chemical to pump into rock formations instead of water. it loosens the oil and alos remians mostly in the formation, killing two birds with one stone.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

Let me clarify something. I am not saying that we should ignore the problem and burn petroleum until every last drop is gone. What I am saying is that you can't simply turn off the spigot and hope these vapor-solutions simply materialize. We need to increase production in the short-term and plan for a scattershot solution in the long-term

altonius
altonius

I agree, Petro-Chemicals are needed for all of the above, however what we should be doing is trying to find other ways to help with our transport and saving the complex molecules that we find in oil for use these sorts of things for our children and grand-children (they'll look back and say why on earth did you burn them for cheap transport instead of using them as building blocks). We burn these amazing building blocks without thinking about it. Yes it's going to be difficult, but something needs to be done.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

Short term: Drill, build refineries. We're at a crisis level now, and no mid or long term solution will help us now. Mid term: upgrade the power grid, build more nuclear reactors, exploit geothermal resources in the midwest and Hawaii. Build wind farms off the atlantic coastline, use solar in areas where it makes sense, like our deserts and plains where there is more sun. Solar in SEattle would be a waste... Long term: A broad based energy policy encompassing multiple energy sources so we are never too reliant on a single source. Now that we are recycling, dumps are becomming massive compost piles where we can extract natural gas. combustables can be sent to garbage incinerators and generate power that way (afterburners and proper filtering can keep emissions low) Swap out coal burning plants for nuclear plants and redirect coal to the manufacture of gasoline. Don't dwell on any 'silver bullet' there is none. Get the liquid natural gas from along the coast line. Our county has had ALL of their vehicles (except diesel construction vehicles) running on LNG for a decade now. It's not that complicated folks.

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

Latex, obtained from rubber trees. Petroleum-based rubber only came about as a war-time alternative to the rubber plantation shortages. Most of the car's interior can be a made from wood and leather. You know what we had before plastics? Cloth for soft containers; ceramic, wood, metal & glass for hard containers. Baskets for in-between purposes. Wax used to be obtained from honey bees. We can go back to using it if we can solve the colony collapse disorder problem. Cloth was used for electrical insulation, as was paper, before switching to natural latex. As for petroleum-based drugs, we can find other substitute poisons for them. Our technological base-line is going to have to drop down close to what we had about the year 1800 when it comes to sustainability based on energy. Energy is expensive due to the tight monopolies enjoyed by oil and power companies. And the fact that they bought up and hold most of the patents for alternate energy production. Steam-punk may seem like an anacronistic affectation on the part of some folks; I see it as more of a prophecy.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

And yes, I am aware of the manufacture of plastics and drugs from plants. My cousin is a VP at a major pharma. I am taking into account that in order to produce these plastics and drug components, fossil fuels are still being burned to extract the celuslose. *if* you only count the corn itself, then sure, it's the cleanest. But that is a dishonest calculation. You need to account for all the pollution that occurs from the planting, harvesting, shipping, refining and production of the corn into it's various agents.

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"Petrolium is cleaner." Corn is the cleanest. Rubber, plastic, etc. Bud, you really need to do some research before you post "information" such as you had above. You are off-base on your petrolium-to-plastics argument. Any idea how many different plastics and rubbers are made from corn? Any idea of how much celulose from corn plants is used for the manufacturing of drugs? Apparently not.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

I suppose we could go back to oil lamps and give the whaling industry a big boost too? Or tallow candles too. Gee, I hope breathing in all that crap doesn't make us too too TOO sick. Bee's wax candles are damn expensive, difficult to obtain the raw matereals, and at this time, dangerous to even consider it when the bee population is in it's present crisis.

RFink
RFink

When I was younger 386 was a compuer, now it's the price of gas. :D

alex.a
alex.a

So let's throw Plastics, Paraphen (wax), most electronics, and numerous drugs into the gas tank, why don't we, and just get on with it? I fail to see what the above have to do with the fuel used to power the car.

dodell
dodell

Yeah JD I mentioned in my last post that I wasn't wedded to that 18.8 cents per mile for travel time, but the more I think about it the more I think it really is valid. Time spent driving is truly wasted. I can't ethically do anything but drive because if my attention is taken off the road I am putting others lives at risk (42,000 traffic related deaths per year in US alone). However, time spent riding my bike to work is actually beneficial to my health. I'm not too keen about relating many of these costs to a per mile number. It doesn't make a lot of sense for some of the numbers. For example parking. By definition you are not parking when you're racking up miles so maybe the relationship is actually an inverse instead of a linear one. Anyway lets put aside my qualms with the per mile problem for a moment. You say you have never paid for parking where you work. Well it's probably true that you've never leased a parking space or plugged a meter. I haven't either (even when I used to drive). However, someone paid for that piece of pavement you set your vehicle on. If it is a company parking lot then the company pays for the cost. That is money they don't have for employee salaries. OK, it may be a stretch that this reduces your salary, but it is useful land that is taken out of the economy so your car can sit there. If you park on the street then we all pay for your parking through our taxes. Oh, but look they aren't considering work parking at all. They are considering "Residential Parking." Where do you park your car when you are at home. In your driveway, garage or on the street. Again these are costs either you or the community pays that wouldn't be necessary if you didn't need that car. Lets move on to accidents. I actually think their number here is quite low. 5 cents per mile? What is the value of a human life lost? As I mentioned earlier 42,000 people die each year in traffic related deaths in the US. The vast majority of those are in single occupancy vehicles. Whether you're ever involved in a fatal crash or not. You're car on the road contributes to the likely hood of a crash. Of course TechRepublic readers are all very safe drivers, so we can probably discount this significantly for this audience. Well, I've ranted enough. Like I said in another post. I know biking won't work for everyone, but many of us could replace some of our car trips with bike trips or telecommuting or walking or mass transit. I feel fortunate to be in a place where it is easy for me to bike. If you're interested in biking work to make your community more bike friendly. If not, look out for those of us on bikes or on foot. Take care.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I like the way you play, don't be a stranger. With respect to facts, no matter what you post, it will be torn apart, that's the way it goes here. There are hardly any resources that hols water here without contest but that just gives you opportunity to tear apart other sources thrown at you too. It's a gas if you play the game, sorry for the pun, and you seem to do it well and without getting upset or feeling attacked.

jdclyde
jdclyde

so THAT needs to be considered as an INCREASED expense if your going to figure in for your time. Clearly not a valid expense moneywise. Parking? I have never had a job where I had to pay to park. [i]Residential Parking 4.6 ? per mile Parking and Tolls: user paid (if applicable) 1.7 ? per mile Travel Time (with average delays) 18.8 ? per mile Accidents (minus net insurance disbursements) 5.0 ? per mile"[/i] someone desparately wishing to validate themselves and their chosen agenda, but not valid in most situations. Even using their insane number of $1.19 per mile, 15 miles x 5 days x 48 weeks = 3600 miles x $1.19 exp = $4284. Still not close to your stated $7000, even with all the soft numbers overly inflated. Sorry for calling you a retard.... ;\ Just being wrong doesn't make you retarded, right? :D As I said, it is great that you're in a position you CAN ride a bike most of the time, just be honest when stating the benefits. Watch out for the soccermoms in the SUVs. They are the second worst driver on the roads, second only to Teen age boys.

dodell
dodell

http://www.commutesolutions.org/TCODBro.pdf So here is where the $7000 figure came from. Can't really count the 18.8 cents per mile for travel time since my travel time is actually more, but this is a good argument for telecommuting. On second thought maybe I can count the travel time since now it is exercise/meditation time instead of wasted travel time. Oh, and I never took anyone's comments as flame just good old debate.

jdclyde
jdclyde

it is just when you make claims that are clearly double the real world benefit, people wonder what your angle is. The truth will set you free. I ALMOST got to ride my bike because we almost bought out a local business that is about 3 miles from my house, instead of the 64 miles that my current office is. :(

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Since Honda stopped making efficient Civics in the early to mid 1980's the Civic has become, as many other compact cars have become, a smoke screen. The Civic is built with aluminum; aluminum block, heads etc. In order to dissipate the amount of fuel energy the engine wastes as heat, they slap little pieces of tin all over anything hot, so that the electrical components don't just melt into a blob of plastic. The Honda engines waste more 'energy' per litre of fuel than full sized cars or SUV's, I'm not takiong about MPG, but the burn efficiency/wasted fuel. That energy is transferred to heat and wafts away from the engine via those little heat shields. All in all, the Civic is a very inefficient engine, as is Toyota's compacts and most other compact 4 cylinders. if tehse cars wer built mroe efficiently, you would be getting at least 40% better mileage than they currently offer; look at European cars for example. The lifecycle of a new Honda civic is about 5 years less than a model built in 1984, an SUV will last on average 15 years if cared for, a new Honda civic is a 5 year disposable car, just like the Miata's, MX5's, most compact BMW's, a $10K potiac compact etc. In order to build a Honda Civic, 4 tonnes of carbon is created, or one full year of driving one. So after driving 3 Honda Civics, to get the same 15 year lifecycle of a decent SUV, you have created an additional 3 years worth of pollution JUST IN THE MANUFACTURING process. Thus you are implying that a Honda Civic saves more than 12 TONNES less carbon emissions than an SUV, more than 3 full years of driving 24/7 than an SUV. And what SUV are you basing this on? A full sized Escalade used to drive around the neighbourhood or an Explorer used mainly on the highway? I get better mileage out of my SUV than most of my friends do out of thier cars as it is dependant on driving habits as well as maintenance. Being a mechanic, I have no problem maintaining my vehicles in good condition for a long life. Blanket statements just don't stand up sometimes; in general, there's no real ecological advantage to driving a Civic over an SUV. Especially when considering the wrecking and rebuilding of a Civic 3 times!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

And I must reiterate that I do think it's great that you are aware of your own actions. As for fixing my car, if I have to spend more than $100.00 I get pretty PO'd. As a mechanic I always fix my own car and get parts for less than most dealers and repair shops. As for taking my bike to a mechanic, wouldn't happen, even though I think you were referring to the previous cost analysis post and not my own. Making room for the existing cars? As with most states/provinces, there are tens of thousands of new drivers on the road each year. I'd say converting to bicycles would be a far lower statistic. You are responsible for taking one off thg road (you can only do what you can do), yet for your one off the road, hundreds of new drivers go on the Portland roads every month. It's a nice effport and don't give up, but you'll need to conserve everywhere else too, buy only local groceries and produce (less trucking)change yuor lights to lower wattage or mroe efficient lighting, recycle and all teh rest of it, there's a lot you can do. In fact, if you are really interested in being more aware and environmentally aware, Canada's own David Suzuki is a fascinating scientist who has this one down pat. Take the challenge on his site. http://www.davidsuzuki.com Oh, and keep it up, I'm not flaming you for trying, just getting a little reality into the mix.

jbwvegas1
jbwvegas1

i say we all buy hummers and burn as much fossil fuel as possible until we run out of oil and destroy the environment enough to mess up the weather and destroy crops, resulting in famine. This will be followed by decimation of the human population (unfortunately, a lot of animals, too). It will also lead to melting of the polar caps, resulting in much higher ocean levels, and a warmer planet. Then, over time, the warmth and high concentration of CO2 in the air will lead to high plant growth. The warm environment will encourage efficient cold-blooded animals to overtake inefficient warm-blooded animals. Then: guess what? We have the system that the earth ran for BILLIONS of years, until a big meteor hit the earth and created the anomoly that we've lived under for only the last 65 million years. We're saving the earth from the current anomoly! Dinosaurs, you're back on deck! lol

dodell
dodell

For the most part I stay out of heavy traffic by taking back streets. It's easy to do on a bike. My family went from two cars to one when I started commuting to this job 2 years ago. I have never had a headache upon arriving at work or after my commute home. I bought my bike about 12 years ago for $300. When I have had to take my bike to the mechanic the most I've had to pay has been less than $100. Bet you wish you could say that about your car! I have yet to miss a day on the bike because of weather though I admit I have driven 2 or 3 times because of appointments or the need to pick up something heavy on the way home (borrowed Dad's pickup). If biking is not for you that's fine. I know it's not for everyone, but let's encourage as many people to bike as possible. The more people that bike the less gas we use and there is less road maintenance and expansion necessary and more room for the remaining cars.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Regardless of the CO inhalation, there are neoprene masks you can wear, and your poorly calculated annual savings, which always look best when generalized, I cannot slag you for at least making an attempt at reducing your carbon footprint. In fact, if more people were more focused of reducing their carbon footprint, we would see benefits all around. You have ot be really vareful on this site to make sure your numbers add up and your facts are facts not opinions. At least that's teh way it works this week, every now and then you will have someone say that opinions are more worthy than facts on this forum, but not too often and only when it favours themselves.

JamesRL
JamesRL

I am positive you believe its true. But Economics 101 talks a great deal about subsitutes and their impact on pricing. When the price of wheat goes up and the price of rice goes upand soybeans, what do you think that does to the price of corn? No doubt ethanol from corn has contributed to that, but given world wide corn production as well as worldwide wheat and rice production, but it isn't the only one and may not be the biggest one. James

jdclyde
jdclyde

The FEDS calculate cost of ownership as about .45 cents per mile to cover wear and tear AND fuel. 5478 miles x .45 = $2465.10. Not sure what your using for transportation these days, but I know I am not paying almost $5000 a year on car payments. Must be getting that carboxyhemoglobin Oz is warning you about, because you're just pipe dream just isn't adding up. Not to mention, the benefit of the doubt numbers I used also didn't include for rain/snow, which if we got realistic about the actual number of days, your TOTAL saved with your bike is cut in half. How much did you pay for your bike? We will have to deduct that from your gas savings as well. Now, if you don't OWN a car, and you add in payments and insurance, you MIGHT reach 2/3rds of your stated number, but THAT wasn't your QUITE insane claim.

SonoraPete
SonoraPete

Corn and soy beans both are popular for their diverse uses, but market demands for those purposes has not driven the price of a bushel of corn to triple in the last 18 months.... the demands of ethanol has, however. For years, only government subsidies have made corn even remotely profitable for the small farmer.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Riding your bicyle in traffic, especially rush hour, will have far worse long term effects on yoru health than the exercise will ever benefit you. Vehicles give off many gases, most of which rise due to their lighter than air properties and dissipate into the amosphere, breaking down into harmless gases as they rise. Vehicles also emit Carbon Monoxide. Co is lethal, it lingers at street level, as it is hheavier than air and is responsible for killing police officers, street workers and other people who spend their day in the streets. Every get a headache when walking around town? Do you REALLY think it is from eth moise? It is most likely a minor form of carboxyhemoglobin, which starts with headaches, moves into stomache sickness, and can result in death. That's wht there are CO detectors on teh market now and also why sitting in the garage with teh motor runnign and a hose tin yuor windo will kill you. CO is poison, I think I'll keep my window wound up and watch the cyclists get poisened beside me at teh traffic light. Look it up, it's no joke and you are suffering unless you get some form of respirator or mask while riding.

Dr Dij
Dr Dij

1) the non-fuel uses are alot less than the fuel uses. SO if we ARE NOT using petroleum as fuel, there is ALOT MORE available to be used as plastics, feedstock, chemicals, etc. 2) petroleum is not unique as a carbon chain chemical source. think about it. petroleum is basically de-hydrogenated plant residues sitting around for millions of years. they already make plastic out of corn starch, soy, etc. and make other chems, newspapers use soy based inks.. and power plant CO2 can be recycled by using sunlight in tube vats with algae that fix the CO2 into carbon chain molecules. the CO2 is bubbled thru and fixed. the resulting algae is turned into a) fuel for the plant, b) protein feed for cattle, c) thru the same process as oil refineries into gasoline or diesel

dodell
dodell

Hmmm. Is gasoline the only cost of owning a car? Don't apply for any jobs in the finance dept. JD. You also need to take into account purchase price or lease, insurance and maintenance. Those easily add up to $7000 per year.

jdclyde
jdclyde

15 miles round trip, assuming you never take the day off, including weekends and holidays, I will give you the full 365.242199 days. 365.242199 x 15 = 5478.632985 Days times round trip = total miles 5478.632985 / 10 = 547.8632985 (assuming HUGE SUV only getting 10MPG) 5478.6 gallons x $4.00/gallon = $2314.40 Not even close to your 7K. Maybe your just to light headed to think correctly from all that riding?

dodell
dodell

You're right. The solution is not going to be biofuels. I heard a while back that $25,000 worth of stuff and only about $300 worth of gasoline comes out of a barrel of oil. The other stuff includes some of the things mentioned earlier like plastics, but also pesticides, solvents and pharmaceuticals. The solution (whether we are forced to when we run out or start now) is to use less petroleum. We need to start making some of our short trips on bikes or on foot. We need to start designing our cities for forms of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. Pesticides and petroleum based fertilizers are not necessary for growing crops. There are studies that show organic methods are actually more productive in the long term. We don't need so dang much stuff. Instead of buying plastic lawn chairs that get thrown in the dump after two years buy iron chairs and maintain them to last a lifetime. Oh, and no product is subsidized as much as oil. Eliminate the subsidies for oil and wind and solar become more practical.

dodell
dodell

Better yet, park that SUV and put your fat @$$ on a bicycle. The bicycle is the most efficient way to move people. I ride about 15 miles round trip, save about $7000 per year (more now with gas prices going nowhere but up) and am in the best shape I've been in over 20 years. Even taking into account that I could get flattened by one of you who fail to take my advice I still stand to live longer than someone who drives to work. This is because of the many health benefits of excercise and the reduction of commuting stress.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

...when the govt subsidizes it as much as it has. but, what I should have said is: Petroleum is used mor more than just fuel, to say that we can easily transition from a petrochemical to a biochemical base is overly optimistic at best. To do so would require a massive increase of farmland throughout the world, causing massive deforistation, incursion into existing wilderness areas, worldwide hunger and starvation.

jdclyde
jdclyde

I like to think of it more as a clarifier. B-) It takes into account the people out there that aren't smart enough to know how stuid they are. :D

Timbo Zimbabwe
Timbo Zimbabwe

"The high gas and diesel prices are a function of insufficient refining capacity creating an artificial shortage." That is true. "The same petroleum and it's byproducts that is being used to refine into gas is also being used to form all those things I mentioned." That is not so true. As I had stated before, corn has become the plastics king. There is very little that it can't do, which is the issue of the strain on the food supply; it isn't just ethanol that is the problem, but all of the plastics, etc, that corn is used for.

SonoraPete
SonoraPete

CNG (compressed natural gas), alcohol, and electricity, are not solutions to the 'global warming' dilemma caused(?) by Mankind's use of fossil fuels to provide energy for the wheels of progress and commerce. The combustion of everything mentioned above produces carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, other contaminants, and water as byproducts. Only hydrogen as a fuel retains the class A rating for purity on the yardstick of 'global warming'. Except that, as with nuclear and electricity, there is even some 'cost' in production of those as sources of energy. There is neither free lunch, nor zero net energy gain (let alone positive)to be found in our present state of technological awareness. Truly, we Humans are apparently addicted to some form of transportable energy as a way to sustain Civilization on this planet. I fear the solution to that limitation has yet to be provided by Evolution, or our unannounced interstellar neighbors.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I've never had a need for an SUV, so, like you, I've never owned one. I have owned vans, mostly VW. One even had a paintjob appropriate for the late 60s/early 70s music commonly heard from within. B-) And isn't "stupid econut" a redundancy? :^0

jdclyde
jdclyde

that I neither own, nor have I ever owned, an SUV. I also have no intention of owning one, as they just don't fit in my life style. Back in high school I DID drive a van, and had the bumpersticker "Don't laugh Mister, your daughter might be in here". B-) People who "aim" ANY vehicle piss me right off. As do stupid people. Why are so many econuts also so stupid?

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

In case you haven't noticed, the two most populous nations on earth are emerging from poverty. As to citing Wiki... well others have dinged you for that, so I won't bother. The only way to reduce the price pressures is to drill in ANWR, off our coast, grab the oil-shale in the midwest, throwout the redtape for building new refineries, remove the stupid regulation on refineries that requires them to meet current emissions standards if they make capital improvements. AND AT THE SAME TIME: Revamp our electrical grid to allow for higher output, build more NUCLEAR power plants, and take the scattershot approach to energy. Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. Subsidize NONE of it, as it will have to be self-sustaining. THEN we can start to get off of gasoline as a primary combustable agent for vehicles.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

[i]They DO sell the motorless mowers, ya know.[/i] One day, a teenager stopped me and asked me what it was :)

Bruce L
Bruce L

I posted a reply to this thread - replies to my statement (and yes, I am anti-SUV) have included - Wiki - Bad. ANWR.org - a website that is a "grassroots" organization dedicated to opening the ANWR to drilling - good. Of course, the US consumes 20 million barrels of oil a day - check any reliable website of your choice. The 500 million barrel supersite that someone talked about will provide less than a month of oil if it was our only source and assuming we could yank that much out of the ground at once. 12 years if based on a more realistic pump rate. If oil were to magically drop to 50 a barrel - we'd stop developing alter5native means again. Anti SUV are anti-thought. Oh brother - I have a Civic hybrid. I spend about 120 dollars a month on gas. News reports suggest that others spend a lot more. I have money that I can spend on cloths, save, eat out - you name it - things that support our economy. A gas guzzler doesn't - pure and simple.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

I hate the people who aim them. To summarize your post, SUVs are essentially station wagons for people who wouldn't be caught dead driving a station wagon. My current favorite bumper sticker reads "Don't just aim your car, DRIVE the damn thing!" It's right next to the one that reads "If you knew how to drive, I wouldn't [u]have[/u] an attitude."

Certifiable
Certifiable

CNG heard of it. What alterations to car? Can I have a pump station at home or do I need to go somewhere?

jdclyde
jdclyde

It is moronic of the lemmings to fall in line for the "I HATE SUV" train. You will notice that just about all political figures, (regardless of letter behind their name) ride around in [i]EVIL[/i] SUV caravans. Does it really use that much more fuel than the old motorcades did? Doubt it. How many of the lemmings take the plane instead of a train, which creates about 10 times the carbon footprint? Most of them. How many of them have a gas powered lawn mower instead of an old style push mower? They DO sell the motorless mowers, ya know. It is THOUGHTLESS on their part to just mindlessly parrot some BS they heard off the mainstream media. Further downward spiral of thought is Bruce and his [i]"Regardless, any oil drilling we do only delays the inevitable."[i/] Yes, we WANT to delay it WHILE new technology is developed. 12 years, it will probably take that long to get new technology developed and ready for prime time. THEN a whole new infrastructure will have to be put in place to switch over from gas to whatever the solution will be after that, and that will take time. No, lets just be stupid about it and do NOTHING for the short term and pray we can hold out at the present rate waiting for something to magical happen? Ethanol is NOT the solution.

TonytheTiger
TonytheTiger

they just think everybody should think the same that they do :)

jdclyde
jdclyde

Take the vans and station wagons for the 60's/70's, change the shell a little bit, call it "sport" and all the babyboomers don't think of it as an old persons car anymore. The mileage didn't change, it just gave the mindless masses a mantra to stand behind. Our consumption has NOTHING to do with the price shooting up like it has. In the last 10 years, the price has gone up 400%. Has our driving increased 400% in that time?

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

[u]Everything[/u] you buy in stores is delivered via truck; I can't think of an exception. Take the trucks off the road and everything stops at the nearest railhead or seaport...or at the source. Where will you buy produce, groceries, hardware, appliances, clothes, toys, electronics, etc., etc., etc., when the trucks stop delivering? Edit: For what it's worth, trains are the most efficient mode of surface transportation. As I understand, they are more than three times as efficient as trucks per ton-mile. But I don't really want a rail siding backing up to my yard.

doug.montgomery
doug.montgomery

How about natural gas? Ok, and Ut have CNG at under a dollar a gallon. I have a CNG civic, get 40mpg, and pay $1.94.

torturednacho
torturednacho

I will park my SUV and my fiance's SUV when you Park ... 1)The Pizza Boy's car 2)Please drive yourself to the beer plant.I dont want SEMI's driving around anymore. 3)Landscaping crews are a dime a dozen. So they all have to drive A Matrix Get Real Please. Parking the SUV Has nothing to do with the gas problem or oil usage. There are more people out there that cry about SUV's then there are actually SUV owners.Go after the Bakery trucks/the Semis/Bus's they you more gas/oil then I ever could!

richard.wilson
richard.wilson

For the record: Geologists agree that the Coastal Plain has the nation's best geologic prospects for major new onshore oil discoveries. According to the Department of Interior's 1987 resource evaluation of ANWR's Coastal Plain, there is a 95% chance that a 'super field' with 500 million barrels would be discovered. DOI also estimates that there exists a mean of 3.5 billion barrels, and a 5% chance that a large Prudhoe Bay type discovery would be made. http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php Please post facts...not something you read from a "WIKI"

Bruce L
Bruce L

For the record - drilling the ANWR is not the panacea that everyone makes it out to be. There is an excellent Wikipedia article on it to start - but the bottom line, the reserve will provide 5% of our needs, at current consumption, for about 12 years - that's all. The problem is knowing how much oil is out there - the figures vary. Regradless, any oil drilling we do only delays the inevitable. If you want to drop gas prices, drive less or get a vehicle that uses less gas - park the SUV you use to commute in a place like S. California and buy a Civic.

SonoraPete
SonoraPete

I seem to remember when, again with the knife to our throat, a rapid and notable drop in the price of crude followed just the mention of plans to increase US production. Reliable sources have said we have reserves rivaling those of the MidEast, but would be more expensive to produce. At one time, $50 a barrel was to have been an attractive target price to draw new players. One wonders if now, were the EPA obstructionists kicked to the curb, there would be sufficient economic inducement for speculators to abandon foreign oil for a less costly product closer to home? What about patriotism or, perish the thought... Survival? I wonder if the solution is now one of finding the stimulus rather than the product.

Locrian_Lyric
Locrian_Lyric

You're big on demands, but you don't even understand the problem. The high gas and diesel prices are a function of insufficient refining capacity creating an artificial shortage. The same petroleum and it's byproducts that is being used to refine into gas is also being used to form all those things I mentioned. Jimmy Carter's pie in the sky dreams were just that, dreams. Solar is impractical, the environmentalists won't allow nuclear, we can't drill in ANWR, we can't put windmills off of martha's vinyard, we can't get the oil shale in the midwest, we can't drill along 85% of the USA's coastline. Now, that said, just what would you propose we switch to? Hydrogen? still gotta convert it, and it's one dangerous gas. Ethanol? YEah, that's doing wonders for the food supply, isn't it? biodiesel? sorry, but federal emissions standards preclude it.