Dual source: Ex-Shell president sees $5 gas in 2012 - Polidicks

Silly Europeans. You don't realize all your government programs are causing these high prices.

[QUOTE=FHamster;27043169]Silly Europeans. You don't realize all your government programs are causing these high prices.[/QUOTE] How so?

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;27014434]Because everyone in Zambia is doing well, right? They pay 6.09USD/Gal. Get the fuck over it; we're gifted and privileged to have our ridiculous $3 gasoline.[/QUOTE] Yeah but Zambia sucks ass bad comparison [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] wow this whole thread is just jealous europeans raging

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27038002]Less than half of your gas was domestic before that as well[/QUOTE] Yeah there was that peak thing in the 70s

[QUOTE=aVoN;27033401]Anyway, my point was we are complaining for a way longer time about gas-price now.[/QUOTE] Yeah cool, my point was that Americans have a much more acceptable gas price than we do and still complain much more.

[QUOTE=FHamster;27043169]Silly Europeans. You don't realize all your government programs are causing these high prices.[/QUOTE] Silly Americans, you don't realize all your government programs are causing the environment to shit all over itself, and that they promote polluting.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;27038678]$300 million is nothing to a big oil company - but it makes them look good whilst they squeeze every dollar out of oil they can.[/QUOTE] Did you even read that? Do you know how big the ethanol industry is today? Now multiply the production efficiency tenfold with unlimited potential for expansion.

[QUOTE=Miskav;27052071]Silly Americans, you don't realize all your government programs are causing the environment to shit all over itself, and that they promote polluting.[/QUOTE] *lack of government presence And it didn't just hurt the environment, it decimated the economy as well. Better regulation could have prevented all of this.

[QUOTE=FHamster;27043169]Silly Europeans. You don't realize all your government programs are causing these high prices.[/QUOTE] How do social programs effect oil prices?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27041401]Wind turbines and solar panels Cover vast unused areas of the ocean with them[/QUOTE] this would cost a shitload of money and these things require oil to maintain primarily for the boats floating out towards them, and for the gear maitenance the turbines require same thing goes for solar panels, you need government funded employees that drive their cars and trucks out to repair them if anything goes wrong even if you did either of those things, it still wouldnt be enough to replace the amount of energy we use so our only hope right now is to slow things down until we find said method to draw out more potential energy from nuclear/wind/water etc.

Actually moose, it COULD replace all the energy we use. [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/2mLCrR.png[/img]

what are all those boxes in the middle of the atlantic

[QUOTE=Moose;27053728]what are all those boxes in the middle of the atlantic[/QUOTE] The solar panels on the continents placed next to each other, to show it's size.

this would be realistic if the squares were divided into portions and spread out across the countries

[QUOTE=Moose;27054062]this would be realistic if the squares were divided into portions and spread out across the countries[/QUOTE] hahaaa oh god look at the picture AGAIN

[QUOTE=Moose;27054062]this would be realistic if the squares were divided into portions and spread out across the countries[/QUOTE] They ARE. The green squares are where they would go, the gray squares are just to show the size if they were all next to each other.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;27054331]They ARE. The green squares are where they would go, the gray squares are just to show the size if they were all next to each other.[/QUOTE] green squares are still too big in some areas, didnt mean the gray ones

They would be too, if it was realistic a lot of the squares would be too small to show, so they're just put together for ease.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27053630]Actually moose, it COULD replace all the energy we use. [img_thumb]http://i.cubeupload.com/2mLCrR.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] it would cost alot to send cables all over the place though

not to mention weather conditions and paying for workers to maintain and replace damaged panels and cables, and paying for gas for internal combustion engine powered trucks that carry the equipment around needed for them to maintain said materials it would honestly be a slow and painful transition and might not prove to be as effective as one would think if issues popped up

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27055002]it would cost alot to send cables all over the place though[/QUOTE] You mean unlike the cables we already have all over the place?

If fuel goes that high in Canada that will effectively destroy the country. Understand that it isn't as big a problem in the UK as it is here where a province is the size of their continent. To travel around takes a lot of fuel. I have to drive on the highway half an hour back and forth to get to my job. Truckers would not make a profit, anything long distance, which is most things here, would be entirely fucked. Canada's population is very spread out along the bottom part of the country. 90% of us live near the border. Was it bound to happen? Yep. Thats what you get for relying on corporations with to few restrictions and a finite resource.

[QUOTE=Moose;27055119]not to mention weather conditions and paying for workers to maintain and replace damaged panels and cables, and paying for gas for internal combustion engine powered trucks that carry the equipment around needed for them to maintain said materials it would honestly be a slow and painful transition and might not prove to be as effective as one would think if issues popped up[/QUOTE] You're so right moose, I mean, it's clearly easier to stay with failing fossil fuels than actually have a new program that may be expensive, but fucking works. Yeah, i'd rather stay with a failing, floundering system.

[QUOTE=64fanatic;27056985]If fuel goes that high in Canada that will effectively destroy the country. Understand that it isn't as big a problem in the UK as it is here where a province is the size of their continent. To travel around takes a lot of fuel. I have to drive on the highway half an hour back and forth to get to my job. Truckers would not make a profit, anything long distance, which is most things here, would be entirely fucked. Canada's population is very spread out along the bottom part of the country. 90% of us live near the border. Was it bound to happen? Yep. Thats what you get for relying on corporations with to few restrictions and a finite resource.[/QUOTE] You are right and all, but the UK isn't a continent.

[QUOTE=64fanatic;27056985]If fuel goes that high in Canada that will effectively destroy the country. [/QUOTE] What? Fuel is already that high here, and it has been higher in the past. [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Moose;27055119]not to mention weather conditions and paying for workers to maintain and replace damaged panels and cables, and paying for gas for internal combustion engine powered trucks that carry the equipment around needed for them to maintain said materials it would honestly be a slow and painful transition and might not prove to be as effective as one would think if issues popped up[/QUOTE] - Weather conditions already effect the existing infrastructure - Hiring more workers to man power stations would be great for the economy (that doesn't even take into account how beneficial it would be getting all the panels set up - lots of labourers and tradespeople are out of work right now and a huge worldwide push to expand the power infrastructure would help every single one of them) - Those trucks are running around carrying supplies to maintain the existing oil and coal power plants already

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27060381]What? Fuel is already that high here, and it has been higher in the past. [editline]29th December 2010[/editline] - Weather conditions already effect the existing infrastructure - Hiring more workers to man power stations would be great for the economy (that doesn't even take into account how beneficial it would be getting all the panels set up - lots of labourers and tradespeople are out of work right now and a huge worldwide push to expand the power infrastructure would help every single one of them) - Those trucks are running around carrying supplies to maintain the existing oil and coal power plants already[/QUOTE] I think the only real issue would be needing to have a good infrastructure to have reliable access to solar power stations out in remote locations, like the Outback or Sahara. Having to use aircraft to get to them limits what you can carry, and slightly offsets it's carbon free benefits. Then again, I'm biast in favour of nuclear power. Even with existing technology, we would have 230 years of use. Less economically favourable but longer lasting is using uranium from sea water, which would run us for 60,000 years, and fuel-recycling fast breeder reactors would run us at current consumption for 30,000 years, without using sea-refined uranium.

We should be on nuclear power. Nuclear power is much safer, much cleaner, much less hazourdous. It should be the primary source of energy, but for vehicles? I'm not sure where we go to power them.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27061124]We should be on nuclear power. [I]Nuclear power is much safer, much cleaner, much less hazourdous. It should be the primary source of energy[/I], [B]but for vehicles? I'm not sure where we go to power them.[/B][/QUOTE] Call it Mr. Fusion and people Will love it

Good thing I have a motorcycle that gets 43 MPG.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27014678]We should (and could) all have electric cars by now.[/QUOTE] And we'll harvest that electricity from...what, the sky? No, we'll burn oil