Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by sck5

You guys will get ideological about ANYTHING. The reason we switched from wood to coal was because we cut down all of the trees in Europe and most of the eastern forests in the US. Wood got expensive and so we switched to coal.

We then switched to oil because we mined most of the THEN AVAILABLE coal (which was anthracite, and mined in traditional tunnel mines) and IT got expensive. Yes, we now use lots of coal but that is because we have new technology (strip mining, hilltop removal, etc.) and also because we started using the bituminous coal, the anthracite having been nearly exhausted.

Why does this have to be a left right issue? Erps got it right that switches happen when the old fuel gets expensive. That calculation can change when new supplies are discovered or technologies change. That isnt political, its basic economics.\\

And if you believe that (and if you dont you are just denying reality) then it isnt too big a jump to the fact that sooner or later, we will run into increasing costs on the oil that is available with present technology and will start to switch to something else.

You can find plenty of conservative economists who will tell you exactly the same thing. It aint rocket science. It aint even politics.

We quit using coal only for certain things. It certainly wasn't that we'd run out of coal, couldn't mine coal, or it got too expensive. We switched more and more to oil because we couldn't quite get that coal-burning lamp technology down and we had a later problem with the coal powered automobile as well. All along, we continued to use coal for power production as well as other industrial uses. We even powered ships with it until we found out that oil was more efficient.

Facts are pesky, but necessary, things. Try acquainting yourself with a few of them. (g)

[danjarch]

Sck5, we still generate power and heat from wood. So even that theory of yours is false. There are millions of wood burning stoves and fireplaces still in use in America and there are still saw mills out in back woods the use saw dust to generate power.

The reason it becomes a left, right issue is the willful ignorance of some to deal with facts and the greed of some who won't produce for themselves. So we have to have a government and we have to label different camps so we can discuss things. Energy production is a major issue. One that attracts all from the greedy lay-a-bouts to the day dreaming idealogs. There are in fact a lot more then two sides to the aurgument but most find enough like minded men in one party or the other so it can be framed as a left right issue. A few years from now, if the cap and trade goes through, a couple poor senors will die from lack of power it will change again as the left starts claiming the government has to supsidize electricity. While the right fights to free power companies from government rule.

It's the great irony.

[PBzeer]

One of my "chores" when I moved back to Indiana from Alaska to take care of my Mom was splitting wood. My folks built their house in the early '80's and designed it around a woodstove for heating. So some people still find wood a viable alternative.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

One of my "chores" when I moved back to Indiana from Alaska to take care of my Mom was splitting wood. My folks built their house in the early '80's and designed it around a woodstove for heating. So some people still find wood a viable alternative.

My whole family heats with wood.

Whoever needs the log splitter calls around to see who had it last, then they drive over and get it.

[sck5]

so you guys think I am wrong that relative costs determine which fuels get used? No wonder the repubs made such a hash of the economy!!!!!

back here in the reality based world most of us really do care about relative costs. We dont try to spin stories to justify what we do for ideological reasons. Its much easier to just look at the price. You might try it some time.

I think I am confirmed in my belief that some conservatives will argue with ANYTHING if it is said by a liberal.

[sck5]

on second thought we all bought sailboats. so clearly none of us are in the group that cares about what things cost.

[danjarch]

If you had started with the relative costs thing then you would have gotten by just fine. You started with we did this because we had exausted that. which is untrue. We switched because of relative cost and added value. We will switch again when the world creates a product that has a better relative cost and/or a higher added value then what we are currently using. We will not all switch at once nor will we switch because a few who have managed to get some power decide that we should all switch to X item at H hour.

[PBzeer]

What do relative costs have to do with a massive federal expenditure to create a market that doesn't exist ? Other than the fact it totally ignores the relative costs?

It wasn't government that made coal the fuel of choice, nor oil when it replaced coal. If the current situation shows us nothing else, it's what happens when government tries to make something "affordable". Right now, alt fuels aren't, and nothing the government can do, will make it a better value than oil. The market will decide that.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Right now, alt fuels aren't, and nothing the government can do, will make it a better value than oil. The market will decide that.

There are some small things that the government can do, but I don't think there are many. The government CAN help with subsidies to companies that install pumps at service stations for alternative fuels, for example, because some things like acceptance of new kinds of fuels need to reach critical mass before people start using it. As it is now, for example, nobody would drive a natural gas vehicle as a private vehicle because where would you fill up with natural gas ? Do you really want to be riding down the interstate low on fuel and have to start calling around asking where the nearest nat gas station is ?

So yeah, I think there are some things the government can do.

My fear is that the government is going to try to do a bunch of stuff it's not good at, however. Government is REALLY BAD at research and development for example, whenever the government tries to build stuff they end up wasting tons of money. Leave the R&D to people who do that for a living.

Even worse, science. Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean you can pay scientists to make it be true. Yeah, we might wish for all kinds of scientific miracles, but you could throw all the money in the world at some things and they'd be just as impossible when you were done as they were when you started.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

What do relative costs have to do with a massive federal expenditure to create a market that doesn't exist ? Other than the fact it totally ignores the relative costs?

It wasn't government that made coal the fuel of choice, nor oil when it replaced coal. If the current situation shows us nothing else, it's what happens when government tries to make something "affordable". Right now, alt fuels aren't, and nothing the government can do, will make it a better value than oil. The market will decide that.

Exactly. Why else would the europeans continue to develop and manufacture new gas and diesel powered cars instead of electrics, even though fuel costs have been double to triple what we pay in the US for decades? Because it's not economical and practical, that's why.

When there's a market for it, car companies will develop it.

Since a very small percentage of our electric power comes from oil, putting up solar panels and windmills will do little or nothing to reduce foreign oil. It really just comes down to cars, and throwing tax money into wind and solar power will do nothing for it.