should we rely more on alternative fuels?
apart from pollution. here in the philippines and in the uk, it feels like govs and oil companies have us over a barrel...pun intended; would the uk gov for instance be able to slap 80% fuel tax on electricity as it does with oil?
here in the philippines, when it goes down they cut half a peso off the price at a time, if it goes up they add 1 and a half at a time. fuel here is at same prices as the period when oil was at it's highest during the meltdown. which is odd considering that the price of oil today is well below that figure.
any thought on the matter?
(08-23-2011, 10:52 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]here in the philippines, when it goes down they cut half a peso off the price at a time, if it goes up they add 1 and a half at a time.
Not to mention that they recently cut the price (by a small amount) and then upped the price by a much larger margin barely A WEEK LATER (real crafty guys
)
Yes, we should rely on alternative fuels. In fact the question is moot, since oil supplies are running low anyway; if we don't switch then crucial industries will eventually collapse like tragic, non-adaptable dinosaurs. And we could
see it happening: the meteor is hurtling towards us in splendid slo-mo 3-D. It's only a question of when to do it... as the US demonstrated, people have a tendency to wait the last minute to get shit done, even though it would be much less painful to take measures beforehand. Here in the Philippines, where the current administration acts powerless as the prices of basic commodities keep rising left and right, the prospect for long-term investment in a sensible future is shunted for the short-term.
Seems to me-- and has done for years -- that governments should pull their fingers out, and get on with it, quick. I have the strong impression that the nuclear lobby has bent politicians to their will, and much dislike the weasel words about ' a mix of de da de da and nuclear'. No. I am totally against this very long-term, and dangerous technology. Does anyone here support it, I wonder?
It is so obvious that in this small island (Britain) it would only take one medium accident to have terrifying effects, and for any programme to be terminated.Why start? The Germans seem to have more sense.
I am not sure, btw, that there is actually any shortage of supply of oil --- much is held in tankers moored here and there (off the Suffolk coast, e.g.) and belongs to speculators, such as JP Morgan. So far, it has been a one way bet. Presumably, unless trouble can be stirred up in some other oil-producing region, the revival of Libyan supplies will tend to depress the price. So the point may come when these positions will be unscrambled.
i think we have oil for hundreds of years yet which doesn't include the new fields which will come on line in the arctic etc.
i used to like nuke power till i heard of windpower proper. we could in theory replace a station at a time, we have enough windswept areas, we already have one of the biggest wp farms in the sea. okay, a portion of countryside would arguably be scarred but i think it would be a small price to pay to get rid of the oil cole and nuke (even though nuke is classed as alternative) power. we can build them high enough to stand among our fir and pine forests (and we have a lot of those in windy areas) so as to not destroy the landsacpe too much. they could be erected on farmlands as well. at present and i know it's cliché; held ransom to oil, the we breastfeeds on the teat of oil and pay through the nose for it. much better to spend that money on manufactured goods (even those which need oil to be made) sadly the uk gove gets a bigger percentage of income from oil than it would from a person buying a manufactured product, it would hate to lose its booze cigs and oil cash cows.
i was the thinking along the same lines
