Senate blocks attempt to allow drilling in Alaska refuge

[TrekkieMage]

The reason hybrid cars are more expensive is because there is more demand than supply. Simple economics.

And you didn't answer my question. How long will it take before that gas is usable?

I think in the time it will take to build the pipeline we can be on our way to a more effective long term solution.

And the government could do a lot more to help make cars more efficient. They could subsidize the production of hybrids, fine new cars that don't get a minimum of 25mpg and give tax breaks to cars that get 40mpg or more. Yes it would be expensive. Yes it would be difficult. But there is no easy solution to this problem. And drilling in Alaska is not a solution. Its an intermediate comfort that we don't need.

[IntrepidIsMe]

You can even get tax credits starting January 1st for buying a hybrid car,

[TrekkieMage]

Yeah, but that doesn't help the supply/demand issue. It helps, but they could be doing so much more.

[Republican_Man]

Where are your stats showing high demand for hybrids?

[webtaz99]

Hybrid cars are expensive because there is more to them than a "regular" car, and it takes new infrastructure to produce them.

[TrekkieMage]

Hybridcars.com: sales numbers
Hybridcars.com: Anatomy of a Waiting List
From Cars.com

[IntrepidIsMe]

[Republican_Man]

I didn't realize that it was that big, Trekkie. Thanks.
However, if you look at it, it's really not that large, compared to the 300+ million Americans who drive and continue to purchase gasoline cars. And because there are so many Americans still using gasoline cars, I continue to believe that we need more gas supplies for them. That means more refinaries, drilling in Alaska, etc.
I do concur, though, that the government should give tax incentives to people to buy hybrid cars and businesses and research organizations who research and implement new technologies. But we have to do it both ways. And as Taz says, the reason supply is so much less than demand is because of how expensive Hybrid cars are.

I agree with you that we can't rely on oil for much longer, and that we need to shift over to other technologies. However, we cannot simply rely on new technologies. For the time being we need to get oil from places in our own country, and can't rely on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and OPEC. That's why I think we should expand our intranational oil production capacity AND work more towards the research and implementation of new technologies, as well as the implementation of present alternative fuel technologies.

I hope my stance makes sense to you. I do understand your disagreement and opinion, yet respectfully disagree with it, judging from the "global" spectrum of the issue.

[oberon]

[Republican_Man]

I guess you're not incredibly for energy independence, then?
We CAN'T rely on other countries and organizations for oil any longer. We have to use the resources in our country now, and delve into new technologies, etc. Disagree if you wish. I stand by my position, because I do NOT believe that our debt to Saudi Arabia, up nearly in the trillions, if I recall correctly, should be increased. I don't want to be having to pay off trillions of dollars in debts to Saudi Arabia and China, and this is one way to cut back on our debts to oil-producing countries whom we cannot rely on.
Feel free to disagree.
Maybe Trekkie will be a bit more reasonable to at least understand my position

[Republican_Man]

Let me lay out my position more clearly. If you're reasonable, I think that, although you may disagree with it, you can find the logic in it.

We need energy independence. Energy independence is important. We can't keep relying on Saudi Arabia (to whom we owe a LARGE debt), Venezuela, and OPEC. We're at their mercy when it comes to prices, for the most part, and that's often why prices are so high--because we are so dependent on them for oil, especially when we have 330+ million people in this country that use oil daily, through gasoline.

I mean, let's say in two years Saudi Arabia and Venezuela become our absolute, total enemies and so therefore cease shipment of oil to our country. And as a result OPEC does the same thing. We have to have our own sources of fuel to combat that, so that the US doesn't suffer too greatly. And therefore, energy independence is key. We can't continue to rely on them for the energy we need, for that reason and other obvious reasons.

One of the ways of getting energy independence and doing what needs to be done for fuel purposes is to research and implement alternative fuel and energy technologies and sources. I will cede that point to you, and agree with you (you being those of you opposed to drilling in Alaska, etc). Another way is creating more nuclear power plants to give us energy in a different way. We can also do our best to use more hydro, solar, and wind energy sources while still having backups of the present primary fuel sources. I will cede the present alternative fuel points to you guys as well.
However, when it comes to complete logic and energy independence, it is imperative that we, considering how many people rely on oil and gasoline and how dire our dependence on other countries is, for the time being, drill in places in our country such as Alaska and create a few more refinaries. My reasoning behind this is, as stated previously, in summary, because it's going to take us a long time to completely implement new fuel technologies all around and we can't continue to rely on other states (countries) for oil and gasoline. It's quite obvious that energy independence is important, but we can't have that when we're relying on other states for it. And therefore, for those two principal reasons, I think that we need to drill in places like Alaska and construct more refinaries for the time being. It is imperative that we do that--that we gain more and more energy independence and not have to rely on other countries for fuel.
So, do those two things and implement more and more of the present available alternative energy sources, encourage companies to make available more supply of hybrids, encourage buyers to buy hybrids, and give incentives to businesses and research organizations to research and implement more alternative fuel and energy sources/technologies, and I think we can solve our energy crisis--with that multi-vector assault.

I hope you can at least understand how I have come up with my conclusions and can respect and understand my opinion, as I do yours. We can't continue to rely on fossel fuels for the rest of our lives, but we can't pretend that they're not key to American life.

[Zeke Zabertini]

The key flaw in your logic being that, even by the most optimistic estimates, which I must stress will probably not be met, drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge will at its height, around 2025 if plans go ahead immediately, bring Alaskan oil production to 6.5 million barrels per day, an increase of less than half a million barrels from current production and an increase of under two million barrels from projected Alaskan oil production in 2025 if the ANWR is not drilled, less if you also factor in decreased production in other oil-producing states. The United States in 2000 imported 11 million barrels a day, a number that continues to climb as the population of this country increases. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will increase production, true, but not by much. And by the time it reaches full production capacity imports will have grown to the point where the United States won't even break even. If United States oil consumption were to level off today, which certainly isn't going to happen, drilling in the ANWR at its height would not even decrease imports by fifteen percent. ANWR drilling will have the sole effect of slowing the increase of imports. It will not decrease oil imports and it will certainly not be a major factor in United States energy independence.

I should note I am not necessarily against ANWR drilling. For it to be practical though, it must be coupled with an aggressive drive away from fossil fuels as an energy source in the United States. Without huge strides in that direction, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have a net effect that is utterly insignificant to both energy independence and oil prices.

[Republican_Man]

Those are good points. I do agree with your second paragraph, Zeke, in particular. I am for drilling in ANWR and other places so long as we become more aggressive in changing our sources of fuel and energy, the latter of which is necessary for a number of reasons, including the eventual elimination of fossil fuels on our planet, the environment, and the fact that it's a great way for energy independence and to, quite possibly, even make the US a world leader in energy.

[Republican_Man]

$3,4000 tax break for hybrid cars is going to be happening sometime really soon, the Treasury Secretary has announced (just on FOX News).