higher gas prices ?

[Tom-D]

what do you believe will be the consequences of $5-$6 fuel prices on the economy?

please stay on topic, and keep it non political.

 

[CJones]

I read a paper a while back that said that around $5/gal for diesel is the break-even point for making stuff overseas, bringing it in to a coastal port, and trucking it across country. When diesel goes over $5/gal, it's probably cheaper to make it in-country and pay the higher labor costs of production.

A few years ago, Nike was already looking at what it would take to move their production from southeast Asia to North/Central America.

Worst case scenario of higher fuel prices: Day-to-day products get so expensive that people go broke buying the 'necessities' as companies refuse to move production back form overseas.

Best case scenario of higher fuel prices: Companies move production back 'home', creates new jobs, quality of production goes up, everybody holds hands and sings kum-bah-yah

 

[Tom-D]

I read a paper a while back that said that around $5/gal for diesel is the break-even point for making stuff overseas, bringing it in to a coastal port, and trucking it across country. When diesel goes over $5/gal, it's probably cheaper to make it in-country and pay the higher labor costs of production.

A few years ago, Nike was already looking at what it would take to move their production from southeast Asia to North/Central America.

Worst case scenario of higher fuel prices: Day-to-day products get so expensive that people go broke buying the 'necessities' as companies refuse to move production back form overseas.

Best case scenario of higher fuel prices: Companies move production back 'home', creates new jobs, quality of production goes up, everybody holds hands and sings kum-bah-yah

Do you believe that what effects other countries, won't effect us in the same way?

transportation cost alone will send a ripple across the whole economy.

 

[fgcason]

The last time it jumped to $5/gallon, the economy tanked. Prices of everything else went up. People quit buying non essentials in order to pay fuel to get to work that week. People lost jobs and couldn't find another one that paid decent wages again. It hasn't recovered yet.

Economy and profitability margins are nice however it's really about people. A lot of people are still suffering from the last round of high fuel prices. Some haven't recovered. Sure a lot of executives and management types are doing between ok to rolling in the cash however the average person is still watching their expenses.

Jack the fuel prices up again and it's going to get worse. They're beating the people who are already down. The jobs that pay enough to counter the increased fuel prices just aren't there, and certainly won't be after the next round of nationwide layoffs. When it hits $5-$6/gallon even the few available decent jobs are going to be eliminated.

All you can really do about it though is open you wallet and say "help yourself."

 

[JesseD]

Do you believe that what effects other countries, won't effect us in the same way?

transportation cost alone will send a ripple across the whole economy.

Services (knowledge) are easy to send via the wire, a TV isn't.

 

[Tom-D]

The last time it jumped to $5/gallon, the economy tanked. Prices of everything else went up. People quit buying non essentials in order to pay fuel to get to work that week. People lost jobs and couldn't find another one that paid decent wages again. It hasn't recovered yet.

Economy and profitability margins are nice however it's really about people. A lot of people are still suffering from the last round of high fuel prices. Some haven't recovered. Sure a lot of executives and management types are doing between ok to rolling in the cash however the average person is still watching their expenses.

Jack the fuel prices up again and it's going to get worse. They're beating the people who are already down. The jobs that pay enough to counter the increased fuel prices just aren't there, and certainly won't be after the next round of nationwide layoffs. When it hits $5-$6/gallon even the few available decent jobs are going to be eliminated.

All you can really do about it though is open you wallet and say "help yourself."

Totality agree, and how many times have we been warned that if the economy tanks again, it will go global and off the scale.

If that happens, could the US go broke? and thus fail to meet its welfare commitments?

 

[fgcason]

Totality agree, and how many times have we been warned that if the economy tanks again, it will go global and off the scale.

That gas money has got to be going somewhere. There has to be at least one somebody somewhere on the planet that won't be going hungry...assuming someone else can afford to haul the food to their kitchen.

If that happens, could the US go broke? and thus fail to meet its welfare commitments?

I thought the US was already how many trillions in debt already to whoever? The last I heard, the definition of broke was a zero or negative bank balance and if that's right, it's already seriously broke.

What happens when an entire planet's civilization goes broke? What then? Dark ages again followed by a new civilization after 500-1000 years?

 

[Tom-D]

That gas money has got to be going somewhere. There has to be at least one somebody somewhere on the planet that won't be going hungry...assuming someone else can afford to haul the food to their kitchen.

the fat cat theory


I thought the US was already how many trillions in debt already to whoever? The last I heard, the definition of broke was a zero or negative bank balance and if that's right, it's already seriously broke.

If our personal finances were in that condition we would be bankrupt. percentage wise

What happens when an entire planet's civilization goes broke? What then? Dark ages again followed by a new civilization after 500-1000 years?

When the social program checks stop coming, the ghetto dwellers will riot, and this nation will be required to declare a state of marshal law, then we'll have a dictatorship.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The last time it jumped to $5/gallon, the economy tanked. Prices of everything else went up. People quit buying non essentials in order to pay fuel to get to work that week. People lost jobs and couldn't find another one that paid decent wages again. It hasn't recovered yet.

Economy and profitability margins are nice however it's really about people. A lot of people are still suffering from the last round of high fuel prices. Some haven't recovered. Sure a lot of executives and management types are doing between ok to rolling in the cash however the average person is still watching their expenses.

Jack the fuel prices up again and it's going to get worse. They're beating the people who are already down. The jobs that pay enough to counter the increased fuel prices just aren't there, and certainly won't be after the next round of nationwide layoffs. When it hits $5-$6/gallon even the few available decent jobs are going to be eliminated.

All you can really do about it though is open you wallet and say "help yourself."

Agree; other things that might happen too is that extracting hydrocarbons from coal becomes cost effective; algal biodiesel might get a a proper chance; we start exploiting the resources that are not being used for environmental reasons (oil drilling off the east coast for example). As stated by someone else, production will get "insourced" again.

I am not saying all of these are good ideas, just possible outcomes. The economy will then settle into a new state after some disruption.

 

[RJM62]

Agree; other things that might happen too is that extracting hydrocarbons from coal becomes cost effective; algal biodiesel might get a a proper chance; we start exploiting the resources that are not being used for environmental reasons (oil drilling off the east coast for example). As stated by someone else, production will get "insourced" again.

I am not saying all of these are good ideas, just possible outcomes. The economy will then settle into a new state after some disruption.

Yes, solutions exist, and have existed for quite some time. The reasons they haven't been implemented often have more to do with politics and/or industry lobbying than any practical technological obstacles. Some example of solutions (including some that you mentioned) include:

• Biodiesel from non-food sources (algae, prairie grasses, etc.)
• Nuclear power
• Coal / shale oil
• Domestic drilling in previously off-limits areas
• Natural gas / biogas

What I think will happen, however, is that crude oil prices will start to fall when demand starts to fall, or even before if the U.S. and other industrial nations get serious about alternatives.

I personally think the first thing that needs to be done is to build many more nuclear power plants, with the goal of eliminating all oil-fired plants within five years, and coal-fired plants within 10 years. There are nuclear power technologies available today that are much safer than old-fashioned water-cooled plants. Yes, waste disposal is still a problem, but it's a manageable one.

Aside from directly reducing petroleum demand, a move to nuclear, if done right, could benefit us in many ways, including:

• Elimination of atmospheric pollutants from electricity production
• More electric availability to heat homes and other buildings presently heated by fossil fuels.
• More electric availability to power electric vehicles and industrial equipment
• Nuclear power might also be the only efficient way to produce ethanol for vehicle use.

I really can't believe that we can manage our energy needs without a large-scale move to nuclear power. Solar, wind, and so forth simply can't produce enough juice with a sufficient degree of reliability, and wind in particular has serious environmental issues of its own (for example, hazards to birds and bats). I think nuclear is inevitable, and the longer we wait to realize this, the worse the economic effects will be.

-Rich

 

[Tom-D]

Yes, solutions exist, and have existed for quite some time. The reasons they haven't been implemented often have more to do with politics and/or industry lobbying than any practical technological obstacles. Some example of solutions (including some that you mentioned) include:

• Biodiesel from non-food sources (algae, prairie grasses, etc.)
• Nuclear power
• Coal / shale oil
• Domestic drilling in previously off-limits areas
• Natural gas / biogas

What I think will happen, however, is that crude oil prices will start to fall when demand starts to fall, or even before if the U.S. and other industrial nations get serious about alternatives.

I personally think the first thing that needs to be done is to build many more nuclear power plants, with the goal of eliminating all oil-fired plants within five years, and coal-fired plants within 10 years. There are nuclear power technologies available today that are much safer than old-fashioned water-cooled plants. Yes, waste disposal is still a problem, but it's a manageable one.

Aside from directly reducing petroleum demand, a move to nuclear, if done right, could benefit us in many ways, including:

• Elimination of atmospheric pollutants from electricity production
• More electric availability to heat homes and other buildings presently heated by fossil fuels.
• More electric availability to power electric vehicles and industrial equipment
• Nuclear power might also be the only efficient way to produce ethanol for vehicle use.

I really can't believe that we can manage our energy needs without a large-scale move to nuclear power. Solar, wind, and so forth simply can't produce enough juice with a sufficient degree of reliability, and wind in particular has serious environmental issues of its own (for example, hazards to birds and bats). I think nuclear is inevitable, and the longer we wait to realize this, the worse the economic effects will be.

-Rich

Your wider view of energy independence is good but none of things that you mentioned will send trucks down the road, except coal oil, and that has huge environmental impacts due to the conversion process makes tons of CO. and we already have way too much in our atmosphere.

 

[Dr. O]

Side effects of rising gas prices are completely predictable for general aviation...
1. We (ga pilots) will fly less - which dramatically raises the cost per hour flown... When some realize that their flivver is costing well over a hundred dollars an hour FLOWN to operate, they will stop flying...
2. Flying less means the airports sell less gas... This results in lowered production of avgas which causes the price to jump dramatically... See #1....

denny-o - and Fat Albert, the gas loving Apache...

 

[Everskyward]

Your wider view of energy independence is good but none of things that you mentioned will send trucks down the road, except coal oil

Natural gas can be used in vehicles and we have a lot of it domestically.

 

[Everskyward]

Personally, what I think will happen is this...

The economy will then settle into a new state after some disruption.

or this...

What I think will happen, however, is that crude oil prices will start to fall when demand starts to fall, or even before if the U.S. and other industrial nations get serious about alternatives.

And the doom and gloomers will need to find something else to worry about.

 

[Bob Noel]

Side effects of rising gas prices are completely predictable for general aviation...
1. We (ga pilots) will fly less - which dramatically raises the cost per hour flown... When some realize that their flivver is costing well over a hundred dollars an hour FLOWN to operate, they will stop flying...
2. Flying less means the airports sell less gas... This results in lowered production of avgas which causes the price to jump dramatically... See #1....

denny-o - and Fat Albert, the gas loving Apache...

For me, the fuel cost per hours isn't a factor. I essentially budget a certain amount per year. If fuel price doubles, then I would perhaps fly less. But it wouldn't stop me from flying.

What will stop me from flying is making the cost of equipping and maintaining the aircraft too expensive. ADS-B out is one more step in achieving that.

 

[RotorAndWing]

As fuel prices climb GA will fly less. The value of GA airplanes (especially twins and high performance singles) will continue to decline. More FBO's and GA service providers will disappear.

For automobiles, big SUV's a large pickups will be hard to sell and used can be bought for a lot less.

As for the rest of the economy prices will climb due to transportation cost.

Oil is bought and sold using US dollars. The US Dollar is the world's reserve currency. But as our Government continues it's out of control spending and ever increasing entitlements and runs the printing presses making more dollars the value of the US dollar is in decline, thus making oil more expensive.

OPEC already wants to switch to another currency for oil trading. If that happens you will have a pocket full of dollars worth nothing.

As we enter 2011 this country is in for hard times of the like none of us have ever witnessed. Gas will just be one of the small problems to go with it.

 

[Tom-D]

Natural gas can be used in vehicles and we have a lot of it domestically.

Maybe, but every car out there must be converted to use it, and the most of the gas we have isn't tapped yet, that idea is 15-20 years out.

algae is doable in much shorter time,

 

[RJM62]

Your wider view of energy independence is good but none of things that you mentioned will send trucks down the road, except coal oil, and that has huge environmental impacts due to the conversion process makes tons of CO. and we already have way too much in our atmosphere.

True to an extent. Trucks can run on Biodiesel, an existing technology that will become more competitive -- and it's already pretty close to being there -- as petroleum costs continue to rise. Biodiesel is an existing and proven technology that powers many buses and trucks in New York City and the surrounding areas (including most of the trucks owned by ConEdison, our electric company); Google's entire bus fleet; and the entire fleet of trucks owned by SafeWay, the supermarket chain.

In addition, converting to electric for those uses where it's practical (and converting to nuclear to produce that electricity) frees petroleum for uses where conversion is difficult or impossible. Converting oil-heated buildings to electric heat, for example, would save untold barrels of petroleum, and would also clean up the air quite a bit. In some cases this can be done relatively easily; in other cases, not so much. But it can't be done at all without a massive increase in electricity capacity, for which the only realistic source would be nuclear generation.

It's important to convert from fossil fuels to other fuels wherever possible, in order to preserve fossil fuels for uses where there are few or no alternatives. For example, it would be difficult or impossible to convert gasoline-powered aircraft to use any other fuel. (Gasoline made from coal might be an exception, but it's a dirty technology, and it would likely require extensive testing for FAA approval.)

Turbine-powered aircraft, however, can already run on Biojet, an existing biomass-derived fuel, and the economic break-even point isn't far away. The USAF already has certified Biojet for certain uses (I believe for flight below very high altitudes that are well above those typically reached by civilian aircraft), so Biojet's not just a dream or a possibility. It exists and it's been proven.

-Rich

 

[Tom-D]

True to an extent. Trucks can run on Biodiesel, an existing technology that will become more competitive -- and it's already pretty close to being there -- as petroleum costs continue to rise. Biodiesel is an existing and proven technology that powers many buses and trucks in New York City and the surrounding areas (including most of the trucks owned by ConEdison, our electric company); Google's entire bus fleet; and the entire fleet of trucks owned by SafeWay, the supermarket chain.

In addition, converting to electric for those uses where it's practical (and converting to nuclear to produce that electricity) frees petroleum for uses where conversion is difficult or impossible. Converting oil-heated buildings to electric heat, for example, would save untold barrels of petroleum, and would also clean up the air quite a bit. In some cases this can be done relatively easily; in other cases, not so much. But it can't be done at all without a massive increase in electricity capacity, for which the only realistic source would be nuclear generation.

It's important to convert from fossil fuels to other fuels wherever possible, in order to preserve fossil fuels for uses where there are few or no alternatives. For example, it would be difficult or impossible to convert gasoline-powered aircraft to use any other fuel. (Gasoline made from coal might be an exception, but it's a dirty technology, and it would likely require extensive testing for FAA approval.)

Turbine-powered aircraft, however, can already run on Biojet, an existing biomass-derived fuel, and the economic break-even point isn't far away. The USAF already has certified Biojet for certain uses (I believe for flight below very high altitudes that are well above those typically reached by civilian aircraft), so Biojet's not just a dream or a possibility. It exists and it's been proven.

-Rich

I think we are agreeing. Algae bio-diesel can be brought on line quicker than any other alternative. nuke plants are 25-30 year process, due to EPA, nuke regulatory agency, the greenies, and several other regulatory groups plus the build time and grid alterations to hook them up.

that's a long term fix that we do need, but we need a new fuel now.

 

[RJM62]

I think we are agreeing. Algae bio-diesel can be brought on line quicker than any other alternative. nuke plants are 25-30 year process, due to EPA, nuke regulatory agency, the greenies, and several other regulatory groups plus the build time and grid alterations to hook them up.

that's a long term fix that we do need, but we need a new fuel now.

Right. So strip away the EPA nonsense and tell the greenies to go cry in the corner, and a nuke plant can be online in less than five years. The grid upgrades, however, will take longer.

-Rich

 

[Tom-D]

Right. So strip away the EPA nonsense and tell the greenies to go cry in the corner.
-Rich

That's a whole lot easier said than done, they'll sue and hold you up in the courts for ever.

We in Wa. state had what was called Woops (Washington State Public Power Supply system, after 13 years fighting the permits and trying to stop the cost over runs and the rework of existing structures completed by the lowest bidder they went bankrupt, and stand to this day as a monument to the billions of junk bonds that ruined many peoples retirement plans.

What is possible, and what will be done is WAY different.

 

[Everskyward]

Maybe, but every car out there must be converted to use it, and the most of the gas we have isn't tapped yet, that idea is 15-20 years out.

It won't take nearly 15-20 years to get the natural gas out of the ground. They would be doing it now but the prices are low. I do agree that there needs to be an infrastructure of filling stations and it would take some time to get vehicles converted and it's also a chicken or egg thing. My neighbor across the street drove a natural gas truck for for for years, though, before he retired.

algae is doable in much shorter time,

I doubt it since algae is still in the research phase.

 

[Tom-D]

It won't take nearly 15-20 years to get the natural gas out of the ground. They would be doing it now but the prices are low. I do agree that there needs to be an infrastructure of filling stations and it would take some time to get vehicles converted and it's also a chicken or egg thing. My neighbor across the street drove a natural gas truck for for for years, though, before he retired.

I doubt it since algae is still in the research phase.

Not true, it is being produced every day right now, just not enough to influence the market.

 

[BillTIZ]

Auto gas is 3.09
Avgas 100 LL jumped from 4.84 last week to 5.02 today
And the pump did not work

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP>

I doubt it since algae is still in the research phase.

True, but fairly late research

Not true, it is being produced every day right now, just not enough to influence the market.

It's being produced in pilot plants- larger scale research.

The reference below is still recent enough to be relevent:

The majority of the investment went to three start-ups: Sapphire Energy, based in San Diego; Solazyme, from San Francisco; and Solix Biofuels, with headquarters at the Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory at Colorado State University, in Fort Collins. All three companies say they now have enough funding to build large-scale pilot facilities.
But to overcome the problems of scale and cost, each start-up is working with a different combination of inputs, conversion methods, extraction techniques, and outputs. Algae have been sampled from local sources, extreme environments, and genetics labs. They have been grown in sunlight and in the dark, in high-tech tanks and low-tech ponds. And they have been processed to produce various fuels, chemical feedstocks, and ingredients for food and cosmetics.

So far, none of the approaches is a clear winner. Among the seemingly endless scenarios, "there is not yet, today, a commercially viable algae approach," points out David H. Kurzman, managing partner of renewable energy consultants Kurzman Capital. He says the best strategy will take three to five years to reach commercialization. At that point, Kurzman predicts, algal fuel "could be a useful arrow in the quiver of solutions to our dependence on foreign oil."

Here's one of the issues for algal biodiesel:

Executives at the start-ups agree that high productivity and growth rates are what make algae an attractive choice for producing fuel. They also acknowledge that production costs need to come down by about a factor of 10. And that's about all they agree on. Among their many disagreements is the best way to house the hard-working little oil producers.

Reference: Chemical & Engineering News January 26, 2009 Volume 87, Number 4 pp. 22-23
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/87/i04/html/8704bus1.html, retreived 2 Jan 2011

 

[Tom-D]

Here's one of the issues for algal biodiesel:

Reference: Chemical & Engineering News January 26, 2009 Volume 87, Number 4 pp. 22-23
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/87/i04/html/8704bus1.html, retreived 2 Jan 2011

I truly believe that if the US Congress got behind the algae growing industry, and guaranteed the business start up loans and allowed people to homestead land in Az. N.M. or ?

that this could evolve just like the electric light. and be a real threat to the imported oil business, thus forcing the price of imported oil way down.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I truly believe that if the US Congress got behind the algae growing industry, and guaranteed the business start up loans and allowed people to homestead land in Az. N.M. or ?

that this could evolve just like the electric light. and be a real threat to the imported oil business, thus forcing the price of imported oil way down.

Note my comments about the corn/soy lobbies earlier in the thread...

 

[Tom-D]

Note my comments about the corn/soy lobbies earlier in the thread...

Don't you think the Corn and soy growers would love .50 per gallon diesel?

They'd kick a politician's butt for that.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Don't you think the Corn and soy growers would love .50 per gallon diesel?

They'd kick a politician's butt for that.

The corn huskers want ethanol, not biodiesel.

The soy lobby wants $2.50 diesel if anything...but I guess that's your point.

 

[RJM62]

That's a whole lot easier said than done, they'll sue and hold you up in the courts for ever.

. . . .

What is possible, and what will be done is WAY different.

That's very true. It's also one of the reasons why I still have doubts about MMGW. If the situation is as bad as is posited by Gore and others, and nuclear provides even an interim means to quickly and dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I would think the proponents of MMGW would be clamoring for it.

But they're not. Instead, they favor "solutions" that can never meet more than a fraction of our energy needs (such as solar and wind), technologies that are still years, if not decades away from being practical (such as hydrogen fuel cells), conservation goals that would be impossible to meet without returning to the stone age, and (of course) more taxes.

Call me crazy, but when I listen to people crying out about the imminent destruction of the earth due to carbon emissions, but ignoring the most readily available way to eliminate a large portion of those emissions, I can't help but raise an eyebrow or two. One might not like nuclear power, but compared to the destruction of the earth, I would think even those who have always been anti-nuclear would consider nuke plants the lesser of the evils.

If that were the case, the single biggest obstacle to rapid deployment of nuclear power would be removed. Nuke plants aren't that hard to build, especially the newer, air-cooled designs. Without the anti-nuke protesters trying to delay construction at every turn of a shovel, a nuke plant could be online and generating power in less than five years -- including bringing the transmission lines to the plant.

-Rich

 

[Tom-D]

That's very true. It's also one of the reasons why I still have doubts about MMGW. If the situation is as bad as is posited by Gore and others, and nuclear provides even an interim means to quickly and dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I would think the proponents of MMGW would be clamoring for it.

But they're not. Instead, they favor "solutions" that can never meet more than a fraction of our energy needs (such as solar and wind), technologies that are still years, if not decades away from being practical (such as hydrogen fuel cells), conservation goals that would be impossible to meet without returning to the stone age, and (of course) more taxes.

Call me crazy, but when I listen to people crying out about the imminent destruction of the earth due to carbon emissions, but ignoring the most readily available way to eliminate a large portion of those emissions, I can't help but raise an eyebrow or two. One might not like nuclear power, but compared to the destruction of the earth, I would think even those who have always been anti-nuclear would consider nuke plants the lesser of the evils.

If that were the case, the single biggest obstacle to rapid deployment of nuclear power would be removed. Nuke plants aren't that hard to build, especially the newer, air-cooled designs. Without the anti-nuke protesters trying to delay construction at every turn of a shovel, a nuke plant could be online and generating power in less than five years -- including bringing the transmission lines to the plant.

-Rich

and then, there are those who believe that each time you build a nuke plant you build a target.

And that is a mind set that starts at home.

 

[wabower]

And the nice thing about living in the woods is that it doesn't really matter?

That gas money has got to be going somewhere. There has to be at least one somebody somewhere on the planet that won't be going hungry...assuming someone else can afford to haul the food to their kitchen.



I thought the US was already how many trillions in debt already to whoever? The last I heard, the definition of broke was a zero or negative bank balance and if that's right, it's already seriously broke.

What happens when an entire planet's civilization goes broke? What then? Dark ages again followed by a new civilization after 500-1000 years?

 

[Gary F]

If that were the case, the single biggest obstacle to rapid deployment of nuclear power would be removed. Nuke plants aren't that hard to build, especially the newer, air-cooled designs. Without the anti-nuke protesters trying to delay construction at every turn of a shovel, a nuke plant could be online and generating power in less than five years -- including bringing the transmission lines to the plant.
-Rich

I completely agree with Rich's post above.

Here is an example of a really small nuclear power plant concept.
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

 

[Maxmosbey]

When the social program checks stop coming, the ghetto dwellers will riot, and this nation will be required to declare a state of marshal law, then we'll have a dictatorship.

Wow, my brother had that same thought back in the early eighties. Bought himself an acreage, started growing his own food, stockpiled guns and ammo in the basement, his wife learned to weave, and he set up no trespassing signs out at hundred yard increments so that he could adjust his sights when the urban rioters came out into the country to pillage. I think he is still out there.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Who is saying gas prices are going to go that high? I'm always a little skeptical of scare tactics. It makes me wonder what the motivation is to make such a bold statement. What do they want us to do after we scream "oh my god, life as we know it is going to end in 2011"? Then what?

 

[Tom-D]

I completely agree with Rich's post above.

Here is an example of a really small nuclear power plant concept.
http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

That's great, but do you believe the 5-6 dollar per gallon fuel will force that to happen?

The mini nuke plant powering each town/city would be a great idea, we would no longer require a super Grid, or high line towers and all that stuff.

but that won't/ can't happen quick enough to end our dependence upon imported oil, before it effects the economy.

 

[Tom-D]

Wow, my brother had that same thought back in the early eighties. Bought himself an acreage, started growing his own food, stockpiled guns and ammo in the basement, his wife learned to weave, and he set up no trespassing signs out at hundred yard increments so that he could adjust his sights when the urban rioters came out into the country to pillage. I think he is still out there.

that's a great he is independent. Mother earth news concept.

what do you believe will happen when the welfare / unemployment checks stop?

 

[Tom-D]

Who is saying gas prices are going to go that high?

an Ex CEO of Shell.

 

[N801BH]

that's a great he is independent. Mother earth news concept.

what do you believe will happen when the welfare / unemployment checks stop?

I am betting they will riot and cause serious damage...... to their own areas.. Have you ever noticed every time they riot for some trivial reason they ALWAYS burn down the ghetto???? Flash back to La riots.B)..

You cut off the leaches that have lived off public funds for generations and you will get major upheaval..... Just watch.

Ben

 

[vontresc]

You cut off the leaches that have lived off public funds for generations and you will get major upheaval..... Just watch.

Ben

So when we cut off all of the old farts sucking us dry on Medicare and social security will we have hover-round riots???