(02-11-2011 02:42 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here's one last thing. I read when Bush went out of office gas was 1.87. In two years were paying over 3 dollars. Now where will we be in 2 more years. Wouldn't it make sense to put a tax on gas to pay off our national debt. Consider it a down payment for our nation's well being. So many good things could come from it.

"If you tax something, you get less of it."

There are reams of data that showed when gas prices went up, states' cofferes dried up. They lost a bundle in reduced revenue on gasoline.

Look at the tobacco tax on cigars. What happened to cigar smoking?

This is a readily observable phenomenon in a host of markets: if you spike taxes, you will drive your revenue down.

This is why policy, like science, should be based on empirical data, not what "feels" right. Why do you think that the climate scientists fake their data? Because they know at some point someone is going to look at it, and they need to convince more than a bunch of airhead 21 year old activists who think, "it feels warmer now than when they were kids"

Quote:I'm convinced that there's a segment of the Republican establishment that wants to bankrupt the US. The biggest detriment to Obama's agenda was the national debt. It's probably the best weapon in the GOP's quiver. Starve the beast. Bankrupt the US.

Ok, this coming from the guy who's convinced that the Dems are on the side of the little guy.

Let's see, Obama spiked the national debt, and yet it was the deficit that worked against him. Why? Because he wanted to borrow more? You're just throwing out contradictory statements to drive us batty, aren't you?

That's the problem with economic policy. You can't run controlled tests on it. The empirical data end up just showing whatever looks good to the person doing it.

The events in Egypt would appear to be an important blow against the entire philosophy behind Islamic terrorism, as a major justification for terrorism against the west is that it's necessary to fight the western imposed dictatorships in the Arab world.

You fight the far enemy to weaken the near one, the enemy of my enemy is my friend yada yada yada.

Maybe, just maybe, successful peaceful resistance is a major blow against terrorist philosophy? I have my hopes.

Of course, I still hold my previously posted concerns about the Muslim Brotherhood and other associated ner-do-wells with fascist Islamic bents, but this sure is one hell of a start.

I would love for Cubans to see this the wild Egyptian action, and the Iranian Mullahs must be wide eyed about now.

Cell phones, laptops and the internet are the guillotines and pitchforks of the modern revolution, how awesome is that!

Not that Obama should get any credit for this development but Mubarek resigning should help the economy a bit more?? Which in turn helps Obama. At least I think that should be the case.

(02-11-2011 05:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not that Obama should get any credit for this development but Mubarek resigning should help the economy a bit more?? Which in turn helps Obama. At least I think that should be the case.

The next few weeks/months should be very telling.

If it's a moderate, semi-liberal leader, then reason to celebrate. If it's the other extreme - an Islamist 10x worse than Mubarak who gets into office by riling up flames of anger toward the West - then we can add another loose-cannon thug to the Mideast list (and Egypt can kiss their $11b/year tourism industry goodbye).

I think Egypt will be similar to Iraq. Most of the people will be concentrating on things pertaining to their daily lives - food, jobs, security, etc. And the MB will have a harder time ramping up anti-western sentiment when we're no longer propping up a dictator to keep them down. Mubarak might have been one of the main reasons the MB was as popular as it was.

At least, that's my hope.

(02-11-2011 01:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2011 01:12 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-11-2011 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem charging electric cars with solar is that if you want to do it when you get home in the evening, the sun isn't shining. This brings us back to one more permutation of the old bugaboo, electric storage. I really think electric storage technology is the most significant piece of the puzzle.
There are so many ways that electric storage improvements would help. If we can get an electric car up to 200 miles per charge, now it becomes reasonable to use on short trips. I can take an electric car to Austin, if I have a place to charge it there for the trip home.

You're really talking about energy storage in some fashion, not strictly electric. If you could chemically produce ethanol or methanol out of a solar or wind process, then you could use that as a power source for cars.
Aside from mass transit, though, I think energy storage is overrated. There have been some developments regarding uber-batteries for, say, the electrical plants of IT resource centers, but it would really surprise me if that became widespread on the scale of the electrical grid (outside of mass transit).

Actually, the most efficient way to store large amounts of electricity now (or at least is was a few years ago) is to find a box canyon, put a dam across the mouth, pump water into it when you have excess electriciy production, then allow the water to escape through a turbine when you need the electricity.

I gues I am more optimistic than you here. If we can't make storage improvements, I don't know how we get electric cars on the road in significant numbers. And I don't see how this problem is solvable without that.

Using potential energy as a means of storing energy produced by wind/solar is why I referred to it as "energy storage" rather that "electricity storage". It can be viewed as a quibble of semantics. I'd argue that even a rechargeable battery is storing energy, not electricity.

I think you may be more optimistic in terms of storing energy like this on a mass scale. For "traditional" energy sources - coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro - my sense is that they could handle plug-in vehicles by altering their production schedules. As you note, you'd have to have enough capacity to begin with, but if you give the Californians the option of banning evening television or building new power plants, I think they'd change their tune very quickly. But, you're right - I'm not very optimistic that mass energy storage will contribute to making wind/solar get traction on a large scale.

As far as some technology of energy storage to drive electric cars, I think that will come to fruition - whether it's hydrogen, iron pellets, ethanol/methanol, or synthetic fuel.

(02-11-2011 05:18 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Not that Obama should get any credit for this development but Mubarek resigning should help the economy a bit more?? Which in turn helps Obama. At least I think that should be the case.

No one knows what the alternative will be and, since stocks, etc., rise and fall on speculation, doubtful.