what if the price of oil declines significantly?

How can we make and keep the need for alternative power sources an urgent element if the price of oil declines to, say $80/bbl? If I am even reasonably close, that corresponds to about $2.00/gal at the pump. People have already proven that "two-dollar" gas does not generate the "hurt" needed to demand that Congress act. Popular support would vanish over-night.

I think that a decline in oil prices is in the future -- OPEC isn't stupid and pushing the US to alternate power sources is not in their best interest. Further, China's hoarding fuel will probably be over relatively soon and, if they dump their overages on the market, that will further depress the price. So, I believe my premise is valid and the time to plan for that contingency is now. How say you?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary Upshaw on July 19, 2008 at 2:50pm: I agree, but how do you get those spineless politicians in Washington to pass the bill, when they are scared they won't get voted in next time?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hal Eskew Jr on July 23, 2008 at 5:37am: Throw them in federal prison for stupidity; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ART005 on July 20, 2008 at 9:49pm: You cannot compare one isolated European price out of their radically different economy and tax system. They have heavily taxed gas as part of a collection of a host of different national costs for better or for worse.

You might have enjoyed this rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxvY1tQHTo; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David on July 24, 2008 at 11:51am: I endorse this plan too. Four dollar gas is a blessing in disguise.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rexrino on July 30, 2008 at 11:11am: The only way to accomplish that if the price drops is to tax the gas at a higher rate. Once that tax is implemented, it will probably never go away. Of course congress will find way to squander the money and we will never see any benefit from it.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Raj on July 18, 2008 at 2:29pm: I think we need to keep the lessons we learned from the 1973 oil embargo and the current crisis in mind from here on out, that being 'we were dependent on foreign oil then, now we are hooked on it, at any price'.

The only cure is to develop alternate fuel/energy sources here at home, so that, for once we can be free of the foreign dictation of price, and can also start cleaning up the environment, thus leaving this country prosperous and cleaner for our children and grandchildren. In my opinion, there are many issues at stake, than the price per barrel of oil.

In addition, we can take the leadership role again in developing and manufacturing alternate energy products and services, thus creating new jobs, to neutralize the effects of jobs lost over the past few years.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 19, 2008 at 8:10am: One of the problems with electric vehicles is that it takes more energy to manufacture the vehicles and the batteries than it saves over a reasonable lifespan. As for the hydrogen power (I think that will be the eventual solution) the cost per energy unit is so high right now that it is simply not a reasonable alternative. Then you also must consider the cost to establish the appropriate infrastructure -- and make the vehicles perceived safe enough to withstand an accident with something as explosive as hydrogen under compression aboard.

We must not be guilty of the "Gore Factor" which, in my opinion, means that we disregard any scientific data that doesn't support our desired goal. If we are to have any long-term solutions, they must be soundly based on science fact and supported by sound and complete economic information. Otherwise, we are building a false premise that will simply shatter when Mother Nature votes -- and she always votes last.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by EveMarie on July 19, 2008 at 2:42pm: I think Americans will start consuming more gas if the price lowers and will lose interest in finding alternative and natural energy sources. Thus, we shall be in the same boat again and again. We need to become as independent as possible on foreign goods and services.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 20, 2008 at 8:56am: The question becomes, are you (and I) willing to pay $6.00 per gallon for an alternate fuel in order to reduce our dependency on foreign sources? How about paying two or three times the existing price for corn -- assuming we aren't smart enough to change the base source for ethanol from corn to sillage of some sort.

In other words, just how much pain is it worth to the American people to change primary energy sources? I don't have the answer, but it is a question that must be answered before we can reasonably progress.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by George J. ONeil, Jr, MD on July 19, 2008 at 3:09pm: I think you are right about the price coming back down, but it doesn't remove the problem of our dependence on foreign oil. We must push to achieve energy independence for our country. I don't think that we really know what energy alternative will become the replacement for petroleum yet, but this current crisis should motivate us to push for Mr. Pickens' Plan and encourage the development of alternate sources of energy with tax incentives for private investors and government funding. We should also drill at home in a responsible manner to utilize our domestic petrol reserves.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Robert D. Jones on July 20, 2008 at 9:03am: Agreed. But Congress (read Democrats and some Republicans) don't seem to see it that way. Further Mr. Obama is absolutely against implementing any of the obvious candidates for action. And -- more importantly -- seems like half of the population agrees with him.

So, how to convince that half that we really don't have any other viable choice. The alternatives are: 1. Destroy our economy and way of life by transferring all our wealth to nations that basically don't like us or our way of life -- and by so weakening ourselves, we lose our superpower status and become open to physical attack from those same nations.
2. We start our own war to take over all the available oil sources (we could win that war, but the price would be pretty high in terms of money, lives, and -- more important -- the characteristics that made America great.

I don't consider either of those viable -- therefore, we must do whatever is necessary to remove the overt threat posed by the reliance of forign sources for our power supply.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Daryl Oster on July 20, 2008 at 11:43pm: There is also a HUGE energy cost to war. War is NOT a viable oil endgame solution -- it will only serve to impoverish the entire world.

Oil peaking is good -- it will drive efficiency improvements like:

Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT)™ is patented transportation technology that can accomplish 50 times more transportation per kWh than electric cars or trains, it is cleaner, lower cost, safer, faster, and electric.

When the drive to achieve ultimate efficiency takes off in earnest, and displaces non-efficient processes, the oil age will be over.

Remember that the stone age is not over for lack of stones, and the oil age will not end due to lack of oil.

Best regards,
Daryl Oster
(c) 2008 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal
River FL 34423-1423 Verizon cell(352)257-1310 et3@et3.com www.et3.com; ▶ Reply to This