Discussion: Alternative Energy

[Malice]

I know on of the biggest things with this election is Energy Independence.

Here is my two cents...
I see this in two parts

Short Term and Long Term

Short Term
I think the US needed to start drilling in Alaska. This is a short term solution, nothing more. This will help get us from importing 99.9% of our oil for a time.
Also, we need to build new Nuclear, Solar and Wind.

While this is done, we are putting government money into serious projects to research alternative clean renewable power.

Long Term
Simply put this is only achieved when we get a new alternative power will we be able to cut out the oil, nuclear, solar and wind plants for something more all inclusive.

[SuBe]

I agree. We need to fund Hydro electric Fuel Cells for Cars, and invest in Nuclear.

[Malice]

I have always found it funny, that we generally import most of our oil from people we would never invite to our own house for fear they might try to kill us or possibly sit there and talk bad about me.

That to me makes a small point.

[Superman4ever]

I'm all for destroying foreign oil dependence, but it's not going to happen. I want nothing more than to see the destruction of the Saud government, especially.

[jaguarr]

I'd rather see the drilling happen quite a ways off shore from Florida where there are HUGE oil deposits just waiting to be pulled up, than I would in Alaska which is one of the very last true pristine wildernesses on the planet, especially of it's particular variety. But Jeb Bush and his brother have gone out of their way to make sure that won't happen, at least in the immediate future.

Long-term, there are some amazing advances being made in hydrogen fuels, wind and solar power, and even water-based fusion technologies (search for "Water Powered Car" on Youtube or Google Videos). The big oil and big auto cabal has worked with their buddies in government to stifle and squelch these technologies in any way they can, including buying them out and burying them or claiming patents they don't really deserve and putting the inventors of those technologies out of business and preventing them from developing things further. It's almost criminal and as long as the big energy companies and auto makers are allowed to call the shots like they have, we will forever be reliant on oil from other countries to survive.

jag

[SuperMonkey]

I know on of the biggest things with this election is Energy Independence.

Here is my two cents...
I see this in two parts

Short Term and Long Term

Short Term
I think the US needed to start drilling in Alaska. This is a short term solution, nothing more. This will help get us from importing 99.9% of our oil for a time.
Also, we need to build new Nuclear, Solar and Wind.

While this is done, we are putting government money into serious projects to research alternative clean renewable power.

Long Term
Simply put this is only achieved when we get a new alternative power will we be able to cut out the oil, nuclear, solar and wind plants for something more all inclusive.

:up: :yay:

[Malice]

I'd rather see the drilling happen quite a ways off shore from Florida where there are HUGE oil deposits just waiting to be pulled up, than I would in Alaska which is one of the very last true pristine wildernesses on the planet, especially of it's particular variety. But Jeb Bush and his brother have gone out of their way to make sure that won't happen, at least in the immediate future.

Long-term, there are some amazing advances being made in hydrogen fuels, wind and solar power, and even water-based fusion technologies (search for "Water Powered Car" on Youtube or Google Videos). The big oil and big auto cabal has worked with their buddies in government to stifle and squelch these technologies in any way they can, including buying them out and burying them or claiming patents they don't really deserve and putting the inventors of those technologies out of business and preventing them from developing things further. It's almost criminal and as long as the big energy companies and auto makers are allowed to call the shots like they have, we will forever be reliant on oil from other countries to survive.

jag

There is oil off the coast of California...they wont allow drilling to...
So for me, its "allows us to drill" or stop complaining about the oil prices

[SuBe]

There is oil off the coast of California...they wont allow drilling to...
So for me, its "allows us to drill" or stop complaining about the oil prices
Same as Florida. Even though Cuba is letting China Drill for oil 90 miles away from Florida, the Florida Citizens are a against it. DRILL DAMMIT!

[Malice]

Absolutely...my comment on drilling in Alaska is not just for Alaska, for the short term, we need to drill everywhere we can get oil....hoping that will help us ...then in the long run, we find a perfect alternative fuel...

[E. Nygma]

i've always hoped we could power the United States with John Stamos super powered hair gel.

[kronos251]

... Or Steven Seagal's super powered methane deposits.




.
.
.
.



On a serious note:

- The use and expansion of Geothermal plants near active volcanic regions... http://www.geo-energy.org/information/plants.asp

- Intensive global, native research on renewable energy sources, coming from biodegradable wastes and garbage disposals to natural materials made of coconut lumber, rubber trees and charcoal briquettes... etc.


The use of oil has always been the only mechanical energy source for the past 110 + years, ever since the first automobile cranked its engines to 10 mph. So this is going to be quite an overhaul - to put it lightly - for the entire economy, and for the daily routine habits of 300 million people. Therefore we must take the first solid step, because we are on a very, very long journey to energy Independence.



Mighty interesting to have the anti-oil renewable energy debate again, resurrected way back from the 1970's. :up:

[kronos251]

edit: double post

[Zen]

As for california and Florida, im all for it...

aslaska makes no sense. there is not much oil up in alaska to warrant opening up the refuge. i think current estimates are at 10 billion barrels, or 18 months of self suficiency.

honestly i think that pocket should be saved for real threat of war. imagine if the places we went to war with in the future had many of our oil suppliers as allies?? we'd have a problem.


Americans could reduce oil consumption far more than Alaska can produce oil, simply by eliminating the SUV's commercial vehicle exemptions from fuel efficiency standards, and by developing hybrid technologies, and by aggressively raising fuel efficiency requirements.

also... tax breaks for people building underground, and earth bermed homes... Solar planning for new houses, new insulated windows for houses, heating programs, investments in current alternative energies like solar wind and hydro... applying fiber optic solar lighting for public buildings and schools, and on and on and on....

the sad reality is, if we opened alaska up prices wouldnt change much. so the inconsiquential action woud leave us vulnerable, and wouldn't help current energy crisis.

i think the best motivator is price... as the prices keep going up, people will finaly start shutting off their lights, closing there doors and insulating there houses. the first step is getting our fellow Americans to actually think green, instead of thinking green is silly... and the only way to do that is to attack their green.

the second step is to embrace what alternative energies we have now, if you think a windmill is ugly then you are part of the problem.

and the final step is serious investment in future technology.

[SuBe]

As for california and Florida, im all for it...

aslaska makes no sense. there is not much oil up in alaska to warrant opening up the refuge. i think current estimates are at 10 billion barrels, or 18 months of self suficiency.

honestly i think that pocket should be saved for real threat of war. imagine if the places we went to war with in the future had many of our oil suppliers as allies?? we'd have a problem.


Americans could reduce oil consumption far more than Alaska can produce oil, simply by eliminating the SUV's commercial vehicle exemptions from fuel efficiency standards, and by developing hybrid technologies, and by aggressively raising fuel efficiency requirements.

also... tax breaks for people building underground, and earth bermed homes... Solar planning for new houses, new insulated windows for houses, heating programs, investments in current alternative energies like solar wind and hydro... applying fiber optic solar lighting for public buildings and schools, and on and on and on....

the sad reality is, if we opened alaska up prices wouldnt change much. so the inconsiquential action woud leave us vulnerable, and wouldn't help current energy crisis.

i think the best motivator is price... as the prices keep going up, people will finaly start shutting off their lights, closing there doors and insulating there houses. the first step is getting our fellow Americans to actually think green, instead of thinking green is silly... and the only way to do that is to attack their green.

the second step is to embrace what alternative energies we have now, if you think a windmill is ugly then you are part of the problem.

and the final step is serious investment in future technology.
Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.

[bell110]

Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.

The problem is that if we open up Alaska, and prices fall, Americans will completely forget about the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. Then in 50 years, when the well runs dry, we'll be stuck where we are now. As someone posted above, as long as we're feeling it in our wallets, it will be a better motivator for us to demand change.

[StorminNorman]

Fuel Cell cars ARE a real possibility. What we need is to build the Fuel Cell stations around the country. If we can establish that infrastructure, its a movement that can really take off.

If we make Hydrogen cars viable, we go a long way into solving our situation.

[Malice]

The problem is that if we open up Alaska, and prices fall, Americans will completely forget about the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. Then in 50 years, when the well runs dry, we'll be stuck where we are now. As someone posted above, as long as we're feeling it in our wallets, it will be a better motivator for us to demand change.

Not if the other energy sources and funded and written into law to phase out in time

[jaguarr]

Fuel Cell cars ARE a real possibility. What we need is to build the Fuel Cell stations around the country. If we can establish that infrastructure, its a movement that can really take off.

If we make Hydrogen cars viable, we go a long way into solving our situation.

I like the way you think, sir. :up:

Also, we're seeing some HUGE innovations in cheap solar panels (http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/04/10/breakthrough-in-cheap-solar-power/) and vertical axis wind turbines (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Wind) that are intended for residential use. They would power people's houses and then pump the excess electricity back into the grid, effectively turning the local power company into a power broker that would be in the business of selling the excess energy off to places that need it but don't have their own way of generating it, for large cities that require a lot of power, or for commercial application. They wouldn't be a utility company anymore; a complete change in business purpose for them, using their current infrastructure. This would get us off of oil for heating and power in homes and businesses. I've even seen ideas of putting these vertical access wind turbines on top of existing power lines since they are so small and innocuous and safe for birds, essentially turning our current power line infrastructure into wind farms without detracting from the current landscape.

jag

[StorminNorman]

I like the way you think, sir. :up:

Also, we're seeing some HUGE innovations in cheap solar panels (http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/04/10/breakthrough-in-cheap-solar-power/) and vertical axis wind turbines (http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Wind) that are intended for residential use. They would power people's houses and then pump the excess electricity back into the grid, effectively turning the local power company into a power broker that would be in the business of selling the excess energy off to places that need it but don't have their own way of generating it, for large cities that require a lot of power, or for commercial application. They wouldn't be a utility company anymore; a complete change in business purpose for them, using their current infrastructure. This would get us off of oil for heating and power in homes and businesses. I've even seen ideas of putting these vertical access wind turbines on top of existing power lines since they are so small and innocuous and safe for birds, essentially turning our current power line infrastructure into wind farms without detracting from the current landscape.

jag

Exactly. :up:

Honestly, this should be the ONE issue to unite everyone. Liberals have the motive of the environment. Conservatives have the motive of cutting off dependence on the Middle East. If we could combine the fund-raising teams of both ideologies we could not see change, but see it in the fairly near future. The technology is already hear to make the difference we need.

[jaguarr]

Exactly. :up:

Honestly, this should be the ONE issue to unite everyone. Liberals have the motive of the environment. Conservatives have the motive of cutting off dependence on the Middle East. If we could combine the fund-raising teams of both ideologies we could not see change, but see it in the fairly near future. The technology is already hear to make the difference we need.

And the interesting thing is that the investment required to put up solar panels and wind turbines as well as establish power cell and hydrogen station infrastructure is FAR less that it would be to just go drill for and refine oil. It's just the big business oil and auto industry a-holes getting in everyone's way on this and the politicians that cater to them. :down

jag

[bell110]

Not if the other energy sources and funded and written into law to phase out in time

I don't see that happening until all the lobbyists are out of Washington. You're plan is a two part plan. Drill for oil in Alaska WHILE we start phasing out our dependence on oil. Oil lobbyists will lobby hard to keep out laws to phase out our need for oil, and enviromentalists will never go for the idea of opening Alaska for drilling. I hate to sound so cynical. Politics has done that to me.

[Arkady Rossovich]

America should have gotten off oil 20 years ago,but big oil companies did not allow that to happen. Now it needs to be taken care of,because other countries want oil and America consumes the most of it. Weather they want to or not,their supply will be cut down.

Common sence is hydro,wind or gas. There is plenty of that and i think those are unlimited supplies. Nuclear is too unstable,sad to say it's there..but i don't think it should be expanded.

[The Senator]

America should have gotten off oil 20 years ago,but big oil companies did not allow that to happen. Now it needs to be taken care of,because other countries want oil and America consumes the most of it. Weather they want to or not,their supply will be cut down.

Common sence is hydro,wind or gas. There is plenty of that and i think those are unlimited supplies. Nuclear is too unstable,sad to say it's there..but i don't think it should be expanded.

The problem with wind power is that less than .2% of our power comes from wind turbines. So it will take a long time and a huge investment to explore wind power as a viable alternative to coal and oil. Hydro power would be fine, except you either need a water fall or you have to dam up a river, which would create a plethora of new environmental problems. Gas power is just as problematic as coal and oil. It costs a lot to produce, and the environmental effects can be just as bad as the other two.

America needs to reinvest in nuclear power. It isn't as unstable as everyone makes it out to be, and while nuclear power has the potential to be devastating... there's a greater chance you'll be struck by lightning four times in your life than there is a chance that a nuclear reactor will melt down. The problem with nuclear energy is the waste. Most of it is stored on site; but some of it ends up in undesirable locations, which once again creates a nasty effect on the surrounding eco-system. But nuclear power makes the most sense because we've already invested a lot of time into developing strong nuclear plants nationwide. We have a country-wide program in use today. So it only makes sense to explore nuclear power as a true alternative to coal and gas power, if only as a short term solution, while exploring something far more viable and sustainable-- whether that solution involves nuclear fusion or mining helium-3 off the surface of the moon.

As for other solutions... we ought to face the fact that we don't have a real alternative to oil. Ethanol isn't a real solution because it costs more and uses so much more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol, and it leaves the same effect on the environment as oil does. Not to mention we'd be depleting our food supply to produce ethanol en masse. We ought to explore hydrogen fuel cell technology, while figuring out a way to raise the fuel economy on cars to 35-50 miles per gallon. Also, each automaker should be required to have at least one hybrid car available to the public.

[Zen]

Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.

link me please to this source... i have never seen confirmed reports of 50 years of supply.

[The Senator]

A solution to our dependency on foreign oil may be in our own backyard:


BISMARCK, N.D. - The government estimated Thursday that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.

The U.S. Geological Survey called it the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.

The Bakken Formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface. Companies use pressurized fluid and sand to break pores in the rock and prop them open to recover the oil.

North Dakota's entire oil production hit 137,000 barrels a day in January, the latest figures available. Industry officials believe the state's record production of 148,500 barrels a day, set in 1984, will be surpassed this year.

Donald Kessel, vice president of Houston-based Murex Petroleum Corp., said he believes the Geological Survey's assessment of how much oil can be recovered in the Bakken may be high.

"That's a lot of zeros," Kessel said Thursday.

Kessel said his company was the first to get a producing well in the Bakken in North Dakota three years ago. The company now has about 20 producing wells.

The report released Thursday by USGS was done at the request of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., over the past 18 months.

A 1995 study by the USGS found 151 million barrels of oil could be recovered from the Bakken using technology at that time.

"This is great news," Dorgan said of the new report. "This is 25 times the amount of the previous assessment."

The assessment comes as U.S. crude production has fallen steadily over the past three decades, with rate of decline slowed — or offset — only slightly by production from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. That has led to increased imports. But as oil prices surged over the past few months, calls are mounting for a reduction in import dependence.

"Many of the previous oil discoveries in the U.S. have produced for a long while and are producing at lower levels now," Dorgan said. "This report comes at a time when we are desperately trying to be less dependent on Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries."

Oilmen have known for more than 50 years that the Bakken holds vast oil reserves, Kessel said. But the price has never pushed demand high enough to develop technology to capture the oil, he said.

According to Jim Ehrets, a Denver-based geologist with Headington Oil Co., of Dallas, it costs about $5 million to drill a well tapping the middle Bakken, and companies need crude prices of at least $50 a barrel to make it economical.

Even with crude prices now double that, "there still is a ton of risk," he said.

Oil companies began sharing technology about two years ago on how to recover the oil. The technology involves drilling vertically to about 10,000 feet, then "kicking out" for as many feet horizontally, while fracturing the rock to release the oil trapped in microscopic pores in the area known as the "middle" Bakken.

Initially, companies had kept their technology secret, said Ehrets.

"Everybody was protecting their results while the lease play was still going on," he said. "Once it had been pretty well saturated and not much left to lease, there was cooperation in sharing information.

"I can't remember in my entire career that kind of cooperation," said Ehrets, an oil man for nearly 30 years.

Headington, which is based in Dallas, has about 150 wells working in the Bakken — about 100 of them in Montana — with plans to drill at least 100 more, Ehrets said.

The Geological Survey said about 105 million barrels of oil have been produced from the Bakken through last year. The Elm Coulee oil field in eastern Montana, near the North Dakota border, has produced about 65 million barrels of the total, said Rich Pollastro, a USGS geologist.

The Elm Coulee field was discovered in 2000, he said.

The study released Thursday by USGS does not estimate how much oil may be in the Bakken — only what the agency believes can be recovered using current technology.

Thursday's report did not cover the Canadian portion of the Bakken. Pollastro said a 2000 assessment found only about 15 million barrels of recoverable oil in that area using traditional vertical drilling.

Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said the number of wells in the Bakken in North Dakota increased from about 300 in 2006 to 457 at the end of last year.

[MaskedManJRK]

I wouldn't really call it a solution but more of a delay of it--a true solution to our dependancy on foreign oil won't happen until we finally get off our asses and make a new, easily-accecible energy source.

Still, if we have that much in country, then there's definately no reason to have dealings with the Middle East.

[The Senator]

I wouldn't really call it a solution but more of a delay of it--a true solution to our dependancy on foreign oil won't happen until we finally get off our asses and make a new, easily-accecible energy source.

Still, if we have that much in country, then there's definately no reason to have dealings with the Middle East.

And which alternatives to oil do you have in mind?

[Joker]

I say we change everything to a complex system of hamsters running in wheels for electricity.

[JokerJr.]

spoken like a true genius ^

[redfirebird2008]

I've been talking about this for a while. Our shale oil supply is larger than the entire Middle East. Problem is that it's so costly. However, if oil is going to be sustained at $90-100+ over a long period of time, then shale oil becomes a good way for us to have a crutch until we come up with a real alternative that is actually affordable (hopefully hydrogen, which is still not affordable at the moment).

[Memphis Slim]

I've been talking about this for a while. Our shale oil supply is larger than the entire Middle East. Problem is that it's so costly. However, if oil is going to be sustained at $90-100+ over a long period of time, then shale oil becomes a good way for us to have a crutch until we come up with a real alternative that is actually affordable (hopefully hydrogen, which is still not affordable at the moment).


Some times the cost is worth it. If we have the frickkin' oil, we need to drill it!!

[hippie_hunter]

Or how about we develop a different alternative to energy instead of ruining our natural splendor.

[Matt]

Or how about we develop a different alternative to energy instead of ruining our natural splendor.

I actually feel dirty saying this...but I agree with Slim on this one. Sure, developing alternative energies is great. But right now we don't have them and we likely won't have a practical form of alternative energy for some time. Gas prices are out of control and it will GREATLY curb or possibly even stop the coming recession if people weren't bleeding out of their pockets to fill their tanks. It seems like drilling these fields is a neccessary evil.

[Obi-Ron]

BISMARCK, N.D. - The government estimated Thursday that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.

Okay, so when do we declare war on ND and Montana?

[Zen]

More of us could get off our fat asses and bike more.... fund efficient mass transit more, sustainable mass transit like railcars, new age buses... get our railsystems out of the stone age and catch up to europe.

theres alot we can do, we americans lack the courage as a people to alter our lives for the better or think about the future...

we just wait around for a holy grail to appear.

what if it doesn't?

personally i dont think there is an answer that compares to the type of system we enjoyed in the past on hydrocarbons. the future may prove me wrong... but im not the sort of guy to wait around and hope i win the lottery. ill buy a lotto ticket, but ill bike to that cornerstore to get it.

[rdh007]

Or how about we develop a different alternative to energy instead of ruining our natural splendor.
Seconded. Also, more important than our natural splendor is what we do when this new panacea runs out.

[Matt]

More of us could get off our fat asses and bike more.... fund efficient mass transit more, sustainable mass transit like railcars, new age buses... get our railsystems out of the stone age and catch up to europe.

theres alot we can do, we americans lack the courage as a people to alter our lives for the better or think about the future...

we just wait around for a holy grail to appear.

what if it doesn't?

personally i dont think there is an answer that compares to the type of system we enjoyed in the past on hydrocarbons. the future may prove me wrong... but im not the sort of guy to wait around and hope i win the lottery. ill buy a lotto ticket, but ill bike to that cornerstore to get it.
Not all of us live in cities where it is possible to bike to a cornerstore or take mass transit.

[The Senator]

More of us could get off our fat asses and bike more.... fund efficient mass transit more, sustainable mass transit like railcars, new age buses... get our railsystems out of the stone age and catch up to europe.

theres alot we can do, we americans lack the courage as a people to alter our lives for the better or think about the future...

we just wait around for a holy grail to appear.

what if it doesn't?

personally i dont think there is an answer that compares to the type of system we enjoyed in the past on hydrocarbons. the future may prove me wrong... but im not the sort of guy to wait around and hope i win the lottery. ill buy a lotto ticket, but ill bike to that cornerstore to get it.

Think about what you just wrote, then think about the two states mentioned in the title of this thread.

North Dakota and Montana have only a few hundred thousand people spread out over very large states. Montana has one major city-- Billings-- which has just over 100,000 people. North Dakota's largest city is Fargo, with 90 thousand residents. Everyone else is spread out in rural areas, where it isn't cost effective to build light-rail, nor is it appropriate to ask them to bike to work. It's also like that in many populated states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I agree they should fix many of these problems in our major cities, but everywhere else is almost impractical. This is why an alternative fuel is needed more than anything.

[souvlaki]

I actually feel dirty saying this...but I agree with Slim on this one. Sure, developing alternative energies is great. But right now we don't have them and we likely won't have a practical form of alternative energy for some time. Gas prices are out of control and it will GREATLY curb or possibly even stop the coming recession if people weren't bleeding out of their pockets to fill their tanks. It seems like drilling these fields is a neccessary evil.

Yeah... I am shocked to find I actually agree with both of you on this. If it's there, we need it, and fast.

On the alternative energies front, UMass scientists figured out a way to synthesize an energy efficient gas that would cost $1 a gallon recently. Problem is it probably wont be ready for us for another 10 years.

http://gas2.org/2008/04/09/green-gasoline-scientists-produce-1gallon-gas-from-non-food-plant-material/

[marcofthebeast]

We should just go nuclear like France has. When contained right its the cleanest of the big three energy sources (Oil,Coal,Nuclear)

Other than Chernobyl there hasn't been a major nuclear power disaster. Chernobyl only happen because it was poorly maintained.

[Malice]

This is an old one.
Shale Oil is something that has been known about for some time. But the cost of extracting it was too expensive until recently.

This is a huge posibility now.

[Zen]

Think about what you just wrote, then think about the two states mentioned in the title of this thread.

North Dakota and Montana have only a few hundred thousand people spread out over very large states. Montana has one major city-- Billings-- which has just over 100,000 people. North Dakota's largest city is Fargo, with 90 thousand residents. Everyone else is spread out in rural areas, where it isn't cost effective to build light-rail, nor is it appropriate to ask them to bike to work. It's also like that in many populated states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.

I agree they should fix many of these problems in our major cities, but everywhere else is almost impractical. This is why an alternative fuel is needed more than anything.

to you and Matt:

the largest consumption of oil products centers precisely around cities. that is where almost all of what im talking about needs to take place.

light rail is not impractical for those people, driving to and from work and paying for that gas.... having their commodities trucked in and essentially paying for that gas... is what is impractical, when it can all be serviced by one rail line, even if theres only 10,000 people.

Live closer to work. why the hell should they live 20 miles form there job?

I bike 7 miles to college and then 7 mimles back. most people can find houses within that range to their job.

if you cant, perhaps you should keep your job closer to your home, like farming. the sad part is they may need to utilize a horse to get to the nearest town with rail... socially unacceptable? maybe thats whats sad.

this is what im talking about...

wait around for it, i think thats irresponsible.

making little changes now somewhat alleiviates the big changes we may have to make in the future. Our mass transit system is garbage. a train can move freight at a fraction of the cost of a trailor on road... and the upkeep of railines is less than pavement.

[The Senator]

to you and Matt:

the largest consumption of oil products centers precisely around cities. that is where almost all of what im talking about needs to take place.

light rail is not impractical for those people, driving to and from work and paying for that gas.... having their commodities trucked in and essentially paying for that gas... is what is impractical, when it can all be serviced by one rail line, even if theres only 10,000 people.

Live closer to work. why the hell should they live 20 miles form there job?

I bike 7 miles to college and then 7 mimles back. most people can find houses within that range to their job.

if you cant, perhaps you should keep your job closer to your home, like farming. the sad part is they may need to utilize a horse to get to the nearest town with rail... socially unacceptable? maybe thats whats sad.

this is what im talking about...

wait around for it, i think thats irresponsible.

making little changes now somewhat alleiviates the big changes we may have to make in the future. Our mass transit system is garbage. a train can move freight at a fraction of the cost of a trailor on road... and the upkeep of railines is less than pavement.

So, basically, you don't think people should live in the country, in homes owned by their families, in towns they want to live in? Everyone should move to the cities, where there are problems with overcrowding as it is? Where the cost of living is considerably higher on everything, not just gas but food and rent? Where housing is virtually unaffordable and the job market is more scarce?

You know that people have left the cities for the country because the cost of living is so expensive there, right?

People shouldn't be forced to move away from Nowheresville, MT if they don't want to. This country is based around the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- and if people find that in rural Montana or Idaho or Nevada, then so be it.

We need to figure out a responsible solution. We need a new fuel or a new type of vehicle to solve our energy crisis.

[EdRyder]

The idea that there arent any practical alternative vehicle fuels available now is nonsense.
Note the documentary:"Who killed the electric car" and all the steps the Government,Big Oil, and the auto industry did to kill it.Note the fact that the first Solar powered vehicle was invented in the 50's.Recently an engineer in Luxembourg produced an air powered car that runs on compressed air and gives off zero emissions,..

[Memphis Slim]

Or how about we develop a different alternative to energy instead of ruining our natural splendor.


WHAT? :funny: You're more worried about natural splendor than grandma not being able to pay her heating bill??

The splendor will be fine.

also....we have another source already. It's called Nuclear! The Frogs have been using it for years now with no problem. That's the only thing I dig about France right now.

[Memphis Slim]

More of us could get off our fat asses and bike more.... fund efficient mass transit more, sustainable mass transit like railcars, new age buses... get our railsystems out of the stone age and catch up to europe.

theres alot we can do, we americans lack the courage as a people to alter our lives for the better or think about the future...

we just wait around for a holy grail to appear.

what if it doesn't?

personally i dont think there is an answer that compares to the type of system we enjoyed in the past on hydrocarbons. the future may prove me wrong... but im not the sort of guy to wait around and hope i win the lottery. ill buy a lotto ticket, but ill bike to that cornerstore to get it.


Do you have a family?? wife..... kids....etc?:dry:

[Obi-Ron]

Other than Chernobyl there hasn't been a major nuclear power disaster.

You mean besides Three Mile Island?

[Malice]

The US simply needs to use what it can build.

Nuclear, Coal and Local Oil...

hoping to drop the oil and coal after substantial resources are dumped and provide good returns on a good renewable source of energy

[StorminNorman]

We need to utilize this. We are years away from utilizing alternative energy - no reason we should be raped up the ass at the pump in the mean time.

[zenile]

Okay, so when do we declare war on ND and Montana?

Why do you hate America?

[The Senator]

Why do you hate America?

I thought his comments were rather humorous...

[The Senator]

You mean besides Three Mile Island?

Three Mile Island was contained though... it was really just a fire, when you get down to the basics of it, though the potential for considerable damage was quite obviously there... while Chernobyl was a full-fledged meltdown...

[MaskedManJRK]

And which alternatives to oil do you have in mind?

Like Ed mentioned earlier, there have been plenty of different alternates created--such as electric, solar, and even hydrogen--the problem is that the people who make them are smaller and the oil business are much bigger...

Okay, so when do we declare war on ND and Montana?

:hehe:

That made my f**king day. :woot:

[Arkady Rossovich]

The idea that there arent any practical alternative vehicle fuels available now is nonsense.
Note the documentary:"Who killed the electric car" and all the steps the Government,Big Oil, and the auto industry did to kill it.Note the fact that the first Solar powered vehicle was invented in the 50's.Recently an engineer in Luxembourg produced an air powered car that runs on compressed air and gives off zero emissions,..

I think doing something Environmentally friendly is better than ruining the land. The oil crunch should just make people want alternatives more.

[The Senator]

I think doing something Environmentally friendly is better than ruining the land. The oil crunch should just make people want alternatives more.

Yeah, people want alternative fuels. I want alternative fuels. We should be utilizing fuel cell technology, biodeisel, battery power and hybrid power as well. But until we have a source of alternative energy which is widely available to all Americans, we have to look for a temporary solution which alleviates those of us who rely on oil. Drilling in Montana and North Dakota isn't going to destroy the pristine beauty of these states... most of these places where there's oil are so remote it wouldn't affect all that many people, not to mention drilling is already taking place in these areas as well... essentially, drilling for oil in ND and MT would require an expansion of existing wells in already oil-rich areas...

For now, this may be a temporary solution while we explore and manufacture new sources of energy.

[Zen]

So, basically, you don't think people should live in the country, in homes owned by their families, in towns they want to live in? Everyone should move to the cities, where there are problems with overcrowding as it is? Where the cost of living is considerably higher on everything, not just gas but food and rent? Where housing is virtually unaffordable and the job market is more scarce?

You know that people have left the cities for the country because the cost of living is so expensive there, right?

People shouldn't be forced to move away from Nowheresville, MT if they don't want to. This country is based around the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- and if people find that in rural Montana or Idaho or Nevada, then so be it.

We need to figure out a responsible solution. We need a new fuel or a new type of vehicle to solve our energy crisis.

No man, that is not what im saying. before cars people certainly lived in the country, in homes they owned... in towns, where affordable housing exists. people are beggining to find that the cost of things is getting so out of control at this point, and paying for gas is getting tougher on already stretched budgets (especially for rural americans) that many are finding they cannot exist already on the system that we have. we will nevr enjoy oil being as cheap as it used to be... the economy that existed on it is out of date. we need to adapt. if you refuse to be creative enough to see how americans can do this then that explains the problem.

What EdRyder says has merit, the EV1 that was showcased in the movie "who killed the electric car" is just an example of how great ideas are being squashed. Rural americans hooking a windmill, or a solar panel to their electric vehicle would gain the creative mobility you seem skeptical of.



And my man Slim, are you asking Loaded questions? why not drop in by fleshing out your opinion. yes i have a family. i have a little brother that i take care of alot to help my family, he is the closest thing i have to a son... but he is my little brother. I bought a bike trailer for him untill he got old enough to keep up with me on his own. granted we live in the a more suburban area... so many of my anecdotes refer to that situation, as it should... many people in the cities/suburbs should find ways to adapt to save money, stay in shape, and reduce fossil fuel ussage. Bikes and mass transit in the city are just common sense. theres a Model family one street over who i idolize a bit. husband and wife 3 kids and grandma lives with them. everyone bikes and uses mass transit. they have a small vehicle for road trips and certain other things. but they rarely use it. the grandmother is the one who fostered this lifestyle and shes in rediculous shape for her age... they have modest earnings, he works for the santiation department as a recycling truck driver and his wife is a teacher. they have a garden and a mini greenhouse. they utilize mass transit all the time, they take passenger rail to other cities when they can or they take a bus.

im not sure what your trying to lead me into slim but they certainly show how it can be done, and they are happier and healthier than most of there neighbors who are struggling to stay on this ladder of planned obselesense, buying new cars... many times more as a symbol of status than as a tool for the family.



Our habits need to change.

[Mr Sparkle]

Do you have a family?? wife..... kids....etc?:dry:

do you? do they run on Oil or something?

[marcofthebeast]

You mean besides Three Mile Island?

Three Mile Island is proof that the containment system works. Nothing was polluted and no one was injured or killed in that incident.

[Memphis Slim]

Alaska to Challenge Polar Bear Endangered Species Listing

Wednesday, May 21, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the state will sue to challenge the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Palin on Wednesday said there is insufficient evidence to support the decision U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made last week.
Kempthorne says the best available science indicates that the bears' primary habitat, sea ice, was shrinking and likely to further recede. Palin says polar bears are well managed and that their numbers have dramatically increased over 30 years.
Conservation groups say the increase is due to measures that halted over-hunting but that populations are likely to crash as summer sea ice diminishes.

SEA ICE HAS GOTTEN THICKER!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-X7TdC8Gvw

__________________________________________________ _____

We have enough oil up there for a hundred years!! But Dems and some stupid GOP care more about the bears and owls than about their own people. Sea is getting thicker. We have ove 25000 polar bears right now!! Five times more than we had at the start!!

OPEC has has us by the throat and we won't make a move to break the relationship. I guarantee you that the minute we start drill in the gulf and pumping from our own wells, OPEC will miraculously open up the valves! Instead , we'd rather starve to death while having a cabinet full of food.

Coal to oil tech??? Do you realize that Coal reserves fo us is like oil is to the Arabs??? We got tons of coal!! And it could be converted to gas!! But noooooooooooo the environmental zealots would rather grandma freeze to death in the winter than make the owl uncorfortable.


Obama, McCain and Clinton show no signs of doing what is right in this scenario. What will it take for the idiots in Washington to wake up?

[Carcharodon]

Alaska to Challenge Polar Bear Endangered Species Listing

Wednesday, May 21, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the state will sue to challenge the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Palin on Wednesday said there is insufficient evidence to support the decision U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made last week.
Kempthorne says the best available science indicates that the bears' primary habitat, sea ice, was shrinking and likely to further recede. Palin says polar bears are well managed and that their numbers have dramatically increased over 30 years.
Conservation groups say the increase is due to measures that halted over-hunting but that populations are likely to crash as summer sea ice diminishes.

SEA ICE HAS GOTTEN THICKER!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-X7TdC8Gvw

__________________________________________________ _____

We have enough oil up there for a hundred years!! But Dems and some stupid GOP care more about the bears and owls than about their own people. Sea is getting thicker. We have ove 25000 polar bears right now!! Five times more than we had at the start!!

OPEC has has us by the throat and we won't make a move to break the relationship. I guarantee you that the minute we start drill in the gulf and pumping from our own wells, OPEC will miraculously open up the valves! Instead , we'd rather starve to death while having a cabinet full of food.

Coal to oil tech??? Do you realize that Coal reserves fo us is like oil is to the Arabs??? We got tons of coal!! And it could be converted to gas!! But noooooooooooo the environmental zealots would rather grandma freeze to death in the winter than make the owl uncorfortable.


Obama, McCain and Clinton show no signs of doing what is right in this scenario. What will it take for the idiots in Washington to wake up?Okay, apparently I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a five-year-old, because I've said this before to you and apparently it hasn't registered.

They're saying that sea-ice is getting thicker in the Southern Hemisphere. That's what the video you provided also says.

Guess where polar bears don't live? Oh, yeah....the ****ing SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.

STFU, GTFO, and have a great day, Slim.

[Franklin Richards]

I hear there are other sources of energy than oil. I wonder why we can't use that? Oh yeah!


Oil Men.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Carcharodon]

I hear there are other sources of energy than oil. I wonder why we can't use that? Oh yeah!


Oil Men.


:doom: :doom: :doom:I don't know...for now, how commercially viable is it? The main problem with Hydrogen fuels, for example, is the production of the Hydrogen itself. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an amazing solution, but there's virtually no news on the progress of Hydrogen fuels. It's like the hype died off in favor of ethanol, which is a terrible alternative IMO.

[Franklin Richards]

We subsidize so much corn. I don't know. Might kill two birds with one stone.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Carcharodon]

We subsidize so much corn. I don't know. Might kill two birds with one stone.


:thing: :doom: :thing:We don't have enough to keep up with food stocks AND supply ethanol fuel, though. It would mean an expansion of corn-growth, and it's a crop that severely depletes the soil. Crop-rotation would be an absolute necessity, and if not done correctly it can cause massive supply shortages.

That's not to mention the necessary expansion of the use of fertilizers, which are harmful to the environment as well. Other than nurtient pollution and depletion, there's the issue of soil erosion and even more clear-cutting that would be necessary for any viable supply.

On top of that, it's still got a good deal of hydrocarbon output.

I don't know...I think everybody's jumped onto that bandwagon because it's a more, "viable," alternative for the near future. Don't get me wrong...I think we should move away from oil ASAP, but I also think we shouldn't half-ass it, you know?

[Franklin Richards]

Might be a good way to ween us from Oil at first. And to be honest we might have nearly enough corn if we didn't add that damn corn fructose to EVERYTHING. I remember hearing Bill Maher rattle on about that for a while but I haven't done my own research.


:thing: :doom: :thing:

[Carcharodon]

Might be a good way to ween us from Oil at first. And to be honest we might have nearly enough corn if we didn't add that damn corn fructose to EVERYTHING. I remember hearing Bill Maher rattle on about that for a while but I haven't done my own research.


:thing: :doom: :thing:Oh man, don't get me started on that. We should just use sugar. I personally think it tastes better, and it's actually healthier. There's evidence that suggests that high fructose corn syrup compromises and slows metabolism all on its own.

I'm temprorarily living at the coast for school (Newport, OR) and went to this little pizza place that sells Coca-Cola in a bottle. It was hot that day, so I got one (because it's always so much better from a bottle and ice-cold) and noticed that all of the writing on the bottle was in Spanish.

Apparently, in Mexico they still use sugar in their product.

Anyways, a slightly unrelated rant there.

[C.F. Kane]

Another day, another rant.

[souvlaki]

I'm temprorarily living at the coast for school (Newport, OR) and went to this little pizza place that sells Coca-Cola in a bottle. It was hot that day, so I got one (because it's always so much better from a bottle and ice-cold) and noticed that all of the writing on the bottle was in Spanish.

Apparently, in Mexico they still use sugar in their product.

Anyways, a slightly unrelated rant there.

Honestly, I think Mexican Coca-Cola tastes a lot better then the stuff we drink here. Soda using sugar cane is the ****.

[Superman]

Honestly, I think Mexican Coca-Cola tastes a lot better then the stuff we drink here. Soda using sugar cane is the ****.There is a place that makes Coke with cane sugar? I want some.:csad:

[Carcharodon]

Another day, another rant.More or less. :yay:

[The Senator]

Alaska to Challenge Polar Bear Endangered Species Listing

Wednesday, May 21, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif
ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the state will sue to challenge the listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Palin on Wednesday said there is insufficient evidence to support the decision U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne made last week.
Kempthorne says the best available science indicates that the bears' primary habitat, sea ice, was shrinking and likely to further recede. Palin says polar bears are well managed and that their numbers have dramatically increased over 30 years.
Conservation groups say the increase is due to measures that halted over-hunting but that populations are likely to crash as summer sea ice diminishes.

SEA ICE HAS GOTTEN THICKER!!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-X7TdC8Gvw

__________________________________________________ _____

We have enough oil up there for a hundred years!! But Dems and some stupid GOP care more about the bears and owls than about their own people. Sea is getting thicker. We have ove 25000 polar bears right now!! Five times more than we had at the start!!

OPEC has has us by the throat and we won't make a move to break the relationship. I guarantee you that the minute we start drill in the gulf and pumping from our own wells, OPEC will miraculously open up the valves! Instead , we'd rather starve to death while having a cabinet full of food.

Coal to oil tech??? Do you realize that Coal reserves fo us is like oil is to the Arabs??? We got tons of coal!! And it could be converted to gas!! But noooooooooooo the environmental zealots would rather grandma freeze to death in the winter than make the owl uncorfortable.


Obama, McCain and Clinton show no signs of doing what is right in this scenario. What will it take for the idiots in Washington to wake up?


:waa::waa::waa::waa:






:whatever:

[souvlaki]

There is a place that makes Coke with cane sugar? I want some.:csad:

I think they use cane sugar in all sodas down in Mexico. If you don't feel like traveling to Mexico to get some though, and you happen to have a Seattle's Best (or a Borders) near you, try their Red Cane Cola. They use sugar cane as well, and it's delicious.

[MaskedManJRK]

I don't know...for now, how commercially viable is it? The main problem with Hydrogen fuels, for example, is the production of the Hydrogen itself. Don't get me wrong, I think it's an amazing solution, but there's virtually no news on the progress of Hydrogen fuels. It's like the hype died off in favor of ethanol, which is a terrible alternative IMO.

If I remember correctly, there was a viable electric car being made a while back, but I believe Exxon did some kind of hostile takeover. So...yeah, it's pretty viable, it's just that the oil guys have deeper pockets.

Could be wrong, though--been a while since I read up on it.

[SentinelMind]

I agree with Memphis, ...let's unleash our energy independence until another energy source becoems viable.

Look at what our Congress is doing to fight the gas prices


Stop putting oil in the emergency reserves...
Subpeona Oil executives...
Sue OPEC....LOL
Pass more pointless resolution....


Yeah, those are great ideas.....but how about....we use the energy resource that is available to us? I dunno.
I think its a good idea.

[souvlaki]

If I remember correctly, there was a viable electric car being made a while back, but I believe Exxon did some kind of hostile takeover. So...yeah, it's pretty viable, it's just that the oil guys have deeper pockets.

Could be wrong, though--been a while since I read up on it.

Check out the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car?"

Great movie, and they go into great detail over what exactly caused the downfall of the electric car.

[Malice]

STFU, GTFO, and have a great day, Slim.

Dont mouth off like that again man.

[The Senator]

There are oil reserves in Montana and North Dakota... let's drill there...

[SuperFerret]

I'd say that the best way to help the oil price to drop is for all those millions of people who live in major metropolitan areas that have extensive and convienient public transportation (i.e. New York City, etc.) use that public transport instead of having multiple cars per family, and only using their cars (if they have one) to travel long distances outside of the area. It'll never happen though.

[Memphis Slim]

I agree with Memphis, ...let's unleash our energy independence until another energy source becoems viable.

Look at what our Congress is doing to fight the gas prices


Stop putting oil in the emergency reserves...
Subpeona Oil executives...
Sue OPEC....LOL
Pass more pointless resolution....


Yeah, those are great ideas.....but how about....we use the energy resource that is available to us? I dunno.
I think its a good idea.

You don't have to doubt about it. It makes sense. These idiots in Congress are crippling our own people. We can't use our FOOD for fuel!!! We already have food shortages!! We have oil!!!!

If we increase our own supply, we keep the money over here!! The Saudis will then lower the cost of foreign oil!!

[Memphis Slim]

and we have over 25000 polar bears!!!!!!!!!!!!:cmad:

NOT IN DANGER ANYMORE!!!!!!

[Memphis Slim]

There are oil reserves in Montana and North Dakota... let's drill there...


YES!! THERE TOO!!! IN ADDITION TO ALASKA!!

[SuperFerret]

and we have over 25000 polar bears!!!!!!!!!!!!:cmad:

NOT IN DANGER ANYMORE!!!!!!

How many humans do we have? I'm sure we could use to lose a few too.

[The Senator]

YES!! THERE TOO!!! IN ADDITION TO ALASKA!!

I disagree with Alaska. But Montana and North Dakota apparently have enough oil to last 10-20 years, depending on which probability of production curve you use. We need a temporary solution to our oil crisis, while a long term solution such as fuel cells or advanced hybrid technology is explored.

[Memphis Slim]

I'd say that the best way to help the oil price to drop is for all those millions of people who live in major metropolitan areas that have extensive and convienient public transportation (i.e. New York City, etc.) use that public transport instead of having multiple cars per family, and only using their cars (if they have one) to travel long distances outside of the area. It'll never happen though.

and if it'll never happen, why even bring it up??

Do you realize that it's more than just that? Everything you own.....everything you eat comes on a truck!! Planes have to fly!! Millions live in places that public transport would not work!!

We need to increase our own supply! Why is that such a frikkin sin?????

[Memphis Slim]

How many humans do we have? I'm sure we could use to lose a few too.

Then why don't you volunteer first!

That's just silly!!

[The Senator]

Chill, Slim.

Writing "loudly" on a message board isn't going to change things.

[SuperFerret]

and if it'll never happen, why even bring it up??

Do you realize that it's more than just that? Everything you own.....everything you eat comes on a truck!! Planes have to fly!! Millions live in places that public transport would not work!!

We need to increase our own supply! Why is that such a frikkin sin?????

Drilling in Alaska will never happen too, what with all the people against it. Why even bring it up? Oh, right, it's a discussion forum. I forgot.

And even those situations you mentioned where fuel would still be used (food trucks, public transport, air travel) would still occur, but if the people who I so generously singled out (i.e. people who choose to drive over using the readily available alternatives) would stop driving everywhere (as many do) it will lessen the demand, even if only slightly, but then again, it takes pennies to make a dollar.

Then why don't you volunteer first!

That's just silly!!

Oh, and I won't volunteer, because like everyone else, I'm selfish and don't really care if people elsewhere are dying unless it's someone I know.

[Superhobo]

Okay, apparently I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a five-year-old, because I've said this before to you and apparently it hasn't registered.

They're saying that sea-ice is getting thicker in the Southern Hemisphere. That's what the video you provided also says.

Guess where polar bears don't live? Oh, yeah....the ****ing SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.

STFU, GTFO, and have a great day, Slim.


You have no idea how long I laughed. :up:

[Superhobo]

Then why don't you volunteer first!

That's just silly!!

Why?

[Arkady Rossovich]

Okay, apparently I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a five-year-old, because I've said this before to you and apparently it hasn't registered.

They're saying that sea-ice is getting thicker in the Southern Hemisphere. That's what the video you provided also says.

Guess where polar bears don't live? Oh, yeah....the ****ing SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.

STFU, GTFO, and have a great day, Slim.

I have to agree,it's Republican propaganda. The ice sheets are gone,Polar Bears are endangered,and people want to drill oil rather than look for alternatives. This is the shock America needs to do something new.

[terry78]

If we had the damn matter transporters like they predicted we would back in 1952, we wouldn't be in this ****ing fix.

[Malice]

I guarentee, in 2 years, Alaska will be opened up.
Just my thoughts.

[Superhobo]

If we had the damn matter transporters like they predicted we would back in 1952, we wouldn't be in this ****ing fix.

:cmad::cmad:

[Memphis Slim]

Why?

Then why don't you volunteer??.

[EdRyder]

Okay, apparently I'm going to have to explain this to you like you're a five-year-old, because I've said this before to you and apparently it hasn't registered.

They're saying that sea-ice is getting thicker in the Southern Hemisphere. That's what the video you provided also says.

Guess where polar bears don't live? Oh, yeah....the ****ing SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE.

STFU, GTFO, and have a great day, Slim.

Please tell me you dont have kids dude....
"STFU and go to bed Timmy! There is no boogie man!!!"

[Memphis Slim]

I guarentee, in 2 years, Alaska will be opened up.
Just my thoughts.


Oh yeah.....you bet it will!! Because you better believe that more people will start feeling like I do and they will start voting these clowns out of office and putting people in who have the guts to do what's right!!

They are saying that 7 to 12 dollars at the pump is realistic by end of summer!!!

Some truckers are paying 400 dollars to fill their rigs!!!!

Screw the polar bear. The tech we have now is much safer than 30 years ago! We can coexist! but we need our own resources. WE HAVE IT BUT WON'T USE IT!!! THAT'S JUST INSANE!:cmad:

[Memphis Slim]

I have to agree,it's Republican propaganda. The ice sheets are gone,Polar Bears are endangered,and people want to drill oil rather than look for alternatives. This is the shock America needs to do something new.


25000 POLAR BEARS!!

[Superhobo]

Then why don't you volunteer??.


Is that seriously the only way you're going to respond? :whatever:


You don't see the fallacy in your original argument? At all?

[Superhobo]

25000 POLAR BEARS!!

Brilliant response. :o

[EdRyder]

Does anyone know what type of oil "pack" (viscosity)is supposedly in Alaska?If its truly 20 years from the start of drilling to the end result of refined fuel ,.. It cant be good.My gut tells me that if its free flowing "spill" oil..They would've drilled that a long long time ago.

[C.F. Kane]

and we have over 25000 polar bears!!!!!!!!!!!!:cmad:

NOT IN DANGER ANYMORE!!!!!!

I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU HAVE TO TYPE LOUDER!

[Superhobo]

I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU HAVE TO TYPE LOUDER!

:applaud:

[hippie_hunter]

25000 POLAR BEARS!!

That's still a very low number for a species. Look at the 6.5 billion people on Earth. 30 million white-tailed deer in the United States alone. 400 million pigeons. Etc.

[Memphis Slim]

That's still a very low number for a species. Look at the 6.5 billion people on Earth. 30 million white-tailed deer in the United States alone. 400 million pigeons. Etc.

Please tell me you're not serious.....

We don't need millions of Polar Bears. Wild animals are potential dangerous. There is a certain amount that we can control.

[The Senator]

I guarentee, in 2 years, Alaska will be opened up.
Just my thoughts.

The Democrats will expand their majority this year. I highly doubt Congress would approve of it.

[Memphis Slim]

Is that seriously the only way you're going to respond? :whatever:


You don't see the fallacy in your original argument? At all?

Yes.........if you are are suggesting that people are less valuable than the planet and we'd be better off without people, then back it up with action. But nooooooo.....you rather it be someone else, right?

Do the earth a favor.....:hehe:

[SuperFerret]

Please tell me you're not serious.....

We don't need millions of Polar Bears. Wild animals are potential dangerous. There is a certain amount that we can control.

It's not our responsibility or job to control any species but our own.

Yes.........if you are are suggesting that people are less valuable than the planet and we'd be better off without people, then back it up with action. But nooooooo.....you rather it be someone else, right?

Do the earth a favor.....:hehe:

Human beings are incredibly dangerous, moreso than any "wild" animal. Take the average annual number of polar bear, shark, dog, alligator and hippopotamus attacks and multiply it by three and you'll get a number closer to the average number of human attacks in a month.

[Memphis Slim]

It's not our responsibility or job to control any species but our own.

That's most ridiculous thing I've heard. :hehe: How old are you? so you want wolf packs running loose in your neighbor hood? deer eating up the crops? Bear killing people because too many exist??? I guess you don't mind rats over running your home?? Roaches......ants.....wild dogs and cats???



Human beings are incredibly dangerous, moreso than any "wild" animal. Take the average annual number of polar bear, shark, dog, alligator and hippopotamus attacks and multiply it by three and you'll get a number closer to the average number of human attacks in a month.

Then do the planet a favor and be the first one outta here. If all you see in bad in your fellow man, I feel sorry for you.

[The Senator]

This thread is just turning into a "shouting" match between two opposing sides, and a way for Slim to demean other posters...

[Memphis Slim]

This thread is just turning into a "shouting" match between two opposing sides, and a way for Slim to demean other posters...


oh pleeez............stop crying. This is a spirited discussion. Just defend your position and be finished with it.

I fsomeone is gonna suggest offing human beings for the planet's sake, that's just crazy.

[Superhobo]

oh pleeez............stop crying. This is a spirited discussion. Just defend your position and be finished with it.

I fsomeone is gonna suggest offing human beings for the planet's sake, that's just crazy.

The same could be said of the admittedly anthropocentric position that "Hey! We've got animals to spare! I mean, they're dangerous, amiriteguys?"

Yes.........if you are are suggesting that people are less valuable than the planet and we'd be better off without people, then back it up with action. But nooooooo.....you rather it be someone else, right?

Do the earth a favor....


Logical fallacy. "Oh, you don't want to do it! Shut up, then!"



Then do the planet a favor and be the first one outta here. If all you see in bad in your fellow man, I feel sorry for you.

So, not only are you incredibly one-note, but you're unintentionally funny, as well. Geezus, and you have kids? Really? :wow:

[SuperFerret]

That's most ridiculous thing I've heard. How old are you? so you want wolf packs running loose in your neighbor hood? deer eating up the crops? Bear killing people because too many exist??? I guess you don't mind rats over running your home?? Roaches......ants.....wild dogs and cats???


Then do the planet a favor and be the first one outta here. If all you see in bad in your fellow man, I feel sorry for you.

Oh noes! Them aminals are all out to get us! :hehe:

If all you see is bad in other species, I feel sorry for YOU.

By the way, I'm not suggesting offing humans, but if you're going to pull a number out to "prove" that there are "too many" of any species, I'm gonna pull out the population figures for India and China.

[Zen]

Oh noes! Them aminals are all out to get us! :hehe:

If all you see is bad in other species, I feel sorry for YOU.

By the way, I'm not suggesting offing humans, but if you're going to pull a number out to "prove" that there are "too many" of any species, I'm gonna pull out the population figures for India and China.

QFT

:word:

[amazingfantasy15]

We can't start drilling our own oil, that's crazy talk, those oil executives are still saving up so they each can buy their own island. Maybe after they've each bought their islands we can start drilling in places like Alaska, Montana and South Dakota, but until then they need to keep making those record profits, it's not really for them either it's for their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren and those islands they have their eye on.

[Soundwave]

It is absolutely criminal what these oil executives are doing to the American people. Corporate greed is going to be our ultimate downfall.

[Matt]

I say it is time the government caps oil prices. I wonder how quickly the oil companies would release an alternative, much cheaper, fuel if oil is no longer profitable?

Or the government could open the reserves. You know, the one they only recently stopped putting 97 THOUSAND GALLONS OF OIL IN PER DAY. Cheap fuel from the reserves would do far more to end the recession than 600 bucks.

Or they could just eliminate the ethanol tariffs and drop gas by 50 cents a gallon!

Or the government could turn oil into a utility!

Or...Wait...all this would have to mean that the government is not in the pockets of oil execs...so yeah... :csad:

[Raiden]

It doesn't matter how much oil we drill; I don't think the supply is the issue that makes the oil barrel prices skyrocking.

[The Senator]

It doesn't matter how much oil we drill; I don't think the supply is the issue that makes the oil barrel prices skyrocking.

I did a little bit of research on this for a class I took last semester... the supply of oil will go up immediately after we start drilling in Alaska, but it will gradually decrease shortly thereafter... however, there's no guarantee the price will go down significantly, which is one of the major arguments against drilling in ANWR, in addition to the environmental concerns...

[Matt]

I did a little bit of research on this for a class I took last semester... the supply of oil will go up immediately after we start drilling in Alaska, but it will gradually decrease shortly thereafter... however, there's no guarantee the price will go down significantly, which is one of the major arguments against drilling in ANWR, in addition to the environmental concerns...

Just out of curiousity Jman, did your paper include any research on the concept of capping prices while cutting the taxes on oil, turning it into a utility or opening up the reserve or was that outside of the scope of the paper?

[The Senator]

Just out of curiousity Jman, did your paper include any research on the concept of capping prices while cutting the taxes on oil, turning it into a utility or opening up the reserve or was that outside of the scope of the paper?

Unfortunately, no. It wasn't a paper, just a presentation on alternative energies (ANWR was mentioned as a reason why we can't rely on oil if we want to achieve energy independence)-- had it been a paper solely on the pros and cons of ANWR, I probably would have looked into that.

[Matt]

Ah, I see. What are your personal thoughts on those methods?

[The Senator]

Ah, I see. What are your personal thoughts on those methods?

I support capping gas prices, and I also support tapping into our reserves. Those are the most logical options, as far as I'm concerned. I also feel we should drill in Montana and North Dakota, as there are vast oil wells in the wastelands of those states which have yet to be tapped. We have numerous options there, but as you said, they are unrealistic because most of Congress is owned by the oil executives.

I also think the "gas tax holiday" is a stupid idea, considering it would save consumers $50 on average-- at the absolute highest-- for the entire summer season. I filled up my dad's car a few days ago, and that cost me over $60... which means a "gas tax holiday" wouldn't even make up the cost of one tank of gas for many consumers.

[Matt]

I support capping gas prices, and I also support tapping into our reserves. Those are the most logical options, as far as I'm concerned. I also feel we should drill in Montana and North Dakota, as there are vast oil wells in the wastelands of those states which have yet to be tapped. We have numerous options there, but as you said, they are unrealistic because most of Congress is owned by the oil executives.

I also think the "gas tax holiday" is a stupid idea, considering it would save consumers $50 on average-- at the absolute highest-- for the entire summer season. I filled up my dad's car a few days ago, and that cost me over $60... which means a "gas tax holiday" wouldn't even make up the cost of one tank of gas for many consumers.

Yeah, I tend to agree with everything you said. Sadly, I doubt any of it will work. All getting rid of the tax will really do, at the end of the day, is give the oil companies a bit more profit.

Sadly, no matter who wins the White House, we are still ****ed. It is either Clinton or McCain who openly admit to being in Big Oil's pocket or Obama who just lies about it and uses semantics to avoid saying he takes oil money.

[Carcharodon]

Dont mouth off like that again man.Yes, mother.

[Carcharodon]

and we have over 25000 polar bears!!!!!!!!!!!!:cmad:

NOT IN DANGER ANYMORE!!!!!!According to who? Jesus, I didn't realize you were an ecologist. You should have said so. Now that you're an authority on polar bear population dynamics, you should go to congress and fix the whole situation.

[Carcharodon]

Please tell me you dont have kids dude....
"STFU and go to bed Timmy! There is no boogie man!!!"Well, if Timmy would stop being such a little ***** about the stupid imaginary Boogie Man, I wouldn't have to be so harsh, would I? :cmad:

[EdRyder]

Well, if Timmy would stop being such a little ***** about the stupid imaginary Boogie Man, I wouldn't have to be so harsh, would I? :cmad:





Yes, mother.


:csad:Take it easy dad
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a43/fightthefuture/sk.jpg
:oldrazz:

[Malice]

The Democrats will expand their majority this year. I highly doubt Congress would approve of it.

I think they will expand...but I think the public is going to scream so loud, they will be forced to.

[Carcharodon]

:csad:Take it easy dad
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a43/fightthefuture/sk.jpg
:oldrazz:How did you know? :eek:

[The Senator]

I think they will expand...but I think the public is going to scream so loud, they will be forced to.

Ted Stevens, the senior senator from Alaska and the leading proponent for drilling in ANWR, is facing a difficult re-election bid. His opponent is strongly opposed to drilling in ANWR. If Stevens is defeated, I would expect opening up ANWR to be totally out of the question.

[StorminNorman]

We need to start drilling in areas like Montana, South Dakota and off the coast of my great state of Florida. We need to start turning Coal into Oil and we need to utilize Oil Shale.

If we do this, or at least look like we are serious about this, OPEC will lower prices. It has happened in the past.

[Malice]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

[The Senator]

Energy has been my number one concern for years now. We need to get off oil, or start dipping into our reserves. And we need to reinvest in nuclear power. It's clean and fuel efficient.

I'm against corn-based ethanol, I think it's moronic to invest in an energy which will reduce the amount of food available in this country. I think solar and wind power are good ideas, but it is impossible to build enough solar panels/ wind turbines to take care of our vast energy needs. That's why nuclear is important. It's realistic to expand nuclear power on such a large scale-- we've already done it.

Of course, it would be better if people stopped wasting energy. But that won't happen.

[Malice]

I agree...wholeheartedly.

[bunk]

We'll still be primarily on oil for good while though, regardless what any politician says. Unfortunately, we've waited longer than we should've to really get going on alternative fuels and so it's going to be a less comfortable transition than it could've been. The problem is that none of the best alternative fuel concepts are close enough to being implemented the way they need to be. We're still a ways away, but one good thing is that we're getting into the correct mindset which is half the battle. It's like quitting smoking. You have to really want to first, if it's going to happen.

[Carcharodon]

MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly...Does not compute.

[StorminNorman]

We need to drill off shore in Florida and in Alaska. Now. We need to focus on Coal to Fuel as well. While we need to fully exhaust every option for alternative fuel sources - we have to realize it will be close to 10 years before anything outside of oil can realistically become the number one source.

[tzarinna]

Agree, something must be done. Crime is increasing, people have to feed their families some how and tempers are flaring. Hell, DC is practically on lock down.

Oil sucks ass.

[The Senator]

Agree, something must be done. Crime is increasing, people have to feed their families some how and tempers are flaring. Hell, DC is practically on lock down.

Oil sucks ass.

Which is why I'm glad I live in Northeast... that is, when I am actually in the District...

[tzarinna]

I'm glad I sold my house in NW. That area seems to really be getting hit hard, Columbia Heights area, total nightmare.

[The Senator]

I'm glad I sold my house in NW. That area seems to really be getting hit hard, Columbia Heights area, total nightmare.

I wonder how long it will be until the city erects a wall around Southeast... I hear folks there are tearing each other apart...

[tzarinna]

You think we'll get another riot, worst than the last?

[Poetic Chaos]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

Agreed. My friends family runs a Valero and they expect gas to be up to $6 by July.

[Tron5000]

Want Congress (that loveable body who is supposed to provide for and take care of all of us) to do something about our energy situation? Want a pathway to energy independence? Want to tell Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take a hike?

Then do something about it. Sign the petition.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/sol_day_logo.jpg

[The Senator]

Want Congress (that loveable body who is supposed to provide for and take care of all of us) to do something about our energy situation? Want a pathway to energy independence? Want to tell Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take a hike?

Then do something about it. Sign the petition.

http://www.americansolutions.com/

No thanks.

[Tron5000]

No thanks.

Then just keep on a-chugging along paying that $4. Fine with me.

[The Senator]

Then just keep on a-chugging along paying that $4. Fine with me.

I rarely use a vehicle, so $4 a gallon does not bother me personally.

But, uh, there's no evidence which suggests that oil prices will go down if we start drilling in Alaska, so I have absolutely no reason to support drilling in one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the country...

[moraldeficiency]

I rarely use a vehicle, so $4 a gallon does not bother me personally.


You're a very very fortunate man.

[Tron5000]

I rarely use a vehicle, so $4 a gallon does not bother me personally.

But, uh, there's no evidence which suggests that oil prices will go down if we start drilling in Alaska, so I have absolutely no reason to support drilling in one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the country...

The area that would be drilled covers only a few acres. It's not like they're planning to raze the entire refuge.

The idea also calls for drilling off of our shoreline (where you can't see it). China is already doing so, but our laws prevent US companies from enjoying the same spoils as the Chinese. And in the history of US drilling, only one one-thousandth of a percent (0.001) of our drilled oil has ever been spilled. Even through Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, oil derricks were destroyed and not a drop of oil was spilled.

So what if we drilled here and paid exactly the same amount for gas. Would you rather purchase it from Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? Are you more comfortable lining their pockets than pumping our own money right back into the US economy?

[The Senator]

The area that would be drilled covers only a few acres. It's not like they're planning to raze the entire refuge.

So what if we drilled here and paid exactly the same amount for gas. Would you rather purchase it from Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia? Are you more comfortable lining their pockets than pumping our own money right back into the US economy?

What's the difference then? That's like asking me if I'd rather buy an American television instead of a Japanese television-- but the only drawback would be that a city in the midwest will have to be bulldozed to the ground in order to make room for the new TV processing plant.

I mean... if it still costs the same, then what does it matter that we are getting 55% our oil from overseas sources?

The oil companies will still be the ones in charge there, they'll still be making record profits while our middle class teeters on the brink of economic disparity... my issue isn't where the oil comes from, it's 1) how much it costs and 2) how the oil executives are raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers.

I support oil independence, but why can't we drill for oil in MT and ND, where no one lives, and no wildlife refuges will be in danger?

[Tron5000]

What's the difference then? That's like asking me if I'd rather buy an American television instead of a Japanese television-- but the only drawback would be that a city in the midwest will have to be bulldozed to the ground in order to make room for the new TV processing plant.

I mean... if it still costs the same, then what does it matter that we are getting 55% our oil from overseas sources?

The oil companies will still be the ones in charge there, they'll still be making record profits while our middle class teeters on the brink of economic disparity... my issue isn't where the oil comes from, it's 1) how much it costs and 2) how the oil executives are raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers.

I support oil independence, but why can't we drill for oil in MT and ND, where no one lives, and no wildlife refuges will be in danger?

Where do you get your information that oil executives are "raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers"? Oil profits are rising because the price of a barrel of oil is rising, but profit margins are not rising. The oil companies are still making the same profit margin, while profits increase. Do you understand the difference?

So you are OK with paying for oil from nations that kill our soldiers (Iran), nations that sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and nations that refer to the US as The Great Satan (Venezuela)? Right on, then.

[The Senator]

Where do you get your information that oil executives are "raping the wallets of your everyday, middle-class workers"? Oil profits are rising because the price of a barrel of oil is rising, but profit margins are not rising. The oil companies are still making the same profit margin, while profits increase. Do you understand the difference?

So you are OK with paying for oil from nations that kill our soldiers (Iran), nations that sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia) and nations that refer to the US as The Great Satan (Venezuela)? Right on, then.

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

[StorminNorman]

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

I personally want drilling in Montana, South Dakota, ANWR and the Florida coast. The more oil we make, the lower the prices OPEC will set. Also if we start utilizing coal to oil, gas prices will also drop - history has shown that.

You shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich.

[The Senator]

I personally want drilling in Montana, South Dakota, ANWR and the Florida coast. The more oil we make, the lower the prices OPEC will set. Also if we start utilizing coal to oil, gas prices will also drop - history has shown that.

You shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich.

No, we shouldn't penalize the rich for being rich. But we shouldn't penalize the middle class for not making enough money, either. We have done nothing to lift the burden on the middle class, and we won't in the foreseeable future. This country is collapsing from the inside out. If we continue at this rate, I guarantee that we will lose our superpower status within the next twenty years... if not sooner...

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I was going to start a new thread but I think I can get the same amount of discussion on this thread.


Why are other forms of energy not more heavily viable and put into greater use? Nuclear? Solar? Wind? Electrical? Propane? Hydrogen? Hydraulic? And others?

I know that now they are being developed but how far and how hard are these technologies really being pushed and tapped into? Why are we not trying to free ourselves of such a huge dependence on oil? And even if it is not to free ourselves of the dependency on oil, why not do it because it is the logical step in our civilization?

If we are to advance as a race and species why are we not thinking what comes next? I know scientist and others are heavily at work on new technologies such as perpetual motion and other more far off alternatives for energy sources.

But what about the technologies that are here now?

Or is money really that important to the fat greedy pricks in this country that control everything?

[Tron5000]

My whole point is that if gas is going to cost the same, then what does it matter if it comes from foreign nations or from domestic sources? Why should we destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges simply because we could never get out act together and find a real solution for our energy problems? Even if you only drill one acre of land, you are throwing off the balance of that wildlife refuge. The whole point of ANWR is to keep it untouched by human development, to keep the delicate balance of nature in tact there.

I don't support it.

So again, if we're so inclined to drill oil domestically, then why don't we drill in ND and MT?

I know we all don't work six thousand billion hours a week like you do, but I find it atrocious that folks who can barely support their families are now suddenly expected to cut expenses because oil prices are rising faster than ever... while some oil executive gets to drive home to his penthouse in his $100,000 Mercedes-Benz Gas Guzzler after depositing his seven-figure salary...

What, the oil executive should lower his compensatory package in order to help out other people? You think an oil executive's salary is why we're paying the prices we are? That's ridiculous. 80% of the price of gas comes from the cost of a barrel of oil. Around 16% goes to the government in the form of taxes and about 4% is profits received by the oil companies. These profits are enjoyed by anyone who owns stock in the company, including many people whose retirement portfolios contain oil stock. These would be our policemen, fire fighters, teachers, postal workers, bank employees, etc. You're just looking for an individual to demonize when the factors that make up the price of oil are just too complex. The cost of a gallon of gas contains within it the cost of the barrel of oil that was refined into gasoline, various taxes, future research and exploration, speculators who purchase oil contracts on the futures market, transportation costs in delivering that oil...Yet you're upset because some individual has risen to a high level of success (likely by studying hard and working his butt off for years) in the oil company and drives a better car and owns a better home than most people.

Yes, let's shout from the rooftops our ire and disgust at these hideous "executives" and how they are ripping us off. "You rich people are making me pay more for gas! Curse you!"

Why don't we drill in ND and MT? Good question. I say drill where you can find the oil. And the majority of the US's oil and natural gas lies in ANWR and in offshore deposits.

[The Senator]

Why don't we drill in ND and MT? Good question. I say drill where you can find the oil. And the majority of the US's oil and natural gas lies in ANWR and in offshore deposits.

Actually, an article I posted here a while back and the story which aired on MSNBC following its publication stated that the oil in MT and ND would rival that of ANWR-- if we could get to it.

[Tron5000]

Actually, an article I posted here a while back and the story which aired on MSNBC following its publication stated that the oil in MT and ND would rival that of ANWR-- if we could get to it.

"[I]f we could get to it." Guess what: we can get to the oil in ANWR and the offshore deposits. We can and we should.

[The Senator]

"[I]f we could get to it." Guess what: we can get to the oil in ANWR and the offshore deposits. We can and we should.

And then destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the United States?

Nah, I think I'll pass.

[Tron5000]

And then destroy one of the last remaining wildlife refuges in the United States?

Nah, I think I'll pass.

Destroy what? They're talking about a few acres out of the millions contained within ANWR. How exactly would ANWR be destroyed?

And what about in the offshore deposits? What would be the negative consequences of drilling there?

I heard a gentleman on talk radio the other day responding to a claim that drilling is bad for the caribou. This gentleman (he was on Herman Cain's show, but I can't recall his name) appeared to be somewhat of an authority on US energy, and I would expect nothing less from a guest on Herman's show. He stated definitively that in areas that have been drilled, the caribou population has actually increased, by as much as fivefold in some areas. He explained that the oil pipelines produce heat, and the caribou congregate around the pipelines to stay warm when the temperature becomes very low. This has resulted in far fewer caribou dying from cold, and they have been able to reproduce and grow their populations at a staggering rate.

[The Senator]

Destroy what? They're talking about a few acres out of the millions contained within ANWR. How exactly would ANWR be destroyed?

You do realize that drilling even an acre of land could have significant environmental problems, right? Not to mention that pollution from the oil rigs could get into the groundwater, leaking into streams and rivers and whatever watershed exists up there in Alaska. Destroying an acre of land could destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska.


And what about in the offshore deposits? What would be the negative consequences of drilling there?

Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.


I heard a gentleman on talk radio the other day responding to a claim that drilling is bad for the caribou. This gentleman (he was on Herman Cain's show, but I can't recall his name) appeared to be somewhat of an authority on US energy, and I would expect nothing less from a guest on Herman's show. He stated definitively that in areas that have been drilled, the caribou population has actually increased, by as much as fivefold in some areas. He explained that the oil pipelines produce heat, and the caribou congregate around the pipelines to stay warm when the temperature becomes very low. This has resulted in far fewer caribou dying from cold, and they have been able to reproduce and grow their populations at a staggering rate.

I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.

[SuBe]

Tron, as right as you are, you are not going to convince anyone with that. They may look into it, but the Left doens't want energy independance if it has a 0.001% chance of hurting a lizard or an owl somewhere. Our Economy<Animals. That's what they think.

[Tron5000]

You do realize that drilling even an acre of land could have significant environmental problems, right? Not to mention that pollution from the oil rigs could get into the groundwater, leaking into streams and rivers and whatever watershed exists up there in Alaska. Destroying an acre of land could destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska.



Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.



I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.

You're worried about spills? Less than one one-thousandth of a percent of all oil drilled by the US (0.001%) has been spilled. 0 spills when derricks were destroyed during Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, so worrying about this is pointless. Not a factor.

Exactly what species' habitats are you so fond of protecting? I mean, if you don't want to "destroy" the environment and "destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska," then I presume you know what species you are so fond of protecting and are also aware of how affecting their habitats would affect Northern Alaska.

"Nature should be able to play its course." OK, so we won't build any more subdivisions, because that might drive deer from their natural habitat into a place where they may have to co-exist with humans. No more roads, because we wouldn't want to disturb the mighty woodpecker in his habitat in the forest. Let's just let nature to continue to go unimpeded.

"Without technological intervention"? So we have to stifle the use of technology because we may disturb a few creatures? OK, sure. I'll buy that.

[The Senator]

You're worried about spills? Less than one one-thousandth of a percent of all oil drilled by the US (0.001%) has been spilled. 0 spills when derricks were destroyed during Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, so worrying about this is pointless. Not a factor.

I didn't say spills, did I? You think you can just put a rig up without any environmental problems? You don't think that water erodes the steel beams of these platforms? You don't think that the soil interacts with the oil rigs? If the soil becomes polluted, the surrounding vegetation will become polluted. If the vegetation is polluted, wildlife is polluted. If wildlife is polluted and dies, then how can nature successfully sustain itself? It can't.


Exactly what species' habitats are you so fond of protecting? I mean, if you don't want to "destroy" the environment and "destroy a species' habitat and throw off the delicate balance of the ecosystems which exist in Northern Alaska," then I presume you know what species you are so fond of protecting and are also aware of how affecting their habitats would affect Northern Alaska.

I hope to preserve all of them, frankly.


"Nature should be able to play its course." OK, so we won't build any more subdivisions, because that might drive deer from their natural habitat into a place where they may have to co-exist with humans. No more roads, because we wouldn't want to disturb the mighty woodpecker in his habitat in the forest. Let's just let nature to continue to go unimpeded.

I'm not against building subdivisions or roads because most of them in are not built on land which has been zoned as a wildlife refuge. There's a difference between building on a wooded area, and on a wildlife refuge which was set aside with the intent and purpose of preserving the pristine wildernesses which inhabit it.


"Without technological intervention"? So we have to stifle the use of technology because we may disturb a few creatures? OK, sure. I'll buy that.

If the caribou are relying on the oil pipeline for heat, then that represents a problem. No longer are they providing for themselves, but they are relying on man to fulfill their needs. What if that pipeline disappears? The animals which relied on it for heat will be unable to readjust to the cold temperatures, they will be unaware of what to do in the cold... and they will die. They're losing their natural instincts here.

[Tron5000]

I didn't say spills, did I? You think you can just put a rig up without any environmental problems? You don't think that water erodes the steel beams of these platforms? You don't think that the soil interacts with the oil rigs? If the soil becomes polluted, the surrounding vegetation will become polluted. If the vegetation is polluted, wildlife is polluted. If wildlife is polluted and dies, then how can nature successfully sustain itself? It can't.



I hope to preserve all of them, frankly.



I'm not against building subdivisions or roads because most of them in are not built on land which has been zoned as a wildlife refuge. There's a difference between building on a wooded area, and on a wildlife refuge which was set aside with the intent and purpose of preserving the pristine wildernesses which inhabit it.



If the caribou are relying on the oil pipeline for heat, then that represents a problem. No longer are they providing for themselves, but they are relying on man to fulfill their needs. What if that pipeline disappears? The animals which relied on it for heat will be unable to readjust to the cold temperatures, they will be unaware of what to do in the cold... and they will die. They're losing their natural instincts here.

You can't name which species residing in ANWR you want to protect, so you go with "all of them"? My, how noble of you. Good luck with that.

So the fact that we have assisted the caribou population is a bad thing?

"Don't build the pipeline! You'll kill the caribou!"

"That pipeline is helping the caribou! Damn you greedy bastards!"

[Handsome Rob]

I strongly disagree with this. Animals should not be relying on man-made technology to sustain themselves. If this is happening, then there is a far greater problem in Alaska than we were once led to believe. Animals are losing touch with their natural habitat, and have become reliant on man for their survival, in some circumstances. Nature should be able to play its course without technological intervention, even if the pipelines were not intended to affect wildlife.


Do you feel the same way about agricultural farming? One of the major contributing factors to the explosion in the deer population in Mississippi has been the increased amount of land available for farming, which provides food for deer like soybeans. In fact, hunting is now a necessity in Mississippi to keep the deer population from getting too large.

[The Senator]

Do you feel the same way about agricultural farming? One of the major contributing factors to the explosion in the deer population in Mississippi has been the increased amount of land available for farming, which provides food for deer like soybeans. In fact, hunting is now a necessity in Mississippi to keep the deer population from getting too large.

This is why we need to think about the consequences our actions may have on the environment. If we build a pipeline and caribou use it for warmth, they are losing touch of their natural instincts by relying on man. If we plan vast fields of soybeans and deer begin to consume those, then the deer are losing touch with their natural instincts as well by relying on man for food. The overpopulation of deer in Mississippi is something those farmers should have considered, and now they have no choice but to hunt deer in order to lower the deer population in that state.

[DACrowe]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

I agree energy is a major concern, albeit your doomsday scenerio does not show an inkling of how OPEC works and is way extreme, but still.

However, I think for the above reasons, as well as curbing global warming and climate change, alternative fuels must be considered. I'm talking giving tax incentives to car manufacturers in this country who make their cars more fuel eff. and use alternatives to gasoline and removing tariffs on imports that do the same, while raising tariffs and increasing taxes on those who don't. This will cause car companies to raise the price of cars that are gas guzzlers or do not seek other solutions and thus decreasing their demand. We also need to begin to invest in wind technology when geographically applicable (it's sad the most elaborate wind researcher is located in Ohio, yet all their research plants are in Germany, because that government gave them tax subsidies we save only for oil companies here) and solar power. But most of all we need to start considering nuclear power as the cheapest and most reliable clean source of mass energy and take a good long look and the European systems.


Drilling for oil in the Alaska is a DISGUSTING pandering ploy by our current administration. The only good I can see it doing is creating jobs in Alaska. Otherwise, the oil would actually not be touchable for several years and when we finally can use it, there will likely be enough to run a large state for six months. Spread across the country that will last a month if we are lucky. Destroying a national park (which was preserved to avoid such travesties as this) and killing off an ecosystem for such a short-term solution (a month) is ridiculous. Not to mention that it would go on the open market and could be sold to anywhere around the world by oil companies and not just in the US. The only way to prevent that would be government legislation, and given how reluctant our lawmakers are to even slap the oil companies on the wrist, that will never happen.

It is a faulty solution and a fallacy in people's heads created by Republicans to win elections.

[DACrowe]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

I agree energy is a major concern, albeit your doomsday scenerio does not show an inkling of how OPEC works and is way extreme, but still.

However, I think for the above reasons, as well as curbing global warming and climate change, alternative fuels must be considered. I'm talking giving tax incentives to car manufacturers in this country who make their cars more fuel eff. and use alternatives to gasoline and removing tariffs on imports that do the same, while raising tariffs and increasing taxes on those who don't. This will cause car companies to raise the price of cars that are gas guzzlers or do not seek other solutions and thus decreasing their demand. We also need to begin to invest in wind technology when geographically applicable (it's sad the most elaborate wind researcher is located in Ohio, yet all their research plants are in Germany, because that government gave them tax subsidies we save only for oil companies here) and solar power. But most of all we need to start considering nuclear power as the cheapest and most reliable clean source of mass energy and take a good long look and the European systems.


Drilling for oil in the Alaska is a DISGUSTING pandering ploy by our current administration. The only good I can see it doing is creating jobs in Alaska. Otherwise, the oil would actually not be touchable for several years and when we finally can use it, there will likely be enough to run a large state for six months. Spread across the country that will last a month if we are lucky. Destroying a national park (which was preserved to avoid such travesties as this) and killing off an ecosystem for such a short-term solution (a month) is ridiculous. Not to mention that it would go on the open market and could be sold to anywhere around the world by oil companies and not just in the US. The only way to prevent that would be government legislation, and given how reluctant our lawmakers are to even slap the oil companies on the wrist, that will never happen.

It is a faulty solution and a fallacy in people's heads created by Republicans to win elections.

[DACrowe]

P.S. Something else to consider is oil is an inelastic commodity. To put it simply the demand does not change for the product no matter how much (or how little) of the supply there is. Thus, oil companies, if they are prone to sell the short-term "relief" in the US (which I doubt would happen), they would have no reason to lower the price. They simply can keep it at its current price and people will still pay it, because they cannot live without the commodity. That is why if there is a tax on oil companies, it will only lead to an increase in gas prices as they will shift the difference onto the consumers of the tax, so they lose no money and it is really coming out of our pockets. Giving them more supply will not curb the demand and there is no reason to lower price, if the price is dictated at $4.00 by the inconsistencies of members of OPEC. They drill and oil companies in the US can charge what they are now from buying OPEC's oil and make a larger profit, because people will buy the product no matter what.

It will solve nothing.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

I was going to start a new thread but I think I can get the same amount of discussion on this thread.


Why are other forms of energy not more heavily viable and put into greater use? Nuclear? Solar? Wind? Electrical? Propane? Hydrogen? Hydraulic? And others?

I know that now they are being developed but how far and how hard are these technologies really being pushed and tapped into? Why are we not trying to free ourselves of such a huge dependence on oil? And even if it is not to free ourselves of the dependency on oil, why not do it because it is the logical step in our civilization?

If we are to advance as a race and species why are we not thinking what comes next? I know scientist and others are heavily at work on new technologies such as perpetual motion and other more far off alternatives for energy sources.

But what about the technologies that are here now?

Or is money really that important to the fat greedy pricks in this country that control everything?

Anyone?

[Carcharodon]

Anyone?Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with who's in control of our energy now. To be frank, they have us by the balls, and they hold a good portion of the patents. I personally believe that they're going to milk the earth of all the oil they possibly can, and then will only release the available technologies as the norm once that cash-cow is gone.

However, there are other considerations regarding the implementation of these technologies on a mass-scale. It would require massive changes to our infrastructure, and there is certainly an associated cost. It will take time. The question then becomes: will that cost outweigh the cost of waiting to begin these changes?

I think it's a mistake, what's happening now. That's just me.

[Carcharodon]

Same thing as mentioned above, except replace a land-based ecosystem with an aquatic ecosystem.
Weeeellllllllllllll....not quite. It turns out that offshore drilling isn't nearly as disastrous as many people believe. Besides, there are aspects of a marine habitat that can't be applied to terrestrial ones. Offshore drilling platforms actually create habitat in a 3-D environment (e.g., marine).

Drilling mud only has an effect on a very small area of marine habitat, and spills are exceedingly rare. In fact, more oil is naturally leaked into marine systems off the coast of California each week than the amount of oil that has been leaked/spilled by the oil platforms there since 1969.

While I'm not necessarily advocating the offshore drilling, I certainly think many concerns are a bit overstated...this is coming from a marine biologist in training.

[BAH HUMBBUG!]

Admittedly, a lot of it has to do with who's in control of our energy now. To be frank, they have us by the balls, and they hold a good portion of the patents. I personally believe that they're going to milk the earth of all the oil they possibly can, and then will only release the available technologies as the norm once that cash-cow is gone.

However, there are other considerations regarding the implementation of these technologies on a mass-scale. It would require massive changes to our infrastructure, and there is certainly an associated cost. It will take time. The question then becomes: will that cost outweigh the cost of waiting to begin these changes?

I think it's a mistake, what's happening now. That's just me.

So basically if anyone comes up with a form of technology that could be any kind of threat as the oil companies, politicians and others would look at it. They simply pay them a boat load of cash and buy the patent so the technology is buried never to be seen again? Sad :(

[Carcharodon]

So basically if anyone comes up with a form of technology that could be any kind of threat as the oil companies, politicians and others would look at it. They simply pay them a boat load of cash and buy the patent so the technology is buried never to be seen again? Sad :(Well, I certainly don't pretend to know exactly how it happens, but I have little doubt that it's somethingj along those lines.

[lazur]

OK its decided.
My number one concern over all else...war included, is energy.

I dont think some of you younger folks realize, that this is killing businesses and putting people out of work.

Here are a few thoughts
1) Lets say someone comes into power in OPEC and refuses to sell us oil?
This country will grind to a halt in about 45 days. Massive power plant outages, infrastructure will stop, you name it. 30 days into it, I can imagine people walking around with hoses to try to siphon gas from others...and of course, people will then be "shooting to kill"

Anyone that says we dont need Oil is plain stupid. Planes...busses...cars...farm equipment...power plants all run on oil to a large degree. Imagine all this stopping.

The new person in power MUST DRILL everywhere, responsibly, I sympathize with the environmentalists, but this country will DIE without it.

2) If we do become somewhat energy independent with oil or something else?
We are then, not answering to others. Others power over us ENDS. We went to Iraq for oil, Bush says its for their safety, and I believe he thinks that partially...but WE HAVE TO HAVE THE OIL. Eliminate that need from others, and bamn, we no longer need to answer to outside countries influence.

It's really too bad Iraq ever happened. It has stained all other real progress Bush has made. For example, Bush has done more for altnerative energy than all past presidents combined.

Not that it changes anything. I'm just saying...

[DACrowe]

Think how much further we could invest in these alternative technologies if we weren't spending billions monthly in Iraq?

[Malice]

Guys this has nothing to do with Iraq...the way things are now...Iraq or not, NOTHING would be different.

[Carcharodon]

Guys this has nothing to do with Iraq...the way things are now...Iraq or not, NOTHING would be different.That's right....because big oil would still be in control of the alternate technologies.

[Malice]

If the US wholeheartedly moved towards getting alternative power to foreign energy, in 15 years, this country would almost be self sufficient.

[MattBearPig]

If the US wholeheartedly moved towards getting alternative power to foreign energy, in 15 years, this country would almost be self sufficient.

I have no doubt about that one. But we're still like that 40 year old guy who still lives in his parent's basement when it comes to energy.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Oil not being sold to America,can be a possibility. Saudi Arabia basically said no anymore than they are currently getting. This isn't so far fetched anymore.

If America becomes somewhat,or completely energy independent..it might be worse. Big companies would swarm in and try to control what's there,the market might be carved up among them and the people would have no choice but to pay what is demanded.

[Spider-Bite]

Man-made tornadoes could power the future

Engineer spins up plan to generate electricity from sucked-up air

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080625/080625-michaud-vortices-02-vmed.widec.jpg

By Michael Schirber

Coiled up in a tornado is as much energy as an entire power plant. So a Canadian engineer has a plan to spin up his own twister and extract energy from its tethered tail.
It all depends on heating the air near the surface so that it is much warmer than the air above.
"You can generate energy whenever you have a temperature gradient," said Louis Michaud (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=environment&c=&l=on&pic=080625-michaud-vortices-02.jpg&cap=Louis+Michaud+looks+over+one+of+his+small+man-made+vortices.+Credit%3A+Craig+Glover&title=). "The source of the energy here is the natural movement of warm and cold air currents."
Story continues below ↓ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374237/#storyContinued) advertisement


These so-called convective air currents are only useful if they can be channeled in some way. That is why Michaud proposes using a tornado (http://www.livescience.com/interplayer/teamtornado/) as a kind of drinking straw between the warm ground below and the cold sky above. Wind turbines placed at the bottom could generate electricity from the sucked-up air.
Whirlwind tour
Tornadoes and hurricanes form when sun-heated air near the surface rises and displaces cooler air above. As outside air rushes in to replace the rising air, the whole mass begins to rotate.
Michaud got the notion of a man-made tornado — what he calls the Atmospheric Vortex Engine (AVE) — while working as an engineer on gas turbines.
"When I looked further into it, I didn't run into anything that was impossible," Michaud told LiveScience.
The AVE structure (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=environment&c=&l=on&pic=080625-vortex-engine-diagram-02.jpg&cap=An+illustration+of+the+Atmospheric+Vortex+Engi ne.+Input+air+is+warmed+by+the+waste+heat+from+a+p ower+plant.+Credit%3A+Charles+Floyd&title=) is a 200-meter-wide arena with 100-meter-high walls. Warm humid air enters at the sides, directed to flow in a circular fashion. As the air whirls around at speeds up to 200 mph, a vacuum forms in the center, which holds the vortex together as it extends several miles into the sky.
The concept is similar to a solar chimney (http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_power_21stcentury-1.html) with the swirling walls of the vortex replacing the brick walls of the tower. But the AVE can reach much higher into the sky where the air is colder.
With wind turbines at the inlets to the arena, Michaud calculates that as much as 200 megawatts of electricity (enough for a small city) could be extracted without draining the vortex of its power.
"Look at natural tornadoes that destroy a house or carry off a car and still have plenty of energy left over," he said.
Waste heat
Michaud imagines the AVE could get its warm air from the exhaust of a power plant.
"Most power plants reject more than half of the heat that they make," he said.
The AVE (http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?s=environment&c=&l=on&pic=080625-vortex-drawing-02.jpg&cap=The+basic+principle+of+the+Atmospheric+Vortex+ Engine.+Credit%3A+Louis+Michaud&title=) could generate energy from this waste heat because it connects the ground to the upper atmosphere where the temperature gets as low as negative 60 degrees Celsius (80 degrees below zero Fahrenheit). This cold reservoir draws the warm air up fast enough to turn turbines.
"All you have to do is send the heat up there," Michaud said, and the extra energy from the AVE could increase the output of a power plant by 40 percent.
Making the tornado dependent on a waste heat supply would also be a built-in safety feature. "If it came off the base, there would be nothing to sustain the vortex," Michaud said.
He said the vortex might produce a little extra precipitation in the surrounding area.

Click for related content
Solar dish may revolutionize energy production (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25285030/)
Less ‘zoom zoom’ could power the future (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25283123/)
[/URL] Military developing brainwave binoculars (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374031)


To build a 200 megawatt AVE facility would cost $60 million, Michaud estimates. This implies a cost per megawatt that is lower than all existing power generation technologies.
Michaud has tested many small prototypes and is currently working on a 4-meter wide AVE near his home in Ontario. The research comes mostly out his own pocket book (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374237/#), as he has not found an investor yet.
"Utility companies are risk-adverse," he said. "They prefer to buy from established vendors."

[URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374237/

[Sandman138]

I was going to say that the law of conservation of energy made this a pipe dream, but using the waste heat of power plants makes this a brilliant plan.

[Spider-Bite]

I would actually oppose this. Too dangerous. People don't want tornadoes in their back yard or their neighborhood, or even their city. Even if the tornado doesn't leave the base, it's still going to wreak havoc on the surrounding area with constant rain and thunderstorms. Plus having that many tornadoes all over the country running constantly could potentially have some unforseen effects on the globe's overall weather pattern.

Not too mention, who wants tonadoes anywhere near a power plant? Way too risky.

[Sandman138]

Give me one source of power that didn't harm the surrounding environment.

[Alex The Great]

Cool. Though Obviosly they'll make a REALLY BIG and POWERFUL One and it'll brake loose. destroy a city and all that stuff.



:o

[Sandman138]

If you don't get burned, you will not learn. If you don't start a fire to avoid getting burned, you will die of hypothermia.

[Spider-Bite]

Give me one source of power that didn't harm the surrounding environment.

2 wrongs, or even 3 or 4 don't make a right. It's just too dangerous. It's not just a risk, it's guranteed consequences. In the city where I got to college there is a power plant. I can tell you the residents in that city do not want a constant tornado spinning in their city. We like nice sunny days at least once in a while, not constant rain, hail, thunderstorms, and hundred miles per hour wind.

Not too mention, what if the tornadoe destroys the power plant? We don't want nuclear fall out either.

Plus your talking about a LOT of tornadoes all over the country. Were talking about a lot more than we normally have. That is going to wreak havoc on the earth's weather patterns. This could end up having catostrophic consequences worse than oil or coal ever gave us. It could end up having no effect, but at the same time it could be a horrible disaster.

[Spider-Bite]

If you don't get burned, you will not learn. If you don't start a fire to avoid getting burned, you will die of hypothermia.


We already got burned, and I already learned, which is why I support clean safe alternative energies to avoid betting hypothermia.

[Sandman138]

We already got burned, and I already learned, which is why I support clean safe alternative energies to avoid betting hypothermia.

There is no such thing as clean safe alternative energies. Biofuels require energy to be refined which means you still need fossil fuels and the return once you get your clean fuel is negligible, the only reason it seems clean now is because of scale. Hydro electrical dams wreak havoc on the ecosystem. Wind turbines are benign by comparison but unreliable. Nuclear power is by far the most efficient in terms of energy to wasted heat ratio, but the byproducts last on a geological time scale (that said, the wost recorded meltdown killed 56 people, so I'd say it has a pretty good safety record). There is no such thing as clean or safe energy, it is all a question of scale.

[Sandman138]

2 wrongs, or even 3 or 4 don't make a right. It's just too dangerous. It's not just a risk, it's guranteed consequences. In the city where I got to college there is a power plant. I can tell you the residents in that city do not want a constant tornado spinning in their city. We like nice sunny days at least once in a while, not constant rain, hail, thunderstorms, and hundred miles per hour wind.

Who said this had to be going 24/7? Why can't it just be used to balance the scales between surplus and deficit?

[BlackestNight]

I would actually oppose this. Too dangerous. People don't want tornadoes in their back yard or their neighborhood, or even their city. Even if the tornado doesn't leave the base, it's still going to wreak havoc on the surrounding area with constant rain and thunderstorms. Plus having that many tornadoes all over the country running constantly could potentially have some unforseen effects on the globe's overall weather pattern.

Not too mention, who wants tonadoes anywhere near a power plant? Way too risky.

lol whats the difference between haveing a Tornadoe in your back yard and a nuke in your back yard lol :woot:

[BMM]

Interesting idea. Good luck controlling a tornado once it's formed though.

[BlackestNight]

Interesting idea. Good luck controlling a tornado once it's formed though.

The tornado can't leave its source of energy witch would be the man created heat. Once it leaves that area 2 things will happen the tornado will either rebound over the heated area or would leave the area and quickly Dissipate.

Plus the tornadoes might be completely man created in a closed environment. Just a bigger version of the tornado created in the picture above.

[The Senator]

This is the most idiotic thing I have read this week.

[Spider-Bite]

There is no such thing as clean safe alternative energies. Biofuels require energy to be refined which means you still need fossil fuels and the return once you get your clean fuel is negligible, the only reason it seems clean now is because of scale. Hydro electrical dams wreak havoc on the ecosystem. Wind turbines are benign by comparison but unreliable. Nuclear power is by far the most efficient in terms of energy to wasted heat ratio, but the byproducts last on a geological time scale (that said, the wost recorded meltdown killed 56 people, so I'd say it has a pretty good safety record). There is no such thing as clean or safe energy, it is all a question of scale.

and this is too freaking dangerous.


Who said this had to be going 24/7? Why can't it just be used to balance the scales between surplus and deficit?


they are obviously going to have to be running quite often, several times a day.

[Spider-Bite]

The tornado can't leave its source of energy witch would be the man created heat. Once it leaves that area 2 things will happen the tornado will either rebound over the heated area or would leave the area and quickly Dissipate.

Pulse the tornadoes might be completely man created in a closed environment. Just a bigger version of the tornado created in the picture above.


But how does this guy know it will dissipate? And what is considered quickly? Even if it takes only half a minute, that is half a minute too long. Plus if it's a hot day, than the tornadoe will continue to draw heat from the surface, and keep going.

Not too mention, the entire tornadoe would not be enclosed. Only the bottom portion of it.

Not to mention, even if it doesn't leave, it's still going to mess with our weather patterns.

[Spider-Bite]

lol whats the difference between haveing a Tornadoe in your back yard and a nuke in your back yard lol :woot:


Well the nuclear power plant in my former city, hurt no one, while tornadoes have cause much damage in that city. They have killed people and destroyed many buildings, and that is with only one or two tornadoes a year.

that is kind of a silly question.

and to top it off, this guy doesn't want one or th eother. He wants both, right next to each other. Constant tornadoes next to a power plant? it's going to weaken the structure of the building. What if it eventually causes a nuclear explosion?

[Sandman138]

and this is too freaking dangerous.

You keep ignoring the point that it is a question of scale. The article says he is only just starting to experiment with a 4 meter wide version. There is no indication yet that we are talking about creating a tornado to rival the most destructive of their natural counterparts.

[Spider-Bite]

You keep ignoring the point that it is a question of scale. The article says he is only just starting to experiment with a 4 meter wide version. There is no indication yet that we are talking about creating a tornado to rival the most destructive of their natural counterparts.

Yes there is. This guy's proposal for supplying energy inclludes making tornadoes that extend several miles into the sky, above the arena.

he's not talking about 20 foot tornadoes.

[Sandman138]

End goal. He's not anywhere near that and if problems arise during the build up he will have to address them accordingly. You on the other hand throw the whole thing out on principle. Not scientific or a rational assessment of the pros and cons seeing as none of us, him included, has enough data to make such an assessment yet.

[Spider-Bite]

End goal. He's not anywhere near that and if problems arise during the build up he will have to address them accordingly. You on the other hand throw the whole thing out on principle. Not scientific or a rational assessment of the pros and cons seeing as none of us, him included, has enough data to make such an assessment yet.

the point is his goal sucks, and his goal is what I'm opposed to. I know his tiny little experiements aren't the problem, it's what he wants done with them. Yes I throw the whole thing out the window. It's crazy. for one thing it's politically infeasible, because voters don't like tornadoes.

[Sandman138]

They don't like the idea of robot overlords either so computers should just be scrapped and the evil of the internet should be done away with before we end up on the brink of oblivion. You know what else voters don't like? Forest fires. I mean its obvious that combustion is way too dangerous. Fire should be outlawed. The risks are just way too huge.

Personally, I think his original plan is rather unfeasible for all the reasons you said. However, a little ingenuity with some piping and the judicious application of division means that the same amount of power could perhaps be generated by four fifty meter wide arenas spaced a safe distance from the actual power plant and each other. But I guess we shouldn't even try for that, because we should just judge everything on hypotheticals.

[BMM]

The tornado can't leave its source of energy witch would be the man created heat. Once it leaves that area 2 things will happen the tornado will either rebound over the heated area or would leave the area and quickly Dissipate.

Pulse the tornadoes might be completely man created in a closed environment. Just a bigger version of the tornado created in the picture above.

A tornado that extends several miles into the sky and produces 200 mile per hour winds is not going to simply sit in one place without reacting to its environment. I don't think people realize just how big, dangerous, and unpredictable a tornado that size can be. Beyond that, I think Spider-Bite addresses most of the appropriate counterpoints in his above post.

Personally, I don't think there's much cause for concern regarding this idea in its current form, as it probably won't get off the ground either because of lack of support or because too many problems will arise during development.

[SoulManX]

http://gas2.org/2008/10/07/how-much-oil-is-actually-left-on-this-planet-should-we-care/

[November Rain]

There's more than they want you to think.

[SoulManX]

There's more than they want you to think.

So your say there is more than 30 years of oil left for the world?

[rdh007]

I'm going to guess and say that if we change nothing and never start rationing or changing behavior, we'll suddenly run out in 30-50 years. Didn't read the article--what did it say?

[BobJM]

It's called yellow journalism. Media and politicians hype everything up to its utmost extremes to terrify people into action.

I agree, however, that we need to focus on finding other energy sources, but it's not like we're running out of oil in the next couple of years.

[Yerzrinot]

It's called yellow journalism. Media and politicians hype everything up to its utmost extremes to terrify people into action.

I agree, however, that we need to focus on finding other energy sources, but it's not like we're running out of oil in the next couple of years.

:up:

[ShadowBoxing]

It's called yellow journalism. Media and politicians hype everything up to its utmost extremes to terrify people into action.

I agree, however, that we need to focus on finding other energy sources, but it's not like we're running out of oil in the next couple of years.
T. Boone Pickens is hardly a yellow journalist, and no credible source (such as those that say "about thirty years") is saying it will be in the next couple of years. That said, if China and India develop enough in a short time, it could become a problem really quick. If it's not in a couple years, gas will certainly be unaffordable in the next decade or so.

[wiegeabo]

I'm going to guess and say that if we change nothing and never start rationing or changing behavior, we'll suddenly run out in 30-50 years. Didn't read the article--what did it say?

Probably more like, in 30-50 years most, if not all, the easy oil in the Middle East (and possibly elsewhere) will be gone. Might not actually be out of oil, per say, but getting it would become far more expensive if consumption isn't curbed soon.

[The Senator]

According to the Hubbert Curve, the Middle East will reach peak production by 2040. If developing nations such as India and China become exceedingly wealthy in the coming decades, however, the Middle East may reach peak production much sooner than that.

Hubbert accurately predicted that the United States would reach peak oil production in the mid-1970s... so I trust his predictions on the Middle East.

Point being, we need to focus on alternative energies instead of relying on non-renewable fossil fuels for our energy needs.

[The Senator]

According to the Hubbert Curve, the Middle East will reach peak production by 2040. If developing nations such as India and China become exceedingly wealthy in the coming decades, however, the Middle East may reach peak production much sooner than that.

Hubbert accurately predicted that the United States would reach peak oil production in the mid-1970s... so I trust his predictions on the Middle East.

Point being, we need to focus on alternative energies instead of relying on non-renewable fossil fuels for our energy needs.

[November Rain]

So your say there is more than 30 years of oil left for the world?
There's probably centuries worth of oil left.

but they'll milk you into thinking otherwise.

otherwise why aren't these big oil companies buying up renewable energy companies like those solar panel/fuel cell/hydrogen vehicles instead of crushing them.


Their business plan is easily to monopolise the market.

Everybody is on their payroll. Exactly the same as these carbon footprint people who have managed to fool us all into thinking about carbon emmissions without bullet proof evidence global warming via its increase is actually happening.

badwagon tactics.

[Yerzrinot]

T. Boone Pickens is hardly a yellow journalist, and no credible source (such as those that say "about thirty years") is saying it will be in the next couple of years. That said, if China and India develop enough in a short time, it could become a problem really quick. If it's not in a couple years, gas will certainly be unaffordable in the next decade or so.

It's in Pickens interests to keep the prices high. Claiming that were only a couple years away from running out of it helps his case.

[The Senator]

The Next Industrial Revolution is Upon Us

Two hundred years ago, the United States started working towards industrialization. We developed manufactured goods at a surprising rate and gave birth to various industries which continue to sustain our economy today. We saw the emergence of factories, railroads, and the steel industry. This eventually gave way to the automobile industry, the airline industry, and information technology. All of this gave led to unprecedented economic success in the United States, with consumerism taking a place in deep in the hearts of most Americans, right next to religion and political identity.

However, we as a nation did not foresee the numerous problems associated with industrialization. We did not foresee air and water pollution. We did not foresee the vast depletion of ecosystems around the planet. We did not see the continuous use and waste of non-renewable resources, particularly oil.

As a result, we have destroyed our environment. This isn't about climate change-- that is an environmental problem we face, yes, but there are more problems at hand. Our increased waste, mostly as a result of inefficient resources, has caused irreversible damage to our ecosystems. Plant and animal species are going extinct at a rate of 3,000 per year, and the it is estimated that roughly half the species we have today will be gone within the next century. Water pollution plagues our cities, as does air pollution. We have a public health crisis, as well as an ecological crisis, which needs to be addressed.

Well, fear not, for the next industrial revolution is upon us: Eco-effective manufacturing.

What is eco-effectiveness? This is a response to the idea of eco-efficiency, which says that we should continue to use natural resources as long as we increase the efficiency of those products. That, my friends, is a foolish idea at best. Eco-efficiency tells us that we should be less bad towards the environment. We shouldn't be less bad; we shouldn't engage in bad environmental practices at all.

So how do we do this? How do we engage in eco-effective design and manufacturing practices?

It's simple: We design products which run along a closed-loop system of design-- that is, they are produced, used, and re-used. No, this doesn't follow the same recycling patterns we follow today, where recycled paper becomes cardboard and that cardboard doesn't become anything else. We're talking about designing products which can be disassembled and either 1) sent back to the environment as biodegradable material, or 2) transformed into other products.

What does this do? This eliminates waste. When consumers are done with the products they own, they can return them to the manufacturer for a financial incentive. Then those products are either refurnished and put back on the marketplace, or disassembled and used for other purposes.

Sounds crazy, right? In fact, it sounds downright silly. Why would corporations want to reuse these products? Because-- it eliminates a corporations' need to extract additional resources from the earth, which cuts production costs significantly.

This, my friends, is the next industrial revolution: Eco-effective design and manufacturing. This concept, as promoted in the book Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, has already been implemented by small businesses and major corporations around the world.

I urge you to go to this website (http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm) and learn about this new design strategy. I also urge you purchase the book Cradle to Cradle for a truly enhancing literary and political experience.

Feel free to ask questions about Cradle-to-Cradle/ eco-effective design. While I am not a true expert on the topic, I know enough to answer basic questions.

[Handsome Rob]

The Next Industrial Revolution is Upon Us


Two hundred years ago, the United States started working towards industrialization. We developed manufactured goods at a surprising rate and gave birth to various industries which continue to sustain our economy today. We saw the emergence of factories, railroads, and the steel industry. This eventually gave way to the automobile industry, the airline industry, and information technology. All of this gave led to unprecedented economic success in the United States, with consumerism taking a place in deep in the hearts of most Americans, right next to religion and political identity.

However, we as a nation did not foresee the numerous problems associated with industrialization. We did not foresee air and water pollution. We did not foresee the vast depletion of ecosystems around the planet. We did not see the continuous use and waste of non-renewable resources, particularly oil.

As a result, we have destroyed our environment. This isn't about climate change-- that is an environmental problem we face, yes, but there are more problems at hand. Our increased waste, mostly as a result of inefficient resources, has caused irreversible damage to our ecosystems. Plant and animal species are going extinct at a rate of 3,000 per year, and the it is estimated that roughly half the species we have today will be gone within the next century. Water pollution plagues our cities, as does air pollution. We have a public health crisis, as well as an ecological crisis, which needs to be addressed.

Well, fear not, for the next industrial revolution is upon us: Eco-effective manufacturing.

What is eco-effectiveness? This is a response to the idea of eco-efficiency, which says that we should continue to use natural resources as long as we increase the efficiency of those products. That, my friends, is a foolish idea at best. Eco-efficiency tells us that we should be less bad towards the environment. We shouldn't be less bad; we shouldn't engage in bad environmental practices at all.

So how do we do this? How do we engage in eco-effective design and manufacturing practices?

It's simple: We design products which run along a closed-loop system of design-- that is, they are produced, used, and re-used. No, this doesn't follow the same recycling patterns we follow today, where recycled paper becomes cardboard and that cardboard doesn't become anything else. We're talking about designing products which can be disassembled and either 1) sent back to the environment as biodegradable material, or 2) transformed into other products.

What does this do? This eliminates waste. When consumers are done with the products they own, they can return them to the manufacturer for a financial incentive. Then those products are either refurnished and put back on the marketplace, or disassembled and used for other purposes.

Sounds crazy, right? In fact, it sounds downright silly. Why would corporations want to reuse these products? Because-- it eliminates a corporations' need to extract additional resources from the earth, which cuts production costs significantly.

This, my friends, is the next industrial revolution: Eco-effective design and manufacturing. This concept, as promoted in the book Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, has already been implemented by small businesses and major corporations around the world.

I urge you to go to this website (http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm) and learn about this new design strategy. I also urge you purchase the book Cradle to Cradle for a truly enhancing literary and political experience.

Feel free to ask questions about Cradle-to-Cradle/ eco-effective design. While I am not a true expert on the topic, I know enough to answer basic questions.

Interesting stuff, jman. After a series of fictional novels, I've been looking to go back into non-fiction. I think you just gave me my book. :up:

[bunk]

Very interesing... I'll have to check this out when I have a moment.

Also, since we're about to possibly make a down payment on the auto industry, and will presumably own their asses; why can't we just tell them to built something else and exactly how we want them to do it? Hasn't that been done in the past, like say in WWII? This seems like a good moment in time to start implementing these things. We need to get back into manufacturing, and be on the cutting edge.

[bunk]

double

[IncrediNate]

Also, since we're about to possibly make a down payment on the auto industry, and will presumably own their asses; why can't we just tell them to built something else and exactly how we want them to do it? Hasn't that been done in the past, like say in WWII? This seems like a good moment in time to start implementing these things. We need to get back into manufacturing, and be on the cutting edge.

i say we just mention that to Obama so we can take him up on his word about creating a couple million jobs

[Matt]

I still am not entirely sold that the green collar movement will produce the promised results. Time will tell though.

[Timstuff]

The focus of the company where my dad works is fuel cells, which are going to be the backbone of pretty much any green power plan that comes up in the future. :D

[The Senator]

I still am not entirely sold that the green collar movement will produce the promised results. Time will tell though.

This is entirely separate from the green collar movement.

[IncrediNate]

won't green collar kinda be important with this idea of yours though?

[The Senator]

won't green collar kinda be important with this idea of yours though?

This is about changing manufacturing. It is all about changing the way we design products to eliminate waste and enhance the environment. The green collar economy, meanwhile, is all about building a clean energy infrastructure. These are two completely different movements.

[IncrediNate]

i'll take your word on it. i just believe that you can't have one without the other thus interlocking to each other. i'm just trying to say why i typed what i did...

[The Senator]

i'll take your word on it. i just believe that you can't have one without the other thus interlocking to each other. i'm just trying to say why i typed what i did...

You can because neither movement is interlocked. As I said, the green collar economy is about creating an expansive clean energy infrastructure, which focuses on building solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power plants. It also focuses on reducing carbon emissions from pre-existing carbon sources, and increasing the efficiency of our energy resources.

Eco effectiveness is not at all related to the green collar economy. Eco-effective design is not the same as eco-efficient design; in fact, it completely refutes the idea of eco-efficiency. McDonough and Braungart claim that eco-efficiency asks people to be "less bad" about the environmental impact they have-- that is, consume less, drive less, emit less, etc. They argue that even though we are being efficient, we are still extracting resources and creating excess waste.

This is about designing products which eliminates the concepts of resource extraction and waste altogether. It isn't about efficiency; it is about creating truly recyclable products which can be used and re-used over and over again in a closed-loop system of manufacturing.

This revolution is not dependent upon the green collar economy because it doesn't focus on energy efficiency or rely on an energy infrastructure which doesn't exist to be accomplished.

[Marx]

PRESIDENT OBAMA CALLS FOR CLEANER ENERGY
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/02/obama-calls-for-clean-energy-as-boehner-pledges-to-keep-the-cuts-coming/

[Paradoxium]

Paradoxium calls for free money to wipe ass with

Just sayin' :woot:

[Marx]

We seriously need to get into other forms of energy.

[Paradoxium]

Well it looks like we are going to blow our wads on nat gas if projections are correct. It is also a finite source of energy though

[8wid]

T. Boone Pickens: Let's transform energy -- with natural gas (http://www.ted.com/talks/t_boone_pickens_let_s_transform_energy_with_natura l_gas.html)

[Paradoxium]

Bill Gates even likes it (http://www.itheo.org/bill-gates-invests-thorium-capable-reactor-venture). I talked about it. Now Norway is testing it out (http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Norway-Begin-Testing-Thorium-in-Nuclear-Reactors.html).

Thorium and liquid carbon for energy independence.

[Alex_Spider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVbasNBlm7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVbasNBlm7E