PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Energy Independence?


Calcountry
03-25-2009, 12:49 PM
It was briefly discussed by The President last night, as it has been discussed ad nauseum by almost every President since Nixon. Just what the heck does this mean? Seriously, this notion, that we should somehow wall ourselves off from a global economy, which consists of countries specializing in areas of comparative advantage, and trading their surplus to other countries with a comparative disadvantage in a particular commodity(such as oil), is antithetical to basic tenets of free trade.

Please explain, how subsidizing a fuel, which cannot make it in the free market, will make us energy independent?

Not to choke off, your ideas, I welcome all discussion on securing the blessing of liberty, which, to a large extent, flow from an abundance of readily available, and cheap, energy.

So what is this "energy independence" that the Great and powerful, wizard of O spoke of as one of his key 3 elements to a successful budget that he won't veto?

oldandslow
03-25-2009, 02:06 PM
Because being dependent on Saudi Arabia is such a good idea. :doh!:

petegz28
03-25-2009, 03:03 PM
It was briefly discussed by The President last night, as it has been discussed ad nauseum by almost every President since Nixon. Just what the heck does this mean? Seriously, this notion, that we should somehow wall ourselves off from a global economy, which consists of countries specializing in areas of comparative advantage, and trading their surplus to other countries with a comparative disadvantage in a particular commodity(such as oil), is antithetical to basic tenets of free trade.

Please explain, how subsidizing a fuel, which cannot make it in the free market, will make us energy independent?

Not to choke off, your ideas, I welcome all discussion on securing the blessing of liberty, which, to a large extent, flow from an abundance of readily available, and cheap, energy.

So what is this "energy independence" that the Great and powerful, wizard of O spoke of as one of his key 3 elements to a successful budget that he won't veto?


Independent or not, we need to get off the oil tip. It isn't like it is a neverending resource. We are so behind technologically because of the profits made off of cheap oil. Solar and wind power are being under untilized for where we are in history. Oil got us through the 20th century. It is time to move onto the next thing. And last I checked, no one has a monopoly on the wind, outside of the midwest that is. :)

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:04 PM
I'm not entirely sure what it means, but I'm pretty sure it means we do not drill for our own oil.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:21 PM
Because being dependent on Saudi Arabia is such a good idea. :doh!:You raise an valid, and interesting point. What exactly do you propose to lessen the impact of Soudi Arabia on our energy needs?

Are you prepared to come to the table with some discussion, or do all you have is a smart ass quip?

This is a serious issue, one that affects every facet of our modern industrial lives.

mikey23545
03-25-2009, 03:28 PM
It's nothing but campaign rhetoric.

Until a real economic and technical competitor to oil arises (unlike the gay liberal fantasies about "wind" and "solar"), that's all it ever will be.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:29 PM
Independent or not, we need to get off the oil tip. It isn't like it is a neverending resource. We are so behind technologically because of the profits made off of cheap oil. Solar and wind power are being under untilized for where we are in history. Oil got us through the 20th century. It is time to move onto the next thing. And last I checked, no one has a monopoly on the wind, outside of the midwest that is. :)Wind certainly can supplement our overall energy use, but it will never be able to supply more than 2-5% of our electrical needs. Furthermore, wind is intermittent, and therefore unreliable as a baseload source for meggawatts that cities need to count on as a ready supply of electricity for hospitals and other vital services.

Solar power is also a great way to supplement the energy needs. It isn't cost effective at present, but should be encouraged. If enough solar cells were being produced on mass scale, I am sure that economies of scale would drive down the overall unit costs of making these cost prohibitive units affordable enough for the average homeowner to install them. The best thing about this is that the land for these rooftop type units, is that the land is already available.

Even this, will not be enough to overcome our energy needs however.

Fish
03-25-2009, 03:30 PM
We need to overcome the socially ingrained fear of nuclear power.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm not entirely sure what it means, but I'm pretty sure it means we do not drill for our own oil.We absolutely need to encourage the aggressive development of natural gas, oil, and coal.

In fact ,this is about the only logical way to be "independent" of foreing oil.

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:35 PM
We absolutely need to encourage the aggressive development of natural gas, oil, and coal.

In fact ,this is about the only logical way to be "independent" of foreing oil.

Don't be spouting this garbage over here, Obama's minions will be here soon to cut your balls off or something.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:37 PM
We need to overcome the socially ingrained fear of nuclear power.Besides being cheap, it is also carbon clean.


If Obama would have pushed for Nuclear power, he could have put a ton of contractors back to work for years, AND, supplied the country with gigawatts of cheap, clean electrical power.

Just how are we going to charge all of those electric cars anyway?

Did you know, that France gets 74% of its electrical power from nuclear? This is one area we should definitely be more French.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:39 PM
Don't be spouting this garbage over here, Obama's minions will be here soon to cut your balls off or something.lol, I hear you, but we definitely have to get beyond the republican v democrat bullshit to solve our energy problems.

We consume 21 million barrels of crude per day, or there abouts. We use a lot of natural gas to heat our homes. We use a lot of coal to generate electricity, in fact, over half our electricity comes from coal.

Do all of you really want to be twittering with the output of only wind and solar?

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 03:40 PM
We need to overcome the socially ingrained fear of nuclear power.
Yes, yes and yes! If gov't cleared the red tape and the enviro-wackos got out of the way, in ten years you could massively reduce coal-fired electrical plants.

***SPRAYER
03-25-2009, 03:41 PM
Have you ever seen the movie The Killing Fields?

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:42 PM
We absolutely need to encourage the aggressive development of natural gas, oil, and coal.

In fact ,this is about the only logical way to be "independent" of foreing oil.

We don't have enough oil to be independent of foreign unless we quit using a lot of oil.

The US has about 20 Billion barrels of proven reserves and we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. That means we have anywhere from 2-4 years worth of oil that we could produce.

Natural Gas is good energy source but again it's a finite resource so we would be back in the same boat.

Coal is a vile substance that shouldn't be used. Clean coal doesn't exist.

KC Dan
03-25-2009, 03:48 PM
We don't have enough oil to be independent of foreign unless we quit using a lot of oil.

The US has about 20 Billion barrels of proven reserves and we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. That means we have anywhere from 2-4 years worth of oil that we could produce.

Natural Gas is good energy source but again it's a finite resource so we would be back in the same boat.

Coal is a vile substance that shouldn't be used. Clean coal doesn't exist.
What about Nuclear - native?

KC native
03-25-2009, 03:55 PM
What about Nuclear - native?

I'm not completely against it. I just don't think it's wise. The possibility of catastrophe and what to do with the waste are the only reasons I'm not in favor of it. It's not a viable long term solution IMO. If we could figure out a way to safely dispose of the waste or recycle it in a safe fashion then it becomes a lot more attractive. Also, IIRC as people adopt nuclear we will see supply issues with the base fuel because naturally radioactive materials aren't very plentiful (I could be wrong on this but I vaguely remember reading something about the amount of plutonium and uranium globally not being very much)

SBK
03-25-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm not completely against it. I just don't think it's wise. The possibility of catastrophe and what to do with the waste are the only reasons I'm not in favor of it. It's not a viable long term solution IMO. If we could figure out a way to safely dispose of the waste or recycle it in a safe fashion then it becomes a lot more attractive. Also, IIRC as people adopt nuclear we will see supply issues with the base fuel because naturally radioactive materials aren't very plentiful (I could be wrong on this but I vaguely remember reading something about the amount of plutonium and uranium globally not being very much)

So you're against oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power?

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
I'm not entirely sure what it means, but I'm pretty sure it means we do not drill for our own oil.

I would rather buy oil from other countries and bleed them dry instead of taking our own. Save it for the future.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
We don't have enough oil to be independent of foreign unless we quit using a lot of oil.

The US has about 20 Billion barrels of proven reserves and we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day. That means we have anywhere from 2-4 years worth of oil that we could produce.

Natural Gas is good energy source but again it's a finite resource so we would be back in the same boat.

Coal is a vile substance that shouldn't be used. Clean coal doesn't exist.Gas is incredibly abundant at the present time, and, it can be liquefied. Furthermore, it burns cleaner than oil and thus gives off less carbon.

I disagree with your premise about our lack of oil supply. If we vigorously and fully developed ANWR as well as the eastern gulf of Mexico, and the California coasts, we could virtually triple our proven reserves of oil. Of course, in an interdependent world, we would still continue to buy oil wherever it is produced the cheapest, but, would be able to cushion and lessen the influence that OPEC has over the global price of oil.

Petrobras is developing off shore wells in Brazil as well. There are vast untapped sources of oil still available, and if you can't get me some energy from that can be exploited cheaper, it is going to be at least 50 years before any of these technologies will be economically viable.

Garcia Bronco
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
I'm not completely against it. I just don't think it's wise. The possibility of catastrophe and what to do with the waste are the only reasons I'm not in favor of it. It's not a viable long term solution IMO. If we could figure out a way to safely dispose of the waste or recycle it in a safe fashion then it becomes a lot more attractive. Also, IIRC as people adopt nuclear we will see supply issues with the base fuel because naturally radioactive materials aren't very plentiful (I could be wrong on this but I vaguely remember reading something about the amount of plutonium and uranium globally not being very much)

You would be correct.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm not completely against it. I just don't think it's wise. The possibility of catastrophe and what to do with the waste are the only reasons I'm not in favor of it. It's not a viable long term solution IMO. If we could figure out a way to safely dispose of the waste or recycle it in a safe fashion then it becomes a lot more attractive. Also, IIRC as people adopt nuclear we will see supply issues with the base fuel because naturally radioactive materials aren't very plentiful (I could be wrong on this but I vaguely remember reading something about the amount of plutonium and uranium globally not being very much)If it came down to coal or Nuke, which would you chose?

Nuclear management of waste material has come a long way since Jane Fonda decided that fugging up the Viet Nam vets wasn't enough for her resume.

It won't happen as long as Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader. They already have an adequate facility in Nevada for storing and containing the materiel. Maybe a technological breakthrouh will be able to take advantage of the waste some time in the future?

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 04:08 PM
So you're against oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power?Chiefs Planet will be doomed.

Rigodan
03-25-2009, 04:10 PM
Put it on a spaceship pointed toward the sun.

KC native
03-25-2009, 04:17 PM
Gas is incredibly abundant at the present time, and, it can be liquefied. Furthermore, it burns cleaner than oil and thus gives off less carbon.

I disagree with your premise about our lack of oil supply. If we vigorously and fully developed ANWR as well as the eastern gulf of Mexico, and the California coasts, we could virtually triple our proven reserves of oil. Of course, in an interdependent world, we would still continue to buy oil wherever it is produced the cheapest, but, would be able to cushion and lessen the influence that OPEC has over the global price of oil.

Petrobras is developing off shore wells in Brazil as well. There are vast untapped sources of oil still available, and if you can't get me some energy from that can be exploited cheaper, it is going to be at least 50 years before any of these technologies will be economically viable.

ANWR, according to the USGS, has 16 billion barrels at tops. At our current usuage rate that's 2 years worth of oil. So, if you go with their peak estimate the US has about 4-6 years worth of oil. No where even close to making us energy independent. Other discoveries may triple our reserves but that still puts us a long way from being independent of foreign oil. The only way the US can impact the price of oil is to use less of it.

I don't think the world will run out of oil anytime soon (within 50 years) but the days of cheap oil are over. Once the global economy recovers you will see another spike in price unless consumption habits are changed. That being said, the US with it's current oil consumption can never be independent of foreign oil.

KC native
03-25-2009, 04:18 PM
If it came down to coal or Nuke, which would you chose?

Nuclear management of waste material has come a long way since Jane Fonda decided that fugging up the Viet Nam vets wasn't enough for her resume.

It won't happen as long as Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader. They already have an adequate facility in Nevada for storing and containing the materiel. Maybe a technological breakthrouh will be able to take advantage of the waste some time in the future?

Nuclear

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 05:12 PM
ANWR, according to the USGS, has 16 billion barrels at tops. At our current usuage rate that's 2 years worth of oil. So, if you go with their peak estimate the US has about 4-6 years worth of oil. No where even close to making us energy independent. Other discoveries may triple our reserves but that still puts us a long way from being independent of foreign oil. The only way the US can impact the price of oil is to use less of it.

I don't think the world will run out of oil anytime soon (within 50 years) but the days of cheap oil are over. Once the global economy recovers you will see another spike in price unless consumption habits are changed. That being said, the US with it's current oil consumption can never be independent of foreign oil.Why does the fact that drilling ANWR will not make us energy independent preclude us from drilling it?

BTW, there is no way, that we could produce enough oil out of there, on a barrels per day basis, to ever come close to satisfying the 21 million barrels per day, that the United States economy currently demands, so the notion, that we would exhaust it in 2 years is a specious argument at best. It would be 2 million barrels per day on top of a global marketplace that is energy interdependent. This would help us to control the price for oil, as well as improve our balance of trade situation vis a vis the amount of crude that we import.

2/21= almost 10% of our current oil imports. Does that make us more or less dependent on foreign oil?

Right now, I would be satisfied with less dependent, but completely independent is a pipe dream, just like all the rest of Obama's fantasies.

Calcountry
03-25-2009, 05:16 PM
NuclearIf you are really serious about reducing carbon emissions, without returning our economy to whale oil for lighting, then it is the only economically viable alternative at the present time. The focus should be on managing it safely and effectively, not fear mongering.

petegz28
03-25-2009, 05:33 PM
Wind certainly can supplement our overall energy use, but it will never be able to supply more than 2-5% of our electrical needs. Furthermore, wind is intermittent, and therefore unreliable as a baseload source for meggawatts that cities need to count on as a ready supply of electricity for hospitals and other vital services.

Solar power is also a great way to supplement the energy needs. It isn't cost effective at present, but should be encouraged. If enough solar cells were being produced on mass scale, I am sure that economies of scale would drive down the overall unit costs of making these cost prohibitive units affordable enough for the average homeowner to install them. The best thing about this is that the land for these rooftop type units, is that the land is already available.

Even this, will not be enough to overcome our energy needs however.

That is based on the technology we have at the moment. I am sure the combustion engine when first developed, was hardly as efficient and powerful as they are today.

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 06:03 PM
The notion of energy independence can be stated as a real goal or it can be a means to an end that has nothing to do with energy independence.

In the first case of true energy independence you would accomplish it through development of energy that does not require imported fuels...ie, nuclear, solar, coal, hydro etc in conjunction with development of resources we have that have yet to be developed such as drilling here for oil to displace oil that we currently import, and development of new technologies using known resources we have such as natural gas. Then layer on conservation measures such as incentives to insulate, incentives to replace inefficient energy consumers like water heaters, refrigeration etc, and incentives to develop higher efficiency technology. Layer on less dependence on high fuel consuming activity such as reduce use of highway bound trucks in favor of a much more efficient ( in fuel terms) rail. Then layer additional consumption reductions with highway speed restrictions.

The energy independence that the current administration is touting has little to do with energy independence. Its a cloak or a veil under wich they have hidden a plethora of "stuff" that will do zero in the next ten years to reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil resources. First it does not have any element to increase oil production domestically. Thus we remain as dependent as ever unless there is some miracle they intend to whip out to replace gasoline, heating oil, and diesel. Second there is no element to increase real effective conservation other than to tell car companies to make higher mileage cars...tell them to do it but not how and ask them to do this while they are broke...not a wise move. That has no impact on the current inventory of cars on the road and will not impact real fuel consumption for years to come untill newer efficient cars replace the old inventory...a slow slow process. There also has been little or no discussion of conservation practices that can have rapid impact.And its political suicide to mandate 55mph speed limits even knowing the dramatic savings that comes from driving slower.

They have billions of dollars devoted to development of "new technology" like hydrogen cars. If it were possible and if its economically feasable and if people adopt it, you still have the millions of gas and diesel burners on the road and we have no delivery system to deliver fuels to these new cars. We would be far better off to develop Natural gas fueled cars as the technology is already in place and would be here light years before some hydrogen idea will. They want to develop solar...but we already have people in places like the desert southwest setting aside huge tracts as wilderness so that no solar farms go there. And we have no grid capable of delivering solar or wind generated electricity if it were economically feasable to begin with. Its all part of this spend spend spend mentality that clearly has no real goal of reducing dependence on middle eastern oil.

That said, all the goals the administration has are not bad and not without merit. But if we really had a goal of energy independence we would do the explore and develop the known oil reserves we have while at the same time offering incentives to industry and new start ups to develop the new technologies like natural gas and hydrogen. In that case they would be forced to pass the test of economic sustainability. If the idea wont sell and no one can afford it then its a bogus idea. As it is we will have government pouring billions down ratholes developing ideas that wont sell when its done. Thats the difference between private enterprise and government.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 06:11 PM
Wind certainly can supplement our overall energy use, but it will never be able to supply more than 2-5% of our electrical needs.

Unless you break your own. That my friend is the answer to your question about energy independence. :D

Baby Lee
03-25-2009, 06:27 PM
This is truly an interesting issue that puts everyone's political leaning in a twist, whether they realize it or not.
Perhaps more than anything, cheap energy [electric and fuel] has been the motivating power behind equality in our society. Think of our motoring society in these terms, there were no cars, and you were tasked with spec-ing a means to transport 4000 pounds of metal a mile, well we've developed a means to accomplish it in comfort for about 10 cents.
Changing our energy consumption patterns, as it exists is the ultimate regressive measure. Rich people and poor people's cars, light bulbs, air conditioners, and computers consume energy at roughly the same rate. Greening up your home sounds great until you realize that the funds you sink into geothermal or solar panels or even CFLs is the functional equivalent of pre-paying all you'll save in reduced consumption for 5-10 years in advance [and that's assuming that energy rates remain stable].
If energy rates skyrocket, it's not unimagineable to see further class separation, where the rich get to shop in the well lit, air-conditioned comfort we all take for granted, while the working class shop in 'green zones' without the amenities that energy previously provided.

RINGLEADER
03-25-2009, 06:36 PM
This is truly an interesting issue that puts everyone's political leaning in a twist, whether they realize it or not.
Perhaps more than anything, cheap energy [electric and fuel] has been the motivating power behind equality in our society. Think of our motoring society in these terms, there were no cars, and you were tasked with spec-ing a means to transport 4000 pounds of metal a mile, well we've developed a means to accomplish it in comfort for about 10 cents.
Changing our energy consumption patterns, as it exists is the ultimate regressive measure. Rich people and poor people's cars, light bulbs, air conditioners, and computers consume energy at roughly the same rate. Greening up your home sounds great until you realize that the funds you sink into geothermal or solar panels or even CFLs is the functional equivalent of pre-paying all you'll save in reduced consumption for 5-10 years in advance [and that's assuming that energy rates remain stable].
If energy rates skyrocket, it's not unimagineable to see further class separation, where the rich get to shop in the well lit, air-conditioned comfort we all take for granted, while the working class shop in 'green zones' without the amenities that energy previously provided.

These are good points. If the technology equaled the value of output then the free markets would have already adopted them. Incentivizing users to adopt renewable energies is great until you see the price tag.

That's why I oppose cap-and-trade the way it is presently being proposed specifically but can support the idea in general. There are great technologies being developed -- I just trust the free market to decide which should succeed and which should fail with better accuracy and less waste than the government.

There are things the federal government can do that incentivize the use of renewable energy that don't require a tax on all energy (and all Americans) to make them viable.

RINGLEADER
03-25-2009, 06:40 PM
Independent or not, we need to get off the oil tip. It isn't like it is a neverending resource. We are so behind technologically because of the profits made off of cheap oil. Solar and wind power are being under untilized for where we are in history. Oil got us through the 20th century. It is time to move onto the next thing. And last I checked, no one has a monopoly on the wind, outside of the midwest that is. :)

Collecting, transferring, and distributing energy gathered through solar and wind is still amazingly inefficient. The best devices don't produce nearly the amount of energy required to make them a cost-effective replacement but they can contribute to the overall energy supply as long as the owner is the consumer of the energy.

Simplex3
03-25-2009, 06:52 PM
Coal is a vile substance that shouldn't be used. Clean coal doesn't exist.

:deevee: I'll assume you shut down your computer after posting this because of the sheer self-loathing.

BucEyedPea
03-25-2009, 06:54 PM
:deevee: I'll assume you shut down your computer after posting this because of the sheer self-loathing.

ROFL Actually hydrogen technology makes it cleaner. It can to any substrate.

HonestChieffan
03-25-2009, 06:56 PM
Coal is the antichrist?

Baby Lee
03-25-2009, 06:57 PM
:deevee: I'll assume you shut down your computer after posting this because of the sheer self-loathing.

Listen dumbass, he doesn't power his computer on coal, he powers it from a plug in the effing wall!!!!!!

Hydrae
03-25-2009, 07:10 PM
Helium-3

2bikemike
03-25-2009, 11:00 PM
What we need to do is a full basket of all types of Power.
Nuclear is an expensive up front cost which is what makes it rather expensive. It is much safer than people realize and has gotten a bum rap. We need more Nuke Power in our portfolio.

Solar and Wind are good sources of "green power" However it takes about 5 acres of land for 1 Megawatt of solar. So you need extremely large Foot prints for solar. IIRC the largest wind turbine generator in production is I think 4 Megawatts. So you need a lot of Wind Turbines to to make a large impact. The other problem with wind and solar is the reliability for reserves. If the wind ain't blowing and the suns not shining you need to have a reliable source of power for reserve. Most power plants don't startup quickly. Some Peakers can start in about 10 minutes but any steam plant will take quite a bit more time. But we should have some in our portfolio.

Fossil fueled plants come in a few varieties. Coal being extremely cheap and extremely plentiful. But is the dirtiest at this time. Great strides are being made to clean it up. It will happen sooner than most of you on here realize.
Combined Cycle Plants are very efficient and are really quite clean. Most run on Natural gas. Which at this time is fairly plentiful. But that won't always be the case.

I think the amount of energy being produced on oil is quite small. Coal is king and then probably natural gas. The vast majority of our energy is generated from fuel from North America.

And just for a little FYI the state of Calif had a peak demand today of 28,718 Megawatts of power. If anyone thinks we can do this 100% with renewable sources of fuel are truly dillusional.

Calcountry
03-26-2009, 01:37 PM
Collecting, transferring, and distributing energy gathered through solar and wind is still amazingly inefficient. The best devices don't produce nearly the amount of energy required to make them a cost-effective replacement but they can contribute to the overall energy supply as long as the owner is the consumer of the energy.The thing that most needs to be incentivized is a quantum leap in battery technology. This would allow wind and solar to be developed fully because it would solve the intermittancy problem that is associated with them. Nevertheless, this wouldn't completely supplant the need for abundant and cheap liquid fuels to power our cars.

Calcountry
03-26-2009, 01:44 PM
What we need to do is a full basket of all types of Power.
Nuclear is an expensive up front cost which is what makes it rather expensive. It is much safer than people realize and has gotten a bum rap. We need more Nuke Power in our portfolio.

Solar and Wind are good sources of "green power" However it takes about 5 acres of land for 1 Megawatt of solar. So you need extremely large Foot prints for solar. IIRC the largest wind turbine generator in production is I think 4 Megawatts. So you need a lot of Wind Turbines to to make a large impact. The other problem with wind and solar is the reliability for reserves. If the wind ain't blowing and the suns not shining you need to have a reliable source of power for reserve. Most power plants don't startup quickly. Some Peakers can start in about 10 minutes but any steam plant will take quite a bit more time. But we should have some in our portfolio.

Fossil fueled plants come in a few varieties. Coal being extremely cheap and extremely plentiful. But is the dirtiest at this time. Great strides are being made to clean it up. It will happen sooner than most of you on here realize.
Combined Cycle Plants are very efficient and are really quite clean. Most run on Natural gas. Which at this time is fairly plentiful. But that won't always be the case.

I think the amount of energy being produced on oil is quite small. Coal is king and then probably natural gas. The vast majority of our energy is generated from fuel from North America.

And just for a little FYI the state of Calif had a peak demand today of 28,718 Megawatts of power. If anyone thinks we can do this 100% with renewable sources of fuel are truly dillusional.Excellent! We absolutely have to come out of the Obama fantasy, and cliches of "green, wind, solar", and actually look at the problem from realistic stand point.

As I said before, the battery technology is probably the one area where a breakthrough could really make a difference.

Baby Lee
03-27-2009, 04:36 PM
Case in point, the breakthrough in Fisher-Tropsch that cuts energy consumption in the processing, of a natural resource we own Boardwalk AND Park Place on, into auto fuel, is viewed as a disastrous development.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

patteeu
03-27-2009, 04:56 PM
Besides being cheap, it is also carbon clean.


If Obama would have pushed for Nuclear power, he could have put a ton of contractors back to work for years, AND, supplied the country with gigawatts of cheap, clean electrical power.

Just how are we going to charge all of those electric cars anyway?

Did you know, that France gets 74% of its electrical power from nuclear? This is one area we should definitely be more French.

We were assured by local Obama advocates that candidate Obama had many favorable things to say about nuclear energy and that any fears that he would fall in line with the liberal anti-nuclear line were unfounded. Now we find that POTUS Obama has little to nothing to say on the subject and no plans to expand US nuclear capacity. Change!

Calcountry
03-27-2009, 05:13 PM
Case in point, the breakthrough in Fisher-Tropsch that cuts energy consumption in the processing, of a natural resource we own Boardwalk AND Park Place on, into auto fuel, is viewed as a disastrous development.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

on the North American continent, and off the continental shelves we have as much oil as anywhere, plus natural gas and coal.

We are just too scared to do anything with it. Kind of like Gochiefs being to scared to talk to the girl so he just drove around the block until the urge went away.

MagicHef
03-27-2009, 05:16 PM
Case in point, the breakthrough in Fisher-Tropsch that cuts energy consumption in the processing, of a natural resource we own Boardwalk AND Park Place on, into auto fuel, is viewed as a disastrous development.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/03/coaltoliquids.html

Hooray!

"What they're proposing is simply not allowable if we want to avoid the perils of unconstrained anthropogenic climate change," Karecha said.