Members mytee2.0 Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Mike51 lol. Thats funny coming from bong-boy. This is my first politcal post in a long time. Buzz off. wow, did I hit a nerve? its not a hard question to answer. What are you doing to change things? Other then complaining... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 a rolleyes huh. oh yeah? well heres two of them right back at you on the triple time. rolleyes -> :rolleyes: I guess it is a tough question to answer. Very sad, not doing anything productive for your beliefs and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 well seeing as I received 7-8 pm' from folks who called in today I would say that is pretty cool. I do things all the time to help conservation efforts, including donating money and time to contact congressmen over many issues. Also raising awareness of USFS and NP comment periods. Like I said...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Mike51 ..Buzz off. Originally posted by Mike51 Like I said, buzz off. Biff gets mighty uppity when he's asked questions! Whats next, asking me to "make like a tree and get outta here"?hilarious drama... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted March 17, 2005 Author Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Im really not in the mood for your 18 year old- bong -mentality today, Mytigee. Maybe some other time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 awwwwwwwww boo. ... and its "24.70 year old- bong -mentality", commander bunbun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mintbeetle Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 i love the intentional misspelling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members radiospace Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 The ANWAR drilling is not just bad for the environment, it's bad energy policy. The environmental sensitivity of the area should serve like the glass case around a fire ax and water hose in an old public building: you'll use it when the severity of the situation makes the shattered glass necessary to reach the tool a trivial matter. That Alaskan oil ought to serve as a strategic supply for this nation in case of emergency, whether it is an economic embargo from OPEC, a war, or some other extreme situation that might disrupt the nation's oil supply. It's obvious that Bush and co. are not even remotely concerned with the "national interest" in this matter. What they are concerned with is that their buddies in the oil industry are able to exploit and sell that oil at profit *before* the inevitable switch to alternative fuels drastically reduces demand for crude oil (and thus lowers its selling price). Any other explanation they give is simply propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by radiospace It's obvious that Bush and co. are not even remotely concerned with the "national interest" in this matter. What they are concerned with is that their buddies in the oil industry are able to exploit and sell that oil at profit *before* the inevitable switch to alternative fuels drastically reduces demand for crude oil (and thus lowers its selling price). Any other explanation they give is simply propaganda. Propaganda? Looks like you're the victim of propaganda. If we had another world war we could be cut off from most oil imports rather quickly. Better to get the ball rolling now and help to cover our backsides. It's not all about money, but for you it's all about politics. KeysBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members _brainbug Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by KeysBear Propaganda? Looks like you're the victim of propaganda. If we had another world war we could be cut off from most oil imports rather quickly. Better to get the ball rolling now and help to cover our backsides. It's not all about money, but for you it's all about politics. KeysBear Now that sounds good. America is preparing for World War III. I must say, I'm pleased to hear this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Nobody's planning WWIII. The Arctic drilling is all about national security. It's like locking your doors and having an alarm system even though you live in a safe neighborhood. You never know, and face it - the rest of the world hates America even more than the people here who want to see the country as weak as possible. BTW, you jumped way beyond the comments of my post. Try to come up with a real argument? KeysBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 But why would we want the oil for ourselves? Think about it, when a nation goes through it's industrial revolution it first goes through wood and water, coal, then oil, then whatever (nuclear in our case). We're coming out of ours and I'd say among the whole world, we could snap out of oil mode the easiest. We have the education background, the industrial resources, and the high tech industries to get alternative fuels going maybe not efficiently, but at least going. On the other hand, take our rising rival China. They're justy now coming off coal and onto oil. They don't have the means to convert to hydrogen or electric powered vehicles in say six months like most of the western world does. I say the US is scrambling to secure oil interests at home and abroad not for ourselves, but so we have leverage against the underdeveloped nations like China. If we intended to merely squander all the oil we could find ourselves, wouldn't we be doing things to curb these unexplained price hikes? To tell you all the truth I hope we don't use the resources for ourselves. Oil will become impractical very soon, we might as well switch now to alternative fuels and develop them, while holding the oil as leverage against those who can't convert, like China. China scares the {censored} out of me, any way we can influence China without using force I think is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scubyfan Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by radiospace That Alaskan oil ought to serve as a strategic supply for this nation in case of emergency, whether it is an economic embargo from OPEC, a war, or some other extreme situation that might disrupt the nation's oil supply. We already have an oil reserve - the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which contains rougly 600 million barrels of crude. The U.S. consumes about 19 million barrels a day. However, it is highly unlikely that oil would simply stop, as the U.S. imports from many non-Middle Eastern sources. In fact, the M.E. makes up only about 15-20% of U.S. oil imports, while imports from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela amount to almost twice as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KeysBear Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 China finds new oil China could make all the new hybrid or alternative fuel cars they want. All we have to do is make a prototype for them to steal. KeysBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members scubyfan Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Fear My Potato But why would we want the oil for ourselves? Think about it, when a nation goes through it's industrial revolution it first goes through wood and water, coal, then oil, then whatever (nuclear in our case). We're coming out of ours and I'd say among the whole world, we could snap out of oil mode the easiest. We have the education background, the industrial resources, and the high tech industries to get alternative fuels going maybe not efficiently, but at least going. On the other hand, take our rising rival China. They're justy now coming off coal and onto oil. They don't have the means to convert to hydrogen or electric powered vehicles in say six months like most of the western world does. I say the US is scrambling to secure oil interests at home and abroad not for ourselves, but so we have leverage against the underdeveloped nations like China. If we intended to merely squander all the oil we could find ourselves, wouldn't we be doing things to curb these unexplained price hikes? To tell you all the truth I hope we don't use the resources for ourselves. Oil will become impractical very soon, we might as well switch now to alternative fuels and develop them, while holding the oil as leverage against those who can't convert, like China. China scares the {censored} out of me, any way we can influence China without using force I think is great. Wouldn't it be much easier to just nuke China? That way we'll eliminate the main cause for the rise of oil and steel prices. But seriously, everyone talks about hydrogen or alternative energies as if they're here today. They're not. They surely exist in experimental situations, but they are not very practical. Not only is the infrastructure of hydrogen delivery completely nonexistent, but hydrogen by itself has a very low energy density. Even when using expensive fuel cells made of platinum and exotic materials, the conversion of hydrogen to electricity is very, very inefficient. Don't forget that it also first has to be converted to hydrogen from some other source, whether through water (very inefficient) or natural gas or other polluting fuels. The electricity to do that conversion also has to come from someplace, especially in the case of on-site hydrogen fuel stations. This means that there will still be coal, nuclear, and other forms of pollution. Direct hydrogen combustion has its problems, as well. If there was a future in hydrogen power given current technology, oil companies would surely invest in it. They are not stupid: they realize all too well that a shift is over the horizon. However, the end-consumers - you and I - don't (generally) care about pollution when we buy our cars. What do we care about? Price. It is for that reason that no oil or other large company is doing serious work to bring such technology to the mass markets, simply because it is too expensive at this time and economically non-viable. Further research will make breakthroughs in this field - and many groups are doing just that - but at this time, no giant company is going to invest millions and billions into such a nascent field. Besides, even if we convert 100% of cars to run on hydrogen and emit nothing but water vapor, no one knows what sorts of effects will take place. It seems harmless enough, but what would happen to the Earth when millions of tons of water vapor are released into the atmosphere every single day? What impact will that have 25/50/100/200 years from now? No one is stopping to ask these questions, and that is a big mistake, in my opinion. In short, there is nothing that has upsides without downsides. Pick any source of energy and it will have downsides. Perhaps we don't want to see the downsides at this time because we want to get rid of oil, but they exist nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Boom Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by KeysBear China could make all the new hybrid or alternative fuel cars they want. All we have to do is make a prototype for them to steal. LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Boom Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by scubyfan In fact, the M.E. makes up only about 15-20% of U.S. oil imports, while imports from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela amount to almost twice as much. IIRC Canada holds 35% of the world's petroleum. That scares me. Perhaps Dubya's missle defense shield is not for defense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Hydrogen is far from nonviable and it definately does have a future...I think when the truth comes out about how close peak oil is, it'll almost be a fad in America...it'll be everyone's obsession to not be reliant on oil. Once that happens the mass shift will happen, it'll be profitable, and we'll launch towards alternative fuels with everything we've got. I'm not talking about hydrogen cars with current technology, building an actual production vehicle wouldn't take long with our expertise in car manufacturing...it's the research and development that'll take a couple years. But I think with so many big industries in the US with mass capital to invest we can get a few operational products going in time. Besides, even throwing hydrogen out of the picture, car engines will run on alcohol and an additive to keep it from burning too hot, I believe.And Scuby, I think it's the other way around in terms of investment potential. The only future potential is in hydrogen and alternatives...there is no more future in oil, which is why they're pulling their investments, no longer building oil supertankers, and which is also why many oil-producing countries are making strange deals. Get this Iran and Mexico have signed an MOU for mutual assistance in developing oil and gas projects. Ukraine and Georgia have agreed to reverse the flow of oil in a strategic pipeline from the Black Sea thus effectively reducing Russia's control over some Caspian basin exports, knowing full well a Ukrainian alliance with NATO would deprive the Russian Navy of access to its Black Sea ports. Three days after that decision, Russia approved the rush construction of three new oil terminals on the Gulf of Finland to supply Europe. There are downright strange things going on, and even if China has discovered new oil fields and such...on one side we have people saying there are more fields we haven't gotten into yet, but there are also equally reputable people saying it's all pointless and that even these "big" discoveries could meet the needs of just the US for only a few days. With all the weird deals and facts pointing to the fact that oil is now in permanent decline, I can't help but side with the guys who say it's pointless. I could be wrong though, the problem is no one person has time to read everything I'm addicted to this topic...it's too nice outside today and I've been sick for a while (hence me having time for all this again) so I'm going to go raise some hell. {censored}, it's Saint Patrick's Day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted March 17, 2005 Members Share Posted March 17, 2005 Originally posted by Boom IIRC Canada holds 35% of the world's petroleum. That scares me. Perhaps Dubya's missle defense shield is not for defense at all. After Canada recently refused to participate in the US Strategic Missile Shield, the US government accused Canada of relinquishing sovereignty over its airspace and prompted a statement from US Ambassador Paul Cellucci that the US would shoot down missiles over Canada whether Canada gave permission or not. - CP, Feb. 24, 2005. [Two years ago I clipped a story from the National Post stating that Canada should not be surprised when US troops occupied the country to protect the US. From Canada?!]That's a clip from a recent thing by author Michael C. Ruppert, who I've often found a bit extreme but now he's starting to write about oil and it's a good source of weird information like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoozer Posted March 18, 2005 Members Share Posted March 18, 2005 http://www.rubbermag.com/news/050315_04n.html There. It looks cool, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted March 18, 2005 Members Share Posted March 18, 2005 Originally posted by Yoozer http://www.rubbermag.com/news/050315_04n.htmlThere. It looks cool, too. cool - i want one. i wonder how much? it won't pass DOT inspections here without directionals tho. as far as oil goes tho - first things first: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Fear My Potato Posted March 18, 2005 Members Share Posted March 18, 2005 You're saying condom prices are going to skyrocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rasmus-DK Posted March 18, 2005 Members Share Posted March 18, 2005 Originally posted by wishfulsinful909 I don't know where you got that from. It is a LOT More complicated than that. From http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/nn/nn_rt/nn_rt_hy/article_1144_en.htmWhy isn't hydrogen in regular use? * The major drawback to using hydrogen is that it has a very low storage density. A storage tank would have to be 3000 times larger in order to store enough hydrogen gas at atmospheric pressure to drive a car the same distance as one which runs on gasoline. * Hydrogen is more expensive than other energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas. Why do we need research? * To reduce the cost of hydrogen production; * To solve hydrogen storage problems; * In the long term to integrate renewable energy sources (RES) into hydrogen fuel production. What actually IS relatively easy to do is change e.g. a diesel engine to run on e.g. canola oil (we have experimental diesel driven cars and buses here that smell distinctively like grillbars..) or a petrol engine to run on ethanol or other alcohols taken from e.g. tree fibres or sugar fibres (in Sweden, you can buy a Ford Focus capable of driving on a fuel which is 85% ethanol from Swedish tree fibres and AFAIK, they have used alcohol as an alternative form of petrol in Brazil since around 1970...) - So, indeed, it is possible to find much more environmentally friendly methods until we crack the hydrogen nut "for real"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Boom Posted March 18, 2005 Members Share Posted March 18, 2005 Originally posted by Rasmus-DK What actually IS relatively easy to do is change e.g. a diesel engine to run on e.g. canola oil (we have experimental diesel driven cars and buses here that smell distinctively like grillbars.. ) or a petrol engine to run on ethanol or other alcohols taken from e.g. tree fibres or sugar fibres (in Sweden, you can buy a Ford Focus capable of driving on a fuel which is 85% ethanol from Swedish tree fibres and AFAIK, they have used alcohol as an alternative form of petrol in Brazil since around 1970...) - So, indeed, it is possible to find much more environmentally friendly methods until we crack the hydrogen nut "for real"... But that is in Sweden and they are more advanced than America. Flame on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.