Home Non Cigar Related

Romney Wants More Drilling

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/23/romney-rolling-out-domestic-energy-plan/

So let us get ready for more pollution and even more toxic lands. Why the hell are politicians all about last century's fuel? Why would anyone want to keep on something that is in limited supply and so toxic? Why not push for NEW things that don't kill people? And we don't get that oil, it goes into the "supply" so it's not going to help us much, we just going to have more problems with our environment.
«13

Comments

  • wwesternwwestern Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭
    Ever been on a drilling rig phobic?
  • fla-gypsyfla-gypsy Posts: 3,024 ✭✭
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    wwestern:
    Ever been on a drilling rig phobic?
    nope, been to the gulf and saw all the freaking oil around though. also went up to Alaska and saw that mess.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Pray tell? What is this centuries' fuel? And please tell me you rode a bicycle to work today. I was thinking about the number of batteries that one would need to get a jumbo jet off the ground. Answer. There aren't enough. And exactly how is oil, a natural product, killing people? And you are wrong about supply. If we wanted we could keep our own oil. And us, not OPEC, can control the price. Why the paranoia over oil? Your fears are unfounded. Did you know that windmills kill birds?
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    phobicsquirrel:
    wwestern:
    Ever been on a drilling rig phobic?
    nope, been to the gulf and saw all the freaking oil around though. also went up to Alaska and saw that mess.
    I'm a Marine Biologist of 30 years, working in South Louisiana. I'm a court qualified expert in oysters. You don't want to argue with me as to the oil spill. I would tell you that the amount spilled was a lie. The amount of surface damage that they say it affected is a lie. And if you came down today, you would be hard pressed to find any oil or effects of it. We had more self-righteous mini-government agents and lawyers getting lost in our wetlands than there were instances of oil showing on the surface. Believe me when I say that nature has a way of dealing with its' own natural products. I can't speak for the government dispersants that they were dropping by the ton in the middle of the night. They never said what it was.
  • Roberto99Roberto99 Posts: 1,077
    beatnic:
    I'm a court qualified expert in oysters.
    So, we all want to know the answer to this...Are they really and aphrodisiac?
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Roberto99:
    beatnic:
    I'm a court qualified expert in oysters.
    So, we all want to know the answer to this...Are they really and aphrodisiac?
    LOL. They're loaded with zink. And your mini-me really likes zink. LOL
  • Roberto99Roberto99 Posts: 1,077
    beatnic:
    Roberto99:
    beatnic:
    I'm a court qualified expert in oysters.
    So, we all want to know the answer to this...Are they really and aphrodisiac?
    LOL. They're loaded with zink. And your mini-me really likes zink. LOL
    Wow, you are an expert on Oysters, no doubt! LOL
  • scarlinscarlin Posts: 1,592
    I'm all for alternative energy but there is one problem, there is no golden alternative. Nat Gas is just oil with less uses and pollution. Solar can't work at night or in very cloudy conditions and Solar power can not be stored at large scale. Geothermal is still in the early phases and can only work along the West Coast and the Yellowstone area. Wind doesn't work when it isn't windy. Hydroelectric works, but not all place have access to the necessary amount of water. Fission works fine and should be more readily available, except the waste needs to be dressed. Fusion is still under works on how to harness it. And I think it's called Biomass which is things like ethanol. The problem with biomass is the cost is high, inefficient, and takes time. Tbh Oil, Nat. Gas, and Coal are all the easiest and most efficient ways atm
  • catfishbluezzcatfishbluezz Posts: 7,001
    scarlin:
    I'm all for alternative energy but there is one problem, there is no golden alternative. Nat Gas is just oil with less uses and pollution. Solar can't work at night or in very cloudy conditions and Solar power can not be stored at large scale. Geothermal is still in the early phases and can only work along the West Coast and the Yellowstone area. Wind doesn't work when it isn't windy. Hydroelectric works, but not all place have access to the necessary amount of water. Fission works fine and should be more readily available, except the waste needs to be dressed. Fusion is still under works on how to harness it. And I think it's called Biomass which is things like ethanol. The problem with biomass is the cost is high, inefficient, and takes time. Tbh Oil, Nat. Gas, and Coal are all the easiest and most efficient ways atm
    Biofuel...algae... We could fuel the diesel needs of the us with very little effort and export with ease. Hell...there's enough oil in the US we don't need to import it. The problem is the politics, not the fuel. The fuel and technology are there.
  • catfishbluezzcatfishbluezz Posts: 7,001
    Nachos are good
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
    This is what I was talking about, demand has slowed : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-iea-oil-idUSBRE87909P20120810

    No one ever said to stop using oil over night. Even the DOD wants to cut oil by something like 50 percent by 2020 or there abouts. So your a biologist, that's nice. However Oil is not friendly to us or our waters/environment. I suggest if you think oil is so safe why don't you drink it? Why is it whenever oil is challenged people like you come out and defend it? It's insane. All of the products used by oil cause harm. There needs to be a huge shift away from Oil, both for an environmental stand point and national security. Drilling more even in our protected lands or our shores won't help anything, gas will be high and we as a nation will have more and more toxic lands and waters. Just look at what happened with the Valdez in Alaska, that is still going on and people have died and got sick from it. Life doesn't like OIL so you as a "biologist" should know that. I don't see sea life and birds bathing in Oil for the sake of it.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    scarlin:
    I'm all for alternative energy but there is one problem, there is no golden alternative. Nat Gas is just oil with less uses and pollution. Solar can't work at night or in very cloudy conditions and Solar power can not be stored at large scale. Geothermal is still in the early phases and can only work along the West Coast and the Yellowstone area. Wind doesn't work when it isn't windy. Hydroelectric works, but not all place have access to the necessary amount of water. Fission works fine and should be more readily available, except the waste needs to be dressed. Fusion is still under works on how to harness it. And I think it's called Biomass which is things like ethanol. The problem with biomass is the cost is high, inefficient, and takes time. Tbh Oil, Nat. Gas, and Coal are all the easiest and most efficient ways atm
    http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/green-vs-brown-5-countries-using-plenty-of-renewable-energy-5-who-use-none.html

    As an example... Solar does work at night man, it uses the energy it stored from the day. Geothermal isn't just in the early stages... I think you are missing the point here, all of them together will work very well. Funding needs to be there and a shift in politics need to be done.
  • webmostwebmost Dull-AwarePosts: 7,107 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Is it absolutely inconceivable for you to imagine any sort of progress WITHOUT the government sticking their oar in?

    Their track record is not good. Their hands are not clean. Their wasteful squandering already enslaves my grandchildren. How is it that they are always the solution, to you, instead of the problem?

    If someone finds a way, let em make money on it. More power to him.

    But... If not... Then (gasp!) other alternative may be the better way to go. Perhaps we ought NOT discover new ways to energize automobiles. Perhaps the time when we are all obliged to waste an hour every morning and another each afternoon scurrying all about like roaches when the lights go on has to end. I can imagine a future in which people step out of their doors, walk down the street to their office or warehouse, stopping for a cup of coffee and a roll on the way, saying hi to Sheila at the corner, telling Frank the butcher what cut they want to pick up on their way home, and arrive at the office invigorated in a revived city. I can imagine future generations looking back and saying: "They did what every day? Why?" Are we saving buggy whips from deserved extinction?

    Perhaps it's not satanic oil, but urban sprawl, which is the culprit. Perhaps it's not a new way to put on more miles, but enjoying life without that's the solution.

    Years ago, I anchored in the Waitemata opposite Auckland. At that time, it was said that there were more sailboats in New Zealand than there were cars. On the North bank of the river were several suburbs. Devon was the closest to me. People there walked down the hills, put in their order at the greengrocer and the baker, climbed aboard a ferry, crossed the river, walked uphill to their work place, then vice versa in the afternoon. No need for a car. Fine way to live.

    I say stop subsidizing tried and failed technology. Nothing I propose begins with stealing what you have earned nor what your grandchildren hope to, nor does it end with pushing you around.

    I tell you, the longer I live, the more closed minded people around me appear to get.

    “It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)


  • jgibvjgibv John G.Posts: 9,317 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Webmost - of everything you said, I truly agree with this....
    webmost:
    Perhaps it's not satanic oil, but urban sprawl, which is the culprit. Perhaps it's not a new way to put on more miles, but enjoying life without that's the solution.
    Reducing fossil fuel use is necessary and can't be ignored (since there's only a finite amount and we'll eventually run out someday)....but that's only part of the solution. "Renewable" energy is not the end-all be-all fix, and I don't see how, even with better renewable energy sources, that they could meet our current consumption rates.
    Even though the politicians and media often say otherwise.

    Reducing energy consumption has to be part of the fix. Whether it's reducing suburban sprawl and revitalizing the dense urban populations of year's past, or making alternative transit solutions readily available (bike paths, buses, light rail, etc.) or simply reviving the nearby corner mom-and-pop corner stores in place of 1 mega-super-grocer that's miles away.

    Reducing consumption is the elephant in the room, so to speak - and I think that this should be our focus - since as a nation it will be much faster and "easier" to reduce consumption much faster than it would be to develop uber-efficient renewable sources.

    * I have a new address as of 3/24/18 *

  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    webmost:
    Is it absolutely inconceivable for you to imagine any sort of progress WITHOUT the government sticking their oar in?

    Their track record is not good. Their hands are not clean. Their wasteful squandering already enslaves my grandchildren. How is it that they are always the solution, to you, instead of the problem?

    If someone finds a way, let em make money on it. More power to him.

    But... If not... Then (gasp!) other alternative may be the better way to go. Perhaps we ought NOT discover new ways to energize automobiles. Perhaps the time when we are all obliged to waste an hour every morning and another each afternoon scurrying all about like roaches when the lights go on has to end. I can imagine a future in which people step out of their doors, walk down the street to their office or warehouse, stopping for a cup of coffee and a roll on the way, saying hi to Sheila at the corner, telling Frank the butcher what cut they want to pick up on their way home, and arrive at the office invigorated in a revived city. I can imagine future generations looking back and saying: "They did what every day? Why?" Are we saving buggy whips from deserved extinction?

    Perhaps it's not satanic oil, but urban sprawl, which is the culprit. Perhaps it's not a new way to put on more miles, but enjoying life without that's the solution.

    Years ago, I anchored in the Waitemata opposite Auckland. At that time, it was said that there were more sailboats in New Zealand than there were cars. On the North bank of the river were several suburbs. Devon was the closest to me. People there walked down the hills, put in their order at the greengrocer and the baker, climbed aboard a ferry, crossed the river, walked uphill to their work place, then vice versa in the afternoon. No need for a car. Fine way to live.

    I say stop subsidizing tried and failed technology. Nothing I propose begins with stealing what you have earned nor what your grandchildren hope to, nor does it end with pushing you around.

    I tell you, the longer I live, the more closed minded people around me appear to get.

    No, but the oil companies have done a great job of both taking money from the govt(s) and buying up small companies that DO try to produce things. A lot of these companies need funding to start up, not everyone that has a million dollars starts a new business. You say that you feel people are more close minded, yet your the one saying, oh let's keep things the way it is. In case you have fallen asleep, this country has fallen by the wayside with new technology. Also with our production of technology. We are slipping and the more oil gets less and less available, and other countries move away from it we will become slaves to the industry even more than we are now.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    As to your use of the phrase "people like you". Why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own?
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Should multinational oil companies headquartered in the US get subsidies and tax breaks from the American people so that these most profitable companies in the world can continue to make even higher profits, provided to a very large extent by the consumers living in the United States?
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    JDH:
    Should multinational oil companies headquartered in the US get subsidies and tax breaks from the American people so that these most profitable companies in the world can continue to make even higher profits, provided to a very large extent by the consumers living in the United States?
    No.
  • jlmartajlmarta 50 miles from ParadisePosts: 7,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Roberto99:
    beatnic:
    Roberto99:
    beatnic:
    I'm a court qualified expert in oysters.
    So, we all want to know the answer to this...Are they really and aphrodisiac?
    LOL. They're loaded with zink. And your mini-me really likes zink. LOL
    Wow, you are an expert on Oysters, no doubt! LOL


    Nah, oysters have an undeserved reputation. I ate a dozen of them the other night and only nine of 'em worked!!

    image
  • VisionVision Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
    phobicsquirrel:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
    This is what I was talking about, demand has slowed : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-iea-oil-idUSBRE87909P20120810

    No one ever said to stop using oil over night. Even the DOD wants to cut oil by something like 50 percent by 2020 or there abouts. So your a biologist, that's nice. However Oil is not friendly to us or our waters/environment. I suggest if you think oil is so safe why don't you drink it? Why is it whenever oil is challenged people like you come out and defend it? It's insane. All of the products used by oil cause harm. There needs to be a huge shift away from Oil, both for an environmental stand point and national security. Drilling more even in our protected lands or our shores won't help anything, gas will be high and we as a nation will have more and more toxic lands and waters. Just look at what happened with the Valdez in Alaska, that is still going on and people have died and got sick from it. Life doesn't like OIL so you as a "biologist" should know that. I don't see sea life and birds bathing in Oil for the sake of it.
    I am just asking the question..... Why is it every time oil is mentioned people like you want to build windmills (They just float in the air... they dont hurt the enviroment as they are being built on land or in the sea.) I like the batteries idea.... And when we are done with them we will just ship them to Mars because batteries are not toxic at all (If he has to drink oil...... should you eat a battery). I got it... CORN! Thats the solution. When DEMAND out weighs supply.... Just bulldoze a shopping mall and plant more! ....... This is silly to argue over. All energy sources suck. They ALL impact mother earth in some form or another. One day there will be a study saying that cigarettes and cigar smoke is killing the Ozone......
  • catfishbluezzcatfishbluezz Posts: 7,001
    Vision:
    phobicsquirrel:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
    This is what I was talking about, demand has slowed : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-iea-oil-idUSBRE87909P20120810

    No one ever said to stop using oil over night. Even the DOD wants to cut oil by something like 50 percent by 2020 or there abouts. So your a biologist, that's nice. However Oil is not friendly to us or our waters/environment. I suggest if you think oil is so safe why don't you drink it? Why is it whenever oil is challenged people like you come out and defend it? It's insane. All of the products used by oil cause harm. There needs to be a huge shift away from Oil, both for an environmental stand point and national security. Drilling more even in our protected lands or our shores won't help anything, gas will be high and we as a nation will have more and more toxic lands and waters. Just look at what happened with the Valdez in Alaska, that is still going on and people have died and got sick from it. Life doesn't like OIL so you as a "biologist" should know that. I don't see sea life and birds bathing in Oil for the sake of it.
    I am just asking the question..... Why is it every time oil is mentioned people like you want to build windmills (They just float in the air... they dont hurt the enviroment as they are being built on land or in the sea.) I like the batteries idea.... And when we are done with them we will just ship them to Mars because batteries are not toxic at all (If he has to drink oil...... should you eat a battery). I got it... CORN! Thats the solution. When DEMAND out weighs supply.... Just bulldoze a shopping mall and plant more! ....... This is silly to argue over. All energy sources suck. They ALL impact mother earth in some form or another. One day there will be a study saying that cigarettes and cigar smoke is killing the Ozone......
    I would highly disagree that all energy sources suck. Biodiesel is an easy viable alternative fuel that burns 80% cleaner. There is no reason we could not produce and outsource it.
  • VisionVision Posts: 5,362 ✭✭✭✭✭
    catfishbluezz:
    Vision:
    phobicsquirrel:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
    This is what I was talking about, demand has slowed : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-iea-oil-idUSBRE87909P20120810

    No one ever said to stop using oil over night. Even the DOD wants to cut oil by something like 50 percent by 2020 or there abouts. So your a biologist, that's nice. However Oil is not friendly to us or our waters/environment. I suggest if you think oil is so safe why don't you drink it? Why is it whenever oil is challenged people like you come out and defend it? It's insane. All of the products used by oil cause harm. There needs to be a huge shift away from Oil, both for an environmental stand point and national security. Drilling more even in our protected lands or our shores won't help anything, gas will be high and we as a nation will have more and more toxic lands and waters. Just look at what happened with the Valdez in Alaska, that is still going on and people have died and got sick from it. Life doesn't like OIL so you as a "biologist" should know that. I don't see sea life and birds bathing in Oil for the sake of it.
    I am just asking the question..... Why is it every time oil is mentioned people like you want to build windmills (They just float in the air... they dont hurt the enviroment as they are being built on land or in the sea.) I like the batteries idea.... And when we are done with them we will just ship them to Mars because batteries are not toxic at all (If he has to drink oil...... should you eat a battery). I got it... CORN! Thats the solution. When DEMAND out weighs supply.... Just bulldoze a shopping mall and plant more! ....... This is silly to argue over. All energy sources suck. They ALL impact mother earth in some form or another. One day there will be a study saying that cigarettes and cigar smoke is killing the Ozone......
    I would highly disagree that all energy sources suck. Biodiesel is an easy viable alternative fuel that burns 80% cleaner. There is no reason we could not produce and outsource it.


    http://www.abengoabioenergia.eu/corp/export/sites/abg_bioenergy/resources/pdf/acerca_de/informacion_tecnica/en/Sciencexpress_Croplands_for_Biofuels_Increase_Greenhouse_Gases.pdf
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2007-05-09-biofuel-negatives_N.htm
    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21845

    Fuel, no matter what, comes from someplace.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    beatnic:
    lol so you criticize Time but post a tea bagging Con-servative site ...
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    Vision:
    catfishbluezz:
    Vision:
    phobicsquirrel:
    beatnic:
    phobicsquirrel:
    fla-gypsy:
    I am all for some alternative energy source that will meet all of our needs. Currently the technology to not use oil just does not exist in a sufficient supply. In the meantime we should produce what we need. Somehow this view will be portrayed as extreme on this forum.
    No, we do need oil, though increasing and opening up protected lands won't help much as we wouldn't get that oil. All of the oil goes into the "fund" or the "world" supply. Right now we are drilling more than ever before just in the US. There is also a surplus of oil right now. We don't need to destroy our country over oil. The technology is already there to replace oil and gas, though it needs to be built and that is the problem. If the money spent on all the dangerous forms of energy was spent on safe/clean energy we would get more for less. Seems that what ever new directions we need to take we keep going backwards, and that isn't just in the fuel we consume.
    2 misconception. We are not drilling more than ever. Yes, it is true that on private lands we are, but all federal lands are under a moratorium. No, there is not a surplus of oil. We have reserves, which are meant for emergencies, but which are taped into by this administration to lower the price of gasoline, but world supplies of oil are down. Why do you refer to oil as dangerous? Because its flammable. Hello? Energy? Yes we need to move forward in technologies, but you don't just shut everything down and then start looking. Short sighted.
    This is what I was talking about, demand has slowed : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/10/us-iea-oil-idUSBRE87909P20120810

    No one ever said to stop using oil over night. Even the DOD wants to cut oil by something like 50 percent by 2020 or there abouts. So your a biologist, that's nice. However Oil is not friendly to us or our waters/environment. I suggest if you think oil is so safe why don't you drink it? Why is it whenever oil is challenged people like you come out and defend it? It's insane. All of the products used by oil cause harm. There needs to be a huge shift away from Oil, both for an environmental stand point and national security. Drilling more even in our protected lands or our shores won't help anything, gas will be high and we as a nation will have more and more toxic lands and waters. Just look at what happened with the Valdez in Alaska, that is still going on and people have died and got sick from it. Life doesn't like OIL so you as a "biologist" should know that. I don't see sea life and birds bathing in Oil for the sake of it.
    I am just asking the question..... Why is it every time oil is mentioned people like you want to build windmills (They just float in the air... they dont hurt the enviroment as they are being built on land or in the sea.) I like the batteries idea.... And when we are done with them we will just ship them to Mars because batteries are not toxic at all (If he has to drink oil...... should you eat a battery). I got it... CORN! Thats the solution. When DEMAND out weighs supply.... Just bulldoze a shopping mall and plant more! ....... This is silly to argue over. All energy sources suck. They ALL impact mother earth in some form or another. One day there will be a study saying that cigarettes and cigar smoke is killing the Ozone......
    I would highly disagree that all energy sources suck. Biodiesel is an easy viable alternative fuel that burns 80% cleaner. There is no reason we could not produce and outsource it.


    http://www.abengoabioenergia.eu/corp/export/sites/abg_bioenergy/resources/pdf/acerca_de/informacion_tecnica/en/Sciencexpress_Croplands_for_Biofuels_Increase_Greenhouse_Gases.pdf
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/environment/2007-05-09-biofuel-negatives_N.htm
    http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21845

    Fuel, no matter what, comes from someplace.
    yeah biofuel isn't the answer but it's cleaner just takes a crap load of corn..
  • catfishbluezzcatfishbluezz Posts: 7,001
    Algae has been approved as the most viable form of biofuel...not corn. There is no environmental impact from growing algae In a greenhouse...much different then corn. We could easily produce a ridiculous amount of fuel with greenhouses in any part of America and fuel the entire country. The larger vehicles and machinery that run or country's economy run on diesel. Producing it ourselves with a cleaner source isnt an answer?
Sign In or Register to comment.