Energy solutions?

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
willie said:
As long as the emphasis is on oil, we're going nowhere.
As long as we drive cars that run on gasoline, generate electricity with fossil fuels, and create petroleum-based products such as plastics - yeah, guess you're right.

If we ever find a fuel that is as transportable and "energy-dense" as gasoline, we should try that - but - fat chance.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
BTW - the other day Alan Greenspan mentioned a fuel source that until then, I'd never heard of - some kind of fuel crystal that forms on the bottom of seabeds. If we could effectively use it, we could nearly eliminate our need for foreign oil.

Of course, I've always believed if we could only cleanly use the coal we have - most of the deposits in the whole *world* are here, in the U.S. - we'd be off the Middle East welfare list.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
BTW - the other day Alan Greenspan mentioned a fuel source that until then, I'd never heard of - some kind of fuel crystal that forms on the bottom of seabeds. ...
Tri-lithium? :lmao:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
SamSpade said:
(I'm guessing that you're enough of a Trekkie to know that "tri-lithium" was never a *source* of energy in Trek, although it frequently implied it).
Yeah. The tri-lithium was used to mix the matter and anti-matter producing pure energy.
 

truby20

Fighting like a girl
Did anyone else catch the speech that Bush gave yesterday? Where he was promoting some types of conservation and alternative energy usage? During the speech he made a very interesting comment which I haven't heard discussed (yet) by any of the political watchers.

From yesterday's speech:
Today's technology has made nuclear power safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever before. Nuclear power is now providing about 20 percent of America's electricity, with no air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power is one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world, and we need more of it here in America.

Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?
 

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
truby20 said:
Did anyone else catch the speech that Bush gave yesterday? Where he was promoting some types of conservation and alternative energy usage? During the speech he made a very interesting comment which I haven't heard discussed (yet) by any of the political watchers.

From yesterday's speech:


Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?

Gawd, you really are starved for attention aren't you?
 

T.Rally

New Member
From the article; "Bush met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at his Texas ranch on Monday but reached no agreement that would lower gasoline prices in the near term."

Would someone please explain to me how the president and Prince Abdullah could lower gasoline prices?

The prince did say his country planned to increase oil-production capacity over the next several years, but that would do little to ease the current situation.

The sad truth is that the Saudis can't set the price of oil any more than our president can. Prices are determined by the world market, which is spooked for a number of reasons. China and India are suddenly consuming immense amounts of oil, while Americans refuse to conserve and believe every suburban housewife should drive around in what amounts to a tank. Trying to meet the demand, the Saudis no longer have spare capacity to increase production and bring down prices as they could in the past. They're already pumping almost as much oil as they can. Additionally, the markets worry about the possibility of a terrorist attack that could disrupt the supply of oil and result in a shortage.

Many Americans believe the whole business is arbitrary – just find the people who are to blame for high gasoline prices, whether the Arabs, oil-company executives or maybe some politicians. It's hard to get mad at something as vague as the world market and even harder to do anything about the problem.
 

Sparx

New Member
Those ideas expressed in the original article are good ones. Not original ideas but good ones. It's the things in his energy plan not mentioned that will be the problem.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
truby20 said:
Did anyone else catch the speech that Bush gave yesterday? Where he was promoting some types of conservation and alternative energy usage? During the speech he made a very interesting comment which I haven't heard discussed (yet) by any of the political watchers.

From yesterday's speech:


Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?

Or, he is making a sales pitch like most politicans do!
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Sparx said:
Those ideas expressed in the original article are good ones. Not original ideas but good ones. It's the things in his energy plan not mentioned that will be the problem.
Such as?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
truby20 said:
Is this an admission that greenhouse gases exist and are changing our climate? Why else would he use them as an argument for nuclear energy? If so this would be a major policy shift for the administration...maybe he is starting to listen to his EPA?
Greenhouse gases - *exist*.
Global warming - is reality.

What he and others like myself, not to mention most of the scientific community question, is whether or not the emission of greenhouse gases from industrial sources has any effect on global warming. There simply is not enough data to prove one causes the other - just because they exist and correlate is NOT proof anymore than the rising and lowering of hemlines has any connection to the Dow Jones Index. Good science is PROVING one causes the other, not assuming it because it seems logical. It seems logical that heavy things should fall faster to the ground - but they don't. Most scientists studying the weather suspect it's more to do with a natural cyclical pattern of climate.

There's still little doubt that the environment would be better off if we didn't produce these air pollutants, because although they may NOT have a global effect, they always have a *local* effect. Thus, the smog in Los Angeles may not be causing global warming, but it's not doing *Los Angeles* any good.
 

truby20

Fighting like a girl
SamSpade said:
What he and others like myself, not to mention most of the scientific community question, is whether or not the emission of greenhouse gases from industrial sources has any effect on global warming. There simply is not enough data to prove one causes the other - just because they exist and correlate is NOT proof anymore than the rising and lowering of hemlines has any connection to the Dow Jones Index. Good science is PROVING one causes the other, not assuming it because it seems logical. It seems logical that heavy things should fall faster to the ground - but they don't. Most scientists studying the weather suspect it's more to do with a natural cyclical pattern of climate.

The term "scientific community" is a broad statement, you talking about atmospheric scientists? Climatologists? Meteorologists? or the engineers working for energy companies who seem to be confident they have the answers on every scientific issue?

Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas, we know that it "reflects" some outgoing thermal radiation from earth, we also know that carbon dioxide levels are the highest they have ever been in recent history.

Carbon Dioxide levels since 1960

Is this causing the recent warming of the earth? It's a strong possibility and shouldn't be compared to the rising hemline/Dow correlation you used. At what point can the relation between carbon dioxide and warming even be proved? Once we rule out every other cause of possible warming?
SamSpade said:
There's still little doubt that the environment would be better off if we didn't produce these air pollutants, because although they may NOT have a global effect, they always have a *local* effect. Thus, the smog in Los Angeles may not be causing global warming, but it's not doing *Los Angeles* any good.
Well pollutants other than greenhouse gases are causing smog, but like you said cleaning up our emissions will only be a benefit to everyone...yes additional money will be spent retrofitting industries, but do we have any idea what costs we are paying for heath care related to respiratory issues because of pollution?
 

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
Holy Moley or Wholly Moldy? Does a 60 ppm increase mean anything?

truby20 said:
The environmentalist consensus is under attack from its founders.

Try this one on for size "Environmental Heresies" from TechnologyReview.com http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/05/issue/feature_earth.asp?p=0

. . .scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed or demonized if they don't fit the consensus story line.
on the conflict between the romanticists vs. the scientists within the envorinmentalist community.

Most environmentalists still haven't got the word
in discussion of the "birth dearth" and its impact on global population.

Urbanization is the most massive and sudden shift of humanity in its history. Environmentalists will be rewarded if they welcome it and get out of the way of it.
in discussion of how curbing population growth (and resultant spoilage of the land) is best impacted by urbanization.

Most of the scare stories that go around . . . have as much substance as urban legends about toxic rat urine. . . .
in discussion about genetic engineering.





and no matter how "W" pronounces it

The only technology ready to fill the gap and stop the carbon dioxide loading of the atmosphere is nuclear power.
 
Top