Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!)

Further Evidence We Should Be Glad W Invaded Iraq (Oil!) (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 02:50 AM
 
it's very simple to avoid an economic crash. electric/hydrogen cars are a pipe dream and a waste of energy IMO. heh.

diesel can be replaced with bio-diesel w/ little/no modification to the engine. we (america, the greatest agricultural regionin the world, grow more crops than we know what to do with) could make bio-diesel. we could run our trucks and trains (ie backbone of the economy) on it. these are big users of oil.

we could start using diesel cars again with this new fuel. move the other big user of oil and spurner of our economy away from oil.

(save the oil for the jets, 'cause i don't have an alternative for that.)

people are doing this now with the grease from mcdonalds. all we need is infrastructure. this (bio-diesel) should be our focus. oh, yeah, also gets us out of the ME.
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 02:57 AM
 
Mojo and Budster, simple question for you two:

Who's fault is it that America was dependent on Oil 10 years ago? Who's fault is it that America is dependent on Oil now? Who's fault will it be when America is dependent on Oil 10 years from now?

Go ahead. Try to blame it on the Middle East. I dare you two.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 04:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Mojo and Budster, simple question for you two:

Who's fault is it that America was dependent on Oil 10 years ago? Who's fault is it that America is dependent on Oil now? Who's fault will it be when America is dependent on Oil 10 years from now?

Go ahead. Try to blame it on the Middle East. I dare you two.
I think I'll blame it on the boogie.

Ok Michael and da boyz...take it away!

The Jackson 5

Blame It On The Boogie

My baby's always dancin'
And it wouldn't be a bad thing
But I don't get no loving
And thats no lie

We spent the night in Frisco
At every kind of disco
From that night I kissed
Our love goodbye

Chorus:
Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie

Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie


The nasty boogie bugs me
But somehow it has drugged me
Spellbound rhythem get me
On my feet

I've changed my life completely
I've seen the lightning leave me
My baby just can't take
Her eyes off me

Chorus:
Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie

Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie


I just can't
I just can't
I just can't control my feet

I just can't
I just can't
I just can't control my feet

I just can't
I just can't
I just can't control my feet

I just can't
I just can't
I just can't control my feet

Chorus:
Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie

Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie


The magic music grooves me
The dirty rhythm moves me
The devil's gotten to me
Through his dance

I'm full of funky fever
And fire burns inside me
Boogies got me in a
Super trance

Chorus:
Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie

Don't blame it on sunshine
Don't blame it on moonlight
Don't blame it on good times
Blame it on the boogie


Sunshine
Moonlight
Goodtimes
Boogie

Sunshine
Moonlight
Goodtimes
Boogie

Don't you blame it - sunshine

You just got to - moonlight
You just want to - goodtimes
Yeah - boogie
Blame it on yourself - sunshine
Ain't nobody's fault - moonlight
But yours and that boogie - goodtimes

Dancin' all night long - boogie

Yours and that boogie - sunshine
Ain't nobody's fault - moonlight
But yours and that boogie - goodtimes
Dancin' all night long - boogie
( Last edited by mojo2; Aug 17, 2005 at 04:53 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 04:51 AM
 
black bear theory
diesel can be replaced with bio-diesel w/ little/no modification to the engine. we (america, the greatest agricultural regionin the world, grow more crops than we know what to do with) could make bio-diesel. we could run our trucks and trains (ie backbone of the economy) on it. these are big users of oil.

we could start using diesel cars again with this new fuel. move the other big user of oil and spurner of our economy away from oil.

(save the oil for the jets, 'cause i don't have an alternative for that.)

people are doing this now with the grease from mcdonalds. all we need is infrastructure. this (bio-diesel) should be our focus. oh, yeah, also gets us out of the ME.
Biodiesel is a joke. Aside from not being suitable to use in winter (it coagulates, or else you have to expend energy heating the storage tank) there's no way that we could grow enough of it to simply use as a substitute. Worse still, it's looking as though it yields less energy (or at least not enough, given the finite production possible) than it takes to generate. Certianly there isn't enough cooking oil to run the planet on.

The answer is going to require us to stop needing so much energy, rather than wasting time looking for a magic substitute that preserves our lifestyle. So we'll need to abandon jets and most cars in favor of rail, ships, and walking around town, while scrambling for whatever energy sources we can find.

If we face up to this, the transition can be a lot less painless. You can't regear in the middle of a long-running oil crisis.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski
black bear theory

Biodiesel is a joke. Aside from not being suitable to use in winter (it coagulates, or else you have to expend energy heating the storage tank) there's no way that we could grow enough of it to simply use as a substitute. Worse still, it's looking as though it yields less energy (or at least not enough, given the finite production possible) than it takes to generate. Certianly there isn't enough cooking oil to run the planet on.

The answer is going to require us to stop needing so much energy, rather than wasting time looking for a magic substitute that preserves our lifestyle. So we'll need to abandon jets and most cars in favor of rail, ships, and walking around town, while scrambling for whatever energy sources we can find.

If we face up to this, the transition can be a lot less painless. You can't regear in the middle of a long-running oil crisis.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

"What About Biofuels Such
as Ethanol and Biodiesel?"

Biofuels such as biodiesel, ethanol, methanol etc. are great, but only in small doses. Biofuels are all grown with massive fossil fuel inputs (pesticides and fertilizers) and suffer from horribly low, sometimes negative, EROEIs. The production of ethanol, for instance, requires six units of energy to produce just one. That means it consumes more energy than it produces and thus will only serve to compound our energy deficit.

In addition, there is the problem of where to grow the stuff, as we are rapidly running out of arable land on which to grow food, let alone fuel. This is no small problem as the amount of land it takes to grow even a small amount of biofuel is quite staggering. As journalist Lee Dye points out in a July 2004 article entitled "Old Policies Make Shift From Foreign Oil Tough:"

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would
devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to
grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for
10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's
the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the
same period of time.

And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with
ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with
corn, he adds.

Biodiesel is considerably better than ethanol, but with an EROEI of three, it still doesn't compare to oil, which has had an EROEI of about 30

While any significant attempt to switch to biofuels will work out great for giant agribusiness companies (political campaign contributors) such as Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, and Monsanto, it won't do much to solve a permanent energy crisis for you.

The ghoulish reality is that if we wanted to replace even a small part of our oil supply with farm grown biofuels, we would need to turn most of Africa into a giant biofuel farm.

Obviously many Africans - who are already starving - would not take kindly to us appropriating the land they use to grow their food to grow our fuel. As author George Monbiot points out, such an endeavor would be a humanitarian disaster. Any attempt to turn Africa into a large-scale biofuel farm will likely result in a continental-sized insurgency that would make the current disaster in Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Assuming the conversion of Africa into a large scale biofuel farm is even economically, technically, and militarily viable, and putting the humanitarian concerns of such a project aside for a moment, we would simply be replacing our "dependence on foreign oil" with "dependence on foreign grown biodiesel."

Some folks are doing research into alternatives to soybeans such as biodiesel producing pools of algae. As with every other project that promises to "replace all petroleum fuels," the project has yet to produce a single drop of commercially available fuel. This hasn't prevented many of its most vocal proponents from insisting that algae grown biodiesel will solve our energy problems.

The fact that so many people in the green/environmental movement refuse to acknowledge the fundamental inability of fuels like biodiesel to replace more than a tiny portion of our petroleum consumption underscores why a complete collapse of the petroleum powered world may now be unavoidable. As Dr. Ted Trainer explains in a recent article on the thermodynamic limitations of biomass fuels:

This is why I do not believe consumer-capitalist society can
save itself. Not even its "intellectual" classes or green
leadership give any sign that this society has the wit or the
will to even think about the basic situation we are in. As the
above figures make clear, the situation cannot be solved
without huge reduction in the volume of production and
consumption going on.

The current craze surrounding biodiesel is a good example of what Dr. Trainer is talking about. While folks who have converted their personal vehicles to run on vegetable oil should certainly be given credit for their noble attempts at reducing our reliance on petroleum, the long-term viability of their efforts is questionable at best. Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster **** Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:

Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.


Kunstler goes on to explain that when policies or living/working arrangements are set up around such unexamined expectations, the result is usually a dangerous deepening of our reliance on cheap energy and "easy motoring."
( Last edited by mojo2; Aug 17, 2005 at 05:19 AM. )
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by black bear theory
it's very simple to avoid an economic crash. electric/hydrogen cars are a pipe dream and a waste of energy IMO. heh.

diesel can be replaced with bio-diesel w/ little/no modification to the engine. we (america, the greatest agricultural regionin the world, grow more crops than we know what to do with) could make bio-diesel. we could run our trucks and trains (ie backbone of the economy) on it. these are big users of oil.

we could start using diesel cars again with this new fuel. move the other big user of oil and spurner of our economy away from oil.

(save the oil for the jets, 'cause i don't have an alternative for that.)

people are doing this now with the grease from mcdonalds. all we need is infrastructure. this (bio-diesel) should be our focus. oh, yeah, also gets us out of the ME.
Here in Australia the government subsidizes you if you choose to modify your car to be able to use an alternative fuel as well(improves efficiency of the petrol...longer mileage and whathaveyou).
Public transport is also being modified to run on some alternative fuel(not sure if it's hydrogen or methane), and ive seen a few busses that run purely on this stuff as well. Im glad the government here is taking steps to lessen it's dependency on oil, etc...not to mention its much more eco friendly as well. I pleased that there's still some seperation between big oil and government here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski
black bear theory


Biodiesel is a joke. Aside from not being suitable to use in winter (it coagulates, or else you have to expend energy heating the storage tank) there's no way that we could grow enough of it to simply use as a substitute. Worse still, it's looking as though it yields less energy (or at least not enough, given the finite production possible) than it takes to generate. Certianly there isn't enough cooking oil to run the planet on.

The answer is going to require us to stop needing so much energy, rather than wasting time looking for a magic substitute that preserves our lifestyle. So we'll need to abandon jets and most cars in favor of rail, ships, and walking around town, while scrambling for whatever energy sources we can find.

If we face up to this, the transition can be a lot less painless. You can't regear in the middle of a long-running oil crisis.
And with that comes...
-less dependency on oil
-more eco friendly (i wonder why Bush didnt ratify Kyoto....i mean the only ppl whod loose would be big oil due to less business and higher taxes n that sort of thing...guess we know who his friends are).
-more exercise for the populus, and fewer overweight ppl.
-and fewer reasons to justify war

downside ? the lazy ppl who cant walk or use public transport will bitch.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairbanks AK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski
black bear theory


Biodiesel is a joke. Aside from not being suitable to use in winter (it coagulates, or else you have to expend energy heating the storage tank) there's no way that we could grow enough of it to simply use as a substitute. Worse still, it's looking as though it yields less energy (or at least not enough, given the finite production possible) than it takes to generate. Certianly there isn't enough cooking oil to run the planet on.

The answer is going to require us to stop needing so much energy, rather than wasting time looking for a magic substitute that preserves our lifestyle. So we'll need to abandon jets and most cars in favor of rail, ships, and walking around town, while scrambling for whatever energy sources we can find.

If we face up to this, the transition can be a lot less painless. You can't regear in the middle of a long-running oil crisis.
thanks for pointing that out, and i agree. conservation is the most important, and simple, way to reduce our energy needs. though, even with drastic conservation, eventually, a couple/several generations, fossil fuels will eventually run out. renewable bio-fuels would fill in nicely, imo, to ween us off unsustainable fossil fuels until the time we can completely harness the sun for all our energy needs, which is the only true renewable, sustainable source and risk-free energy source.

i just wonder if a politician would ever say these things...
Earth First! we'll mine the other planets later.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
And with that comes...
-less dependency on oil
-more eco friendly (i wonder why Bush didnt ratify Kyoto....i mean the only ppl whod loose would be big oil due to less business and higher taxes n that sort of thing...guess we know who his friends are).
-more exercise for the populus, and fewer overweight ppl.
-and fewer reasons to justify war

downside ? the lazy ppl who cant walk or use public transport will bitch.
This is from my post above.

Once our system of food production collapses due to the effects of Peak Oil, vegetable oil will likely become far too precious/expensive a commodity to be burned as transportation fuel for anybody but the super-rich. As James Kunstler points out in an April 2005 update to his blog "Cluster **** Nation", many biodiesel enthusiasts are dangerously clueless as to this reality:

Over in Vermont last week, I ran into a gang of biodiesel
enthusiasts. They were earnest, forward-looking guys who
would like to do some good for their country. But their
expectations struck me as fairly crazy, and in a way typical
of the bad thinking at all levels of our society these days.

For instance, I asked if it had ever occurred to them that
biodiesel crops would have to compete for farmland that
would be needed otherwise to grow feed crops for working
animals. No, it hadn't. (And it seemed like a far-out
suggestion to them.) Their expectation seemed to be that
the future would run a lot like the present, that bio-diesel
was just another ingenious, innovative, high-tech module
that we can "drop into" our existing system in place of the
previous, obsolete module of regular oil.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
-more eco friendly (i wonder why Bush didnt ratify Kyoto....i mean the only ppl whod loose would be big oil due to less business and higher taxes n that sort of thing...guess we know who his friends are).
The Kyoto Treaty would have cost America a lot of jobs

BUSH: Had we joined the Kyoto Treaty it would have cost America a lot of jobs. It's one of these deals where in order to be popular in the halls of Europe you sign a treaty. There's a better way to do it. The quality of air is cleaner since I've been the president of the US. And we'll continue to spend money on research and development, because I truly believe that's the way to get from how we live today to being able to live a standard of living that we're accustomed to and being able to protect our environment better, the use of technologies.

KERRY: The Kyoto Treaty was flawed. I was in Kyoto and I was part of that; I know what happened. But Bush didn't try to fix it, he just declared it dead, ladies and gentlemen. And we walked away from the work of 160 nations over 10 years. You wonder why it is that people don't like us in some parts of the world. You just say, Hey, we don't agree with you, good-bye. Bush's done nothing to try to fix it. I will.
Source: Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004
Kyoto Treaty is the "emperor with no clothes"

[Under the Kyoto Protocol], the United States was supposed to reduce emissions by 7% below 1990 levels, while developing countries like India, Mexico, and China were exempted. Clinton gave lip service to the treaty and had signed it, but didn't dare submit it to congress for ratification. He knew it would never pass.

Bush would have none of that. If there was anything he hated, it was charades. He forthrightly announced he would not support the treaty and would instead devote funds to study how to reduce global warming through less drastic measures, including building more environmentally friendly vehicles.

"The emperor Kyoto was running around for a long time, and he was naked," Andy Card said. "It took President Bush to say, 'The guy doesn't have any clothes on.'" European nations, in particular, were incensed that Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty. The French environment minister called it a "scandal." Yet none of those countries had agreed to honor the treaty.
Source: A Matter of Character, by Ronald Kessler, p.119-21 Aug 5, 2004
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
-more eco friendly (i wonder why Bush didnt ratify Kyoto....i mean the only ppl whod loose would be big oil due to less business and higher taxes n that sort of thing...guess we know who his friends are).
Isn't it pretty obvious?

1. Would have cost jobs in an already unstable economy -> political survival more important than the future of mankind.
2. Ratifying Kyoto would have meant the US would accept that there is global warming -> again political survival more important than the future of mankind.
3. Possibility of the US losing it's very strong financial position in the world as developing countries were given some space to manoeuvre in to continue their growth. -> political survival and nationalism more important than the future of mankind.

That's just what happens when you cater all your policies to the AmeriChristian non-scientific right. Expect to see more of it.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by bZGqWqQB
Why are we so utterly dependent on oil in the first place? Has this need increased or decreased over the years?
Oil has the greatest kinetic energy of any fuel. It is in the easiest to exploit form of any fuel. It is easier to discover and harvest than any other fuel.

For example, people talk about the potential of biodiesel fuel. It has an ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) of 3. By comparison, petroleum has an ERoEI of about 30! (If I'm not mistaken, our oil consumption has steadilly increased every year.)

Get familiar with this term, ERoEI. (Energy Return on Energy Invested) is the way we can tell the good alternative energy sources from the bad ones. The higher the ERoEI number the better.

Anyway, we have had a period from the mid 1800's or so, until maybe 20 years from now (or so) of a petroleum party. It was plentiful and cheap and provided greater energy power than any other fuel. It could be used for so many different uses. We used it and abused it. We came to take it for granted. We treated it like it would never run out and would always be cheap.

And now we are starting to wake up from our drunken oil orgy but we are still grogy from the party and some of us want so much for the party to continue that they refuse to accept the new stark reality facing us.

Some of the politicians know the truth. I believe President Bush knows the real truth. But because the American PEOPLE want so much to be pacified, to hear that even though the orgy may be over we don't need to worry because we are developing hydrogen and ethanol and solar and wind and wave energy so things will be alright.

Well, I believe he's being a politician and not necessarilly acting in our best energy interests, even though he said this on CNN...

We also need to conserve more -- CNN interview, Apr. 25, 2001
The ERoEI of all the alternative energy sources that might make us feel hopeful are not going to solve the problem and may be even worse than that. They may be appeasing us into a false sense of security thinking they will solve the problem but they won't.

I wonder.

If you knew you were terminally ill, would you tell your loved ones right away, not at all or only when time was short?

I sometimes wonder if W KNOWS there's nothing we can really do to get us out of the problem of running out of oil and so he (and Clinton and etc.) is just doing what is needed to keep us as comfortable as possible until the inevitable occurs.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Isn't it pretty obvious?

1. Would have cost jobs in an already unstable economy -> political survival more important than the future of mankind.
2. Ratifying Kyoto would have meant the US would accept that there is global warming -> again political survival more important than the future of mankind.
3. Possibility of the US losing it's very strong financial position in the world as developing countries were given some space to manoeuvre in to continue their growth. -> political survival and nationalism more important than the future of mankind.

That's just what happens when you cater all your policies to the AmeriChristian non-scientific right. Expect to see more of it.
:yawn:

[Under the Kyoto Protocol], the United States was supposed to reduce emissions by 7% below 1990 levels, while developing countries like India, Mexico, and China were exempted. Clinton gave lip service to the treaty and had signed it, but didn't dare submit it to congress for ratification. He knew it would never pass.

Bush would have none of that. If there was anything he hated, it was charades. He forthrightly announced he would not support the treaty and would instead devote funds to study how to reduce global warming through less drastic measures, including building more environmentally friendly vehicles.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
when you cater all your policies to the AmeriChristian non-scientific right.
Dont you dare drag religion into this. The predominantely Muslim leaders in the middle east bear just as much blame on the harm to the environment and their respective populations as big oil and their friends. Do us all a favour and leave religion out of this argument..... cause we all know that it has no bearning and the stakes are purely economical.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
:yawn:
Your quote only backs up my point. Thanks for playing though.

Oh, what the hell. Could you provide one quote from Bush when speaking about Kyoto where he mentions global warming?

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Dont you dare drag religion into this. The predominantely Muslim leaders in the middle east bear just as much blame on the harm to the environment and their respective populations as big oil and their friends. Do us all a favour and leave religion out of this argument..... cause we all know that it has no bearning and the stakes are purely economical.
They are economical and political. And what part in the US has the most power? The AmeriChristian Right Wing. The people who are anti-evolution, anti-global warming. It is important to remember this.

And I wasn't dragging religion into it. I was pointing out which group of people play the most important part in US politics at the moment. So calm down, I wasn't blaming Christianity for this.

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Oil has the greatest kinetic energy of any fuel. It is in the easiest to exploit form of any fuel.
Dont you mean potential energy ? as in stored energy ? i beleive, Kinetic energy is energy of a moving body/mass.

I do agree with you on that. it has the highest capacity of energy of any fuel. (lot of energy in a small space). I think it will do a world of good if governments start developing alternative fuel sources capable of competing with oil. Maybe the israelis can spearhead this reaseach ? that way no one will need to depend on the middle east for anything and they can have that place for themselves and clence it of all us foreign devils who preech tolerance and freedom.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:28 AM
 
http://www.spinninglobe.net/crash.htm

To be sure, we should be investing in alternatives and converting our industrial infrastructure to use them. If there is any solution to industrial societies' approaching energy crises, renewables plus conservation will provide it. Yet in order to achieve a smooth transition from non-renewables to renewables, decades will be needed - and we do not have decades before the peaks in the extraction rates of oil and natural gas occur.

Moreover, even in the best case, the transition will require the massive shifting of investment from other sectors of the economy (such as the military) toward energy research and conservation. And the available alternatives will likely be unable to support the kinds of transportation, food, and dwelling infrastructure we now have; thus the transition will entail an almost complete redesign of industrial societies.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
And what part in the US has the most power? The AmeriChristian Right Wing. The people who are anti-evolution, anti-global warming. It is important to remember this.
Yeah, and i forgot, Muslim nations/leaders are leading the charcge against global warming and burning of fossil fuels. Oh and yeah...all those countries in the middle east that arent democratic....the leaders who dont want democracy in their countries....theyre all Muslim. Speaking on evolution.....look at Christian society...we arent the same as we were 200 years ago. food, dresscode, technology, family structures, etc have changed. Now look at most of the muslim world. That'll give u a hint at which society(and it's leaders) are anti-evolution.

After living in the middle east...the MAIN difference in culture is the way they handel change and 'choice'. Christian nations for the most part embrace it in all aspects of society, Mulim nations fend it off like a disease. dress code is an example.

So yeah....lets not forget the mostly Christian France and Germany who were against the war. And the mostly Christian orginizations in the west that are involved in environmental groups. I dont think ive ever seen environmental groups against burning of fossil fuels in the Middle east...but chances are they arent allowed to protest, you can blame the predominentaly muslim leadership for that.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Dont you mean potential energy ? as in stored energy ? i beleive, Kinetic energy is energy of a moving body/mass.

I do agree with you on that. it has the highest capacity of energy of any fuel. (lot of energy in a small space). I think it will do a world of good if governments start developing alternative fuel sources capable of competing with oil. Maybe the israelis can spearhead this reaseach ? that way no one will need to depend on the middle east for anything and they can have that place for themselves and clence it of all us foreign devils who preech tolerance and freedom.
I always got those two mixed up. Thank you!

The problem with developing an alternative that might have any hope of saving us from the crash to come is that the research will require HUGE sums of money that we aren't spending while we have an oil economy that might be able to afford it.

We are running out of time because there will need to be a switch over from oil to whatever and factories and cars and power plants and pumping plants and etc. will have to be switched to this alternative that we haven't yet discovered.

So, when we REALLY wake up to the problem it will be when the problem is upon us. Then, when we look for the funds to devote to an emergency effort to develop this yet undiscovered alternative energy source the funding won't be there because we depend so much on cheap, plentiful oil to fuel our economic growth. But the oil will be drying up and so the $$ will be dwindling.

If I haven't already posted it, the current alternative energy sources take too much energy to produce than they give off.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a
Yeah, and i forgot, Muslim nations/leaders are leading the charcge against global warming and burning of fossil fuels. Oh and yeah...all those countries in the middle east that arent democratic....the leaders who dont want democracy in their countries....theyre all Muslim. Speaking on evolution.....look at Christian society...we arent the same as we were 200 years ago. food, dresscode, technology, family structures, etc have changed. Now look at most of the muslim world. That'll give u a hint at which society(and it's leaders) are anti-evolution.

After living in the middle east...the MAIN difference in culture is the way they handel change and 'choice'. Christian nations for the most part embrace it in all aspects of society, Mulim nations fend it off like a disease. dress code is an example.

So yeah....lets not forget the mostly Christian France and Germany who were against the war. And the mostly Christian orginizations in the west that are involved in environmental groups. I dont think ive ever seen environmental groups against burning of fossil fuels in the Middle east...but chances are they arent allowed to protest, you can blame the predominentaly muslim leadership for that.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Kyoto.png

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Your quote only backs up my point. Thanks for playing though.

Oh, what the hell. Could you provide one quote from Bush when speaking about Kyoto where he mentions global warming?
Yes, I could.

But you've been especially condescending towards me recently so I'll have to think about your request.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Under the shade of Swords
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Yes, I could.

But you've been especially condescending towards me recently so I'll have to think about your request.

Didn't think so

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by von Wrangell
Didn't think so
u r so predictable
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:06 PM
 
If you're honest about investigating the real strategic interests in the Iraq was read this.

Notice it was written before the invasion started.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 12:34 PM
 
Any profit made by companies not forced to control emissions would be far less than the amount of money that would need to be pumped into health care to help people with the side effects of the emissions.

But you knew that, right?
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 02:02 PM
 
Biodiesel can run huge generators indoors to porduce elec.

Solar outposts can serve as elec. stations and be used to create hydrogen to fuel cars. Or at least to re-fill the fuel cell in cars to produce electricity.

Moving away from oil should have started a while ago. We will not be able to get rid of it anytime soon, but implementation of alternative energy sources should be going on as we speak.

I plan on moving to a big city sometime in the near future. You better believe I'll be leaving my gas sucker at home and bringing my bike.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 02:35 PM
 
black bear theory--
until the time we can completely harness the sun for all our energy needs, which is the only true renewable, sustainable source and risk-free energy source.
What makes you think that will ever happen? Instead of pie-in-the-sky magical energy sources materializing out of nowhere just when we need them, I think we'd better consider the more likely possibility that we'll rapidly run out of oil and not have a significant new source of energy. This is why I think we'd better get off our asses with regards to some of the safer new nuclear reactor designs (and methods of waste disposal). We know it works, and we don't have to gamble on finding some miracle of science. And if we significantly reduce our energy expenditures, by changing our lifestyle, the changeover becomes easier. Of course, if we leave it until we reach the crisis point before we do anything, we're ****ed. We need to start now, so that we're ready for when we run out of oil.

By all means, let's put up windmills and solar water heaters and sink geothermal taps and so forth, but those are largely to supplement things; we can't do enough of that to solve the big problem.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 03:23 PM
 
I dunno cpt,

A small solar panel on every roof in the US would produce serious electricity, not to mention taking the strain off of home heating oil to heat water.

They are slightly pricey still, but with an estimated life span of 100 years (the new cylindrical ones) you have to wonder what the energy situation would be like if big boxes like Home Depot and Best Buy were forced to put an array on the roof.

Powering the country is far fetched at this point, but as a supplimental system meant to take strain off the grid. I say we start spending as much money as possible to make it happen.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 04:01 PM
 
sek929--
A small solar panel on every roof in the US would produce serious electricity, not to mention taking the strain off of home heating oil to heat water.

They are slightly pricey still, but with an estimated life span of 100 years (the new cylindrical ones) you have to wonder what the energy situation would be like if big boxes like Home Depot and Best Buy were forced to put an array on the roof.
Solar water heaters don't use solar panels. They're basically just a box on the roof, painted black, with a glass top, with water pipes running through it. My grandparents have had one since the 50's, and it works great. Of course, their house was on Miami Beach. Solar panels are notoriously inefficient, and there are significant energy and rare material inputs into making them, the battery systems you need to store up power for night/cloudy days, etc. Panels are not an especially good solution AFAICT, but in some areas they might be sensible. Of course, those same areas -- the ones that get lots of sun -- are not all that comfortable to live in if you don't have AC. If we can't get enough power for that, along with more vital necessities, we might see people fleeing parts of the South and Southwest.

Besides, big box stores are going to die. As oil prices climb due to scarcity, then people won't waste money driving to the store, which is usually not in a convenient location otherwise (if at all). The store can't waste money shipping products from the point of manufacture to the store. The store can't afford to light, heat, and cool the store. The manufacturers can't get parts from other manufacturers or raw materials suppliers. People won't have as much disposable income, since food (costly to grow, ship, and refrigerate) and other necessities become more expensive.

What we need are dense urban centers, that are livable without cars and to replace the surrounding suburbs with farms that are much more convenient, and are less oil intensive (and thus probably more reliant on labor).
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
I dunno cpt,

A small solar panel on every roof in the US would produce serious electricity, not to mention taking the strain off of home heating oil to heat water.

They are slightly pricey still, but with an estimated life span of 100 years (the new cylindrical ones) you have to wonder what the energy situation would be like if big boxes like Home Depot and Best Buy were forced to put an array on the roof.

Powering the country is far fetched at this point, but as a supplimental system meant to take strain off the grid. I say we start spending as much money as possible to make it happen.
Once again, as Captain Kangarooski mentions, these will not solve the big problem, but they are short term things we should examine.

http://www.spinninglobe.net/crash.htm

Solar

Solar power accounts for .006% of global energy supply. Energy varies constantly with weather or day/night. Not storable or portable energy like oil or natural gas so unsuited for present vehicles and industry. Batteries bulky, expensive, wear out in 5-10 years.

A typical solar water panel array can deliver 50% to 85% of a home's hot water though. Using some of our precious remaining crude oil as fuel for manufacturing solar equipment may be wise.

Wind

Wind power accounts for .07% of global energy supply. As with solar, energy varies greatly with weather, and is not portable or storable like oil and gas.

Wind can not supply oil derivatives such as fertilizer or plastics.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of global energy. Hydrogen is currently manufactured from methane gas. It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy "carrier" not a source. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it. Solar hydrogen might be an option in some of the hot countries.

Nuclear

Nuclear is currently being abandoned globally. Its ability to soften the oil crash is very problematic due to several factors:

1. Possibility of accidents and terrorism.

2. Cost: one reactor costs about 13 billion dollars.

3. Number of reactors needed: 1,000's

4. Not directly suited for transportation or agriculture.

5. Uranium requires energy from oil from in order to be mined.

6. All abandoned reactors are radioactive for decades or millennia.

7. Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by thunderous_funker
If you're honest about investigating the real strategic interests in the Iraq was read this.

Notice it was written before the invasion started.


GOOD RESEARCH, TF!

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:35 PM
 
A 'typical hot water array" is what they were putting in ten years ago.

New tubular photovoltaic and hot water systems are incredibly efficient and powerful. So on those nice sunny days you store up hot water (in the form of a fluid that acts as the 'radiator' for the system, can be heated to incredible temps since its under pressure) and use it all night while spinning the meter BACkWARDS. Thats right, sending power back out to the grid at the same voltage and wattage it came in at. Even on overcast days in the summer there is enough UV radiaton to heat water and produce electricity.

They last for 100+ years, and can be installed by any carpenter (like me) with no special training. The initial investment is larger than home heating oil or any other fuel but the long term gains are huge. And the newest systems are completely modular. So you get that x-mas bonus and add another three tubes to the array, lessening home heating costs and energy bills.

Of course here in New England houses would still need a land line of electricity, and a small oil burner/tank since it gets dark in the winter around 3:30. But in places such as Arizona, Florida, Cali, etc... the sun is shining more often than not, and all the free energy is going to waste.

Cons:
The up front cost is bigger.
You still need to build the panels, which equals using more fossil fuels.
Still need to convince people its not hippie BS and it really works well.
The existing grid would need to exist for at least another 20 years at current capacity.

That said, instead of rich people buying bigger SUVs they should start putting their money into 'solarizing' their house. The benefits are small in the first few years, but it would no doubt add to the overall worth of the house in the coming years (20-30)

So yeah, its a good long term idea, but oil still needs to play a huge part in this for anything to work.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
A 'typical hot water array" is what they were putting in ten years ago.

New tubular photovoltaic and hot water systems are incredibly efficient and powerful. So on those nice sunny days you store up hot water (in the form of a fluid that acts as the 'radiator' for the system, can be heated to incredible temps since its under pressure) and use it all night while spinning the meter BACkWARDS. Thats right, sending power back out to the grid at the same voltage and wattage it came in at. Even on overcast days in the summer there is enough UV radiaton to heat water and produce electricity.

They last for 100+ years, and can be installed by any carpenter (like me) with no special training. The initial investment is larger than home heating oil or any other fuel but the long term gains are huge. And the newest systems are completely modular. So you get that x-mas bonus and add another three tubes to the array, lessening home heating costs and energy bills.

Of course here in New England houses would still need a land line of electricity, and a small oil burner/tank since it gets dark in the winter around 3:30. But in places such as Arizona, Florida, Cali, etc... the sun is shining more often than not, and all the free energy is going to waste.

Cons:
The up front cost is bigger.
You still need to build the panels, which equals using more fossil fuels.
Still need to convince people its not hippie BS and it really works well.
The existing grid would need to exist for at least another 20 years at current capacity.

That said, instead of rich people buying bigger SUVs they should start putting their money into 'solarizing' their house. The benefits are small in the first few years, but it would no doubt add to the overall worth of the house in the coming years (20-30)

So yeah, its a good long term idea, but oil still needs to play a huge part in this for anything to work.
You present it's merits very well! I'm sold.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:45 PM
 
My company (consisting of me and my cranky but brilliant carpenter father) have already installed one such system in a big old house.

This is the first summer of its life and the wife tell us she enjoys going to the basement just to see how many KWH its putting out at the current moment. That and they have fluid at 300 degrees all through the night and into the morning, more than enough to take a hot shower.

I have several pictures of the array on the roof (I believe it was an 8 tube system). I'll try to remember to nab them off my dad's computer when I go to work tommorrow.
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Any profit made by companies not forced to control emissions would be far less than the amount of money that would need to be pumped into health care to help people with the side effects of the emissions.

But you knew that, right?
If Hillary wins the job we can start a thread on how she intends to invade the insurance companies and have them pump out universal health care. But for the moment we need your focus on the Middle East and the connection to our current/future oil needs.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929
My company (consisting of me and my cranky but brilliant carpenter father) have already installed one such system in a big old house.

This is the first summer of its life and the wife tell us she enjoys going to the basement just to see how many KWH its putting out at the current moment. That and they have fluid at 300 degrees all through the night and into the morning, more than enough to take a hot shower.

I have several pictures of the array on the roof (I believe it was an 8 tube system). I'll try to remember to nab them off my dad's computer when I go to work tommorrow.
Cool beans.

Sox rule.

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
If Hillary wins the job we can start a thread on how she intends to invade the insurance companies and have them pump out universal health care. But for the moment we need your focus on the Middle East and the connection to our current/future oil needs.
Hey! You made my next point for me. By nationalizing health care the economy would be strengthened by keeping people healthy and reducing lost productivity due to illness. This is like Microeconomics 101 all over again for me!

But uhhhh... you didn't answer my point on the Kyoto treaty. The middle east has very little to do with it. In fact, you didn't even answer my fault on who is to blame on the oil crisis.

Let me put it this way. Lets say Iraq built everything out of US steel. In fact, they had designed everything so only US steel would work. One day the US decides that we don't like Iraq anymore and that we're not going to send them any steel. What you are saying is that instead of it being Iraq's fault they have made themselves dependent on US steel, the US should not have a choice on who not to supply it to. In fact, using your justifications, Iraq should invade the US and "secure" the steel mills from those who would want to keep the steel out of Iraqi hands.

The point is we made ourselves dependent on oil. No one wants to admit it, because it seems no one in the US can admit we did something wrong these days. So instead of admitting that oil was not the best choice, we decide to go invade Iraq to "secure" their oil. Face it. We could have realized that oil is a bad idea and started a change now. But instead, we're prolonging the problem. The end to the oil problem is not a change that needs to start overseas. It needs to happen right here. As far as I care, lets change the rules of the game. The Middle East can have all the oil it wants when it's only worth five cents a gallon because everyone is using alternative energy. THAT, Mojo, is how we beat the corruption in the Middle East.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Hey! You made my next point for me. By nationalizing health care the economy would be strengthened by keeping people healthy and reducing lost productivity due to illness. This is like Microeconomics 101 all over again for me!

But uhhhh... you didn't answer my point on the Kyoto treaty. The middle east has very little to do with it. In fact, you didn't even answer my fault on who is to blame on the oil crisis.

Let me put it this way. Lets say Iraq built everything out of US steel. In fact, they had designed everything so only US steel would work. One day the US decides that we don't like Iraq anymore and that we're not going to send them any steel. What you are saying is that instead of it being Iraq's fault they have made themselves dependent on US steel, the US should not have a choice on who not to supply it to. In fact, using your justifications, Iraq should invade the US and "secure" the steel mills from those who would want to keep the steel out of Iraqi hands.

The point is we made ourselves dependent on oil. No one wants to admit it, because it seems no one in the US can admit we did something wrong these days. So instead of admitting that oil was not the best choice, we decide to go invade Iraq to "secure" their oil. Face it. We could have realized that oil is a bad idea and started a change now. But instead, we're prolonging the problem. The end to the oil problem is not a change that needs to start overseas. It needs to happen right here. As far as I care, lets change the rules of the game. The Middle East can have all the oil it wants when it's only worth five cents a gallon because everyone is using alternative energy. THAT, Mojo, is how we beat the corruption in the Middle East.
Alright President goMac, outline your proposal and give us some (but not too much) detail. Convince us to embrace your plan. Here's your chance to address the American people and make your case.

Good luck!

Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Alright President goMac, outline your proposal and give us some (but not too much) detail. Convince us to embrace your plan. Here's your chance to address the American people and make your case.

Good luck!

I... uhhh... believe I just did.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2005, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
I... uhhh... believe I just did.
Typical politician YOU are!

Hmph!

It's EASY to say, "yes, let's get rid of any and all dependence on foreign oil! Furthermore, let's do it TODAY!!!"

But, it's quite ANOTHER thing to actually accomplish that worthy goal in the TIMEFRAME you suggest and without bringing on COMPLETE WORLDWIDE CHAOS as a result.

Then, there's a little thing about explaining WHAT alternative energy source we'd adopt that would approach the energy potential per pound, gallon or dollar of oil.

It doesn't yet exist. So, a few more details might be helpful.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Typical politician YOU are!
Uhhh... I'm not a politician.

All I'm saying is when are we going to start moving over? Why not now? Look at it this way. Is you getting cheap oil worth more than the lives of the soldiers overseas? There is an easier way, starting the transition to alternative fuels, and government subsidies of hybrid vehicle production, which also would create more jobs. We don't have to invade other countries. No one has to die for your cheaper gas.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 03:30 AM
 
The answer is very clear, we need to perfect Fusion Power and Hydrogen Fuel Cell's. Otherwise we need a LOT more Nuclear power plants with Hydrogen Fuel cells. Leave the oil to the Plane and shipping industries, all land base modes should be electric except big trucks. Heating homes should be electric too. To bad the anti nuclear nuts don’t realize that Nuclear is the future.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 04:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
The answer is very clear, we need to perfect Fusion Power and Hydrogen Fuel Cell's. Otherwise we need a LOT more Nuclear power plants with Hydrogen Fuel cells. Leave the oil to the Plane and shipping industries, all land base modes should be electric except big trucks. Heating homes should be electric too. To bad the anti nuclear nuts don’t realize that Nuclear is the future.
Hydrogen isn't the answer. Nuclear's not much more promising.

Hydrogen

Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of global energy. Hydrogen is currently manufactured from methane gas. It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy "carrier" not a source. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it. Solar hydrogen might be an option in some of the hot countries.

Nuclear

Nuclear is currently being abandoned globally. Its ability to soften the oil crash is very problematic due to several factors:

1. Possibility of accidents and terrorism.

2. Cost: one reactor costs about 13 billion dollars.

3. Number of reactors needed: 1,000's

4. Not directly suited for transportation or agriculture.

5. Uranium requires energy from oil from in order to be mined.

6. All abandoned reactors are radioactive for decades or millennia.

7. Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
mojo2  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Uhhh... I'm not a politician.

All I'm saying is when are we going to start moving over? Why not now? Look at it this way. Is you getting cheap oil worth more than the lives of the soldiers overseas? There is an easier way, starting the transition to alternative fuels, and government subsidies of hybrid vehicle production, which also would create more jobs. We don't have to invade other countries. No one has to die for your cheaper gas.
Would you believe me if I said President Bush is against cheap oil. He says that's one of the reasons we're in the jam we're in.

I bet if you researched the issue you'd have the answers in a snap. No one here seems to know.
Give petty people just a little bit of power and watch how they misuse it! You can't silence the self doubt, can you?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
Hydrogen isn't the answer. Nuclear's not much more promising.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars are a perfect solution for Cars, and there are other Nuclear reactor types in the world that are cheaper and safer then what is used in the US. The Can-do reactors in Canada are much cheaper, and safer.

Nuclear is the best way to go right now until Fusion is perfected.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 10:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by mojo2
But, it's quite ANOTHER thing to actually accomplish that worthy goal in the TIMEFRAME you suggest and without bringing on COMPLETE WORLDWIDE CHAOS as a result.
It's simply something that HAS TO HAPPEN.

It's up to you to make it happen now, or later.

And, as it stands, the US, by wanting it to happen later, rather than now, is doing most excellent work in bringing on COMPLETE WORLDWIDE CHAOS™ as a result.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 11:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
The answer is very clear, we need to perfect Fusion Power and Hydrogen Fuel Cell's. Otherwise we need a LOT more Nuclear power plants with Hydrogen Fuel cells. Leave the oil to the Plane and shipping industries, all land base modes should be electric except big trucks. Heating homes should be electric too. To bad the anti nuclear nuts don’t realize that Nuclear is the future.
Using electricity is the least efficient way to heat a house by far.

Hot water through baseboard heating and or underneath the floor is the ONLY system new houses should include.

Now how to heat that water is up to you.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 11:26 AM
 
SOLAR Heat would be great to heat the water, and you can run it through the shower as well and then reclaim it.

Subfloor water-based heating is more comforatble than forced air and far more efficient.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Forced air is the cause of most respitory ilnessess.

I know about the solar, I've been flogging that horse everywhere Its makes THE most sense to heat water.

If you have a slab foundation (no basement) and sufloor heat inside the concrete, then *Mwah* your toes stay toasty, the rock holds the heat for days, and the entire house is heated evenly.

Electric heat sucks, forced air sucks, and <gasp> radiators suck too.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2