Oil reaches Louisiana shores: News in pictures
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
so what you're suggesting is to pump another trillion or so in to the already massive budget/deficit in the hopes that it will fix the economy later while kickstarting a new means of energy production and usage.
In addition... over 70% of the oil we use is used in transportation. We have the technology TODAY to convert most transportation over to nat gas. We just need the infrastructure built out to do so.
THAT would keep BILLIONS of our money in the US
THAT would keep JOBS here in the US
In addition, it would be a cleaner burn than oil.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
did I mention genius
if your bike seat is causing problem, you should know that they:
1) make bike shorts with padding
2) make saddles with nice creases to help ease that discomfort.
Topspin
Verified User
seat has it
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Get your panties out of a bunch douche bag.... no one stated that we should just burn as much nat gas as we want. It is the cleaner and more efficient alternative to oil that is available as soon as the infrastructure is built out. We could have it up an running full force within five years.
So quit acting like anyone suggested the only thing to do is shift from oil to nat gas. I brought it up because it is the short term solution while we invest more heavily into the R&D of clean/alt energy products.
Topspin
Verified User
You know any hippy's actually reducing consumption, most people are increasing at least electricity with all the computers and big screens.
I know it is difficult to believe, but everything I write is not directed specifically at you. I was simply raising an issue that no one raised yet, although several folks commented on alternatives to oil.
Topspin
Verified User
shifting to Natty gas is the best bridge alternative, even if just for fleet's trucks and 2nd cars until volt like electrics are competetive with gas.
There are plenty. The trouble is that you aren't going to get significant reductions in consumption based on individual consumer action. If you want to actually increase energy efficiency it has to be top-down, not bottom-up.
Topspin
Verified User
HEY take your ghestapo tv set limits elsewhere, real men watch the NFL on 40 inch plasma or bigger
Why don't we do both? For these reasons:
1. To get off foreign dependency.
2. To create jobs here and now.
3. Infrastructure is already largely in place for Nat Gas.
4. Using that to run our cars would free up almost all of our dependency on foreign sources.
5. Wind energy cannot even possibly get close to providing enough energy for our basic necessities and Solar is inefficient and expensive at this time, we can work to make other sources while using Nat Gas as an interim choice.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Probably not but what it will do is end the days of asleep at the wheel government regulators.
I'm okay with nat. gas as a stop-gap kind of thing, but I tend to reject talk that other energy sources are decades away from having a meaningful impact.
I don't think any one thing is going to replace oil, but if you combine wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, etc. - then you can really change the conversation, and the expectation.
I don't think any one thing is going to replace oil, but if you combine wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, etc. - then you can really change the conversation, and the expectation.
I think it will simply take decades to put all that infrastructure in place. It's not like you just say, "We're using Geothermal" and it appears already attached to the grid. We don't live in a Disney movie. That "stop-gap" will need to last decades and be effective.
Making these other sources = good.
Thinking they'll be available within a year or two = unrealistic.
I agree that we don't live in a Disney movie, but I just think "decades" as a timeframe ignores history, and how quickly American ingenuity and steadfastness has laid waste to claims that this or that "couldn't be done."
"Yes we can," as they say. I would agree that the necessary infrastructure changes seem daunting, but once things get going, the change can build on itself. Just look at the recent computer/internet revolution for an example.
The recent computer revolution took decades, because infrastructure doesn't magically appear.
We need to be realistic even when speaking of American ingenuity. To effectively use that kind of energy across the nation will take decades to put in place. During that time, we'll find better and more efficient ways to make the energy and to use it, but it will still take decades to get into place. While we are doing that we need to have an effective means that isn't foreign to use. We have that, but are ignoring it.
Like I said, I'm totally cool with nat. gas as a stop-gap. I understand that it won't happen in a year or 2, but I still think decades is a mischaracterization.
It's not accurate to say it took decades for computers. Yes, computers were around for ages before offices standardized, but once the internet started to become an influential market force, and business started to be done through email, it was under a decade before the infrastructure was updated to accommodate the change.