Sounds like coal could be part of the solution. The auto industry R&D departments will bring an all electric car and also hybrids that will achieve over 100mpg within the next 5 years.
Electric cars are great for taxis and vehicles running in cities as well as commuters. Coal could bridge the gap but we really needs to stop burning fossil fuels due to the pollution and grean house gases. Another solution is nuclear energy. Nuclear is clean and can supply electricity for home heating as well.
Nuclear is clean but people are afraid of it. Nuclear, Coal and Hydro will all impact the environment. We just need to lessen the impacts with safeguard. Nuclear has less impact unless there is a meltdown. The long term answer is renewable energy wind and solar. The energy solution should be taken on locally. If each homeowner or building owner would put solar panels on their dwellings this could reduce energy production cost by as much as 25%. We do not have to wait for the government we could start doing this ourselves.
Wind farms have a lot of impact on birds. Thermal energy can provide an option in some volcanic areas. The tides can also provide power for electric turbines. Solar will only provide a benifit in sunny areas and the panels are still very expensive.
Meltdown is really an issue of maintenance. We need to maintain or overhaul the facilities we have and build state of the art nuclear plants. It needs to be considered a national emergency and a matter of not only national security but of sovereignty. Electric, hydrogen cells, and bio-diesels WILL be the next ten years of auto innovation.
We just recently got one of them, they are an eye sore of eye sores! Plus yes they effect birds, been hearing reports of lots of them dying already. Plus I believe they are going to effect home prices around here from how ugly they are, they also Fuxx with your eyes big time while driving. The shadow on the road at times is unreal! I'd love to partially make my house run on Solar, if only it was that easy and affordable.
One of the reasons I'd revisit oil drilling off the coasts is that it has been 27 years since the bans went into effect. That is a long long time. So much has changed. I'm neither for it or against it. I'd revisit the issue and reweigh the costs and benefits. Again, I'd look at all the alternatives at this point in time. If there is one other thing I'd do I'd look at increasing govt research and/or increasing incentives for various forms of alternative energy uses.
No. I've got my airless rebreather, and my underwater demo, ready. I am taking off the gloves, and following The Envirofascist Tactical Reader on this one. [Sarcasm]. I always weigh potential damage against potential gain. I understand the technology is very different from 1969, but the potential disaster remains the same, and the benefit isn't worth it, in my opinion.
tons of people in florida are clamoring to start drilling, they scared they will no longer be able to afford their v8 trucks if gas stays expensive of course most experts say even if they drill the prices will only be effected a little if at all, and it will take years
It will take at leat five years if we start now. If we talk about it five years then it will take 10 years to see the effect.
1. It's safe. In the 70s, every single thing that was drilled from muck to the lethal gases at the bottom of the ocean towed away in a barge. Spills of oil? Okay. Whatever. 2. So? Shouldn't we think long term? Or is everything about short term quick fixes? If we did this 10 years ago, we wouldn't have a problem today. 3. Why? Should America piss off the world until China gets fed up and initiates war? I'm a capitalist, not because I love a nation, but because I'm a world citizen and I think it's evil to think you should starve the world out for your own benefit. Sick. As for your depleting natural resources. What value is natural resources if you never use it? You're just complaining for the sake of complaining, no matter how illogical it is. --------------------- I say they should allow it. Let's drill oil. Let's produce. Let's better our lives.
You honestly think there is 'no chance' of a spill today? Umm it appears we are thinking long term, it is you who is not. 10 years ago 'no problem today' yet there isn't that much oil we can get to. In order to have enough oil to have any real effect on the prices we would have used up what little we could get to pretty damn quickly. This equals by any rational a 'quick attempt at a fix' and not any longer term solution. How is it starving the world by keeping the little we have that we can actually get to while buying oil from others who want to sell it to us? Your thinking is borderline delusional. Oh yes great logic. Lets burn up everything we can, after all with the same logic, the quicker we use it the more valuable it is. 'Illogical' you've got to be kidding me. Your post screams of 'illogical' --------------------- How is it going to 'better' our lives?
You are correct "just complaining for the sake of complaining, no matter how illogical it is." Great point We need to start today. Alternative fuel research and drilling is the solution
"In past years oil exploration was done based on the observation of oil seeps at the surface. In many areas oil seeps out of the ground naturally, so these were likely places to drill. As geologic understanding grew, geologists realized that certain structures were likely to contain oil. The first geologist going into Saudi Arabia identified drilling sites from the deck of the ship before he even landed. He could see the structures that were likely to contain oil. As the easy finds have been drilled, the process has gotten much more scientifically rigorous. Often oil exploration starts with an exercise called basin modeling. Geologists look at ancient basins and use available evidence to determine 1) if there is adequate source rock of sufficient organic content and of the proper organic content to generate oil 2) if the burial and subsidence history of the basin was such that at some time in the past the source rock was forced to a depth where the temperature and pressure were ideal for petroleum generation 3) the oil expelled from the source rock had a migration path that allowed it to escape from the source rock 4) there were traps created by structure (anticlines, synclines, fault blocks, etc) or stratigraphy (variations in rock composition) that existed at the same time as the migration took place 5) there was a seal on the trap that prevented escape of the oil or gas over the long period of time that the oil resided there 6) the past heat gradient of the basin was such that the temperature of the source rock reached the ideal temperature range and did not get too hot or stay too cold. As you can guess, a good understanding of a basin's geologic history is necessary, including it's deposition, burial, subsidence, uplift, and faulting history. Misunderstanding or incomplete evidence of any one of these factors results in more risk of failure. The efficiency of the kitchen (the area where the organic material in the source rock is being 'cooked' into oil) can be evaluated with several different kinds of data. Certain organic compounds known as vitrinite can be examined and can give visual evidence of the maximum temperature they have reached. These samples are taken from well cuttings so the approximate depth of the sample is known. Bottom hole temperatures of existing wells are commonly measured and plotted on maps, as well as the temperature gradient coming up through the well. Apatite fission track analysis is another method for determining the thermal history of a sample and can tell the story of the burial history. If there is adequate organic material of the proper makeup and if it can be predicted that it reached a temperature of more than 140 degrees F, then it was likely to generate oil. While it was between 140 F and 320 F it would have been generating oil, and beyond about 200 F, it would have started generating natural gas. If it stayed in the high end of that range long enough, the oil would have changed to natural gas. Beyond about 390 F both oil and natural gas will break down and change to graphite. Understanding this thermal history will lead to predictions about the existence and the potential quantity of oil and gas in a basin. Pressure is also a factor in this process. When the hydrostatic or lithostatic pressure reaches a certain point, oil will begin cracking to form natural gas. Quite often this change can generate what is called overpressure in the reservoir, where the reservoir pressure actually is higher than lithostatic pressure and it can be dangerous for drilling if not anticipated. One of the most fascinating parts of this basin modeling process is that different oil reservoirs can be identified by a geochemical signature that can be traced back to the original source rock. Often when working in a basin there is more than one source rock, and more than one possible migration path to the trap. One of the most fascinating examples of this type of detective work was the identification of oil reservoirs in Brazil that came from source rock that is now in Africa. The oil formed when the two continents were originally splitting apart. If you really want to learn about the process here are the books I recommend:" Hunt, John M, 1996, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co., 743 p. ISBN: 0716724413 Demaison, Gerard, and Roelof J. Murris, editors, 1984, Petroleum Geochemistry and Basin Evaluation, AAPG Memoir 35. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 426 p. ISBN: 08911813128 Beaumont, Edward A., and Norman H. Foster, editors, 1999, Exploring for Oil and Gas Traps: Treatise of Petroleum Geology. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, ~1000 p. ISBN: 0891181602X
You've all got me so excited I have poked about a dozen holes in my backyard, one looks promising. This is all just useless prattle talking about drilling in the ocean or whatever, it will have no near term effect on oil prices. Homeslice: You should summarize that block of text, it nauseates me just looking at it.
There's always risk as with anything. Just because there is a "chance" of something doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. So there really isn't any oil we can get too?? Okay, I don't believe that, but I have no problem conceding the point. I still support it allowing business to drill. I'm really having a hard to reading your sentences. I'm have problems comprehending them. You're saying how is it starving the world if we keep a little oil, than from that point it gets a little shaky. I guess what I don't understand is the "we can actually get to while buying." I don't have a problem with using our oil. But the person I was quoting was suggesting it be hoarded. Hoarding things while oil goes down in supply to "profit" in the future (whenever that will be). Seems pretty obvious how that starves the world. Okay. Where exactly did I state that? Okay. Care to explain? Producing improves lives. See if you go back to before the industrial revolution before we started mass producing everything, people lived till they were 35, were farmers and had hard lives. The luxury you and I enjoy today comes from production of goods and that delicious "black gold" that moves items around the world. That's why we enjoy the luxury of fruit grown in the jungles of South America, and that we can get the cheapest electronics products in Korea. Producing = good Not producing = bad Seems pretty logical.
Why? It's seem illogical to try to find another fuel when there is one we have here now that is extremely cheap.
Ahh, you summed up your logic in one sentence. Thank you. I don't think I could have made you look as foolish as you made yourself look with that post.