I don't believe in global warming.
I think petrodiesel, then a transition to biodiesel, is the answer.
Regards, Ivan
Posted on 04/30/2006 12:55:20 AM PDT by MadIvan
I don't believe in global warming.
I think petrodiesel, then a transition to biodiesel, is the answer.
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
"To which British motorists can only reply: Diddums."
And Americans can, in turn, reply:
Well... don't want to get banned, so let's stop there.
I don't care who you are - that's funny!
Limbaugh says we aren't paying a lot for gas. So it must be true.
Actually ethanol my be an answer, but in fuel cells. Already have them in small ones, but it will be a while before they are scaled up.
Another is Nuclear power. Solar panels. All good, but the problem with all of them is it just reduces demand for oil and therefor, reduces price so it is more affordable and cheaper than the alternatives.
So do we do as the Brits and increase taxes on it to reduce demand? That would put more money in the US pocket and less in Iran's and SA.
Yep that's funny. I drive an SUV to help speed up the consumption of gas. We won't stop using it until it's gone. Necessity being the mother of invention, when we need a new energy source we'll get one. I watched a movie about a promising new alternative called energon....
Our consumer-based economy is driven by and dependent upon readily-available, reliable energy-- choke that off, and we'll all be back to using one rotary dial phone in the dining room, watching one TV in the living room, and driving one car per family-- probably a Hudson Hornet or a Nash Metropolitan...
We need to
1) end the nonsensical ban on offshore drilling off California and Florida--read & weep:
Castro Plans to Drill 45 Miles from US Shores, But We Can't
2) build a lot of next-generation nuclear power plants, not just for electricity, but for any process requiring heat, power, or steam.
And if we replaced our existing nuclear plants with this one there would be significant benefits.
3) end Jimmy Carter's idiotic ban on recycling nuclear waste, and reprocess the stuff rather than fighting over where to bury it. Europe has done this for decades.-- what to do with spent nuclear fuel? Answer here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1468321/posts?page=50#50 hattip: Mike (former Navy Nuclear Engineer)
4) use the 300-500 years worth of coal we have on our own land, using the new clean-coal technology.
-Clean Coal Centre--
5) and finally, there's nothing wrong with conservation, we should all practice it- but you can't conserve your way out of a shortage. Nor is there anything wrong with "alternative" energy sources- except they don't supply the vast ( not to mention readily-available ) amounts of power we need at a price competitive to more conventional sources. Then again, there is this to ponder:
Energy From the Gulf Stream
http://www.energy.gatech.edu/presentations/mhoover.pdf
We do need to get serious about this before we get strangled by a bunch of petty thieves and dictators who don't like us much.
My tongue-in-cheek collection of energy-related links:
Sticker Shock-$3 a gallon gas? Click the picture:
And kindly note, and note well-- the first reply to this post ( when gas was $1.45 a gallon ) was derisive... so, who's laughing now?
Has anyone here looked at the numbers?
Can we grow enough ethanol to fuel all the cars in the US?
Basically burning ethanol is using solar power.
I find it hard to believe that we can. It is also seasonal. And last but not least it uses a lot of water.
From my links:
What is he using? British math? There are less than 4 litres per gallon. That means that "petrol, my dear diddums" is less than $4/gallon.
OOOOPPPPPSSSS! 97.6 pence!
You Brits got to change that - it sounds too much like pennies. :)
(After a long run through the woods the oxygen was trapped in my legs slowing down my brain.)
pence are worth more than pennies.
Oops, late again.
ANWR (Alaska) was purchased for its oil -- time we followed through on the idea.
Would an economic model suggest that, since the price has increased sixfold in the last eight years, the supply should have declined sixfold during the same period? I don't buy the argument that global demand is driving prices up without a significant reduction in supply......
Interesting.
Look at the graph in post #28 on your 2004 thread (NYMEX Oil Futures). That graph is two years old but accurately predicted our $75/barrel high from last week.
In other words we had 2+ years warning of this impending "crisis". Two years to shape policy and prepare. Or not.
Apparently the price of gas isn't dear enough. Yet...
The author cites that the historic levels of CO2 have been 180 to 280 PPM, notes that they are currently 380 PPM, and points to that as incontrovertible proof. Sure lets me know why he's a journalist and not a scientist.
A couple of simple points, the first being the most obvious:
Correlation is not causation.
Nobody's proved that there IS a variation in the temperatures yet to my satisfaction.
And you're seeing more and more climate scientists breaking ranks with the global warming theory.
I think that 97.9 pence is a portion of the British pound which when converted to dollars would account for the $6 + per gallon amount.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.