Bill,
Big Oil certainly has been part of keeping down
alternatives and increasing oil use.
What this country needs is supply, which coal-oil will
give us, refineries, which needs environmental
approval, and fuel-efficient cars and houses.
--- Bill Arnold <bill /at/ wjarnold D.O.T com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> It seems very much to me that this whole "energy
> crisis" is really about
> money. I know what you're saying about the fringe
> 'lunatic' position,
> but I'm quite sure the majority of people will
> accept a rational policy
> of placing nuclear reactors in relatively safe
> locations (e.g. buried
> inside of mountains, as an extreme example)
> *combined* with a variety of
> other energy-producing systems. In fact, it seems to
> me that if there is
> any challenge at all that science can do wonders
> with, it's energy.
>
> I know it's been said that big oil bought out
> alternative inventions
> over the years, and while I know that most such
> stories have been
> debunked, I'm also sure there's a big vein of truth
> in there as well, if
> only insofar as inhibiting the introduction of
> alternatives.
>
> This is a historical perspective, but at some point
> we'll look back over
> time and see that we should have turned to
> alternatives years ago, when
> it became obvious to those who study oil that we
> would be in the
> position we're in today. Great example of greed at
> it's worst, but it's
> a Big Lie, and we know what happens when the lies
> get that big.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > I'm all in favor of using coal.
> >
> > You're missing my point.
> >
> > Burning fossile fuels create carbon dioxide.
> Burning
> > wood creates carbon dioxide. Burning natural gas
> > creates carbon dioxide. When you burn carbon, you
> get
> > carbon dioxide.
> >
> > Enviromentalist wackos hate carbon dioxide because
> of
> > the green house effect.
> >
> > I agree with you that we should use coal, but we
> have
> > to fight the people who hate any alternative
> besides
> > solar and wind.
> >
> > Burning renewable resources like corn and wood, as
> > long as the wood and corn are replanted, make
> better
> > sense to the Environmentalist wackos.
> >
> > With the price of crude so high, I think you'll
> see a
> > large investment in alternative fuels quickly.
> >
> > I wonder why Microsoft hasn't jumped into the
> > altenative fuel market yet.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Bill Arnold <bill@wjarnold.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Did you read the article, Mike? It says "Again,
> > > however, it is far
> > > better
> > > than what we have today because it produces a
> > > cleaner-burning fuel than
> > > any used today."
> > >
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > You're forgetting one thing.
> > > >
> > > > The environemtalist wackos hate coal, not
> because
> > > of
> > > > the particulate release, but because it
> releases
> > > > carbon dioxide.
> > > >
> > > > Of course they hate nuclear for other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing left is solar and wind, which
> right
> > > now
> > > > can't meet our needs.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It is also true that coal-to-oil would
> require a significant
> > > > > investment of resources. But those resources
> would be well
> > > > > spent because there's a
> > > > > lot in it for Americans beyond just bringing
> > > down
> > > > > energy prices, getting
> > > > > America off foreign oil, creating a cleaner
> > > burning
> > > > > fuel, and creating
> > > > > thousands of jobs here at home (as if those
> > > wasn't
> > > > > enough). Taxpayers
> > > > > actually own much of the coal that can be
> used
> > > for
> > > > > this process. With
> > > > > political leaders dedicated to protecting
> > > taxpayers
> > > > > interests (as
> > > > > opposed to only the oil industry's
> interests),
> > > > > taxpayers could be cut
> > > > > into the massive profits that a coal-to-oil
> > > system
> > > > > would create. In
> > > > > Montana alone, the state and federal
> government
> > > own
> > > > > 115 billion tons of
> > > > > recoverable coal. That amount of coal could
> > > produce
> > > > > almost 200 billion
> > > > > barrels of fuel, and a big chunk of the
> revenues
> > > > > from that fuel would be
> > > > > the taxpayers' - money that could address
> > > America's
> > > > > pressing health
> > > > > care, education and homeland security
> > > challenges."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > >
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Michael Madigan |
