Those are all FINITE resources.
We need to invent something that will do for energy what the transistor
did for electronics.
Virgil
http://www.bierschwale.com
> 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 DOT 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 vbiersch /AT/ ktc .D.O.T com |
