quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I've yet to see this analogy topped:
 
Invading Iraq in response to 9/11, is a little like if we had invaded Canada in response to Pearl Harbor.

Actually that analogy is kind of stupid. In response to 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan. The reason given to invade Iraq would be their alleged WMDs and alleged connections to terrorism, however the primary reason was always the WMDs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

Yes, their generosity is indeed staggering: $1/gallon up to $3/gallon in less than a decade, then lower it slightly to keep us from suspecting price-gouging?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

Yes, their generosity is indeed staggering: $1/gallon up to $3/gallon in less than a decade, then lower it slightly to keep us from suspecting price-gouging?

Well put!

I was going to say the same thing.Gas prices are artificially high.

Ok,conservatives,let`s hear the arguments as to why gas prices should be high.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Let's hear the arguments about why we're burning petrochemicals for electricity in the first place.

The sun provides ALL the energy our planet could ever need, and we're too damn stupid to go and get it.

You know, it would have cost LESS than the money wasted in Iraq, and requires 1980's technology, so what's the hold up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

What we did in Iraq was invade a high security prison, kill off all the guards then  held elections and keep getting surprised that things aren't working out. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

The truth of the matter is that we use gas powered cars because it's the cheapest form of energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

NO, NO, NO!

The *solution* is Space Based Solar, with Ground Stations just plugged into the grid where the old generating stations stand.

It's UNLIMITED ENERGY, FOREVER once the 400 Billion dollars is INVESTED.

Zero Imports. Zero Emissions. As a benefit, we get to offer ground stations to our strategic allies.

It's 1970's/80's technology, and less money than we've wasted in Iraq.

Oh, and we get heavy lifting capacity into GEO. Once you're there, you go to the Moon for long weekends.

And you go everywhere else because it's there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

Tell me what aspects of it which is "Sci-Fi", and not commercially producible with the will, and a budget of 400 Billion Dollars.

The aspect of power transmission for one...it has never been done.

quote:


Secondly do you have any idea of the square footage of solar cells, even those in orbit, that would be required to replace current power sources?

quote:


Thirdly do you realise how vulnerable solar stations would be in orbit?

quote:


I don't think it's technologically feasible or desirable even if it were.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Durus

(Okay...sorry...had to do it...)

We use gas powered cars because the volume of gas to energy produced is the most efficient a la Henry Ford.

If a less efficient fuel could be produced more cheaply we would use it.

We continue to use them because the Oil Companies, the Automobile companies, etc., have conspired for years and years to kill...
 
Okay...we can run all the "tobacco" correlations we need to but...the oil companies are selling oil because...we're buying it.  (There's no "conspiracy").

We still use it because it's cheapest

(Uh huh).

Public transit (search for Los Angeles and public transportation)

That only works in population dense areas, and none of them are self sufficient. It's not a big plot.

It's an outlet...not a panacea.  Thankfully we're in a position to offer it...as an outlet.
 
(Not a panacea).

Auto efficiency.  A car that gets 100mpg will be unprofitable for gas companies.
 
So?

But it sure would be popular for the company that made the cars. I'm sure people are giving up being billionairs in deference to gas companies.

I did (but let's not discuss the immense wealth I transferred {that may have only taken me hours} to smaller countries during this rather important topic).

Electric car.  (Who killed the Electric Car, among others)
 
Mmmmm...I'd bet a fair guess at the "alternate" energy companies...anyone who ain't oil would be a safe bet.

The electric car has big problems that are not produced by oil companies. First of all we do not have the infrastructure to produce the electricity that we would need. Secondly and more importantly battery technology isn't quite there yet. There are some exciting cars coming out (tesla sportster) but in five years when the battery needs to be replaced and the person is looking a huge bill and we as a nation have to worry about disposal of batteries with toxic polluting chemicals in them it begins to look like it isn't THE solution at least right now.

Electric cars need electricity.  Currently 57% of our electricity comes from coal.  Anyone convincing themselves that electricity is clean energy....ought to roll me one.  (Of course, I refer to Christmas wrappings in that).

We need to develop an infrastructure, but every time somebody steps up to the plate to do so he gets ridiculed and trashed by the Corporatocracy and their generally right wing corporate drones.
 
If by that, you mean we need to establish a national infrastructure program, wherein which our roads, bridges, airports, and all other port issues that hinder our growth are funded appropriately....I'd agree.
 
If by that you mean every possible enactment of some govt. bilge that allows us each to sit back and wait for someone else to produce the goods....no thanks.

The undue amount of power that coporations weild over the polital process isn't hard to fix...but anyone in the postition to do it wants the cash it provides. Then we have to remove the control government has over business because ultimately that's what feeds the beast. Any alternative infrastrure requires energy from some source and as far as I can determine we need to start building nuke plants now to support it.