|
EPGAH -> RE: IS there "peak oil"?, or no not yet. (1/3/2010 11:20:54 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Bear in mind, the fringe environmentalists are pushing legislation designed to increase your energy costs as much as they possibly can in order to save you from yourself.
(Next on the Democrats' agenda? Quite likely Cap & Tax).
If its not sunny, you had better hope its windy...
The reason oil is king, is because petrochemicals are the best way to have the amount of energy you need, when and where you need it! Oh, and cost-effective is a concern, especially with today's economy!
Coal is bigger, heavier, and pollutes more than oil...Why would we go BACKWARDS?
Wind farms are huge and inefficient, and DEFINITELY not portable. Noone ever notices the huge subsidies Spain gives their wind-farms just to keep them afloat. I wonder what the expenses could be after BUILDING a windmill and hooking it to a dynamo?
Solar cells SOUND like a great solution, BUT one good-sized cloud and you're screwed, and not in the fun way. Also, our planet turns, causing "night". Energy-storage systems just aren't up to the challenge, even WITH Lithium-Ion.
Nuclear power--even if it were portable--has too great a stigma to be implemented here in America. From Chernobyl to Three Mile Island, everyone thinks that reactors are dangerous. They are, of course, but that is because of OPERATOR ERROR, not the systems themselves. Mounting a reactor in a car, though, would be a nightmare for any sane person. We have enough problems with petrochemical-based cars exploding in a crash. Think of that on a nuclear scale...And yes, there would be plenty of "environmental damage"!
Taxing or otherwise increasing the costs of energy is a wrong solution, especially in an economy like this, where one good additional choke could stall it. Unless, of course, the OBJECTIVE is to reduce everyone to a Third World lifestyle? But note that even Third World countries are overindustrializing with NO thought to the environment, and China and India consider it a sign of their success to increase their use of cars and thus, fossil-fuels. Obviously, their chiding of America for using up resources comes from a place of JEALOUSY, rather than concern over the environment. If we cut back our resource-use, voluntarily or otherwise, those resources won't be SAVED, they'll be usurped and used up by the other countries! They don't necessarily want us to stop so much as they want what we've got, and if they can't catch up to us, then bringing us down would be a good Second Prize!
Of course, America COULD cut back--and sharply--on our fossil-fuel consumption, by cutting back our farms (70-75% of our oil goes to farming, depending whose stats you believe), but that would cease our sending of food to the Third World, and they would starve. Their jealousy, though, prevents them from seeing that.
So apparently, America MUST make sacrifices for the "Greater Good"--of the REST of the world, not ourselves!
Edited to Add: I forgot to point out that petrochemicals are not just used for fuel, but plastics, cosmetics, and other things that underpin our modern lifestyle, whether we think about them or not!
|
|
|
|
