|
jlf1961 -> RE: Perry Promises Increased Drilling and Decreased Regulation (10/16/2011 10:13:16 PM)
|
You have not said anything about the fact that Perry would dismantle the EPA, hence the statement that republicans could care less about the environment, cut funding into alternative fuels and power generation research, and doing nothing to LESSEN the dependence on oil.
To address your point, oil is AN answer.
Oil is a TEMPORARY answer, in other words, it is going to run out. You would have us forgo research into making alternatives cheaper until it is gone.
Hiding under the covers and making claims that we have more than enough oil to last is absurd. We don't. Oil is running out, and we need to find alternatives now before it is gone.
Demand for oil is on the rise. Domestic demand for oil in the US is on the rise. And it is going to run out.
A few things that that government research money is funding right now.
There is synthetic fuel production, using a couple of different methods, the Germans used it in WW2 to supplement oil production.
One of the most promising is getting oil from biomass, in fact one of the best plants that has been used to make biodiesel is cannabis. It has been experimented with in limited college labs. It is a refined mixture of the oil from the seeds and ethanol. Growing Hemp is illegal in the US, even though the most promising member of the family is Industrial Hemp, which contains less than 1 percent psychoactive chemicals in its flowers, and some of its cousins, which contain up to 22 percent. http://biodiesel.engr.uconn.edu/research.html
I have heard Conservatives argue that making biofuel is taking grain out of the food supply, hemp grows in soils that would normally not be cultivated in normal farming. Thus growing the hemp would not directly impact food production.
I am not saying that bio and synthetic fuels would or could replace oil, but given the government support, it could take some of the pressure and cut the current dependency.
Then there is, nuclear electricity production. Yes it has its drawbacks, and yes the resultant waste needs to be dealt with, but until someone makes a break through in fusion research, we are going to have to seriously consider the current technology.
A dew points on the automotive side of the equation.
While Hybrid or electric cars seem to be a ultra liberal rallying cry, the truth is that right now, an all electric Nissan Leaf has the Longest range at 100 miles city driving for a family style four door, and the Tesla roadster has a 245 mile range at highway speeds. But there are some catches to an electric vehicle. Not the least of which is that some cars would require electrical work done on your home to charge one.
The tesla uses a custom microprocessor-controlled lithium-ion battery with 6,831 individual cells. 3.5 hour charge time from empty to full using the Tesla High Power Wall Connector at 240 Volts and 70 Amps.
The Nissan leaf also recommends a 240 volt charging station in the home.
A few cars can be charged on 110 volt household current, but take up to 24 hours to charge.
IN other words, while electric cars are available, more research into the batteries for these cars needs to be done. So much for the ultra liberal dream of electric cars.
Hybrid vehicles have some promise, but they only use total electric drive for up to 25 miles, then switch to gas, which runs the car and charges the battery. In the long run, not as green as some people claim.
The most practical alternative to gasoline, at this time, is hydrogen.
The hydrogen fuel cell , which generates electricity through a reaction with oxygen, shows promise. The problem is that hydrogen fuel cells are expensive, prohibitively expensive at current technology, about $5,500/kW, .
A hydrogen burning engine actually is 8% more efficient than a gasoline powered engine. The simple fact is that an internal combustion engine is not very efficient, of course it is more efficient than an external combustion engine, such as steam power.
All those areas of research are being funded partially by the government. Would you support cutting funding to those programs as Perry has said he would do?
|
|
|
|
