Thank you for showing me how stupid we americans are by the results in this poll! Where sound bites from special interest groups seem to rule the america to advance a policy that is killing this economy and it is not just in the energy policy. Instead of a everything is on the table energy policy get us out of this mess they have created 20 years ago. Speeches about energy independance, yet nothing is done. Now they are going to tax carbon and who do you think is going to pay for that? You will learn this soon. Third world america is at your doorsteps and you don't see it.
Check 'em all out, but especially April 30, 2008 for a view on Alaska oil. I have heard that geographically, the drilling footprint would be comparable to a postage stamp on a football field.
It's not about being green, or being pragmatic, or even doing what is for now the most profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that oil is not a viable fuel for the future of mankind due to the lack of supply when compared with the constantly rising demand. Furthermore, as an essentially non-renewable resource it is even less viable. Sure the National Wildlife refuge holds oil, but is it a considerable enough quantity to justify the sacrifice?
As humanity progresses towards the future we will increasingly run across such decisions and the answer is never easy. The important thing is to accept that the next few decades will likely determine the fate of humanity, we hopefully will not be destroyed under even the worst scenario... but, if we do not get our act together and address our world from an unbiased scientifically based viewpoint we will suffer untold damage. Honestly, drilling in ANWR is not a huge issue to me, but it is reflective of the choices we collectively must make in the coming years...
The truth is that how many climatologist figure time is not correct.
They make too many assumptions that are not correct and more than not proven wrong.
Example: Laying of ice at the poles or in the sediments equal a set regular amount of time or about 1 year.
This is sheer nonsense. You could have a dozen layers laid down in a single year. It depends precipitation. Each major storm that happens can lay down a layer.
Thus there is no way to know the yearly rate or the number of layers laid down in a single year and its irresponsible by those scientist to assume that 1 layer equals 1 year.
Thus, I do not think that the rise in CO2 is any different that is was in times past. All the known graphs point to simular patterns its just as matter of scale of time that is the problem. But the the truth is that the overall graphic trends would be the same.
There is nothing man can do to stop the greenhouse effect or the melting poles. We should not waste money on research or force programs on companies on a course that is of no effect.
I have no problem with air quality or lessening toxic output. But we should not penalize businesses because of greenhouse gasses that are really out of the general control of man.
I will tell you now, that the level of CO2 will rise faster over time and will eventually become exponential then peak after the oceans unload their CO2.
It will be very hot and most of the world will be more desert than lush jungles.
Did you know that Wyoming was once simular to the Congo? Why is not not one again? Yellowstone!
The point is that global warming is a joke at best where all that money being spent on research is just being waisted and making some people extra rich while harming the common person in the USA.
It's called a NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE for a reason. As a nation, we need to stop being so dependent on fossil fuels and start using alternative energy sources that won't harm the Earth.
well, maybe when oil spikes to $200 and a state of emergency is declared, Congress will get up off their green asses because of the civil army of real people camped on the steps of their little namby-pamby game boards ... maybe right in the middle of their Summer vacations and vacuous all-consuming political season.
Okay, let's say you're right, just for the sake of argument. If the sun is actually becoming hotter, don't you think it would be a good idea to do what we can to minimize our output of greenhouse gasses? Regardless of whether you think they are causing global warming, if the sun is in fact getting hotter it is impossible to argue that they don't expedite process.
unfortunately that means ridding the world of us, so unless you're one of those humanity-hating neoenvironmental-utopist, we still need to do something.
Creating the belief that man has created global warming is the goal of the United Nations leaders, in order to convince the world for the need of a "global tax on carbon" and the need to tax the world for having more than 1 child. It is complete bullpoop. The leading researchers at NASA and other orgnizations show that the sun itself is becoming hotter and thats the main reason for the warming change of our planet. The planet has been changing temperatures since its existence, prior to the industrial revolution. It is so sad how gullible people are, when it comes down to it, people in the UN are motivated by 2 things: increasing revenues to expand and control the world through the United Nations, and 2. Creating a global tax to fund their efforts/ World Bank/IMF. And before you ask, no I don't own shares in major oil companies.
7 of the top 8 richest companies are the oil companies because they have no competition and they are making us poor so their executives can ride around in nice big SUV's while you wonder how long it takes before you can no longer drive to work to pay for the gas you need to get there and feed you family.
Open up Alaska, tell the foreign oil companies to shove it and when they come back to us groveling on their knees because they are no longer making BILLIONS of dollars a year off of you and me enact a bargaining agreement that caps the price of oil. If they don't agree then send them packing.
Actually, My favorite idea is to just take over Iraq and make those oil fields our own. I mean geesh, all those liberals are yelling about this being a war for oil, we ought to go over there and at least get it.
Oh and all those innocent Iraqi people. They can live just as peacefully and probably more so in the American Province of Iraq. Not to mention all the technology and upgrades we'd bring them to give them a standard of living they deserve!
"You think profits for a large corporation are worth the risk of destroying our environment?" This is a leading question with a false causation assumption.
By answering yes the responder would admit the false premise that profits risk destruction of the environment. By answering no, then the responder also accepts the false premise.
If "...we can't know with any certainty..." How do you know the following?
"...CO2 levels in history happend at a MUCH slower rate...", "...millions of years ago...","...to have done nothing would be catastrophic..."
Granted, when looking at the history of our climate, we have an incomplete picture, we can't know with any certainty what CO2 levels were millions of years ago. Also, in the past, the earth did not have the effects of humans impacting it. Furthermore, the rises in CO2 levels in history happend at a MUCH slower rate than they are in this century. Lastly, even without absolute certainty that we are harming the environment to the point of making life difficult for us, not doing ANYTHING, is foolish. If we are right, and we are destroying the environment, to have done nothing would be catastrophic. Don't you think it would be prudent to play it on the safe side? You think profits for a large corporation are worth the risk of destroying our environment?
Pretty sick if you do.
First, I laughed long and hard at your very first sentence.
If your a follower of Al Gore and Global Warming is caused by man argument, then well its just sheer idiocy.
Yea Gore got some 180 scientist to pen their name out of how many? Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world.
Geez, its just sheer loonacy. Are you aware that the earth goes through cycles? That in these cycles that the level of CO2 rises like what we see?
That there are at the very least 5 known times in geologic history where the CO2 levels were many times more than what we see today?
That the main factor in Global warming is tied to three things predominately?
1. Shifting of the pole from 22.5° to 24.5° and back again When approaching 22.5° ice age. 24.5° Green house effect We are current at 23.4° and heading for 24.5°
2. Vulcanism. The level of active vulcanism is down from times in previous past history. Although its on the increase its still down from preivious history. The Amount of Ash in the atmosphere is at play. The more Ash the cooler it becomes. This was the reason for the little Ice age. Before the little ice age, it was so warm in the northern parts of the world that greenland could grow grain crops like in Germany and England had Wineries of the likes that were better than anything France could produce. True as written records show that Nobles of france imported English Wine because of how good it was. Its almost warm enough now in England again to have grapes and wineries like they did some 1000 years ago.
Thus low level of Ash in the atmosphere promotes Greenhouse effect. High ash Amounts promote Ice age effect.
3. Oceanic currents. These current are driven by two factors, Water denisty and salinity.
The lower the salinity of the oceans the less dense the water becomes the more CO2 is released from the oceans which is the main factor of the CO2 in the world 90% of the world's CO2 Comes from the oceans. most of this is locked up because of the density of the ocean keep the CO2 locked up. But as Salinity drops the denisty also drops and CO2 is released from the oceans and this for a time drives the ocean current to work faster and it raises the overall temperature of the oceans.
Eventually, the level of salinity reaches a point where the density is not enough to cause Oceanic convection. The ocean currents shut down and then we will travel back toward the ice age type of item.
When will it happen? wnen most of the shelf ice from the poles are melted. Then we will see harsh winters of the likes that will drive most canadians to America because it will be winter for 9 to 10 months out of the year.
But that is some time down the road. We are heading the oposite direction where winter is 2 to 3 months out of the year with the max point where winter is only a month or two.
Then it will shift back.
Thus man will be powerless to effect it. After all, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. 90% of these greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. Does man have an effect? sure. But only 10% effect. The truth is that man when burning wood and Coal had more effect on the environment in the past than what we do today. The difference is that the types of gases man makes are more deadly.
But CO2 is the main factor in Greenhouse effect. 90% of the world's CO2 is in the oceans and the amount of salinity and density has more of an effect than anything else.
Even if every factory and person on earth stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow. The truth is that it will not change the cycle of the earth. It might change local air quality and it might have a local effect in some areas. But globally, no effect.
That is the truth and the facts. Its call science. Its called Geology, Its call Geophysics, its called Astrophysics. If any one of the 3 items above can effect climate for a period of time.
For example. If you have high vulcanism at a time when the poles are at 24.5° then it would limit the greenhouse effect. Should it happen while at the 22.5° time, then it would magnify the effect.
What we are seeing right now is lack of vulcanism which is magnifying the greenhouse effect. We need several vulcanoes to blow its top off to the point that it reduces the amount of light from the sun to get to the surface.
then you would see a change in the climate.
But man really has little effect on the climate at this time other than Man cuts down too many trees which does effect CO2 levels. Trees and jungles consume CO2. Thus the more plant life Man destroys has a million times more effect on the overall greenhouse issue than some 1000 coal power plants or 300 million cars on the road.
The environmental effects of drilling even in %20 of ANWR for what would ultimately be, if %100 were used all at once, a month or less' supply of oil is just not very feasible. Drilling in ANWR is a bandaid on a hemorrhage; if cheaper oil is something to be desired, perhaps the United States should try to be more cooperative with the OPEC nations, as for the most part the US is at odds with two of its most powerful members (Venezuela and Iran) and has successfully reduced the amount of oil coming out of Iraq to a trickle.
Why do u think trains need oil? They are run in many other countries on magnetics. A very fast stable form of transportation, costly yes but much nicer. Japan has it down to a science and we should implement that. Planes will always be flying on oil until research is made on other forms of flight. Id say if we can get off the oil tit we can research more effective ways to fly. ATM us is the worse techno superpower that is developed china doesnt count they arent exactly developed. Europe kills the Americas in alt power consumption. What we should be thinking about not complaining is how we can fix this... Most people want to drive there oversized trucks around and still think they are cool. So when they go broke from wasting $ on gas and cant pay there bills loose there houses, whos gonna pick up the bill. Lookin to canada to move out cause this union is going down the hole quick and no government intervention is coming.
First of all must I reiterate that given the current climate status of the planet, there is no better time to ween the American public off of oil. The American addiction is to energy and not oil, oil is merely the most convenient way to fulfill our addiction. This said, there are many cleaner and better, (in terms of the efficiency of energy transfer) ways to produce the energy that Americans so readily consume. I say it is good that oil rises to $500 a barrel in the international oil markets, $600 even better. Right now there is no incentive to move on to environmentally friendly, renewable energy sources. The opportunity cost of switching to clean energy is still to great for Americans to adopt new technologies in energy production.
Second, yes I realize that there plastics and many other consumer products are produced from oil. But is there a need to produce any more? Most if not all of the plastics created can be re-used to either create new products or simply continue in performing their previous function. I find it wasteful that humans can Americans so readily dispose of a product that can be used for essentially eternity. Most plastic goods are disposed of upon their first use. So here the ignorance lies within the Americans love affair with convenience and disposable income. With the economy going into a recession, I see no better time for changing the wasteful thinking of Americans and becoming more conservationist nation.
So relating to the post above titled "Such Idiocy and Ignorance Abounds" instead of spending time looking at projects of how the oil problem will only intensify in its gravity "I have seen the projections from two different oil companies which expect price of oil to one day max out somewhere over $500 a barrel."(Pablo, in post above), pushing us towards "Peak Oil". Why don't you spend that time and research forms of alternative energy that can help mitigate the oil problem, and be part of the change for good, instead of a cynic who sits around getting spoon fed propaganda from oil companies.
Oil will be a standard in America for the next 1000 years or more.
WHy? Plastics, Perfume, most chemicals, about 35% pharmasudicals and the list goes on and on.
America will always have a demand for Oil.
The difference is where you get it. We can either get it domestically where the price can be under control and could even be reduced down to like $20 a barrel or less or fight with the rest of the world for oil where the price of a barrel of oil will top one day $500 a barrel on the global market. I have seen the projections from two different oil companies which expect price of oil to one day max out somewhere over $500 a barrel.
America can stop the need for gas and disel from oil, but that it. Gas and Disel currently make up 70% of the oil used.
The more reason to convert to hydrogen for tranportation modes and open up ANWR.
ANWR is so huge and the area that is supected to have oil is roughly 20% of the over all area if they just drilled like mad where they wanted would not take up more than 20% of the overall land mass. An that is still based on drilling methods of times past.
America needs to bite the bullet and make the leap to hydrogen. Its benefits to the environment is obvious as it is the best green item out there even more so than electric.
But America will always have a need for Oil. All those plastic bottles for your precious clean water or soda to a millions of other items is made from oil!
So even if gas and disel was a suddenly no more, Oil would still be under demand so that all those environmentalists can have their bottle of water and other pastic goods.
Wake up, people. The sooner nations get off the petroleum tit for fuel, the better. There are chemical products that only come from petroleum that will still need making we should be using it for. The aviation fuel problem may take longer to solve due to the weight issue. We're wreaking all this havoc to drive fricken CARS??
Get personal vehicles off petroleum and we'll have that much more to fuel trucks, planes, and trains until an alternative suitable for them is developed.
It will be worth more later as petrochemicals than it is now for fuel. Screw Alaskans any way you can, it's national policy and the wave of the future. Above all don't let them profit from resources or even make a living until Cheney & the bunch can get their slice.
I have changed over my central heating and AC to an all electric source which is 100 time more effecient than Natural gas common items seen in 80% of the market.
My overall electric bill is $92 a month Its actuall less in the summer a bit more in the winter for my home in the city.
I have a three windpowered generators which produce more electricity than I can use in my ranch home where I earn $450 a month from the utility company.
I would buy a Hudrogen car today if I could get one. They are just not sold where I live. Honda FX cars are only being leased in California, Oregon and Virginia.
If they would sell one, I would be first in line.
The technology is here. We just need leadership from congress and a President who is for the American people to make this technology a reality for all citizens.
There is a hydrogen generator for electricity. But I can not buy one. Because the Federal government wants to research more on its overall performance. Its been researched now 22 years. There is more research and development to prove Hydrogen is safe and reliable than ethanol or biodisel.
It just going to take people in power to just make the stand and make it happen.
But I do practice what I preach and would be one of the first people here in Texas to get the proven and current retail products which are based on Hydrogen technology.
The hardship is a 3 year one to jump to hydrogen. The Automakers need about 2 years to get the engines in place and they do not need to redesign cars for the most part other than where the fuel tank goes and a few other minor things. The hydrogen engines cost basically the same but are a few hundred dollars more expensive right now because they are few. But generally a hydrogen engine works the same as the current combustion engine that uses petroleum. In fact, Hydrogen engine is a combustion engine. The difference between them is that hydrogen produces water as its exhaust. Thus the materials for the engine and exhaust have to be water corrosion proof or resistant.
If a Semiconductor plants like Texas Instraments or Intel can heat their factories with Hydrogen and have been doing it for 35 years, why can I use hydrogen to heat my home? Why does the Government need more research on a proven technology?
Simply put, Our government leaders are too addicted to Big oil money bribes, campaign controbutions and other links to allow the cheapest of energy items to be allowed to the general public.
All we need is leadership and a couple of years and America will be free of foreign oil!
Even so, China, India and other parts of the world will increase demand on oil. Thus price of oil will never drop on the world market. But If America produces all its own oil for the Airplanes and trains which will still need to be oil based, Then we have to open up all those localities for that oil to be used over the next 20 years until hydrogen or other types of fuel can be used in those sectors like Airplanes and trains. Once that happens then oil and gas will only be used to run vintage cars or other products.
We have plenty of alternative sources of energy. If the government didn't cater to oil companies and money, we wouldn't even need to consider drilling in Alaska.
We've already created greener ways of living, it's just a matter of getting the government to allow us to live greener.
Hydrogen takes less power to make than any other kind of fuel or gas for that matter.
Currently in Sweeden, they have small units half the size of the one I was describing using a 2 by 2 solar cell to produce hydrogen for their 2010 project.
It takes about the same amount of power that your own refigerator in your home to produce all the hydrogen you would need to fuel your car, heat your home and in some cases produce electricity for the lights in the home.
So for the moron who said that hydrogen takes too much power to make is clueless!
Converting hydrogen to electricity is currently at a negative for high power generations or for high voltage batteries.
But to make hydrogen gas for common fuel for a car, takes the least amount of power than any other form of gas or fuel. A 100 watt light bulb take more power than it would take to make hydrogen gas.
Geez people, stop listening to the lies of the idiot environmentalist.
Anonymous wrote:
"and that bad thing is BREEDING. STOP IT NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET."
Tell it to the Democrats in Sacramento, they pay poor people (mostly immigrants) with all manner of benefits to have up to eight children so that is what many of them do. As a result immigrants in CA have 50% more children than their neighbors back in their home country.
and that bad thing is BREEDING. STOP IT NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET.
each new infant brought forth is BAD for the planet. food requirements, production of food, distribution of food, distribution of water resources,
contamination of water, land, air resources by the excessive population bred in the past 70 years.
Create new economics practices that does NOT depend of ever expanding client, customer, consumer base.
All the global warming, resource privation derives from ONE SOURCE.... EXCESSIVE BREEDING OF PEOPLE..... (homo sapiens is a great mis-nomer homo INsapiens fits better for the species)
Why not let the oil companies decide if it is feasible to drill in ANWR and make a profit. If they determine it is not worth it, then it's a moot point. If it is, let then have at it at their expense.
Between the oil in ANWR, oil in Kansas, oil shale in western states which we are rapidly developing the means to extract, we have all the oil we can use.
In the beginning no one cared if some oil company drilled for oil and made different things out of it. The oil reserves are a natural resource of the Nation. Some nations have it and some don't. A few have some oil reserves. Who really owns the oil in the ground? Most countries that have any real oil reserves control the oil by claiming ownership of the resource. Is that good, or is that bad? The price of gasoline and diesel has skyrocketed and coincidently the oil companies have had record profits at the same time. The question is how much are the profits compared to the cost of recovering the oil from the ground and processing it? I suspect that the profits are out of proportion to the cost of processing the oil reserves.
No! George Bush didn't cause all this price gouging in the oil industry because it has been going on and increasing for years even when the democrats were completely in power.
The only thing wrong with nuclear power is the number of ignorant people who are scared of anything they don't understand. Its clean and efficient.
Wind power is fine, but the environmentalist are always complaining about the effect on their view, (Teddy Kennedy and wind power where he lives and sails his yacht.)
Somebody is always complaining and harping about NIMBY. It is time this country wakes up from the free and easy ways of the past and comes to grips with what the future will be like.
America has enemies, for sure. The majority of them have, but one weapon....Oil. We could disarm them, with the ANWR reserves, but for only at most 10 years. Then we are in even worse shape. The ANWR reserves should only be tapped, if tied to a Manhatten Project, to develope alternative energy sources and a long range plan of population reduction. We already have alternative energy sources. They just need to be de-politicized and refined. Population reduction is a no-brainer. 75% of Americas population growth, over the last 40 years has been from immigrants and the children, thereof. Thats a big ...DUH.
while hydrogen is an alternative to oil, there are many other alternatives out there to coal besides nuclear. Wind and solar for instance are probably going to be some of the best.
"Tell the future generations it was good for the economy, when they can't farm the land, drink the water, or breathe the air."
Anyway, personally: I don't see this as a nature thing. I see this more as a "Should we let the rich destroy our present and future so that they can make more money?" There's other ways- current wealth isn't interested in it (change costs money). And anyway, why should the corporations care? It's not like the rich are the first to suffer when an environment begins to fail.
NIMBA. Not In My Back Yard. The route of selfishness. I want this. I want that. My house is better than your house. You store my garbage in your back yard (San Francisco vs Lassen County in California)
"And who is going to allow refineries " Well said and is the gladius of the energy debate.
Hydrogen, no any processing, takes energy to condence-produce. Even nature uses energy (mostly solar) to produce H2. Hydrogen base electrical energy is technologicly impractical today for me to use. Discovery is a gift. Not something that money guarantees.
The elite can afford such extravagant energy just as the nobleman of 1400 riding in a weatherized coach vs the peasant walking behind a produce cart.
It's true that nuclear is a great option for safely supplying huge amounts of electricity to the power grid. However, there are activisim groups that lobby very passionately against the building of new nuclear plants because of fear people still have, and the problem of nuclear waste.
There are so many energy options that will help us move forward, away from fossil fuels and the high emmissions associated with their use. Solar panels are getting more and more efficient and wind farms have had huge success worldwide.
Alaska is a huge natural beauty in this country, and the effects of climate change have already done a lot of damage there. Photographers have documented the loss of glacial ice mass over the last 50 years. Drilling in Alaska would be an expensive investment that would further harm Alaska's wildlife. The money would be much better off going towards research, development, and addition of clean energy methods to our infrastructure. We need to be moving forward and leave fossil fuels behind.
Hydrogen requires a lot of energy to produce. Hydrogen is usually produced by coal or some other carbon based fuel that ia burned to produce electricity. The process simply converts a non portable fuel to a portable fuel and concentrated pollution in one area.
Unless you are willing to embrace a massive nuclear program you are just trading the devil for the witch.
We have a lot of oil in the US. We need to use it carefully while we finde a better source of energy and develop a new infrastructure to use it.
Every US Navy submarine save 1 and aircraft carrier save 2 are powered by nuclear power. These reactors are inherently stable (not designed like Chernobyl's therefore will not have the same disaster) and produce less waste then there predecessors, a majority of which is recycled.
If we were to replace petroleum power plants with nuclear plants, there would be no CO2 emissions or acid rain concerns so we would not only be removing our dependence on foreign oil, but also cleaning our air. By placing plant cooling near the coasts, we can recycle the hot water with desalinization plants, thereby making fresh water at the same time.
The main drawback is the cost and peoples fear of nuclear power. The cost can be reduced by building more. Peoples fear will only be reduced through eduction. The founder of Greenpeace is promoting nuclear power due to the damaging effects of petroleum. And we wouldn't even have to drill anywhere.
Hydrogen can be produced in a person's home or garage.
It a unit that is about the size of a small refigerator and uses about the same about of electricity as a common refrige.
Hydrogen is produced in most cities of size. It produced by the same companies which make oxygen and other gases for medical equipment.
All of these are EPA approved and most are in Downtown areas of most Cities in America. Name a city over 75,000 and chances are it has a plant which makes gases.
But the truth is that Hydrogen is one of the easiest gases to produce. Its actually safer than natural gas.
So it will not take much to produce the gas. An industrial size unit needed for a fuel station will be about the size of a standard Cargo Van.
But most people will get their gas right in their own driveway.
Sadly enough, you will most likely get your wish. One of the three liberals running will get in. (McCain is not a conservative, by any standard)
The other two are even scarier. I don't like Bush at all, but i find myself hoping that he can find a way to stay in office longer. (perhaps at Iran's expense)
To the rest of America: know that most of California does not share this opinion with the left..Most of the area in California is RED. We just keep the crazies near the coast.
we have had brokered conventions in america before and we can have one now and still take the presidency from mccain. he is just 4 more years of the BUSH REGIME! but, if florida and michigan are disenfranchised we can assume at least FL will be RED as it was when bushgate started. those voters need a reason to vote for a dem.
so, screamin dean needs to take his chimp butt to denver and let the process of DEMOCRACY IN ACTION WORK FOR THE PEOPLE---US!
Listen closely. I have the solution to all of our energy needs. We can even declare the fake issue that is global warming solved.
1. Have Hillary and Obama locked into a (sound-proof, no need to add noise pollution to our concerns) room.
2. Let the have a marathon debate over who has the least credentials and can push us towards socialism the fastest.
3. Let the Hot Air produced from the windbags power a major city.
4. If successful, we round up Bush, Pelosi, Al Gore, McCain, and the most powerful resource of em' all Teddy Kennedy for the cause.
5. Now, no need to harm anyone..just let them talk..If there's one thing they can all do well, it's talk endlessly about thier own praises.
The rest of us live in utopia powered on steam and with the added benefits of removing self-serving politicians from government.
as a native Californian for over 50 years I have been surfing for over 30 years off of Huntington Beach. And guess what, the same oil platforms from my childhood are still producing oil, yet the rest of the coast is "Off Limits" because of the "Not in my back yard" mind set. Yes, in 1969 Santa Barbara had an oil spill and in 1941 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Get Over It!!!! There is Oil, Black Gold, Texas Tea in these United States!! Oh yes I also surf off the Nuclear power plant in No. San Diego County. Guess what,,,that plant has been operating for over 40 years. So, if you believe that corn (which is causing twice the amount of green house gases than oil) is the answer. God Help us all...
Hydrogen is here. Even Pres Bush in his last Rose Garden Q&A admitted that Hydrogen is the best long term solution as defined by every scienist or other expert.
There is several automotive companies that currently have a hydrogen production vehicle that is ready for the market with a few selling those cars.
All that has to happen is have a president with the guts to do what Regan did in 1981. Regan inacted the presidential powers by demanding Propane be used in 20% of all fleet vehicles by 1984.
We can go hydrogen by all new vehicles sold by 2012. Thus it would free all the oil and we would only need the oil for Airline and other transportation like Trains. Hydrogen engines can replace even disel in about 5 more years if the trend was made.
Hydrogen costs pennies a day for fuel or no more than say $20 a month for 80% of the driving public.
All we need is a president and congress to make it happen.
The fact that the price of a gallon of gasoline is sky rocketing is a good thing. At some point the American people will say enough is enough and demand from their leaders to come up with a solution. It's time for the government to get into the energy business. Find the world's best engineers and scientists and pay them a bunch of money to create an energy source that doesn't come out of the center of the Earth. It's a higher priority than health care or the economy. If the world no longer needs oil from the middle east there would be no more wars there. There would be nothing there but sand. If the US could develop a source and sell it to the world there would be no need to tax the American people any longer. There would be no need to tax American businesses. Imagine the impact on the American economy.
you really just made my day cause your one of the only people that i have heard talk about this actually sum it up so eloquently and i fell the same way that you do
Did anyone ever think that ANWR is just as big as California?
That the amount of area requested for drilling is so small that it would represent less than 1 millionth of the overall size of ANWR.
That if there was an environmental problem that the over all effect to the environment is less than 1 %.
Sometime the ignorance of people is amazing. Alaska is 2.5 times larger than the state of Texas. Texas oil fields represent 9% of the over all size of the state of Texas.
That kind of puts things into a ball park for discussion. The amount of area that is requested for drilling is so small that it becomes rediculous.
Think of it in real terms. You have a property that is 100 feet by 100 feet.
The amount of area that would be drilled on is 2 inches by two inches on the scope of the 100 foot by 100 foot.
Its this kind of thing that is the reality of what is going on. ANWR is so vast that there are sections that have not even seen the foot print of man. So what is the harm in allowing drilling 50 miles from the pipe line and from Prudhoe Bay. This is an area that is already compromised environmentally with the pipe line and from roads along with other infastructure.
I would not mind a 20 mile by 20 mile drilling area which is 20 times larger than the current requested amount.
This would not be noticable by any stretch of the imagination. This is less intrusive than the allowed drilling than that which is allowed in of all places California!
Sometimes the environmentalist are so antihuman and so antifuture that they could care less about anything other than an environment which is so remote and free of any human contact that it not worth the fight. If the land can not be used or enjoyed by man, then what's the point in protecting it? The animals have more than enough room and honestly would not even notice the land missing unless by some sheer miricle they happen to cross that area.
Thus this argument should not even be happening. The vastness of ANWR is such that a few square miles represents less than one hundred millionth of the overall picture.
You could not even put a dot with a pen on most maps of Alaska that people have because that dot would be 100 times too big.
It’s not a secret, you and people like you are glad that children all over this country are hungry because it makes you feel better about your sad little lives.
at least explore and see what the real potential is. It would be quite some time before anything was really available. But it is really brain dead stupid to at least not know and/or be ready.
Drilling in Alaska would be a childish display of instant gratification. How foolish are we going to be before we put the pressure elsewhere for our energy crisis? I am secretly glad that gas has gone up to nearly $4 a gallon! It is the discomfort of $100 fillups that will get Hummers off the road. It is the loss of jobs and grounded airplanes that will make people say "Something has to change!" We can communicate instantly with people all over the world. Humans have discovered how to clone animals. You mean to tell me that there is no other source of energy that can be thought up!? Drilling in Alaska would be like watering a desert with a garden hose... it's not enough and the energy and money and discussion that is being wasted on that short term, juvenile "solution" could be put to better cause. I love nature and polar bears and permafrost as much as the next person... but the environment obviously does not concern some people. If we want to stop the drilling in Alaska, our message has to change from “Save the Polar Bears” to “Drill in Alaska? Great! THEN WHAT!?”
There are no plants or animals more important than my family, at least not to me. That penny non-sense is the same type of radical left wing economics as the pseudo-science of manmade global warming. It all boils down to a very large very powerful group whose only goal is the destruction of our country. Anwar is the size of the state of South Carolina, the place we need to drill is the size of a large airport. It has nothing to do with preservation; it has to do with the destruction of a way of life, the destruction of the ideology of personal freedom. It has to do with the destruction of morality and the right to pursue happiness out of step with government control. The process and the technologies involved with retrieving American natural recourses have evolved decades past the laws and restriction of anti-American groups who believe the country deserves to be economically dominated by terrorist countries. The eventual answer is obviously a cleaner alternative energy source, the best of which the left stop dead years ago, but that answer is years away. There are no magic wands and Harry Potter exists only in fairy tales. The lefts insistence on increased, inefficient, ethanol production is leading to worldwide starvation, and that’s as it is suppose to be, eventually it will all be Americas fault. Just another nail in the coffin of what was once upon a time, the grandest, greatest country in the world; Good bye America, we will miss you!
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
It is not worth the drilling at any cost if causes our animals to go extint. If we drill we lose more. If its war your afraid of think of something that isn't going to kill plants (which take away from our food source) or animals which take away from our eco system.
Drill everywhere. Drill under Ted Kennedy's ocean front house if need be. Wehave to get rid of using foreign oil. Build Nuke Plants,
Whatever it takes, or face WAR and very negative downward spiral in our lives.
What's a penny? If you have a mid size car, as I do, then you'll save 14 cents? So destroying a wildlife refuge, displacing and quite possibly endangering several animals, for 14 cents? I don't think it is worth it.
There is already oil and gas drilling along 95% of the artic coastal plain, and drilling opposition groups want to keep the oil companies out of the remaining 5% (www.defenders.org). . They also point out that the actual amount of oil reserves that are located inside of the 1002 area will not create any major impact to our total oil imports.
Thoughts
Thank you for showing me how
Submitted on May 16th, 2008 by AnonymousThank you for showing me how stupid we americans are by the results in this poll! Where sound bites from special interest groups seem to rule the america to advance a policy that is killing this economy and it is not just in the energy policy. Instead of a everything is on the table energy policy get us out of this mess they have created 20 years ago. Speeches about energy independance, yet nothing is done. Now they are going to tax carbon and who do you think is going to pay for that? You will learn this soon. Third world america is at your doorsteps and you don't see it.
Some durn GREAT political
Submitted on May 7th, 2008 by John 2000Some durn GREAT political cartoons at this link:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/carto...
Check 'em all out, but especially April 30, 2008 for a view on Alaska oil. I have heard that geographically, the drilling footprint would be comparable to a postage stamp on a football field.
Its not about semantics
Submitted on May 7th, 2008 by AnonymousIt's not about being green, or being pragmatic, or even doing what is for now the most profitable. The simple fact of the matter is that oil is not a viable fuel for the future of mankind due to the lack of supply when compared with the constantly rising demand. Furthermore, as an essentially non-renewable resource it is even less viable. Sure the National Wildlife refuge holds oil, but is it a considerable enough quantity to justify the sacrifice?
As humanity progresses towards the future we will increasingly run across such decisions and the answer is never easy. The important thing is to accept that the next few decades will likely determine the fate of humanity, we hopefully will not be destroyed under even the worst scenario... but, if we do not get our act together and address our world from an unbiased scientifically based viewpoint we will suffer untold damage. Honestly, drilling in ANWR is not a huge issue to me, but it is reflective of the choices we collectively must make in the coming years...
Reply CO2 slower in history bad argument
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by PabloThe truth is that how many climatologist figure time is not correct.
They make too many assumptions that are not correct and more than not proven wrong.
Example: Laying of ice at the poles or in the sediments equal a set regular amount of time or about 1 year.
This is sheer nonsense. You could have a dozen layers laid down in a single year. It depends precipitation. Each major storm that happens can lay down a layer.
Thus there is no way to know the yearly rate or the number of layers laid down in a single year and its irresponsible by those scientist to assume that 1 layer equals 1 year.
Thus, I do not think that the rise in CO2 is any different that is was in times past. All the known graphs point to simular patterns its just as matter of scale of time that is the problem. But the the truth is that the overall graphic trends would be the same.
There is nothing man can do to stop the greenhouse effect or the melting poles. We should not waste money on research or force programs on companies on a course that is of no effect.
I have no problem with air quality or lessening toxic output. But we should not penalize businesses because of greenhouse gasses that are really out of the general control of man.
I will tell you now, that the level of CO2 will rise faster over time and will eventually become exponential then peak after the oceans unload their CO2.
It will be very hot and most of the world will be more desert than lush jungles.
Did you know that Wyoming was once simular to the Congo? Why is not not one again? Yellowstone!
The point is that global warming is a joke at best where all that money being spent on research is just being waisted and making some people extra rich while harming the common person in the USA.
Its also called something else!
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by PabloIts also called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
ANWR is part of the NPRA! Always has been.
So its still ignorance of the masses as to what even the land is in Alaska!
NONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by AnonymousIt's called a NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE for a reason. As a nation, we need to stop being so dependent on fossil fuels and start using alternative energy sources that won't harm the Earth.
well, maybe when oil spikes
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by John 2000well, maybe when oil spikes to $200 and a state of emergency is declared, Congress will get up off their green asses because of the civil army of real people camped on the steps of their little namby-pamby game boards ... maybe right in the middle of their Summer vacations and vacuous all-consuming political season.
Okay, let's say you're
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by AnonymousOkay, let's say you're right, just for the sake of argument. If the sun is actually becoming hotter, don't you think it would be a good idea to do what we can to minimize our output of greenhouse gasses? Regardless of whether you think they are causing global warming, if the sun is in fact getting hotter it is impossible to argue that they don't expedite process.
yes but,
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by Anonymousunfortunately that means ridding the world of us, so unless you're one of those humanity-hating neoenvironmental-utopist, we still need to do something.
Creating the belief that man
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by AnonymousCreating the belief that man has created global warming is the goal of the United Nations leaders, in order to convince the world for the need of a "global tax on carbon" and the need to tax the world for having more than 1 child. It is complete bullpoop. The leading researchers at NASA and other orgnizations show that the sun itself is becoming hotter and thats the main reason for the warming change of our planet. The planet has been changing temperatures since its existence, prior to the industrial revolution. It is so sad how gullible people are, when it comes down to it, people in the UN are motivated by 2 things: increasing revenues to expand and control the world through the United Nations, and 2. Creating a global tax to fund their efforts/ World Bank/IMF. And before you ask, no I don't own shares in major oil companies.
Liberals... Bah
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by Anonymous7 of the top 8 richest companies are the oil companies because they have no competition and they are making us poor so their executives can ride around in nice big SUV's while you wonder how long it takes before you can no longer drive to work to pay for the gas you need to get there and feed you family.
Open up Alaska, tell the foreign oil companies to shove it and when they come back to us groveling on their knees because they are no longer making BILLIONS of dollars a year off of you and me enact a bargaining agreement that caps the price of oil. If they don't agree then send them packing.
Actually, My favorite idea is to just take over Iraq and make those oil fields our own. I mean geesh, all those liberals are yelling about this being a war for oil, we ought to go over there and at least get it.
Oh and all those innocent Iraqi people. They can live just as peacefully and probably more so in the American Province of Iraq. Not to mention all the technology and upgrades we'd bring them to give them a standard of living they deserve!
We are so bold...
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by Anonymousto think that our planent can't take care of itself...The Earth will rid itself of anything that would do it harm. It just moves at a very slow pace.
Anonymous omniscient fortuneteller
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by rom12921"You think profits for a large corporation are worth the risk of destroying our environment?" This is a leading question with a false causation assumption.
By answering yes the responder would admit the false premise that profits risk destruction of the environment. By answering no, then the responder also accepts the false premise.
If "...we can't know with any certainty..." How do you know the following?
"...CO2 levels in history happend at a MUCH slower rate...", "...millions of years ago...","...to have done nothing would be catastrophic..."
Good example of "stupid" arguments
Stupid argument
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by AnonymousGranted, when looking at the history of our climate, we have an incomplete picture, we can't know with any certainty what CO2 levels were millions of years ago. Also, in the past, the earth did not have the effects of humans impacting it. Furthermore, the rises in CO2 levels in history happend at a MUCH slower rate than they are in this century. Lastly, even without absolute certainty that we are harming the environment to the point of making life difficult for us, not doing ANYTHING, is foolish. If we are right, and we are destroying the environment, to have done nothing would be catastrophic. Don't you think it would be prudent to play it on the safe side? You think profits for a large corporation are worth the risk of destroying our environment?
Pretty sick if you do.
Reply to Anonymous in Response to Pablo
Submitted on May 6th, 2008 by PabloFirst, I laughed long and hard at your very first sentence.
If your a follower of Al Gore and Global Warming is caused by man argument, then well its just sheer idiocy.
Yea Gore got some 180 scientist to pen their name out of how many? Hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world.
Geez, its just sheer loonacy. Are you aware that the earth goes through cycles? That in these cycles that the level of CO2 rises like what we see?
That there are at the very least 5 known times in geologic history where the CO2 levels were many times more than what we see today?
That the main factor in Global warming is tied to three things predominately?
1. Shifting of the pole from 22.5° to 24.5° and back again When approaching 22.5° ice age. 24.5° Green house effect We are current at 23.4° and heading for 24.5°
2. Vulcanism. The level of active vulcanism is down from times in previous past history. Although its on the increase its still down from preivious history. The Amount of Ash in the atmosphere is at play. The more Ash the cooler it becomes. This was the reason for the little Ice age. Before the little ice age, it was so warm in the northern parts of the world that greenland could grow grain crops like in Germany and England had Wineries of the likes that were better than anything France could produce. True as written records show that Nobles of france imported English Wine because of how good it was. Its almost warm enough now in England again to have grapes and wineries like they did some 1000 years ago.
Thus low level of Ash in the atmosphere promotes Greenhouse effect. High ash Amounts promote Ice age effect.
3. Oceanic currents. These current are driven by two factors, Water denisty and salinity.
The lower the salinity of the oceans the less dense the water becomes the more CO2 is released from the oceans which is the main factor of the CO2 in the world 90% of the world's CO2 Comes from the oceans. most of this is locked up because of the density of the ocean keep the CO2 locked up. But as Salinity drops the denisty also drops and CO2 is released from the oceans and this for a time drives the ocean current to work faster and it raises the overall temperature of the oceans.
Eventually, the level of salinity reaches a point where the density is not enough to cause Oceanic convection. The ocean currents shut down and then we will travel back toward the ice age type of item.
When will it happen? wnen most of the shelf ice from the poles are melted. Then we will see harsh winters of the likes that will drive most canadians to America because it will be winter for 9 to 10 months out of the year.
But that is some time down the road. We are heading the oposite direction where winter is 2 to 3 months out of the year with the max point where winter is only a month or two.
Then it will shift back.
Thus man will be powerless to effect it. After all, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. 90% of these greenhouse gases are driven by other factors other than man. Does man have an effect? sure. But only 10% effect. The truth is that man when burning wood and Coal had more effect on the environment in the past than what we do today. The difference is that the types of gases man makes are more deadly.
But CO2 is the main factor in Greenhouse effect. 90% of the world's CO2 is in the oceans and the amount of salinity and density has more of an effect than anything else.
Even if every factory and person on earth stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow. The truth is that it will not change the cycle of the earth. It might change local air quality and it might have a local effect in some areas. But globally, no effect.
That is the truth and the facts. Its call science. Its called Geology, Its call Geophysics, its called Astrophysics. If any one of the 3 items above can effect climate for a period of time.
For example. If you have high vulcanism at a time when the poles are at 24.5° then it would limit the greenhouse effect. Should it happen while at the 22.5° time, then it would magnify the effect.
What we are seeing right now is lack of vulcanism which is magnifying the greenhouse effect. We need several vulcanoes to blow its top off to the point that it reduces the amount of light from the sun to get to the surface.
then you would see a change in the climate.
But man really has little effect on the climate at this time other than Man cuts down too many trees which does effect CO2 levels. Trees and jungles consume CO2. Thus the more plant life Man destroys has a million times more effect on the overall greenhouse issue than some 1000 coal power plants or 300 million cars on the road.
Lead the way
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by rom12921suicidal? or becoming omish
The environmental effects of
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousThe environmental effects of drilling even in %20 of ANWR for what would ultimately be, if %100 were used all at once, a month or less' supply of oil is just not very feasible. Drilling in ANWR is a bandaid on a hemorrhage; if cheaper oil is something to be desired, perhaps the United States should try to be more cooperative with the OPEC nations, as for the most part the US is at odds with two of its most powerful members (Venezuela and Iran) and has successfully reduced the amount of oil coming out of Iraq to a trickle.
anwr
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousI don't think the argument is whether or not there is enough oil to drill for and if that oil will make up for any damage that might be done.
What we really need to do is work harder towards being less dependent on oil.
trains dont need oil
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousWhy do u think trains need oil? They are run in many other countries on magnetics. A very fast stable form of transportation, costly yes but much nicer. Japan has it down to a science and we should implement that. Planes will always be flying on oil until research is made on other forms of flight. Id say if we can get off the oil tit we can research more effective ways to fly. ATM us is the worse techno superpower that is developed china doesnt count they arent exactly developed. Europe kills the Americas in alt power consumption. What we should be thinking about not complaining is how we can fix this... Most people want to drive there oversized trucks around and still think they are cool. So when they go broke from wasting $ on gas and cant pay there bills loose there houses, whos gonna pick up the bill. Lookin to canada to move out cause this union is going down the hole quick and no government intervention is coming.
Response to Pablo, in "Such Idiocy and Ignarance Abounds"
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousFirst of all must I reiterate that given the current climate status of the planet, there is no better time to ween the American public off of oil. The American addiction is to energy and not oil, oil is merely the most convenient way to fulfill our addiction. This said, there are many cleaner and better, (in terms of the efficiency of energy transfer) ways to produce the energy that Americans so readily consume. I say it is good that oil rises to $500 a barrel in the international oil markets, $600 even better. Right now there is no incentive to move on to environmentally friendly, renewable energy sources. The opportunity cost of switching to clean energy is still to great for Americans to adopt new technologies in energy production.
Second, yes I realize that there plastics and many other consumer products are produced from oil. But is there a need to produce any more? Most if not all of the plastics created can be re-used to either create new products or simply continue in performing their previous function. I find it wasteful that humans can Americans so readily dispose of a product that can be used for essentially eternity. Most plastic goods are disposed of upon their first use. So here the ignorance lies within the Americans love affair with convenience and disposable income. With the economy going into a recession, I see no better time for changing the wasteful thinking of Americans and becoming more conservationist nation.
So relating to the post above titled "Such Idiocy and Ignorance Abounds" instead of spending time looking at projects of how the oil problem will only intensify in its gravity "I have seen the projections from two different oil companies which expect price of oil to one day max out somewhere over $500 a barrel."(Pablo, in post above), pushing us towards "Peak Oil". Why don't you spend that time and research forms of alternative energy that can help mitigate the oil problem, and be part of the change for good, instead of a cynic who sits around getting spoon fed propaganda from oil companies.
Such idiocy and ignorance abounds
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by PabloLook everyone.
Oil will be a standard in America for the next 1000 years or more.
WHy? Plastics, Perfume, most chemicals, about 35% pharmasudicals and the list goes on and on.
America will always have a demand for Oil.
The difference is where you get it. We can either get it domestically where the price can be under control and could even be reduced down to like $20 a barrel or less or fight with the rest of the world for oil where the price of a barrel of oil will top one day $500 a barrel on the global market. I have seen the projections from two different oil companies which expect price of oil to one day max out somewhere over $500 a barrel.
America can stop the need for gas and disel from oil, but that it. Gas and Disel currently make up 70% of the oil used.
The more reason to convert to hydrogen for tranportation modes and open up ANWR.
ANWR is so huge and the area that is supected to have oil is roughly 20% of the over all area if they just drilled like mad where they wanted would not take up more than 20% of the overall land mass. An that is still based on drilling methods of times past.
America needs to bite the bullet and make the leap to hydrogen. Its benefits to the environment is obvious as it is the best green item out there even more so than electric.
But America will always have a need for Oil. All those plastic bottles for your precious clean water or soda to a millions of other items is made from oil!
So even if gas and disel was a suddenly no more, Oil would still be under demand so that all those environmentalists can have their bottle of water and other pastic goods.
Tree huggers! I want to
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousTree huggers! I want to drive around in my car. Gas is too expensive.
John
Leave ANWR alone! (and other small fields)
Submitted on May 5th, 2008 by AnonymousWake up, people. The sooner nations get off the petroleum tit for fuel, the better. There are chemical products that only come from petroleum that will still need making we should be using it for. The aviation fuel problem may take longer to solve due to the weight issue. We're wreaking all this havoc to drive fricken CARS??
Get personal vehicles off petroleum and we'll have that much more to fuel trucks, planes, and trains until an alternative suitable for them is developed.
Anwr
Submitted on May 4th, 2008 by AnonymousIt will be worth more later as petrochemicals than it is now for fuel. Screw Alaskans any way you can, it's national policy and the wave of the future. Above all don't let them profit from resources or even make a living until Cheney & the bunch can get their slice.
Practive what I preach
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by PabloI am currently working on it.
I have changed over my central heating and AC to an all electric source which is 100 time more effecient than Natural gas common items seen in 80% of the market.
My overall electric bill is $92 a month Its actuall less in the summer a bit more in the winter for my home in the city.
I have a three windpowered generators which produce more electricity than I can use in my ranch home where I earn $450 a month from the utility company.
I would buy a Hudrogen car today if I could get one. They are just not sold where I live. Honda FX cars are only being leased in California, Oregon and Virginia.
If they would sell one, I would be first in line.
The technology is here. We just need leadership from congress and a President who is for the American people to make this technology a reality for all citizens.
There is a hydrogen generator for electricity. But I can not buy one. Because the Federal government wants to research more on its overall performance. Its been researched now 22 years. There is more research and development to prove Hydrogen is safe and reliable than ethanol or biodisel.
It just going to take people in power to just make the stand and make it happen.
But I do practice what I preach and would be one of the first people here in Texas to get the proven and current retail products which are based on Hydrogen technology.
The hardship is a 3 year one to jump to hydrogen. The Automakers need about 2 years to get the engines in place and they do not need to redesign cars for the most part other than where the fuel tank goes and a few other minor things. The hydrogen engines cost basically the same but are a few hundred dollars more expensive right now because they are few. But generally a hydrogen engine works the same as the current combustion engine that uses petroleum. In fact, Hydrogen engine is a combustion engine. The difference between them is that hydrogen produces water as its exhaust. Thus the materials for the engine and exhaust have to be water corrosion proof or resistant.
If a Semiconductor plants like Texas Instraments or Intel can heat their factories with Hydrogen and have been doing it for 35 years, why can I use hydrogen to heat my home? Why does the Government need more research on a proven technology?
Simply put, Our government leaders are too addicted to Big oil money bribes, campaign controbutions and other links to allow the cheapest of energy items to be allowed to the general public.
All we need is leadership and a couple of years and America will be free of foreign oil!
Even so, China, India and other parts of the world will increase demand on oil. Thus price of oil will never drop on the world market. But If America produces all its own oil for the Airplanes and trains which will still need to be oil based, Then we have to open up all those localities for that oil to be used over the next 20 years until hydrogen or other types of fuel can be used in those sectors like Airplanes and trains. Once that happens then oil and gas will only be used to run vintage cars or other products.
We have plenty of
Submitted on May 3rd, 2008 by AnonymousWe have plenty of alternative sources of energy. If the government didn't cater to oil companies and money, we wouldn't even need to consider drilling in Alaska.
We've already created greener ways of living, it's just a matter of getting the government to allow us to live greener.
Hydrogen takes less power
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by PabloHydrogen takes less power to make than any other kind of fuel or gas for that matter.
Currently in Sweeden, they have small units half the size of the one I was describing using a 2 by 2 solar cell to produce hydrogen for their 2010 project.
It takes about the same amount of power that your own refigerator in your home to produce all the hydrogen you would need to fuel your car, heat your home and in some cases produce electricity for the lights in the home.
So for the moron who said that hydrogen takes too much power to make is clueless!
Converting hydrogen to electricity is currently at a negative for high power generations or for high voltage batteries.
But to make hydrogen gas for common fuel for a car, takes the least amount of power than any other form of gas or fuel. A 100 watt light bulb take more power than it would take to make hydrogen gas.
Geez people, stop listening to the lies of the idiot environmentalist.
drill for knowledge
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousIt will NOT CHANGE THE PRICE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Over breeding
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by WethePeopleAnonymous wrote:
"and that bad thing is BREEDING. STOP IT NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET."
Tell it to the Democrats in Sacramento, they pay poor people (mostly immigrants) with all manner of benefits to have up to eight children so that is what many of them do. As a result immigrants in CA have 50% more children than their neighbors back in their home country.
too much of a BAD thing
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Anonymousand that bad thing is BREEDING. STOP IT NOW FOR THE FUTURE OF THE PLANET.
each new infant brought forth is BAD for the planet. food requirements, production of food, distribution of food, distribution of water resources,
contamination of water, land, air resources by the excessive population bred in the past 70 years.
Create new economics practices that does NOT depend of ever expanding client, customer, consumer base.
All the global warming, resource privation derives from ONE SOURCE.... EXCESSIVE BREEDING OF PEOPLE..... (homo sapiens is a great mis-nomer homo INsapiens fits better for the species)
Feasiblity
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by rom12921Why not let the oil companies decide if it is feasible to drill in ANWR and make a profit. If they determine it is not worth it, then it's a moot point. If it is, let then have at it at their expense.
oil
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Anonymousalaska must not be destroyed
oil
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Anonymoustrue alaskas americas last beaty dont destroy it for poulliting fossile fules
oil
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousBetween the oil in ANWR, oil in Kansas, oil shale in western states which we are rapidly developing the means to extract, we have all the oil we can use.
Petroleum Reserves
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousThings to be thinking about.
In the beginning no one cared if some oil company drilled for oil and made different things out of it. The oil reserves are a natural resource of the Nation. Some nations have it and some don't. A few have some oil reserves. Who really owns the oil in the ground? Most countries that have any real oil reserves control the oil by claiming ownership of the resource. Is that good, or is that bad? The price of gasoline and diesel has skyrocketed and coincidently the oil companies have had record profits at the same time. The question is how much are the profits compared to the cost of recovering the oil from the ground and processing it? I suspect that the profits are out of proportion to the cost of processing the oil reserves.
No! George Bush didn't cause all this price gouging in the oil industry because it has been going on and increasing for years even when the democrats were completely in power.
The only thing wrong with nuclear power is the number of ignorant people who are scared of anything they don't understand. Its clean and efficient.
Wind power is fine, but the environmentalist are always complaining about the effect on their view, (Teddy Kennedy and wind power where he lives and sails his yacht.)
Somebody is always complaining and harping about NIMBY. It is time this country wakes up from the free and easy ways of the past and comes to grips with what the future will be like.
Anwr
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousAmerica has enemies, for sure. The majority of them have, but one weapon....Oil. We could disarm them, with the ANWR reserves, but for only at most 10 years. Then we are in even worse shape. The ANWR reserves should only be tapped, if tied to a Manhatten Project, to develope alternative energy sources and a long range plan of population reduction. We already have alternative energy sources. They just need to be de-politicized and refined. Population reduction is a no-brainer. 75% of Americas population growth, over the last 40 years has been from immigrants and the children, thereof. Thats a big ...DUH.
other alternatives
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Anonymouswhile hydrogen is an alternative to oil, there are many other alternatives out there to coal besides nuclear. Wind and solar for instance are probably going to be some of the best.
A quote I saw once
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by Anonymous"Tell the future generations it was good for the economy, when they can't farm the land, drink the water, or breathe the air."
Anyway, personally: I don't see this as a nature thing. I see this more as a "Should we let the rich destroy our present and future so that they can make more money?" There's other ways- current wealth isn't interested in it (change costs money). And anyway, why should the corporations care? It's not like the rich are the first to suffer when an environment begins to fail.
Hyyyydrogen
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by freddymNIMBA. Not In My Back Yard. The route of selfishness. I want this. I want that. My house is better than your house. You store my garbage in your back yard (San Francisco vs Lassen County in California)
"And who is going to allow refineries " Well said and is the gladius of the energy debate.
Hydrogen, no any processing, takes energy to condence-produce. Even nature uses energy (mostly solar) to produce H2. Hydrogen base electrical energy is technologicly impractical today for me to use. Discovery is a gift. Not something that money guarantees.
The elite can afford such extravagant energy just as the nobleman of 1400 riding in a weatherized coach vs the peasant walking behind a produce cart.
alaska and alternatives
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousIt's true that nuclear is a great option for safely supplying huge amounts of electricity to the power grid. However, there are activisim groups that lobby very passionately against the building of new nuclear plants because of fear people still have, and the problem of nuclear waste.
There are so many energy options that will help us move forward, away from fossil fuels and the high emmissions associated with their use. Solar panels are getting more and more efficient and wind farms have had huge success worldwide.
Alaska is a huge natural beauty in this country, and the effects of climate change have already done a lot of damage there. Photographers have documented the loss of glacial ice mass over the last 50 years. Drilling in Alaska would be an expensive investment that would further harm Alaska's wildlife. The money would be much better off going towards research, development, and addition of clean energy methods to our infrastructure. We need to be moving forward and leave fossil fuels behind.
Hydrogen
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousHydrogen requires a lot of energy to produce. Hydrogen is usually produced by coal or some other carbon based fuel that ia burned to produce electricity. The process simply converts a non portable fuel to a portable fuel and concentrated pollution in one area.
Unless you are willing to embrace a massive nuclear program you are just trading the devil for the witch.
We have a lot of oil in the US. We need to use it carefully while we finde a better source of energy and develop a new infrastructure to use it.
Nuclear Power
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by AnonymousEvery US Navy submarine save 1 and aircraft carrier save 2 are powered by nuclear power. These reactors are inherently stable (not designed like Chernobyl's therefore will not have the same disaster) and produce less waste then there predecessors, a majority of which is recycled.
If we were to replace petroleum power plants with nuclear plants, there would be no CO2 emissions or acid rain concerns so we would not only be removing our dependence on foreign oil, but also cleaning our air. By placing plant cooling near the coasts, we can recycle the hot water with desalinization plants, thereby making fresh water at the same time.
The main drawback is the cost and peoples fear of nuclear power. The cost can be reduced by building more. Peoples fear will only be reduced through eduction. The founder of Greenpeace is promoting nuclear power due to the damaging effects of petroleum. And we wouldn't even have to drill anywhere.
Hydrogen can be produced in
Submitted on May 2nd, 2008 by PabloHydrogen can be produced in a person's home or garage.
It a unit that is about the size of a small refigerator and uses about the same about of electricity as a common refrige.
Hydrogen is produced in most cities of size. It produced by the same companies which make oxygen and other gases for medical equipment.
All of these are EPA approved and most are in Downtown areas of most Cities in America. Name a city over 75,000 and chances are it has a plant which makes gases.
But the truth is that Hydrogen is one of the easiest gases to produce. Its actually safer than natural gas.
So it will not take much to produce the gas. An industrial size unit needed for a fuel station will be about the size of a standard Cargo Van.
But most people will get their gas right in their own driveway.
Convention of END DAYS
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Minuteman CASadly enough, you will most likely get your wish. One of the three liberals running will get in. (McCain is not a conservative, by any standard)
The other two are even scarier. I don't like Bush at all, but i find myself hoping that he can find a way to stay in office longer. (perhaps at Iran's expense)
To the rest of America: know that most of California does not share this opinion with the left..Most of the area in California is RED. We just keep the crazies near the coast.
convention
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Anonymouswe have had brokered conventions in america before and we can have one now and still take the presidency from mccain. he is just 4 more years of the BUSH REGIME! but, if florida and michigan are disenfranchised we can assume at least FL will be RED as it was when bushgate started. those voters need a reason to vote for a dem.
so, screamin dean needs to take his chimp butt to denver and let the process of DEMOCRACY IN ACTION WORK FOR THE PEOPLE---US!
Carol
CA
Hot Air Power
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Minuteman CAListen closely. I have the solution to all of our energy needs. We can even declare the fake issue that is global warming solved.
1. Have Hillary and Obama locked into a (sound-proof, no need to add noise pollution to our concerns) room.
2. Let the have a marathon debate over who has the least credentials and can push us towards socialism the fastest.
3. Let the Hot Air produced from the windbags power a major city.
4. If successful, we round up Bush, Pelosi, Al Gore, McCain, and the most powerful resource of em' all Teddy Kennedy for the cause.
5. Now, no need to harm anyone..just let them talk..If there's one thing they can all do well, it's talk endlessly about thier own praises.
The rest of us live in utopia powered on steam and with the added benefits of removing self-serving politicians from government.
Agreed?
Hydrogen
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousAnd who is going to allow refineries to be built to produce the Hydrogen.....It does not grow on trees,,,,,,,,,,,
Hydrogen
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousAnd who is going to allow refineries to be built to produce the Hydrogen.....It does not grow on trees,,,,,,,,,,,
Drill 4 Oil, Build Clean Burning Coal/Nuclear power
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Anonymousas a native Californian for over 50 years I have been surfing for over 30 years off of Huntington Beach. And guess what, the same oil platforms from my childhood are still producing oil, yet the rest of the coast is "Off Limits" because of the "Not in my back yard" mind set. Yes, in 1969 Santa Barbara had an oil spill and in 1941 Japan bombed Pearl Harbor... Get Over It!!!! There is Oil, Black Gold, Texas Tea in these United States!! Oh yes I also surf off the Nuclear power plant in No. San Diego County. Guess what,,,that plant has been operating for over 40 years. So, if you believe that corn (which is causing twice the amount of green house gases than oil) is the answer. God Help us all...
What we really need
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Pablois a congress that works for the people rather than party politics or works for big mega corporations.
Oil
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousVery True,Pablo! Thanks for stating how I feel.
We could be oil free
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Pablofrom Foreign sources by 2012 or less.
Hydrogen is here. Even Pres Bush in his last Rose Garden Q&A admitted that Hydrogen is the best long term solution as defined by every scienist or other expert.
There is several automotive companies that currently have a hydrogen production vehicle that is ready for the market with a few selling those cars.
All that has to happen is have a president with the guts to do what Regan did in 1981. Regan inacted the presidential powers by demanding Propane be used in 20% of all fleet vehicles by 1984.
We can go hydrogen by all new vehicles sold by 2012. Thus it would free all the oil and we would only need the oil for Airline and other transportation like Trains. Hydrogen engines can replace even disel in about 5 more years if the trend was made.
Hydrogen costs pennies a day for fuel or no more than say $20 a month for 80% of the driving public.
All we need is a president and congress to make it happen.
There goes the magic wand again.
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by HamiltonGovernment should fix everything.
The fact that the price of a
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousThe fact that the price of a gallon of gasoline is sky rocketing is a good thing. At some point the American people will say enough is enough and demand from their leaders to come up with a solution. It's time for the government to get into the energy business. Find the world's best engineers and scientists and pay them a bunch of money to create an energy source that doesn't come out of the center of the Earth. It's a higher priority than health care or the economy. If the world no longer needs oil from the middle east there would be no more wars there. There would be nothing there but sand. If the US could develop a source and sell it to the world there would be no need to tax the American people any longer. There would be no need to tax American businesses. Imagine the impact on the American economy.
How about discussing
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by John 2000Oil for Libs exchange? Upward pressure on demand offset by lower prices at the pump and increased national confidence.
you make so much sense its insane
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by Anonymousyou really just made my day cause your one of the only people that i have heard talk about this actually sum it up so eloquently and i fell the same way that you do
Ignorance of the masses
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by PabloHow many people know how big the ANWR really is?
Did anyone ever think that ANWR is just as big as California?
That the amount of area requested for drilling is so small that it would represent less than 1 millionth of the overall size of ANWR.
That if there was an environmental problem that the over all effect to the environment is less than 1 %.
Sometime the ignorance of people is amazing. Alaska is 2.5 times larger than the state of Texas. Texas oil fields represent 9% of the over all size of the state of Texas.
That kind of puts things into a ball park for discussion. The amount of area that is requested for drilling is so small that it becomes rediculous.
Think of it in real terms. You have a property that is 100 feet by 100 feet.
The amount of area that would be drilled on is 2 inches by two inches on the scope of the 100 foot by 100 foot.
Its this kind of thing that is the reality of what is going on. ANWR is so vast that there are sections that have not even seen the foot print of man. So what is the harm in allowing drilling 50 miles from the pipe line and from Prudhoe Bay. This is an area that is already compromised environmentally with the pipe line and from roads along with other infastructure.
I would not mind a 20 mile by 20 mile drilling area which is 20 times larger than the current requested amount.
This would not be noticable by any stretch of the imagination. This is less intrusive than the allowed drilling than that which is allowed in of all places California!
Sometimes the environmentalist are so antihuman and so antifuture that they could care less about anything other than an environment which is so remote and free of any human contact that it not worth the fight. If the land can not be used or enjoyed by man, then what's the point in protecting it? The animals have more than enough room and honestly would not even notice the land missing unless by some sheer miricle they happen to cross that area.
Thus this argument should not even be happening. The vastness of ANWR is such that a few square miles represents less than one hundred millionth of the overall picture.
You could not even put a dot with a pen on most maps of Alaska that people have because that dot would be 100 times too big.
That is the truth.
Nuts!
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by HamiltonIt’s not a secret, you and people like you are glad that children all over this country are hungry because it makes you feel better about your sad little lives.
of course we should
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by John 2000at least explore and see what the real potential is. It would be quite some time before anything was really available. But it is really brain dead stupid to at least not know and/or be ready.
Every one should not refuel
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousEvery one should not refuel on 5/2/08
to protest these gas prices that will
cost the government about 72 billion
dollars. lets do it!
Bigger than Polar Bears
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousDrilling in Alaska would be a childish display of instant gratification. How foolish are we going to be before we put the pressure elsewhere for our energy crisis? I am secretly glad that gas has gone up to nearly $4 a gallon! It is the discomfort of $100 fillups that will get Hummers off the road. It is the loss of jobs and grounded airplanes that will make people say "Something has to change!" We can communicate instantly with people all over the world. Humans have discovered how to clone animals. You mean to tell me that there is no other source of energy that can be thought up!? Drilling in Alaska would be like watering a desert with a garden hose... it's not enough and the energy and money and discussion that is being wasted on that short term, juvenile "solution" could be put to better cause. I love nature and polar bears and permafrost as much as the next person... but the environment obviously does not concern some people. If we want to stop the drilling in Alaska, our message has to change from “Save the Polar Bears” to “Drill in Alaska? Great! THEN WHAT!?”
Walk to work!
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by HamiltonThere are no plants or animals more important than my family, at least not to me. That penny non-sense is the same type of radical left wing economics as the pseudo-science of manmade global warming. It all boils down to a very large very powerful group whose only goal is the destruction of our country. Anwar is the size of the state of South Carolina, the place we need to drill is the size of a large airport. It has nothing to do with preservation; it has to do with the destruction of a way of life, the destruction of the ideology of personal freedom. It has to do with the destruction of morality and the right to pursue happiness out of step with government control. The process and the technologies involved with retrieving American natural recourses have evolved decades past the laws and restriction of anti-American groups who believe the country deserves to be economically dominated by terrorist countries. The eventual answer is obviously a cleaner alternative energy source, the best of which the left stop dead years ago, but that answer is years away. There are no magic wands and Harry Potter exists only in fairy tales. The lefts insistence on increased, inefficient, ethanol production is leading to worldwide starvation, and that’s as it is suppose to be, eventually it will all be Americas fault. Just another nail in the coffin of what was once upon a time, the grandest, greatest country in the world; Good bye America, we will miss you!
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)
Save the Polar Bears!
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousIt is not worth the drilling at any cost if causes our animals to go extint. If we drill we lose more. If its war your afraid of think of something that isn't going to kill plants (which take away from our food source) or animals which take away from our eco system.
American oil for Americans
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousSave the Alaskan Oil until the rest of the world runs out. It will give us control over our own destiny again.
American Oil
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousDrill everywhere. Drill under Ted Kennedy's ocean front house if need be. Wehave to get rid of using foreign oil. Build Nuke Plants,
Whatever it takes, or face WAR and very negative downward spiral in our lives.
A Penny per gallon?
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousWhat's a penny? If you have a mid size car, as I do, then you'll save 14 cents? So destroying a wildlife refuge, displacing and quite possibly endangering several animals, for 14 cents? I don't think it is worth it.
Will it really help?
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousEconomists believe that drilling in ANWR will decrease gas prices by exactly 1 penny per gallon. Still think it's worth it?
NOT WORTH MORE DRILLING IN ARCTIC
Submitted on May 1st, 2008 by AnonymousThere is already oil and gas drilling along 95% of the artic coastal plain, and drilling opposition groups want to keep the oil companies out of the remaining 5% (www.defenders.org). . They also point out that the actual amount of oil reserves that are located inside of the 1002 area will not create any major impact to our total oil imports.