Results 13 to 21 of 21
Thread: Clean Energy Act
-
05-29-2009, 02:29 PM #13
Re: Clean Energy Act
There has been huge effort and great strides in the power sources you discuss for the last two to three decades, they are still nowhere NEAR efficient enough for widespread use....
Nuclear on the other hand, is another animal altogether. But with a Liberal president and legislature you can kiss those dreams goodbye... LIbs REFUSE to have ANY SORT of REASONABLE energy plan, AT ALL.
There are only two reasonable ways to reduce our dependance on foreign oil, EXACTLY TWO.
1. Nuke plants
2. Tapping DOMESTIC sources of fossill fuels(ANWAR, ICS, Oil Shale, etc).
No lib will support either any time soon, they'd rather tax it....
-
05-30-2009, 06:58 AM #14
Re: Clean Energy Act
Here is what we know the world changes and nobody realizes what is going on at the time. 20 some years ago folks were busy buying fax machines and we were running out of phone numbers, today people are dropping their landlines and fax machines are already a thing of the past. For the past 30 years we couldn't build malls fast enough now we can't tear them down fast enough. 25 Years ago if we saw 8% on a fix mortgage we would of thought we died and went to heaven (these were days where you actually had to prove you could make the payments) today we would think it was the end of the world. 20 years ago cable was taking over the world today people have begun to turn off TV in favor of the internet. The point is we don't really know where we will be getting our future energy could be nuclear (fusion or fission), could be anything the change could be happening right now but no one see's it but we have to do something. This country has sat on it's ass too long (since 74) because they didn't want to make tough decisions if we don't soon do something both the economy and environment will be beyond repair.
-
06-01-2009, 02:22 PM #15
-
06-01-2009, 03:27 PM #16
Re: Clean Energy Act
I can't agree with your first statement. We could be decades further if a REAl effort had been made starting in the '70's, when the oil crisis first reared it's ugly head. The mpg standards set for the near future could have been met decades ago..., The car manufacturers admit that, but they were not forced to. Then there is the whole American ideology that bigger is better.. combined with the whole We're American, we DESERVE to be the world's biggest fuel consumers... and wasters...
Oil shale is maybe the worst of the bunch... Do you realize how much propane is burned to capture the oil?... A case of double indemnity, if you ask me.
Finally... Libs refuse to have any reasonable sort of energy plan...at all. Huh? Wha? R-U-kiddin' me?.. I figure the plan SHOULD begin with cutting usage and alternative "fuel" be it hydrogen, solar, wind, oceanic currents... or some yet undiscovered substance. Where was Dubya's plan?...Invade Iraq and mak'em sell on the cheap?
There are not enough fossil fuels to last indefinitely, and the reserves in THIS country, even if tapped would not serve as a lengthy solution... So why delay the inevitable?
-
06-01-2009, 04:04 PM #17
Re: Clean Energy Act
We were talking about solar and wind and ocean currents, etc. Not viable as of now, not likely to be soon.
I agree that cars could certainly conserve much more. Conservation in general has promise.
Oil shale is currently plentiful, yet exactly as you mention inneficient at the moment. I'm more interested in working on that then the above choices, that has potential to be a realistic option. IN the same mindset, Ethanol needs some tech help and should be viable SOON.
HYdrogen, sounds great.
Dubya's and Repubs plan is the realistic one. Nuke plants NOW, LOTS of them, and Drill Anwar and ICS. I will repeat, this is the ONLY REASONABLE energy plan. Anything not centered on these two things is pie in the sky.
That is the plan that allows the developing technologies to, ya know, develop.... Until they develop, we are stuck financing terrorism. THe libs have no issue with this whatsoever. I do. I want energy available here and now.
Connies have the same energy plan as libs.... PLUS drilling in ANWAR, and ICS, Fozens of Nuke plants, and oh yeah, no regressive taxation. Nobody is suggesting avoiding the developing technologies you speak of, but that investment MAY pay off in as little as 20 years... Let's look a bit shorter term then that as well...
-
-
06-03-2009, 12:07 PM #19
Re: Clean Energy Act
Trap, just what are you blaming on Obama this time? That he is trying to do something to help? Gm made it's bed... all by itself... with a little help from the Bush Admin.... As a preference to what the government is trying to do to help GM, what is your solution? Just let'em fail, fire everybody, and leave all current GM owners in the lurch?Obama didn't create their problem, neither did the former presidents. BUT....mandating mileage improvements years ago might have helped... dunno....Just what is your point? or is there none?
-
06-03-2009, 12:19 PM #20
Re: Clean Energy Act
So, you are blaming what on Hillary? The trillions of debt to China Dubya created with a bogus unneedful war?
Boy, that good ole American Capitalism is helping out a lot, isn't it? That's Dubya's legacy... Let's make the whole world like us(being too ignorant to realize the consequences) and make them contenders for the fuel we need to buy!
Ya know, the further in the past it gets, the more we realize just how ignorant, incompetent and downright independent that heh-heh- (snicker, snicker) group of morons actually was!
-
06-03-2009, 12:24 PM #21
Re: Clean Energy Act
Agree on the shorter term comment.... We need at least temporary solutions now. I was reading about advancements on the nuclear waste disposal issue. It seems they are developing a way to render the waste unharmful. If so, I can't see either side taking issue with nuclear power.
Bookmarks