|
Post by Wolfgang on Nov 7, 2004 14:50:49 GMT -5
Apparently, Bush is intent on drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge in Northern alaska. Environmentalists are saying this would be bad for the area, especially with all the oil run-off and potential disaster during a spill (if it happens). Why can't the Bushbaby look to alternative sources of renewable energy? Jeez...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2004 15:44:07 GMT -5
That would require looking at the "big picture." Much better to get the oil from the AWR, which, by most estimates, would be depleted within a decade.
And, of course, alternative energy sources would also reduce our absolute dependence on Mideast Oil. Which would mean we (and the rest of the West) could stop with the plundering, which makes all the people of the Mideast so happy.
Not going to happen. Bush/Cheney = Big Oil.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Nov 7, 2004 17:48:32 GMT -5
Apparently, Bush is intent on drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge in Northern alaska. Environmentalists are saying this would be bad for the area, especially with all the oil run-off and potential disaster during a spill (if it happens). Why can't the Bushbaby look to alternative sources of renewable energy? Jeez... I agree. That area should be off limits. Drill anywhere in Canada if need be.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Pink on Nov 7, 2004 18:06:24 GMT -5
Let me throw an alternative your way. First, whomever in the US that is in charge of oil drilling won't allow this to take place in Alaska because of the size of the oil fields. They seem to wait until all the oil in the rest of the world is used up, then have a monopoly on the oil reserves. Again, whomever is "I really don't know." And of course this is something I have heard from various people. Second, with the alternative fuel sources...I have also been told be friends that the they already exist (Alt. Fuel), but guess who owns the patents? Yep, the oil company's. Not likely to relinquish them any time soon. Oh, and an aquintance said he had worked for a battery company in PA. They were just as poluting as oil was in nature. You know, enough money will get people to look the other way.
I agree, we do need some people to come and be honest here. Enough with the Political Correctness.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Nov 9, 2004 17:59:47 GMT -5
This isn't exacxtly new, Bush has been trying for years, and congress has pretty much said no. I'm not aware of any new push to get this through. I wish we would, because it doesn't make any sense not to open it up.
We are talking about less than 5% of ANWR (actually much less, as most of the area even inside that chunk of land wouldn't be suitable for drilling. That part is a wasteland, and its the exact same wastelaqnd as everything else nearby. Animal and plant life is almost non-existence, and what little htere is has been shown to flourish in the presence of the oil industry.
ANWR is almost adjacent to Prudhoe bay, only a slight extension of the transportation network will be reqiured, once it gets to prudhoe it will run on the pipes that are already in place.
If ANWR doesn't have enough oil to make it worth it, then no oil company will bother to drill there. If they want to drill, there must be a significant amount.
The government can't magically create some alternative energy source, we are researching, but hte fact is, there probalby will not be any alternative source that can completely replace oil until we figure out fusion, as the country does not seem to want to accept fission plants. Hydro is maxed out, and dams screw up local ecosystems. Wind and solar have their own issues, and while they can be used to supplement our power base, they're too undependable and require too much space to satisfy all our energy requirements. Geothermal can only be used in a couple places on the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Nov 12, 2004 17:52:40 GMT -5
I have also been told be friends that the they already exist (Alt. Fuel), but guess who owns the patents? Yep, the oil company's. Not likely to relinquish them any time soon. Not true. In every single area of technology, you CANNOT say a company or group of companies from a single industry (e.g., "oil companies") owns all the patents. It's almost impossible. Independent inventors, small companies, large companies, yes even oil companies, other companies with no products/services in the oil industry all have patents in alternative fuel. That's not to say the oil companies are not trying to buy them from the patent holders. Also, relinquishing those patents, however many there are, won't be an issue in about, say max. 20 years because patents eventually expire. Patents also don't give you the right to make, use, or sell products. They only give you the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling them. The oil companies don't have a monopoly on these patents. There are also many technologies that are not covered by patents and instead are: 1. yet undiscovered, 2. publicly available, and/or 3. covered by trade secrets. More likely (1) or (2), above.
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Nov 12, 2004 18:02:19 GMT -5
My concern with drilling for oil and opening these highly sensitive eco-systems to imminant disasters is that eventually, this planet is going to HAVE to get off of using oil for resources. Not that they want to, but they will have to because it is nearly depleted as it is!
What happens when the next best resource requires SOME oil to make it work? What happens if we waste all that we currently have and convert the oil 100% to energy when we could mix the oil at a ratio of 10% or less to derive all of our energy?
This is purely hypothetical, but it's a shame to totally annhilate the resources on this planet (and put all of the funding into such) when there are plenty of other alternative fuels available, starting ideally with solar power, but others as well.
Mr. Bush won't hear it from posting on this forum, but if we the people, who are his boss (theoretically) start urging for the push to start another resource, we'd be better off (energy-wise) in as few as two-generations away!
We, as in the US, are a power-hungry (energy) nation and we should look at ways of generating that energy at home rather than depend on a resource that is clearly dwindling.
I believe that in the 70's there was a scare as to how much oil was left in the world. Although, the numbers have been proven wrong since then, there hasn't been much talk about how much oil reserves are actually left... it's not enough to continue using them at current rates.
Off my soap box now.
|
|
|
Post by Eater on Nov 12, 2004 22:43:55 GMT -5
And of course this is something I have heard from various people. Second, with the alternative fuel sources...I have also been told be friends that the they already exist (Alt. Fuel), but guess who owns the patents? Yep, the oil company's. Not likely to relinquish them any time soon. Oh, and an aquintance said he had worked for a battery company in PA. They were just as poluting as oil was in nature. You know, enough money will get people to look the other way. The patent thing is untrue. There's a ton of money to be made in alternative fuel, and if they had these magic patents they'd develop the product. These accusations crop up every now and then, but not a shred of proof has ever been given. And batteries are horrible. Electric cars are AWFUL environmentally. The idea of an alternative fuel is nice, but what is a viable alternative? Hydro: maxed out Wind: Too undependable , takes up too much space. can only supplement power demand. Solar: Similar problems, also very expensive. Power demand doesn't drop until 9pm, well after sundown. They'd be useful for supplementing supply during hot summer days, but cannot be used as the base of our system. geothermal or tidal: laughable. so few places it can be used effectively. Nuclear: Safe, little pollution, reducing red-tape could bring down price. Unfortuantely too many morons are terrified of ATOMS!!! Govt also too paranoid about terrists to encourage breeder reactors, which make nuclear power even more efficient and clean. Fusion: Obviously the holy grail of alternative energy research, but its not happening anytime soon.
|
|
|
Post by chancelucky on Nov 15, 2004 15:34:10 GMT -5
China is now the second largest consumer of oil in the world. It's energy demands are currently growing by more than 10% a year. As market economies have succeeded in other parts of the world, so has the demand for resources. World population continues to grow as does energy demand from developing nations. Soon, this is going to be a far more serious international question and it's clear to me that this kind of question is not solved well by unilateralism. At the same time, I doubt that any country would be happy with any cooperative solution that does get worked out.
In my life, one president took the whole fossil fuel question seriously, Jimmy Carter. One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as president was to take the solar water heating panels off the top of the White House.
|
|