| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 12:06 pm |
|
| And, of course we all know about the green M&M's.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23rd, 2008 03:11 am |
|
Perhaps, HB. Green is the the "hot" color for lots of things, and as Kirk points out, there are several issues that are coming to a head. The cost of oil, pollution, global warming, and dependency on foreign oil. I don't care if you throw one of them out, it is still a good idea to get off oil.
From a corporate perspective, they ARE simply looking for new areas to save energy. I don't think it solely for the bottom line; they are looking to be "responsible", or at least for their commercials. There are companies, however, that are investing in new technology for the "green" image, even if it is not solely cost effective.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 06:41 pm |
|
| Hart: I agree, this has more to do with cost containment than anything related to morality or ethics. The more expensive energy becomes, the more efficient businesses will become, or they run the risk of more efficient firms under-cutting them. This has been true for a very, very long time. For the "Greens" to claim some sort of responsibility for the transition would be a stretch of even Mr. Gore's imagination. The coincidence of cost, foreign policy, and election cycles has made this a pretend 'green' issue. Shipping billions of dollars to dictators in the Middle East has never made sense. As it happens, this is the first time that the price of oil and the sentiment against Islamic regimes comes together with a Presidential election. I doubt that this country will go any "greener" only insofar as it makes sense for the bottom line of the company. Going out and buying a new, more efficient automobile is one of the least "green" things someone can do - resources for production far exceed those saved by better fuel economy, and yet Madison Avenue has found this an effective sales pitch.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 06:27 pm |
|
A friend of mine who is a chemical engineer for a fairly large sized company in New Jersey gave me a tip on extending gas mileage that at first I thought was wierd until I tried it. The discovery on my part is the use of pure acetone mixed in your gasoline tank. One ounce of acetone mixed with every ten gallons of gas will improve gas mileage in a few tanks full. If you only put in 5 gallons,,then 1/2 ounce of acetone. Never more than 3 ounces per ten gallons. Only a tiny amount is needed. It made a difference in one of my cars and now I am extending it to my other. It works on diesel too. I didn't believe it at first bgut try it. You'll like it and it's dirt cheap too. Maybe one of you hairbags or scientists out there can explain it better.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
OK, thanks for the perspective. I guess I come from a different place in the sense that all the 'greeness ' you mention has basically come about as the result of higher energy and other costs more than the environmental movement. 30 years ago I was working on reducing landfill costs, steam costs and other things you might consider environmental. We were doing that because of the bottom line not because anyone was trying to save Mother Earth.
Maybe we are calling the same thing different names. I say we have made changes based on cost needs and you all see it as part of the green revolution. Either way works for me as long as the green movement doesn't get in the way of the real 'green' saving movement ($).
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 04:49 pm |
|
Fred: and the list of changes in the last 20 years could be extended to include:
- post-consumer-waste paper products: it is harder to find paper that is not at least partially from recycled materials
- extended use/availability of non-petroleum based inks, solvents, and dyes in newsprint, clothing, housewares and cleaning supplies
- grocery stores with 'organic produce': whatever the FDA/Dep.t of Ag. uses as their criteria, it is still a major shift
- reductions in use of polystyrenes in packaging: even McD's uses cardboard for BigMacs.
- 'sleep' features on appliances that have high draws when on but not in use.
- 'energy star' performance criteria for appliances
- gdp growth per kilowatt has been growing at more than 5%, so production processes are becoming more energy efficient as well
could more be done? of course. will more be done? of course, as long as there is profit in the area there will be a business interested in your money
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 11:08 am |
|
You don't think that "green" is a part of everyday life? Here is just a few that I can think of off the top of my head.
Cars: Go past a few car lots, and you will see something interesting....20 years ago, the price was the main feature, but now you see MPG featured (well, for those cars that can brag about it.)
Recycling: Road site pickup of materials that can be recycled is becoming more and more standard. I
Business: Companies have undertaken many initiatives, from more efficient lighting, to recycling programs to computers. Green Information Technology is a serious effort due to the tremendous amount of energy PCs and servers use.
Coolants: We now use a "more green" coolant in most cars.
And, before you ask.....no, it is not enough.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 01:11 am |
|
| We buy more squiggley light bulbs......Oops they weren't available 20 years ago, my bad.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 11:10 pm |
|
| What are the criteria that you use to say we are 'a lot greener' than we were 20 years ago? Not being argumenative, just curious.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 03:40 pm |
|
I've seen projections we could do it in way less time, but I do think it is a generational project. We certainly are a lot greener than we were 20 years ago, and there are a lot of projects that show promise. We need to show dedication to them to help the succeed.
There are plenty of oil wells that we don't use right now, or weren't using until recently. The main reason these wells were capped isn't that there wasn't any oil, but that it wasn't worth getting out at a certain price level. It is the same with alternative fuels. In a perfect world we would have alternatives to gas that were cheaper, but if we can get self-sufficient, renewable, green energy that also helps elminate global warming....we can afford to pay a bit more.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 07:06 am |
|
Fred wrote: The answer is to wean ourselves off the stuff. It ain't going to be easy, and it ain't going to be quick.
The science of it would actually be rather quick and easy(less than 100 years) but then again every single thing that every consumer on the planet buys arrives via a truck owned by a business who in turn inported it. So who's making it difficult?? Why?? Gives credence to McCains platform. It's time to come clean about the state of the economy and none of them seem to want to. Just blame it on "oil" and hope the drones remain cluless at the polls I guess.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 01:25 am |
|
| That B*#%H ain't no lady.
|
Habanero
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | DelMarVA, USA |
| Posts: | 4056 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 01:22 am |
|
Now, now, now, PTG, that's, frankly, not being nice to Barney 
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 12:51 am |
|
| Mike Castle is the nicest lady in the House of Representatives.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 11:35 pm |
|
Right out of the Pelosi Playbook. Give up some of their 'corporate welfare'?? Like the $30 billion Exxon paid in taxes last quarter? If the lefties are so anxious to cut 'welfare', let the government save us a half a buck a gallon by decreasing their fuel taxes. Can't do that. Want the revenue so we can spend it on subsidies for some other hare-brained scheme like ethanol from corn.
Eventually it will get bad enough that we'll stop all this dancing around and get rid of the drilling bans and start acting like we know what we are doing as a nation instead of letting the politicians pass bills like they just did in the House which is plainly designed for political rather than practical purposes. An example is allowing drilling only 100 miles offshore. What unmitigated gall! Of course our local Demapublican, Castle, voted for it. I'm hoping the Democrat storm in Delaware takes him with it.
Well, at least we have moved the mountain a little on this issue. The pressure will continue until we are doing all we can to use our natutral resources while the search goes on for alternatives to our current consumption levels.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Now prices are rising because of the Russki's. When are we going to take command of our destiny and go after our own resources?
I'll keep saying it and saying it....our resources are not enough to affect prices by more than a nickel a gallon down the road. There might be arguments for "taking care of our destiny" but price ain't one of them.
The answer is to wean ourselves off the stuff. It ain't going to be easy, and it ain't going to be quick. I say let the oil companies drill to recover the billions of barrels on the leases they already have (or let us know why the are not), and work towards alternatives.
As I've said, I am NOT entirely opposed to new drilling in the areas that Republicans seem to get woodies about, but I want it balanced. If this is go great for the oil companies, I am sure they won't mind giving up some of their corporate welfare for the chance to make a buck, right?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 12:56 am |
|
| Now prices are rising because of the Russki's. When are we going to take command of our destiny and go after our own resources?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
Nancy Pelosi solves energy crisis
An official Obama advisor says that Nancy Pelosi is directly responsible for the recent drop in gas prices. The advisor, Honkey Whitesville, argues that Pelosi put her own interests behind her in an amazingly selfless manner in order for the good of Americans everywhere. Find out what she allegedly did: Read the transcript.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: Footloose wrote: I read today where Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) is proposing wind farms off shore and putting wind turbines on top of the bridges and skyscrapers in NYC. He didn't mention solar. Wind is only good when the wind blows and solar only when the sun shines. He is talking about 10% of NYC power needs in 10 years. Great for adjunct power supplies but I still say to go with nuclear. Like some here posted, nuclear fusion would solve the spent rod problem. I do believe that they are storing them underground out west somewhere.
Let me know when they get nuclear fusion down will you? In the meantime they are not storing nuclear waste "out west somewhere". Maybe they are storing them over the rainbow. Don't fret, Footloose. You are not wrong. It seems that the nuclear energy people have taken the advice of Horace Greely and did move West. Here is some information and a link for the complete article.
In the US a permanent storage site has been selected at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Yucca Mountain is in an extremely dry area of Nevada. This minimizes the possibility of water seeping through the rock and corroding the casks. Additionally, if the casks do get corroded, there is not much water flow to carry the nuclear wastes away. The casks will be buried about 1500 feet underground, further preventing the waste from escaping. It is also far from the nearest population center in Las Vegas. While Yucca Mountain is near of a fault line, the fault is believed to be inactive. There are several volcanoes in the vicinity, but scientists believe that they have been dormant for almost a million years and think it unlikely that they will erupt in the next 10,000 years. Naturally, the people in Nevada are opposed to the creation of a nuclear waste repository. They express the common reaction, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard!!). This is because that although most evidence indicates that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage, no one can guarantee that waste will not leak. However, quite a bit of research has already conducted around the Yucca site. Also, work on tunneling into the mountain has been started. The Yucca Mountain Deep Geological Repository is projected to be ready by the year 2010.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html
So you agree that there is currently no available site. The State of Nevada is objecting to this and Nevada is not the only state objecting to it. I wouldn't simply write off several states' oppostion.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1630 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:19 pm |
|
Terrance wrote: Footloose wrote: I read today where Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) is proposing wind farms off shore and putting wind turbines on top of the bridges and skyscrapers in NYC. He didn't mention solar. Wind is only good when the wind blows and solar only when the sun shines. He is talking about 10% of NYC power needs in 10 years. Great for adjunct power supplies but I still say to go with nuclear. Like some here posted, nuclear fusion would solve the spent rod problem. I do believe that they are storing them underground out west somewhere.
Let me know when they get nuclear fusion down will you? In the meantime they are not storing nuclear waste "out west somewhere". Maybe they are storing them over the rainbow. Don't fret, Footloose. You are not wrong. It seems that the nuclear energy people have taken the advice of Horace Greely and did move West. Here is some information and a link for the complete article.
In the US a permanent storage site has been selected at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Yucca Mountain is in an extremely dry area of Nevada. This minimizes the possibility of water seeping through the rock and corroding the casks. Additionally, if the casks do get corroded, there is not much water flow to carry the nuclear wastes away. The casks will be buried about 1500 feet underground, further preventing the waste from escaping. It is also far from the nearest population center in Las Vegas. While Yucca Mountain is near of a fault line, the fault is believed to be inactive. There are several volcanoes in the vicinity, but scientists believe that they have been dormant for almost a million years and think it unlikely that they will erupt in the next 10,000 years. Naturally, the people in Nevada are opposed to the creation of a nuclear waste repository. They express the common reaction, NIMBY (Not In My Backyard!!). This is because that although most evidence indicates that Yucca Mountain is a suitable place for storage, no one can guarantee that waste will not leak. However, quite a bit of research has already conducted around the Yucca site. Also, work on tunneling into the mountain has been started. The Yucca Mountain Deep Geological Repository is projected to be ready by the year 2010.
http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:21 pm |
|
Footloose wrote: I read today where Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) is proposing wind farms off shore and putting wind turbines on top of the bridges and skyscrapers in NYC. He didn't mention solar. Wind is only good when the wind blows and solar only when the sun shines. He is talking about 10% of NYC power needs in 10 years. Great for adjunct power supplies but I still say to go with nuclear. Like some here posted, nuclear fusion would solve the spent rod problem. I do believe that they are storing them underground out west somewhere.
Let me know when they get nuclear fusion down will you? In the meantime they are not storing nuclear waste "out west somewhere". Maybe they are storing them over the rainbow.
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
I read today where Mayor Bloomberg (NYC) is proposing wind farms off shore and putting wind turbines on top of the bridges and skyscrapers in NYC. He didn't mention solar. Wind is only good when the wind blows and solar only when the sun shines. He is talking about 10% of NYC power needs in 10 years. Great for adjunct power supplies but I still say to go with nuclear. Like some here posted, nuclear fusion would solve the spent rod problem. I do believe that they are storing them underground out west somewhere.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:41 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: It's like not drilling for oil til we have a complete plan in place. It's like not having children until you can afford them. It's like not standing up for what needs to be done, because it might fail.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying if we just start accumulating nuclear waste, we'll have a place to store it? If that's the case, why do they currently have nuclear waste at reactor sites that they are claiming they need to store somewhere. Is the problem that they don't have enough nuclear waste yet to bring about a magic solution?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 03:17 am |
|
It's like not drilling for oil til we have a complete plan in place. It's like not having children until you can afford them. It's like not standing up for what needs to be done, because it might fail.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:07 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Try this......... no we don't thanks to the tree hugging Lberals.
Regardless of why we don't have one, I think it's probably not a good idea to generate nuclear waste until we do. What do you think about that as an operating philosophy?
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 02:00 am |
|
| Try this......... no we don't thanks to the tree hugging Lberals.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:59 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Thanks to the tree hugging Liberals.
Take a shot at a real answer. We either have a place or we don't.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
| Thanks to the tree hugging Liberals.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:56 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: But think about the children, we are ruining their planet with spent rods.
To date we do not have a functioning storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 01:24 am |
|
| I knew Lyndon Larouche would surface this year.
|
Footloose
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 22nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 332 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
The Insyder wrote: 2007, France's power generation was 78% nuclear. At the same time, the US generation was only 19% nuclear. Japan's was 28% nuclear. Brazil's was only 3%. We should be going all out for nuclear energy. It produces zero carbon emissions and we have it 24/7 with no reliance on regular deliveries of fuel. As for the waste, as the environmentalists lament, we could be moving faster towards nuclear fusion. These numbers are from the Int'l Atomic Energy Assoc. There has been very slow progress in the fusion research. At least fusion would get rid of the waste . Nuclear fusion is taking two different atoms and combining them in to one atom, while nuclear fission takes one atom and separates it into two atoms. Last edited on Wed Aug 20th, 2008 12:50 am by Footloose
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 10:34 pm |
|
| But think about the children, we are ruining their planet with spent rods.
|
The Insyder
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 548 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 09:12 pm |
|
| 2007, France's power generation was 78% nuclear. At the same time, the US generation was only 19% nuclear. Japan's was 28% nuclear. Brazil's was only 3%. We should be going all out for nuclear energy. It produces zero carbon emissions and we have it 24/7 with no reliance on regular deliveries of fuel. As for the waste, as the environmentalists lament, we could be moving faster towards nuclear fusion. These numbers are from the Int'l Atomic Energy Assoc.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 04:43 pm |
|
Kirk wrote: Perhaps this is a bit off subject, but the earlier posting slipped through without remark and while I generally agree with the poster's statements I cannot let factual errors go without correction.
Ter: you posted that the U.S. is a food exporter. While it is true that we export such crops as wheat and corn, we also import the overwhelming majority of our vegetables, fruits, and produce that is processed for canning and juices. We are, on net, a food importer. I cannot remember which year this shift from net exporter to net importer happened, but I seem to recall it was 2005 give or take a year a two. Large portions of our ag output are put to non-food uses. Corn, soybeans, etc. are used for the chemicals and by-products, as well as livestock feed. Our exports are cheap (bushels of wheat have gone up in price recently, so perhaps we will return to being a net exporter), and our imports are for more expensive items (grapes, strawberries, lettuce, juice and juice concentrates, and like items). I do not know about the net caloric count (exports - imports), but financially we are a net importer and have been for a few years.
I stand corrected. Thank you for educating me to this.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 331 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:39 pm |
|
Perhaps this is a bit off subject, but the earlier posting slipped through without remark and while I generally agree with the poster's statements I cannot let factual errors go without correction.
Ter: you posted that the U.S. is a food exporter. While it is true that we export such crops as wheat and corn, we also import the overwhelming majority of our vegetables, fruits, and produce that is processed for canning and juices. We are, on net, a food importer. I cannot remember which year this shift from net exporter to net importer happened, but I seem to recall it was 2005 give or take a year a two. Large portions of our ag output are put to non-food uses. Corn, soybeans, etc. are used for the chemicals and by-products, as well as livestock feed. Our exports are cheap (bushels of wheat have gone up in price recently, so perhaps we will return to being a net exporter), and our imports are for more expensive items (grapes, strawberries, lettuce, juice and juice concentrates, and like items). I do not know about the net caloric count (exports - imports), but financially we are a net importer and have been for a few years.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:52 pm |
|
Mendavor wrote: emen, it is pointless to argue. The stuth of the situation is what Sen. Harry Reid spoke of and that fossil fuels make us sick. It poisons the planet. We have been given the sun and the wind to be at our disposal. We should be gearing down oil production instead of ramping up. We must learn to do as Sen. Obama suggested. Slow down, drive less, drive smaller vehicles or better yet, eliminate carbon burning vehicles. Use bicycles and such. Lower your heat this winter and wear a sweater. You will have more money available for food. You don't need air condition8ing. What did we do when there wasn't any? We endured and we can doo it again. Intensify your efforts and join the struggle.
ESAD
|
Mendavor
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 298 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:00 pm |
|
emen, it is pointless to argue. The stuth of the situation is what Sen. Harry Reid spoke of and that fossil fuels make us sick. It poisons the planet. We have been given the sun and the wind to be at our disposal. We should be gearing down oil production instead of ramping up. We must learn to do as Sen. Obama suggested. Slow down, drive less, drive smaller vehicles or better yet, eliminate carbon burning vehicles. Use bicycles and such. Lower your heat this winter and wear a sweater. You will have more money available for food. You don't need air condition8ing. What did we do when there wasn't any? We endured and we can doo it again. Intensify your efforts and join the struggle.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:51 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: If we didn't export oil, we would produce nearly 70% of our consumption.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Actually we currently produce over 70% of our oil consumption domestically.
Here's what I found:
"Conspicuously missing is the United States, but I can tell you that we consume 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, and produce 8,054,000.00, leaving a discrepancy of 11,596,000.00 bbl per day."
Here's where I found it:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
If true, we produce less than half of what we consume.
I guess addition isn't your strongest skill. Our total production is 11,596,000,000 bbl per day short of our consumption.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:28 am |
|
If we didn't export oil, we would produce nearly 70% of our consumption.
Terrance wrote:
Playing the Game wrote: Actually we currently produce over 70% of our oil consumption domestically.
Here's what I found:
"Conspicuously missing is the United States, but I can tell you that we consume 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, and produce 8,054,000.00, leaving a discrepancy of 11,596,000.00 bbl per day."
Here's where I found it:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
If true, we produce less than half of what we consume.
|
Boo
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 19th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 481 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:25 am |
|
Terrance wrote: Playing the Game wrote: We have our own oil, we just can't drill it.
Don't let those pesky facts get in your way. If we drilled for everything conceivable, we would still end up importing the bulk of our oil. If'n ya caint get all you want at the general store, you gotta go get it yerself somewhere else. To cite you some Tennessee wisdom, Uncle Ahab used to by his shine from some folks down at the holler but when prices got so high that he couldn't afford it, he begun to make some of his own in his own backwoods. Came out good too. So now that he got plenty of his own, just to keep hisself drunk all day, he had enuff to sell off to others and make a few bucks on his own. Even got the sheriff as a customer now. Git the pernt son?
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Actually we currently produce over 70% of our oil consumption domestically.
Here's what I found:
"Conspicuously missing is the United States, but I can tell you that we consume 19,650,000.00 bbl per day, and produce 8,054,000.00, leaving a discrepancy of 11,596,000.00 bbl per day."
Here's where I found it:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html
If true, we produce less than half of what we consume.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:09 am |
|
| Actually we currently produce over 70% of our oil consumption domestically. Last edited on Tue Aug 19th, 2008 01:10 am by Playing the Game
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 11:28 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: We have our own oil, we just can't drill it.
Don't let those pesky facts get in your way. If we drilled for everything conceivable, we would still end up importing the bulk of our oil.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 10:44 pm |
|
| We have our own oil, we just can't drill it.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 08:43 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: So food is not a vital commodity?
Terrance wrote:
PTG thinks oil is just a commodity like wheat, rice and beef. Apparently he does not understand the national security interests at stake. He cannot distinguish between vital commodities.
Give it a rest. Cut back on the coffee.
We grow our own food and export it. The same cannot be said about producing our own oil. So, we are not dependent upon foreign countries who wish to bury us by overcharging us for our food.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
So food is not a vital commodity?
Terrance wrote:
PTG thinks oil is just a commodity like wheat, rice and beef. Apparently he does not understand the national security interests at stake. He cannot distinguish between vital commodities.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 04:29 pm |
|
| Well, if the demand is going to be there, the price will go up. I suspect it will not go up quite that far, however...but it will not surprise me to see the price creep up a bit over the next couple of months.
|
Skjuda
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
| Prediction - gas will cost over $4 again by labor day. Is anyone surprised? Or does it seem to be a recent trend in the past few years to have higher gas prices around the holidays?
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
Oil IS a commodity, but one that we can develop alternatives or consume less....both of which will lower the price. Develop alternatives and conservation plans, and figure out a way to use the oil only when we really need it.
Look at it this way...it is OUR oil. Right now, it is more valuable than it was a year ago, and it will be more valuable 10 years ago, and extremely valuable in 20. There are some things that we can provide alternatives for, and some things that there is no substitute. I would rather be in the position of having our own when the rest of the world is running out.
|
Terrance
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1117 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 18th, 2008 03:00 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: Terrance wrote: Yep. It was the same as when the current President's grandfather was doing business with the Nazis before WWII. He was eventually forced to stop by the FBI and the Justice Department. He was just a business man doing business to make a profit. The problem was he didn't know that doing business with some people was a problem.
Based on your responses, I guess it would be okay for any American business to sell anything to anybody. Why shouldn't our weapons manufacturers be allowed to sell anything they want to anybody? Terrance. Do you recall Jack Kennedy Sr. dealing with the Nazis not to sink his ships that was transporting Scotch Whiskey? Or did you condone Bill Clinton selling the communist Chinese computer technology through Loral Electronics in exchange for campaign contributions? The Chinese needed it to perfect their missile guidance systems. Now that they have done it, and sold some of it to iran, do you feel confident and safe? Short memory or ADD?
I don't approve of what Kennedy's father did. I don't approve of what Clintoin did. I don't approve of anybody who puts anything above our national security interests. That is why I don't approve of what our oil companies are doing. Some people fail to understand this.
PTG thinks oil is just a commodity like wheat, rice and beef. Apparently he does not understand the national security interests at stake. He cannot distinguish between vital commodities.
HB seems to be making the arguement that profit is the only consideration.
|
Current time is 03:00 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|