During WW2, Germany lacked the capability to launch a naval invasion of Great Britain across a tiny strip of water known as the English Canal. In order for the invasion to conceivable, Germany would first have had to neutralize the Royal Airforce (which they made a decent attempt at, but failed) and the Royal Navy (which was never remotely within their reach).
By contrast, North American is flanked by the two biggest oceans of the planet. Who exactly would invade? And like Dread said, as long the concept of mutually assured destruction exists, nobody is going to just nuke the U.S.
There is no military threat to the U.S. There may be a terrorist threat, but those are not resolved through military invasions. Not unless you're prepared to commit genocide on a substantial proportion of the world's population.
<!--quoteo(post=1599772:date=Jan 18 2007, 01:37 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 18 2007, 01:37 AM) [snapback]1599772[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How come I get accused of trolling when I make posts like these? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because when you do it you're just imitating the above, but when he's doing it it's serious. First is trolling the second is for some reason ok.
I wonder if the same goes for nazism.
[Edit] Sorry, just read the rules: genocide is only ok if you kill regardless of ethniticity.
<!--quoteo(post=1599856:date=Jan 18 2007, 11:11 AM:name=Lofung)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lofung @ Jan 18 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]1599856[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> i suggest we need another spin-off out of this spin-off. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah... I spun this off from the Bush thread to keep that thread <b>on-topic</b>.
And now this thread has been officially de-railed. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1599772:date=Jan 18 2007, 01:37 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 18 2007, 01:37 AM) [snapback]1599772[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> How come I get accused of trolling when I make posts like these? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it kinda is trolling and I missed it. Knock it off, Cxwf.
There we go! We've convinced the admin to come tell me that my completely 100% serious post that does nothing more than state my opinion, and contains not a single drop of sarcasm more than the post I was responding to, is trolling.
Do you have a definition of trolling we could refer to, Rob?
<!--quoteo(post=1599598:date=Jan 17 2007, 01:14 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 17 2007, 01:14 PM) [snapback]1599598[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah this might be accurate, but I think that the consequences of war are far worse than the benefits of having a slightly stronger economy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There's your problem! You're assuming that spending less on the military will lead directly to having less war. This, of course, is a liberal pipe dream. All it will lead to is a smaller chance of the US emerging victorious from the wars that <i>will happen anyway</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, no, I was responding to what he said. He said "a wartime economy is stronger" basically. He said 'wartime' not 'a country that spends money on military'. Reread it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, you might like that outcome, for all I know. I'll let you believe what you like there. But you need to stop kidding yourself that wars only exist because of US military spending. Once you get past that point I think we'll be able to have a much more productive discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah imply that I hate America. That's the ticket to a good solid debate. I never said that wars only exist because of US Military spending (some of them do, some of them don't).
I'll admit I may have taken a miscue from your context, but note that even if you personally didn't believe that, at least two other people who DID believe that replied to my post to say so, so it was still a worthwhile contribution to discussion.
Was just reading an article that mentioned that the Europeans fixed the <a href="http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C11193/" target="_blank">Smog Issue</a> Not to mention, us Americans fixed the <a href="http://www.thecarconnection.com/pf/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/New_Clean_Diesel_Fuel_Is_Here.S173.A10967.html" target="_blank">Sulfur issue</a>. And the Euro's have fixed the <a href="http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/TECHNOLOGIES/ENVIRONMENT/FAP/" target="_blank">Smoke issue </a> for quite some time. (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4M8Cu4j2g" target="_blank">Using dancing robotic cars</a>)
Not to mention, Diesel engines last about 3-5x longer than gasoline ones. And is used for virtually every type of vehicle besides airplanes.
Also puts up about Half the global warming emmisions of gasoline.
And gets better mileage.
_
And yes, you have Diesel that comes from Oil
However Diesel from Algae looks *very* promising, It uses no farmland, and can easily use water unsuitable for crops.
Works near flawlessly with any existing diesel cars, pumps, pipelines, storage, and delivery infastructure.
But most importantly, since it grows at an exponential rate, you could grow enough Diesel for the entire country on an area about 1% the size of existing farmland.
<!--quoteo(post=1599338:date=Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]1599338[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> For example, about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was produced from oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Says who?
<!--quoteo(post=1599338:date=Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]1599338[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In regards to peak oil, it really is exaggerated. Coal reserves can last well into at least a century more, and by the time that oil will have outlived its life as an energy source, we'll have successfully transitioned to new and better ones. Heavy crude oil, when exploited properly, will field even more barrels of oil. And the biggest thing we can do in the mean time is to conserve our existing supplies or use it more efficiently. We can simply burn more coal to make up the shortfall and save oil exclusively for internal combustion engines for transit vehicles. That alone can give us many more years to research new alternatives. We can also make more fuel efficient vehicles and consider reviving railroads as a primary method of goods transportation (Federal highway subsidies led to the rise of the mac trucks in the first place). <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming global warming is a fairy tale that we can gleefully ignore. Otherwise, thats not an option.
But that gets out of replacing transportation fuels, and into replacing electricity plants.
Which can be pretty much described as the dillema of: Coal = Global Warming Nuclear = Nuclear Poliferation and Long Term Fubar Renewables = Hardly enough support from Feds, and still not quite reliable enough yet Natural Gas = Best Conventional Option, but market volitility is an issue.
So so far, there is no good answer to that. Only way Renewables could take the lead is if they had a good way to store it.
Although hell, BioDiesel generators might not be a half bad shortterm fix. Since if you're growing plants that fast, it might as well be considered "Solar" technology.
Sounds like we need to research the viability of fusion power. There's the issue of the enormous heat that needs to be contained, as well as heavy radiation. But at least there's no residual radiation. As far as I know, what is needed to really get fusion power going is near-room-temperature superconductors. Let's hope we find some of those soon.
But hey, there's an experimental reactor in the works (ITER) that promises to (for the first time ever) actually output more energy than goes into it. And for several minutes, too. By comparison, JET outputs a little LESS power than goes into it, and merely for a few seconds.
<!--quoteo(post=1600379:date=Jan 20 2007, 11:51 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 20 2007, 11:51 AM) [snapback]1600379[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> But hey, there's an experimental reactor in the works (ITER) that promises to (for the first time ever) actually output more energy than goes into it. And for several minutes, too. By comparison, JET outputs a little LESS power than goes into it, and merely for a few seconds. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't there some law in thermodynamics that wouldn't like it very much if this were true? Not that I really care if thermodynamics turns out to be a crock- it would in fact make my day!
The actual creation of a perpetual motion machine would change the face of our society almost overnight. If we can produce enough energy to suit everyone's needs and desires, there would be no use for crimes other than those of passion, for instance. Economy would cease to be an idea: with infinite resources, you don't need to find ways to manage them effectively.
No Rob, you misunderstand. ITER, like JET, will need a lot of power for the magnetic containment fields. Unlike JET, the actual energy output of ITER will be higher than the energy required to maintain the containment fields. You say this violates the fundamental laws of the universe, creating energy from nothing. However, you forget the actual fusion process - fusing deuterium into helium. That's where the energy comes from.
It's comparable to an internal combustion engine: First you feed a little energy into it (to power the starter), then you get a lot of energy out of it. Of course the energy doesn't come from nothing, but from the combustion of the fuel you're feeding into the engine. In the case of ITER, it's not combustion but nuclear fusion, and the fuel is deuterium.
The actual creation of a perpetual motion machine would probably boil the planet in the end. Since energy would be free, our demands on it would spiral higher and higher, and global warming from all the energy we'd produce out of nothing would go rampant.
Actually, after reading that post Rob replied to again, I now see how the confusion arose. I said "experimental reactor," which was a mistake. I forgot to stuff "fusion" inbetween the two. ITER is to be an experimental <i>fusion</i> reactor, which was not clear from my post, unless the reader knew that JET is one AND correctly guessed the connection between the two. My bad.
<!--quoteo(post=1600526:date=Jan 21 2007, 12:14 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 21 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]1600526[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Actually, after reading that post Rob replied to again, I now see how the confusion arose. I said "experimental reactor," which was a mistake. I forgot to stuff "fusion" inbetween the two. ITER is to be an experimental <i>fusion</i> reactor, which was not clear from my post, unless the reader knew that JET is one AND correctly guessed the connection between the two. My bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> full name of JET plz? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
[Quoted]QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM) *
For example, about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was produced from oil.
Says who?[/Quoted]
i have heard from national geographic channel saying that it isnt 40 but 70 although the programme is back in a few years ago.
<!--quoteo(post=1600379:date=Jan 20 2007, 04:51 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Jan 20 2007, 04:51 PM) [snapback]1600379[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Sounds like we need to research the viability of fusion power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, if only we had a working fusion reactor which was far away enough that it didn't melt the planet. It'd be like a big ball of fire in outer space.
Hrmmm... Yeah, it'd be nice to get energy from something like that.
When oil starts going down the right side of the bell curve of "peak oil" and becomes less and less profitable, another form of energy will take its place.
Never doubt the free market, someone WILL step in with a replacement so they can make money.
By then what will be too late? The American strategic oil reserve has enough oil to power regular consumption for about a year. Assuming oil prices become prohibitively expensive, the US would tap into its reserves, impose strict quotas for civilian useage, and start phasing in more public transportation and revive the railroads. Life certainly won't be the same for the years to follow, but we'll carry on and find new ways of dealing with our energy problems. The same can be said for almost any other country.
The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but what all the doomsayers are missing is the resiliency of mankind and the surprisingly capacity for governments to adapt to changing conditions.
The status quo won't exactly be broken. All of the post industrial nations will simply move even closer to the cities and rely on trains instead of trucks to bring in supplies. The third world countries in Africa will continue to be backwards and incredibly impoverished. The only really big losers are those nations that are industrializing: China, Brazil and most of South America, and most of the Pacific Rim. And even then, China has huge coal reserves, they would simply invest more in railroads and coal as a stopgap.
When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, then we might be in trouble, but until then...suck it up and deal with it. The end of the world as we know it won't happen due to oil shortages. That's for damn sure.
<!--quoteo(post=1600641:date=Jan 21 2007, 06:03 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 06:03 PM) [snapback]1600641[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> By then what will be too late? The American strategic oil reserve has enough oil to power regular consumption for about a year. Assuming oil prices become prohibitively expensive, the US would tap into its reserves, impose strict quotas for civilian useage, and start phasing in more public transportation and revive the railroads. Life certainly won't be the same for the years to follow, but we'll carry on and find new ways of dealing with our energy problems. The same can be said for almost any other country.
The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but what all the doomsayers are missing is the resiliency of mankind and the surprisingly capacity for governments to adapt to changing conditions.
The status quo won't exactly be broken. All of the post industrial nations will simply move even closer to the cities and rely on trains instead of trucks to bring in supplies. The third world countries in Africa will continue to be backwards and incredibly impoverished. The only really big losers are those nations that are industrializing: China, Brazil and most of South America, and most of the Pacific Rim. And even then, China has huge coal reserves, they would simply invest more in railroads and coal as a stopgap.
When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, then we might be in trouble, but until then...suck it up and deal with it. The end of the world as we know it won't happen due to oil shortages. That's for damn sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In a world where global warming doesn't exist. Coal would be the answer.
Even though <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/" target="_blank">Exxon</a> and the <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40712FD39540C738DDDA80894DF404482" target="_blank">NOAA</a> are starting to admit it does exist. (i.e. Some of the toughest critics)
So Coal, which is worse than gasoline, isn't a solid answer. (Not to mention the high ammount of acid and mercury content in the majoriety of the worlds coal reserves)
That said, expecting people to simply drive less isn't going to happen. Thats far more of a change to "Our way of life" than 9/11 could have ever effected. Asking a lot of personal self sacrifice, I believe is unneccisary.
Trick is, peak oil isn't about the oil running out. Or even just supply side policy. It's about the oil getting expensive. China's demand is rising rapidly. As is India, and Latin America. As demand rises, while supply goes down, what happens?
Now you say that we'll find new ways, and that the government is extremely flexible and supportive of creating alternatives. And so far, I haven't seen anything further from the truth. At best, all I've seen them do is cut bloated welfare checks to oil companies.
Hydrogen for the most part is a red herring. Ethanol as well.
Everything else has gotten jack in federal funds.
_
Waiting until after we've already fallen off of a cliff, and hit the ground, isn't a very good time to equip a parachute.
We should be investing and innovating before that happens.
Then again, I guess in your view, the Katrina method is exactly how we should follow through with this. All the while handing out money, <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/" target="_blank">we don't have</a>, like a teenager at the mall with daddy's credit card to do anything but make investments for the future.
This is where governments need to CREATE an economic incentive for "alternative" energy sources. Most of the I-world is doing that except for the US of A. Re: Kyoto.
Jesus christ, GreyFalcon, you have been bought hook line and sinker into the school of American declinism.
First of all, I already know that it's not a matter of it running out, rather than it being prohibitively expensive in what I typed here:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Assuming oil prices become prohibitively expensive,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know the meaning of "reserve" in the sense of commodity economics. A reserve of oil is the amount of oil you have READILY ACCESSIBLE TO USE or EASILY AND CHEAPLY EXTRACTABLE. Not the total amount of oil you might have, as extracting smaller pockets of it could prove costly.
Second, you underestimate the importance of coal. Have you looked at the newer clean coal technology? Air pollutants decrease dramatically. In fact, the only downside to the liquefaction of coal is the solid waste that could potentially poison our water supply. That can be handled easily enough. People talk about biodiesel, something that would turn the world's gross food output into the NEGATIVES, as if it's a potential measure but that would be disastrous. But we can turn coal into gasoline and rely on it for quite some time for our energy needs.
Also, pertaining to global warming, nobody contests the fact that the average temperature that has been observed over the past few decades, but there is still no consensus on the potential effects. We still don't know the potential severity of global warming.
There's another thing that you're getting wrong:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At best, all I've seen them do is cut bloated welfare checks to oil companies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cutting subsidies is something I agree with, but cutting subsidies while taxing them even more? That's stupidity at its finest. Another problem is calling them the "oil companies". They aren't oil companies anymore. They are energy companies. And they are the biggest spenders on research for alternative sources of energy. Corporations aren't as short sighted as you might think.
One last thing, bringing up our national debt is an exercise in ignorance. You do realize that the size of the debt relative to our GDP makes it nothing special? Every country owes debt to another country. The rate of investment that the American government and firms invest in Europe is the same that European firms and governments invest in ours. Our public debt is around 8-9 trillion dollars. The US economy is over 12 trillion dollars per year. Japan's public debt is over 150% of its GDP, and they are even coping with it. The real thing to look out for is the rate the debt is increasing against the economy.
The problem with most people is they can't give credit where credit is due. While I think that the government needs to seriously scale back its scope and expenses, the way the government operates is excellent. Collecting taxes accurately is an immense headache, yet the IRS comes knocking down your door if you're skimming off the top. Unremarkable and a headache? Maybe, but people overlook the efficiency and logistics required to pull that sort of ish off.
Why do you think the US has a strategic petroleum reserve in the first place?
In any case, you should be more worried about Europe at the moment. You say we've made crappy strategic choices, check out this article: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,901040119-574849,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,9...-574849,00.html</a>
The grass always looks greener on the other side, but the people in the know can accurately determine which side is exactly which shade of green.
Human resiliency is a very important topic in a debate like this, I think. Even if we should see several big setbacks, assuming that they're permanent is ludicrous. So far, humanity has overcome every obstacle set before us. There is no reason to believe we can't continue doing so. And let me just add that of course it is perilous to merely take that line of thought as an excuse to dismiss every warning sign. But I don't see us doing that anyway.
Speaking of coal and railways, don't discount the good ol' steam engine. It might see a rennaissance as oil grows scarce and railways surge in importance. They're inconvenient for personal vehicles because they're harder to miniaturize and because they can't be started at the turn of a key. But both these concerns are relatively inconsequential for train engines. And I've heard rumours of steam engines that are significantly more efficient than diesel engines (and sadly, that's all I know - rumours. No sources). All it'd take, then, is funding. And once steam engines are needed, funding will come.
Besides, steam engines have much more style and flair than internal combustion engines. Better torque, too.
Edit: JET = Joint European Torus ITER = International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Experimental International Thermonuclear Reactor would be a better name I think, but would make for a horrible acronym.)
Edit2: Oh and the problem with solar energy is accessability. Much of it gets filtered out by the athmosphere, even on a clear day. If it's overcast, energy production plummets. The best place to collect solar energy would obviously be outside the athmosphere, but then how do we get it down to the surface?
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> People talk about biodiesel, something that would turn the world's gross food output into the NEGATIVES, as if it's a potential measure but that would be disastrous. But we can turn coal into gasoline and rely on it for quite some time for our energy needs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Using Soy beans, our current source of BioDiesel, you are right. Using Algae, even with current technology, you are quite wrong. Since it grows at an exponential rate up to 500x faster than Soy. It also uses no farmland, and requires only poor quality water.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Also, pertaining to global warming, nobody contests the fact that the average temperature that has been observed over the past few decades, but there is still no consensus on the potential effects. We still don't know the potential severity of global warming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming you're talking about all print media. There is not a consensus.
Assuming you're talking about scientific papers that only get published after passing peer review. There's a Clear consensus, that not only does it exist, but that humans are significantly effecting it.
Hell, when you got Exxon, the worlds largest Oil Company, and the U.S. Federal Atmospheric Administration signing on. You know that the consensus is in.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There's another thing that you're getting wrong: Cutting subsidies is something I agree with, but cutting subsidies while taxing them even more? That's stupidity at its finest. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One or the other will do. Reason they are speaking about taxes is simply because cutting subsidies isn't likely. Not to mention, we've already handed them plenty of cash to work with.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Another problem is calling them the "oil companies". They aren't oil companies anymore. They are energy companies. And they are the biggest spenders on research for alternative sources of energy. Corporations aren't as short sighted as you might think. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You realize that 'alternative energy' and 'renewable energy' are different right?
Somewhere in the high 90%'s of that all go's to tar sands, and oil shale. Which is just "alternative" ways of capturing oil.
Hardly any of that goes into the development of renewable energy.
Considering that the tar sands in Alberta has almost 3 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia's Ghawar field....I say that's a very good investment. Obviously as the non-renewable sources of energy are depleted, we'll have to research sustainable and renewable sources of energy. But currently, heavy oil represents the best transition from light crude. People look for the next best thing, not a be-all end-all solution to our problems. Saying "funnel more money into renewable sources of energy" sounds fine and all, but there needs to be a return on investment. And if we can do something easier in the mean time, we'll do it. That's just how it'll work. The oil shale in Colorado looks very interesting right now.
Do you really think cutting the subsidies from the Federal government will really put pressure on the big energy companies? Exxon Mobil made 36 billion in profit last year. But they also made 360 billion in gross. Besides, if the energy companies are ever in threat, the Federal government wouldn't even hesitate to bail them out. The infrastructure set up by the largest multinational corporations are crucial to the world economy. In any case, the bill passed in the House called for the elimination of subsidies (I like deregulation) AND pushing for more taxes (that's not deregulation). We'll have to see what the Senate has to say about it.
If algae was really that great, then of course a company is going to exploit it. A revolutionary source of energy can't be kept under wraps for long. The amount of money that could be made from it would be mind boggling. Not to mention we could finally give Venezuela and the Middle East a big fat finger and watch them come groveling back to the United States in a few years.
The simplest answer is usually always the best answer. That applies to politics and economics as well.
<!--quoteo(post=1600802:date=Jan 22 2007, 03:44 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 22 2007, 03:44 AM) [snapback]1600802[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If algae was really that great, then of course a company is going to exploit it. A revolutionary source of energy can't be kept under wraps for long. The amount of money that could be made from it would be mind boggling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Obviously.
The leading company doing it Green Fuels, is based out of MIT And actually uses the exhaust from power plants to feed the algae.
Another interesting technology to keep your eye on: <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769639/posts" target="_blank">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769639/posts</a> <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology....biz2/index.htm</a>
Could offer an electric car that could travel 500 miles on a single charge. (Not 120 miles) And recharge inside 5 minutes. (Not 6 hours)
"Secretive Austin, Texas-based EEStor is expected to unveil their battery in early 2007, which is thought to offer a quantum leap forward in cycle life. It too is likely to have a high power to weight ratio and rapid recharge time, but since the company has been playing its cards very close to its chest, we'll have to wait and see what actually materialises." <a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/957" target="_blank">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/957</a>
If this is real, we might have something revolutionary on our hands.
_
Either way you roll it, we are this close to not needing Oil for transportation.
Comments
By contrast, North American is flanked by the two biggest oceans of the planet. Who exactly would invade? And like Dread said, as long the concept of mutually assured destruction exists, nobody is going to just nuke the U.S.
There is no military threat to the U.S. There may be a terrorist threat, but those are not resolved through military invasions. Not unless you're prepared to commit genocide on a substantial proportion of the world's population.
How come I get accused of trolling when I make posts like these?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because when you do it you're just imitating the above, but when he's doing it it's serious. First is trolling the second is for some reason ok.
I wonder if the same goes for nazism.
[Edit] Sorry, just read the rules: genocide is only ok if you kill regardless of ethniticity.
i suggest we need another spin-off out of this spin-off.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah... I spun this off from the Bush thread to keep that thread <b>on-topic</b>.
And now this thread has been officially de-railed. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
~ DarkATi
How come I get accused of trolling when I make posts like these?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it kinda is trolling and I missed it. Knock it off, Cxwf.
Do you have a definition of trolling we could refer to, Rob?
There's your problem! You're assuming that spending less on the military will lead directly to having less war. This, of course, is a liberal pipe dream. All it will lead to is a smaller chance of the US emerging victorious from the wars that <i>will happen anyway</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh, no, I was responding to what he said. He said "a wartime economy is stronger" basically. He said 'wartime' not 'a country that spends money on military'. Reread it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Of course, you might like that outcome, for all I know. I'll let you believe what you like there. But you need to stop kidding yourself that wars only exist because of US military spending. Once you get past that point I think we'll be able to have a much more productive discussion.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah imply that I hate America. That's the ticket to a good solid debate. I never said that wars only exist because of US Military spending (some of them do, some of them don't).
Was just reading an article that mentioned that the Europeans fixed the <a href="http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C11193/" target="_blank">Smog Issue</a>
Not to mention, us Americans fixed the <a href="http://www.thecarconnection.com/pf/Auto_News/Daily_Auto_News/New_Clean_Diesel_Fuel_Is_Here.S173.A10967.html" target="_blank">Sulfur issue</a>.
And the Euro's have fixed the <a href="http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/TECHNOLOGIES/ENVIRONMENT/FAP/" target="_blank">Smoke issue </a> for quite some time. (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W4M8Cu4j2g" target="_blank">Using dancing robotic cars</a>)
Not to mention, Diesel engines last about 3-5x longer than gasoline ones.
And is used for virtually every type of vehicle besides airplanes.
Also puts up about Half the global warming emmisions of gasoline.
And gets better mileage.
_
And yes, you have Diesel that comes from Oil
However Diesel from Algae looks *very* promising,
It uses no farmland, and can easily use water unsuitable for crops.
Works near flawlessly with any existing diesel cars, pumps, pipelines, storage, and delivery infastructure.
But most importantly, since it grows at an exponential rate,
you could grow enough Diesel for the entire country on an area about 1% the size of existing farmland.
For example, about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was produced from oil.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Says who?
<!--quoteo(post=1599338:date=Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]1599338[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
In regards to peak oil, it really is exaggerated. Coal reserves can last well into at least a century more, and by the time that oil will have outlived its life as an energy source, we'll have successfully transitioned to new and better ones. Heavy crude oil, when exploited properly, will field even more barrels of oil. And the biggest thing we can do in the mean time is to conserve our existing supplies or use it more efficiently.
We can simply burn more coal to make up the shortfall and save oil exclusively for internal combustion engines for transit vehicles. That alone can give us many more years to research new alternatives. We can also make more fuel efficient vehicles and consider reviving railroads as a primary method of goods transportation (Federal highway subsidies led to the rise of the mac trucks in the first place).
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming global warming is a fairy tale that we can gleefully ignore.
Otherwise, thats not an option.
But that gets out of replacing transportation fuels, and into replacing electricity plants.
Which can be pretty much described as the dillema of:
Coal = Global Warming
Nuclear = Nuclear Poliferation and Long Term Fubar
Renewables = Hardly enough support from Feds, and still not quite reliable enough yet
Natural Gas = Best Conventional Option, but market volitility is an issue.
So so far, there is no good answer to that.
Only way Renewables could take the lead is if they had a good way to store it.
Although hell, BioDiesel generators might not be a half bad shortterm fix.
Since if you're growing plants that fast, it might as well be considered "Solar" technology.
But hey, there's an experimental reactor in the works (ITER) that promises to (for the first time ever) actually output more energy than goes into it. And for several minutes, too. By comparison, JET outputs a little LESS power than goes into it, and merely for a few seconds.
But hey, there's an experimental reactor in the works (ITER) that promises to (for the first time ever) actually output more energy than goes into it. And for several minutes, too. By comparison, JET outputs a little LESS power than goes into it, and merely for a few seconds.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't there some law in thermodynamics that wouldn't like it very much if this were true? Not that I really care if thermodynamics turns out to be a crock- it would in fact make my day!
The actual creation of a perpetual motion machine would change the face of our society almost overnight. If we can produce enough energy to suit everyone's needs and desires, there would be no use for crimes other than those of passion, for instance. Economy would cease to be an idea: with infinite resources, you don't need to find ways to manage them effectively.
It's comparable to an internal combustion engine: First you feed a little energy into it (to power the starter), then you get a lot of energy out of it. Of course the energy doesn't come from nothing, but from the combustion of the fuel you're feeding into the engine. In the case of ITER, it's not combustion but nuclear fusion, and the fuel is deuterium.
The actual creation of a perpetual motion machine would probably boil the planet in the end. Since energy would be free, our demands on it would spiral higher and higher, and global warming from all the energy we'd produce out of nothing would go rampant.
<img src="http://fallout.rpgplanet.gamespy.com/fallout2/images/large_cell.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Actually, after reading that post Rob replied to again, I now see how the confusion arose. I said "experimental reactor," which was a mistake. I forgot to stuff "fusion" inbetween the two. ITER is to be an experimental <i>fusion</i> reactor, which was not clear from my post, unless the reader knew that JET is one AND correctly guessed the connection between the two. My bad.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
full name of JET plz? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
[Quoted]QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 16 2007, 08:48 PM) *
For example, about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was produced from oil.
Says who?[/Quoted]
i have heard from national geographic channel saying that it isnt 40 but 70 although the programme is back in a few years ago.
Sounds like we need to research the viability of fusion power.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, if only we had a working fusion reactor which was far away enough that it didn't melt the planet.
It'd be like a big ball of fire in outer space.
Hrmmm...
Yeah, it'd be nice to get energy from something like that.
<img src="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/images/sun-soho011905-1919z3.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Never doubt the free market, someone WILL step in with a replacement so they can make money.
The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but what all the doomsayers are missing is the resiliency of mankind and the surprisingly capacity for governments to adapt to changing conditions.
The status quo won't exactly be broken. All of the post industrial nations will simply move even closer to the cities and rely on trains instead of trucks to bring in supplies. The third world countries in Africa will continue to be backwards and incredibly impoverished. The only really big losers are those nations that are industrializing: China, Brazil and most of South America, and most of the Pacific Rim. And even then, China has huge coal reserves, they would simply invest more in railroads and coal as a stopgap.
When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, then we might be in trouble, but until then...suck it up and deal with it. The end of the world as we know it won't happen due to oil shortages. That's for damn sure.
By then what will be too late? The American strategic oil reserve has enough oil to power regular consumption for about a year. Assuming oil prices become prohibitively expensive, the US would tap into its reserves, impose strict quotas for civilian useage, and start phasing in more public transportation and revive the railroads. Life certainly won't be the same for the years to follow, but we'll carry on and find new ways of dealing with our energy problems. The same can be said for almost any other country.
The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but what all the doomsayers are missing is the resiliency of mankind and the surprisingly capacity for governments to adapt to changing conditions.
The status quo won't exactly be broken. All of the post industrial nations will simply move even closer to the cities and rely on trains instead of trucks to bring in supplies. The third world countries in Africa will continue to be backwards and incredibly impoverished. The only really big losers are those nations that are industrializing: China, Brazil and most of South America, and most of the Pacific Rim. And even then, China has huge coal reserves, they would simply invest more in railroads and coal as a stopgap.
When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, then we might be in trouble, but until then...suck it up and deal with it. The end of the world as we know it won't happen due to oil shortages. That's for damn sure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a world where global warming doesn't exist. Coal would be the answer.
Even though <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/" target="_blank">Exxon</a> and the <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40712FD39540C738DDDA80894DF404482" target="_blank">NOAA</a> are starting to admit it does exist.
(i.e. Some of the toughest critics)
So Coal, which is worse than gasoline, isn't a solid answer.
(Not to mention the high ammount of acid and mercury content in the majoriety of the worlds coal reserves)
That said, expecting people to simply drive less isn't going to happen.
Thats far more of a change to "Our way of life" than 9/11 could have ever effected.
Asking a lot of personal self sacrifice, I believe is unneccisary.
Trick is, peak oil isn't about the oil running out. Or even just supply side policy.
It's about the oil getting expensive.
China's demand is rising rapidly. As is India, and Latin America.
As demand rises, while supply goes down, what happens?
Now you say that we'll find new ways,
and that the government is extremely flexible and supportive of creating alternatives.
And so far, I haven't seen anything further from the truth.
At best, all I've seen them do is cut bloated welfare checks to oil companies.
Hydrogen for the most part is a red herring.
Ethanol as well.
Everything else has gotten jack in federal funds.
_
Waiting until after we've already fallen off of a cliff, and hit the ground,
isn't a very good time to equip a parachute.
We should be investing and innovating before that happens.
Then again, I guess in your view, the Katrina method is exactly how we should follow through with this.
All the while handing out money, <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/" target="_blank">we don't have</a>, like a teenager at the mall with daddy's credit card
to do anything but make investments for the future.
First of all, I already know that it's not a matter of it running out, rather than it being prohibitively expensive in what I typed here:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Assuming oil prices become prohibitively expensive,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The actual theory of peak oil itself is valid, but<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When people have exhausted ALL reserves of fossil fuels, <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know the meaning of "reserve" in the sense of commodity economics. A reserve of oil is the amount of oil you have READILY ACCESSIBLE TO USE or EASILY AND CHEAPLY EXTRACTABLE. Not the total amount of oil you might have, as extracting smaller pockets of it could prove costly.
Second, you underestimate the importance of coal. Have you looked at the newer clean coal technology? Air pollutants decrease dramatically. In fact, the only downside to the liquefaction of coal is the solid waste that could potentially poison our water supply. That can be handled easily enough. People talk about biodiesel, something that would turn the world's gross food output into the NEGATIVES, as if it's a potential measure but that would be disastrous. But we can turn coal into gasoline and rely on it for quite some time for our energy needs.
Also, pertaining to global warming, nobody contests the fact that the average temperature that has been observed over the past few decades, but there is still no consensus on the potential effects. We still don't know the potential severity of global warming.
There's another thing that you're getting wrong:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->At best, all I've seen them do is cut bloated welfare checks to oil companies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cutting subsidies is something I agree with, but cutting subsidies while taxing them even more? That's stupidity at its finest. Another problem is calling them the "oil companies". They aren't oil companies anymore. They are energy companies. And they are the biggest spenders on research for alternative sources of energy. Corporations aren't as short sighted as you might think.
One last thing, bringing up our national debt is an exercise in ignorance. You do realize that the size of the debt relative to our GDP makes it nothing special? Every country owes debt to another country. The rate of investment that the American government and firms invest in Europe is the same that European firms and governments invest in ours. Our public debt is around 8-9 trillion dollars. The US economy is over 12 trillion dollars per year. Japan's public debt is over 150% of its GDP, and they are even coping with it. The real thing to look out for is the rate the debt is increasing against the economy.
The problem with most people is they can't give credit where credit is due. While I think that the government needs to seriously scale back its scope and expenses, the way the government operates is excellent. Collecting taxes accurately is an immense headache, yet the IRS comes knocking down your door if you're skimming off the top. Unremarkable and a headache? Maybe, but people overlook the efficiency and logistics required to pull that sort of ish off.
Why do you think the US has a strategic petroleum reserve in the first place?
In any case, you should be more worried about Europe at the moment. You say we've made crappy strategic choices, check out this article: <a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,901040119-574849,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,9...-574849,00.html</a>
The grass always looks greener on the other side, but the people in the know can accurately determine which side is exactly which shade of green.
And let me just add that of course it is perilous to merely take that line of thought as an excuse to dismiss every warning sign. But I don't see us doing that anyway.
Speaking of coal and railways, don't discount the good ol' steam engine. It might see a rennaissance as oil grows scarce and railways surge in importance. They're inconvenient for personal vehicles because they're harder to miniaturize and because they can't be started at the turn of a key. But both these concerns are relatively inconsequential for train engines. And I've heard rumours of steam engines that are significantly more efficient than diesel engines (and sadly, that's all I know - rumours. No sources). All it'd take, then, is funding. And once steam engines are needed, funding will come.
Besides, steam engines have much more style and flair than internal combustion engines. Better torque, too.
Edit: JET = Joint European Torus
ITER = International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Experimental International Thermonuclear Reactor would be a better name I think, but would make for a horrible acronym.)
Edit2: Oh and the problem with solar energy is accessability. Much of it gets filtered out by the athmosphere, even on a clear day. If it's overcast, energy production plummets. The best place to collect solar energy would obviously be outside the athmosphere, but then how do we get it down to the surface?
People talk about biodiesel, something that would turn the world's gross food output into the NEGATIVES, as if it's a potential measure but that would be disastrous. But we can turn coal into gasoline and rely on it for quite some time for our energy needs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Using Soy beans, our current source of BioDiesel, you are right.
Using Algae, even with current technology, you are quite wrong.
Since it grows at an exponential rate up to 500x faster than Soy.
It also uses no farmland, and requires only poor quality water.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Also, pertaining to global warming, nobody contests the fact that the average temperature that has been observed over the past few decades, but there is still no consensus on the potential effects. We still don't know the potential severity of global warming.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming you're talking about all print media. There is not a consensus.
Assuming you're talking about scientific papers that only get published after passing peer review.
There's a Clear consensus, that not only does it exist, but that humans are significantly effecting it.
Hell, when you got Exxon, the worlds largest Oil Company, and the U.S. Federal Atmospheric Administration signing on.
You know that the consensus is in.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
There's another thing that you're getting wrong: Cutting subsidies is something I agree with, but cutting subsidies while taxing them even more? That's stupidity at its finest. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One or the other will do.
Reason they are speaking about taxes is simply because cutting subsidies isn't likely.
Not to mention, we've already handed them plenty of cash to work with.
<!--quoteo(post=1600727:date=Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jan 21 2007, 11:50 PM) [snapback]1600727[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Another problem is calling them the "oil companies". They aren't oil companies anymore. They are energy companies. And they are the biggest spenders on research for alternative sources of energy. Corporations aren't as short sighted as you might think.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You realize that 'alternative energy' and 'renewable energy' are different right?
Somewhere in the high 90%'s of that all go's to tar sands, and oil shale.
Which is just "alternative" ways of capturing oil.
Hardly any of that goes into the development of renewable energy.
Do you really think cutting the subsidies from the Federal government will really put pressure on the big energy companies? Exxon Mobil made 36 billion in profit last year. But they also made 360 billion in gross. Besides, if the energy companies are ever in threat, the Federal government wouldn't even hesitate to bail them out. The infrastructure set up by the largest multinational corporations are crucial to the world economy. In any case, the bill passed in the House called for the elimination of subsidies (I like deregulation) AND pushing for more taxes (that's not deregulation). We'll have to see what the Senate has to say about it.
If algae was really that great, then of course a company is going to exploit it. A revolutionary source of energy can't be kept under wraps for long. The amount of money that could be made from it would be mind boggling. Not to mention we could finally give Venezuela and the Middle East a big fat finger and watch them come groveling back to the United States in a few years.
The simplest answer is usually always the best answer. That applies to politics and economics as well.
If algae was really that great, then of course a company is going to exploit it. A revolutionary source of energy can't be kept under wraps for long. The amount of money that could be made from it would be mind boggling.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Obviously.
The leading company doing it Green Fuels, is based out of MIT
And actually uses the exhaust from power plants to feed the algae.
<a href="http://www.greenfuelonline.com/stage/gf_files/How.ram" target="_blank">http://www.greenfuelonline.com/stage/gf_files/How.ram</a>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15287313/</a>
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15250836/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15250836/</a>
<a href="http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/IGVAllianceGreenFuel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/IG...ceGreenFuel.pdf</a>
_
Another interesting technology to keep your eye on:
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769639/posts" target="_blank">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1769639/posts</a>
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology....biz2/index.htm</a>
Could offer an electric car that could travel 500 miles on a single charge. (Not 120 miles)
And recharge inside 5 minutes. (Not 6 hours)
"Secretive Austin, Texas-based EEStor is expected to unveil their battery in early 2007, which is thought to offer a quantum leap forward in cycle life. It too is likely to have a high power to weight ratio and rapid recharge time, but since the company has been playing its cards very close to its chest, we'll have to wait and see what actually materialises."
<a href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/957" target="_blank">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/957</a>
If this is real, we might have something revolutionary on our hands.
_
Either way you roll it, we are this close to not needing Oil for transportation.