amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Just wondering what people's stances were towards different energy politics.
Energy Scale -- Where Do You Fit?
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
I think you may be assuming people know (or care) what ANWR is! And if ANWR is what I think it is, you have the logical sense of your questions the wrong way round.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Well, I just figure that anyone that doesn't know what ANWR is shouldn't have a say in my poll 
But seriously, it's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Here's a pro-drilling site, and anti-drilling site:
( http://www.anwr.org/ ) - Viva la capitalism!
( http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/ ) *sniffile* poor caribou!
But seriously, it's the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Here's a pro-drilling site, and anti-drilling site:
( http://www.anwr.org/ ) - Viva la capitalism!
( http://www.savearcticrefuge.org/ ) *sniffile* poor caribou!
Sixchan
Emperor
Well, I think that Domestic drilling should not be stopped in MY country (We drill in the north sea, though), and I think nuclear projects must continue, but we must research into renewable sources. IIRC Scotland can power itself on wind and Hydroelectricity, and make a killing selling the oil. I couldn't care less what sort of mess the Americans get themselves into because they didn't have renewables in place when the oil runs dry in the east, or when they stop selling to the "Anti-Islamic Enemy, The Great Satan, Amerika." 
. I'd say it serves you right.
. I'd say it serves you right.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
My views are very 'green', I think all drilling and so on should be stopped and repleced with renewable energy sources.
So...oil drilling = bad hiss boo grr!
So...oil drilling = bad hiss boo grr!
Sixchan
Emperor
So...All drilling stops. How do the cars get about? Or, while building renewable energy sources, drilling has stopped, so we run dry, and cannot afford to complete building renewable power grids.
OMG!
Can you imagine what feul tax would be like once oil becomes scarce! One litre would cost the same as a house!...Oh...wait...it already does anyway.
OMG!
Can you imagine what feul tax would be like once oil becomes scarce! One litre would cost the same as a house!...Oh...wait...it already does anyway.
Greadius
:yeah:
Maybe it does for YOU but we still get it pretty cheap compared to the rest of the world.Originally posted by Sixchan
OMG!
There has GOT to be another way to get energy than oil and nuclear power. We've been in an energy crisis of some sort for 30 odd years and can't find anything better? We can put a man on the moon in a decade but can't figure out how to make cars move forward without destroying the world in the process??
Me? I walk (almost) everywhere... and use public transportation
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
That's easy for you to say, you're in a high population dense country. Where I am, and I'm only 45 minutes from Minneapolis, you need a car to get there. Buses and trains aren't worth the expense.
Sixchan
Emperor
Well, here goes an attempt at currency conversion: $1.14 per litre for unleaded petrol. In an OIL PRODUCING COUNTRY!
Now US average price is $1.37 per gallon, right? That's 4.54 litres, so 1.37/4.54 = $0.30 per litre! That means I pay 84 cents more for my petrol per litre!
Another view: $1.14*4.54= $5.13 per gallon!
Now US average price is $1.37 per gallon, right? That's 4.54 litres, so 1.37/4.54 = $0.30 per litre! That means I pay 84 cents more for my petrol per litre!
Another view: $1.14*4.54= $5.13 per gallon!
Switch625
I don't care.
You've left off a significant choice on your poll. The reserves in ANWR are puny compared to what is under the Gulf of Mexico. I've heard (and I wish I could remember the source) that the oil reserves under the Gulf of Mexico rival that of the Arabian Peninsula. That, my friends, is a LOT of oil. If we could open the Gulf to oil exploration, the whole question of whether or not to drill in the wildlife reserve would be moot.
PS: Even though I favor energy exploration, I think it would be foolish to not explore alternative fuel sources. Simply using hydrogen fuel cells in automobiles would have an enormous positive impact on US oil consumption.
PS: Even though I favor energy exploration, I think it would be foolish to not explore alternative fuel sources. Simply using hydrogen fuel cells in automobiles would have an enormous positive impact on US oil consumption.
More Drilling NOW!!!!
ANWR is a bunch of tundra. Yes, it is home to the poor Caribou, but I really don't think it will affect the wildlife in the way that their talking about. The area of the ANWR that the oil companies want to drill in is miniscule compared to the size of the whole refuge. Another point, many of the same people who criticized the pipeline in Alaska because it would hurt the wildlife also want to halt development in ANWR. Well, it seems the caribou and other animals are actually deriving some benefit from the pipeline.
The people of Alaska, especially most of the Eskimo/Native population are in favor of drilling. Why should the Lower 48 get to choose for them?
The US is entirely too dependent upon oil from the Middle East, to the point where it has affected our foreign policy negatively.
Of course, I also think we should develop more nuclear power plants in addition to other renewable power resources. The problem here is that unlike in Europe, where nuke power seems to be acceptable in some countries, most of the same people here who want to limit drilling are also opposed to nukes and many of the other renewable options. One of my high school teachers was so outraged by the Hydro-Quebec project that he took a group of American students up there for a week to protest it.
The problem is, until fusion power becomes a reality, all of our energy will come from a means that will not please the Green leaning people in America. Hydropower destroys environments by flooding them. Wind power makes the landscape ugly and is probably dangerous for some tiny bird or insect that lives in windy areas. Solar power is inefficient and making solar panels causes pollution. Many hybrid "clean" burning fuels are simply not powerful enough for our needs.
I think ANWR gives the US a chance to lessen it's dependence upon Arab oil, giving a window of opportunity to build up an alternative power industry (hydro/nuclear/wind) while at the same time trying to develop new, cleaner power sources.
ANWR is a bunch of tundra. Yes, it is home to the poor Caribou, but I really don't think it will affect the wildlife in the way that their talking about. The area of the ANWR that the oil companies want to drill in is miniscule compared to the size of the whole refuge. Another point, many of the same people who criticized the pipeline in Alaska because it would hurt the wildlife also want to halt development in ANWR. Well, it seems the caribou and other animals are actually deriving some benefit from the pipeline.
The people of Alaska, especially most of the Eskimo/Native population are in favor of drilling. Why should the Lower 48 get to choose for them?
The US is entirely too dependent upon oil from the Middle East, to the point where it has affected our foreign policy negatively.
Of course, I also think we should develop more nuclear power plants in addition to other renewable power resources. The problem here is that unlike in Europe, where nuke power seems to be acceptable in some countries, most of the same people here who want to limit drilling are also opposed to nukes and many of the other renewable options. One of my high school teachers was so outraged by the Hydro-Quebec project that he took a group of American students up there for a week to protest it.
The problem is, until fusion power becomes a reality, all of our energy will come from a means that will not please the Green leaning people in America. Hydropower destroys environments by flooding them. Wind power makes the landscape ugly and is probably dangerous for some tiny bird or insect that lives in windy areas. Solar power is inefficient and making solar panels causes pollution. Many hybrid "clean" burning fuels are simply not powerful enough for our needs.
I think ANWR gives the US a chance to lessen it's dependence upon Arab oil, giving a window of opportunity to build up an alternative power industry (hydro/nuclear/wind) while at the same time trying to develop new, cleaner power sources.
Pellaken
The one and only.
I voted:
Remove all restrictions on ANWR, resell land to energy industry. Build more nuclear power plants.
I, although a leftist, couldent care less for eco things. infact, I dont know, or care, what eco is short for.
Remove all restrictions on ANWR, resell land to energy industry. Build more nuclear power plants.
I, although a leftist, couldent care less for eco things. infact, I dont know, or care, what eco is short for.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
If you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic about the caribou
What I can't figure out is some of those greenies out there that say that America damages it's environment when it hunts for resources, etc., but they remain silent on developing nations who are dependant on our tax money to survive and what do they do?
Well, let me put it this way: how many of you are planning a trip to Ridyah in the next few years?
Greadius
:yeah:
Maybe because insulting third world nations for something we do would be hypocritical?
I'd agree to opening ANWR with a small condition... for every gallon of oil spilled, the company that is 'exploring' donates $1 million. They're willing to tell us how sure they are that they can do it safely, let them put their oil hungry money where their mouth is.
But, in my opinion, ANWR obfuscates the issue... we need to find an alternative and stop trying to find new places to stick a pipeline.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
The gulf of mexico is already producing oil. The problem is that it is deep water, which makes it very expensive to drill and to produce.
And also on the US oil consumption, this could be reduced by people driving smaller, more efficient cars, as well as carpooling. Maybe they could try the eurpoean trick of REALLY narrow roads, where large cars just can't fit!
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Why can't we just change to a hydrogen society? I mean no pollution, renewable and best of all hydrogen creates electricity which in turn can be used to create hydrogen, the perfect cycle.
If you want further convincing visit:
www.hydrogenus.com/why_reid.htm
If you want further convincing visit:
www.hydrogenus.com/why_reid.htm
Why not try the European trick of high fuel taxes and more efficient cars? Clinton was the first President since Nixon (I think it was Nixon) to not ask the Motor car industry to improve fuel efficiency, even Reagen did it! And surprise surprise George W. has continued this. You Americans should thank Mr Clinton for allowing George W. to continue policies that he would never have even hoped he would be able to pass. For example, the level of Arsenic in America water is at the same level as at the end of WWII. This is arsenic! You know the fatally poisonous substance.
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by ainwood
The gulf of mexico is already producing oil. The problem is that it is deep water, which makes it very expensive to drill and to produce.
And also on the US oil consumption, this could be reduced by people driving smaller, more efficient cars, as well as carpooling. Maybe they could try the eurpoean trick of REALLY narrow roads, where large cars just can't fit!
Yes, the Gulf is producing oil now, but the operations are small compared to the oil fields available. Also, as of right now, the Gulf is closed to further oil exploration. For instance, the Gulf coast of Florida has rich oil fields that are relatively easy to get to (not in deep water), but Florida has denied any permits to exploit those fields. Which is interesting, because the governor of Florida is the President's brother!
The people of the US won't, in general, accept smaller cars than are on the market now. The popularity of mini-vans and sport-utility vehicles are evidence of that. This is why I am in favor of an alternative power system for cars. I would expect in about ten years for there to be a viable fuel-cell system for automobiles. The US government has partnered with Ford to develop one. There are several other companies working on fuel-cell technology as well. It will happen.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Realistically look at using the resources present, under full government control, and consider working with the Russians on Siberia etc.
Build lots more nuclear power plants, with good security and location.
Build power plants that produce energy from having communists and dissidents thrown in them
I have always been partial to the notion of a wicker yak powered power station inside the artic circle, where fresh live yaks are constantly fed into a jolly furnace, and everyone lives absurdly ever after. (This was the setting for a play one once wrote...)
Build lots more nuclear power plants, with good security and location.
Build power plants that produce energy from having communists and dissidents thrown in them
I have always been partial to the notion of a wicker yak powered power station inside the artic circle, where fresh live yaks are constantly fed into a jolly furnace, and everyone lives absurdly ever after. (This was the setting for a play one once wrote...)
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
I can see that that was written by someone with a strong view: "Huge oil spills like the Exxon Valdez are becoming common, killing countless waterfowl. " and "Mass consumption of oil requires continued drilling into pristine wilderness areas, wreaking havoc on some of the world's greatest ecosystems".
However, lets put some of the authors rather blinkered comments into perspective:
Whilst combustion of hydrogen is essentially "clean", you still have to produce the hydrogen. This can cause NOx and ozone formation, which will contribute to smog - depending on the mechanism. Also, the manufacturing processes to create fuel cells etc can be quite polluting.
And yes, converting to a hydrogen-based economy will create jobs, however shutting down the oil industry will destroy quite a few too - the transition would have to be carefully controlled.
And by the way - hydrogen is actually incredibly dangerous. It is explosive at almost any concentration, unlike hydrocarbons which have narrow flammability bands. A leak then becomes very serious.
Hydrogen is the obvious way to the future, but there are issues to be overcome. AS an aside, the major oil companies are actually funding a lot of research into hydrogen.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I'm not sure your poll includes my option:
1. Restrict ANWR drilling. Or we Canadians will retaliate by doubling our coal-emission output over the border, renege on the Ozone annex and choke New England to death to save our pretty Caribou. Oh, and we'll dam the Red River to flood North Dakota, not that it matters much.
And forget about buying our water, ever.
2. Allow only modest fuel tax increases over time, but direct all of that funding as a subsidy to pure, zero-emissions fuel cell research (I oppose business subsidies, but I'm prepared to compromise on this given the massive benefit to citizens) My attitude is that we shouldn't punish drivers and the economy; the problem is not the cars, but the fuel in the cars.
3. Allow nukes, but only as a trade-off for eliminating unclean coal plants or similar emissions trades. Nukes are a *****, but for the short term, their benefits are worth the risk in my view.
4. Go hogwild on conservation - it's better for the economy, may be better for GHG, and is definitely better for the environment overall if north americans can learn to do simple things like shut their computers off at the office when they go home etc. (I pick on that example because the City of Toronto worked out that manual power-saves on its computers would save a whopping CND$3 million a year).
R.III
1. Restrict ANWR drilling. Or we Canadians will retaliate by doubling our coal-emission output over the border, renege on the Ozone annex and choke New England to death to save our pretty Caribou. Oh, and we'll dam the Red River to flood North Dakota, not that it matters much.
And forget about buying our water, ever.
2. Allow only modest fuel tax increases over time, but direct all of that funding as a subsidy to pure, zero-emissions fuel cell research (I oppose business subsidies, but I'm prepared to compromise on this given the massive benefit to citizens) My attitude is that we shouldn't punish drivers and the economy; the problem is not the cars, but the fuel in the cars.
3. Allow nukes, but only as a trade-off for eliminating unclean coal plants or similar emissions trades. Nukes are a *****, but for the short term, their benefits are worth the risk in my view.
4. Go hogwild on conservation - it's better for the economy, may be better for GHG, and is definitely better for the environment overall if north americans can learn to do simple things like shut their computers off at the office when they go home etc. (I pick on that example because the City of Toronto worked out that manual power-saves on its computers would save a whopping CND$3 million a year).
R.III
Similar threads
