Drill, baby, DRILL!

[DC Tom]

And precisely what would your $2/gallon tax accomplish that justifies it as the right thing?

 

It'll piss off the conservatives. Pay attention.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

And precisely what would your $2/gallon tax accomplish that justifies it as the right thing?

Would you look for ways to use less gas if it were more expensive?

[Magox]

Environmentalists are wackos! There is obviously no such thing as an environment.

 

Drill here! Spill Now!! Oh ya!!

 

 

Come on, say it with me!

 

 

USA! USA!! USA!!! USA!!!

This post is a perfect snapshot of who you are.

[Celtic_soulja]

Uh...yeah we do. Ethanol is hydrophyllic, gasoline is not; the entire fuel distribution system would have to be rebuilt, just to dry it out. Even now, with ethanol in the "summer blend", there's serious seasonal disruption every spring when they have to take pipelines out of service and clean them.

 

Plus, large-scale ethanol production carries with it a land-use cost that, if you scale up like you want, prohibits growing other things like...food. Same with biodiesel. And topsoil is not an unlimited resource - eventually, you lose the ability to grow your corn, or sugar beets, or whatever it is you're growing for biofuels.

 

Really...learn something about a topic before posting on it.

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that new laws of physics can be discovered that eliminate nuclear waste?

 

I used to think you had some intelligence. Did I NOT say that Ethanol is NOT YET PRACTICAL? I thought I did, ah who am I kidding. You always know what I am saying better than I do. So if we scale it up "like I want", which is how large? I am sure if you read my post you can make up how big I wanted to scale up to.

 

And yeah, I completely said that we should learn new laws of physics to eliminate nuclear waste. In no way did I say put more money into RESEARCH to make it more efficient. Have you been drinking?

 

Okay, lets try this. Are you saying that we are no more efficient than we were say thirty years ago? Have thier not been scientific advances in science? Or am I imagining all of this. Oh, no what you are saying is that we have advanced all we are going to advance. I see. I see. We've always known the completely immense power of the theory of relativity, and we cannot build upon it any further. Science never builds on itself to move forward. People never advance studies. Have another one buddy.

 

I never thought you would give me the opportunity to say this and mean it. You are being a MORON

[Celtic_soulja]

If Ethanol is such a bad idea, (which economically it is IMO) maybe you guys should talk to your lovers at Goldman Sachs, I heard they are down with the Ethanol game.

 

It has created like a quarter million jobs. Displaced 1.9 billion of imported barrels of crude oil. Added 228 billion to the GDP. Has added about 33.7 billion for federal tax revenue and 17 billion to local tax revenues. After costs the government has only made 3 billion, but how many industries that are government controlled are actually running in the green, no pun intended.

 

I still think you can only take it so far, but I'm just saying it isn't nearly as terrible as you two are trying to say.

 

"I encourage you to look at all of the contributors playing a role in rising food costs.

 

Making ethanol the scapegoat oversimplifies the issue and it derails a product that is good for our economy, our environment and helps to lessen our demand for foreign oil. "

 

Bob Stallman, a rice and cattle producer from Columbus, Texas, and president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. This was distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

 

Yeah, but I am sure Magox is much more in tune with the farming business than the president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. Just like DC is much more of an expert on what I say than I am.

 

Issss Laughable man...HAH HAH...

[Wacka]

How many billions has it increased food prices?

[Celtic_soulja]

How many billions has it increased food prices?

 

I'm not going to defend Ethanol. All I said is the transition for the tanks, piping etc. is not as bad as some other alternatives. I have already stated NUMEROUS times that I think it is impractical. Of course not everyone on this board can read. I do not think a food based fuel is the right way to go. I've said it, and said it, and said it. Because you could not argue my stance on biodiesel, you, like them, are trying to liberal media me.

 

Now Nuclear research I will defend. A fingertip sized bead has as much power production as a barrel of crude. If we can put more money and time into research I think there is a VERY lucrative future in it.

 

Don't listen to DC Tom, I never said that we are going to redefine the laws of physics. He just doesn't believe that Galileo built on Newton and Einstien built on Galileo. He believes that Einstien always existed, or that Newton still exists, or that they really just got together and wrote the bible of science and nothing new can be discovered. E-mc2 is the end all for Nuclear science. We are done. Evolved. Finished. I think a bit differently.

[/dev/null]

Don't listen to DC Tom, I never said that we are going to redefine the laws of physics. He just doesn't believe that Galileo built on Newton and Einstien built on Galileo. He believes that Einstien always existed, or that Newton still exists

 

Or maybe Einstein, Galileo, and Newton were just more of Tom's alt logins

[Celtic_soulja]

Or maybe Einstein, Galileo, and Newton were just more of Tom's alt logins

you could be on to something there

[Celtic_soulja]

This post is a perfect snapshot of who you are.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3AlFe8l4OE and there is a good picture of you Oligarchic government anyone? anyone? hehehehe

[IDBillzFan]

Would you look for ways to use less gas if it were more expensive?

Like travel less? Take fewer vacations? Not fly anywhere? Not go anywhere? Not spend anywhere?

 

You mean that kind of "looking for ways to use less gas?"

 

And just out of curiosity, what would you do with those extra taxes? Pay down the deficit? Filter it to the cities that typically rely on tourism for income? Fund some union pension plans?

 

And for a bunch of people always crying about how everything costs so much and the middle-class suffers because of profit-gobbling bad guys, don't you find it a little spooky that every time a liberal is faced with a dilemma, the quick and easy answer is always "raise taxes?"

"Energy companies have high profits! Insurance providers have high profits! Credit card companies have high profits! They're all gouging the little guy. You know what this calls for? Government regulation and higher taxes!! That'll learn 'em.

[DC Tom]

I used to think you had some intelligence. Did I NOT say that Ethanol is NOT YET PRACTICAL? I thought I did, ah who am I kidding. You always know what I am saying better than I do. So if we scale it up "like I want", which is how large? I am sure if you read my post you can make up how big I wanted to scale up to.

 

You're the one pushing ethanol as a solution to fuel independence. Despite it being "not yet practical".

 

And yeah, I completely said that we should learn new laws of physics to eliminate nuclear waste. In no way did I say put more money into RESEARCH to make it more efficient. Have you been drinking?

 

Okay, lets try this. Are you saying that we are no more efficient than we were say thirty years ago? Have thier not been scientific advances in science? Or am I imagining all of this. Oh, no what you are saying is that we have advanced all we are going to advance. I see. I see. We've always known the completely immense power of the theory of relativity, and we cannot build upon it any further. Science never builds on itself to move forward. People never advance studies. Have another one buddy.

 

And how exactly do you make a nuclear reaction "more efficient"? Please explain in terms a physicist can understand.

[Booster4324]

And how exactly do you make a nuclear reaction "more efficient"? Please explain in terms a physicist can understand.

 

I would assume he is referring to more energy produced and less waste material. Is that not possible? Honest question.

 

What is your take on the feasibility of fusion energy (completely separate question)?

[whateverdude]

This topic is wasted finger skin! Even if Obama made drilling oil illegal, there would still be tons of drilling in the gulf and many spills by foreign drillers.

 

Lets face it the birds are screwed!

[EasternOHBillsFan]

People love to poke fun at environmentalists, and there's no question the left-wing crazies give the whole movement a bad image, but I hope people realize when you demand that we drill oil off our shores what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico is always a real possibility. Stuff happens. Mistakes occur. The loss of lives is bad enough but the environmental clusterf**k is just getting started. Politicians say stuff like this and people eat it up, but no one ever takes a second to think about the possible outcomes.

 

 

PTR

 

Obama is such a sellout to allow this drilling in the Atlantic... another reason why the two party system needs to GO. We should be investing more in the Fischer–Tropsch process/liquefaction and alternative coal processing, which can make up for the losses that would be incurred by not drilling.

[Adam]

Like travel less? Take fewer vacations? Not fly anywhere? Not go anywhere? Not spend anywhere?

 

You mean that kind of "looking for ways to use less gas?"

 

And just out of curiosity, what would you do with those extra taxes? Pay down the deficit? Filter it to the cities that typically rely on tourism for income? Fund some union pension plans?

 

And for a bunch of people always crying about how everything costs so much and the middle-class suffers because of profit-gobbling bad guys, don't you find it a little spooky that every time a liberal is faced with a dilemma, the quick and easy answer is always "raise taxes?"

"Energy companies have high profits! Insurance providers have high profits! Credit card companies have high profits! They're all gouging the little guy. You know what this calls for? Government regulation and higher taxes!! That'll learn 'em.

Personally, I think the time would be better spent giving incentives to develop alternatives. I've done a bit of reading (nothing too much) on hydrogen fuel cells. It was very intriguing, particularly if they can eliminate much of the hazards as it relates to possible explosions.

[Celtic_soulja]

You're the one pushing ethanol as a solution to fuel independence. Despite it being "not yet practical".

 

 

 

And how exactly do you make a nuclear reaction "more efficient"? Please explain in terms a physicist can understand.

 

How would explaining it in terms a physicist can understand benefit this forum? Most of us would not understand it. I know you wouldn't understand it. Are you just being a schmoe?

 

Well here goes. I will do my best.

 

Okay, in nuclear reactor physics you are forming a critical/subcritical fission process. Neutrons split a nucleus creating causing fission.

 

The "fuel" that the neutron is trying to cause fission with was once Plutonium, now it is Uranium. Which is MORE EFFICIENT because you can chemically reproduce the energy source after usage much more easily.

 

The most common absorber of energy from fission is graphite, but graphite actually reflects some of the energy back to the core during the process. MAYBE ADVANCES IN WHAT IS USED FOR ABSORBING THE ENERGY could help retain more and leave less to go to waste.

 

They also use neutron moderators, water or heavy water or zirconium hydride. That absorb some of the energy as well. There is an optimal level of neutron moderators right now, but maybe if there are better moderators to be had they would absorb less while still having the control powers of current moderators.

 

There have already been advances, and considering we have not really put a great emphasis on it over the past decade or so, there could be many more advances in the times ahead. Considering most of the nation views nuclear power very skeptically, and the field is underfunded IMO, many of the greatest minds go work for Sachs instead of advancing our society through nuclear physics

 

we have such an evil view on nuclear weapons, but we can actually use the leftover unabsorbed nuclear waste in nuclear bombs, I'm just saying.

 

IMO, DC Tom, there are so many variables that leave plenty of room for advances to make the process safer and more efficient. More energy being absorbed, less going to waste, more being used without chemical reprocessing, more efficient use of waste on and on and on and on.

 

Science is not settled and it will ALWAYS continue to build on itself.

 

And the Ethanol thing is not as bad as you or Magox is saying, but it isn't a great solution to the energy problem either IMO. If you want me to sit here and defend a solution that I have already admitted. IS NOT A SOLUTION. Then you're just being a shmoe. What do you have against Biodiesel? Are you and Magox still googling it to find out what's wrong with it. You've had plenty of time to find the flaws in Biodiesel.

 

Oh here is a breakdown of how Plutonium works, how inefficient that was compared to Uranium. http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/cgi-bin/...ern/U234.intern

[Magox]

And the Ethanol thing is not as bad as you or Magox is saying, but it isn't a great solution to the energy problem either IMO. If you want me to sit here and defend a solution that I have already admitted. IS NOT A SOLUTION. Then you're just being a shmoe. What do you have against Biodiesel? Are you and Magox still googling it to find out what's wrong with it. You've had plenty of time to find the flaws in Biodiesel.

 

Oh here is a breakdown of how Plutonium works, how inefficient that was compared to Uranium. http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/cgi-bin/...ern/U234.intern

It is as bad as I said it was, I lived through it, I've traded those commodities and trust me when I tell you this, I know a whole hell of a lot more about commodities demand, dollar devaluation and unwise energy policy and the effects it has on the global economy. And I'm telling you, Corn ethanol is a terrible solution, if it wasn't for government subsidies it would be a losing proposition, it fails on all accounts.

 

In regards to Biodiesel, it is also terribly impractical at this point, the cost to produce it makes it inefficient, unless they can improve the technology in how to produce it, it will also share the same fate as corn ethanol. I do however believe that technology will improve but it won't be nearly the silver bullet that you think it will be. I guarantee it.

 

What does have promise for fueling our vehicles is natural gas. Natural gas is being used in S.A, it costs a whole hell of a lot less for the consumer (at this point) than Oil does and it's a lot cleaner.

 

Electric hybrid with Oil and natural gas is another promising solution. In order for us to move in this direction, then there will have to be a major overhaul on the whole energy delivery infrastructure, that will take many many years to develop.

 

We are moving in this direction, you can bet on it, it's just that there are many idiots out there who don't understand the logistics and the consequences and the hurdles that we face in order for this to happen. Meanwhile, those of us who have a better understanding of how these things work, and understand the challenges we face can mock and ridicule you morons who don't.

[DC Tom]

How would explaining it in terms a physicist can understand benefit this forum? Most of us would not understand it. I know you wouldn't understand it. Are you just being a schmoe?

 

Well here goes. I will do my best.

 

Okay, in nuclear reactor physics you are forming a critical/subcritical fission process. Neutrons split a nucleus creating causing fission.

 

The "fuel" that the neutron is trying to cause fission with was once Plutonium, now it is Uranium. Which is MORE EFFICIENT because you can chemically reproduce the energy source after usage much more easily.

 

The most common absorber of energy from fission is graphite, but graphite actually reflects some of the energy back to the core during the process. MAYBE ADVANCES IN WHAT IS USED FOR ABSORBING THE ENERGY could help retain more and leave less to go to waste.

 

They also use neutron moderators, water or heavy water or zirconium hydride. That absorb some of the energy as well. There is an optimal level of neutron moderators right now, but maybe if there are better moderators to be had they would absorb less while still having the control powers of current moderators.

 

There have already been advances, and considering we have not really put a great emphasis on it over the past decade or so, there could be many more advances in the times ahead. Considering most of the nation views nuclear power very skeptically, and the field is underfunded IMO, many of the greatest minds go work for Sachs instead of advancing our society through nuclear physics

 

we have such an evil view on nuclear weapons, but we can actually use the leftover unabsorbed nuclear waste in nuclear bombs, I'm just saying.

 

IMO, DC Tom, there are so many variables that leave plenty of room for advances to make the process safer and more efficient. More energy being absorbed, less going to waste, more being used without chemical reprocessing, more efficient use of waste on and on and on and on.

 

Science is not settled and it will ALWAYS continue to build on itself.

 

You got almost nothing right.

 

You are right, though, about one thing: Wall Street hires a surprising number of physicists. I was recruited myself, when I finished my graduate work.

 

And the Ethanol thing is not as bad as you or Magox is saying, but it isn't a great solution to the energy problem either IMO. If you want me to sit here and defend a solution that I have already admitted. IS NOT A SOLUTION. Then you're just being a shmoe. What do you have against Biodiesel? Are you and Magox still googling it to find out what's wrong with it. You've had plenty of time to find the flaws in Biodiesel.

 

Yes, it is. Biofuels in general - ethanol or biodiesel - carry with them a land use cost that makes them prohibitively expensive on large scales. Unless you're assuming we'll also invent some new sort of food source for people to eat.

 

Oh here is a breakdown of how Plutonium works, how inefficient that was compared to Uranium. http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/cgi-bin/...ern/U234.intern

 

 

Now tell me what that means. I need a good laugh.

[/dev/null]

Oh here is a breakdown of how Plutonium works, how inefficient that was compared to Uranium. http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/cgi-bin/...ern/U234.intern

 

So how do Plutonium and Uranium compare to Illudium Q-36? Is it a viable energy source or only good for Explosive Space Modulators?