Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 it's an interesting diatribe on oil shortage. Kinda old, though. Still references Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 it's an interesting diatribe on oil shortage. Kinda old, though. Still references Clinton. 103807[/snapback] Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICE Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 thingy 103851[/snapback] Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 it's an interesting diatribe on oil shortage. Kinda old, though. Still references Clinton. 103807[/snapback] Basically an argument I and others have made on the board many times before. Thank God we have a President with a detailed and realistic energy policy. Not that an energy policy is as important as critical issues like gay marriage. Once we get that Constitutional Amendment in place, maybe then he will have the time to come up with an energy policy that deals with the reality that affordable oil is not going to last forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 Basically an argument I and others have made on the board many times before. Thank God we have a President with a detailed and realistic energy policy. Not that an energy policy is as important as critical issues like gay marriage. Once we get that Constitutional Amendment in place, maybe then he will have the time to come up with an energy policy that deals with the reality that affordable oil is not going to last forever. 103878[/snapback] Yet, in further reading on that site, the author has determined that NO solution can or will ever be found to replace oil. I'm still of the belief that we could stretch out our oil window by moving our entire electrical production to nuclear power. At that point, we could mandate more electric vehicles until hydrogen became more widely available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callemasiseesem Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Energy policies of past Presidents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 Energy policies of past Presidents 103912[/snapback] Reagan's free market approach was indeed admirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Basically an argument I and others have made on the board many times before. Thank God we have a President with a detailed and realistic energy policy. Not that an energy policy is as important as critical issues like gay marriage. Once we get that Constitutional Amendment in place, maybe then he will have the time to come up with an energy policy that deals with the reality that affordable oil is not going to last forever. 103878[/snapback] That's not a totally fair crack. It's not this president that's blocking clean burning coal and nuclear programs. We will continue to be totally dependent on oil until it is fully sucked out of the ground or reclaimed from other sources, because it is the cheapest and widely available. In addition to extraction, you have a 150 year old global supply chain. You can't replicate that with an executive order. The price of oil will have to climb dramatically to justify R&D on the currently contemplated alternative energy sources. The gas mileage on US cars will have to more than double to maintain the supply percentages. I don't recall Clinton or Kerry standing in MI, PA & OH screaming for higher MPG standards. We can pine for the perfectly renewable source of clean energy. But we also have to recognize that as more of the world industrializes, we will need to make trade offs in obtaining energy. Will you support a new generation of nukes if it means weaning off the oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Maybe someone can help me here. Is it true that the potential for supplying the United States with oil reserves for the next 700 years can be found right in the Gulf of Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Maybe someone can help me here. Is it true that the potential for supplying the United States with oil reserves for the next 700 years can be found right in the Gulf of Mexico? 103969[/snapback] Unless it's some revolutionary process for converting materials into usable oil, no. The reliable estimates I have seen, show global supplies running out in 70-100 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 That's not a totally fair crack. It's not this president that's blocking clean burning coal and nuclear programs. We will continue to be totally dependent on oil until it is fully sucked out of the ground or reclaimed from other sources, because it is the cheapest and widely available. In addition to extraction, you have a 150 year old global supply chain. You can't replicate that with an executive order. The price of oil will have to climb dramatically to justify R&D on the currently contemplated alternative energy sources. The gas mileage on US cars will have to more than double to maintain the supply percentages. I don't recall Clinton or Kerry standing in MI, PA & OH screaming for higher MPG standards. We can pine for the perfectly renewable source of clean energy. But we also have to recognize that as more of the world industrializes, we will need to make trade offs in obtaining energy. Will you support a new generation of nukes if it means weaning off the oil? 103947[/snapback] Can you point me to some proof of all the hard work and political capital spent by this President pushing for more nuclear or more coal powered energy sources? I am not aware of a single major initiative announced or realistically pushed by this administration in this regard. No body had to really block such a plan since there wasn't one to block. It may be what he believes and "supports" but unless he is willing to actually use his political power to really push something on those issues through, then his support is nothing but a token, a talking point for when the issue comes up. I have no problem with drilling in ANWR or new Nuke plants providing they are safe and we have a reasonable solution to disposal of the waste. I also have no problem with MPG standards. What Kerry would have done is no longer relevant. He is the President and it is his responsibility to do something, anything that makes the situation better as opposed to worse. I'd bet the house that we are not going to see any major initiative beyond drilling in ANWR which would cover our oil use for about a day and a half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 Can you point me to some proof of all the hard work and political capital spent by this President pushing for more nuclear or more coal powered energy sources? I am not aware of a single major initiative announced or realistically pushed by this administration in this regard. No body had to really block such a plan since there wasn't one to block. It may be what he believes and "supports" but unless he is willing to actually use his political power to really push something on those issues through, then his support is nothing but a token, a talking point for when the issue comes up. I have no problem with drilling in ANWR or new Nuke plants providing they are safe and we have a reasonable solution to disposal of the waste. I also have no problem with MPG standards. What Kerry would have done is no longer relevant. He is the President and it is his responsibility to do something, anything that makes the situation better as opposed to worse. I'd bet the house that we are not going to see any major initiative beyond drilling in ANWR which would cover our oil use for about a day and a half. 104009[/snapback] You know very well the reason he, nor any other President has stuck his neck out for nukes is that it's too much of a hot potato (especially in light of cheap oil). I'm glad that you would support next generation of nukes, beacuse it's a relaistic energy alternative. But don't look at anyone being brave enough to address it until oil hits $100/barrell or we're 20 years from running out. As to the coal, he's funding reasearch in the much maligned energy plan. Clean Coal initiatives Drilling in ANWR isn't just for oil, but for natural gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 You know very well the reason he, nor any other President has stuck his neck out for nukes is that it's too much of a hot potato (especially in light of cheap oil). I'm glad that you would support next generation of nukes, beacuse it's a relaistic energy alternative. But don't look at anyone being brave enough to address it until oil hits $100/barrell or we're 20 years from running out. As to the coal, he's funding reasearch in the much maligned energy plan. Clean Coal initiatives Drilling in ANWR isn't just for oil, but for natural gas. 104063[/snapback] The natural gas pipeline legislation went through a few weeks ago. It's probably the biggest reason Lisa Murkowski held off Tony Knowles. Knowles, though normally politically savvy, stepped on his dick when he admitted he wouldn't have supported the bill because it didn't go far enough. Whoops. Head for the house Tony. You're done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts