Obama's comment on gas prices - Page 3

DanS. · 04-03-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Fossil fuels may remain the primary source of energy, but should they? Cigarettes may remain the main source of an individual's oral fixation, but should they?
If one can work, or a nation or better yet world can work, to change bad habits, should they not do so?

The point was...that even with demand increasing....fossil fuels will be cheap and available for quite some time...and 7 mo. of reserves isn't going to amount to more than a drop in a bucket....so why not make a buck off of it while it's still worth something?

DanS. · 04-03-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Sources which are not dirty, polluting or dangerous. If or when the technology of nuclear power reaches the point that permits the waste to be recycled into something useful and not life threatening for thousands of years, then kudos all around.

Sooo...basically nothing...

aloysious · 04-03-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Fossil fuels may remain the primary source of energy, but should they...

Reality check. There are laws of economics that are as unchanging as laws of physics, like the concept of marginal utility.
As long as fossil fuels are significantly cheaper than solar or wind nrg, e.g., they will be used.
It is noble to advocate not using fossil fuels, but at this point in time, not realistic.
Remember the "energy crisis" during the Carter administration? Have we used less fossil fuels since then? Hell no.

mudwhistle · 04-03-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aloysious

Are you aware that McCain has always been against opening ANWR for oil exploration? Well, you are now. Which is one reason I will only vote for him in the event Hillary is the nominee.
Not to mention what it'd do for the scenery.

Yes and I disagree with him on that. But at least I know where he stands on issues and he is a straight talker. Unlike the two Democrat candidates.

And I still agree with McCain on the more important issues like supporting the military and keeping taxes low.

mudwhistle · 04-03-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the U.S. Geological Survey places the supply from ANWR to be enough for about seven months, hardly a long term solution. Ultimately we must find alternatives to oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear and other dangerous or finite energy resources. The sooner we attack this problem seriously, instead of seeking environmentally disastrous or international peace threatening quick fixes, the better.

Union of Concerned Scientists is a liberal spin tank.

winthrop · 04-03-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

The point was...that even with demand increasing....fossil fuels will be cheap and available for quite some time...and 7 mo. of reserves isn't going to amount to more than a drop in a bucket....so why not make a buck off of it while it's still worth something?

Or, why endanger the environmental conditions of a fragile area for such a paltry return?

winthrop · 04-03-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

Sooo...basically nothing...

Quote:

Originally Posted by aloysious

Reality check. There are laws of economics that are as unchanging as laws of physics, like the concept of marginal utility.
As long as fossil fuels are significantly cheaper than solar or wind nrg, e.g., they will be used.
It is noble to advocate not using fossil fuels, but at this point in time, not realistic.
Remember the "energy crisis" during the Carter administration? Have we used less fossil fuels since then? Hell no.

Now there is that can-do American spirit. It warms the heart and thrills the soul.

winthrop · 04-03-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

Union of Concerned Scientists is a liberal spin tank.

You, too, may feel free to post Exxon's positions on the issue, since I know fair and balanced is so important to you.

Rigged · 04-03-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Now there is that can-do American spirit. It warms the heart and thrills the soul.

Well I mean to be fair, I see his point and yours. The best choice may not be the cheapest. We have a lot of coal in the US. That is cheapest resource. Nuke power is the greenest but is expensive compared to a coal plant. I think someone above said that economic realities will always be we go for the cheapest resource.

If you think that nuke power or coal power is not "green" what other options are there? Wind/Solar is more expensive for us to use than any of the other choices out there.

Geothermal energy is another option.

winthrop · 04-03-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rigged

Well I mean to be fair, I see his point and yours. The best choice may not be the cheapest. We have a lot of coal in the US. That is cheapest resource. Nuke power is the greenest but is expensive compared to a coal plant. I think someone above said that economic realities will always be we go for the cheapest resource.

If you think that nuke power or coal power is not "green" what other options are there? Wind/Solar is more expensive for us to use than any of the other choices out there.

Geothermal energy is another option.

"Cheap" is a relative term. Oil resources "liberated" at the cost of thousands of lives may be seen as not that cheap after all. Oil resources which cost posterity the few remaining pristine wilderness areas may not be ultimately seen as particularly cheap, either.
We should be expending energy (no pun intended, although sometimes unavoidable) on ways to make energy alternatives more economically viable, as well as finding/developing others instead of insisting on protecting the profits of one bloated industry.
You may call me a dreamer, but I am not the only one.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode