Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well see what investing in the future has done to wall street for one thing. Who says the future is solar energy? You? There are plenty of problems with that I'm sure you are aware of. Spain invested heavily into the "future" as you call it and it was a disaster. Nat gas is only green for now. I'm for all energy myself. Actually Obama caught a lot of flak for his statement on algae but that is a very viable alternative. Not now but in the future. My fear is he will just throw a bunch of money at it like the government has at solar and wind companies and expect it to work. Oil is king and the reason why we live such a comfortable lifestyle and are a world power. Many feel guilty for that for some reason. Any wonder our economy is still in the tank? Our economic plans are too tied to a green energy industry that is not viable yet and who knows when it will be. A roaring economy needs energy. This is something the folks in asia understand and we did at one time.
Everyone who understands the growth of energy demand understands that solar is the only means, known to man today, to meet our increased energy demands.
Now I'm not saying its the answer today, and I'm well aware of its shortcomings. Its inefficient, its costly, and its harmful to the environment to mine the materials needed to make solar panels.
But, as I said, anyone who understands physics, the energy market, and human beings in general understand that the only source of power, today, known to man that will meet our energy demands for the next 10,000 years is the sun.
Investing in oil shale isn't needed. Oil companies are already doing that themselves (yay free market). But they have a strangle on the market, much as many monopolies did before Teddy Roosevelt (Republican), who had to bust them in order to make the market grow.
You purpose spending money on investing in more oil, which is silly because we already subsizie oil companies while they make record profits. Oil shale won't bring down the cost of gas, its to expensive to produce. So we should start switching to natural gas, electrical sources like coal, water, wind if applicable, etc. Then, invest in solar for the future needs that we all know are coming.
Its kind of like the social security problem. All of Washington knows its coming, but they are to afraid to do anything about it that will fix the problems for the long term.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,738,345 times
Reputation: 20050
here's a good documetary about alberta's tar sands.. if extracting tar sands is this bad?? just imagine how bad it will be to destroy a big chunk of the rockies
Everyone who understands the growth of energy demand understands that solar is the only means, known to man today, to meet our increased energy demands.
Nuclear.
You guys are stuck on old-style fission reactors that produce toxic waste.
There are better nuclear alternatives. China and India are working on Thorium reactors, and give the data from Iran, it would appear that one possibility is that Iran is enriching its fuel to provide Thorium feed-stock for India and China.
Fusion reactors would be better. There was a lot of research on Integral Fast Reactors, before the Environmentally-Challenged Dynamic Duo of Clinton-Gore pulled the plug on funding.
Like all fusion reactors, IFRs do not produce waste. What fusion reactors produce is fuel for other fusion reactors, and that's why they are sometimes referred to as "breeder reactors." If I remember, the ratio was 3:1, meaning the, "waste" of 3 fusion reactors provides fuel for 1 fusion reactor.
That's a great deal, because fusion reactors are self-sustaining, providing their own fuel, and no waste.
Also, the IFR program that was eliminated involved a type of reactor that inhibited or denied the extraction of Plutonium, to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation.
Everyone who understands the growth of energy demand understands that solar is the only means, known to man today, to meet our increased energy demands.
Now I'm not saying its the answer today, and I'm well aware of its shortcomings. Its inefficient, its costly, and its harmful to the environment to mine the materials needed to make solar panels.
But, as I said, anyone who understands physics, the energy market, and human beings in general understand that the only source of power, today, known to man that will meet our energy demands for the next 10,000 years is the sun.
Investing in oil shale isn't needed. Oil companies are already doing that themselves (yay free market). But they have a strangle on the market, much as many monopolies did before Teddy Roosevelt (Republican), who had to bust them in order to make the market grow.
You purpose spending money on investing in more oil, which is silly because we already subsizie oil companies while they make record profits. Oil shale won't bring down the cost of gas, its to expensive to produce. So we should start switching to natural gas, electrical sources like coal, water, wind if applicable, etc. Then, invest in solar for the future needs that we all know are coming.
Its kind of like the social security problem. All of Washington knows its coming, but they are to afraid to do anything about it that will fix the problems for the long term.
If we're relying on mirrors 10K years from now somebody needs to lose a job for not capturing some alien spacecrafts and hijacking their technology that's for sure.
Investing in oil is not silly. In 10K years it will be silly if there is something better. At this time there isn't. Until there is stick with what works and develop the other stuff. 100 years of oil has been pretty productive for the country and world. WHEN a new source is able to replace what we currently use then I'm all for it. Nat Gas is the new hero. As the previous poster said future energy will most likely be nuclear but the Japan quake has folks running for cover on that one for the time being. As for nuclear we havn't built a plant for something like thirty years in the US. Why is that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
