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.
I would like to know one thing. What and where are these "alternative fuels the the democrats, nancy pelocie wants us to use. I was looking for them in the 70's and the 80's. They had that great idea then and I think one of them was working on one of them then. I know they gave a lot of tax money to many universities and businesses. I guess someone else needs their pockets filled. I wonder when one of our senators pumped gas and even paid for it. This country is headed for a total collapse of our economy. But I'm sure barb boxer and nancy have something up their believe that will come to our rescue. I have a lot of faith in these politicians.
For cars, hydrogen fuel cells are being worked on. Honda is going to roll out a fuel cell car next year, I believe. There's also ethanol, and no, it doesn't have to come from corn. That's actually one of the least efficient methods of obtaining ethanol. Switchgrass is much more efficient. In Brazil, sugar cane has proved to be a good source of ethanol.
For your home, there's solar and wind. There are a lot of solar companies out there, coming up with new ideas to make solar energy more accessible and affordable.
I'm not a Nancy Pelosi Democrat, but I do know we can't rely on fossil fuels forever.
For cars, hydrogen fuel cells are being worked on. Honda is going to roll out a fuel cell car next year, I believe. There's also ethanol, and no, it doesn't have to come from corn. That's actually one of the least efficient methods of obtaining ethanol. Switchgrass is much more efficient. In Brazil, sugar cane has proved to be a good source of ethanol.
For your home, there's solar and wind. There are a lot of solar companies out there, coming up with new ideas to make solar energy more accessible and affordable.
I'm not a Nancy Pelosi Democrat, but I do know we can't rely on fossil fuels forever.
In Brazil, sugar cane has proved to be a good source of ethanol.
Didn't you hear. They must stop this practice. The rain forests are being destroyed to grow the sugar cane.
For your home, there's solar and wind.
If you have the money of Al Gore you could. They capital investment is large and the break even point is something like twenty years, at which point the stuff has to be replaced. By the way, why doesn't Al Gore have ALL energy for his place powered by wind and sun? Not just the token little panels that are there for show.
I'm not a Nancy Pelosi Democrat, but I do know we can't rely on fossil fuels forever.
Agreed. That's why fuel cells are being worked on. And why the mention of Honda. Everyone is working on fuel cells. That is also why nuclear makes so much sense (even to the French).
My whole point is that what comes out of congress is total nonsense. We can't keep a robust economy on biofuel. We're not Brazil. Also congress is not going to do a damn thing when we keep electing the same stupid people there. We've had the same problem since the 1970's. Maybe another "Great Depression" is what this country needs. It's time to thin out the idiots in this country. That's why so many people here put these idiots, like Nancy Pelosi and AlGore on a pedestal. I guess they have all the answers.
No, only bush made himself out to have all the answers. The rest of them only said they had partial solutions that needed more progress, which was the honest answer you didn't want to hear in the 70's. Make more sense now?
I'd much rather do away with the twin party politics and elect people who will think independently and represent the nation's people's interest instead so that we don't get another guy like Bush in office and a bunch of politicians keeping their mouths shut for fear of being ousted by their own party should they speak out against their leader. Because I gotta believe that not all those on Capitol Hill are on Bush's side.
I digress. Sorry.
Do the Democrats have the answer? Who knows? I haven't heard any solid solution other than the same rhetoric I've heard time and time again. Alternative fuels. I agree, we must find alternatives. But remember, that's addressing commuting automobiles and home energy (for which we'll find alternatives once the corporations and capitol hill finds ways of profiting greatly and taxing us highly, respectively on it... until then, we'll see advances come in dribbles). But I haven't yet heard of anyone talking about hybrid jet aircraft, trains, cargo ships and rigs, or heavy equipment operations. We're gonna need some paradigm shift to cover all that, and more.
Mind you, before I get bashed, I'm not claiming I know all. I'm open to education and enlightenment. So if alternative fueled large commercial vehicles exist, I'm eager to hear how they are improving and how that will affect our world for the better. I'm tired of being upset about it and would love to hear some good news. I do know of some people here in the states that can retrofit existing commuter vehicles to allow them to achieve 75 to 100 mpg on current fossil fuel technology (Schwarzenegger is having one of his Hummer's converted right now).
I think those around chernobyl may disagree about the greatness of the nuke.
There is so much bad about nuclear power it is hard to cover it all in a forum such as this. but here goes....
The plants can never be totally safe. - In testimony before Congress on April 17, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testified that the crude probability of a severe nuclear accident in this country over the next 20 years involving large releases of radioactive materials was roughly 45% (nearly 50-50)! - With this info do you want to live near one?
Reducing dependence on foreign oil. - actually it would have little to no impact and 40% of the Uranium comes from foreign sources... so much for independence.
Connservation can reduce the demand more than the power plants can help.
Every nuke has had 100% costs over run . That means when they tell you it will only cost 10B it will cost 20B... remember it takes 7-12 years to build and material costs and labor will change in that time. But when the cost of that energy comes out of the plant you will pay the highest prices you have ever seen.,.. Oh didn't they tell you in the ad campaign your elec rates will go up 4 times what they are today? ( I saw that first hand when Wolf Creek came on line)
They deliberately underestimate the costs of the plant in order to get them built.. because after you have spent $5B you won't stop the project.
When you look at the whole costs to a plant it is far cheaper and faster to spend the money on wind and solar power. and those don't have to be decommissioned in 25 years at a cost of $4.1B
Did I mention the storage of nuclear wastes?... for 250,000 years... hmmm we arent 300 years old. Europe is basically 2000 years old. China and India 5000 years old... see the problem?
It takes 7-12 tears to build a plant that will last 40 years.. they are considering pushing them to 60... Di you want to live next to one that is 50 years old?
Nuclear Power is a BAD investment. It is BAD for the environment. It never lives up to the cheap power promise. Other technologies are safer and better and cheaper.
Connservation can reduce the demand more than the power plants can help.
When you look at the whole costs to a plant it is far cheaper and faster to spend the money on wind and solar power. and those don't have to be decommissioned in 25 years at a cost of $4.1B
Nuclear Power is a BAD investment. It is BAD for the environment. It never lives up to the cheap power promise. Other technologies are safer and better and cheaper.
It sounds like the first point of your solution is that we really do not need added power plants since "conservation can reduce the demand more than the power plants can help". So is your argument not really about alternative fuels or the desire to foster eco friendly ideas? If that is the case, fine. At least we know that this is not an economic decision based on trying to continue to expand our economy.
However, conservation does not mean screwing in twisty light bulbs. It means that every man, women, and child would have to reduce energy use by somw dramatic figure - say 50%. Are we as a nation ready to accept that challenge?
Then there is the "other technologies are safer and better and cheaper" argument. Trust me, if this is true, than companies would be doing this to cash in on profits.
I just do not know what it is that you are looking for.
Well ;those burned in forest fires hate that the environmantalist wouldn't let them cut trees in nationaL forest but what does that prove.New Orlean suffered because environmentalist stopped the floodgates that would have saved the levies back in the 60's. The rest of the world like france continued their nuclear program and we have used it to power our naval ships for years and the storeage of rods is no problem really. But then the same people think they should drill for oil while enivronmentalist here stop any driling in 65% of the coast and ANWR. Its time to stop listening to those that think a Minnow population is more important the the lives of residence in New Orleans; who thnik that we have to just put up with forest fire risk because of the cutting bands in the west and oter places. Baciscally quite listening to those you thing humans have no value.Look arouind the world and see who are the fools really'us or the french who produce 78% of their electrical needs fromn nuclear power with a great safety record.
Last edited by texdav; 06-12-2008 at 09:24 AM..
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.
I have a lot of faith in these politicians.
