Saudis

[HarleyEarl]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4183291.html

I was listening to a talk show the other day, with a scientist. More and more the conventional wisdom of oil being decaying animal and plant matter over millions of years is being questioned. He contends that the earth produces oil from within and constantly....so there could be a possiblity that oil will never run out.

That would be so hard on all the Chicken Littles out there.

[Drew Dowdell]

what about the oil fields that have already run dry?

The earth replaces the fish in the North Atlantic with more fish.... ask the local fisherman how things are these days.

[FAPTurbo]

Yeah. . . Something tells me this guy needs to lay off the "chron".com

[the_yellow_dart]

When I heard that we were running out of oil in 40 years, honestly, part of me said, "GOOD!". That means we get to stop burning it and messing up the air. More oil is not necessarily a good thing.

[loki]

i think it's possible.. if they think we'll run out in 40 years...shows how much they THINK they know about how this planet works... like we'll know everything about this planet anytime soon ~ our life times.

[HarleyEarl]

20-30 years ago, the doomsday people were shrieking that oil would be run out by now. Still lots around. And the whole thing of automobiles spewing out all the 'polution' is just nonsense. Cars in some areas are actually cleaner than the enviornment they are in. The whole emissions/greenhouse thing is flimsy pseudo science.

It's all become so tiresome, all the preachy doomsday people, all the tree huggers...they are silly spoilsports.

I'm glad to hear of reports of good supply of oil.....I celebrate it. I endorse it.

Up with oil!!

[CARBIZ]

If we ran out of oil tomorrow, it would be an unparalleled disaster. If we slowly run out of oil over the next 40 years, ever increasing prices and necessity will fill the void with some new technology.

Remember, coal was once the main source of fuel and it was said that that would one day run out, then oil replaced it.

Having said that, it wouldn't kill us to explore alternatives, if only to stop financing the terrorists who use our money against us.

[HarleyEarl]

But the US has to start obtaining more oil from friendly countries. You get much oil and natural gas from us, but there is much more to be had. Alberta, Canada has massive amounts of oil. Almost equal to Saudi Arabian reserves.

[zete]

He's talking about the abiotic theory of oil creation. And, many of the wells supposedly "dry" aren't really dry. In fact, until recently, many wells were capped when only about 30% of the oil was extracted. New technologies will allow us to get at at least another 50 - 75% of what remains. That means all those capped wells can be opened up again. And don't forget about the tar sands in Alberta and the Green River Formation in the US. The former supposedly has 2.5 trillion barrels, the latter 1.2 trillion. You read that right, trillion. It's just not easy to get at, but at least both are in "friendly countries" ;-).

The recent discoveries of 10 - 15B barrels in the Gulf of Mexico at 7+kms down are what's fueling a lot of wonderment with the scientists. There just shouldn't be oil at that depth based on the "dead flora/fauna" method of oil production.

The scientist who came up with the abiotic theory is Thomas Gold, though some contend it's a Russian idea and there is some evidence to back that up, too.

And the best explanation of why oil pricing is where it is was given by a famous Texas oilman who said we've extracted the $10/barrel oil, the $15/barrel oil, the $25/barrel oil and the $45/barrel oil. We're now looking at $60/barrel oil. He figures it'll continue to go up unless technology can ease the cost of recovery.

[FAPTurbo]

There's plenty of oil around, no doubt. Just for quite a while, we haven't had to work too hard for it.

But now, extracting oil will require massive amounts of energy and and even MORE money and investment.

And Harley is very correct when mentioning that cars are clean. We have to tackle high pollution sources such as fossil fueled power generation and replace them with "clean coal" technology or renewable resources. Ships in our harbours spew out large amounts of pollution, and easily stink up the air much more than cars these days.

We can't stop using oil cold turkey, we need it for plastics, petrochemicals, cosmetics, etc. But we can at least consider exploring our hydrogen options, by using nuclear technology and renewable resources.

[Drew Dowdell]

20-30 years ago, the doomsday people were shrieking that oil would be run out by now.  Still lots around.  And the whole thing of automobiles spewing out all the 'polution' is just nonsense.  Cars in some areas are actually cleaner than the enviornment they are in.  The whole emissions/greenhouse thing is flimsy pseudo science.

It's all become so tiresome, all the preachy doomsday people, all the tree huggers...they are silly spoilsports.

I'm glad to hear of reports of good supply of oil.....I celebrate it.  I endorse it. 

Up with oil!!

193025[/snapback]

Lock yourself in a garage with a SULEV vehicle running for 40 minutes.... once you return you can tell us about how cars are cleaner than the enviroments they are in......

we'll wait...

[pow]

Lock yourself in a garage with a SULEV vehicle running for 40 minutes.... once you return you can tell us about how cars are cleaner than the enviroments they are in......

we'll wait...

193105[/snapback]

[Mr.Krinkle]

theres plenty of oil in the world. iran is sitting on about 200 years worth by itself. iraqs reserves, known reserves are in the hundreds of billions of barrels. maybe even giga barrels. thats known, and if its not a shock to anyone, those are low balled just to keep people interested and concerned and to keep a jittery price scheme in place.

the more worthwhile the investment the more interested parties. up in canada theres dirty soil, or something to that affect. the oil is infused with the dirt and only recently has it become profitable enough to figure on a way to extract that oil.

the gulf of mexico is loaded, too.

oil seems to be limited by only in terms of having a finite life, and in places it can be found. . in other words non renewable. and its the eventually that will be the problem. the eventually is so far off though that no one truly knows. and if production and industrialization keep on increasing at the same pace with the same infrastructure and methods then the clock will tick faster. this is why it pays to do the research well in advance in a sense to slow the bleeding until more economical, practical and less ridiculed mechanization can be in place.

wonder if the industrial revolution had concerns about coal running out?

just for the sake of argument, if all the cars in the world were running on hydrogen with the only byproduct being harmless eater vapor, would cities like la, ny, etc suffer from perpetual rain fall? maybe over time, all that vapor harmlessly condensing and contributing to the water cycle? any ideas?

[FAPTurbo]

Well, lucky for those LA'ers, the ater vapor will likely drift eastward and fall over areas like Nevada, ... places that could use more water.

And hopefully the vapour from NY will just drift to New Jersey and let THEM get all wet. Who cares about Jersey...

[Drew Dowdell]

theres plenty of oil in the world.  iran is sitting on about 200 years worth by itself.  iraqs reserves, known reserves are in the hundreds of billions of barrels.  maybe even giga barrels.  thats known, and if its not a shock to anyone, those are low balled just to keep people interested and concerned and to keep a jittery price scheme in place.

the more worthwhile the investment the more interested parties.  up in canada theres dirty soil, or something to that affect.  the oil is infused with the dirt and only recently has it become profitable enough to figure on a way to extract that oil.

the gulf of mexico is loaded, too.

oil seems to be limited by only in terms of having a finite life, and in places it can be found. . in other words non renewable.  and its the eventually that will be the problem.  the eventually is so far off though that no one truly knows.  and if production and industrialization keep on increasing at the same pace with the same infrastructure and methods then the clock will tick faster.  this is why it pays to do the research well in advance in a sense to slow the bleeding until more economical, practical and less ridiculed mechanization can be in place.

wonder if the industrial revolution had concerns about coal running out?

just for the sake of argument,  if all the cars in the world were running on hydrogen with the only byproduct being harmless eater vapor,  would cities like la, ny, etc suffer from perpetual rain fall?  maybe over time, all that vapor harmlessly condensing and contributing to the water cycle?  any ideas?

193331[/snapback]

Just because it's there, doesn't mean we have to use it......

if we can use a fuel that:

1. produces less polution <through production methods>

2. is more CO2 neutral <the gross amount of CO2 introduced to the atmosphere minus the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by the plants>

3. is a locally produced .... Ford employees are gonna need jobs dontcha know

4. Can get the same mileage as gasoline if the engines are tuned for it as a primary fuel.

5. Costs less.

Why wouldn't we use it?

Me, I'm excited by the possibility of buying an E85 burning Avalanche Hybrid next year. Once I get it, I'll only fill up with E85 because I want to support the enviroment, U.S. jobs, save some cash, and not support Al Quiada.

Before you rant at me for driving an Avalanche... it's my secondary vehicle that I use for business purposes. I own a bunch of apartment buildings and use the Avalanche to haul construction materials.

I use the bus for trips in the city and have a CTS as a roadtrip car.

[the_yellow_dart]

If you were to plug a car into Nanticoke GS (The largest coal plant in Ontario) instead of running it from gasoline (even a SULEV), you would still end up with less pollution as a result. Coal has come a long way - Nanticoke puts out roughly the same amount of power it did in 1970, yet emits six times less pollutants.

So - Since it seems like everybody agrees that coal plants are evil, and having an electric car powered by Nanticoke would STILL be cleaner than a SULEV, you can't tell me cars are clean. Sorry.

[pow]

And don't forget the exponential human population growth and the increasing affluence of less-developed countries. If everybody had the ecological footprint of the average American, we'd need five planets just to get sufficient resources.

[Mr.Krinkle]

And don't forget the exponential human population growth and the increasing affluence of less-developed countries. If everybody had the ecological footprint of the average American, we'd need five planets just to get sufficient resources.

193440[/snapback]

Americans are considered wastelful but its actually places like china, india, and burgeoning 3rd world nations that use up most supplies and dont require the same standards of care concerning the environment. we are rather stringent in that regard....

Just because it's there, doesn't mean we have to use it......

thats where you are wrong....i think you my have missed my point and i think that the saudis wish they could take back that statement.

the point being is there is not a true emergency at this time to get off oil.

e85, hydrogen, solar, hydro-power, wind, nuclear...are all in place to stave off the

oil addiction. they are wonderful in certain regards although each has its drawbacks. like everyhthing in this f*ing world....

every guy who drives a suburban or land cruiser should smile and wave when

he sees a prius or insight driving by because now he knows when he goes to fill

u his takn there will be plenty there--and at the right price.

that was my point. we need alternatives and space out the supplies, even if they arent finite.

there are people who sincerely believe global warming is not a man made phenomena. theyll say climate change is certain. the dinosaurs encountered

some serious problems way back when and we know they werent puttering around

in pintos and vegas arguing over who makes a more reliable car.

im all for e85. i think it should be everywhere. it could only cause the price of oil to drop with decreased demand. especially since there really is so damn much of it around...i just wonder if the earth is gonna start to cave in one day, like a cupcake you suck the filling out of...hah.

Edited September 14, 2006 by Mr.Krinkle

[pow]

Americans are considered wastelful but its actually places like china, india, and burgeoning 3rd world nations that use up most supplies and dont require the same standards of care concerning the environment.  we are rather stringent in that regard....

193466[/snapback]

You've got it backwards. Developed countries make up 20% of the world's population but use 88% of the world's natural resources and generate 75% of the world's pollution and waste (6).

(Miller, Tyler. Living in the Environment, 12th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002)

[CARBIZ]

Coal plants are not evil. There are a few new coal plants that have opened in Europe - and nobody is more eco-freaky than they. So-called "clean coal" emits far less pollutants than it once did. Very soon, the choices are going to be nuclear or clean coal, because natural gas is becoming prohibitively expensive (and that is a joke, after everyone was told to use natural gas heating because it was cheap and efficient!). There is enough coal in Pennsylvania and the Virginias, etc. to keep North America heated and lit for a very, very long time. The technology is there, we just have to use it. The so-caled renewables are unreliable and still relatively expensive, although getting better. Unfortunately for us, the hottest days in summer tend to be windless, thus knocking out wind power. Sun power may work in Arizona, but not efficiently any where else - not yet, anyway.

As to China and India - well, if they rose to even 50% of the per capita consumption that we NOrth Americans use, we would be facing the worst shortages of raw materials EVER, and probably WW IV. Long before that happens, we'd either better find 3 more Saudi Arabias, or find the miracle energy source, like cold fusion.

When I think about the energy challenges facing us, I am glad I don't (and won't) have kids.

[loki]

Coal plants are not evil.  There are a few new coal plants that have opened in Europe - and nobody is more eco-freaky than they.  So-called "clean coal" emits far less pollutants than it once did.  Very soon, the choices are going to be nuclear or clean coal, because natural gas is becoming prohibitively expensive (and that is a joke, after everyone was told to use natural gas heating because it was cheap and efficient!).  There is enough coal in Pennsylvania and the Virginias, etc. to keep North America heated and lit for a very, very long time.  The technology is there, we just have to use it.  The so-caled renewables are unreliable and still relatively expensive, although getting better. Unfortunately for us, the hottest days in summer tend to be windless, thus knocking out wind power.  Sun power may work in Arizona, but not efficiently any where else - not yet, anyway.

  As to China and India - well, if they rose to even 50% of the per capita consumption that we NOrth Americans use, we would be facing the worst shortages of raw materials EVER, and probably WW IV.  Long before that happens, we'd either better find 3 more Saudi Arabias, or find the miracle energy source, like cold fusion.

  When I think about the energy challenges facing us, I am glad I don't (and won't) have kids.

193521[/snapback]

"clean coal"... you mean gasification, right?

still think anything to oil could put a huge dent in the amount of "dug up" materials we use in the world

[Drew Dowdell]

Clean coal is a half truth.

They've found a way to burn coal cleanly, and as far as BTU per pound it is second only to nuclear out of the main stream fuels.

Getting the coal out of the ground is another story. Coal mining itself is a very enviromentally dirty and destructive process.

[FAPTurbo]

Clean coal is a half truth.

They've found a way to burn coal cleanly, and as far as BTU per pound it is second only to nuclear out of the main stream fuels.

Getting the coal out of the ground is another story. Coal mining itself is a very enviromentally dirty and destructive process.

193625[/snapback]

Well, so is uranium mining and often mining in general... Sometimes you gotta give a little to get a lot...

It's pretty impressive that it's second only to nuclear in BTU per pound.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's pretty impressive that it's second only to nuclear in BTU per pound.

193723[/snapback]

That's not to say they're close. Nuclear is still waaaaaay above coal in BTU per pound of fuel.

A combination of Nuclear, wind and solar <all 3 types>* would do well to reduce our dependence on burning things from the ground.

*Photovoltaic, steam generation, Sterling engine.

[Mr.Krinkle]

nuclear aint so hot either. nothing is and the truth of the matter is that if

something was better then theyd probably be using it. they all got their problems.

[Mr.Krinkle]

You've got it backwards. Developed countries make up 20% of the world's population but use 88% of the world's natural resources and generate 75% of the world's pollution and waste (6).

(Miller, Tyler. Living in the Environment, 12th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2002)

193490[/snapback]

instead of using the college text book as a reference, use the reference that the college text book referenced. that should save you some time in the future.

and make you look smarter also. me too,

but thats not the whole story. and dont forget george w is the environmental president. also, its 2006. a lot has changed since 02 when that book was referenced.

and theres more after that, too. but really who cares because well all be dead before this even seriously begins to matter. i almost used italics for seriously but i figure you can just get the gist of how that went.

[mustang84]

Even if there's a billion more years worth of oil left, we need to keep investing in new technology such as fuel cells. Also, if the Saudis happen to discover vast new oil fields, that doesn't mean that the US is in the clear. China and India are growing like gangbusters, and the Middle East isn't exactly happy with America right now. There may come a day when we finally piss off the Arabs to the point where they give America the big 'ol finger and start letting China have first dibs, while we sit here with our tar sands and dwindling reserves. I know they found more down in the Gulf, but it's still just speculation as to how much is there.

And besides, even if there is a lot of oil down in the Gulf, does anyone honestly think that Big Oil is going to cut the average American any slack? They're reaping the profits...they know that adding more capacity will lower their profit margins. But drop a little tidbit in the news that there's 15 billion more barrels or whatever it was down in the Gulf and watch the big SUV sales rise again while continuing to spew propaganda that E85 and hydrogen aren't worth the effort.

All the Exxon's of the world need something to knock them down to size...get us some hydrogen and alternative-fuel vehicles so we can show them that we're tired of the monopoly they have over this continent.

[funkypunnk]

If you were to plug a car into Nanticoke GS (The largest coal plant in Ontario) instead of running it from gasoline (even a SULEV), you would still end up with less pollution as a result. Coal has come a long way - Nanticoke puts out roughly the same amount of power it did in 1970, yet emits six times less pollutants.

So - Since it seems like everybody agrees that coal plants are evil, and having an electric car powered by Nanticoke would STILL be cleaner than a SULEV, you can't tell me cars are clean. Sorry.

193403[/snapback]

How does the coal get to the coal fired powerplant????

That's right, it has to be transported as solids don't flow real well through pipelines. Oil runs the vessels and trains that transport it, so add in that pollution. Pipelines are the most efficient means of transport so even if you say the tanker cancels out the coal ship, you still have to get it from the port.

How does the coal get out of the ground???

I have never heard of a gusher coal mine. I believe the coal is mined in the traditional sense and all of that machinery needs something to make it go.

How come you drive a car if they are so unclean???? Shouldn't you be riding a bicycle or something.

[pow]

instead of using the college text book as a reference,  use the reference that the college text book referenced.  that should save you some time in the future.

and make you look smarter also. me too,

but thats not the whole story.  and dont forget george w is the environmental president.  also, its 2006.  a lot has changed since 02 when that book was referenced.

and theres more after that, too.  but really who cares because well all be dead before this even seriously begins to matter.  i almost used italics for seriously but i figure you can just get the gist of how that went.

194156[/snapback]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Whoa, whoa. There's still plenty of meat on that bone! Now, yyou take that home; put it in a pot; add some broth and a potato...baby, you got a stew going!

[Flybrian]

No matter what, we'll always come back to atomic power. Its our destiny, really. Its just too bad most Americans are too ignorant of the facts or too whipped by media horror stories of Chernobyl to realize it.

[razoredge]

No matter what, we'll always come back to atomic power. Its our destiny, really. Its just too bad most Americans are too ignorant of the facts or too whipped by media horror stories of Chernobyl to realize it.

194259[/snapback]

I believe you are right Fly, or at least I want to believe but we are all scared, its really that simple. 3 mile Island, so much other corporate contamination over the years, imagine what will go on in the "turd world countries" not just with misuse of the technology but careless handling as well.

My area had a huge General Electric plant that built nuclear turbines. The area was devastated when it took a downfall. Still its some really scarry stuff. You know how your not suppose to store combustables inside, dont play with fire, dont smoke while your filling your tank, look both ways before you cross the road..........its that kind of thing.

Someday they are supposed to dredge the Hudson River to get rid of PCP's laying on the bottom from decades of General Electric polution. Scary stuff !

[FAPTurbo]

I had to do a group project and presentation on Nuclear Power for Science 11 class. Pretty interesting stuff, and it all went swimmingly until the schools "Global Issues Club" showed up during our presentation and started asking stupid questions about our project and saying how Nuclear Power is evil.

I served detention for two days because I told them to off and made a somewhat expletive laden speech as to how building just wind turbines will do all and that only nuclear serves as a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels.

Oh and people forget to realize that Chernobyl was built by Russians and therefore it sucked before it blew its top anyway.

[Flybrian]

I believe you are right Fly, or at least I want to believe but we are all scared, its really that simple. 3 mile Island, so much other corporate contamination over the years, imagine what will go on in the "turd world countries" not just with misuse of the technology but careless handling as well.

194459[/snapback]

Three Mile Island was a mistake, yes, but not a tragedy and something that's been greatly blown out of proportion. People speak of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in the same sentence as if that's meaningful. The radiation released from Three Mile Island is akin to everyone in the surrounding area receiving a chest X-ray.

I wouldn't trust third-world nations with atomic power either because they don't have the knowledge, expertise, and training we and the Western world do. In fact, that's exactly how Chernobyl happened - an unsupervised, poorly-trained Ukranian crew not having anything more than a cursory knowledge of what to do in an emergency. Combine that with a shoddily-constructed reactor (partial-containment vessel) and generally poor design, and its no wonder there was a disaster. American reactors are designed to the most advanced specifications and I'd sooner worry about a coal train derailing or a gas main exploding than I would a reactor melting down.

This country hasn't started construction on a single nuclear reactor plant since 1979. That's like never building another ocean liner after the Titanic sank or never designing jetliners because a few Comets broke up in the early 1950s or never trying to go into space after Apollo 1 caught on fire on the ground. What defines us as intelligent beings is the ability to use a mistake, an accident, an uh-oh to learn and improve and do better instead of running away and cowering in fear like an animal.

Still, sadly and as always, facts don't dictate perception.

[Drew Dowdell]

Pebble bed breeder reactors are the next logical step in nuclear technology.

They are inherently safer because they are self regulating.

[CARBIZ]

There are two inherent problems with nuclear: horrific start up costs (ironically, a lot of those costs go to appeasing the enviro-freaks) and long term disposal of the spent fuel cores. Other than that, frankly, the power is clean, safe and reliable as hell. The Candu reactors actually automatically cool down in the event of an internal power loss or pump failure, which is the exact opposite of how most other systems are designed. Newer designs are proving to be very safe.

One argument stopper I use when people argue against nuclear power is the fact that most of the guys/gals that work at the Pickering nuclear plant (just east of Toronto) LIVE in Pickering! My sister and her kids live 2 miles from the plant. Her (ex)husband works inside the reactor area.

Ontario gets nearly half its electricity from nuclear, more than any other jurisdiction in the world. For better or for worse.

[razoredge]

Regardless 3 mile was a big scare, I can see how its wise to disregard it just because it didnt kill and destroy as Chernobyl. It still happened and it was a better design. As I recall there was a large area that got more than an X ray.........or I may be thinking about another toxic site.

Third world cant be trusted with the technology because they are inherently homicidally crazy.

Anyhow who has built a newer modern plant?

Are the existing plants in the US still running and safe ?

How many is that ?

Some of you didnt grow up during the Nuclear scare, dont be to judgemental on those of us that remember real fear, not the kind when someone jumps up and says boo ! But the kind that is always hanging over your head. Maybe as many of we baby boomers die off the younger generations will brave it out again. I imagine as long as we are around there will be too much opposition.

Myself, I actually could care less anymore.

[Drew Dowdell]

Anyhow who has built a newer modern plant?

Are the existing plants in the US still running and safe ?

How many is that ?

195440[/snapback]

Chinese and French

Yes and Yes

a bunch

[FAPTurbo]

Canadian CANDU reactor. We have 18 running, 2 being refurbished and a few decomissioned due to lifespan, research, etc.

Pretty efficient and safe in that it doesn't need uranium to be enriched (Big word in Iran crisis). It can also run on other fissile fuels when necessary, making it pretty versatile.

It also has an average 88% capacity factor which is excellent, especially when considering American reactors have 81 - 87% and other countries are often less. We ain't too slow, eh?

We also have sold reactors to the Indian's and Chinese and South Koreans. There is a common misconception that the material in India's A-Bomb came from a CANDU. It's very difficult to make a bomb using spent CANDU fuel, thus making it safer.

Oh, and we sold one to Pakistan too...

Edited September 19, 2006 by Captainbooyah

[razoredge]

Canadian CANDU reactor. We have 18 running, 2 being refurbished and a few decomissioned due to lifespan, research, etc.

Pretty efficient and safe in that it doesn't need uranium to be enriched (Big word in Iran crisis). It can also run on other fissile fuels when necessary, making it pretty versatile.

It also has an average 88% capacity factor which is excellent, especially when considering American reactors have 81 - 87% and other countries are often less. We ain't too slow, eh?

We also have sold reactors to the Indian's and Chinese and South Koreans. There is a common misconception that the material in India's A-Bomb came from a CANDU. It's very difficult to make a bomb using spent CANDU fuel, thus making it safer.

Oh, and we sold one to Pakistan too... 

195461[/snapback]

Thanks for the info, I shrugged Nuclear energy off decades ago as insane and have never givin it much thought since.

So how many fossil fueled turbines is Canada using ? A huge multi fuel plant was just built in our area about 4 years ago, 8 turbines. I worked on some of the early base work, pilings and concrete. There was another further south about 30 miles built as well. See if they had been Nuclear plants we would have had a very creepy feeling living around here. They had to fight like hell to get approved as it was. One in a different direction did get shot down by that city.

[regfootball]

Just because it's there, doesn't mean we have to use it......

if we can use a fuel that:

1. produces less polution <through production methods>

2. is more CO2 neutral <the gross amount of CO2 introduced to the atmosphere minus the CO2 removed from the atmosphere by the plants>

3. is a locally produced .... Ford employees are gonna need jobs dontcha know

4. Can get the same mileage as gasoline if the engines are tuned for it as a primary fuel.

5. Costs less.

Why wouldn't we use it?

Me, I'm excited by the possibility of buying an E85 burning Avalanche Hybrid next year.  Once I get it, I'll only fill up with E85 because I want to support the enviroment, U.S. jobs, save some cash, and not support Al Quiada.

Before you rant at me for driving an Avalanche... it's my secondary vehicle that I use for business purposes.  I own a bunch of apartment buildings and use the Avalanche to haul construction materials.

I use the bus for trips in the city and have a CTS as a roadtrip car.

193380[/snapback]

you heathen, you could be driving a prius pulling a small trailer to do that.

[regfootball]

And don't forget the exponential human population growth and the increasing affluence of less-developed countries. If everybody had the ecological footprint of the average American, we'd need five planets just to get sufficient resources.

193440[/snapback]

Christ, then why don't we all build huts like the third worlders, get rid of plumbing and electricity, take dumps in our backyard or composting squat toilets, and never go visit our relatives 20 miles away.

cars + american spirit = prosperity. roads, interstate, all good. FREEDOM to transport yourself at will, wherever you want to go in your ENDEAVOR to succeed.

yes, lets make them cleaner. but please, let's all stop fking villifying the car. Its people we need to villify.

Edited September 21, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

How come you drive a car if they are so unclean???? Shouldn't you be riding a bicycle or something.

194172[/snapback]

I'd love to see anyone who pisses and moans about our polluting cars, give up their keys and put up or shut up.

Edited September 21, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

No matter what, we'll always come back to atomic power. Its our destiny, really. Its just too bad most Americans are too ignorant of the facts or too whipped by media horror stories of Chernobyl to realize it.

194259[/snapback]

No mc FLY (brian), it's our DENSITY!!!!!!!!!

"Lorraine, you are my DENSITY!"

just wait till we get that FLUX capacitor.

Edited September 21, 2006 by regfootball

[CARBIZ]

At heart, I basically (still) believe (faith?) that technology can and will save the day. I do not for one moment believe we all have to be shoved into tiny tin cans and hurtled through tunnels, clinging to a metal pole with someone's armpits in our faces. How is what most ecofreaks today propose any different than what London, England would have been like 125 years ago?

It saddens and depressed me to think that personal transport is somehow (jealously?) seen as evil and wrong.

Why should we North Americans be made to feel bad for having invented and nurtured the technology of Freedom of Space? How many of you have actually ridden in a crowded, noisy subway in a major world city recently? If that is the future, I would rather go back to tents and donkeys.

Is there a need to use less fuel to motivate these contraptions? Yes. Should they emit less toxins? Certainly. Should we be looking at alternate forms of power? Definitely.

Until teleportation becomes the norm, let's look at improving on these personal modes of transport, rather than forcing people into "public transport" just because some eco-groups are ashamed that we are consuming resources that we found anyway.

[FAPTurbo]

Thanks for the info, I shrugged Nuclear energy off decades ago as insane and have never givin it much thought since.

So how many fossil fueled turbines is Canada using ? A huge multi fuel plant was just built in our area about 4 years ago, 8 turbines. I worked on some of the early base work, pilings and concrete. There was another further south about 30 miles built as well. See if they had been Nuclear plants we would have had a very creepy feeling living around here. They had to fight like hell to get approved as it was. One in a different direction did get shot down by that city.

195656[/snapback]

Multi-Fuel as in fossil fuels? I'd feel worse living in the nearby facility of a fossil fuel generator than a nuke. The pollution from the fossil fuels will likely give you asthma, bronchitis, and plenty of cancer to go around.

As for fossil fuel trubines up here, we do have a few, but most are out east, and they are slowly getting shut down. My province has been running on Hydro Dam's for almost half a century, but now the Greenpeace nuts don't want a new dam because they don't want the land destroyed for a reservoir, but they also don't want a coal or natural gas generator built and they'll swear to chain themselves to the ground if a nuke gets built on our provinces soil, and they also don't like the idea of wind farms because some trees will need to get cut down... so now we have had to buy power from non renewable sources down south...

...Which means that this weekend I may consider ramming my truck through Greenpeace's local office with a bat and a few cinder blocks so I can smash their heads in and see if the average Greenpeace member has a brain, and if they do, hook it up to an electrical outlet to jumpstart their "common sense" lobe so they can wake the up and smell the coffee.

Sorry... I got into an argument with a greenie at work yesterday and I'm still pissed off...

[razoredge]

Yes, its always sad that everyone seem to need to be at one end of the extreme or the other. They used to call me the greenpeace logger but I really believed in renewable resource, and proper forest management and care......key word there...care! Where as the rest of the industry wanted to sell the renewable resource speach but still go ahead and just get the money, rape, pillage and run.

Some day I hope to get photos up, such a pain with 35mm, Ill show ya some discusting, irresponsible stuff, performed on state land with state forester approval or blind eye.

Anyhow, I forget for sure but I believe this plant can run on natural gas, LP, or some form of oil. I think they are all like that now. The idea was so they could burn what ever could be bought cheapest at any time. The two Im talking about were built on the Hudson River so barge access was available. Really close to the Port of Albany.

As far as ways to die, I think the slow burn would be better than the fairly fast one............ Our air is far cleaner now than it was in the 70's.

Once again responsible population is an early preventative..............