• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Hydrogen cars are the solution not drilling....

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Have you guys seen that Tesla Roadster that Jay Leno has?

I think it goes 200 miles on one charge and can fully charge in 3-4 hours.

Sure the thing is 100K but in a few years time if we keep improving the battery technology these could be practical for everyone.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
There are several major areas of concern that have to be addressed before hydrogen can become a practical fuel for the majority of civilian applications, including the cost and safety of producing, storing, transporting and using commercial quantities of hydrogen gas and the means and cost of producing and marketing vehichles safe enough to be used on the public roads by a technologically ignorant population.

It's an idea worth pursuing, but given the volitility and flamability of hydrogen gas, it won't be easy, and it won't be soon.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Have you guys seen that Tesla Roadster that Jay Leno has?

I think it goes 200 miles on one charge and can fully charge in 3-4 hours.

Sure the thing is 100K but in a few years time if we keep improving the battery technology these could be practical for everyone.
Yup. Seeing stuff like that is why I keep saying that there is no reason why we can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time in regards to more oil exploration and drilling in the United States while also developing better technology and alternative energy sources.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,386
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: ayabe
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Have you guys seen that Tesla Roadster that Jay Leno has?

I think it goes 200 miles on one charge and can fully charge in 3-4 hours.

Sure the thing is 100K but in a few years time if we keep improving the battery technology these could be practical for everyone.
Yup. Seeing stuff like that is why I keep saying that there is no reason why we can't walk and chew bubblegum at the same time in regards to more oil exploration and drilling in the United States while also developing better technology and alternative energy sources.
And you would be correct. How exactly we go about chewing that bubble gum is my major concern though. There is also the concern about how long it will actually take for those electric cars to become widely available, affordable, and easy to recharge. That length of time can be reduced in many ways and it can also be increased out the desire of milking America for every penny until they are practically forced to stop.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,166
8,678
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,915
0
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Anyone who doesn't think we need to approach this from both directions is an idiot. We need to develop alternative energy sources so we have something when oil starts to run out. We also need to drill in our own country and use our own resources to lower our costs and boost our economy and become self sufficient.

This needs to be done from both sides at the same time. This idea that we need to punish ourselves with higher prices because we haven't developed another energy source (when there really was no pressing need, innovation is born out of necessity you know) is ridiculous.

We can end our dependence on foreign oil in 5 years or so by using our own resources.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I think we could provide a better balance of oil for ourselves along with oil from a place that is unstable and/or under constant conflict. We've been dropping our oil production for the last 30 years while increasing our oil imports and demand. That isn't healthy.

But, I don't think there is enough for us to be 100% free from foreign oil.
Clarification on bolded?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Anyone who doesn't think we need to approach this from both directions is an idiot. We need to develop alternative energy sources so we have something when oil starts to run out. We also need to drill in our own country and use our own resources to lower our costs and boost our economy and become self sufficient.

This needs to be done from both sides at the same time. This idea that we need to punish ourselves with higher prices because we haven't developed another energy source (when there really was no pressing need, innovation is born out of necessity you know) is ridiculous.

We can end our dependence on foreign oil in 5 years or so by using our own resources.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I think we could provide a better balance of oil for ourselves along with oil from a place that is unstable and/or under constant conflict. We've been dropping our oil production for the last 30 years while increasing our oil imports and demand. That isn't healthy.

But, I don't think there is enough for us to be 100% free from foreign oil.
Clarification on bolded?
I wouldn't go so far as to say we will end our dependence on foreign oil in 5 years by using our own resources. We can lessen our dependence on foreign oil but we won't be able to rid ourselves of it 100%.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,619
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Yes but we going to run out of oil either way eventually. Hydrogen provides a permanent solution...
Hydrogen is not a replacement for oil. Period. We use oil as an energy SOURCE. Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy; hydrogen is a way to transport energy; a battery if you will. Saying a car is fueled by hydrogen is the same as saying a car is fueled by a large cluster of AA batteries.

Hydrogen is merely one possible alternate solution to storing energy for use in cars. Other storage solutions have already been mentioned in this thread, including lead batteries and compressed air. Each has its own pros and cons. Heck, instead of an infrastructure dedicated to providing hydrogen for cars, why not an infrastructure where cars pull into a "gas" station, and one giant 400 pound battery pack is swapped out for another 400 pound charged battery pack. Each car would carry two, so you'd be able to run one completely out before swapping. The price of the charged battery pack would reflect the cost of the energy (from where it comes, not answered in your OP, but there's "10" other sources) plus the costs associated with its manufacture & deterioration. That kind of an infrastructure change is little different from the one you've suggested in which we build hydrogen refueling stations. Ditto for recharging stations every 100 miles or so where we could refill our vehicles with air and run them on compressed air.

Come to think of it, I kinda like the compressed air solution. If you ever ran out of "gas", instead of waiting for AAA, you just get out and start pumping with your bike pump. An hour later, you might have enough stored energy to make it to an air station, if one is nearby.

 

AeroEngy

Senior member
Mar 16, 2006
356
0
0
For my two cents I would like to add that a lot of people seem to overlook the problems with the current electrical infrastructure.

There are lots of areas in the US were the electrical grid runs near its capacity. If there are lots of adopters of Plugin Hybrids or Fully electric vehicles there will have to be significant upgrades to our electrical infrastructure (New power plants, high voltage transmission lines, etc). I know in my area especially when it is hot and everyone is running their AC periodically the grid will get overloaded, transformers explode, brown-outs, etc. Granted these upgrades would be far less expensive than deploying a new hydrogen distribution system.

I guess my point is that there is no real easy solution but something has to be done because we can't rely on oil forever.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,929
1
0
Originally posted by: AeroEngy
For my two cents I would like to add that a lot of people seem to overlook the problems with the current electrical infrastructure.

There are lots of areas in the US were the electrical grid runs near its capacity. If there are lots of adopters of Plugin Hybrids or Fully electric vehicles there will have to be significant upgrades to our electrical infrastructure (New power plants, high voltage transmission lines, etc). I know in my area especially when it is hot and everyone is running their AC periodically the grid will get overloaded, transformers explode, brown-outs, etc. Granted these upgrades would be far less expensive than deploying a new hydrogen distribution system.

I guess my point is that there is no real easy solution but something has to be done because we can't rely on oil forever.
That's the main thing I'd be worried about, I wonder how the electrical infrastructure would be able to handle plug-in hybrids. It's kind of crazy when you sit down and do the calculations, a lot of energy is required to run a vehicle for any respectable distance. The 52kWh EEStor supercapacitor I mentioned earlier, for example. This is about the same amount of energy your average US household uses in two days, but it's only enough to move a car probably a few hundred miles.

Fortunately the adoption wouldn't be overnight, I'm certain utilities could keep up with the increasing demand.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,498
399
126
The grid generally isn't overloaded at night right? Thats when the charging would typically take place. Grid upgrades and new plants would be required, but as you mentioned, those are an easier solution then build hydrogen pipelines and upgrading every gas stations in the country. With hydrogen, you run into a chicken and the egg problem. Who is going to buy a hydrogen car if there are no hydrogen gas stations? And who is going to build a hydrogen gas station if there are no hydrogen cars around?

For instance, there have been CNG vehicles available for a long time. There is a total of 1 CNG station in my entire state. I'm willing to bet in many other states there are few enough of those that signifigant detours would be needed to fill the car up. Yes, there are home refueling stations, for those lucky enough to have natural gas piped to their home.

Electricity is already pumped to everyone's home and every business around, so we already have the chicken. The grid might not be ready if everyone bought an electric car tomorrow, but since the system is already there it makes a lot more sense to start there. Plus, everyone isn't going to buy an electric car tomorrow. They'd trickle in, slowly requiring upgrades.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Fortunately the adoption wouldn't be overnight, and I'm certain utilities could keep up with the increasing demand.
This is the part that actually has me worried. We won't build nuclear power plants and we have some that will be decommissioned in the next decade or so. We're against building coal plants even though the USA has one of the largest if not the largest coal reserves in the world. We have some states that absolutely refuse to build anything anywhere while as a whole, we are constantly increasing our need for energy.

My dad is working on a coal plant project in Texas. They were originally going to build 5 or 6 because Texas is projecting an energy shortfall in the next decade and they couldn't get approval for anything else. Well, they ended up having to make a trade-off. They got a permit to build one plant if they promised not to build the others. This is using the latest coal plant technology that makes it as clean as possible. Still dirty but miles better than what is being used in say China.

No word on how they are going to make up for the loss of energy from the other plants that won't be built.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,929
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Fortunately the adoption wouldn't be overnight, and I'm certain utilities could keep up with the increasing demand.
This is the part that actually has me worried. We won't build nuclear power plants and we have some that will be decommissioned in the next decade or so. We're against building coal plants even though the USA has one of the largest if not the largest coal reserves in the world. We have some states that absolutely refuse to build anything anywhere while as a whole, we are constantly increasing our need for energy.

My dad is working on a coal plant project in Texas. They were originally going to build 5 or 6 because Texas is projecting an energy shortfall in the next decade and they couldn't get approval for anything else. Well, they ended up having to make a trade-off. They got a permit to build one plant if they promised not to build the others. This is using the latest coal plant technology that makes it as clean as possible. Still dirty but miles better than what is being used in say China.

No word on how they are going to make up for the loss of energy from the other plants that won't be built.
I think recently DoE gave the go-ahead for a few nuclear plants. Hopefully this trend will continue.

Modern coal definitely isn't too bad either, with filtering and CO2 sequestering I think it's supposed to be pretty clean. I wouldn't be completely opposed to coal plants for the near future considering it's cheap and plentiful. I'd much rather us focus on cleaner methods of generating electricity if possible, though.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Well the need for more electricity and an updated grid is a given with or without hybrids/plug-ins.

Unfortunately I'm not sure where the money is going to come from.

Along with a lot of the infrastructure in the US, the grid has been ignored for far too long.
 

Stonejaw

Member
Oct 24, 2005
38
0
0
Ive always thought a really good way to make Hydrogen would be to convert HydroElectric Plants to make Hydrogen during off peak hours when they usually shut down some generators but use this spare electricity to convert water with electrolysis to H2 and by using the mechanical energy in the turbines to compress the gas into storage containment.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
:thumbsup:
Good to see a post I can agree with.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,929
1
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
Wut? Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our energy, and we only have like 100 facilities. Plus a lot of these are older designs, newer reactor designs are larger and more efficient.

And fuel requirements wouldn't be as big of a deal if we built breeder reactors and reprocessed our spent fuel rods. I'd be much more worried about radioactive waste. Nuclear just has to last another 50 years or so, by then we'll more than likely have commercial fusion reactors.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."
Ahh, got to love the demagoguery. Reid is of course talking about existing/known/recoverable oil reserves. There's always the possibility of finding more oil. Brazil discovered a huge off-shore oil reserve last year and recently found a second. Plus, as technology improves, we will find ways to get to oil that was previously thought to be unrecoverable. The Bakken oil reserve is a perfect example. Back in the 90s, the estimated recoverable oil was only ~500 million barrels. Because of improvements in technology, it is now over 4 billion barrels.

Besides it won't hurt to try and is better than the current Dem solution of Windfall Profit Taxes, Cap-and-Trade Schemes, and suing OPEC. At least get some of that oil money flowing to Americans instead of to 3rd world dictators and sheiks? It would go a long way towards helping the dollar and putting downward pressure on the oil speculation.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,386
1
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."
Ahh, got to love the demagoguery. Reid is of course talking about existing/known/recoverable oil reserves. There's always the possibility of finding more oil. Brazil discovered a huge off-shore oil reserve last year and recently found a second. Plus, as technology improves, we will find ways to get to oil that was previously thought to be unrecoverable. The Bakken oil reserve is a perfect example. Back in the 90s, the estimated recoverable oil was only ~500 million barrels. Because of improvements in technology, it is now over 4 billion barrels.

Besides it won't hurt to try and is better than the current Dem solution of Windfall Profit Taxes, Cap-and-Trade Schemes, and suing OPEC. At least get some of that oil money flowing to Americans instead of to 3rd world dictators and sheiks? It would go a long way towards helping the dollar and putting downward pressure on the oil speculation.
That makes sense but what if we don't find much additional oil to drill and what if the technology advancement necessary to get to that deep ocean oil takes far too long to develop? Again, I am all for trying if performed up to my standards but I believe that there are far too many people putting all of their eggs in one basket with this offshore drilling solution.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
Agreed. The next generation after plug-in hybrids will be primarily powered by the electric motor, with only a small displacement (~600cc) ICE to keep the batteries charged up during longer trips.
These are very close to reality. Once the battery tech is finally there, EV will take off like an explosion. Not just for environmental or oil cost reasons, but because EV is quite frankly superior to ICE in every way.
You think oil is in short supply that's nothing compared peak uranium to make the energy and lithium to carry it. Then there is the small matter of building 10,000 Nuclear power plants to get the energy we get from oil. And wind, hydro and solar covering the earth is not a physical option to yield 10 terawatts of power.


EV = fad & for rich and famous.
Wut? Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our energy, and we only have like 100 facilities. Plus a lot of these are older designs, newer reactor designs are larger and more efficient.

And fuel requirements wouldn't be as big of a deal if we built breeder reactors and reprocessed our spent fuel rods. I'd be much more worried about radioactive waste. Nuclear just has to last another 50 years or so, by then we'll more than likely have commercial fusion reactors.
Thats false. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of our household electrical needs which would skyrocket once we add cars, forklifts, buses and all things that use energy to the grid by a factor of 90.

Don't take my word for it here is Richard Smalley of Rice University, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry giving some prospective.

" We have to somehow wean ourselves of our dependence on oil, and the
sooner the better. What is less well known is the incredible
magnitude of the worldwide energy challenge that is before us. The
problem is not just oil. Somehow, within the next few decades, we
must find a new energy source that can provide a minimum of 10
terawatts of clean power on a sustainable basis, and do this cheaply.
To do this with nuclear fission would require no less than 10,000
breeder reactors. Assuming we don't get it all from nuclear fission,
where is that 10 terawatts of new power going to come from? Who
will make the necessary scientific and engineering breakthroughs?
Can it be cheap enough to bring 10 billion people, world population at
that time, to a reasonable standard of living? Can it be done soon
enough to avoid the hard economic times, terrorism, war, human
suffering, that will otherwise occur as we fight over the dwindling oil
and gas reserves on the planet?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."
Ahh, got to love the demagoguery. Reid is of course talking about existing/known/recoverable oil reserves. There's always the possibility of finding more oil. Brazil discovered a huge off-shore oil reserve last year and recently found a second. Plus, as technology improves, we will find ways to get to oil that was previously thought to be unrecoverable. The Bakken oil reserve is a perfect example. Back in the 90s, the estimated recoverable oil was only ~500 million barrels. Because of improvements in technology, it is now over 4 billion barrels.

Besides it won't hurt to try and is better than the current Dem solution of Windfall Profit Taxes, Cap-and-Trade Schemes, and suing OPEC. At least get some of that oil money flowing to Americans instead of to 3rd world dictators and sheiks? It would go a long way towards helping the dollar and putting downward pressure on the oil speculation.
That makes sense but what if we don't find much additional oil to drill and what if the technology advancement necessary to get to that deep ocean oil takes far too long to develop? Again, I am all for trying if performed up to my standards but I believe that there are far too many people putting all of their eggs in one basket with this offshore drilling solution.
I look at off-shore drilling, drilling in ANWR, etc as a short-term solution to get us by while we work towards a long-term solution. There's no reason we need to let high oil prices continue to drag our economy down.

Heck, maybe one day they'll figure out how to get oil from oil shale in an efficient and safe manner as technology improves. We have something like 1.5 trillion barrels of oil worth in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. That dwarfs the Saudi fields. Canada has some huge oil shale reserves too. It's no more pie in the sky than any other future solution.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Toyota can't even get enough batteries to meet prius demand (only 64,000 a year) and y'all think the whole world can drive electric cars?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,088
494
126
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Robor
Dems reject Bush's call to lilft ban on offshore oil drilling

I thought this was particularly interesting from that story:

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."
Ahh, got to love the demagoguery. Reid is of course talking about existing/known/recoverable oil reserves. There's always the possibility of finding more oil. Brazil discovered a huge off-shore oil reserve last year and recently found a second. Plus, as technology improves, we will find ways to get to oil that was previously thought to be unrecoverable. The Bakken oil reserve is a perfect example. Back in the 90s, the estimated recoverable oil was only ~500 million barrels. Because of improvements in technology, it is now over 4 billion barrels.

Besides it won't hurt to try and is better than the current Dem solution of Windfall Profit Taxes, Cap-and-Trade Schemes, and suing OPEC. At least get some of that oil money flowing to Americans instead of to 3rd world dictators and sheiks? It would go a long way towards helping the dollar and putting downward pressure on the oil speculation.
Toss this onto the heap of facepalms given to leaders within our govt. Instead of actually dealing with the issue of today he'd rather starve the economy with the hope we find the holy grail of energy. What a toolbox. Ill look forward to democrats having to explain themselves on this. Pure idiocy when you think about. COmplain about importing oil but lockup our own reserves. I hope the American people arent so stupid as to believe Harry and his flock of educated idiots.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY