• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

newsflash: US sucks down more oil than france!

"In the United States, we try to control things over which we have no control, like Russia or Saudi Arabia, instead of looking at what we could do inside," Mrs. Jaffe said. "We're like drug addicts. We're looking around for another dealer instead of going to detox."
so true
 
In contrast to the United States, where oil consumption initially fell but then ended up rising by a total of 16 percent from 1973 to 2003, in France, despite some increase in recent years, oil use is still 10 percent lower today than it was three decades ago, according to the United States Energy Information Administration. (Germany also matched France's record.)
Click to expand...
france's population has increased about 14% from 1975 to 2004, US population increased about 37%. if those consumption statistics aren't normalized by population we're not doing as bad as made out. 24% more population increase and 26% difference in oil consumption. not stellar, but most of the result from france (again, if that isn't normalized) is probably from their nuke plants.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Czar
and this is veeeery intresting
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa.../05cons.chart.jpg.html
Click to expand...

that seems to confirm my suspicion that the big difference is france's nuke plants.

tbe US should go all-out for underground (to protect from Ts) pebble-bed (to protect from meltdown) reactors.
Click to expand...

I was also very very surprised that no reactors have been built in the US since 1979, thats like... everyone in the US still driving cars made in 1979 and earlier in the year 2004 😛
 
Yeah the flip side of the coin is many nuclear power plants. Now I'm a liberal but I'm not that opposed to nuclear power if scientists think it can be safely harnassed.

If we didn't have a prez that was part of the oil industry we might be spending MORE on alternative fuel sources. Instead, we send lower and middle class kids to die to stabilize a messed up oil source region. Kudos repugs!
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Czar
and this is veeeery intresting
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa.../05cons.chart.jpg.html
Click to expand...

that seems to confirm my suspicion that the big difference is france's nuke plants.

tbe US should go all-out for underground (to protect from Ts) pebble-bed (to protect from meltdown) reactors.
Click to expand...

I was also very very surprised that no reactors have been built in the US since 1979, thats like... everyone in the US still driving cars made in 1979 and earlier in the year 2004 😛
Click to expand...

Three Mile Island and the huge costs of construction/certification in the US are the primary reasons.

Not to mention the fact that no long term storage plan exists outside the slowly developing Yucca Mtn. site which won't open until 2010. IIRC, all it's storage capacity is already spoken for by the waste housed at the nations plants.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Yeah the flip side of the coin is many nuclear power plants. Now I'm a liberal but I'm not that opposed to nuclear power if scientists think it can be safely harnassed.

If we didn't have a prez that was part of the oil industry we might be spending MORE on alternative fuel sources. Instead, we send lower and middle class kids to die to stabilize a messed up oil source region. Kudos repugs!
Click to expand...

well the choice in 2000 was between two guys whose personal fortunes had been made in oil and baseball respectively, and we got the baseball guy.

as for nuclear reactors, read up on pebble-bed reactors. they are safe as a matter of physics.

czar - nuke plants are prohibitively expensive due to how many layers of safety are built in.
 
Originally posted by: ElFenix
czar - nuke plants are prohibitively expensive due to how many layers of safety are built in.
Click to expand...

they are still being built all around the world, and its not like the US is too poor to build them 😉
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: biostud666
Copy paste plz? 🙂
Click to expand...
i'm not going to violate copyright for you.
Click to expand...
If it's properly attributed it's not copyright violation. fyi, a link is sufficient attribution.
Click to expand...
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

All rights reserved.

All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of The New York Times Company. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Click to expand...
doesn't seem like it.
 






The Oil Industry and their lobbyists have f*cked Americans for a dollar. We could have waged a war of alternative energy and hydrogen power. Republicans have been and are their principle allies.



















Lets do wind and solar
 
To encourage the use of mass-transit systems, and finance their development, European governments impose generally high taxes on gasoline.
Click to expand...
didn't topgear report that the mass transit intercity trains that france and other european countries rely on are actually less efficient than cars?
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The Oil Industry and their lobbyists have f*cked Americans for a dollar. We could have waged a war of alternative energy and hydrogen power. Republicans have been and are their principle allies.

Lets do wind and solar
Click to expand...

hydrogen power isn't free (and hydrogen has a nasty habit of explosively oxdizing), enviro-nuts complain about wind power, and solar power is even more retardedly expensive than nuclear.

the democrats haven't had a coherent energy policy either. it isn't just a republican problem.
 
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: ElFenix
czar - nuke plants are prohibitively expensive due to how many layers of safety are built in.
Click to expand...

they are still being built all around the world, and its not like the US is too poor to build them 😉
Click to expand...

and coal is cheaper.
 
Wind energy is profitable at the $30/barrel point according to some Yahoo finance article. even if wind was only profitable at $60/ barrel, we should build some sort of back-up structure even if it cost tens of billions of dollars just to ensure that oil won't hit $60/barrel. it would be worth it.

i mean if we can spend:
$200 billion for Iraq
$250 billion for Missle Shield (which may or may not work) to protect us from the World we alienated
$200 billion for JSF to make Lockheed rich
AND $400+ billion/year for the military, ya know 4 more wars.


$16 billion for NASA?!
we can spare $50 billion for windmills, if we're gonna hit $10 trillion debt anyway and watch the dollar collapse, atleast the lights won't go out. or atleast give some of it to NASA, so we can move to mars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top