• 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.

So war with Iraq is all about the oil

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

It is true we currently need oil, without it, there wouldn't even be any point in our walking to work. To postulate we are jumping Iraq so we can control a source is pretty d*mned cynical though. Wouldn't it just be easier to dump our Dumbo-crats and environmentalists in an outhouse and drill in Alaska? We could probably even do it without bothering too many elk.

My pardon to the turds in the shi**er though for reducing the ambiance.

I do agree that we should be working on alternate energy sources but until you have one working well, don't make me give up my car, OK?

The problem with overlooking Saddam's WMD is that when he finally does give them to people who are willing to die to use them on us, they won't just get you d*mned fools who want to accomodate him. He will kill innocent folk as well. You may be willing to wait on that, but most of us aren't.

Even the mealy mouthed Dumbo-crats realized we have to deal with Saddam.

As far as I am concerned, you could always ask Alec Baldwin or Barbra Streisand to carry your sorry a88es off with them to some country you all really like.

🙂 Now there is an idea I could really go for.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I know windmills in the midwest could also supply a lot of energy and at current energy costs.
Click to expand...


Wind Breaks
"Often activists wave aside the extra costs of wind energy by claiming that consumers would be happy to pay extra for power produced by "renewables" if given the chance. But a recent Cato Institute study suggests otherwise. It found that 80 utilities in 28 states offer consumers special packages of energy produced from renewable sources. "Because of higher costs, no more than 1.5 percent of the retail customers in any state have signed up for such independently marketed programs, and participation in utility-sponsored programs is generally around 1 percent or less," the Cato report notes. To pay for such uneconomic projects, utilities hide their costs by rolling them into the general rate base, which hikes prices for all consumers.
...And windfarms are far from environmentally benign. If you think a conventional power plant occupying 20 acres is an eyesore, think about this: In a January 2000 article in Foreign Affairs, Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller estimate that a 1,000-megawatt windfarm (equivalent to a medium-sized conventional power plant) would occupy 2,000 square miles. That means replacing the 604,000 megawatts of total generating capacity in the United States with windmills would occupy 1.2 million square miles, a third of the country?s total land area. And even that wouldn?t really work, since windmills typically produce only a third of their rated capacity because the wind doesn?t always blow. "
 
Lemme remember, dont have the linky at hand, but a few squares miles of ocean off the Maine coast would provide twice power the US produces from all other sources combined. Damn, where is that stuff when you need it
Click to expand...

WAVE ENERGY - What Is It?
Advantages
1. Wave power plants can be based on land, on caissons in relatively shallow water (5-15 m depth), or in deeper, offshare waters.
2. Wave energy systems can be incorporated into breakwaters, thus reducing the cost of such systems, and providing for dual use.
3. Use of wave energy as a renewable resource of electricity will help reduce Hawaii's almost complete dependence on imported fossil fuels.
4. Hawaii has a large wave energy resource.
Disadvantages
1. Wave energy systems, if not properly sited, could interfere with other uses of coastal areas such as fishing, surfing, and beach use.
2. Land-based systems involve significant shoreline modifications and associated environmental impacts.
3. Offshore floating systems might have unacceptible visual impacts.
4. Wave energy is an intermittent resource.
5. Wave energy conversion devices are in an early stage of development and are not yet commercially viable. System costs and performance are uncertain.
6. Such devices are subjected to a very harsh environment and have not been tested on a long-term basis.

 
etech-
There is a commercially operating setup in Scotland- small (about enough for 400 homes) Takes up about 150 meters. Trying to find the financials, but it was turning a profit. Grrr.
 
Originally posted by: etech
ElFenix
duh, by electrolysis of water.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't think I had to point out the obvious. Where do you get the power for the electrolysis of water? Don't forget to add in the power to compress it after it is separated. Then add in enough power to transport a much less dense energy source than hydrocarbons and to say "duh" just shows what a stupid statement you just made. Don't get me wrong I think we will go to hydrogen based power in the future but there are a lot of problems and obstacles to overcome before that happens.

I don't think wave power would be enough. The next option is nuclear which has a few problems but is the most likely.
Click to expand...

i see you missed my 😉
 
Folks like Tominator seem willing to die for oil rights (well, to have others who are younger do the dying). I certainly would not die for oil because there are plenty of other avenues to try first, some have been mentioned in this thread. Plus, there is no immediate energy crisis.

In the meantime my preference is to trade freely with oil-rich nations, something we sorta do even with the desert-dwellers in the Mid East.

I would not send anyone else to die for oil rights either, not even Tom. 😉
 
Wind Power is Booming!

Wind energy is now the fastest growing electricity source in the World by percentage. Because wind is produced by the sun?s heating of Earth?s atmosphere, wind power is a truly renewable resource that will never be depleted. Wind energy has been used for centuries to propel ships, grind grain, and pump water. Nowadays, modern utility-scale wind turbines power over 1.2 million homes in the US alone, and are increasingly recognized as a valuable alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear generated electricity. Small turbines are now also in widespread use by many homeowners and farmers to help meet energy needs.



New Mexico has Enormous Wind Power Potential!

The developable wind power resource of the US, that is, what could be developed without incurring undue impacts to birds, noise, or visibility, is estimated to be between 2 to10 times the entire electricity consumption of the US. The Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimates that New Mexico could generate over 435 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity from wind ? nearly fourteen times the total amount of electricity the state generated in 1999. New Mexico?s resource is ranked twelfth in the nation. Idaho, which ranks thirteenth, has a resource only one sixth as large as New Mexico?s, and California, the state that currently has the most, has less than one seventh of New Mexico?s potential.



Won?t Wind Power Take Too Much Land?

The footprint of wind power is actually very small compared to both conventional energy sources and other land uses by society. For example, the area of land affected directly by the foundation of a single 1 megawatt wind turbine is only an area about 10 feet by 10 feet - much smaller than the footprint of a single house, yet that same turbine can permanently and completely power over 300 homes, displacing over 3000 tons of CO2 emissions every year. On the other hand, the same area of a coal strip mine can only power a single home for 3 years on average! Moreover, unlike coal mines, wind turbines can be easily integrated with agriculture, and the land they impact can be much more easily remediated if necessary, because the impacts are light and there are no impacts to aquifers.

From
here.
 
Hmmm, I wonder if it might become estetically pleasing to design golf courses around wind towers?

Does a two stroke penalty for nailing a wind tower sound fair?
 
Originally posted by: maladroit
Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.
Click to expand...


Because fuel cells are bloody expensive. Ever think about makeing a 4 cylinder out of platinum? That is what you are asking for.
 
Originally posted by: PSYWVic
Originally posted by: Tominator
He tore them down because they were overpriced POS!

Freedom runs on oil. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

Then freedom is guaranteed to run out of gas in the next 50 or so years.

I think you have no idea what freedom is.
Click to expand...

That has been said over the past 30-40 years, but proven oil reserves keep rising. I am not saying it will not run out, but I just dont trust the estimates.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: maladroit Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.
Click to expand...
Because fuel cells are bloody expensive. Ever think about makeing a 4 cylinder out of platinum? That is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...

Point is that very little money has been put into looking at alternatives. The oil companies aren't going to do it. Be a good use of public dollars, but under current thinking, that would be detrimental to established business. Screw business! Businesses look out for upper management and the stockholders. About time someone in Washington uses our tax dollars for the general public's good.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
As Clinton's trade with China was to achieve kickbacks, Bush's anger with Iraq revolves around oil.

Actually, I find it interesting that Russia is so adament about not going to war with Iraq and at the same time has been signing millions and millions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. Now I ask you, would you rather have all that oil going to Russia or US? 🙂
Click to expand...

Now I ask you, why would Russia import oil from Iraq if it's exporting oil to US and Europe?
The deals are for equipment and services, not oil to Russia. Why don't you enlighten yourself on the issues before posting your gibberish.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CPA
As Clinton's trade with China was to achieve kickbacks, Bush's anger with Iraq revolves around oil.

Actually, I find it interesting that Russia is so adament about not going to war with Iraq and at the same time has been signing millions and millions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. Now I ask you, would you rather have all that oil going to Russia or US? 🙂
Click to expand...

Now I ask you, why would Russia import oil from Iraq if it's exporting oil to US and Europe?
The deals are for equipment and services, not oil to Russia. Why don't you enlighten yourself on the issues before posting your gibberish.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are buying it cheap enough for resale.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: maladroit Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.
Click to expand...
Because fuel cells are bloody expensive. Ever think about makeing a 4 cylinder out of platinum? That is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...

Point is that very little money has been put into looking at alternatives. The oil companies aren't going to do it. Be a good use of public dollars, but under current thinking, that would be detrimental to established business. Screw business! Businesses look out for upper management and the stockholders. About time someone in Washington uses our tax dollars for the general public's good.
Click to expand...

Actually a ton of money is being dumped into fuel cells around the world.
 
Hayabusarider quote:

About time someone in Washington uses our tax dollars for the general public's good.
----------------

Geez, I don't know what party that is, but I want to join.

I don't see why you couldn't burn hydrogen directly in a combustion engine.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: maladroit Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.
Click to expand...
Because fuel cells are bloody expensive. Ever think about makeing a 4 cylinder out of platinum? That is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...
Point is that very little money has been put into looking at alternatives. The oil companies aren't going to do it. Be a good use of public dollars, but under current thinking, that would be detrimental to established business. Screw business! Businesses look out for upper management and the stockholders. About time someone in Washington uses our tax dollars for the general public's good.
Click to expand...
Actually a ton of money is being dumped into fuel cells around the world.
Click to expand...

How many B2's worth?
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: CPA
As Clinton's trade with China was to achieve kickbacks, Bush's anger with Iraq revolves around oil.

Actually, I find it interesting that Russia is so adament about not going to war with Iraq and at the same time has been signing millions and millions of dollars worth of oil contracts with Iraq. Now I ask you, would you rather have all that oil going to Russia or US? 🙂
Click to expand...

Now I ask you, why would Russia import oil from Iraq if it's exporting oil to US and Europe?
The deals are for equipment and services, not oil to Russia. Why don't you enlighten yourself on the issues before posting your gibberish.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are buying it cheap enough for resale.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but they sure as hell wouldn't be hauling it back to Russia to resale it.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: maladroit Why can't we start a mass-conversion to hydrogen-powered cars? It would render the entire middle east utterly useless, since they have no education and no industry and nothing to offer the world other than their natural resources.
Click to expand...
Because fuel cells are bloody expensive. Ever think about makeing a 4 cylinder out of platinum? That is what you are asking for.
Click to expand...
Point is that very little money has been put into looking at alternatives. The oil companies aren't going to do it. Be a good use of public dollars, but under current thinking, that would be detrimental to established business. Screw business! Businesses look out for upper management and the stockholders. About time someone in Washington uses our tax dollars for the general public's good.
Click to expand...
Actually a ton of money is being dumped into fuel cells around the world.
Click to expand...

How many B2's worth?
Click to expand...

Probably quite a few considering the concept of a fuel cell is not a new idea.
 
People survived for how long just fine without electricity and personal transportation for how long? The fact is, a healthy society can easily be sustained by wind and solar energy, it just means giving up the petty technologies that have stolen our humanity anyway.

Bike paths and solar powered monorails.
 
Originally posted by: EngineNr9
People survived for how long just fine without electricity and personal transportation for how long? The fact is, a healthy society can easily be sustained by wind and solar energy, it just means giving up the petty technologies that have stolen our humanity anyway.

Bike paths and solar powered monorails.
Click to expand...

Easily eh? I guess you wont mind give up posting here to help the cause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top