• 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.

We must stop our reliance on arab countries for oil....

N

nippyjun

Diamond Member
My rant...

Unfortunately we rely on the arab countries for oil. Because of this those countries have enough money to fund terrorist organizations and make their rulers rich. If we moved away from gas powered cars to electric or natural gas or hydrogen (not nitrogen) then the arab countries would not be getting our money and would not be able to fund terrorism. Or at least they would not be able to fund as much terrorism. Unfortunately Pres. Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies and won't push for the automobile companies to make more alternative fuel cars. As our leader he must take the initiative and to do this, but sadly he won't. With more and more suv's on the road,and more and more vehicles on the road in general, we become more and more reliant on the arabs. I know that GM is working on a nitrogen car that could be ready for production in 10 years.

Imagine if we cut our oil use by even 25%! The arab countries wouldn't know what to do. I believe that moving away from oil is the best way to fight the funding of terrorism. Pres. Bush knows it, but won't do anything about it because he sold out to the oil companies.

If you recently saw Bill Maher (from politically correct) on Larry King. He said the same things that I've just written here. We need to get the word out. He recently got a toyota prius. It's a hybrid gas/electric car that gets 50miles/gallon and doen't need to be plugged in. The batteries get rechaged as it moves. This is amazing. Unfortunately it looks like crap and because of that, it's not going to sell well. In fact all the hybrid or alternative fuel cars look like crap. Why is that? It's probably because the car companies really don't want us to buy them. I don't know why....
 
Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies and won't push for the automobile companies to make more alternative fuel cars.



If thats true then why did he, less than a week ago, announce that R+D with federal funding woudl be focusing on hydrogen cars?
 
nippyjun

Nitrogen fueled cars?

You really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about do you? Typical liberal BS, clueless and uninformed, but think they know what is best for us and the rest of the world.
 
I stand corrected on Bush, but 10-20 years is too long. Lets use some of that money to make more hybrid cars like the prius RIGHT NOW!.
 


<< nippyjun

Nitrogen fueled cars?

You really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about do you? Typical liberal BS, clueless and uninformed, but think they know what is best for us and the rest of the world. >>



Hydrogen ( i stand corrected ) And why the personal attack on me? "typical liberal BS". What do you propose to solve the reliance on oil?
 
<<Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies and won't push for the automobile companies to make more alternative fuel cars.>>

If thats true then why did he, less than a week ago, announce that R+D with federal funding woudl be focusing on hydrogen cars?

Yep, very good point.
 
Well, that's just great. I'll tell you the average American agrees with you...when the price of gas is cheap and they can fill up their 10MPG SUV and make 40 unnecessary trips per month. But, when their SUV starts to cost them an amount they find intolerable, they want us to bomb the "towel heads" and take over their country.

Really, there was a guy I worked with who was all critical of the U.S. being over in the arab countries "messing around" in their affairs when it was "none of our business". That was when gas was $1.26. When gas was $2.90, he was like "What the f-ck is wrong with those G-D camel jockeys, we should just bomb their ass and take over."

The American public is funny that way.
 
Hydrogen, not nitrogen. That wasn't my point of this rant. My point is that we must move towards these alternative fuels for our cars. And the car companies must make them look good for americans to want to buy them. If the top selling american cars came in a hybrid version for the same price of the non-hybrid form then they would sell a lot of them.
 
nippyjun, it's hydrogen fuled cars but because a person is wrong on a detail doesn't make their general point turn into bs as etech would have you think. The whole Bush effort is to make sure the oil companies are protected long term. If we had a national effort to convert to solar generated hydrogen fule cell use, like the stupid war on drugs or national missle defense, we could lock in a better future.
 
Well, if we got rid of oil dependency, how would we make money off arm sales if there were no more wars to start in oil countries?
 
The difference between hydrogen and nitrogen is more than just a "detail". That shows that nippyjun knows very little about the subject in which he is trying to discuss.

Typical liberal BS

"Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies."

Prove it, if you can. You can't


Anyone that quotes Bill Maher as an authority, clueless.


 
nippy, to sell a car cheep, you have to be able to build it cheep. That can't always happen easily and without economies of scale. The gov could stimulate growth by providing research money and tax incentives. The hybred vehicles require expensive batteries. It is, however, unbelievably cool how they work:

It takes about 8 hp to run an aerodynamically designed car down the road at freeway speed, but many more hp to accellerate quickly, so you stick a 16hp gas engine in a car with a 100 hp electric engine and use the other 8 horses to charge the batteries. Effectively you get the millage of a 16hp engine.
 
Etech you sound like Bill O'Reilly.

Again, hydrogen versus nitrogen wan't my point. My point is that we need to have alternative fuel vehicles. From your sig I can see that you are a Bush fan. I'm sure most of us are proud of how he handled 911 and the aftermath.

Bush may not be in the pocked of oil companies but it sure seems like it:


"Condoleeza Rice, George W.?s chief foreign policy aide and leading
candidate to serve as his national security adviser, has been a
director of Chevron Corp. since 1991.

Rice is currently in charge of public policy for Chevron?s board of
directors, which has used her expertise in Russian issues to help
Chevron navigate its way to investments in the Caspian Sea oil fields.

In 1993, Rice was granted a rare honor when Chevron named an oil
tanker after her.

Lawrence Eagleburger, a seasoned Bush counselor who held top State
Department posts under George W.?s father, is a director of
Halliburton Corp., the world?s largest oil field services company.

When looking for a running mate, George W. also turned to Halliburton.
He asked Dick Cheney, Halliburton?s chairman and chief executive,
first to vet other candidates and later to take the job. "
 
i think many of you are missing the point. 🙂

how bout this scenario.

[sarcasm]
we use the US consumers to drain all the oil reserve of mideast and russia. then when their supplies are completely depleted and we still don't have an alternative energy source, the OIL Fields of Texas and California will be the only OIL left in the World.

THEN we, being the wicked capitalist that we are, can charge EXORBITANT fees for our oil, while we secretly role out alternative fuels to our population.

🙂 sound like a winning proposition to anyone else??
[\sarcasm]
 
The difference between hydrogen and nitrogen is six protons and seven neutrons, generally speaking. Weigh those and tell me it's a big difference.

As far as proving Bush is in the pockets of the oil companies, what proof do you want. A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. For some, there is no such thing as proof. To an unbiased observer, however, Bush=Oil is obvious. The proof is the existing gestalt. The real issue here, as I see it, is the obvious need to accelerate the use of alternative energy sources to reduce dependence on oil. That would be good for foreign relations, the economy and people's health. There isn't any doubt that what stands in the way of that happening is intrenched interests in the status quo.

The world you live in today, etech, is the dream of past liberal BSers. Conservatives were saying that if you were ment to fly, God would have given you wings. Conservatism is the force that for thousands of years has tried to keep people's feet and minds stuck in the mud, usually to protect privilage.
 
nippyjun,

That is all quite interesting, but who do you think is going to bringing alternative fuels in the future? could it be big oil?
or could it be some other compnay without any distrubution infrastructure? Do you think it is wrong for the this country to have an energy policy(we did not have one for the past 8 years)?
 
Back during the late 80s, I had the privilege of attending a government strategic policy seminar for senior military leaders. I was there as an aide, not as an official attendee, by the way.

The speakers included professors from Harvard, Stanford as well as gurus from the Rand Corporation (a government think tank).

Many of the topics brought up had to do with issues such as the economics of oil in US society, strategic interests of the US in the Middle East, and potential effects of alternative energy sources on the US economy. Some points I picked up from this seminar were:

Oil industry accounts for a rather large part of the US economy. Aside from the jobs tied to it's exploration, extraction, processing domestically, many more are tied to the imported oil side as well. Add that number to the large number of jobs in the retail sector of gasoline and oil based products and the impact on the US economy is proportionally huge. In otherwords, should a revolutionary technology replacing the heavy dependence on oil be introduced, the economic consequences would be catostrophic world-wide. The consensus among many speakers was that implementation of oil alternatives must be slow and gradual in order to avoid a global economic meltdown.

The US has had it's proverbial nose up the Saudi's butt since the FDR administration. Everyone says we are there only because of US interests. This is somewhat, but not entirely true. When other economies such as Japan, Europe and the remaining developed countries have access to the resource, the world economy as a whole can function easier with it's current infrastructure. Smoothly integrating the new infrastructure will take time.

I, for one, am extremely happy to see more focused research into alternative energy sources for personal transportation. However, should it be introduced suddenly without planning, I forsee some serious economic implications associated therewith.

And yes, I think we should get our noses out from the Saudi's rear ends. There was a report either in the WSJ or Washington Post recently that the Saudi's want us out of there.
 
The obvious answer to a distribution infrastructure are the utility companies. Hydrogen must be produced by electrolysis and transported by pipeline to homes and to fueling stations.
 
Moonbeam,

That is not entirely true. Electrolysis can be performed locally at gas stations and in cars off of easily available fuels(gas and natural gas). THere need not be major infrastructure changes to move our selves in the "hydrogen economy".
 
its so funny how much the saudis own the us just because of oil, they are the origin of most terrorists organizations, and they are known to harbor terrorists, but they aren't even on bush's list of countries to attack, we only attack poor countries without oil like afghanistan
 
Moonbeam, if the difference between N2 and H2 is so small, design a fuel based solely on N2. My point is that if such basic facts as that are wrong then the poster has very little information about what he is speaking.

Even nippyjun points out that it may be up to 10 years before H2 fueled vehicles are commercially viable. Until then we are based on oil. The administration could bury it's head in the sand and ignore that fact or have some people with expertise in that area in government. Sometime being conservative is also pragmatic and not having your head in the clouds.

Pres. Bush is funding the research that needs to be done. The hybrids have already been developed. The government does not need to spend money on something that is already commercial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top