Where do you stand on alternative energy

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: palehorse
I really think McCain dropped the ball on the "Manhattan-like Project" question last night. He should have answered with one simple word, "YES!" Nut, alas, he just rambled on about R&D bullshit and turning each development over to private industry... blah blah.

IMO, a project of that magnitude, and focus, is exactly what we need to solve the energy crisis.

Take 100 of the smartest scientists on the planet, place them in a facility up in the hills, and tell them that they shouldn't come out until they've solved the f'n problem and invented a viable source of alternative energy. Pay them big bucks and treat them like all-stars. But, don't settle for anything less than a real solution!

We should have started such a project yesterday... bah...

lol isn't that how it works now? except with VC money vs govt money? honestly i don't feel like pumping "$10 billion" to a manhattan project will do any good. all the talent works in private industry and are currently doing it now.

Good point, but you know what? The private sector doesn't exactly play fair. Look up big oil's involvement in the prevention of start-up like businesses that wanted to create alternative energy sources...

I think the project of this magnitude needs a Gov't push similar to the mission of putting a man on the moon. That massive project alone gave us many technological advantages over the rest of the world.

 

[Arkaign]

Thorium reactors + electric cars/trains/buses/trucks = win. Make dozens upon dozens of them, with a federalized distribution system. Should be able to get electic rates below 8 cents/kwh nationally, and with more than enough power to transform to an electric-based transportation and energy system. Bye bye oil, bye bye NG, other than staid uses like specialized equipment, heating oils, etc.

 

[MiniDoom]

I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

 

[palehorse]

Let's see.. the government ran projects for:

The original Manhattan Project leading to atomic and nuclear bombs...

Racing, via NASA, to be the first nation to put a man on the moon...

... so why not:

FINDING A COMMERCIALLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY.

?!!??

These are the projects that have led the U.S. to become a world leader... now all we need to do is vote in those who support such a project NOW. Our current crop of legislators and executives are too wrapped up in the oil industry to EVER make this happen.

bah... i'm so disgusted with all of them at this point...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So it looks like most of you are on board with a very strong push towards alternative energy. And if it's an alternative to oil, more than likely it will be a green energy. Right now, wind, solar and tidal energy aren't as efficient as oil, but, and this was my point, if we push for growth in this area, the goal would be to have it be as or more efficient than oil.
I hope this really becomes a strong focal point of the new presidents 1st term.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

no way am I riding my bike 5 miles to the store when I can drive it in 7 minutes. Plus having to take bags and bags of groceries back.

Plus, some of us don't see it as polluting. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong by driving around. I think the earths warming has come from other aspects such as increased solar activity, but that is a different subject. not only that, but what China is doing with pollution far outdoes anything the US does even if we were all driving around SUVs.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think all options are on the table. i also believe none of these renewable sources will be competitive enough to replace oil until oil is much much much higher in price than what we saw last summer. The govt can only push so hard. If it isnt ready for a market, it isnt ready. They have been subsidizing corn ethanol for decades and even today it fails to approach the cost of gasoline when gasoline hit its highest price point in this history of this country.

And energy independence is a national security issue. I have been saying this for months.

Energy independence and 'green' energy are 2 different things. The former is a good thing; the latter is worthless.

If 'green' energy is useful, let the Europeans develop it.

The problem with your argument is that when (not if) alternative energy is fully developed, it WILL be useful. As in "Next Big Thing" useful. And in which case, the Euros will have it and we won't.

We can just copy them.

The Soviets stole information from the Manhattan Project in developing their own bombs, and had an advantage because they didn't go first. We can do the same.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

no way am I riding my bike 5 miles to the store when I can drive it in 7 minutes. Plus having to take bags and bags of groceries back.

Plus, some of us don't see it as polluting. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong by driving around. I think the earths warming has come from other aspects such as increased solar activity, but that is a different subject. not only that, but what China is doing with pollution far outdoes anything the US does even if we were all driving around SUVs.

Ok... really? Seriously? You don't think that driving a vehicle that emits CO2 does no damage? Seriously?
Forget all that goofy scientific data. They're nutty.
Here's some of that wacky data.

For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air.

Nutjobs..
And please feel free to look at the pdf link in the web page if you doubt the source.
I'm done with you, you're a palinette, who probably thinks dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. I weep for any offspring you have.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

 

[MikeyLSU]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Ok... really? Seriously? You don't think that driving a vehicle that emits CO2 does no damage? Seriously?
Forget all that goofy scientific data. They're nutty.
Here's some of that wacky data.

For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air.

Nutjobs..
And please feel free to look at the pdf link in the web page if you doubt the source.
I'm done with you, you're a palinette, who probably thinks dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. I weep for any offspring you have.

And I could show you many pages that state the higher solar activity. Nice of you to be done with me when you never had anything to do with me in the first place. LOL.

I never siad it doesn't emit CO2, I said that I don't believe that the US is causing global warming.

Anyway, back to the subject. I would really like to see a joint effort by the EU and US together in getting a new technology for cheap clean energy.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

no way am I riding my bike 5 miles to the store when I can drive it in 7 minutes. Plus having to take bags and bags of groceries back.

Plus, some of us don't see it as polluting. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong by driving around. I think the earths warming has come from other aspects such as increased solar activity, but that is a different subject. not only that, but what China is doing with pollution far outdoes anything the US does even if we were all driving around SUVs.

you're missing out then, but that's your choice. and panniers are great for hauling beer and groceries from the store. some people haul a lot more.
btw - my 10 mile ride to work is faster than driving my car...

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

:thumbsup:

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think all options are on the table. i also believe none of these renewable sources will be competitive enough to replace oil until oil is much much much higher in price than what we saw last summer. The govt can only push so hard. If it isnt ready for a market, it isnt ready. They have been subsidizing corn ethanol for decades and even today it fails to approach the cost of gasoline when gasoline hit its highest price point in this history of this country.

And energy independence is a national security issue. I have been saying this for months.

Energy independence and 'green' energy are 2 different things. The former is a good thing; the latter is worthless.

If 'green' energy is useful, let the Europeans develop it.

The problem with your argument is that when (not if) alternative energy is fully developed, it WILL be useful. As in "Next Big Thing" useful. And in which case, the Euros will have it and we won't.

We can just copy them.

The Soviets stole information from the Manhattan Project in developing their own bombs, and had an advantage because they didn't go first. We can do the same.

It didn't quite work out for their copy of the space race did it.... kinda 'blew' up in their face....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Let's see.. the government ran projects for:

The original Manhattan Project leading to atomic and nuclear bombs...

Racing, via NASA, to be the first nation to put a man on the moon...

... so why not:

FINDING A COMMERCIALLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY.

?!!??

These are the projects that have led the U.S. to become a world leader... now all we need to do is vote in those who support such a project NOW. Our current crop of legislators and executives are too wrapped up in the oil industry to EVER make this happen.

bah... i'm so disgusted with all of them at this point...

This is exactly what I was thinking. Although the Cold War helped the Space Race get pushed hard.
But I agree 100%, we have the intelligence, we have the facilities, we just need the acceptance, approval and push from our leaders to do this.
Imagine the millions of jobs it could potentially open up.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

Two major problems here ...

1. Biofuel companies are majoy contributors in this prez election
2. Tree hugging calif left loons are already whining about nuclear waste and battery disposal. They want us to be chinese slaves.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think all options are on the table. i also believe none of these renewable sources will be competitive enough to replace oil until oil is much much much higher in price than what we saw last summer. The govt can only push so hard. If it isnt ready for a market, it isnt ready. They have been subsidizing corn ethanol for decades and even today it fails to approach the cost of gasoline when gasoline hit its highest price point in this history of this country.

And energy independence is a national security issue. I have been saying this for months.

Energy independence and 'green' energy are 2 different things. The former is a good thing; the latter is worthless.

If 'green' energy is useful, let the Europeans develop it.

The problem with your argument is that when (not if) alternative energy is fully developed, it WILL be useful. As in "Next Big Thing" useful. And in which case, the Euros will have it and we won't.

We can just copy them.

The Soviets stole information from the Manhattan Project in developing their own bombs, and had an advantage because they didn't go first. We can do the same.

It didn't quite work out for their copy of the space race did it.... kinda 'blew' up in their face....

Key Word: race. Wasn't really a copy; they were doing it simultaneously.

Plus, we are smarter than they are.

We needed to be first to develop the atomic bomb so we could nuke japan and win the war. Why do we need to have an 'alternative' energy race?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

:thumbsup:

Jesus, a cascade of uninformed goof balls. Where do you think the carbon from bio fuels will come from? The eventual aim is directly from CO2 polluters like steel mills and power plants. And the air force and commercial aviation are all switching to the electric plane.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

no way am I riding my bike 5 miles to the store when I can drive it in 7 minutes. Plus having to take bags and bags of groceries back.

Plus, some of us don't see it as polluting. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong by driving around. I think the earths warming has come from other aspects such as increased solar activity, but that is a different subject. not only that, but what China is doing with pollution far outdoes anything the US does even if we were all driving around SUVs.

Ok... really? Seriously? You don't think that driving a vehicle that emits CO2 does no damage? Seriously?
Forget all that goofy scientific data. They're nutty.
Here's some of that wacky data.

For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air.

Nutjobs..
And please feel free to look at the pdf link in the web page if you doubt the source.
I'm done with you, you're a palinette, who probably thinks dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. I weep for any offspring you have.

WOW you came up with figures!!! now would you be gracious enough to provide some figures about how many "pounds" are produced by deforestation, decaying vegetations, cows and last but not the least - unregulated chinese and indian industries?????????

WTF do you want us to do? walk our offsprings to school and get run over by SUV driven by bitches putting on their makups while driving, stop eating beef, live in brick and stone houses...
People like you are partly responsible for americans loosing their job... keep going moron and soon your offsprings will be fliping burgers for the Chinese

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I never hear anything about bicycles when talk of alternative energy comes up. No reason anyone 15-60 shouldn't be able to bike under 10 miles 90% of the time. We would solve a lot of health-related and obesity problems too. Seems most people would rather choose to pollute their homeland for the sake of convenience. Still no talk of building more bike lanes and tax benefits to bike commuters.

no way am I riding my bike 5 miles to the store when I can drive it in 7 minutes. Plus having to take bags and bags of groceries back.

Plus, some of us don't see it as polluting. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong by driving around. I think the earths warming has come from other aspects such as increased solar activity, but that is a different subject. not only that, but what China is doing with pollution far outdoes anything the US does even if we were all driving around SUVs.

Ok... really? Seriously? You don't think that driving a vehicle that emits CO2 does no damage? Seriously?
Forget all that goofy scientific data. They're nutty.
Here's some of that wacky data.

For example, according to the E.P.A's 2000 Fuel Economy Guide, a new Dodge Durango sports utility vehicle (with a 5.9 liter engine) that gets 12 miles per gallon in the city will emit an estimated 800 pounds of carbon dioxide over a distance of 500 city miles. In other words for each gallon of gas a vehicle consumes, 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air.

Nutjobs..
And please feel free to look at the pdf link in the web page if you doubt the source.
I'm done with you, you're a palinette, who probably thinks dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth at the same time. I weep for any offspring you have.

WOW you came up with figures!!! now would you be gracious enough to provide some figures about how many "pounds" are produced by deforestation, decaying vegetations, cows and last but not the least - unregulated chinese and indian industries?????????

WTF do you want us to do? walk our offsprings to school and get run over by SUV driven by bitches putting on their makups while driving, stop eating beef, live in brick and stone houses...
People like you are partly responsible americans loosing their job... keep going moron and soon your offsprings will be fliping burgers for the Chinese

Nah, they'll be educated and open-minded, so that's at least 2 things they'll have up on you and your ilk.
Thanks for making me smile. I needed it.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Alternative energy development should focus on 2 things. Electricity generation, and electricity storage. Revolutions in those 2 areas, particularly the latter, will change everything. We can bridge the gap for electricity generation with nuclear, but we have to make serious strides in storage technology in order to get our automobiles off of hydrocarbons.

Screw biofuels. They should cease all development in that field.

What's wrong with biofuels?

 

[Moonbeam]

We started on the road to energy independence in 1978 with Jimmy Carter but Reagan told the brain dead it's Morning in America and go out and spend and spend, that there is no need to tighten your belt or suffer and ween yourself of the big oil tit. The Republican party is responsible for the energy crisis and they are in the pocket of big oil. And you culturally conservative, never saw a science book you liked, are the reason. You dolts have ruined this country and cost us trillions in oil dependence, but abortion is so so so so so important an issue. If you all died and when extinct when you should have you would now BE oil.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: GTKeeper

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Genx87
I think all options are on the table. i also believe none of these renewable sources will be competitive enough to replace oil until oil is much much much higher in price than what we saw last summer. The govt can only push so hard. If it isnt ready for a market, it isnt ready. They have been subsidizing corn ethanol for decades and even today it fails to approach the cost of gasoline when gasoline hit its highest price point in this history of this country.

And energy independence is a national security issue. I have been saying this for months.

Energy independence and 'green' energy are 2 different things. The former is a good thing; the latter is worthless.

If 'green' energy is useful, let the Europeans develop it.

The problem with your argument is that when (not if) alternative energy is fully developed, it WILL be useful. As in "Next Big Thing" useful. And in which case, the Euros will have it and we won't.

We can just copy them.

The Soviets stole information from the Manhattan Project in developing their own bombs, and had an advantage because they didn't go first. We can do the same.

It didn't quite work out for their copy of the space race did it.... kinda 'blew' up in their face....

Key Word: race. Wasn't really a copy; they were doing it simultaneously.

Plus, we are smarter than they are.

We needed to be first to develop the atomic bomb so we could nuke japan and win the war. Why do we need to have an 'alternative' energy race?

Because we could make a ridiculous amount of money out of it.

A longer lasting battery, a cheaper fuel cell, or some kind of super efficient wind turbine could make us trillions potentially.

I don't see China copying the microchip, or the video cards that the US exclusively makes for the rest of the world. Some things are easy to copy, others are not.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Thorium reactors + electric cars/trains/buses/trucks = win. Make dozens upon dozens of them, with a federalized distribution system. Should be able to get electic rates below 8 cents/kwh nationally, and with more than enough power to transform to an electric-based transportation and energy system. Bye bye oil, bye bye NG, other than staid uses like specialized equipment, heating oils, etc.

Brilliant! We can sell the thorium reactors to the third world so they can solve their own energy problem in a monkey see monkey do sort of way.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Thorium reactors + electric cars/trains/buses/trucks = win. Make dozens upon dozens of them, with a federalized distribution system. Should be able to get electic rates below 8 cents/kwh nationally, and with more than enough power to transform to an electric-based transportation and energy system. Bye bye oil, bye bye NG, other than staid uses like specialized equipment, heating oils, etc.

Brilliant! We can sell the thorium reactors to the third world so they can solve their own energy problem in a monkey see monkey do sort of way.

That would be nice, but I think the national security types would worry over nuclear proliferation. The thorium fuel cycle, while incredibly efficient when you utilize reprocessing, also can be used to build up weapons-grade materials.

Besides, my focus in this is what we could do to become energy independent + self-sustaining (we have gobs of thorium), with absolutely minimal waste/environmental impact. Obviously the batteries and electrical storage are an issue, but balanced against being a slave to oil, and petrocarbons, I think it's a good trade.

Biofuel would be nice, but the sacrifice of agricultural assets towards energy assets is a bad tradeoff IMHO, and it also negatively impacts the price of food.