ricksfolly
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 232
- Location
- Grand Junction, CO 81506
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
i'd prefer nuclear power over coal, any day, and hasn't honda produced a car that runs on nought but hydrogen? both are easy alternatives to coal and oil.
There's enough uranium in the world to power any conceivable power draw for hundreds of thousands of years.
against reprocessing. (we can basically recyle radioactive waste, it's like 99% still usable) The energy density difference between oil and nuclear is staggering.
Switching to hydrogen fuel cells isn't "easy" but it's definitely an option. There are no easy options. What we really freaking need is a major breakthrough in battery technology. Something that can rival or beat the storage ability of lithium-ion batteries without being so damned expensive. Generating electricity is easy, storing it in a manner that makes it viable for powering vehicles isn't.
I heat all of the water in my house with solar power and will eventually power my entire house with it, too. Yes, it will take time, but that shouldn't stop us from doing what we can do right now.
That might save you some of your energy costs, but there's not near enough public interest to start a meaningful trend, less than one percent...
ricksfolly
a commitment to achieve energy self sufficiency should have been Obama's equivalent of JFK's commitment to land on the moon by the end of the decade
A recent Daily Show clip showed a montage of the past eight presidents giving big speeches about reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
those presidents wanted energency self sufficiency but were unwilling to do what was politically necessary to achieve itto be, rather than to seem
a commitment to achieve energy self sufficiency should have been Obama's equivalent of JFK's commitment to land on the moon by the end of the decade
Actually, going to the moon took longer than ten years, It started when Goddard invented the rocket back in the thirties.
We have 0ver 200 million gas guzzlers, 70 percent of our electrical power is coal, so keeping in mind that people won't stand for even one minute of no lights, no TV, no gas, where do you want to the green conversion to start ?
ricksfolly
but you have seized on the telling differenceActually, going to the moon took longer than ten years, It started when Goddard invented the rocket back in the thirties.
had our nation been committed to energy self sufficiency - soon after the first oil embargoes impacted our nation, evidencing how we were at a strategic risk because of energy dependency - we would likely not now be in the vulnerable circumstance you describeWe have 0ver 200 million gas guzzlers, 70 percent of our electrical power is coal, so keeping in mind that people won't stand for even one minute of no lights, no TV, no gas, where do you want to the green conversion to start ?
ricksfolly
Actually, going to the moon took longer than ten years, It started when Goddard invented the rocket back in the thirties.
We have 0ver 200 million gas guzzlers, 70 percent of our electrical power is coal, so keeping in mind that people won't stand for even one minute of no lights, no TV, no gas, where do you want to the green conversion to start ?
ricksfolly
Yeah, as far as we know. Problem is, we don't know everything. Biodiesel is trying to make headway, but is limited in its ability to replace petroleum.Here to stay? You're aware that this stuff is not limitless, right?
Forget global warming, let's just work with one fundamental mathematical issue here: We consume fossil fuels faster than the earth produces it. Eventually, our energy needs will exceed our energy reserves.
What exactly should we do about that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?