Report: Clean energy policies would create 1.4 mill jobs

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

wouldnt these be alternative fuel sources and not petroleum and more specifically wouldnt the trash thing be eco friendly, or at least more so than true petroleum.

the problem is that the dollars are not going to the research in large enough amounts and industry is not implementing the changes fast enough.

and once again my point has been proven. petroleum is a limited resource.

ANWR is not going to save us. At the most generous estimates, ANWR is about half the size of Prudhoe bay, which in and of itself was not a hugely significant contributor to US oil production after drilling began in 1973 or 74 (At least not enough to push the US above its record production levels in 1970.) And ANWR is about HALF the size and probably less. Also at the most generous estimates, it will reduce US consumption of foreign oil somewhere between 3 to 5%. That is it. Once again, aint much.

the truth is, yes, we can find a way around this problem, we are always capable of that, but we have to try. actually make a concerted effort. we must find alternatives and spend the money on the research and development of such technologies AND actually implement these changes.

oh, and i notice that noone questions my contentions about the economic and political gain that can be had thru the development and implementation of alternative fuel sources, which is really the topic at hand.

The methods I mentioned above are both petroleum as we know it today, and yes it would be more eco-friendly to make oil from trash.

I agree with ya, the money is not being granted to the alternatives fast enough. But like I've said before, all politicians that reach office are always funded by oil co's. A president isn't going to bite the hand that feeds them. That's one of the main reasons I'm for campaign finance reform. Until we get the constituents (sp?) out of the picture you are never going to see an impartial president with the best interest of citizens in mind. EVER.

I disagree with petroleum being a finite resource for the reasons I already mentioned. If you can reproduce the conditions that create petroleum then, well by the very definition of the word reproduce, well you know.

I'll agree with you on ANWR, it's not the solution to the problem. There are many reasons, the biggest problem is refineries.

I don't see how anyone can gain a serious boost politically by opposing the Oil Co's and that industry.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Element4040

I agree with ya, the money is not being granted to the alternatives fast enough.

Im glad someone does

Originally Posted by Element4040

I disagree with petroleum being a finite resource for the reasons I already mentioned. If you can reproduce the conditions that create petroleum then, well by the very definition of the word reproduce, well you know.The methods I mentioned above are both petroleum as we know it today, and yes it would be more eco-friendly to make oil from trash.

not really the same thing as petroleum. synthetic petroleum is an alternative and is that really cost effective or is it even feasible to make enough??? somehow i doubt it.

Originally Posted by Element440

I'll agree with you on ANWR, it's not the solution to the problem.

Im glad someone does....

Originally Posted by Element440

There are many reasons, the biggest problem is refineries.

how so?








oh, and notice that no one is questioning the benefits to the environment or the economy thus far. just the age old debate on whether or not we are going to run out of oil.

well, if it is better for the environment and helps the economy (not to mention scientific understanding and the benifits that can come from that, branching into all sorts of fields) then who cares if oil is finite or not. we need to start converting to alternative sources NOW.

[HarleyDelight]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

we need to start converting to alternative sources NOW.

I could not have said it better myself! This is the bottom line.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by HarleyDelight

I could not have said it better myself! This is the bottom line.

thanks

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

how so?

My comment about the refineries is this:

We don't have enough refineries to convert the oil into gas at this current time. So by drilling in Alaska we increase the amount of oil but still cannot process it effectively. So alot of that oil will end up being sold off to other countries. The benefit of drilling in ANWR is then negated.

That's it in a nutshell.

I'm not against drilling there for Environmental issues, as I've stated in the other thread. I'm against drilling there because it's just not going to benefite the consumer as much as it will benefit the Oil co's.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by Element4040

My comment about the refineries is this:

We don't have enough refineries to convert the oil into gas at this current time. So by drilling in Alaska we increase the amount of oil but still cannot process it effectively. So alot of that oil will end up being sold off to other countries. The benefit of drilling in ANWR is then negated.

That's it in a nutshell.

I'm not against drilling there for Environmental issues, as I've stated in the other thread. I'm against drilling there because it's just not going to benefite the consumer as much as it will benefit the Oil co's.

This is true. The reason for this is that the US has some more stringent environmental regulations, so it is a bit more difficult to build a refinery here. It could be done in other countries, but it is pretty difficult to transport refined gasoline, though the Phillipenes does this to an extent.

The last of the projected oil fields are in Iran and Siberia.

Siberia is a bitch because you have to drill through so much ice that it becomes a really expensive proposition. That, and Russia isn't exactly our biggest fan at the moment and is building very strong ties with Germany and to a lesser extent France, who are both making large amount of capital investment in the country and have been for 10 years, while we are WAYYYY down on the list.

The Iranian fields are now essential owned by the Chinese, who are so involved in the country that they even built a subway system in Tehran, the capital city. The Chinese just completed a deal where they get half the production from the current field and the exclusive rights to the exploration of Iran's other field. Because of our embargo, business with the Iranians has been closed to our oil companies.

Now, what happens if the Saudi Arabian government gets overthrown by an Anti-American regime? Are we going to invade there too? We will have to, but we are already having problems with what is on our plate now.

We are going to have to drill in ANWR. It is not an option and there are ways that it can be done with minimal environmental impact. We are going to need the oil. The problem is that even with the discovery of new technologies and factoring in new discoveries, in something like 2050 we are going to start running out of natural oil reserves.

There are alternatives we can use like the conversion of Canola oil into gasoline, there are certain convertable algaes, there is hydrogen, and then renewables like solar, hydroelectric and wind or even nuclear (though this can be dangerous for obvious reasons.)

The point still remains that we are going to run out of oil and we are not research nor converting to alternative sources of energy fast enough to prevent some major problems. We need to start now.

oh, and doing so would still create alot of jobs.