Someone's gotta say it: Nancy Pelosi needs to piss off.

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Harming by speeding up global warming? Is that better //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

we aren't significant enough to speed up or slow down global warming. 99% is solar activity. our contribution is a fraction of 1%.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

There is nothing wrong with offshore drilling, hell China is going to be doing it off the coast of Florida before we wise up and start getting the ball rolling.

Sustaining yourself in the present is only smart when you have goals to reach in the future.

 

[speedfreak28 10+ year member]

we aren't significant enough to speed up or slow down global warming. 99% is solar activity. our contribution is a fraction of 1%.

glad somebody said it... i agree that we need to seek alternate energy sources but big business just uses that as a ploy to keep people hopeful. this country will not see a significant decrease in dependency on foreign oil in our lifetime. The oil companies who donate substantial amounts to put the politicians in office do so for a reason.

 

[speedfreak28 10+ year member]

There is nothing wrong with offshore drilling, hell China is going to be doing it off the coast of Florida before we wise up and start getting the ball rolling.
Sustaining yourself in the present is only smart when you have goals to reach in the future.

great quote but does this lazy country have realistic goals or is it just another issue we'll get to eventually //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

great quote but does this lazy country have realistic goals or is it just another issue we'll get to eventually //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

If there is money in it, we will get there. Just throwing your hands up and saying limiting oil production will force us to find alternative fuels is about the dumbest thing ever. Wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first.

Necessity may be the mother of all invention, but getting paid never hurt it either.

 

[speedfreak28 10+ year member]

If there is money in it, we will get there. Just throwing your hands up and saying limiting oil production will force us to find alternative fuels is about the dumbest thing ever. Wish in one hand and shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
Necessity may be the mother of all invention, but getting paid never hurt it either.

we need to start drilling, we won't feel the effects in our lifetime, its the band-aid that our children will have 100 yrs to fix lol.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

we need to start drilling, we won't feel the effects in our lifetime, its the band-aid that our children will have 100 yrs to fix lol.

Offshore drilling would be felt in our lifetime and could be a vital national security measure. I wonder if alternative fuels will be realized in my lifetime...

I wonder if 10 years from now we will wish we'd drilled when we are up shit creek with no backup plan (alternative fuels that were supposed to magically show up because we need them //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif)

 

[Hintzyboy 5,000+ posts]

I honestly think that by the time offshore drilling actually became helpful, we would already be well on our way to phasing out oil. If we dump the money into technology rather than more oil, there is actually a chance that we could kick the habit by 2020-2025.

How? Methanol. The use of methanol has tons of benefits. It is basically a delivery system for hydrogen that would not force us to revamp our fueling infrastructure and requires only minor changes to the way our cars are built. It is safer than gasoline, nearly as easy to transport and store, has higher thermal efficiency thatn diesel fuel, production is FAR less energy-intensive then ethanol production, very high octane rating/knock resistance yields performance benefits.

Minor drawbacks: slightly corrosive (solved by using different materials in the fueling system), lower energy density than gas (compensated for by greater engine efficiency and larger tanks, plus energy content can be boosted up to 20 percent by using a simple catalyst that mooches heat from the exhaust), and methanol can be slightly toxic (should be able to neutralize toxicity through new production practices)

I know that sounds way too easy, and it is. It's hard to give an overview without oversimplifying. However, this method WILL allow us to make the switch to renewable, non-food-based fuels much faster than switching to hydrogen or electric alternatives. Plus, we would save over a trillion dollars in infrastructure costs.

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

I honestly think that by the time offshore drilling actually became helpful, we would already be well on our way to phasing out oil. If we dump the money into technology rather than more oil, there is actually a chance that we could kick the habit by 2020-2025.
How? Methanol. The use of methanol has tons of benefits. It is basically a delivery system for hydrogen that would not force us to revamp our fueling infrastructure and requires only minor changes to the way our cars are built. It is safer than gasoline, nearly as easy to transport and store, has higher thermal efficiency thatn diesel fuel, production is FAR less energy-intensive then ethanol production, very high octane rating/knock resistance yields performance benefits.

Minor drawbacks: slightly corrosive (solved by using different materials in the fueling system), lower energy density than gas (compensated for by greater engine efficiency and larger tanks, plus energy content can be boosted up to 20 percent by using a simple catalyst that mooches heat from the exhaust), and methanol can be slightly toxic (should be able to neutralize toxicity through new production practices)

I know that sounds way too easy, and it is. It's hard to give an overview without oversimplifying. However, this method WILL allow us to make the switch to renewable, non-food-based fuels much faster than switching to hydrogen or electric alternatives. Plus, we would save over a trillion dollars in infrastructure costs.

No, methanol is not the answer in the least. Among the alcohol based fuels, methanol is the worst as far as pollution goes. Celluosic ethanol is the best, but it isn't efficient enough. If we could get a sustainable infrastructre to produce high sugar yielding crops such as sugar cane or beets without harming the environment, then we would be well on our way. Unfortunately, we don't have enough currently and our processing procedures end up polluting the earth more. That's what we need to be researching instead of putting more money into oil when alternatives could be sooner than we think.

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

And no, alcohol fuels are more dangerous than petroleum products because they burn at a much MUCH higher temperature, and because they have very few byproducts, flames are either light blue to clear which makes them extraordinarily hard to see and extinguish.

 

[Hintzyboy 5,000+ posts]

And no, alcohol fuels are more dangerous than petroleum products because they burn at a much MUCH higher temperature, and because they have very few byproducts, flames are either light blue to clear which makes them extraordinarily hard to see and extinguish.

methanol is harder to ignite than gasoline. So much so that the EPA estimates that fuel related automotive property damage would decrease as much as 90 percent

 

[Hintzyboy 5,000+ posts]

No, methanol is not the answer in the least. Among the alcohol based fuels, methanol is the worst as far as pollution goes. Celluosic ethanol is the best, but it isn't efficient enough. If we could get a sustainable infrastructre to produce high sugar yielding crops such as sugar cane or beets without harming the environment, then we would be well on our way. Unfortunately, we don't have enough currently and our processing procedures end up polluting the earth more. That's what we need to be researching instead of putting more money into oil when alternatives could be sooner than we think.

We definitely need to move toward this type of fuel though. It will be decades before we make any real progress if we have to totally revamp our fueling infrastructure.

 

[SRim23 5,000+ posts]

yeah, open up drilling. That will surely help in the 10 years in takes to get to max production...

no one ever said drilling was a solution to gain total independence. just enough to balance out the market and lower our prices here in the US. at least thats what glenn beck said i believe.

 

[kovemaster559 5,000+ posts]

the world will end before we run out of oil. So drill away and get lower prices. live it up.


2012

AMEN

 

[PV Audio 5,000+ posts]

we aren't significant enough to speed up or slow down global warming. 99% is solar activity. our contribution is a fraction of 1%.

Global warming is a cyclical event. No one anymore denies it's happening or has happened. The debate now is whether or not we're contributing to it. The facts point to yes.
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htm

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf59.html

This site is iffy, but all the links are legit

http://www.waygate.com/ideonexus//default.asp?article=disputations-globalwarming01

Even the government wants to play ignorant

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200601/decoder.asp

It's happening. If you look at any graphs or charts, you'll notice a spike in greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature fluctuations starting around the 1920s during the industrial revolution. From there, the plots always grow exponentially. The rate of polar ice melting is growing exponentially, the incidence of catastrophic weather is growing exponentially, incidence of record temperatures are growing exponentially. Global warming is a topic for another thread, but even if we aren't causing it, we can ignore it no longer.