Sindawe
Member
I saw some AKs in the hands of Osama and some redheaded Arab, stock footage though.Were there any guns in Oil Storm? If not, it wasn't very realistic.
I saw some AKs in the hands of Osama and some redheaded Arab, stock footage though.Were there any guns in Oil Storm? If not, it wasn't very realistic.
At today's oil prices, shale oil and gasoline from coal are competitive, but there is the necessary time lag to get such plants built and on line.
Were there any guns in Oil Storm?
With out a doubt, with out a doubt.If you had the money to build one or the other, you'd have to accept that you would not live to see ground broken, and that the cost of lawsuits and delaying tactics by "environmentalists" would exceed the actual construction cost by an order of magnitude.
Now I'll get rhetorical: If you're gonna build another of a same-old, same-old whatzit, just like the previous half-dozen, on the same sort of terrain, with the same general species of wildlife, what are you gonna learn from umpteen gazillion dollars worth of Environmental Impact Statement?
which looks more cost effective from today's tech? Biofuels or rolling out a whole new tech?
Actually, we do. We could convert our entire over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel in 10 years.
One of the problems is that our government (the people who brought you Social Security) subsidize crops like rice to the tune of billions each year -- so we grow vast surpluses of crops we don't need, instead of growing crops we do need -- like high-oil strains of peanuts, soy beans, corn, and so on.
Another is the FDA (a part of that same government) considers all vegetable oil to be for human consumption, and sets expensive standards that have no relevancy when the oil is being produced for fuel.
With out a doubt, with out a doubt.
The inflexibility of the "environmental" nut-cases never ceases to amaze me. Our civilization NEEDs abundant electrical power, just no way around it. So how do we generate that power?
Coal fired plants.
EnviroNazi: OH NO!!! That makes too much smoke and acid rain!
OK, put scrubbers on the plants.
EN: OH NO!!! That makes too much waste ash that caustic as all heck. Besides, mining coal ruins the envirnment.
OK, How about Natural Gas?
EN: OH NO!!! The pipelines disrupt the migrator patterns of <insert fluffy animal here>, and importing LGN is just a bomb waiting to happen, and the harbors ruin wetlands.
OK, lets do Nuclear fission plants.
EN: OH NO!!! Thats *RADIOACTIVE*, and the waste lives forever. Besides, you just want to build bombs
Solar?
EN: Blight on the landscape
Wind?
EN:Kills birds.
Hydroelectric?
EN: Kills fish.
I have a question for you then. How come every nuclear power plant in this country is different, or some variation of, all the others? Why don't they build them all exactly the same? It seems to me that a 'cookie cutter' method of designing and building would cut down on costs and construction time and environmental challenges significantly.I come from a household of people who working in the nuclear industry.
That's what I love about THR, thanks for the info on the Hydrogen fuel cells, very informative, but since we are sort of on the topic which looks more cost effective from today's tech? Biofuels or rolling out a whole new tech? Biofuels can be run in existing diesels and in most IC engines with out much investment (from my understanding and I am no expert as already proven). Where as new chemical fuels cells be it hydrogen or what ever else would require new fueling systems etc? Then there is the whole political side. Big Oil could produce biofuels and use existing infrastructure, I could see them lobbying for it.
I have a question for you then. How come every nuclear power plant in this country is different, or some variation of, all the others? Why don't they build them all exactly the same? It seems to me that a 'cookie cutter' method of designing and building would cut down on costs and construction time and environmental challenges significantly.
Oldsmobile tried to do a low-cost conversion of the 350 CID gas motor to diesel. Oops! See the crankshaft fall right through the main-bearing caps!
IOW, to go to biodiesel for everyday passenger car use, you'd have to toss out the gasoline motors.
It's simple economics to run a multi-based fuels system. You start making gasoline from coal to reduce the demand for oil and thus maintain a fairly constant price per barrel. You start making biodiesel for existing diesel usage, which also reduces the demand for oil.
Roughly half (or a bit less) of all oil is used for transportation fuels. The rest goes into everything from road asphalt to home heating oil to consumer plastics.
Natural gas is the sole raw material from ethlene. Ethlene is the raw material for over 300 consumer products.
Oil and natural gas are too important to "waste" on generating electricity. IMO.
not necessarily true. we don't have anything to replace it with that will make the oil companies money.
Uh -- revenues are the reason that business exist. We as consumers buy the company's goods at a rate the market dictates. If we disagree with the pricing, then we don't buy the goods. Adam Smith had a thing or two to say about this way of life, but then again, so did Marx. Is someone proposing that the gubmint step in and fund it all? Or that we collectively set fixed revenues for private enterprises? One sounds like communism, the other sounds like Fascism. Sometimes capitalism yields unpleasant results, and it's then that you find out just how much people really love it (or not). Good outweighs bad, and that's the reason America's great.