28th August 2006
Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium : Nation : The Rocky Mountain News The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent. "If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued. But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment. ____________________________________________ :(
8th April 2005
Bad decision for the American consumers and energy independency. However increasing oil importation from Arab countries isn't the way to go, there needs to be more investments on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power.
I chose an eternity of this
6th January 2005
Relander;4352803However increasing oil importation from Arab countries isn't the way to go, there needs to be more investments on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power.
That. If the oil companies actually started investing in energy sources that have a future, there wouldn't be all these problems in the first place. But they prefer to reap the enormous profits from the rising oil prices and will likely continue to do so until the oil runs out.
Serious business brigade
4th September 2004
My forgiving side is inclined to allow some limited drilling in the Rocky mountains.. or would be if it were up to me. However if this supply is indeed larger than that of Saudi Arabia this would probably end the increasingly environmental friendly designs of automobiles and regulations put on factories in the united states. With the US already one of the most wasteful and polluting countries in the world it doesn’t take a tree hugger to see that this would be a negative trend. It’s probably going to happen anyway. Greed and apathy are powerful forces.
Heaven's gonna burn your eyes
16th April 2005
Relander;4352803Bad decision for the American consumers and energy independency. However increasing oil importation from Arab countries isn't the way to go, there needs to be more investments on solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power.[/quote] Not to mention infrastructure like rail.
[QUOTE=Quetron]the committee spilt strictly on party lines
Sucks to only have two parties, eh?
Most loved forum member.
9th February 2004
We get to reap the benefits of politicians for three decades completely ignoring nuclear power. Oil shale is NOT a viable alternative to supplanting our needs for normal crude oil.
Nuclear Power is not the way to go. Obviously you know that Nuclear power plants create nuclear waste, waste that won't decay for a couple million (or billion) years now. Now then theres the problem with storing all that waste so it doesn't leak. Now I hear theres some research going on about using the energy created from a Hydrogen Bomb, being able to keep it stable, and using that as a power source
I'm too cool to Post
17th July 2003
Modern reactors are alot more efficient and some of the new designs produce little waste. IIRC Toshiba has a design that uses a self contained reactor fueled by uranium pellets that is sealed and lowered into a vault hundreds of feet underground and can power entire small towns. A town in Alaska was looking into getting one.
There has been successful attempts to destroy the radioactive waste with a special furnace that reburns the exhaust gases and is hot enough to break down molecular bonds rendering the material inert. I am still looking for the link as I did a report about this several years ago in my writing class.
The problem was there are only two such furnaces in the US and not sure if any other exist elsewhere in the world. Basically at this time no infrastructure to destroy nuclear wastes.
Other option is to load it into containers and using a magrail system shoot it into space and either store it on the moon (A'la SPACE:1999) or create a space dumpyard in a stationary point away from earth.
On one of my car sites a few of the guys that are farmers have gone back to using Mules. Tractors are more efficient but due to the high fuel costs it is now cheaper to use mules. And the Mules are self refuelling, assuming they have a field of grass.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
Nuclear power in its present form cannot be a replacement even for our projected electricity needs for any significant length of time, I believe the most commonly quoted figure is around 20-30 years, there's just not the fuel to do it. If you were to somehow get the energy density of cars powercells to a point where you could practically use the stuff then it would last an even shorter length of time.
I agree with the sentiment that its not the limited supply thats the problem, its people refusing to try and reduce the demand. I am sure if they banned engines over a 4 cylinders for private vehicles (so my friendly neighbourhood hick can't drive a Ford V8 Superduty for no reason other than to compensate for a lack in other areas) they would see a vast reduction in demand in the US. In Britain, my grandfather drives a Volkswagen Polo, and gets some 55 MPG on the Motorway. Here, I see adverts claiming that 20MPG is "amazing fuel efficiency", specifically in the afformentioned V8 trucks. I bet if people here drove cars like my Grandfather, $3.50 a Gallon would be a dream. In Britain it fluctuates between $8 and $11 depending on the exchange rates, yet somehow we keep going. Why? Because we don't drive V8 trucks, as a rule, and what with these new road taxes for higher poluting cars, people have no desire to buy big inefficient 4x4s any more. Even the luxury saloons are getting greener, coming from BMW, Mercedes etc. Over here in the US, all these Lincolns, Cadillacs and Chryslers are far less efficient. Also I dare say an MOT test over here would reduce the amount of polluting vehicles, as vehicles would be subject to an emissions test.