Fossil Fuel dependencyFollow

Is anyone here claiming that fossil fuel reserves are infinite?

I am!

We just need to, like, kill more stuff and make more fossils. Duh.

Can we please start with Nekio?

1. So by that theory, we apparently have a limitless supply of fossil fuels, we just have to find them? I can understand the second part of your arguement, but I don't buy that we'll always be able to find new reserves just because we haven't looked hard enough yet.

2. BullShit. OK, maybe they'll be a few thousand gallons of oil left somewhere because we've gotten to that magic point where it's become too expensive to use/retrieve it and we've already gone to another source of energy. But this planet is limited in everything. Granted, it's a big planet and it sometimes seems like there is an endless supply of air/water/whatever but regardless of how much you argue it resources on this planet, or even in this solar system (assuming you can find gasoline on Mars) is still not infinite.



Apparently Nekio is.

***** that. Way too much work for the level of commitment I'm looking for.

Stupid double post.

Edited, Sep 25th 2006 at 7:01pm EDT by fenderputy

By the way, I'm taking this as a compliment.

God I love this!




You're kidding right? Do you know what "techniques" they used to accomplish this? They only slashed and burned a quarter of the worlds largest "irreplacable" rain forest in their quest for fossil fuel independance. Let's see... Digging oil out of the the ground under a freaking desert, or burning down huge chunks of rainforest. Let me think about this...

Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that for decades Brazil was the boogie man of environmentalists worldwide, but suddenly because they aren't dependant on foreign oil, they're a wonder of the world? Sigh...

Also. Let's be real here. For a nation with the economic "size" of Brazil, it's got a remarkably high poverty rate. The percentage of citizens that own vehicles of any kind is low. The rate of electricity consumption is relatively low as well. For a nation like the US to do the same, we'd have to use a much larger percentage of landmass in order to provide the same amount of power. I'm not sure we have enough, and if we did, I'm pretty sure the same environmentalists would never let us clear the volume of forests and parks needed to do it (but I'm willing to let you try to prove me wrong).

It's just not a problem of prices for consumers, or even "consumer choice".

The Oil industry is huge and extremely profitable, and it is a very powerful lobby. If we let the market do the works on its own, it's going to take a long time before we switch to renewable/alternative energies.

I think it has to be a combination of markets and goverenmnt intervention. Tax breaks on research into alternative soucrse of energies, on usng eco-friednly cars, on finding efficient and cheap alternatives, and even imposing taxes on vehicles that pollute more than others, such as SUV and 4x4.

This isn't just a problem of choice for the sake of it. If we wait until we run outof oil, we're ust making a dangerous problem even more dangerous. The quicker we find reliable, economically viable, and eco-friendly alternatives, the better. We have to give "the market" every possible incentive to move that way as fast as possible. This would not only be great for the environemnt, but also for interntional politics.

/shudder

Aside from grants for research and such, we really don't need the gubberment meddling in these affairs. The marketplace is already gearing up for alternative fuel sources, even though it may not be going at the pace you want.

Some of those huge, rich, meanie-head oil companies already invest millions and millions of dollars in alternative energy research. BP, for example, is spending half a billion dollars on a dedicated biosciences energy lab.



The big, successful oil companies are big and successful not just because they're greedy oil-scarfing sons-o-******** but because they're very well run companies. Most understand that oil ain't gonna last forever, and they understand the volitility inherent in some of the oil-rich nations of the world. It's in their best interests as companies to develop and ultimately market new sources of energy manufactured in-house.

Edited, Sep 26th 2006 at 10:14am EDT by Jawbox

Not up to date with the global oil market or anything, but as Jane Consumer, I can tell you I'm not using ethanol until it's more widely available, and in something other than a GM truck. I looked at a hybrid, but they're damn expensive and the long-term maintenance is a giant question mark. Convenience and price seem to be what keep me buying fossil fuels, and I imagine it's the same for a lot of folks. Vicious circle? Maybe, but I have a hell of a commute, and I can't afford to run out of ethanol someplace it doesn't exist.

well it is not just the "texas tea" as more then 50% of the power in the US comes from coal. that is a fossil fuel, but is not OIL and comes from within the US and not from Opec and their illegal cartel, but that is an other thread.

as for it being 100% corp. keeping us from moving away from fossile fuels, i am sure there is something to that. its no differnt then a lot of things. One thing that has been proven to help would be to follow Brazil in its fuel legislation.

in brazil ALL stations that cary any kind of fuel MUST carry ALL types of fuel options. this includes the "flex fuels" like bio fuels, hydrogen, etc... If it was as easy to get flex fuels as it is to get oil based fuels in the US then the oil companies would lose their grip on the car makers. GM already has the largest line of flex fuel vehicals as they contracted with Brazil to make flex fuel cars, trucks, vans, etc... and they sell better then pure gas/petrol fuel vehicals in Brazil. why? simple by LAW every gas station has to carry all of the differnt types of fuels so the CONSUMER gets to choise what is best for them, not the corps and big oil.

are we using enough Natural power (wind, sun, hydro) that is again debatable. Wind has proven to be very UNRELIABLE and often times will spend more money keeping the turbines spining, once they stop, then the turbines produce. sun is just very expensive and can take between 10 - 15 years to recoup the cost of going 100% solar, but that can be offset if you use combinations, and that is were MOST natural power fails. they do not combine things. they are so set that ONLY the sun, or ONLY the wind, etc... can do these things. well they can not. it takes combinations.

IMHO if we spent as much money on developing better ways of harnasin all of the differnt powers available to us that are FREE as in free beer, then we could drastically cut our dependancy on fossil fules, but the biggy is going to have to come in the means of transporation flex fuels.

that is were the average consumer sees the hit the hardest. that is why GAS prices are so important to the US consumer. it is a cost we deal with every week in our face and it affects our spending habbits. change it so all gas stations cary flex fules and watch things change drasicaly.