I am still waiting for the list of all those other nations that have given up fossil fuels. Probably not too many without 250 degrees Celsius natural steam fields.lonewolf wrote:Yes, and by the 2000 census, their country's entire population had risen to the lofty position above that of Anchorage, Alaska:YankeeRose wrote:From memory, Iceland is but one of the countries that's pretty much independent of fossil fuels.
Iceland ......... pop. 279,049
Anchorage .... pop. 278,700
This is also roughly the combined population of Blair and Cambria counties.
drill here, drill now
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
Yeah, Iceland has a relatively small population, but what they have done with their Natural resources can be, and is being done in other countries too, the world over. Some are even trying to assist poor countries in becoming independent of foreign oil. The country I am presently thinking of is famous for Tulips and Windmills.
The recycling programs in other countries alone put us to shame. In the early '90s, when my ex was stationed overseas before and after he went to the Middle East, he said when you go in stores, there are places to put recyclables...how SMART and easy is that, and here we are over a decade and a 1/2 later, many still throwing every thing away. Contrary to what dear Mr. Carlin said, Earth does NOT 'need' or 'want' more plastic.
Plastic recycling would save millions of barrels of oil, but Heaven forbid any time should be taken away from reality tv in order to put recyclables out in a frickin' bin. 
Anyone who is attempting to mislead others into thinking we have no geothermal properties in the continental USA, is expecting them to never have heard of Hot Springs, Arkansas, or seen the geysers and bubbling mud in Yellowstone. (There is an enormous caldera out there, too.) Mt. Saint Helens, WA also rings a bell. However, if one has ever been on a tour of a cave/cavern, with the constant temperature year round, that's a very simple example of using the Earth (running a duct/pipe x number of feet down) to assist with heating and cooling of water or air. No volcanic activity is even necessary for using 'geothermal' properties, especially in new construction.
If one considers the havoc from the rivers with their flooding year after year...imagine if that raw hydro power was reined in and utilized, as was done with Hoover Dam.
I will say it again, a faster solution, windmills have been around for centuries, with no detrimental toxicity to humans that I know of. There is, in actuality, the capacity for the wind power of the midwest plains to provide electricity for most of the continental USA, it only has to be DONE.
Let's not forget Solar Power, which works even when it's cloudy. (I could be wrong, but if you have a Solar Powered calculator, I believe it's the same idea...all that's needed is Light.)
If the Electric Car hadn't been stopped years ago, by now, there would be millions of them on the road, and not only that, as years had gone by, batteries became more efficient, smaller and lighter (possibly Solar Cells would have been part of powering them, too), plus the price of new and used ones would have come down...what a shame it was stopped.
Exxon/Mobil? (As a very wise person once said, don't LISTEN to what they SAY...WATCH what they have DONE.) Their 'Green' commercials make me want to puke. A while ago, I decided to never buy their fuel again. While I realize it doesn't matter to them, I feel damn good about it any way.
(Pssst, Joe, in case you can't tell, I am SO trying to ignore and NOT reply directly to you. I already replied regarding a list, and my internet capabilites haven't changed one iota. You're attempting to mislead...I never said these countries have 'totally given up fossil fuels', I said they've greatly reduced their need for them.)
I need to take a break from topics like this again on RP. My right hand/writst from the thumb back, left shoulder and neck are letting me know they aren't too happy with all the typing lately.
The recycling programs in other countries alone put us to shame. In the early '90s, when my ex was stationed overseas before and after he went to the Middle East, he said when you go in stores, there are places to put recyclables...how SMART and easy is that, and here we are over a decade and a 1/2 later, many still throwing every thing away. Contrary to what dear Mr. Carlin said, Earth does NOT 'need' or 'want' more plastic.
Plastic recycling would save millions of barrels of oil, but Heaven forbid any time should be taken away from reality tv in order to put recyclables out in a frickin' bin. Anyone who is attempting to mislead others into thinking we have no geothermal properties in the continental USA, is expecting them to never have heard of Hot Springs, Arkansas, or seen the geysers and bubbling mud in Yellowstone. (There is an enormous caldera out there, too.) Mt. Saint Helens, WA also rings a bell. However, if one has ever been on a tour of a cave/cavern, with the constant temperature year round, that's a very simple example of using the Earth (running a duct/pipe x number of feet down) to assist with heating and cooling of water or air. No volcanic activity is even necessary for using 'geothermal' properties, especially in new construction.
If one considers the havoc from the rivers with their flooding year after year...imagine if that raw hydro power was reined in and utilized, as was done with Hoover Dam.
I will say it again, a faster solution, windmills have been around for centuries, with no detrimental toxicity to humans that I know of. There is, in actuality, the capacity for the wind power of the midwest plains to provide electricity for most of the continental USA, it only has to be DONE.
Let's not forget Solar Power, which works even when it's cloudy. (I could be wrong, but if you have a Solar Powered calculator, I believe it's the same idea...all that's needed is Light.)
If the Electric Car hadn't been stopped years ago, by now, there would be millions of them on the road, and not only that, as years had gone by, batteries became more efficient, smaller and lighter (possibly Solar Cells would have been part of powering them, too), plus the price of new and used ones would have come down...what a shame it was stopped.
Exxon/Mobil? (As a very wise person once said, don't LISTEN to what they SAY...WATCH what they have DONE.) Their 'Green' commercials make me want to puke. A while ago, I decided to never buy their fuel again. While I realize it doesn't matter to them, I feel damn good about it any way.
(Pssst, Joe, in case you can't tell, I am SO trying to ignore and NOT reply directly to you. I already replied regarding a list, and my internet capabilites haven't changed one iota.
You're attempting to mislead...I never said these countries have 'totally given up fossil fuels', I said they've greatly reduced their need for them.)I need to take a break from topics like this again on RP. My right hand/writst from the thumb back, left shoulder and neck are letting me know they aren't too happy with all the typing lately.
"there are actually countries (other than France Rolling Eyes ) who use no nukes and very little fossil fuels as energy sources.".....YR
Were is this list? You round about-tly mentioned the Netherlands. Half of that country is below sea level and they do make use of the ocean's tidal energy. All we would have to do is flood our coasts and we could try that too. note--Boston Harbor actually was set up to run various mills during the Revolutionary period using tidal energy.
It should be very easy to get the heat from Arkansas up to Blair County.
I am all for alternative forms of power, but there are not many places that do not use nuclear or very little fossil fuels. I wish it was affordable to put solar panels on my roof, and a wee little wind mill in my back yard to help cut down on my electric and heating oil usage. I wish it was economically feasible to drill a heat pump under my house. All these things would be nice, just not available for non millionaires yet.
Were is this list? You round about-tly mentioned the Netherlands. Half of that country is below sea level and they do make use of the ocean's tidal energy. All we would have to do is flood our coasts and we could try that too. note--Boston Harbor actually was set up to run various mills during the Revolutionary period using tidal energy.
It should be very easy to get the heat from Arkansas up to Blair County.
I am all for alternative forms of power, but there are not many places that do not use nuclear or very little fossil fuels. I wish it was affordable to put solar panels on my roof, and a wee little wind mill in my back yard to help cut down on my electric and heating oil usage. I wish it was economically feasible to drill a heat pump under my house. All these things would be nice, just not available for non millionaires yet.
I reitterate that Chernobyl is in France. I can't prove it, my internet isn't fast enough. If nobody else can, the whole internet must not be fast enough.YankeeRose wrote:(Pssst, Joe, in case you can't tell, I am SO trying to ignore and NOT reply directly to you. I already replied regarding a list, and my internet capabilites haven't changed one iota.
It must be awesome to argue without an iota of facts.....
Stand back, I like to rock out.
-
YankeeRose
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 2523
- Joined: Saturday Oct 09, 2004
- Location: Altunea, PA
- Contact:
MeYatch wrote:I reitterate that Chernobyl is in France. I can't prove it, my internet isn't fast enough. If nobody else can, the whole internet must not be fast enough.
It must be awesome to argue without an iota of facts.....
Whether you were trying to make a point, joke, or are just...I'll be nice and say 'uninformed', as the saying goes: BACK ATCHA!
I can assure you, THE Chernobyl I'm mentioning isn't in France. Unless, possibly, France annexed the Ukraine without the rest of the world hearing about it... If even I can do a search with my dinky MSN/Web TV and read information readily available, posting a list/link isn't really necessary.
Just because I don't post a link or provide an 'ordered/demanded' list, doesn't make info/facts any less true. I don't like to argue, and I dislike pain even more, so I'm going to stop watching this thread.
Bye!
I was making a joke, at your expense.
Though I do admit I was misinformed. I could swear I heard chernobyl was going to be reopened. And I hadn't the faintest idea where it was, and it sounds kind of french.
Basically you aren't going to convince a single soul of any of your views without something to back it up.
As has already been pointed out, comparing the united states to iceland is assinine. For that matter so is comparing the U.S. to pretty much any other county, as no country is going to have the same geology/economy/population/energy needs.
As I mentioned earlier nuclear power is the only way to generate electricity. Any other method is just converting energy, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I have nothing against hrydo, wind, or solar power. But as other people have pointed out, with real information, we would be lucky to break even on costs.
Also comparing a solared powered calculator to a home or a city is just rediculous. Same principle, completely different in practicality.
By the way, you are aware that the entire universe is powered by nuclear energy right?
Though I do admit I was misinformed. I could swear I heard chernobyl was going to be reopened. And I hadn't the faintest idea where it was, and it sounds kind of french.
Basically you aren't going to convince a single soul of any of your views without something to back it up.
As has already been pointed out, comparing the united states to iceland is assinine. For that matter so is comparing the U.S. to pretty much any other county, as no country is going to have the same geology/economy/population/energy needs.
As I mentioned earlier nuclear power is the only way to generate electricity. Any other method is just converting energy, with varying degrees of efficiency.
I have nothing against hrydo, wind, or solar power. But as other people have pointed out, with real information, we would be lucky to break even on costs.
Also comparing a solared powered calculator to a home or a city is just rediculous. Same principle, completely different in practicality.
By the way, you are aware that the entire universe is powered by nuclear energy right?
Stand back, I like to rock out.
Interestingly, or "scarily", Bush has cut funding on the protection of nuclear facilities.undercoverjoe wrote:I am not afraid the nuclear sky is falling, so I am comfortable living in Pennsylvania, full of nuclear power, and surrounded by nuclear plants in states all around us.
I think he has an agreement with Bin Laden not to attack them.
Why would you follow a fact with an inflamatory statement? It makes you seem unbalanced to put it lightly.Hawk wrote:Interestingly, or "scarily", Bush has cut funding on the protection of nuclear facilities.
I think he has an agreement with Bin Laden not to attack them.
reminds me of this:
Jeffrey Goines: You know what crazy is? Crazy is majority rules. Take germs, for example.
James Cole: Germs?
Jeffrey Goines: Uh-huh. In the eighteenth century, no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person, anyway. Ah! Ah! Along comes this doctor, uh, uh, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He's trying to convince people, well, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. Ah? He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do you call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, cut to the 20th century. Last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger in this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. Jim, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is just a plot they made up so they can sell you disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right? See? Ah! Ah! There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion.
Stand back, I like to rock out.
MeYatch wrote:I reitterate that Chernobyl is in France. I can't prove it, my internet isn't fast enough. If nobody else can, the whole internet must not be fast enough.YankeeRose wrote:(Pssst, Joe, in case you can't tell, I am SO trying to ignore and NOT reply directly to you. I already replied regarding a list, and my internet capabilites haven't changed one iota.
It must be awesome to argue without an iota of facts.....
I don't really want to get involved here, but this post really made my day... and I was already having a pretty good day. Awesome.
--->JMSMy tongue was firmly planted in my cheek. I figured you'd be balanced enough to recognise tongue-in-cheek humor.MeYatch wrote:Why would you follow a fact with an inflammatory statement? It makes you seem unbalanced to put it lightly.Hawk wrote:Interestingly, or "scarily", Bush has cut funding on the protection of nuclear facilities.
I think he has an agreement with Bin Laden not to attack them.
IMO Environment is most important to YankeeRose. I respect that a GREAT DEAL. Factories will pollute at will and will not clean after themselves unless they are forced too. Lake Erie comes to mind.
The safety of nuclear facilities is questionable.
I believe if we spent 1/2 of what we spent on the war for alternative fuel we could solve it quickly. Who (with enough money) is doing research ? Where is the incentive to discover alternative fuels. Big Oil is a HUGE contributor to many colleges and universities. Do you think they are paying (donating, yeah that's the ticket) universities to put themselves (Big Oil) out of business ?
I also believe if we had spent the other half of what we spent on the war to find Bin Laden, we would have him by now.
And then maybe - just maybe - the price of oil would still be around pre war prices (about $28.00).
And the 4000 American thousand soldiers would still be alive. Thousands more would still be in one piece. And post war stress syndrome would be unheard of.
And the value of our dollar (those Damn liberal spending Republicans - driving the deficit to a point where we are the greatest debtor nation) would be worth more then it currently is. The devaluation of the Dollar is another reason OPEC raises prices (fact).
Any fool who wants this to continue should vote for McCain. Any intelligent person who wants to reign in the deficit and reign in Big Oil, vote Obama.
The safety of nuclear facilities is questionable.
I believe if we spent 1/2 of what we spent on the war for alternative fuel we could solve it quickly. Who (with enough money) is doing research ? Where is the incentive to discover alternative fuels. Big Oil is a HUGE contributor to many colleges and universities. Do you think they are paying (donating, yeah that's the ticket) universities to put themselves (Big Oil) out of business ?
I also believe if we had spent the other half of what we spent on the war to find Bin Laden, we would have him by now.
And then maybe - just maybe - the price of oil would still be around pre war prices (about $28.00).
And the 4000 American thousand soldiers would still be alive. Thousands more would still be in one piece. And post war stress syndrome would be unheard of.
And the value of our dollar (those Damn liberal spending Republicans - driving the deficit to a point where we are the greatest debtor nation) would be worth more then it currently is. The devaluation of the Dollar is another reason OPEC raises prices (fact).
Any fool who wants this to continue should vote for McCain. Any intelligent person who wants to reign in the deficit and reign in Big Oil, vote Obama.
Hawk, you were almost right. A dem or a rep will both lead to failure of this country. We all need to vote a 3rd choice and break the strangle hold of these 2 political parties.
The real smart vote is for a 3rd party candidate, take your choice, the Libertarian Party or the Constitutional Party, or what I will probably do, write in vote for Ron Paul.
Show the Democrats and the Republicans you can make your own choice, without them dictating their choices down our throats.
The real smart vote is for a 3rd party candidate, take your choice, the Libertarian Party or the Constitutional Party, or what I will probably do, write in vote for Ron Paul.
Show the Democrats and the Republicans you can make your own choice, without them dictating their choices down our throats.
-
RobTheDrummer
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Tuesday Dec 10, 2002
- Location: Tiptonia, Pa
Republicans say we should drill in ANWAR, yet very few companies are willing to drill,
Uh:
1) Canada is drilling on the Canadian side of ANWAR, draining our well dry as we speak.
2) Would you drill if Congress threatened to take away your reward, PROFITS, for doing so?
3) Remove the threat of wind fall taxes and nationalization and you will see them rush for that area.
4) Drilling and increasing supply is 100% certain to have a lowering effect on prices, unless every economics book ever written is wrong.
5) Increasing supply has worked 100% of the times that it has been tried.
Democrats want to put effort into other fuel sources though this is the right direction I have yet to see or hear anything effective coming from this because of the government's unwillingness to finance it to where it'd be effective.
1) This is 100% speculation
2) No liberal organization or country has yet developed a commercially viable alternative energy source or replacement for the internal combustion engine. Liberal want us to loose the horses before we invent the automobile.
3) Alternative energy sources have never proven to be more efficient or environmentally friendly than oil
4) Oil is incredibly environmentally friendly, poke a hole in the ground and get limitless energy. CO2 is airborne fertilizer. What can be more eco-friendly than that?
Uh:
1) Canada is drilling on the Canadian side of ANWAR, draining our well dry as we speak.
2) Would you drill if Congress threatened to take away your reward, PROFITS, for doing so?
3) Remove the threat of wind fall taxes and nationalization and you will see them rush for that area.
4) Drilling and increasing supply is 100% certain to have a lowering effect on prices, unless every economics book ever written is wrong.
5) Increasing supply has worked 100% of the times that it has been tried.
Democrats want to put effort into other fuel sources though this is the right direction I have yet to see or hear anything effective coming from this because of the government's unwillingness to finance it to where it'd be effective.
1) This is 100% speculation
2) No liberal organization or country has yet developed a commercially viable alternative energy source or replacement for the internal combustion engine. Liberal want us to loose the horses before we invent the automobile.
3) Alternative energy sources have never proven to be more efficient or environmentally friendly than oil
4) Oil is incredibly environmentally friendly, poke a hole in the ground and get limitless energy. CO2 is airborne fertilizer. What can be more eco-friendly than that?
Nice try, bud. That's spin, pure and simple. Human beings do give off CO2... so if it's harmless, tell Rush to put a plastic bag over his head and enjoy the benefits of his own plentiful hot air.RobTheDrummer wrote:CO2 is airborne fertilizer. What can be more eco-friendly than that?
That said, I still don't see CO2 as the worldwide catastrophe the far left say it is. I think, as usual, the answer's in the middle... but today's politics exclude the middle. You're either a Nazi-Con or a Commu-Lib.
I still don't see how rewarding Big Oil will help. If they had profits in line with every other industry, I'd be getting less of an anal-raping at the pumps. I cannot and will not ignore 120 billion in profits, plus 20 billion in tax cuts. Also, increasing supply will NOT help. The oil didn't just disappear. It's a question of control, not supply. There's still plenty, and it still costs roughly the same to dig it up. The suppliers are holding onto it and charging more. That's it, that's all. The problem isn't greater demand at all... that's down a bit. The dynamics of supply and demand don't apply to petroleum, it's all controlled very closely by rich guys who only want to be richer. Giving them that... how does that help anyone but them?------->JMS
Nazi-Con is a meaningless term The Nazi party was the National Socialist party. Nazis were socialists.
You could use Fascist-Con, that would be more appropriate is you were going for Fascist Neo Con.
I also think that the liberal movement is much more socialist than communist, but I may change my mind if B. Hussein is elected.
You could use Fascist-Con, that would be more appropriate is you were going for Fascist Neo Con.
I also think that the liberal movement is much more socialist than communist, but I may change my mind if B. Hussein is elected.
Yeah, I was approaching the Nazi reference from the fascist angle. I think fascism was far more important to Hitler than socialism, in the way that the far right espouses "liberty" while tapping people's phones, or "Constitutionalism" while nation-building in Iraq and establishing Evangelical Christianity as the state religion. To-may-to, to-mah-to.--->JMSundercoverjoe wrote:Nazi-Con is a meaningless term The Nazi party was the National Socialist party. Nazis were socialists.
You could use Fascist-Con, that would be more appropriate is you were going for Fascist Neo Con.
I also think that the liberal movement is much more socialist than communist, but I may change my mind if B. Hussein is elected.
The reason Anwar has yet to be tapped is it will cost around $85 a barrel to produce,when oil was less than $50 a barrel it made no sense,now that it's reaching $150 a barrel it's making more sense.You have to drill through about a mile of solid rock to tap into it ,where the Saudi's drill about 50feet making producing their oil cost effective and extremely profitable.There was a time when towns right here in Pa. like Titusville had lots of oil right at the surface and very easy to produce,but that reserve has pretty much been sucked dry.In response to nuclear energy,if you think oil is getting scarce around the world check the availability of uranium and the third world countries that possess these mines,what do you think these dictator types would charge once the demand became even greater?I know I've offered no solution to the problem in this paragragh but I hope I"ve provoked a little more debate.There are some really intelligent musicians on here despite what some people might think.Thinkers,keep thinking,Dreamers,keep dreaming,and we'll see who comes up with a solution first.
-
RobTheDrummer
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 5227
- Joined: Tuesday Dec 10, 2002
- Location: Tiptonia, Pa
You were listening to the Alan Colmes show, weren't you. The guest on there was a good spinner, I'll give him that.banditos wrote:The reason Anwar has yet to be tapped is it will cost around $85 a barrel to produce,when oil was less than $50 a barrel it made no sense,now that it's reaching $150 a barrel it's making more sense.You have to drill through about a mile of solid rock to tap into it ,where the Saudi's drill about 50feet making producing their oil cost effective and extremely profitable.There was a time when towns right here in Pa. like Titusville had lots of oil right at the surface and very easy to produce,but that reserve has pretty much been sucked dry.In response to nuclear energy,if you think oil is getting scarce around the world check the availability of uranium and the third world countries that possess these mines,what do you think these dictator types would charge once the demand became even greater?I know I've offered no solution to the problem in this paragragh but I hope I"ve provoked a little more debate.There are some really intelligent musicians on here despite what some people might think.Thinkers,keep thinking,Dreamers,keep dreaming,and we'll see who comes up with a solution first.
-
whitedevilone
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 1072
- Joined: Saturday Mar 24, 2007
- Location: Watching and making lists.
So bring the noise... prove bandito wrong.
Plus, while Colmes was hand-picked so as not to disturb the Irish Bulldog, Sean Spinnity, with things like facts; he actually has a waaaaay better show. Glad you're mixing a little Dem propaganda in with your Repub propaganda. Careful, though, it might lead to a sense of the real picture.--->JMS
Plus, while Colmes was hand-picked so as not to disturb the Irish Bulldog, Sean Spinnity, with things like facts; he actually has a waaaaay better show. Glad you're mixing a little Dem propaganda in with your Repub propaganda. Careful, though, it might lead to a sense of the real picture.--->JMS
-
lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
You'd better stick to piano tuning and drumming Bill. I don't think you quite have the financial stuff down yet.Hawk wrote:I also believe if we had spent the other half of what we spent on the war to find Bin Laden, we would have him by now.
And then maybe - just maybe - the price of oil would still be around pre war prices (about $28.00).
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...