From today's Tennessean:
Thompson doesn't rule out drilling in Everglades
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP ) -- Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson seemed taken by surprise when asked Tuesday about oil drilling in the Everglades, apparently unaware it's been a major Florida issue.
Before answering, he laughed at the question."Gosh, no one has told me that there's any major reserves in the Everglades, but maybe that's one of the things I need to learn while I'm down here," Thompson said after talking over state issues with Gov. Charlie Crist.
Thompson, who has called for seeking U.S. oil resources wherever they exist, was asked by an Associated Press reporter whether that included drilling in the Everglades.
"I'm not going to start out by taking this, that or the other off the table in terms of our overall energy situation," he said.
In 2002, when Thompson was a Tennessee senator, President Bush announced plans to spend $120 million to buy oil and gas rights on 390,396 acres of federally protected land in the Everglades to safeguard them from drilling.
So... Fred just sealed the deal as to whether or not I will be an Anti-Thompson Pundit. What is the deal with these candidates all being idiots when it comes to alternative fuels?
There are a million different options for converting energy to motion; yet we are hell bent on only using the most polluting and least available resource on the planet. Whats the viability of a hydrogen car?
Now let me ask that question again with a nationwide conversion of gas stations prior to the release of these vehicles(I.e. add one hydrogen pump per station... Nationwide)? To dangerous you say... Well what about a Hydrogen Fuel Cell that can burn oxygen too? (i.e. H2O...)
So... Which party wants my vote? (I know who's getting it; but still come on and fight for it again... at least then we would assume our leadership is changing for the better) I suggest one of you come out with an ENERGY PLAN, and when you do... Make sure it excludes Fossil Fuels; and Includes Alternative Fuel Technology.
7 comments:
Hi John,
I followed you from Seans site, and wanted to comment on your Thompson post.
You wrote-
we are hell bent on only using the most polluting and least available resource on the planet.
"Least" available? Really? I don't think this is true by a long shot. Many people disregard the fact that the reason we use petroleum is because it is the cheapest and most efficient fuel SOURCE available. I always recommend the following essay by the engineer/blogger Stephen Den Beste to explain the specifics about the problems with "alternative" fuels.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/AnewManhattanProject.shtml
Now keep in mind I'm not saying we shouldn't work to end our use of fossil fuels, as I do think this is a essential goal for humanity. However, it helps no one to argue for things that simply aren't feasable at the current time. The above essay will do a better job of explaining what I mean.
Hope you enjoy it!
tman,
If you consider the processing and the methodology used to find and utilize petroleum it is HARD to find/make. Also considering that a majority of the large reserves of this resource are found outside of the United States, what is logical about the continued use of oil? Is the goal for the Middle Class to be broken due to the rising fuel rates?
Now... Methane, Solar, Electric, and Biodiesel are all feasible options. The arguement that one cannot utilize these fuels due to lack of study or research into these fields is a red-herring at best... Why? because the research has been restricted by the Oil and Automotive Industry for the past 40 years.
If we had a competitive (read truly capitalist) market, these options would be as widely available in the US as they are in the EU. Its fairly simple. There are other economically and environmentally friendly options, that can convert us from our need for oil.
Lastly to the least available comment... can you afford an oil rig? If not... It's hard for you to get oil easily... As opposed to a solar paneled electric vehicle.(which have been successfully tested since the mid 80's.)
and they look cool too!
solar car
John,
If you consider the processing and the methodology used to find and utilize petroleum it is HARD to find/make.
But harder than other SOURCES of fuel? Not even close. Fossil fuels are the cheapest VIABLE source of energy today that can provide the amount of fuel needed to power our cities and run our cars. Nothing else is even a drop in the bucket. This is why I posted that link. I will post another link from the same essay that deals with the problems of scale when you are discussing energy sources.
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/Energyscalingproblems.shtml
The only feasable non-fossil fuel that could put a dent in our use of fossil fuels is Nuclear power. Nothing else is even in the ball park.
Is the goal for the Middle Class to be broken due to the rising fuel rates?
Rates are historically at their average price. But if you truly want to squeeze the middle class, you will let the government force "price controls" or "windfall profit taxes" on the energy industry. They did this in the 70's and it was a disaster. The lesson as always, the government does not make things cheaper.
The arguement that one cannot utilize these fuels due to lack of study or research into these fields is a red-herring at best... Why? because the research has been restricted by the Oil and Automotive Industry for the past 40 years.
Do you know who helped develop the photovoltaic cell? An oil company. Do you know who stands to gain the most if a viable source of energy is developed? The energy companies. There is no "conspiracy" to keep you from using turkey guts to run your car. It simply isn't as efficient as what we have now.
If we had a competitive (read truly capitalist) market, these options would be as widely available in the US as they are in the EU.
Such as what? France currently uses around 70% nuclear power to generate electricity. I am all for converting to nuclear power, as this is a feasable option. Hydrogen/Solar/Geothermal sources are not feasable.
As opposed to a solar paneled electric vehicle.(which have been successfully tested since the mid 80's.)
and they look cool too!
Yes, but is it feasable? They may look cool, but they aren't realistic reaplcements for our current fleet.
Again, I'm not saying we don't need to develop these things, but let's be realistic. Think about this- when we add ethanol to our gas, do you realize how much oil is spent making the ethanol before it even gets in our tank? The point here is that you aren't making things more efficient, but actually adding more costs and more fuel consumption to the equation.
I can't recommend the links I gave you enough to explain this better.
tman,
I read you link... And to be honest its propaganda in its simplest form.
I don't understand your drive to come to seans or my site and basically argue against our opinions.... Don't you have something better to do?
I believe I made it fairly clear where I stand on the issue and to bicker back and forth is a waste of both mine and your time.
but just to put the nail in the coffin.. YES solar powered cars are feasible, as a charging system for an electric motor. Now unless you have say 3 months of 0 sunshine days, the vehicle is questionable... but with so little solar activity so if life on earth...
Also if you think there is no conspiracy see the movie "who killed the electric car"... Funny an automotive company refuses to sell its own product... instead the EV-1's leases were pulled and the vehicles destroyed... YEAH... No conspiracy there...
John,
I read you link... And to be honest its propaganda in its simplest form.
Propaganda? Facts and analysis are propaganda?
I don't understand your drive to come to seans or my site and basically argue against our opinions.... Don't you have something better to do?
I don't know if you are new to blogosphere, but when you have comments on your blog, the idea is to engage in conversation. Apparently you are only interested in comments that agree with you. That's fine, I always have better things to do.
Suit yourself.
I will leave you with this though- keep in mind when you talk about electric cars, you aren't reducing fossil fuel use, you are in fact INCREASING it, because the electricity in the US is primarily made from fossil fuels.
I promise I will avoid "bickering" with you in the future. Life is probably much easier when everyone simply agrees with you.
like I said... I don't know what your drive is behind all of this...
but... A solar vehicle with an ELECTRIC/SOLAR motor is completely fossil fuel free... see its simple science really...
you utilize the solar panels to recharge the batteries for the electric vehicle. Like all electric vehicles the 12-24 batteries used in the drive system can maintain a full charge for at least an hour each... so... how often do you drive 12 to 24 hours a day? hrmmmm... sounds like you need to research the workings of solar power and electric motors.
also to get your facts from the conspiracy capital of the world (.nu is a swedish, Danish and Dutch Site. How is this a viable fact? why no .gov or .org factsheets??? I think i know why =P) and then say I have a conspiritorial view is laughable at best.
Lastly when it comes to this, no I don't argue... I was raised in cars(sales and maintenance). there is one thing I DO KNOW it's cars... thankyouverymuch.
Also... The topic is Fred Thompson Drilling for Oil in the Everglades....
NOT Fossil Fuel Verses Clean Fuels.
May I suggest Helium.com if your looking for a debate.
This isn't to bicker, but to correct any misconceptions-
I was referring to the "Who Killed the Electric Car" comment when referencing the fossil fuel requirement of electric run cars.
".nu" may be a Dutch server, but the person who wrote the information is neither conspiratorial nor a "paid propagandist". He is a software engineer, and one of the most well known and respected bloggers on the internet. His "Strategic Overview" of the current war on Islamic fundamentalists is required reading at certain Military Universities today.
That is here-
http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml
I have no "drive" behind this, just a honest desire to discuss things. Sorry if this is so foreign to you. It's part of the reason I like blogs, so that you can have helathy discussions where one might learn something. It is my experience that you rarely learn anything if all you do is read sites that simply agree with everything you say. It's more interesting to me to read opposing viewpoints and discuss.
Post a Comment