Political Crossfire Forums

[orange_resevoir]

I understand people's eagerness to move on from Petrol and believe me, I know that it is hurting nature, I just say, and have always said, Have patience. It'll happen, but we're not ready, believe me.
I've visited some of the research groups in Columbus and have talked to some of the people involved in the different energy experimentation and its not yet there. It frustrates me to know that people want to act out of hatred and blame, but anyways, even if we did have an energy alternative, right now, do you really think that its possible to just snap your fingers and make the transition instantaneously?
All though oil is not exactly the best choice for an energy exploitative, at the moment it certainly appears to be the best. After you read this you'll see a fantastic example of how exploiting an agricultural-fuel is out of the question. Because the fact of the matter is that we almost destroyed ourselves almost trying to do this very same thing, years ago.
But do not be disheveled, if we all put our minds to it, maybe we can come up with something. I know that there are a lot of farmers for instance who have found interesting ways to fuel transportation and they didn't necessarily involve agricultural means.

If you go to this link

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/do-we-need-ethanol-more-than-topsoil/

It raises a lot of very interesting problems with a few of our favorite energy alternatives.

[gary the cheater]

the berkeley studies showed biomass plantations to be non-sustainable. they essentially mine nutrients out of the soil. i think the slogan of your website has recognized that fact.

do-we-need-ethanol-more-t han-topsoil/


their question was, do we want oil companies to go into the forestry industry?

[Deemoore]

gary the cheater wrote: the berkeley studies showed biomass plantations to be non-sustainable. they essentially mine nutrients out of the soil. i think the slogan of your website has recognized that fact.

do-we-need-ethanol-more-t han-topsoil/


their question was, do we want oil companies to go into the forestry industry?
All the topsoil we had in this country went down the Mississippi to cause the great dust bowl. We've been manufacturing new topsoil and feeding ourselves somehow ever since.

[orange_resevoir]

Only after we picked ourselves back up after the great depression.
Who knows though, maybe we do need a good ole' financial cleansing.

[Deemoore]

orange_resevoir wrote: Only after we picked ourselves back up after the great depression.
Who knows though, maybe we do need a good ole' financial cleansing.
http://www.dynamotive.com/
Why is Mitsubishi signing on to this company?

[orange_resevoir]

They're Japanese, they're like Kiebler elves, always makin' stuff. Nah, actually it sounds good. I just don't understand why if there's enough oil underground in Colorado to last us for two hundred years, are we just going to let that sit there? I mean that's money in the bag!

[Norrin Radd]

orange_resevoir wrote: I understand people's eagerness to move on from Petrol and believe me, I know that it is hurting nature, I just say, and have always said, Have patience. It'll happen, but we're not ready, believe me.
I've visited some of the research groups in Columbus and have talked to some of the people involved in the different energy experimentation and its not yet there. It frustrates me to know that people want to act out of hatred and blame, but anyways, even if we did have an energy alternative, right now, do you really think that its possible to just snap your fingers and make the transition instantaneously?
All though oil is not exactly the best choice for an energy exploitative, at the moment it certainly appears to be the best. After you read this you'll see a fantastic example of how exploiting an agricultural-fuel is out of the question. Because the fact of the matter is that we almost destroyed ourselves almost trying to do this very same thing, years ago.
But do not be disheveled, if we all put our minds to it, maybe we can come up with something. I know that there are a lot of farmers for instance who have found interesting ways to fuel transportation and they didn't necessarily involve agricultural means.

If you go to this link

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/do-we-need-ethanol-more-than-topsoil/

It raises a lot of very interesting problems with a few of our favorite energy alternatives.

So, you want me to go to some link which is most likely filled with lies, half truths and propaganda, much like the Reefer Madness campaign was?

Ethanol is not the only type of alternative fuel and producing Ethanol from corn is not the best way to get that product.

How much reading have you done on your own concerning alternative fuel?

Brazil’s reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10 percent in 2002, according to that country’s National Petroleum Agency. And this year, it will be nearly zero, Brazilian officials say.

So, you are saying that Brazil has the resources to make this change, but we do not?

Brazil was willing to take a chance and promote alternative fuels, which is now paying off huge dividends, yet we stupid Americans can't do the same thing?

Now I know that their sugar cane industry gave them a pretty good advantage, but we have enough farmland to produce the fuel needed to cut our import of oil. I doubt we will ever be able to stop importing oil, but even a 20% reduction in imported crude would be a step in the right direction.

The government and the oil industry have been lying to the American people for decades about alternative fuel and it's people like you that fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

[Zac (R-OH)]

Everybody needs to remember that switching energy sources doesn't just happen overnight. I don't think it wouold be very smart or efficent to trust the federal government with taking the lead role in this transition etheir. I think it would be best for the states to take on their own projects of switching energy sources and for the federal government to just set guidelines.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: They're Japanese, they're like Kiebler elves, always makin' stuff
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[orange_resevoir]

Quote:

So, you want me to go to some link which is most likely filled with lies, half truths and propaganda, much like the Reefer Madness campaign was?

Ethanol is not the only type of alternative fuel and producing Ethanol from corn is not the best way to get that product.

How much reading have you done on your own concerning alternative fuel?

Brazil’s reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10 percent in 2002, according to that country’s National Petroleum Agency. And this year, it will be nearly zero, Brazilian officials say.

So, you are saying that Brazil has the resources to make this change, but we do not?

Brazil was willing to take a chance and promote alternative fuels, which is now paying off huge dividends, yet we stupid Americans can't do the same thing?

Now I know that their sugar cane industry gave them a pretty good advantage, but we have enough farmland to produce the fuel needed to cut our import of oil. I doubt we will ever be able to stop importing oil, but even a 20% reduction in imported crude would be a step in the right direction.

The government and the oil industry have been lying to the American people for decades about alternative fuel and it's people like you that fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

Well, first of all, being a total dick about things isn't going to get you anywhere (all though you are a master-de-bater, it says) and second of all, perhaps Brazil's step back of oil consumption is because maybe their economic state is at a point where they can't purchase any more oil than that. This is why I get fed up with people, ahem.....liberals...because I wasn't attacking anybody nor trying to debate something, nor trying to really prove a huge, humanity changing point. Listen, I don't fall for anything.....you fell along time ago. I didn't jump nor have jumped to any conclusion but you obviously have. I totally agree with you on a lot of things but I'm personally gonna sleep with two eyes open instead of one, you catch my drift? Everyday, I consult both Liberal and Conservative press, internet and literature, to look for the best information, because it is really insanely hard to find it in this day and age. I happen to agree strongly with what that article said and was able to reinforce it in my mind because, hey, history repeats itself! and I live on a farm and in a farming community so I think I know quiet a bit about raping mother nature.
You were just bitching because the name of the site was Intellectual Conservative, and, I know, I know, to you, that's an oxymoron...well here's a challenge....direct me to one of your favorite liberally geared sites and let me tear THAT down...you won't.

[poweRob]

orange_resevoir wrote: I understand people's eagerness to move on from Petrol and believe me, I know that it is hurting nature, I just say, and have always said, Have patience. It'll happen, but we're not ready, believe me.
I've visited some of the research groups in Columbus and have talked to some of the people involved in the different energy experimentation and its not yet there. It frustrates me to know that people want to act out of hatred and blame, but anyways, even if we did have an energy alternative, right now, do you really think that its possible to just snap your fingers and make the transition instantaneously?
All though oil is not exactly the best choice for an energy exploitative, at the moment it certainly appears to be the best. After you read this you'll see a fantastic example of how exploiting an agricultural-fuel is out of the question. Because the fact of the matter is that we almost destroyed ourselves almost trying to do this very same thing, years ago.
But do not be disheveled, if we all put our minds to it, maybe we can come up with something. I know that there are a lot of farmers for instance who have found interesting ways to fuel transportation and they didn't necessarily involve agricultural means.

If you go to this link

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/do-we-need-ethanol-more-than-topsoil/

It raises a lot of very interesting problems with a few of our favorite energy alternatives.

You are thinking within the box. Basically, your vision is on how do we change how we fuel our current system rather than researching on how to change the system itself.

Transrapid Maglev trains throughout the current interstate system would almost completely eliminate the airline industry.

And Skyweb Express infrastructure within metropolitan and then expanded cities would remove us from any need for imported oil. The energy burden would then shift to Grid energy (non-crude) which would mean expanded use of coal, nuclear and Yes, renewable and alternative energy sources like hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

With major metrolpolitan areas using skyweb transporation and then expanding that into the suburbia's around them, the U.S. demand for oil would only reside in the rural areas which would plummet demand well below the U.S. production of crude. THEN focus on converting the fuels of the rural usage if you want to further remove us from crude.

Meanwhile farmers have been producing their own fuels behind their own barns from crops for years and you have many South American countries gearing up for Bio-diesel export, as if we'd even need it. BTW... skyweb express can fund itself with no taxpayer subsidies unlike local buses and train transit systems on $1.00 per ride.

Change to such mass transit and more people will be traveling than ever and to follow travel, spending will increase.

[gary the cheater]

Deemoore wrote: gary the cheater wrote: the berkeley studies showed biomass plantations to be non-sustainable. they essentially mine nutrients out of the soil. i think the slogan of your website has recognized that fact.

do-we-need-ethanol-more-t han-topsoil/


their question was, do we want oil companies to go into the forestry industry?
All the topsoil we had in this country went down the Mississippi to cause the great dust bowl. We've been manufacturing new topsoil and feeding ourselves somehow ever since.

yeah so what? how does that make bio-fuel sustainable??

[orange_resevoir]

Quote:

You are thinking within the box. Basically, your vision is on how do we change how we fuel our current system rather than researching on how to change the system itself.

Transrapid Maglev trains throughout the current interstate system would almost completely eliminate the airline industry.

And Skyweb Express infrastructure within metropolitan and then expanded cities would remove us from any need for imported oil. The energy burden would then shift to Grid energy (non-crude) which would mean expanded use of coal, nuclear and Yes, renewable and alternative energy sources like hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

With major metrolpolitan areas using skyweb transporation and then expanding that into the suburbia's around them, the U.S. demand for oil would only reside in the rural areas which would plummet demand well below the U.S. production of crude. THEN focus on converting the fuels of the rural usage if you want to further remove us from crude.

Meanwhile farmers have been producing their own fuels behind their own barns from crops for years and you have many South American countries gearing up for Bio-diesel export, as if we'd even need it. BTW... skyweb express can fund itself with no taxpayer subsidies unlike local buses and train transit systems on $1.00 per ride.

Change to such mass transit and more people will be traveling than ever and to follow travel, spending will increase.

I would first like to say, that, you Green peace guys are doing an awesome job , really - all for it. I however, don't look at it as a box, really, more of a giant coffin. My concern IS with the system as I have stated before.
I just am worried about people being to unrealistic about the change over that we need to make. It'll take time and I have heard a lot of people around me wasting time with talk of some uneffective ideas on fuel, in particular, the whole corn issue.

[poweRob]

orange_resevoir wrote: Quote:

You are thinking within the box. Basically, your vision is on how do we change how we fuel our current system rather than researching on how to change the system itself.

Transrapid Maglev trains throughout the current interstate system would almost completely eliminate the airline industry.

And Skyweb Express infrastructure within metropolitan and then expanded cities would remove us from any need for imported oil. The energy burden would then shift to Grid energy (non-crude) which would mean expanded use of coal, nuclear and Yes, renewable and alternative energy sources like hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

With major metrolpolitan areas using skyweb transporation and then expanding that into the suburbia's around them, the U.S. demand for oil would only reside in the rural areas which would plummet demand well below the U.S. production of crude. THEN focus on converting the fuels of the rural usage if you want to further remove us from crude.

Meanwhile farmers have been producing their own fuels behind their own barns from crops for years and you have many South American countries gearing up for Bio-diesel export, as if we'd even need it. BTW... skyweb express can fund itself with no taxpayer subsidies unlike local buses and train transit systems on $1.00 per ride.

Change to such mass transit and more people will be traveling than ever and to follow travel, spending will increase.

I would first like to say, that, you Green peace guys are doing an awesome job , really - all for it. I however, don't look at it as a box, really, more of a giant coffin. My concern IS with the system as I have stated before.
I just am worried about people being to unrealistic about the change over that we need to make. It'll take time and I have heard a lot of people around me wasting time with talk of some uneffective ideas on fuel, in particular, the whole corn issue.

People can get starry-eyed and over-zealous when it comes to this but there are alternatives and corn is a possibility. The difficulty in arguing for alternatives is that the opposition's position is almost always, "That will never replace our oil usage". No one and I mean NO ONE that I know has ever made an argument to "REPLACE" our oil usage 100%. It's a matter of offsetting the current usage as much as possible. Atleast to the point where domestic production accounts for our usage a la Brazil style who is producing ethanol from sugar cane and will declare complete energy independence this year.

Logical Greenies like me don't make such ludicrous arguments of total utopia of everything running on solar and wind. That argument is usually, and wrongly, foisted on us by our opposition when no such claim is made. Every percent of oil import we offset, we become that much more stable, self-reliant and therefore compromise our sovereignty far less.

Red herrings are the biggest obstacle to deal with when discussing/debating Green technologies. When you argue the Clean aspect of alternative/renewable energies you get blasted with "It'll never replace oil" when that was never the argument being made in the first place. Then when one argues FOR it's energy independence "It'll never replace oil" again... when it STILL isn't the argument being made. It's like people would rather kill the debate rather than discuss it.

[gary the cheater]

poweRob wrote: orange_resevoir wrote: Quote:

You are thinking within the box. Basically, your vision is on how do we change how we fuel our current system rather than researching on how to change the system itself.

Transrapid Maglev trains throughout the current interstate system would almost completely eliminate the airline industry.

And Skyweb Express infrastructure within metropolitan and then expanded cities would remove us from any need for imported oil. The energy burden would then shift to Grid energy (non-crude) which would mean expanded use of coal, nuclear and Yes, renewable and alternative energy sources like hydro, wind, solar and geothermal.

With major metrolpolitan areas using skyweb transporation and then expanding that into the suburbia's around them, the U.S. demand for oil would only reside in the rural areas which would plummet demand well below the U.S. production of crude. THEN focus on converting the fuels of the rural usage if you want to further remove us from crude.

Meanwhile farmers have been producing their own fuels behind their own barns from crops for years and you have many South American countries gearing up for Bio-diesel export, as if we'd even need it. BTW... skyweb express can fund itself with no taxpayer subsidies unlike local buses and train transit systems on $1.00 per ride.

Change to such mass transit and more people will be traveling than ever and to follow travel, spending will increase.

I would first like to say, that, you Green peace guys are doing an awesome job , really - all for it. I however, don't look at it as a box, really, more of a giant coffin. My concern IS with the system as I have stated before.
I just am worried about people being to unrealistic about the change over that we need to make. It'll take time and I have heard a lot of people around me wasting time with talk of some uneffective ideas on fuel, in particular, the whole corn issue.

People can get starry-eyed and over-zealous when it comes to this but there are alternatives and corn is a possibility. The difficulty in arguing for alternatives is that the opposition's position is almost always, "That will never replace our oil usage". No one and I mean NO ONE that I know has ever made an argument to "REPLACE" our oil usage 100%. It's a matter of offsetting the current usage as much as possible. Atleast to the point where domestic production accounts for our usage a la Brazil style who is producing ethanol from sugar cane and will declare complete energy independence this year.

Logical Greenies like me don't make such ludicrous arguments of total utopia of everything running on solar and wind. That argument is usually, and wrongly, foisted on us by our opposition when no such claim is made. Every percent of oil import we offset, we become that much more stable, self-reliant and therefore compromise our sovereignty far less.

Red herrings are the biggest obstacle to deal with when discussing/debating Green technologies. When you argue the Clean aspect of alternative/renewable energies you get blasted with "It'll never replace oil" when that was never the argument being made in the first place. Then when one argues FOR it's energy independence "It'll never replace oil" again... when it STILL isn't the argument being made. It's like people would rather kill the debate rather than discuss it.

there is a very simple alternative... stop wasting energy. don't drive a car that gets 10mpg just because you can "afford it".

[AceKingQueenJack]

I support bio-diesel the most. What else will we do with all of that grease?

[poweRob]

AceKingQueenJack wrote: I support bio-diesel the most. What else will we do with all of that grease?

Right now it's either to the landfill with it, turned into animal feed, and sometimes used to make soaps.

Biodiesel is the better option.

[perdidochas]

Norrin Radd wrote: orange_resevoir wrote: I understand people's eagerness to move on from Petrol and believe me, I know that it is hurting nature, I just say, and have always said, Have patience. It'll happen, but we're not ready, believe me.
I've visited some of the research groups in Columbus and have talked to some of the people involved in the different energy experimentation and its not yet there. It frustrates me to know that people want to act out of hatred and blame, but anyways, even if we did have an energy alternative, right now, do you really think that its possible to just snap your fingers and make the transition instantaneously?
All though oil is not exactly the best choice for an energy exploitative, at the moment it certainly appears to be the best. After you read this you'll see a fantastic example of how exploiting an agricultural-fuel is out of the question. Because the fact of the matter is that we almost destroyed ourselves almost trying to do this very same thing, years ago.
But do not be disheveled, if we all put our minds to it, maybe we can come up with something. I know that there are a lot of farmers for instance who have found interesting ways to fuel transportation and they didn't necessarily involve agricultural means.

If you go to this link

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/do-we-need-ethanol-more-than-topsoil/

It raises a lot of very interesting problems with a few of our favorite energy alternatives.

So, you want me to go to some link which is most likely filled with lies, half truths and propaganda, much like the Reefer Madness campaign was?

Ethanol is not the only type of alternative fuel and producing Ethanol from corn is not the best way to get that product.

How much reading have you done on your own concerning alternative fuel?

Brazil’s reliance on oil imports has plummeted from 85 percent of its energy consumption in 1978 to 10 percent in 2002, according to that country’s National Petroleum Agency. And this year, it will be nearly zero, Brazilian officials say.

Brazil has also almost doubled it's oil production in the past ten years. Most of Brazil's oil was discovered in the 1980s. Brazil is not an example of the benefits of ethanol, but the benefits of finding and drilling your own oil.
www.energybulletin.net/2498.html


Norrin Radd wrote: So, you are saying that Brazil has the resources to make this change, but we do not?

Brazil was willing to take a chance and promote alternative fuels, which is now paying off huge dividends, yet we stupid Americans can't do the same thing?

Now I know that their sugar cane industry gave them a pretty good advantage, but we have enough farmland to produce the fuel needed to cut our import of oil. I doubt we will ever be able to stop importing oil, but even a 20% reduction in imported crude would be a step in the right direction.

The government and the oil industry have been lying to the American people for decades about alternative fuel and it's people like you that fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

The pro-ethanol people have been lying to you (or at the least, not telling the whole truth) about Brazil. Brazil is not an example of how ethanol can replace foreign oil. It is an example of how locally produced oil can replace foreign oil.