DontTreadOnMe wrote:okie wrote:
We are seeing the natural progression of technology, as the most efficient determines the best path. What we don't need are a bunch of hypocritical elitists that preach a message of oil is evil, and elitists that don't even practice what they preach, to muck up the works, which is what they have been doing for the past few decades.
i sort of agree with you on some of this.
while there is a natural progression of tech, it's at what seems like a truncated pace. it took far less time for the auto to replace the carriage.
Well, I think the problem is oil is still a very efficient energy source, compared to others, in terms of powering vehicles. I simply do not see any technology to replace gasoline / diesel for large vehicles, trucks, and cars, etc. to come out better. Very very small cars can be battery powered, but we still don't know the ramifications of converting tens of millions of cars to electrical / battery, in terms of the manufacturing and recycling of that many batteries, plus the power to recharge them. To propose to switch from the current energy mix to something drastically different overnight would be a sure recipe to bankrupt the country, with many unintended consequences environmentally, economically, and in many ways. It is far better to allow th market to phase the process gradually, as this works out the bugs as we go, perfects the technologies, and reduces the unintended consequences to a minimal or more tolerable level. Hydrogen is simply not feasible at this point, on a large scale.
Quote:some may preach that oil is evil, some preach that oil is no longer efficient compared to nuclear, some preach that oil is god.
Oil isn't god, but the reality is that it has fueled our way of life, no denying that, would you? I like my car better than riding a horse to town, does that mean my car is a god, no, it is a luxury, a nice invention, just like a refrigerator is not god, but it sure was a beautiful invention that helped us enjoy all kinds of foods every single day of our life.
I don't see nuclear as being practical immediately, it will take decades, at least one or two, to ramp up electrical production through nuclear, even if we became aggessive with the program. We could have been further in this area if the environmentalists had not killed the expansion of this industry 25 years ago.
I just don't see the practicality of an attempt to immediately switch from our energy mix overnight. It must be gradual, as the free market shows the most efficient and correct path as it goes.
Quote:could you give a couple of examples how you think hypocritical anti-oil elitists have spent the last few decades mucking things up?
Actually, anti-capitalists, not just anti-oil. The libs have created an adversarial relationship, a hostile relationship toward industry, which is simply the wrong way to go. I admit to being biased and soured toward these people because I worked in the minerals business, and many of the regs and opposition were nothing more than purposeful roadblocking of industrial activity more than it was to clean things up. Also, all these so called citizen groups must have time on their hands to sue any plan to mine or produce natural resources. I do not believe the general public is altogether tuned into how serious this problem is, and how much it is costing them in the long run. We have companies that produce necessary products, but the public seems not to have a clue where all of the things they use come from, they must think they are produced out of thin air. And the NIMBY's are everywhere. I don't know where all the blame lies, but one big one is an absolutely pathetic educational system that has been more interested in the rain forest and bambi than the realities of what makes this society prosper.
The Dems must think we can continue this economy without producing the energy that makes it run, and I think there is a huge wake up call in the making right now.
