Bush does it again.....
GreyFlcn
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2006-12-19 Member: 59134Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Most productive salmon fishery now open for oil drilling</div>WTH
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545911/from/RS.4/print/1/displaymode/1098/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545911/from/...splaymode/1098/</a>
I mean I can understand the sad arguement of "If there's no economic value to be had, then we're gonna destroy the area"
But if it's the most economically successful salmon fishery in the world, why the hell are they screwing with it?
Interior Department:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901647.html" target="_blank">"Look we can get 4.5$ billion dollars in 20 years off this"</a>
Why, the fishing industry there gets $6 billion in 3 years? Why throw that away?
Interior Department: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0320_060320_alaska_oil.html" target="_blank">"Don't worry, Trust us it will be safe!"</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
....
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545911/from/RS.4/print/1/displaymode/1098/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16545911/from/...splaymode/1098/</a>
I mean I can understand the sad arguement of "If there's no economic value to be had, then we're gonna destroy the area"
But if it's the most economically successful salmon fishery in the world, why the hell are they screwing with it?
Interior Department:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901647.html" target="_blank">"Look we can get 4.5$ billion dollars in 20 years off this"</a>
Why, the fishing industry there gets $6 billion in 3 years? Why throw that away?
Interior Department: <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0320_060320_alaska_oil.html" target="_blank">"Don't worry, Trust us it will be safe!"</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
....
Comments
What remains is that I think we really are in an energy crisis, here. If Americans want cleaner fuel sources, they're going to have to protest by walking to work everyday instead of driving. The benefits outweigh the inconvenience by at least 10 fold. Less pollution, no traffic accidents, everyone's in better shape, you save the money you would have spent on cars, gas, and maintenance, etc. To talk down the government for trying to provide the nourishment to sustain our thirst for crude while at the same time guzzling it down in our SUVs, trucks, and even hybrids is quite frankly hypocritical.
Ah, we'll see what happens. But I doubt it's only Bush behind this. I mean, you can't trade salmon for oil. Six billion in salmon probably doesn't translate to $6 billion in crude, and it's crude that keeps the industrial wheels turning at whatever cost we want to slap on to the environment. It may well be that they can extract the oil without harming any of the wildlife or destroying the land, then again it may not.
What remains is that I think we really are in an energy crisis, here. If Americans want cleaner fuel sources, they're going to have to protest by walking to work everyday instead of driving. The benefits outweigh the inconvenience by at least 10 fold. Less pollution, no traffic accidents, everyone's in better shape, you save the money you would have spent on cars, gas, and maintenance, etc. To talk down the government for trying to provide the nourishment to sustain our thirst for crude while at the same time guzzling it down in our SUVs, trucks, and even hybrids is quite frankly hypocritical.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
However there are plenty of other things which you can trade for oil.
<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-11-30T080132Z_01_N29374431_RTRUKOC_0_US-GM-PLUGIN.xml&src=rss" target="_blank">Electricity</a> and <a href="http://news.com.com/Want+alternative+energy+Try+pond+scum/2100-11386_3-6145197.html" target="_blank">Algae based BioFuels </a> being the best options.
However even easier than that is to simply mandate slight effeciency fuel use standards.
Something like a half gallon mileage increase would likely eliminate the need entirely.
What we have is a crisis of subsidies.
We're paying out the nose at the pump, and in taxes.
And meanwhile Oil company profits are hitting record highs.
If they are willing to sacrifice Billions to satisfy demand, why don't they put that kind of money into serious research on sustainable energy?
Currently all you get is "alternative energy" which is almost entirely just conventional energy dressed up in a different way.
This argument doesn't make any economic sense. $6 billion of anything is equivalent in value to $6 billion of anything else. All of the benefits of oil are priced into it's cost, as is our best guess at future scarcity. You could make the argument that somehow there are positive externalities associated with oil, but that's patently false. All the externalities are negative (pollution, etc.)
This argument doesn't make any economic sense. $6 billion of anything is equivalent in value to $6 billion of anything else. All of the benefits of oil are priced into it's cost, as is our best guess at future scarcity. You could make the argument that somehow there are positive externalities associated with oil, but that's patently false. All the externalities are negative (pollution, etc.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In addition the oil could run out in, theoretically speaking, 10-15 years say. Salmon if managed well might run out in, oh I dunno, a century. I doubt people are going to stop wanting to eat Salmon after that much time, but if you drill in the wrong place and permanently destroy the economic viability of a <i>renewable resource</i>, then what more can I say.
Another piece of genius decision making from the Bush administration.
Silly Bush and his oil and money.
Suggestion: Perhaps the same area can be harvested for $2 Billion worth of fish AND $2 Billion worth of oil! There's no reason it has to be one or the other.
I don't quite get the assumption that oil drilling is going to destroy the fishing industry. Are fish too stupid to swim around an oil platform or something? What am I missing here?
Suggestion: Perhaps the same area can be harvested for $2 Billion worth of fish AND $2 Billion worth of oil! There's no reason it has to be one or the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well in particular there is an issue with the exact placing they are suggesting.
"And precisely where they intend to drill and site rigs is the critical habitat, feeding grounds of the North Pacific Right Whale, one of the most endangered on Earth."
Given oil companies track record in Alaska, and the whole reason there was a moratorium offshore oil drilling specifically because of the exxon valdez spill.
And the fact that there was an oil spill in alaska early as 10 months ago.
Wouldn't really say Oil companies have a given track record to achieve that.
Also given how screwed up the west coast salmon runs already are already in a state of disaster.
<a href="http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january042007/fishingaid_010407.php" target="_blank">http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january...gaid_010407.php</a>
Nah, thats not a risk that shouldn't be taken for what could easily be solved by merely using oil more effeciently.
_
By the time they'd even start selling the permits, 2010, much less begin drilling.
Chances are we'd have already begun using mainstreamed electric cars.
Hydrogen is bunk since batteries are advancing so fast to a level that will soon surpass it.
If this technology is true, they plan to actually have a car on the market using it in 2008.
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology....biz2/index.htm</a>
However, even current tech using some low level tech we'd do just fine.
Average Fuel Economy standards haven't effectively gone up in the past 20 years.
US is behind pretty much every nation in the world in this respect.
A merely 23% increase and we could forget we even met Saudi Arabia.
Hybrids alone practically achieve over 100% increase. (From 22avg to 55)
Plugin Hybrids, even ones with limited all-electric range, would drastically cut oil usage.
Since the main advantage from hybrids is that they can run at the most effecient speed all the time.
Instead of using too much energy at low and high speeds.
And all electric driving range, <a href="http://news.com.com/Electrical+grid+could+handle+millions+of+plug-in+hybrids/2100-11389_3-6142640.html" target="_blank">most commutes aren't even long enough to touch the gasoline tank in a 40 mile range plugin hybrid.</a> And we already have the electricity infrastructure to support them.
_
Essentially, rather than wasting our money on oil companies who won't do anything besides try to prolong our dependance on them.
How about we actually invest in leading the way forward.
I don't quite get the assumption that oil drilling is going to destroy the fishing industry. Are fish too stupid to swim around an oil platform or something? What am I missing here?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, oil runs out but fish generally tend to keep coming back if you manage them in a sustainable fashion and don't destroy their environment, such as with a large oil spill right in their breeding ground, you don't have much of a worry.
OH SNAP! THEY ARE BUILDING AN OIL RIG IN THEIR BREEDING GROUND.
DOH.
Let's just hope they don't have an accident on that Oil rig there or in the piping they will need to transport the oil out.
Well in particular there is an issue with the exact placing they are suggesting.
"And precisely where they intend to drill and site rigs is the critical habitat, feeding grounds of the North Pacific Right Whale, one of the most endangered on Earth."
Given oil companies track record in Alaska, and the whole reason there was a moratorium offshore oil drilling specifically because of the exxon valdez spill.
And the fact that there was an oil spill in alaska early as 10 months ago.
Wouldn't really say Oil companies have a given track record to achieve that.
Also given how screwed up the west coast salmon runs already are already in a state of disaster.
<a href="http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january042007/fishingaid_010407.php" target="_blank">http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january...gaid_010407.php</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's a question for you: How big is the average oil rig?
Answer: Rarely more than a hundred yards across.
Question number 2: How big is a whale feeding ground?
Answer: Many miles across.
Question number 3: Will building a 100-yards-square structure block a large portion of a miles-wide feeding ground?
Answer: No. Not in the slightest. Not unless you're crazy.
So the only possible danger of building these platforms is oil spills. And Oil Platforms have never been known for spilling oil the way Tankers are. Note also that the Oil Industry as a whole has cut oil spills by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill" target="_blank">93%</a> since the days of massive oil spills in the 70's and 80's. Oil Platforms are a lot more hazardous for the workers who live on them then they are for local wildlife.
This argument doesn't make any economic sense. $6 billion of anything is equivalent in value to $6 billion of anything else. All of the benefits of oil are priced into it's cost, as is our best guess at future scarcity. You could make the argument that somehow there are positive externalities associated with oil, but that's patently false. All the externalities are negative (pollution, etc.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Show me a "follow the money" chart where somehow using six billion dollars worth of salmon acquires us six billion dollars of crude. A dollar is a dollar, and laying all else aside (over estimating how much a salmon is actually worth, market fluctuations due to season, popularity, etc), it's true. But it's just that as a nation, I think we probably want oil more than salmon.
What I'm saying is that if we CAN do both, all the better, but if it's gotta be one or the other, oil is a more valuable commodity. Especially if we want to be more self-sufficient as everyone keeps complaining about.
And there's <i>some</i> new finds that suggest maybe <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51837" target="_blank">oil isn't so non-renewable after all</a>
Why do they need this 200 million, which had a moritorium against it, and was removed prematurely without approval of congress.
<!--quoteo(post=1597643:date=Jan 11 2007, 08:13 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jan 11 2007, 08:13 PM) [snapback]1597643[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What I'm saying is that if we CAN do both, all the better, but if it's gotta be one or the other, oil is a more valuable commodity. Especially if we want to be more self-sufficient as everyone keeps complaining about.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it's so valuable, why not wait till it appreciates further in value.
As is, Oil is sold cheaper than Orange Juice.
So the only possible danger of building these platforms is oil spills. And Oil Platforms have never been known for spilling oil the way Tankers are. Note also that the Oil Industry as a whole has cut oil spills by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill" target="_blank">93%</a> since the days of massive oil spills in the 70's and 80's. Oil Platforms are a lot more hazardous for the workers who live on them then they are for local wildlife.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny part is you left out the other part of that same article
"Studies of the Exxon Valdez oil spill have shown that the environmental damage caused by oil spills can be greater than was previously thought. It is now thought that the impacts to marine life can be evident at less than one part per billion petroleum hydrocarbons."
"Ship-source pollution, averaged 27,000 tonnes per year from 2000-05"
...
That is all.
Notice the critical word "ship" in that quote. Notice how it doesn't say "rig".
...
That is all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, you're the one using that phrase in the first place "OMG 93%"
Underwater pipes certainly aren't much safer either.
Especially in regions with heavy climate extremes.
Case you didn't know, oil has a hard time flowing when it's very cold.
Which would lead to a lot of pressure issues, warping, cracks, etc.
So either you'd be forced to use tankers,
or you'd have very high maintanence pipes in a region which it's difficult to operate in.
So fkoff with your oil reserves and start catching up to the civilized world. Barbarians.
A good enough reason to focus on getting rid of the oil dependancy would imo be I DONT LIKE TO FING BREATH SMOG OK?!
So fkoff with your oil reserves and start catching up to the civilized world. Barbarians.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we are behind every other nation when it comes to fuel economy...
<a href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/why.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/why.shtml</a>
Problem is, that offers more money in the hands of consumers,
Which then doesn't go to fund a select few companies.
And thats a "problem".
Since everyone knows, the only way to get cheaper transportation is by increasing the supply of oil.
Less pollution, no traffic accidents, everyone's in better shape, you save the money you would have spent on cars, gas, and maintenance, etc. To talk down the government for trying to provide the nourishment to sustain our thirst for crude while at the same time guzzling it down in our SUVs, trucks, and even hybrids is quite frankly hypocritical.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't that up to the motor industry? As I see it is very possible to make clean electrical cars and trucks etc. Although it's not so good for the oil industry which pumps money in to such things so it's less and less likely we get clean environment-friendly cars until the end of oil.
Just a little spin on it there.
At the same time, some of those truck drivers (who, by the way, probably don't do anything that requires a truck) complain about our dependence on foreign oil. If we stop buying the damn cars, THEN things may change. Not that I'm an advocate for this, I love driving my car. But, I do try to walk whenever I can.
I mean, think about this. Even though our cities apparently aren't built nicely for pedestrians, if everyone walked to destinations 2 miles away and under, it would cut traffic by leaps and bounds. Less traffic on the roads, less emissions, healthier people, it's nothing but good stuff. Well, I guess you'd have more accidents involving pedestrians, but you are raising the total number of them, after all.
I was trying to say that nobody's going to change their designs if they don't have any incentive to do it. I mean, as long as we keep paying money out for big trucks, cuz that's somehow more American, they're gonna keep making them.
At the same time, some of those truck drivers (who, by the way, probably don't do anything that requires a truck) complain about our dependence on foreign oil. If we stop buying the damn cars, THEN things may change. Not that I'm an advocate for this, I love driving my car. But, I do try to walk whenever I can.
I mean, think about this. Even though our cities apparently aren't built nicely for pedestrians, if everyone walked to destinations 2 miles away and under, it would cut traffic by leaps and bounds. Less traffic on the roads, less emissions, healthier people, it's nothing but good stuff. Well, I guess you'd have more accidents involving pedestrians, but you are raising the total number of them, after all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, I'm not under any assumption that people will change their lifestyle and drive any less.
If car companies need a monetary incentive to innovate.
Then by all means give it to them.
Just slash and burn some of those oil company subsidies.
Ford and GM have had to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers.
Exxon etc have had higher profits than any company ever.
Meanwhile the excess oil sitting in the ground gets more and more valuable.
I think we could stand to see that happen.
that make me recall Oil Peak again. without oil, perhaps the salmon might still be there, you are not going to enjoy it.
Take the fact that the oil production is going to decline soon and it is the very essential thing to run almost every advanced machine on earth, including the computer in front you are using. before other effective alternative energy become available, theres no choice to pump more in order to keep the life style, not just for americans but everyone living in modernized place, unchanged, provided that negligible amount of people are going to change except the oil production go really wrong.
that make me recall Oil Peak again. without oil, perhaps the salmon might still be there, you are not going to enjoy it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uhm.... computers run on electricity.
You don't use Oil to make electricity.
You use coal, natural gas, nuclear or etc
But not Oil.
(Although I guess backup deisel generators do use Oil.
But those certainly don't put much stress on demand.)
Oil is used almost exclusively for transportation.
Uhm.... computers run on electricity.
You don't use Oil to make electricity.
You use coal, natural gas, nuclear or etc
But not Oil.
(Although I guess backup deisel generators do use Oil.
But those certainly don't put much stress on demand.)
Oil is used almost exclusively for transportation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so how would you dig up coal, natural gas or uranium and how would you move coal or anything from one place to another?
not all but i believe a majority of machines will eventually links up to oil. add to this most of the plastic produced today coming from fossil oil.
Uhm.... computers run on electricity.
You don't use Oil to make electricity.
You use coal, natural gas, nuclear or etc
But not Oil.
(Although I guess backup deisel generators do use Oil.
But those certainly don't put much stress on demand.)
Oil is used almost exclusively for transportation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Coal and natural gas are technically oil family products. The equipment used to fish the salmon is run on oil, the equipment used to transport the salmon to refinery and distribution centers is run on oil. The plants that refine and distribute are probably powered by coal, and that coal is mined and brought to the power plants by oil based machines. The car you use to goto the store to get the salmon is run on oil.
Even if you're using nuclear power, the machines to locate, extract, and refine the nuclear material used in the reaction is run on oil. The trucks that bring the material to the plant are run on oil.
Without oil, we're stuck to foot traffic and hand-tooled labor, unless someone who's really smart has a plan to cost effectively upgrade all machinery in the US to run on alternate fuel. It may just be a simple small change to get the ball rolling, but you still have to spend money to find it. Right now, there's no incentive to find it.
Coal and natural gas are technically oil family products. The equipment used to fish the salmon is run on oil, the equipment used to transport the salmon to refinery and distribution centers is run on oil. The plants that refine and distribute are probably powered by coal, and that coal is mined and brought to the power plants by oil based machines. The car you use to goto the store to get the salmon is run on oil.
Even if you're using nuclear power, the machines to locate, extract, and refine the nuclear material used in the reaction is run on oil. The trucks that bring the material to the plant are run on oil.
Without oil, we're stuck to foot traffic and hand-tooled labor, unless someone who's really smart has a plan to cost effectively upgrade all machinery in the US to run on alternate fuel. It may just be a simple small change to get the ball rolling, but you still have to spend money to find it. Right now, there's no incentive to find it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, heavy equipment tends to run on diesel.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel" target="_blank">Biodiesel</a> is rather availible right now.
Although currently it's being made mostly out of <a href="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2006/chart_algae_210x236.jpg" target="_blank">SoyBeans</a>.
Best thing about BioDiesel, as compared to say, Ethanol.
Is that it can be put directly into current vehicles without any equipment changes.
Me, I'm certainly looking forward to the ramping up of Algae based Biodiesel,
<a href="http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2006/chart_algae_210x236.jpg" target="_blank">since it grows at an exponential rate</a>.
It's also a hell of a lot easier to manage, since it grows inside aquaculture.
Don't even need farm land to grow it, and it's fine with sub-quality water.
_
All that leaves is advances in Jet Fuel and Cargo Ship tech.
Which is already achieving some large fraction effeciency gains.
"The stretched A market 777-300 (773A) is designed as a replacement for 747-100s and -200s. Compared to the older 747s, the stretched 777 has comparable passenger capacity and range, but burns one third less fuel and demands 40% lower maintenance costs."
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777</a>
"a number of airlines also have discovered that implementing certain aircraft and engine maintenance practices and product improvements can produce substantial fuel savings. "
<a href="http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_om_story.jsp?id=news/om1006fuel.xml" target="_blank">http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan.../om1006fuel.xml</a>
"Titanium is as strong as steel, but weighs only about 60 percent as much. It's also highly resistant to corrosion, and handles temperature extremes well. So, not surprisingly, the aerospace industry wants to use much more of it in the next generation of planes, making them lighter and reducing fuel costs."
<a href="http://www.techreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=16963" target="_blank">http://www.techreview.com/printer_friendly...e.aspx?id=16963</a>
"says that reducing the friction and hence the drag on a ship's hull could improve efficiency by up to 20 per cent."
<a href="http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg18925391.600" target="_blank">http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg18925391.600</a>
Diesel come from crude oil.
There are articles telling me that biofuel cannot be a full alternative to crude oil as it takes away farms where it is suppose to make food for humans and the food production is on limiting equilibrium - we make barely enough food for all the population on earth. and on the other hand someone shows that current biofuel couldnt fullfill the "energy in for energy out" criteria, or whatever the name is, please correct me.
take the fact that more biofuel we use, less food we produce and land is limited. it will be useful if we make a few dozens of technological breakthroughs. but in the mean time, i guess we have to stick to oil and in some sense, i can understand while bush prefers oil over salmon and started the war on "terrorist" although it is not the best solution.
although higher efficiency means less oil, but its still oil, which will eventually run out or become unavailable in the foreseeable future.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel</a>
Diesel come from crude oil.
There are articles telling me that biofuel cannot be a full alternative to crude oil as it takes away farms where it is suppose to make food for humans and the food production is on limiting equilibrium - we make barely enough food for all the population on earth. and on the other hand someone shows that current biofuel couldnt fullfill the "energy in for energy out" criteria, or whatever the name is, please correct me.
take the fact that more biofuel we use, less food we produce and land is limited. it will be useful if we make a few dozens of technological breakthroughs. but in the mean time, i guess we have to stick to oil and in some sense, i can understand while bush prefers oil over salmon and started the war on "terrorist" although it is not the best solution.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right you are.
<a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63.htm" target="_blank">USA</a>, a group mentions the Feds have understated their math by about half for Corn Ethanol, and would have to use way too much corn.
<a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/22/business/biofuel.php" target="_blank">China</a>, they've stopped giving out permits for Corn Ethanol production.
<a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9072-2525637,00.html" target="_blank">Europe</a>, They've stopped using Palm Oil based BioDeisel due to it's harvest practices tearing down rain forests.
Me I'm against most biofuels.
And as mentioned, SoyBean/Corn are relatively horrible for providing energy.
They are the least effecient options, and <a href="http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/printthis.pl?uri=/news/maindish/2006/12/06/ADM/index.html" target="_blank">are only competative due to subsidies</a>, not energy conversion effeciency.
(Side note, it takes $500 of Ethanol subsidy to offset 1 ton of Global Warming CO2.
Meanwhile you could buy 140 tons in offsets for $500 from the <a href="http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/06/14/margolis-ccx/" target="_blank">Chicago Climate Exchange</a>)
Thats why I like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production" target="_blank">Algae Biodeisel</a>
1. It doesn't use farmland
2. It doesn't need quality water (Hell, it grows even better off of "bad" agriculutural runoff)
3. It grows 100-500x faster than conventional sources.
4. It's a hell of a lot easier to manage.
"However, if the feedstock were to be algae, owing to its very high yield of oil per acre of cultivation, it has been found that about 10 million acres of land would need to be used for biodiesel cultivation in the US in order to produce biodiesel to replace all the petrodiesel used currently. This is just 1% of the total land used today for farming and grazing together in the US (about 1 billion acres)."
<a href="http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/biod/large_scale/large_scale.html" target="_blank">http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/biod/large...arge_scale.html</a>
<a href="http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/medias/videos/psa_player_en.html" target="_blank">http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/medias/..._player_en.html</a>
Turns off the engine while idling.
Hrmm, something like this would also be pretty handy too
<a href="http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/medias/videos/psa_player_en.html" target="_blank">http://www.psa-peugeot-citroen.com/medias/..._player_en.html</a>
Turns off the engine while idling.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's incredibly hard on the engine. I venture a guess that you'd spend more on engine replacement than you'd save on gas.
Notice the critical word "ship" in that quote. Notice how it doesn't say "rig".
...
That is all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is the most ridiculous rebuttal I've heard. You are aware that oil is oil right and the oil rig in question is drilling for oil. It doesn't matter if it's on a ship or on an oil rig, if you have an oil spill from an oil rig that has a pipe burst (or similar) vs. a ship like the Exxon Valdez guess what CXWF:
<b>YOU STILL END UP WITH AN OIL SPILL</b>.
This should go without saying. I should point out as well that if you have a drilling platform in the middle of a body of water, you either need to transport it out by <i>ship</i> (this occured to you when you wrote that rebuttal above I take it?) or by an underwater pipeline. Pipelines are not likely to be any cleaner than transporting it by ship and the [comparatively] small amounts of oil that need to 'spill' to do damage is the most relevant point (that you avoided answering).
That's incredibly hard on the engine. I venture a guess that you'd spend more on engine replacement than you'd save on gas.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, I guess it's kinda silly.
Since if you're already using batteries and big alternators etc
Then you might as well chip in a bit, make that extra step and make the car a hybrid.
Since that's where you get some real gas savings.
Due to the engine being able to run at the at the most effective speed.
Instead of too slow when starting, or too fast when stopped.
Running at something like 55mph constantly.
Also of course acceleration with an electric motor is already pretty much instant.