English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Let's stop funding terrorism just because we KNOW it's possible to get off oil completely.

2006-09-21 03:31:32 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

It's been known for years. But the oil industry has a lot of $$$, and some clout with Congress to prevent major funding for solar energy, ethanol, etc. President Carter had some GREAT energy initiatives 30 years ago, which President Reagan subsequently scrapped upon taking office. I am a little heartened more by GM and other companies doing hybrids, etc., but the technology has been around for DECADES, and people with oil interests were just too happy to keep cashing in on oil dependency. Let's hope between high gas prices and a dwindling reserve, that we turn things around.

2006-09-21 03:34:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

There is not enough acreage to grow enough corn or other vegetable matter for conversion into bio-diesel. When we speak of dependence on oil, it is not just for fuel.

The machinery needs to be lubricated. The plastics need to be manufactured. There is a petro-chemical need. Corn isn't going to provide these materials. Synthetic oil is much more expensive than the real thing.

Conservation is the logical direction to take at this juncture. It is disgusting to see gas guzzling SUV's, with electric motors to do all of those difficult tasks like moving the drivers seat forward, open the doors, fold down the rear seats for cargo area, etc. These do nothing but add weight to the vehicle and reduce mileage.

Then there are all the urban 4x4s that will never see a day off road or a single snow flake, including the two story pickup trucks that can drive over anything except the two story pickup truck right in front of it. In California, the preponderance of these are to be found in coastal areas and are driven by the same people who are the first to scream if anyone should mention tapping into the off shore oil that is just waiting to be pumped.

So hop in, fire that mother up, and hit the road with pedal to the metal.

2006-09-21 10:59:59 · answer #2 · answered by Samurai Hoghead 7 · 0 0

Okay, you're in charge Jane! I've been wondering that for years. I think we should have continued building nuclear power plants over the last 30 years. As it is, we could never get the construction caught up with the need. Yes, nuclear power can be dangerous, but look at the devastation caused by petroleum (Alaskan Pipeline, Exxon Valdez, etc.). It's not a popular election topic and the oil companies are pumping way too much money into the candidates, so the end of the world isn't going to be over religion, race, money, it's going to be over water, food and energy. Good post!

2006-09-21 10:36:13 · answer #3 · answered by babalu2 5 · 0 0

How do you think that farmers will plant and harvest that corn to make ethanol - using teams of horses driving a bunch of guys with scythes to hand cut the stalks? No they need petro-fueled harvesters to make it economical. In addition corn is a gross feeding plant and needs lots of fertilizer to make it grow - that comes form petro-based chemicals. They also need to spray it against insects and disease or risk losing most of it - also petro-based. When you add that all up ethanol is more a symbolic solution than a realistic one.

For renewable energy should vehicles use their own car-top windmills or have a body completely covered with solar cells (only usable in daytime)? Hydrogen fueling is decades away - and then where is the energy to produce that coming from.

If you agree to kick the oil habit then start walking everywhere you need to go. You will set a good example for the rest of us as we try to find a way out of this long-ignored problem.

2006-09-21 10:40:04 · answer #4 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 0 0

Ethanol has turned out to be a big myth, as documented in last month's issue of Consumer Reports. When added to gasoline, it LOWERS the gas mileage of all the vehicles that use it.

And, Jesi is right. There's no reason not to be using nuclear energy more extensively.

2006-09-21 10:39:13 · answer #5 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 0 0

ethonal is a viable alternative as a long term solution, but it is not immedialty availble on a large scale, this will take some time.

In Temple and Amarillo, Tx there are ethonal plants being built.

ethonal does provide 10% lower gas milage but it offers an out from out mid east oil addiction. Last months Consumer Union report was biased by their own admission and they only tested one vehicle.

my house is powered by renewable wind and solar energy.

2006-09-21 10:38:19 · answer #6 · answered by S H I R A Z 3 · 0 0

I'm not sure we will ever kick the oil habit, but we can use alternatives even now. We use soar to heat our hot tub. Electic cars and cars like a prius just by shutting off appilances at night will help.

2006-09-21 10:35:39 · answer #7 · answered by vickie l 2 · 0 0

It makes no sense that we are not using nuclear power throughout the country. It has proven to be safe and economical. It benefits the consumer and the environment. Solar and wind powered generation plants are expensive to build and maintain. Solar energy for residential users is great as it can heat the water and generate electricity, but its use for wide spread generation is not as economical as fossil fuels.

2006-09-21 10:37:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

the believe that terrorist are funded from drugs oil and anyother product is insane .
It is money that funds terrorists so lets get rid of money and go to a plastic card that holds all our data .

2006-09-21 10:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers