2007-11-08 11:51:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
We already have other sources ... sun, water and wind. Problem is a safe, inexpensive means of storing this energy. If money paid to support oil companies for past 100 yrs. had been spent in research and development for alternative power, our need for oil today would be minimal. It wasn't because not enough money can be made if the primary source is free.
2007-11-08 11:58:43 · answer #1 · answered by Just Hazel 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps, however there's the war and other things that the US needs to finance. It's the president's choice.
Oil is actually still abundant, but obviously will run out eventually. In the meantime, there's a lot of oil in the US, but the US won't use its own oil until the other oil sources are depleted.
2007-11-08 12:00:09 · answer #2 · answered by pertinential 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There's already another source for fuel. Its called Ethanol and made out of corn. There's already 10% of it in current fuel. Its slowly replacing the current fuel. Some gas station have it at 100%.
Unfortunately, you dont hear about it in the US. But it's there.
2007-11-08 16:49:29 · answer #3 · answered by Superfly sister 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It should have been, yes, but the only practical alternative to fossil fuels - nuclear power - has been stiffled, in this country, for the last 30 years.
2007-11-08 12:00:56 · answer #4 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I strongly suspect we have all kinds of technologies that could eliminate much of the oil consumption, but the oil companies probably have most of the patents.
But take heart, we will emerge victorious. Just a little more time.
------------
I Cr 13;8a
2007-11-08 16:39:27 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Before we pumped oil out of the ground, we used whale blubber for oil.
Now that we have fat people, what is the chance we could liposuction (Harvest) human fat and convert it into oil. Human nature (desire to over eat) would regenerate itself after a few hundred supper size meals. burp!!!!
2007-11-08 12:00:27 · answer #6 · answered by tom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Then 'they' wouldn't have us over a barrel, LOL
It should....YES it should, but there is money for 'them' and not for us, they like it that way, and I guess that we....the people, just have to be lead by the nose til they fix the problem,(but to them I don't think it is a problem....We pay there fuel costs, and they don't feel it, like...we the people)
2007-11-09 00:44:31 · answer #7 · answered by Blaze 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
worldwide warming isn't led to with the aid of the warmth released with the aid of burning fossil fuels, which that's plenty to small to have an significant result on temperature; it somewhat is led to with the aid of the warmth trapped with the aid of the carbon dioxide released with the aid of burning fossil fuels. yet, apparently the "skeptics" think of that the 1st and 2nd regulations of thermodynamics does not practice to the warmth trapped with the aid of carbon dioxide.
2016-10-15 12:59:10 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, but this is not an easy thing to do scientifically - can't be done with a snap of the fingers
2007-11-08 11:54:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It will never happen, because the oil companies will buy off the politicians.
2007-11-08 11:53:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋