Oil from coal technology has been around for 70 years and costs about $30 a barrel. The USA has many time more coal then the middle east has oil. Tapping this technology will end our dependence on OPEC yet we are crippled by "envirnmentalist" with shadowy funding determined to put a stop to this viable energy source. This foolishness could be the end of America as we know it.
2007-11-20 00:18:11 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Exactly - Not only are we prevented from using our coal, we are also prevented from using our own oil. The USA has vast oil reserves but no political will to drill for it.
Environmentalist need energy at a high cost to justify the spending it takes to develop alternative energy.
2007-11-20 00:26:42 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It's not a scam. HELLO?!?!?!?!
It's November 20th and 75° in Georgia. I have lived in Georgia my whole life & it's usually colder than this. Also, the leaves didn't even start to change until earlier this month. That's about 2 months late. Something must be wrong. How can you watch the weather channel and not notice that temperatures are off???
To answer your question, Global Warming isn't causing our dependence. The need for heat and cars and everything else causes it. America would be destroyed if we began to pollute the world with coal.
2007-11-20 00:30:01 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Georgia 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Greed and control freaks is the problem...The first Internal Combustion engine - about 1805 - ran on hydrogen. In 1805 there was no such thing as "gasoline". As far as coal goes, it's a super polluter. The cleanest and most efficient fuels around are virtually free...propane, methane, producer gas. Hydrogen, which can be produced from water...Need I say more ?
During the second world war, when all gasoline was directed to war efforts, more than 1 million vehicles worldwide used alternative fuels for daily vehicle use,fuels such as methane, propane, fuels made from wood chips, corn stalks, and so on.
The large oil companies show profits of approximately $ 3,000,000. per hour. They are actively involved personally or thru influence in squashing low cost fuel alternatives.
2007-11-20 00:38:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Unfortunatley you forgot about the intial cost. A single plant capable of producing about 80,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day -- less than 0.5 percent of America's daily oil diet -- would cost an estimated $6 billion or more to build. So to build enough to get 100%, you would need $1.2 trillon. Now considering the fact that no oil refinary has been built since the 1970's due to its high cost, who would you suggest to pony up $1.2 trillion?
2007-11-20 00:32:57 · answer #4 · answered by zi_xin 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't see your logic. Wouldn't the concerns of "global warming" encourage more interest in reducing emissions?
I don't think coal is the answer to replacing fuel needs. There are many alternative energy sources that don't require destroying our lands and giving people black lung.
2007-11-20 02:10:46 · answer #5 · answered by J F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
ARE YOU INSANE???
What is coal? mainly carbon
What do you need to add to create hydrocarbs? hydrogen
Where are you going to find this hydrogen? In water
How is the water availability right now in the US???
Ok that settles the question. China too thought about it and they were clever enough to understand it is not in their interest.
2007-11-20 04:20:29 · answer #6 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I agree.
2007-11-20 00:28:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋