Too bad you can't get drunk AND fuel your car off of alternative fuels...o wait?ATG wrote:
You must not own a car then as every time I fill up I feel like I need a drink.liquix wrote:
ps: i do not condone the policy of drinking..
well, I guess the big oil companies would rather put off the costs for R&D of alternative, clean, sustainable energy solutions as long as possible, and maximize the profits from technology that already exists now.Kmarion wrote:
That would require foresight. Something most politicians lack. The cost on the average citizen transcends the amount spent at the pump. Food, tourism, shipping, manufacturing.. are just a few things that increase as the cost of oil goes up. We rely on a civilization content with self destruction. If we were truly concerned with the long term effects we would be running, not crawling towards energy independence.Lotta_Drool wrote:
I think the whole point is to use up the rest of the worlds oil while it is cheap and then use ours when it is worth a fortune because the world is running out.Kmarion wrote:
It was Clinton who blocked the drilling the first time. One of the excuses was that it would take too long to actually acquire. Had he not put it off the oil would be in use today... when we desperately need to get off of foreign dependency.
The rest of the world is still no where near running out and $4/gal isn't nearly as bad as it can get.
The problem is that the longer they do that, the more behind they will be once the oil runs out. Only those on the forefront of researching and developping those new alternative energy solutions will be the winners when the day comes when the oil wells run dry.
Also, from an ecological point of view, even if we have enough oil to power our economies for another 200 years, it would be madness not to switch to alternative energy as soon as possible. Burning fossile fuels to power anything isn't really environmentally friendly after all.
Even if we have the oil, why pollute our planet any further ?
Just because it's easy, or more profitable ?
Profit isn't everything. Money isn't something you can breathe...
Problem with the current new alternative sources, solar, wind wave etc, its that you need loads of the devices i.e turbines for a relatively small amount of power production, alone they're not that bad but grouped in fields thats not much different to sticking a nuclear plant there. They're also unreliable. Until we perfect hydrogen or fusion I suggest we use nuclear for power and still use fossil fuels for vehicles and aircraft. We keep trying this biofuel stuff we're gonna end up with more and more people starving because all the food is being used to make it.
not really. The sun already provides 10,000 times the energy that would be needed to power the whole earth with solar energy.
A couple of solar power plants in the north african desert, and the energy problems of the world could be resolved.
for reference, check out this post about TREC http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2070031, especially the data by the DLR ( pics in wikilink ).
A couple of solar power plants in the north african desert, and the energy problems of the world could be resolved.
for reference, check out this post about TREC http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2070031, especially the data by the DLR ( pics in wikilink ).