Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 26, 2011 at 14:11

I doubt if there will ever be a perfect energy source...

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 27, 2011 at 15:53

It takes quite a bit of anti pollution equipment on gasoline fuelled vehicles to get reasonably clean emissions...I wonder how much equipment it would take for a CNG,vehicle, compared to gasoline, to be as clean?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 28, 2011 at 5:09

Well it seems those in favor of one form of energy over another are always arguing why the other forms should be regulated out of existence...wouldn't it be wiser to figure out how to make them all work ?

Sure one type will always be a bit cleaner than another...should that become an argument to use only that one?

How much sense does it make that we are being held hostage to unfriendly foreign countries over petroleum when Natural gas is so cheap and abundant and being totally ignored as a solution..? Coal produces the lowest cost electricity..

Rather than arguing over which fuel is cleanest shouldn't the argument be how all of our resources could be utilized efficiently to break our dependence on those hostile countries?

If emissions were the argument during the 50s and 60s like it is today, gasoline would have been outlawed...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 29, 2011 at 4:09

The real problem is there are too many people who believe they need to tell us all what "We Need"....

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 29, 2011 at 7:22

Don't mind the saying they do, it's the doing we end up getting stuck with...

If we want experts, lets get the Amish to start telling us what we need or don't need....That would probably rile up the Eco nuts, huh?

Permalink Reply by Gale Bagley on May 30, 2011 at 3:08

PG, this makes to much sense, powers to be won't make it happen. Why can't we make it all work together?  Do nothing in Washington, Dem. and Rep.

Gale

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 30, 2011 at 4:22

Oh I think they know...but they likely are following the money...(into their own coffers)

How could it not be obvious...we have so much energy here in this country and it's being ignored...no politician could be that clueless unless it's on purpose...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gale Bagley on May 30, 2011 at 5:10

PG, We at one time had a good program, if we did not like the ones in office, vote them out, but now the new ones in short period of time, they are  just like the ones we got rid of.

GB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 30, 2011 at 14:31

The new ones probably have to go through orientation once they get to DC..huh?

Permalink Reply by Max on May 31, 2011 at 4:15

P.G., I think the goal here is to reduce CO2.  That sounds simple enough, take a hammer and smash each CO2 molecule and then you could shovel the carbon atoms into bags for recycling, and the oxygen atoms would just float off into the air.  

 

The recycled carbon could be made back into gasoline or NG, depending on how many atoms you allowed to rebind with the other atoms that these products are made of.

 

While you're at it, take a few of the carbon atoms, smash them, use some of the neutrons, protons, and electrons, add them to lead and you would be manufacturing gold.  

 

If you want to invest in this venture, send me some money and I'll send you a blueprint of the hammer I'm developing.  You can't tell no one about this, it's top secret, but since I like you, I'll let you in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on May 31, 2011 at 5:27

CO2 has certainly become an excellent leverage argument over energy producers by regulators...have you ever heard just what definite benefit we would get for regulating CO2? Maybe future positive projections of the climate for all the money folks will be paying extra on their utility bills versus not doing anything?

How would folks determine if they would be getting their money's worth making Al Gore rich?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on May 31, 2011 at 5:38

If we killed half the population... maybe a quarter... on the planet... the CO2 problem would go away.  We could kill a lot of cows and pigs and horses too... that might solve the methane problem.  But do we really have a problem?  Plants need our CO2... we need their O2.  So, if we killed half of the population... then a lot of our plants and trees would have a problem too!  Again... what about ethanol?  If we keep using corn to make it... then we could starve our population and then solve the CO2 "problem".  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page