Drilling Anwr

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, you actually presented an argument by saying we could use it all at once. a short term fix though, might help our economy... but it doesn't answer the emergency and temproary relief when gas prices are really high argument.

if you want to argue 10 dolalr gas etc, that's fine, i conceded it's not an unreasonable position. but this isn't what i see you saying tha ti responded to in the last paragraph. if it is that you're arguing that,,, then it's not unreasonable.

he didn't answer me.... saying 5% is 5% doesn't answer
[quote]we'd be using it up slowly, till we have an emergency or really need relief... and we've done used a bunch of it in the spirit of saving 17 cents per gallon...
you need to still be arguing about the emergency andor econ relief stuff i've been saying.

cause the arguemnt about lessened harm right now, is pretty much the same argument.. except saying what you guys are now arging... is essentially a way to dodge it.[/quote]

which means, in ten years.... we have an emergency... and then we have .4 years of oil left instead of close to twice that. not a good idea if you ask me.
you haven't addressed the point.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i didn't mean you meant... it's techincally actually rebuttbable... i only meant you said it's able to be rebutted in theory given the source of wikipedia.

if you don't rebut it... all you're doing is saying "your sources aren't necessarily accurate either". which isn't admitting your source sucked, and that isn't answering the quote i did in the last post.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513248' date='Apr 28 2008, 08:14 PM']if that's not saying the ordinary magisterium is infallible... then i dn't know what is.[/quote]

Then I guess you don't know what is. I said it was infallible, but you need to take all the posts in context. I said that they were infallible when teaching collectively on faith and morals.

I also say the pope is infallible, but clearly he is not infallible ALL the time. Same difference.

[quote]the only thigns you posted for "sources" said that when the bishops teach unanimous with the pope, it's infallible. that's what i said all along, if you actually read what i write.
those are reputable sources probably... but it doesnt prove anything to the poit of what was being discussed.[/quote]

okay whatever. If that's the way you want it to be then that's fine. You can misinterpret me if you wish. There's nothing I can do about that. If I misinterpreted you then I apologize but all I can say is that you continued to argue with Apotheon on the subject who agreed with my position. So why would you argue with 2 other people who supposedly were saying the same as you? It doesn't make sense. Regardless, this thread has nothing to do with the magisterium so it would be good if you wouldn't distract the topic that is being discussed in this thread.

[quote]whereas... i posted the pope refering to the ordinary magisterium as fallible sometimes... and www.catholicplanet.com... look at that site as to what he says on the matter, and who he is

.....[/quote]

I don't care what catholic planet says. I have no respect for that site. So I don't know what your point is. The theologians of the Church are far higher authorities than some random website. If you don't believe that then there's nothing more I can do for you.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513263' date='Apr 28 2008, 08:20 PM']yes, you actually presented an argument by saying we could use it all at once. a short term fix though, might help our economy... but it doesn't answer the emergency and temproary relief when gas prices are really high argument.[/quote]

I said I COULD present that argument, not that I actually was arguing that. More proof that you don't read anything I write. Yes a short-term fix COULD be had, but I believe that won't happen because our country would never rely 100% on one 2000 acre source. It just wouldn't logically happen.

[quote]if you want to argue 10 dolalr gas etc, that's fine, i conceded it's not an unreasonable position. but this isn't what i see you saying tha ti responded to in the last paragraph. if it is that you're arguing that,,, then it's not unreasonable.[/quote]

I don't know what you're reading, but that last paragraph that you're referring to is a hypothetical argument. I was simply turning your argument around and showing how it was illogical. But apparently you can't see that. My real argument is that this would relieve of 5% of our our whole oil dependence which over 30 years is quite significant whether you deny it or not. It provides plenty of time to search for a new source of energy. My TRUE argument is that the ANWR drilling is ultimately NOT the best source of energy. Nuclear energy is the best source of energy and is what should be explored. But since that is not a possibility on a wide-scale right now, we have to make do with what we have. And what we have right now is an untapped source of energy in Alaska that can provide some relief for 30 years. If you'd rather believe that 100% dependence on foreign oil is better, when we haven't even broken into what we have here, then you have the right to that position, but just don't expect it to make sense to others, at least not to me and others who support its drilling.

[quote]he didn't answer me.... saying 5% is 5% doesn't answer
which means, in ten years.... we have an emergency... and then we have .4 years of oil left instead of close to twice that. not a good idea if you ask me.
you haven't addressed the point.[/quote]

See above. I do think its a good idea. We just disagree, that's all. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with is you relying on wikipedia for your belief. Which is really quite silly when there are far more solid sources out there, for and against drilling in ANWR.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you say "it's infallible" but then go on to say things that only indicate that it's sometimes infallible, that only means you probably didn't reason properly. not that i should interpret "it's infallible" as "it's sometimes infallible". apo was arguing that it was infallible... and we discussed that, and i showed the pope and that site, and he said he relied on "ordinary and universal" and some questionable text in anotehr docuent cause it's more authoritative. it's a reasonable difference of opinion, but again the whole of teh internet and common usage is against what you guys were saying. (or just him... you're still being ambiguous in your responses as to what you think about it... you continue saying things about how great your sources are... but if you think they're great sources, that only proves that the ordinary magisterium is sometimes infallible which is what i was arguing. so why do you keep arguing how great your sources are? there's no purpose, i think you fail to see the illogical conclusions that are implicit in what you say)
at any rate, it did'nt prove wiki wrong at all or that i shouldnt rely on it.

there's an argument you could make... but you're not making it, you're just putting it out there for nothing. to me, that means you're relying on nothing (cause i don't think you have an arguemnt with the 17 cents thing.), but something you might be able to make but don't. i read you right. i was merely saying, even if you used taht argument, it doesn' work.

it only showed how your point was illogical in regards to addressing mine, ie that we need it for emergency etc. i have no idea how you think pointing out that we could use six months all at once indicates my argument is illogical. that conclusion is itself illogical.
if you really thought it was making my ideas illogical... that meant you thought the six month argument had merit to it. i showed how it didn't have merit, even if you were only "could" be making that argument. so, even if i didn't necessarily show that you were flawed in a real argument you made.... i did show that you were flawed in trying to say how you could prove me illogical.

and you continue to say i shouldn't rely on wikipeida. but if it's so bad, then show me. it's okay to use unless someone says otherwise in my book.
i have heard six month other places, incidentally.
i will concede though that it's not unreasonable to think it should never be used at all... i just disagree, for the pourpsoes of something like this anyway.

i will wait for someone else to answer it cause you have not, how 5% addressed the fact taht we're slowly eating away our net and future relief such tat we won't have it in the future.
if you're relying on us going ot other altneratives within 15 years... that's a decent argument... but only if you think we're certainly or most certainly gonna try. is that your position?

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]if you're relying on us going ot other altneratives within 15 years... that's a decent argument... but only if you think we're certainly or most certainly gonna try. is that your position?[/quote]

and if that was your position.. i'd argue we should wait till we at least start more substantially changing. that way, we're guaranteed to be having a transition soon enough, and not just in anyway postponing it. there will surely be a large gap while we use altanratives, while we're still using oil... cause our infrastructure is so dependant on it people would surely be benefiting from alaskan oil then and it wouldn't be going to waste but would still be significant as the altneratives have just been starting.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1513396' date='Apr 28 2008, 09:00 PM']apo was arguing that it was infallible...[/quote]

Me and apo believe the exact same thing on this. That's all I'm going to say. If you disagree with him you disagree with me. Regarding this topic. I can't figure out your line of thinking whatsoever. So I'm just going to have to bow out. Honestly, discussing things with you is very exhausting.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1513557' date='Apr 28 2008, 10:42 PM']Honestly, discussing things with you is very exhausting.[/quote]

I just wanted to apologize. This probably wasn't very appropriate. I have to admit that I am having an extremely difficult time understanding your arguments and having an even harder time with the fact that you view wikipedia as such an authoritative source. Regardless, I'm sorry if I said something I shouldn't have, but I do wish you would read my posts (in this thread and other threads) much more closely. I believe ANWR is a temporary fix, not a permanent one. I don't believe any one oil reserve is a permanent fix. Oil will run out eventually too. But we have to determine at what times it is appropriate to use it. No matter where we get it or when, our world uses way too much oil. I think its very wasteful the way our world goes through its natural power supply. But an energy source is necessary and until we can work on developing something more feasible (more economically and earth friendly) we have to make do with what we've got. If we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil (even if its only a little bit for awhile) I believe we should do it. A little bit is better than none. You say wait. Wait for what, and why? The same amount of oil is going to be there no matter what. Why pay for it when we have it in our own country (I don't believe ANWR is the only decent source of oil btw, my argument goes for any source we can access)? But I do want to make it clear that I don't believe dependence on oil (foreign or domestic) is an ideal plan. I do believe in nuclear power. Here's an interesting article that I read recently that I thought I would post. (off-topic note: I do not agree with the implied age of the earth by the author. But that's a whole different debate):

[url="http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=02"]http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/arc...08&month=02[/url]

[quote]February 2008
“The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy”
William Tucker
Journalist

William Tucker is a veteran journalist. Educated at Amherst College, his work has appeared in Harper’s, the Atlantic Monthly, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, the New Republic, Reader’s Digest, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His articles have won the John Hancock Award, the Gerald Loeb Award, the Amos Tuck Award, and he was a finalist for the National Magazine Award. His books include Progress and Privilege: America in the Age of Environmentalism; Vigilante: The Backlash Against Crime in America; and The Excluded American: Homelessness and Housing Policies, which won the Mencken Award. His forthcoming book is entitled Terrestrial Energy: How a Nuclear-Solar Alliance Can Rescue the Planet.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on January 29, 2008, during a conference on “Free Markets and Politics Today,” co-sponsored by the Center for Constructive Alternatives and the Ludwig von Mises Lecture Series.

There have been a host of debates this year between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president. Many of these candidates believe that among our top priorities is to address global warming by reducing carbon emissions. All or most seem to agree that decreasing America’s energy dependence is another. Yet few if any of the candidates have mentioned that nuclear energy—or, as I prefer, terrestrial energy—could serve both these ends.

Right now there are 103 operating nuclear reactors in America, but most are owned by utilities (which also own coal plants). The few spin-offs that concentrate mainly on nuclear—Entergy, of Jackson, Mississippi, and Exelon, of Chicago—are relatively small players. As for a nuclear infrastructure, it hardly exists. There is only one steel company in the world today that can cast the reactor vessels (the 42-foot, egg-shaped containers at the core of a reactor): Japan Steel Works. As countries around the world begin to build new reactors, the company is now back-ordered for four years. Unless some enterprising American steel company takes an interest, any new reactor built in America will be cast in Japan.

This is an extraordinary fate for what was once regarded as an American technology. France, China, Russia, Finland, and Japan all perceive the enormous opportunity that nuclear energy promises for reducing carbon emissions and relieving the world’s energy problems as reflected in recent soaring oil prices. Yet in America, we remain trapped in a Three Mile Island mentality, without even a public discussion of the issue. As folk singer Ani Di-Franco puts it, the structure of the atom is so perfect that it is “blasphemy / To use it to make bombs / Or electricity.”

It is time to step back and question whether this prejudice makes sense.
Fossil Fuels

All living things exist by drawing energy from their environment and discarding part of it as “waste,” so there is nothing inherently shameful about energy consumption. Almost all our energy derives ultimately from the sun. Plants store solar energy by transforming it into large carbon-chain molecules (the process we call photosynthesis). The entire animal kingdom draws its energy from this process by “eating” this stored solar energy. About 750,000 years ago, early humans discovered that they could also draw solar energy from a chain reaction we call “fire.” When heated, the stored energy in carbon chains is released. This heat energy can break down other carbon chains, which causes combustion. Fire has been the principle source of energy throughout most of human history. When historian William Manchester wrote a book about the Middle Ages called A World Lit Only By Fire, he was describing the world of only 700 years ago.

All this began to change about 400 years ago when human beings discovered an older source of stored solar energy—coal. Our most common fossil fuel, coal is the compressed remains of vegetable matter that covered the earth 300-400 million years ago. Coal is superabundant and we will probably never run out of it. It was the fuel of the Industrial Revolution, and it is still the world’s largest source of energy. It is also the most environmentally destructive substance ever utilized. The EPA estimates that it kills 30,000 Americans each year through lung diseases (and in China it is doing far worse). It is also the world’s principal source of carbon dioxide emissions.

Oil, another fossil fuel, is rarer and is believed to be the remains of organisms that lived in shallow seas during the age of the dinosaurs. It was first drilled in 1859, but was used only for lighting and lubrication until the invention of the automobile. Now it constitutes 40 percent of our energy consumption and is perhaps the most difficult fuel to replace. American oil production peaked in 1970 and is now declining rapidly—a fact that explains much of our subsequent foreign policy. The Arab oil embargo occurred three years following the peak, when the producing states realized we were vulnerable. The question now is whether world production will reach a similar peak and decline. As Matthew Simmons has written: “We won’t know until we see it in the rearview mirror.” If it does come, it may not look much different from the quadrupling of oil prices we have witnessed in the last three years.

Natural gas is generally considered the most environmentally benign of the fossil fuels. It gives off little pollution and only about half the greenhouse gas of coal. Natural gas was put under federal regulation in the 1950s, so that by the 1970s we were experiencing a supply shortage. Deregulation in the ,80s led to almost unlimited supplies in the ,90s. Then we began the fateful practice of using gas to produce electricity, resulting in a price crunch and the loss of many gas-dependent industries, such as fertilizer and plastics factories, which have since moved to Mexico and Saudi Arabia to be near supplies. Now American gas production seems to have peaked and we are importing 15 percent of our consumption from Canada. Huge gas supplies have been discovered in Russia and the Middle East, but will not do us much good since gas cannot be easily transported over water. Thus China, India and Europe will be able to buy pipeline gas much more cheaply and are already out-competing us on the world market.
Alternative Fuels

Given the precarious state of these fossil fuels, people have begun talking of “alternative” and “renewable” fuels—water, sun and wind. The term “renewable” is somewhat misleading: no energy is “renewable” insofar as energy cannot be recycled (this is the Second Law of Thermodynamics). The term “renewable” usually describes tapping flows of solar energy that are supposedly “free.” But coal and oil in the ground are also free. It just takes work—and energy—to recover them. So, too, solar “renewables” can only be gathered at a cost. They are often limited and may require extravagant use of other resources—mainly land.

What about water? Hydroelectricity is a form of solar energy. The sun evaporates water, which falls as rain and then flows back to the sea, creating kinetic energy. Rivers have been tapped since Roman times and, beginning in the 19th century, dams were built to store this solar energy. Hydroelectric dams provided 30 percent of our electricity in the 1930s, but the figure has declined to ten percent. And all the good dam sites are now taken.

What about wind? Wind energy has captured the imagination of the public and is touted by many as the fastest growing energy source in the world. All of this is driven by government mandates—tax credits and “renewable portfolio” laws that require utilities to buy non-fossil sources of power. The problem with wind is that it is completely unpredictable. Our electrical grid is one giant machine interconnected across the country, in which voltage balances must be carefully maintained in order to avoid damaging electrical equipment or losing data on computer circuits. Wind irregularities can be masked up to around 20 percent, but after that they become too disruptive. At best, therefore, wind will only be able to provide the 20 percent “spinning reserve” carried by all utilities. In addition, windmills are large and require lots of land. The biggest now stand 65 stories tall—roughly the height of New York’s Trump Tower—and produce only six megawatts, or about 1/200th the output of a conventional power plant. In the East, most are sited on mountaintops, since that is where the wind blows strongest.

What about the sun? Solar energy is very diffuse. A square-meter card table receives enough sunlight to run only four 100-watt electric bulbs. At best, solar could provide our indoor lighting, which consumes about ten percent of our electricity. But keep in mind: gathering and storing solar energy requires vast land areas.

Sunshine can be harnessed directly in two ways—as thermal heat or through photovoltaics, the direct production of electricity. In the 1980s, California built a Power Tower that focused hundreds of mirrors on a single point to boil water to drive a turbine. The facility covered one-fifth of a square mile and produced ten megawatts. It was eventually closed down as uneconomical. Last year, when Spain opened an identical Power Tower in Seville, U.S. News & World Report ran a cover story hailing it as a “Power Revolution.” That facility, of course, is completely subsidized by the government.

Photovoltaic cells have more promise. They are thin wafers where solar radiation knocks the electrons off silicon atoms, producing an electric current. At present, an installation about half the size of a football field could power one suburban home—when the sun shines, of course. The problem is that photovoltaics are enormously expensive; using them to provide one-quarter of an average home’s electricity requires investing around $35,000. Their greatest benefit is that they are able to provide electricity precisely when it is most needed—on hot summer afternoons when air conditioning produces peak loads.
Nuclear or Terrestrial Energy

There is one other form of alternative energy often mistakenly grouped with solar: geothermal energy. Geothermal is produced when the natural heat of the earth comes in contact with groundwater. This can produce geysers and “fumaroles”—steam leaks that are now being harnessed to produce electricity.

Where does this heat come from? Temperatures at the earth’s core reach 7,000 degrees Centigrade, hotter than the surface of the sun. Some of this heat comes from gravitational pressures and the leftover heat from the collisions of astral particles that led to the formation of the earth. But at least half of it (we don’t know the precise percentage) comes from the radioactive breakdown of thorium and uranium within the earth’s mantle. This is “terrestrial energy,” and a nuclear reactor is simply the same process carried out in a controlled environment. In order to harness terrestrial energy in the form of uranium isotopes, we mine it, bring it to the surface, concentrate it, and initiate a chain reaction that releases stored energy in the form of heat—the very same process as that used to harness solar energy from coal.

When Albert Einstein signed the letter to President Roosevelt informing him of the discovery of nuclear energy, he turned to some fellow scientists and said: “For the first time mankind will be using energy not derived from the sun.” This possibility emerged in 1905, when Einstein posited that energy and matter are different forms of the same thing and that energy could be converted to matter and matter to energy (as reflected in the famous equation E = mc2). The co-efficient, c2, is the speed of light squared, which is a very, very large number. What it signifies is that a very, very small amount of matter can be converted into a very, very large amount of energy. This is good news in terms of our energy needs and the environment. It means that the amount of fuel required to produce an equivalent amount of energy is now approximately two million times smaller.

Consider: At an average 1,000 megawatt coal plant, a train with 110 railroad cars, each loaded with 20 tons of coal, arrives every five days. Each carload will provide 20 minutes of electricity. When burned, one ton of coal will throw three tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We now burn 1 billion tons of coal a year—up from 500 million tons in 1976. This coal produces 40 percent of our greenhouse gases and 20 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

By contrast, consider a 1000 megawatt nuclear reactor. Every two years a fleet of flatbed trucks pulls up to the reactor to deliver a load of fuel rods. These rods are only mildly radio-active and can be handled with gloves. They will be loaded into the reactor, where they will remain for six years (only one-third of the rods are replaced at each refueling). The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation). There is no exhaust, no carbon emissions, no sulfur sludge to be carted away hourly and heaped into vast dumps. There is no release into the environment. The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive. There is no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution.
Objections to Nuclear Energy

What are the potential problems with nuclear power?

First, some fear that a nuclear reactor might explode. But this is impossible. Natural uranium is made of two isotopes—U-235 and U-238 (the latter having three more neutrons). Both are radioactive—meaning they are constantly breaking down into slightly smaller atoms—but only U-235 is fissile, meaning it will split almost in half with a much larger release of energy. Because U-235 is more highly radioactive, it has almost all broken down already, so that it now makes up only seven-tenths of a percent of the world’s natural uranium. In order to set off a chain reaction, natural uranium must be “enriched” so that U-235 makes up a larger percentage. Reactor grade uranium—which will simmer enough to produce a little heat—is three percent U-235. In order to get to bomb grade uranium—the kind that will explode—uranium must be enriched to 90 percent U-235. Given this fact, there is simply no way that a reactor can explode.

On the other hand, a reactor can “melt down.” This is what happened at Three Mile Island. A valve stuck open and a series of mistakes led the operators to think the core was overflowing when it was actually short of cooling water. They further drained the core and about a third of the core melted from the excess heat. But did this result in a nuclear catastrophe? Hardly. The public was disconcerted because no one was sure what was happening. But in the end the melted fuel stayed within the reactor vessel. Critics had predicted a “China syndrome” where the molten core would melt through the steel vessel, then through the concrete containment structure, then down into the earth where it would hit groundwater, causing a steam explosion that would spray radioactive material across a huge area. In fact, the only radioactive debris was a puff of steam that emitted the same radiation as a single chest x-ray. Three Mile Island was an industrial accident. It bankrupted the utility, but no one was injured.

This of course was not the case in Chernobyl, where the Soviet designers didn’t even bother building a concrete containment structure around the reactor vessel. Then in 1986, two teams of operators became involved in a tussle over use of the reactor and ended up overheating the core, which set fire to the carbon moderator that facilitates the chain reaction. (American reactors don’t use carbon moderators.) The result was a four-day fire that spewed radioactive debris around the world. More fallout fell on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, from Chernobyl than from Three Mile Island. With proper construction such a thing could never happen.

Another objection to nuclear power is the supposed waste it produces. But this is a mischaracterization. A spent fuel rod is 95 percent U-238. This is the same material we can find in a shovel full of dirt from our back yards. Of the remaining five percent, most is useful, but small amounts should probably be placed in a repository such as Yucca Mountain. The useful parts—uranium-235 and plutonium (a manmade element produced from U-238)—can be recycled as fuel. In fact, we are currently recycling plutonium from Russian nuclear missiles. Of the 20 percent of our power that comes from nuclear sources, half is produced from recycled Russian bombs. Many of the remaining isotopes are useful in industry or radiological medicine—now used in 40 percent of all medical procedures. It is only cesium-137 and strontium-90, which have half-lives of 28 and 30 years, respectively, that need to be stored in protective areas.

Unfortunately, federal regulations require all radioactive byproducts of nuclear power plants to be disposed of in a nuclear waste repository. As a result, more than 98 percent of what will go into Yucca Mountain is either natural uranium or useful material. Why are we wasting so much effort on such a needless task? Because in 1977, President Carter decided to outlaw nuclear recycling. The fear then was that other countries would steal our plutonium to make nuclear bombs. (India had just purloined plutonium from a Canadian-built reactor to make its bomb.) This has turned out to be a false alarm. Countries that have built bombs have either drawn plutonium from their own reactors or—as Iran is trying to do now—enriched their own uranium. Canada, Britain, France and Russia are all recycling their nuclear fuel. France has produced 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power for the last 25 years. It stores all its high-level “nuclear waste” in a single room at Le Havre.
Conclusion

The U.S. currently gets 50 percent of its electricity from coal and 20 percent from nuclear reactors. Reversing these percentages should become a goal of both global warming advocates and anyone who wants to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil (the latter since a clean, expanded electrical grid could anchor a fleet of hydrogen or electric cars). Contrary to what some critics charge, this would not require massive subsidies or direct intervention by the government. Indeed, the nuclear industry has gone through an astounding revival over the past decade. The entire fleet of 103 reactors is up and running 90 percent of the time. Reactors are making money hand-over-fist—so much so that the attorney general of Connecticut recently proposed a windfall profits tax on them! The industry is poised for new construction, with proposals for four new reactors submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and almost 30 waiting in the wings.

The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these. It is simply a natural outgrowth of our evolving understanding of the universe. The sun has been our prime source of energy throughout human history, but energy is also generated in the earth itself. It is time to avail ourselves of this clean, safe terrestrial energy.[/quote]

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

[dairygirl4u2c]

well i don't like it when you say i don't know what i am talking about, am illogical, or don't read what you write. when you say that, i get defensive, and offensive. you've always been the one to initiate that sort of talk. that sort of talk is a pet peeve, which i try not to do and usualy don't do until someone else does to me first.
i'm more than happy to admit i'm wrong when it's clear to me that i'm wrong.

i have always read what you wrote, and have explicitly shown how you've ocntradicted yourself. unless you're being extremely sloppy in expressing your thought processes. which if that's the case, i can't complain too much as i do it too. but if you want to debate this more, i'm more than happy to show you again how you've contradicted yourself, but it's up to you.

you continue saying we should just use it right now. cause it will provide 17 cents of relief.

in the future, when we're economically strapped, it will provide more relief, andor save us when we need it in an emergcy. how does having 17 cents now justify that? no one has said how it does, other than to assert that it does.
(you havementioned things regarding alternative energy, and the 10 dollar gas... which if those are your positions they are not necessarily bad, and you have reasoning. to my understanding, that you want the relief now is not based on those arguments though from what you've said. it's definitvely not intellecutum's basis)

also... in the future.. 5% releif instead of menaing 17 cents... will mean 50 cents, or if we use it more than in a thirty year period for an emergecy etc, at 50% usage rate could mean five dollars per gallon relief instead of ten dollar gallons, for a year or two.
and you insist that 17 cents right now is wise instead of saving .5-5.00 per gallon.
just examples to show how today milking it is jumping the gun, with an unsubstantiated basis.
i insist you've not stated why, if i understand you correctly, other than assertion only.

i do incidentally think nuclear has promise, but that's another thread and another point. even if you don't think ANWR is what we should be doing as per priority, you're still claiming it's what we should do, and so you have to defend it.

Edited April 29, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

I don't HAVE to do anything . I've said what I wanted to say. I will be writing a paper on it soon but don't have any obligation to do so. If I have ever contradicted myself in any thread I'd love to be shown where, but I'd rather you didn't because I do believe you don't understand what I'm writing, whether that be my lack of clarity or your lack of paying attention is irrelevant. I'm more than open to correction if I've contradicted myself but what you have shown as my "contradiction" is not a contradiction at all, simply you not grasping what I'm saying. I think its better if I bow out of this discussion since we don't seem to be getting anywhere. peace

[Justin86]

dairygirl clearly doesn't have to pay for gas if she thinks 17 cents per gallon savings is nothing.