Do You Approve Or Disapprove Of The Job George W. Bush Is Doing?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1570332' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:37 PM']OPEC hasn't done anything to the U.S. for the invasion of either Afghanistan or Iraq. China is basically willing to pay almost anything to get more oil, and this is something that portends a darker future for America, i.e., unless we choose to develop our coal and other resources.[/quote]

And as our dependency on foreign oil for energy remains and our deficit spending and increasing debt to China continues....the dollar weakens and China's bids for oil just naturally get stronger and stronger compared to us.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1570334' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:40 PM']And as our dependency on foreign oil for energy remains and our deficit spending and increasing debt to China continues....the dollar weakens and China's bids for oil just naturally get stronger and stronger compared to us.[/quote]
Yes. In a sense there are now 1.4 billion more people bidding for a limited commodity, and that figure doesn't even take into account India.

[dairygirl4u2c]

maybe it's 300 years of home heating etc. but if you look at it in terms of running a car, i'm sure that'd quickly fall.
running a car probably takes 300 times the energy than operating a normal home. well maybe not that much but a heck of a lot more. i really don't know honestly...

[Apotheoun]

America has enough oil and coal supplies to be energy self-sufficiant for three centuries, that is, if Congress would quit putting areas off limits.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1570339' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:48 PM']maybe it's 300 years of home heating etc. but if you look at it in terms of running a car, i'm sure that'd quickly fall.
running a car probably takes 300 times the energy than operating a normal home. well maybe not that much but a heck of a lot more. i really don't know honestly...[/quote]

I'm telling you a combined effort of increased usage of coal to initially reduce our dependency on foreign oil for energy combined with increased nuclear plant development and R&D into alternative fuel cell/electric technologies for cars ist he only viable solution. My dad is in the oil distribution business and I've been hearing him speaking about this stuff for years now. Expanding coal usage and increasing nuclear power will provide the time and economic stability during the long transition to a non-oil-based energy system...during this time a better electrical energy infrastructure will need to be developed and hybrid electric/fuel cell/gas cars will need to be developed.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1570343' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:51 PM']America has enough oil and coal supplies to be energy self-sufficiant for three centuries, that is, if Congress would quit putting areas off limits.[/quote]

It's not just the Congress. IMHO, rising oil prices are the best thing for the American people at this time. We vote for president once every four years. We vote with our WALLETS every single day. It is no longer expedient to flagrantly invest money into gas-guzzling cars and not be concerned with the waste and potential environmental effects. The reality is that only the more extreme ends of the social spectrum cared about oil-waste and carbon emmisions 10-15 years ago. Now there seems to be more a general consensus that we need to be looking into alternative energy sources...why???? Because we're starting to feel it in our wallets. I can't buy that nice tv I want cuz I have to drop 100 bucks on gas every week or two.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree the high prices are what we need, to drive innovation.

i like hte idea of a long transition to ensure a changed infrastructure.

personally, i've always like the idea of algae oil from what i've heard of it, and it's not something that is electic car, so i'd be heistant to encourage electric cars.
[url="http://blog.alextiller.com/post/37785292/algae-farming"]http://blog.alextiller.com/post/37785292/algae-farming[/url]
[url="http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/2008-06-11/Algae_oil_promises_truly_green_fuel/"]http://bioenergy.checkbiotech.org/news/200...uly_green_fuel/[/url]

i bet there's viable techincaolgoes and facts and info that i just don't know about.

but aside from the alage stuff, i'm not sure how to respond to the coal stuff. i mean, is it just prolonging the inevitable need to switch to something else? if a long prolongation, then who cares, let the future worry... but is it not that long? and are we switching to something we'd be wise not to? eg electical when it should be biodiesal?
cause ultimately coal will run out.... and all the waste from nukes might be able to be handeled and i bet it could be safely but i don't know.
i always liked the idea of drilling, as long as there were very strong certainties of R and D and signs of promise somewhere.
contingent policies mostly, which often i'm not sure exist, or are able to be passed in a nonnuanced congress.

i really don't know.

Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

pretty cutting edge stuff.

[url="http://www.gizmag.com/orignoil-patents-technology-for-large-scale-algae-oil-production/9414/"]http://www.gizmag.com/orignoil-patents-tec...roduction/9414/[/url]

[url="http://news.google.com/news?q=%22algae%20oil%22%20&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn"]http://news.google.com/news?q=%22algae%20o...sa=N&tab=wn[/url]

must be something to it if commerical airlines etc are taking to it. eg, not going electric.
[url="http://www.gizmag.com/airbus-commercial-airline-biofuel/9350/"]http://www.gizmag.com/airbus-commercial-ai...e-biofuel/9350/[/url]

Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1570362' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:31 AM']i agree the high prices are what we need, to drive innovation.

i like hte idea of a long transition to ensure a changed infrastructure.

personally, i've always like the idea of algae oil from what i've heard of it, and it's not something that is electic car, so i'd be heistant to encourage electric cars.

i bet there's viable techincaolgoes and facts and info that i just don't know about.

but aside from the alage stuff, i'm not sure how to respond to the coal stuff. i mean, is it just prolonging the inevitable need to switch to something else?
i always liked the idea of drilling, as long as there were very strong certainties of R and D and signs of promise somewhere.
contingent policies mostly, which often i'm not sure exist, or are able to be passed in a nonnuanced congress.[/quote]

The problem with algae oil is that it really isn't changing the fact that it is still a carbon technology (among other problems). Eventually we HAVE to get off of carbon...not just in some happy sappy tree-hugging I want penguins sort of way either. We cannot be competing with our cars for food...and since plants and animals and humans are all CARBON-BASED lifeforms...we need to get off carbon as a long term goal...its just ecological energy kinetics IMO.

The coal that Apotheoun mentioned earlier offers the best promise for an expedited release from dependence on foreign oil. The timeframe that this increased usage of coal for electric power allows for an evolving infrastructure. The reality is that 90% of the average citizens driving is to and from work each day...electric car/hybrid/fuel cell technology could easily provide affordable daily individual transportation. Having an electric/hybrid(fuel cell or gas/diesel-based) care would also allow for long distance traveling by switching over to a non-electric source. But 90% of driving back and forth from work/grocer/daycare could be accomplished using practically only electricity. By building more clean-burning coal plants and nuclear power plants and investing in an expanding electrical infrastructure...affordable electric energy could be provided for these cars until a time that even better transportation technologies become available. And the fact that our cars/homes would be using energy provided by coal/nuclear would greatly reduce our dependency on the Middle East.

That's my opinion...kinda redundant from previous posts...sorry.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if algae were like corn etc, i would agree as a practical matter that couldn't go on forever. but, it looks promising in that it can be grown in deserts etc and not that hard to grow.

just type in algae at youtube to see more videos on it like this one... 100000 gallons per acre potential.
and that the airlines are taking to it i think is indicative.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyoKTbxerpQ&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyoKTbxerpQ...feature=related[/url]
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MeIgaRfyD4[/url]

coal etc is not as a practical matter sustainable, kinetics or what have you, in my judgment.. while concedeing i'm not scientist or an expert at this.
i'm not necessarily oppposed to nuke power taking it all over, but it is a lot of nuke waste, and if ther'es a better method, then that should be used.

so basically... in terms of gambling, i'm putting my money on algae oil.

maybe even sapphire energy in particular? if not them, then probably something related to what they do... only by soeone who does it efficiently.
[url="http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1696"]http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1696[/url]
[url="http://venturebeat.com/2008/05/29/sapphire-energy-gets-open-checkbook-from-investors-for-algae-based-gasoline/"]http://venturebeat.com/2008/05/29/sapphire...based-gasoline/[/url]

Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='rachael' post='1569894' date='Jun 12 2008, 06:15 PM']Blame the Dems? Are you serious?
You're right, it's a great thing, but what else? A single reason can't hold here.[/quote]

That single reason saved MANY lives from being tortured and killed by partial birth abortion. I don't think it's fair to belittle it like that.

[picchick]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570141' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:43 PM']Oil before Iraq war was what 30 bucks a barrel?

And now its climbing past 130, The experts say we can crack 200 if we strike Iran. Wooot!

Thank you Mr. President

How many here would take the worst case scenario of 80 a barrel and 3 bucks a gallon gas today?[/quote]


Um...from what I can remember from American Government...the President's decision to go into war had to be approved by Congress. Is this correct?

[CatherineM]

Yes congress has to approve, but there are some exceptions. I think he can commit a certain amount for a certain length of time. Iraq was voted on.

[Alycin]

[quote name='picchick' post='1571492' date='Jun 14 2008, 10:12 PM']Um...from what I can remember from American Government...the President's decision to go into war had to be approved by Congress. Is this correct?[/quote]


You are correct, partially. Congress was under the impression that certain conditions were going to be met, that were not. Also, Bush was under the impression (so he says) that Iraq absoluetly without-a-doubt had WMD's. Soooo... yeah. It was a mess, to say the least.

[KnightofChrist]

Saddam or Iraq absolutely without-a-doubt had WMD. That is well documented but ignored, nor not known by most.