- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
LOL
We loaned Brazil money to develop off shore oil, look up Petrobas loans, and look at how many shares of Petrobas Soros had and how much money he made after the US loan.
Brazil tried to convert to ethanol, it failed. now they are desperately trying to get back on oil. Ethanol used up most of their food crops so food prices soared, ethanol is more expensive than gasoline so energy prices soared. massive failure in every way
So you think a fuel source that takes millions of years to make is somehow better than one that takes a growing season? Ethanol is at least renewable. You are not going to renew the oil supply of the earth in 100 lifetimes. pretty much when it is gone, it is gone. The earth is not making the stuff underground. At least you can try to grow crops every year. It just doesn't make sense to have your fuel and food competing with each other. Plus, basing your energy on a resource which can have vastly different growing seasons and yields is dangerous at best. Ethanol is not a substitute for gasoline. it merely allows for less dependence on foreign oil.
Despite it's poor replacement value for Oil, we have been using ethanol for many years to decrease the amount of oil used for fuel. These temporary measures allow for time to develop other better technologies. One of the best is probably hydrogen. I find it amazing the propaganda about hydrogen and the lies about it's dangers that have come up. HP storage is fairly safe today. I have some 6000 PSI units here in my house, and use them regularly. Hydrogen is also far less dangerous than petroleum products if it happens to escape. hydrogen dissipates extremely fast for a gas, and though it can be explosive, it also does not burn the same as gasoline or fossil fuels.
You should really stop believing the bull**** the oil salesman tells you.
Solyndra, 500 million down the drain.
Yes, we need to work on alternative energy, but let the free market do it. The govt did not incentivize Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Edison, Salk, or Bill Cosby.
You might want to educate yourself on the government. Money for development of new technologies is quite common, and has been budgeted into your taxes for as long as you have been alive. It is not like this is a new untried thing. it is merely a movement of the present funds for development to focus on this goal. if they cancelled green energy development it is not like the money goes back into the budget for other non-development things. It would just go to developing some other important technology.
The guy that comes up with an efficient, affordable alternative energy source will be an instant billionaire. But if you try to do it with govt money, that incentive goes away because the govt would claim all of the profits.
Again, you are wrong. yes, the guy who developed it would sell the patents, and we would never see the technology. Let us say i developed a hydrogen power plant that would fit into most cars. The first thing that happens is the oil tycoons come over and buy up the patent, and then bury the technology. Why? because they sell oil, and competition that removes them from the market makes all the money they spent on mineral rights and drilling virtually worthless. You seem to be under the false impression that trechnology wins. it is greed that wins. oil makes money, and therefor it is protected.
Real GREEN energy is a long way off, while we are working on that, we need to find ways to conserve traditional fuels and use them more efficiently.
Why, according to you the earth just spits out oil and makes it automatically. people will not be allowed to switch until they have to. Just think about all the jobs and money that would be needed to switch america over to a new fuel system. One of the things hampering electric cars presently is that they cannot find a way to get you to a gas station to fill up. Anyone can offer up electricity, and all those gasoline companies would take a massive hit if you do not have to refuel at their special location. this is why the development has shifted to a replaceable battery that you have to get from a fuel station instead of just an electrical plug. They don't want cars running on something you can get from almost anywhere. they want you to have to go to them so they can sell you something.
the biggest obstacle in the way of green technology is the present system that makes a lot of money off of you. They are not going to let you have free, efficient, easily renewable energy if they can prevent it. What is great is you listen to their bull and like the sheep you are buy it.
China is building coal fired electric plants as fast as they can, so is India. those countries need the energy and the US is the coal capital of the world. why not make money for US companies by selling our coal to China and India?
Because china is not going to rely on it's largest competitor for it's fuel. yes, coal plants are developed and quick to set up. they meet a need fast, and china needs things fast. They are not going to rely on it forever, especially if it means relying on the US to supply them. In all honesty, the best hope in the world for cheap, efficient, and good fuel is a communist or socialist state. capitlism loves waste because waste makes money. Communism hates waste because it takes away from the governments money. If they can develop free green energy it is great for their government. it saves money and that puts money into the hands of the chinese government.