Reverend_Hellh0und

that's funny. he almost sounds like a Kennedy there.


They may both be jokers....

__________________
كافر
Never forget those who died.
Never forget those who killed them.

WI Crippler

If Gore would have said 25 years instead of 10, it might be somewhat feasible. You have to remember, we have an entire infrastructure set up on using oil as an energy source. You cannot simply replace that so quickly. Its going to have to be a gradual change brought about by the economics of providing supply for energy demand. To try and artificially replace oil before it needs to be replaced, just doesn't make any sense, unless somekind of breakthrough happens and we can make the swithc relativley easy. I'm not worried about the greenhouse emmisions stuff. Oil will most likely be replaced as a main energy source in the US by the time supposed disaster strikes.

__________________
"Fatigue makes cowards of us all" - Vincent T. Lombardi.

danarhea

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with someone admitting that he was wrong, and then going about his business. Are you Jesus Christ, or are you sometimes wrong, like the rest of us?

__________________
Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2008

UtahBill

The infrastructure for oil is aimed at liquid fuel for cars, trucks, planes and trains. Gore is talking about electricity, and altho SOME cars can run on electricity, it really is apples for cars and oranges for electrical needs.
Pickens says by not using NG for electricity, it can be used in cars. True, but what will we do with all the combined cycle natural gas turbine peaking plants? They need the gas to run, and we need the plants for peaking power when the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine. Gore hasn't said what he would do with the displace NG, but I suppose we would use it as we always have, in our homes.

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

Iriemon

I'm sure lots of folks have different opinions about the characters. Who cares.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

UtahBill

No, not JC, but perhaps a descendant of a distant cousin of his...
I am sometimes wrong, but seldom as much as those who have no education or experience in power production.
I am a former navy nuke operator, have worked in or around nuclear most of my working career since 1966, and have taken several related college classes. The most interesting was called Alternate Energy Technology, and during that semester we studied all that was available, and the pros and cons of each. Coal came out cheapest, but environmentally very dirty. Nuclear was expensive, but clean. NG is fairly clean, but at the time of the class (1984) it was supposed that there wasn't enough proven reserves. That has since changed a bit. Oil was, and is, barely used to make electricity. Solar, wind, geothermal are site situational, you use it locally, anywhere you can make it feasible, and there are not as many places as you might think. AFTER production, you have to look at the capabilites of getting the power to the customer. The grid we have is not up to it, we would have to upgrade whichever direction we go, and build new lines as well.
And after all that, we looked at conservation. We proved, using basic math, that if each American consumer reduced usage of electricity by 10%, we could put off building new power plants for a number of years. I forget the numbers, but it was significant.
If a "moon shot" is to be done, we should first aim at conservation....it is cheap, easy, and doable immediately with no new technology involved.

mikhail

you nation of whiners get er done

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

Orius

Telling the United States to conserve is like telling China to conserve.

Kandahar

Perhaps, but so what? What's wrong with striving for that? If people and governments have a vision to work toward, they'll be more inspired to make the necessary changes. "Clean energy in 10 years" is simply a more inspiring goal than "Reducing foreign oil consumption from $700 billion to $400 billion in 10 years."

Umm...In Texas and Oklahoma, where they belong.

__________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams

Kandahar

No, it would have very little effect. If we increase our drilling by 10% (even if we assume that production increased by a corresponding 10%, which it wouldn't), how much would that change the overall world supply? The US only produces 12% of the world's oil, so a 10% increase in our production would add an additional 1.2% to the world's total production.