How can we become energy independent when the Liberals are against all forms of energy production? So what Should we do?
Oil Drilling:
Oil Production and Environmental Damage
http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm
N .J. Dems oppose offshore oil drilling – Breaking News From New …
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/07/n_j_dems_speak_out_against_off.html
Windmills:
Storm Over Mass. Windmill Plan
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/2…
Wind Farms Face Green Resistance
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/0…
Altamont Pass so dangerous for birds of prey?
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0…
Wind mills take Acers and Acers of land to produce the same as one Oil Well which is more environmentally friendly? And witch will be more harmful to animal species in the areas?
Solar:
Hearings to debate impact of solar farms on threatened species
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stori…
Solar farms’ impact to be explained
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/environment/…
Solar panels take Acers and Acers of land to produce the same
as one Oil Well which is more environmentally friendly? And witch will be more harmful to animal species in the areas?
hydroelectric:
The fates of salmon and hydroelectric production lie in the hands of a federal judge
http://www.idahostatesman.com/235/story/…
Threatened and Endangered Fishes
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/anglerboater…
Nuclear:
Opposing nuclear power: past and present
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/07sa.html
The case against nuclear power | Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/the-case-against-nuclear-power-20080108
Convert coal to liquid form and use engines that burn it for fuel. The problem with it is that it is the dirtiest way of getting energy. The good thing is the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Its dirt cheap.
February 21st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I’m a big fan of the windmill idea, myself.
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Convert coal to liquid form and use engines that burn it for fuel. The problem with it is that it is the dirtiest way of getting energy. The good thing is the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Its dirt cheap.
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Liberals aren’t against energy production–jsut against continuing to rely on coal, oil, and other obsolete and polluting technologies.
And why are the cons whining about energy independance anyway? They are the ones who dismantled Carter’s programs to promote entrepreneurship in the energy industry and conservation industries in the 1980s. They are the ones who’ve kept nuclear power off the market so the coal companies didn’t have to compete in a free market. They are also the ones who’ve spent the last 8 years ridiculing liberals who kept warning that dependence on foreign oil was going to get us in trouble–and the only response we got was that we "wanted to interfere in the free market."
You are getting exactly what you asked for.
Me? Being the stupid liberal I am–I live where I can use the subway and walk. Don’t have a car because I don’t need one. My transportation cost last month? $75. And I make an above average salary. So while you oh so smart cons are pumping your retirement savings into the gas tank of your SUV–I’m buying stock.
And ROTFLMAO
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
No 1 or even 2 things will get the job done.
We need to use every energy source we can,oil,coal,hydroelectric,nuclear,wind and solar while we wait for science to come up with the miracle cure.
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 4:40 pm
There are many other ways to generate power and to SAVE energy.
1st – energy efficiency is key using solar panels on roofs, passive geothermal heat pumps. and solar water heaters
Further, there are major studies and research efforts being directed towards capturing tidal energy, which is enormous.
Energy also can be effectively captured from our waste stream, which consists of over 1/2 by volume of organic waste (carbon) that can be utilized.
Further, a simple reduction in meat consumption can have dramatic savings in total energy consumption. We apply 10X the energy to crops than the amount of caloric energy we get in return. We subsequently feed 10X the energy in this crop feed to animals that we get in return in meat calories.
Thus, when we apply 100 calories, for example, of petro-chemicals (fertilizer, etc.) to crops, which is made from hydrocarbons, we ultimately end up with 1 calorie of meat (at best). If folks cared, they could reduce meat consumption to once a day, and perhaps have 1 meat free day each week. This would save 10’s 0f millions of barrels of oil per year
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 5:26 pm
First off the non-existant ‘liberals’ are only for or against whatever words are put into this strawman’s mouth by the GOP’s Ministry of Propaganda, but that’s another story. ‘Energy’ has two main componants. One is used to keep the lights on, and the other is to keep the wheels on the road. Solar panels, to produce all of the daytime energy needed to keep all electrical equipment humming would require the use of about ten thousand square miles. That’s the same as 100 miles on a side. Of course not all of those panels would be in the same place, and many of them, if not most of them could be sited on unused roofs…decentralized power. Wind power, while to some people is unsightly, is something that the next genration will take for granted, the same as we take for granted high tension power lines and above ground utility lines. Oil, is rarely burned to produce electricity so there’s no conflict between these two. As far as environmentally friendly, solar is way ahead of the game given that burning anything is bad for the environment. ‘Clean coal’ for example, even if there really was such a thing can never be really ‘clean’. Even if all of the proposed technology were at 100% all the time the release of heavy metals, soot and CO2 would be significant, and of course the technology will never be at 100% anyway. Nuclear power has the disadvantage of requiring massive federal intervention and subsidies to operate. Just the security issues alone per year burns through enough taxpayer money to build and install several hundred thousand non-polluting solar panels….at no direct cost to the tax payer. Then there’s the issue of sealing away nuclear waste for 10,000 years. The billions already spent on this could have built and installed another several hundred thousand solar panels. The ‘oil’ situation could easily be managed by requiring ALL US produced oil to be consumed entirely in the US…no world market exports. That and raising the CAFE standards significantly would negate imported oil from the middle east. Given the expense of our military commitment there, an expense not added to the price of a gallon of gas at the pump, would be a massive savings to the American public. I could go on about this, but the bottom line is that ‘oil’ is yesterday’s news and 21st century technology is today’s news and that’s the energy sources we should concentrate on. No kiddin’!
References :
February 21st, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Good point
We cant when they vote down every good idea
Luke
References :