We should be building nuclear power plants all over the place. Clean burning coal plants should be built. Drilling for oil should commence in Alaska and off both coasts, with the oil required for use domestically and not to be sold into the world market. More refineries should be built.
Greenies can also knock themselves out trying to prove that giant, ugly, intrusive wind farms are practical. If someone can build an electric car that operates less like a go-cart and more like a regular car, bring it on. Whatever happened to all these secret designs for engines that run on Kumbaya that "Big Oil" is supposed to be surpressing? On Dec 8, 5:28 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We disagree on many things... But not on this critical point... > Until the 60's we controlled both production and demand... By the 70 > we made a deal with the Saudis (who by then controlled production) > concerning the price of oil... Now we no longer control the demand > (China does)... Not to be aggressive on Alternative Energy now, as > well as drilling IMHO, is redoing Nero's watching Rome burn.... > > The trick is to spend the DEVELOPMENTAL cost of Alternate Energy > seeking sources whose cost of production is $30-$40 dollars a > barrel... The developmental cost of computer hardware is high, but > with mass production the cost of the hardware becomes cheap fast... > > On Dec 8, 5:12 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > wncs, > > > History shows that we will do nothing about alternative fuels untill > > we are forced to. During the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 politicians on > > BOTH sides made loud and passionate speeches about how "the U.S. will > > never agin be held hostage by OPEC, we will poor billions into > > research & developement of alternatives,blah-blah-blah". > > As soon as the oil flow was continued, prices dropped and the gas > > lines disappered we went right back to our old ways and soon were > > importing even more oil. We've had 35 freakin' years to prepare and > > did next to NOTHING. > > > On Dec 8, 2:52 pm, wncs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > They say that necessity is the mother of invention, so to an extent > > > you're right that we may not explore alternatives as long as the > > > current way is convenient. However, there is also the fact that people > > > are losing their jobs, their homes, etc., and any economic break we > > > can have, we will take. Personally I am grateful for the low gas > > > prices currently. It might slow down the urgency of exploring > > > alternatives, but I think most Americans realize the need for a long- > > > term solution. We have experienced gas prices close to $5 and also > > > shortages in my area for weeks during September, so I think that is > > > still fresh in our minds and the need for new research won't be > > > forgotten, just slowed perhaps. > > > > On Dec 8, 3:37 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > jgg, > > > > > Exactly right. If oil/gas prices are low why develop alternatives? > > > > And that is exactly why oil/gas prices are low right now, to make > > > > certain alternatives are NOT developed. To SOME extent Brokow is > > > > correct. > > > > > On Dec 8, 11:43 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Low gas prices will ensure alternate energy is NOT developed... That > > > > > is the problem unstated here... > > > > > > On Dec 8, 10:45 am, Philobealo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > If you needed any more proof that liberal media members don't give a > > > > > > darn about the state of the economy or the American people, and > > > > > > instead just want to raise taxes, you got it Sunday when Tom Brokaw > > > > > > advocated gas prices, which have plummeted recently, be kept at $4 a > > > > > > gallon with government keeping the added cost. > > > > > > > Coming just two days after it was announced that America lost over > > > > > > 500,000 jobs in November, Brokaw, in what could be his last > > > > > > performance as "Meet the Press" host, actually asked Barack Obama > > > > > > why > > > > > > taxes shouldn't be dramatically raised on gasoline with revenues to > > > > > > be > > > > > > spent on alternative energy, and to send a signal that folks won't > > > > > > be > > > > > > able to "just fill up [their] tank for 20 bucks anymore."- Hide > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
