What is Digg?121 Comments
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Unprepared ? LOL
what do you think we are doing in Iraq ..
and before u digg me down, read these declassified documents. They say everything ..
http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml - rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"As crude oil prices surge on rising political tensions with Iran"
Little known fact:
Iran imports 40% of its oil. It has some of the biggest oil reserves in the world, but doesn't have the infrastructure to refine it. The only reason why tensions with Iran raise oil prices is because it gives OPEC another excuse to do so.
from the economist:
"Petrol rationing in a country with the world's second-largest reserves of crude oil might sound slightly strange. But Iran's big problem is a shortage of refineries; it can only satisfy about 60% of its soaring demand with locally produced petrol. It imports the rest at market prices of about 45 cents a litre—five times what motorists pay at the pumps." - Narrator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It will happen eventually -- whether we want it too or not. It will be implemented by a higher power than government called "geological reality".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I'm all for technology making us more efficient...
- PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@Dukey,
i hope you're the only one who thinks that preparing for an oil crisis merits a full-scale invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Owning guns doesn't mean people are going to fight. Look at Iraq. Everyone had guns but they never stood up to Saddam.
There was a video of a police officer beating up a woman in America on the video section. Yet no one in the bar did anything. - orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9O.K., lets brush off our long term memories here. As far as the media and their constant need for sensationalism to bring in ad dollars, when has this country not had an "oil crisis" besides every year? So you can all sleep tonight, heres whats gonna happen:
1.) Gas prices will rise to ridiculous levels again as usual.
2.) We will pay the price.
3.) Gas companies will shatter profit records.
4.) Congress will call a mock inquiry of the oil execs.
5.) We will still pay high gas prices.
6.) Rinse, repeat.
Have a nice day! :) - Wargalas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8While I don't agree with your "bedwetters" comment, I do agree that the ANWR is the perfect place to help get us off the edge of foreign oil dependence. Unfortunately, it takes several years before something like that can be set up. Personally, I'm looking forward to the compressed air car. http://www.theaircar.com It's ugly as sin, but it's pollution free and cheap.
- ephemerae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7[something useful.]
Like decent subway systems, perhaps. - drake77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I so dearly long for the day when we can, as a nation, embrase the oil-alternative technologies that are already out there (plug-in hybrid, etc) and say "goodbye and ***** you" to the middle east forever. Just imagine how the world will change when middle-eastern oil revenues go from the hundreds of billions of dollars that they are today down to $0.
Man I can't wait... - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7We require more Vespene Gas.
- DiggingDeep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6We need more mana!
- moonlessrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If big oil companies and the car industry hadn't hammered the lid shut on electric cars (among other things) during the last 4 years then the coming oil crisis might not have been as significant as it now will be for the US.
- drake77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The beauty is that we don't have to cut back. We are smart enough to think up new ways to do thinks so that we can have our cake and eat it too (read: CFL light bulbs, plug-in hybrids, etc). Because we live in a market-based economy, however, new technologies will not emerge until there is a market for them, and this is where the government has to step in- we need their help to get these technologies out of the starting gate. Take the Internet for example- do you really think there would be an Internet today if government hadn't stepped in to help incubate such a massive and outside-of-the-box project?
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yes but doesn't work so great in cold weather... Even the cars in Brazil need gasoline to start up and warm up the engine.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ethanol sure, but from where?
If we could get it from switchgrass, the energy economics would be awesome. Unfortunately, we can't do that on an industrial scale yet.
If we could get if from sugar cane, the energy economics would be OK. Brazil does that, but the climate in the United States isn't suited for that.
We can currently get ethanol from corn, but the energy economics range from breaking even to crummy (depending on the exact process).
At our present technology, ethanol just isn't too useful. We simply need better enzymes before it can really take off. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Easiest solution, have our government kick our purchasing of oil into overdrive to create a national oil reserve that can last us 2 years. With this additional demand we will push up the price of oil, accelerating the adoption of alternative technologies and energy sources. We will then have a 2 year supply of emergency oil reserves (currently, we have 60 days worth) to help survive any interruptions or a decline in oil production. It will also be a wise investment. Oil is as good as gold and silver as far as wealth preservation goes. With an abundant reserve we would not be susceptible to threats from any nation threatening an interruption of oil. Also, if we, the US, are the trailblazers in the alternative energy markets and we achieve energy independence, we can then sell our oil reserves to everybody else that's eating our dust. Hey... a guy's allowed to dream.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Drilling domestically would barely put a dent in our dependence on foreign oil.
- ephemerae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If braindead car companies would just sell us good electric cars with decent range, then we wouldn't have to use oil for fuel. But no, they want us to buy/steal oil from people who hate us.
- Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah nevermind the fact that the dollar's value has plummeted... Bigger numbers do not always mean more expensive.
- CannedMango, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The sad thing is that Iraq IS the US Government's Oil Supply solution.
If we had people with progressive visions instead of outdated warmongers focusing on resource wars we might have spent that trillion dollars actually doing something useful. - SpectralSounds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Ibanezfoo
The prices of all imported products in the U.S. do not mimic gasoline price fluctuations. So, the value of the U.S. dollar doesnt have all that much to do with it.
When gas was over $3.00 a gallon, and then dropped down to just over $2 in a month. Was that because the U.S. dollars value skyrocketed during that period? I think not. - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the first step to fixing things is to realise they are ***** up
it seems there are still far too many people with their head buried deep in the sand - tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It will happen once the oil companies feel confident that the new efficient way of power will still bring them outrageous profits. But until then...
- drake77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Plug-in hybrid technology would grow our economy, exponentially. Here's how:
Instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars OUT of our economy every year to buy oil, that money would stay in our economy because 100% of the electricity used would be made by Americans, for Americans, with American coal, uranium, wind and water.
Remember that budget deficit we have now? The vast majority of it is because of the oil we buy. - mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3look at it another way, the stuff in Alaska is harder to get at than the middle east... It would be better for everybody if we CUT the 4% of our usage rather than spoil our environment drilling for it. Tactically, it's better to use THEIR oil up first while we still have ours here. We have to deal with use, not supply. Other countries are starting to want their cut of the oil supply too... we'll have to share soon and THAT will be the thing to drive fuel efficiency, and lower consuming appliances. Even manufacturing is trying to save as much energy as possible and still turn out tools... even super high users like steel mills are finding ways to save double digit % of energy. In our tech market low power is in mostly because people want smaller and smaller things and are willing to pay extra money for the tech... if it can run on batteries there's a pretty good chance it's getting more efficient. PCs are almost there if we could give up monster gaming machines... LCD TVs all the rage use much less power than tubes. Washers, dryers, refrigerators.. all use much less power. Our main issues are that low cost of energy is allowing people to replace the savings with super inefficient things like SUVs and Central Air in 3,000 sq ft houses in Arizona with golf course quality lawns.
No amount of drilling for more will fix the problem of consumers soaking up all the excess. That's one thing the govt is good at is stacking the deck to push society where it needs to go. If congress was smart they'd up the gas tax and start making ineffiency cost bucks. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Invading countries for their oil is only good for private individuals to profit enormously. It does not guarantee the US any oil.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4luke:
Don't forget that the US government owns one of the largest oil reserves in the world... All that oil shale on federal lands out west. With current technology, it would be profitable to tap into this resource when prices hit around $100/barrel..
Add in all the oil we have up north, the oil we haven't been drilling for for environmental concerns off our coasts (Mexico has no qualms with doing this!), and our coal reserves and there is no way that the USA will run out of energy in our lifetimes. Any "crisis" will be short lived, measured in years and not decades. - ephemerae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3[We will not run out of oil, its a damn myth! ]
Last time I checked, the earth was not a TARDIS full of oil. kthxbye. - flink405, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3rich skinny asses are okay?
oh yeah Germany makes all the gas guzzling BMWs, Mercedes (owns Chrysler, too), Audis, Porsches that the rich fatasses drive - tell the Germans to quit making them then the rich fatasses won´t have any to drive.
And the Italians and their carbon belching Ferraris and Lamborghinis for rich fatasses. Ban those Italian cars.
And every time a I see a politician any where in the world they are being chauferrred in gas guzzling big fatass cars. So I guess what´s good for bush is good for all the other politicians, too. You of course include them in your rant, right?
And heck most SUVs are owned by un-rich fatasses in America, but rather poor to middle class fatasses. Bet your mommy owns one, right? An SUV that is, not a fatass. :-) - origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Two words: Homer Simpson.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed. Even from an environmental impact perspective, Peak Oil would be more devastating. Could you imagine? "Being green" in an industrial age requires money. That would be out the window. We'd be raping the land left and right, trying to find energy out of sheer desperation. Economic collapse would equal abandoned chemical plants, etc. decaying with their contents leaching into the groundwater. It would be grim.
- eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What?
How the hell will invading Iran get us oil? the same way invading Iraq so lowered the price of gas and got us oil. Wrong. - PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i would KILL for a decent subway system in LA....
p.s. SF's transit system is amazing, fantastic synergy between the subways, the buses, and BART. - Amnesia10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The shock would be good for the US in the long term. It would enable the US to cut imports of gasoline with a immediate benefit to the balance of trade. And which would
The real problem is to find alternatives. The way of having higher energy taxes that would raise the price of energy so that there is a real benefit to swap to an alternative. It would also raise a huge sum so that the US government could either cut other taxes or invest in research of new technologies and installing them or both.
After a time the US consumer will adapt and rather than waste money on expensive to run technologies will switch to environmental friendly one. With the benefit to the long term of the US Economy. Without the USA's relentless demand for oil the power of OPEC and the middle east will wane dramatically. A poor Saudi Arabia will not be able to fund terrorism. - venicerocco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Luke:
It's not about whether it's fiction or reality. It's reality. This is absolute certain fact. Oil is finite. Period.
The confusion lies in when it will happen. Tomorrow? Or 100 years from now?
Also it cannot easily be manufactured. This is absurd. There are ~20 countries with oil, all of whom would have to be in on it, plus Opec.
But of course I agree with you about getting away from oil. Especially Middle Eastern oil. - freeagent99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We don't have to cut back, just don't be wasteful. Need light, use a CFL. Need a car, what's wrong with a mid-size car that gets 35mpg (or a small car that gets 40 - 60 mpg for that matter). The Accord Hybrid is something like 250 horsepower and the Camry Hybrid is 187, that's plenty for most.
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What a ***** disgrace. We've been forced into this country by greedy, dispicable politicians and oil lobbyists, had thousands of innocent people die, all in the name of profits. I can't believe that this kind of corruption has made its way so deep into the government.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So much waste is built into the system. How many millions drive to a job that they could likely do just as well from home? How many people drive 8000 lb trucks when the heaviest thing they haul is a cup of coffee?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4We aren't prepared because nothing has been done on either side. One side advocates cutting back demand forcefully through stronger regulation and investment in (the least efficient) renewables. The other side would like us to drill for more oil domestically, use more coal, and invest in different renewables (hydrogen, nuclear)..
I think a balance needs to be reached so that we can move forward... unfortunately that won't happen because I feel the Republicans are much more "right" than the Democrats on this issue... and they know it. The Democrats, for their part, will dig in their heels and demand draconian emissions laws and investment in the wrong renewables (which would destroy our economy). - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ethanol from hemp is cheap and feasible. Now.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Though opening ANWR would make a lot of people extremely rich, it would provide about 4 months of oil for the US. Not a lot. A not nearly enough to depend even a drop of independence.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Tell me why we don't institute a magnetic monorail system. I mean the technology is there.
Think Magnets. - drake77, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@tidu: the ***** up thing is that the oil companies *could* make huge profits with oil-alternatives, but they just don't want to.
The beauty of all of the oil-alternative ideas out there (every one of them) is that they can be made here at home in the U.S by Americans for Americans (ex: ethanol, electricity for plug-in hybrids, hydrogen, etc.) Oil companies would no longer have to worry about global politics to meet their their bottom line.
The current people that lead the oil companies, however, and backward-thinking, old, ***** that are afraid of technology and innovation. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well ... i meant to say hydroelectric instead of hydrogen. Digg's editor wasn't letting me change anything. Hydrogen, produced with nuclear and hydroelectric power, would be a good way to get us off one of the biggest vulnerabilities we have -- the grid.
- garyh84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've always thought magnetic highways blanketing the US would be the way to go... yeah yeah, it would cost billions to do so. And how much are we spending on oil now?
It would allow for programmable cars, higher speeds and have tons of less accidents. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Iran imports 40% of its oil."
Actually, you're way off base. They import 40% of their petrol, which is GASOLINE, not oil. Sucka. - auspicateur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Check your geochemistry. Oil is hydrocarbon - hydrogen and carbon. The carbon came from the surface of the earth - organic material, long, long ago -- millions of years ago when the earth was thick with plants and other carbon storing organisms in the ocean. But there is no oil below five miles deep. You're not going to find it. The carbon transforms into nice glittery diamonds at that depth. So what's gone is gone... Now if you can wait another 10 million years...
- origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Running out of fossil fuel would be a blessing. At that point corporate oil could not mess with our politics anymore.
- origclubsoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We did not go to war in Iraq for oil. We ship our oil into Iraq. We have not received one drop of Iraqi oil. Iraq is not currently producing oil because the insurgents are blowing up the pipeline.
When you consider what is actually occurring, the insurgents are preventing Iraq to recover. The US will leave Iraq whether the war is over or not. Its in the insurgents best interest that the US rebuilds the damage. -
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is