Screw the planet! We need oil NOW!

[Funny Monkey]

Edit: I also just bought the new Scientific American, and they have an article that I haven't read yet about the possibility of creating small, short lived black holes. Go from there to a possibility of a contained singularity and how's that for a possible source of energy. They've also got an article on some new software regarding genetics which I want to read. See what it is, and if it may be helpful in research.:type:

How would they make a black hole? Super strong B-field or something? How woudl they contain it.

I am finishing my EE degree emphasis in power in 2 weeks and then off to nuclear powerr/prototype school. I think nuclear power is the way to go. Many people do not realize the amount of fossil fuels that power companies use.

Why doesn't some chemist just make synthetic gasoline. I have no idea if this is possible but it seems plausible in my head????

 

[biggjohn]

Why doesn't some chemist just make synthetic gasoline. I have no idea if this is possible but it seems plausible in my head????

Fischer-Tropsch Technology is still a little expensive.

Invalid Link Removed

this is how it can be done, the price of gasoline will have to get higher before we start doing it.

 

[bioman]

It will happen as the market forces drive it there. It is refreshing that people are talking about this now though. If I must donate a portion of ANWR to keep the issue on the table then so be it. I do however think that every American, whether pro or anti ANWR, should be just a little sad that we have to resort to tapping wildlife refuges to support our decadent lifestyles (mine included).

Malthus and Erlich were partially right and should not be dismissed so easily. If you look at population pressures put on resources as a whole then they were in fact on the right track. Our lifestyles as we currently live them will likely be a fond memory 50 years from now. As China, India, and SE Asia all create the conditions for a growing middle class there will be far higher prices to be paid for consumer goods. Not the end of the world perhaps, but it is intraspecies competitive forces at work which is the overall thrust of Erlich et al...at least from a biologist's perspective.

 

[Justella]

This is one of the most intelligent discussions I've read on this board!

 

[Meerschaum]

Invalid Link Removed

Howabout taking that 8 billion dollars and funding R&D into developing a viable alternative energy solution?

How about spending 8 billion creating a few thousand new geothermal power plants? Geothermal is being used in many states and all over the world, I've read that many abandoned mines could be relatively cheaply modified into geothermal plant sites, cheaply because the hole is already there . It seems to never get attention from enviornmentalists.

heres more info

Invalid Link Removed

 

[CDB]

Malthus and Erlich were partially right and should not be dismissed so easily. If you look at population pressures put on resources as a whole then they were in fact on the right track. Our lifestyles as we currently live them will likely be a fond memory 50 years from now. As China, India, and SE Asia all create the conditions for a growing middle class there will be far higher prices to be paid for consumer goods. Not the end of the world perhaps, but it is intraspecies competitive forces at work which is the overall thrust of Erlich et al...at least from a biologist's perspective.

That's just the thing, they weren't right. You can't account for human adaptability and innovation in the short or long term. Could anyone have predicted the computer and its massive effect on the world? Could anyone have predicted the rise of petroleum? The mass strides in agriculture that have increased crop yields? Every prediction of impending disaster has to ignore history in two ways. They have to ignore the contiuing process of innovation that yields new solutions and creates resources out of once worthless commodities, and they have to ignore the major role governments play in past and current disasters, because they always call on the government to provide solutions. People have always been claiming that for one reason or another "our lifestyles as we currently live them will likely be a fond memory 50 years from now." Either it has to do with resources, cultural reasons, etc. I'm very skeptical of these claims, because so far the sky hasn't fallen, and I honestly think the only thing that could make it fall is the government trying to solve one too many problems, real or imagined.

For the current debate as to global warming and the climate impact of man, more open discussion is needed. And one particular point needs to be seriously addressed, and that is this: trying to keep tie environment static and ideally fit for humans instead of allowing it to change could end up being just as, if not more destructive than any amount of fossil fuel consumption and human induced climate change. It's possible the environment needs to change periodically. Who knows what will happen if we try and stop it. Maybe certain species are supposed to die, it's happened often enough in the past. Maybe the Earth needs to cycle between warm and cold snaps. Or in other words, the solutions posed usually end up with just as much environmental meddling as the supposed problem. People just find one type of meddling more aesthetically pleasing right now. That doesn't make it a good idea.

At it's simplest level, I'm skeptical of any scientist who tells me what the weather is going to be like in 200 years when they can't tell me what it's going to be like in five days with any certainty.