Nuclear power plant explodes

That may be, but extracting it from the ground and consuming at a much faster rate would have accomplished exactly what?

If the US continued to extract and consume US oil reserves along the same trajectory as it was heading on in 1971 How much US oil would be left today?

In other words US is consuming half as much domestic oil as it did in 1971 Had the US continued to extract and consume along the trajectory it was set on in 1971 it would be consuming 3 times as much oil from US sources instead of half as much

So how much oil would be left in the ground had the US taken your pedal to the metal approach to extraction and consumption?

Maybe there is no way for you to wrap your head around it But... Almost all industry regulation is formulated by persons from the regulated industry And then those regulations are administered by persons from that regulated industry also The oil industry is the prime example of this

-jim

Reply to
jim
Loading thread data ...

In case you haven't noticed there have been MORE oil reserves found in the US since that time. Just been banned by the liberals from actually getting them.

So in your world Obama isn't the person who signed the moratorium on drilling offshore, and it couldn't have been Bill Clinton who signed the laws that locked up thousands of acres of coal, and it must have been the nasty people at BP who drew up abd singed the paperwork blocking drilling on the north slope and in ANWAR. I'm sure it was folks from Exxon who created the latest permit system that runs the applicant in circles and stops anything from actually happening in oil exploration . Just like it is those folks who design and build the big wind turbines who passed laws stopping them from being constructed off the coast of Mass.

Yep sure can see how it is the INDUSTRY in charge.

Maybe you need to actually understand how the REAL world operates. Not your little SIM world.

Reply to
Steve W.

Your not even going to make a wild guess at what the answer is

I didn't say anything about the hob goblins who sign stuff Did hob goblins sign something that locked up your ability to reason? And why are you calling folks nasty they're just trying to make a buck

I'm also sure it was the folks from Exxon (inter alia) It is easy to tell (what appears like circles to you) helps Exxon make more money in the long run but why don't you try to tell me how it hurts Exxon

One of the things Exxon has probably noticed that seems to have escaped your attention the stuff is not losing value as it sits there underground And it isn't as if Exxon is sitting off in the corner with nothing to do but cry and mope about where they might find a barrel of oil to sell

You mean the wind industry might not be so entrenched as the oil industry Oh My! Quelle surprise

Reply to
jim

So, just who the FUCK is responsible for me not getting my atomic-powered flying car that I was promised when I was a kid?

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Isn't it terribly strange that "radiation," which is used to _treat_ cancer, is now also getting blamed for _causing_ it?

Which does it do, cause it or cure it? Can you really have it both ways?

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Clinton. Look it up.

Reply to
John R. Carroll

How many? Where?

All I see are pro-nuke people repeatedly jumping up to tell us what anti-nuke people must be saying.

Reply to
Beryl

I didn't get an atomic car but I did have a chemistry set with some uranium and some other stuff that would cause the agents to raid your house today if they knew you had the stuff.

John

Reply to
John

It depends on the polarity and frequency of the radiation.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

It is difficult to ignore the journalists, though. They are positively squealing and touching themselves over this.

"WHAT? They did not design something for a 9.0 earthquake, followed by a 30 foot tsunami??"

"That's why we need WIND and SOLAR! And HYDROGEN!" It's all free, you know.

Every dump-picker on EBay is selling every treadmill motor they find as a "wind generator", so it must be true.

Reply to
Grunty

Well, duh. Of course not. They have their Obamessiah issue an imperial edict forbidding drilling.

If you can't see the difference there, then you either need medical attention or at least remedial education in elementary science.

Hope This Helps! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

  1. Reduce dependence on Islamist countries' oil.
  2. Keep the cost of gasoline below .00 (going on 5)/gallon.
  3. Let the corn farmers actually produce food, rather than have their resources diverted to pie-in-the-sky schemes for "ethanol."
  4. Remove the necessity for the astronomical government subsidies (paid for out of your pocket, unless you evade your taxes) needed to create the illusion that solar and wind are viable.
  5. Employ a lot of people who build and operate the rigs and refineries.

OK, that's all I have so off the top of my head - anybody else want to chime in on this one?

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Flying cars? Are you kidding? We would need full implementation of some sort of collision-avoidance system - can you imagine if the drivers who kill 50,000 people every year on the highways, which are well-defined paths, were allowed to fly in three dimensions?

Well, maybe it would help with Darwinizing the idiots. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Tom -

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car, a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed to deliver, and I'm pissed. I think about this every time I'm forced to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city like the Jetsons.

Reply to
rangerssuck

The only thing your plan accomplishes is to deplete the oil supply earlier rather than later Are you in a hurry to get it out of the ground before the price goes up?

Farmers are much happier growing crops they can sell at a profit rather growing food that no one wants at a loss and having the government make up the difference

Reply to
jim

How did the Jetsons do it?

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Tom -

Yet another thing we agree on (imagine that - two in a day!).

I plan to start a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics. They promised me a flying car, a jetpack and a gyrocopter and a hovercraft. They have utterly failed to deliver, and I'm pissed. I think about this every time I'm forced to drive into midtown Manhattan on business (as I will be doing tomorrow). It would be so completely cool to be flying around the city like the Jetsons.

*********

That's why I'm such a bitter old man.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Well, being a cartoon probably helped. ;-D

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

Well, you _could_ get or build a gyrocopter; jetpacks exist, but they're prohibitively expensive and can only carry a few minutes' worth of fuel, and you can build your own hovercraft:

formatting link
There have been several flying cars on the market in the past, but apparently nobody could afford one, and there's that pesky pilot's license issue, but I guess you don't need a license for an ultralight.

So what's your real problem?

Thanks, Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise

With sprockets. They were pre-Flubber.

-- Small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises. -- Demosthenes

Reply to
Larry Jaques

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.