Why does it have to be one or the other? Why not both?
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
My guess is various renewable resources will be used in locations they are best suited (solar in south, wind in the midwest, etc.) and will be used more widely after the technologies become more developed. However, there is always going to be a need for fossil fuels but those may end up becoming reserved for the power elite through price fixing and regulation. Al Gore and friends aren't going to give up their SUVs anytime soon, and those things don't run on sweet dreams, sunshine, or good intentions.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Yes, Watchdog...both. moving way to fast to renewable has been a disaster but we must find new energy sources through private research and development. While that's happening...use fossil fuels and find fossil fuel products to become independent of the middle east.
2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If we cut out the fat cats we could stop all oil imports from the middle east now.
Less then 13% comes from the middle east now. most of our oil comes from the US, Mexico and Canada.
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The pipeline from Canada is for export not for us, They need to get it to the gulf.
4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I agree and disagree, Bob.
There are far too many hands in the energy pot including the government at all levels. Cut some of levels out and our gasoline price would fall...but that may lead to added mileage in driving.
Concerning the Keystone XL pipeline, they would put all refined products together and where it goes? The fact is that it is new business away from OPEC and good for the good old USA.
1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Beaumont ight on.
The oil from xl will be going tax free to China and India,
The over all job # will be squat.
As long as oil stays on the commodities market and some can change the price of gasoline from $3,36/gal to $3,75/gal when ever they feel like where stuck.
4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
ladybug...that's just not true. Why do you stoop to that level?
BTW did you see our old boss just passed away?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It's time for some truth...
In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the EPA now says that tighter pollution controls instituted"(BY THE INDUSTRY)"resulted in an avg. annual decrease of 41.6 mill. metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 mill. metric tons overall. That’s over a 20% reduction from previous estimates….
The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40% since 1990. The industry has boomed in recent years, thanks to a stunning expansion of drilling in previously untapped areas because of the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which injects sand, water and chemicals to break apart rock and free the gas inside.
Companies are developing more sophisticated leak detection systems, and unlike many other environmental problems (like, say, power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions), there is a market incentive to prevent these leaks without any sort of green interventionist policy. Every unit of methane released into the atmosphere during drilling is lost profit.
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
But that’s not stopping misguided greens like Bill McKibben from bemoaning the news. McKibben took this opportunity to stress the need to transition away from fossil-fuels altogether, rather than appreciating the fact that we’re extracting one of the cleanest fossil-fuels more efficiently and with much less environmental impact than ever before. McKibben’s blinders are firmly in place and so are his lies; we’re unlikely to see a revision to a post of his earlier this month in which he suggested that methane leakage might make natural gas worse for the environment than coal.
This isn’t good news for the Malthusians and Chicken Littles of the world. Their brand of environmentalism thrives on public anxiety, and it will only become less persuasive with more reports like this one. But for the rest of us, this is yet another reason to be optimistic about America’s energy future.
2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Technology created an energy revolution over the past decade — just not the one we expected.
By now, cars were supposed to be running on fuel made from plant waste or algae or poop — or powered by hydrogen or cheap batteries that burned nothing at all. Electricity would be generated with solar panels & wind turbines. When the sun didn't shine or the wind didn't blow, power would flow out of batteries the size of tractor-trailers.
Fossil fuels? They were going to be expensive & scarce, relics of an earlier, dirtier age.
But in the race to conquer energy technology, Old Energy is winning.
Oil companies have used technology to find a bounty of oil & natural gas so large that worries about running out have melted away. New imaging technologies let drillers find oil & gas trapped miles underground & undersea. Oil rigs "walk" from one drill site to the next. And engineers in Houston use remote-controlled equipment to drill for gas in Penn.
None of this is rocket science. But if you don't stop and think, it doesn't matter whether you are a genius or a moron. Words that stop people from thinking reduce even smart people to the same level as morons.
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
161 North Lincoln , Salem, OH 44460 |