It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Article predicts 'tragic destiny' for the US

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjcDETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. Wednesday said it signed an $88 million deal with the Department of Energy to build a fleet of 40 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and further develop the technology..."

This has actually been going on for quite some time.

Once oil demand is reduced to almost nothing, so will the middle east...

The arabian penninsula certainly, but not iraq iran of the med coast countries. Oil is also still more effective than hydrogen cells. But it is interesting to ponder. What will happen to the arabian penninsula if the world economy abandons oil completely? I doubt it will return to the pre-kingdom type existence, at least not too quickly.

However, there is more likelyhood that the west can switch to a non-oil economy while the developing countries stick with oil. This will be interesting, because it will mean that countries like saudi arabia and other middle eastern oil countries will be more powerful and more affluent than their customers, the reverse of what it is now. Imagine an expanded Saudi arabia that includes parts of the horn of africa and the like.




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by skippytjcDETROIT (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. Wednesday said it signed an $88 million deal with the Department of Energy to build a fleet of 40 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and further develop the technology..."

This has actually been going on for quite some time.

Once oil demand is reduced to almost nothing, so will the middle east...

The arabian penninsula certainly, but not iraq iran of the med coast countries. Oil is also still more effective than hydrogen cells. But it is interesting to ponder. What will happen to the arabian penninsula if the world economy abandons oil completely? I doubt it will return to the pre-kingdom type existence, at least not too quickly.

However, there is more likelyhood that the west can switch to a non-oil economy while the developing countries stick with oil. This will be interesting, because it will mean that countries like saudi arabia and other middle eastern oil countries will be more powerful and more affluent than their customers, the reverse of what it is now. Imagine an expanded Saudi arabia that includes parts of the horn of africa and the like.


Thats one point, but dont you think the US would use any new alternate energy tech to gain power in those very countries? The US uses the massive majority of the oil in the world, that alone could cripple the middle east. Add then all the other countries to US sells/gives this tech to and that seals it.

Arab nations that depend on oil exports need to get in line. Because the world isnt going to need them much longer.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Please consider that our government heavily depends on 'gas taxes' to forward our economy and infrastructure costs etc. To simply suggest that battery or hydrogen operated automobile engines would "crush" other nations who heavily depend on oil exporting are completely wrong!

Our government is currently researching GPS logging technologies to track mileage so if in fact one day hydrogen cars are mainstream, they'll continue on taxing our existence to death per the mile..

Freedom, but with a noose huh?



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
I've done a bit of topical reading and do not have a link for it, but I was reading somewhere that there is some evidence to indicate that the oil is renewing itself. That oil may not be a biological entity (left over squished dinosaurs), but something that renews itself deep in the bowels of the earth where pressure and heat interacts with minerals, etc. Boy! That would be neat.


It's called Abiotic Oil.

www.rense.com...

www.rense.com...

www.rense.com...

www.talkenergy.com...

www.questionsquestions.net...

Granted, the first three links are from Rense.com, but should make for some (good???) reading.


It still hasn't been proved or disproved.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And what if it is all a scare by the envirowacko's?

Technology and progress will not be stopped.
(Progress? like indefinite growth - or - best use of available resources? to be squandered by your children and their broken toys


Unfortunately, most ways of producing more energy from wind, solar, or hydrogen need to have energy to produce them-

Scared by envirowacko's? Then be more scared of 'INFLATION' since it's all just a scare to have oil cost more.

Subsidized food industry needs the most 'help' from our government, since for every calorie of food we produce we have to use 200 to produce it. (and when the OGALLA aquifier runs out, they will have to revert back to dry farming anyways-

The airline industry should just disappear eventually, or used to just transport goods, not people. Why shouldn't more people use the communications industry instead of the transportation industry? Seems like alot of jet fuel is wasted to me.... It doesn't have to be made more expensive, just make fewer flights (like they are already doing) and fill 'em up to the gills like the sardines they are.

Airports are more polluting than hydroelectric or coal plants together- just imagine the gallons of kersoene put into the air everytime one of those jumbos takes off



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats one point, but dont you think the US would use any new alternate energy tech to gain power in those very countries?

Well, the west, for example, can subsidize these ineffective and inefficient energy supplies, so that tehy are affordable for the consumer (ie an equivalent amount of hydrogen fuel costs the same 'at the pump', even tho thats because of either excessive tax on gasoline or the government covering the cost of the hydrogen) but I don't think it can extend that to developing countries, it would be come too expensive for the west, and the developing countries won't be able to afford to do it on their own.


The US uses the massive majority of the oil in the world, that alone could cripple the middle east.

I don't know about crippling it, espeically if developing countries can take up the slack, which they'd almost certainly will.


Add then all the other countries to US sells/gives this tech to and that seals it.

The technology isn't the problem. There are hydrogen fuel and hybride cars in china and I think india too. Its the cost. Non-fossil fuels are inefficient and not cost effective. In the US, the government can tax gas and pay in part for hydrogen (or bio fuels, or whatever). Developing countries, being developing, can't. They can make the hydrogen cars, they can install the infrastructure perhaps, but their consumers can't afford the fuel.


Arab nations that depend on oil exports need to get in line. Because the world isnt going to need them much longer.

Well, iran isn't an arab government, nevertheles, saudi arabia might have something to worry about, but iraq and iran aren't going to become wastelands merely because one recently discovered resource (historically speaking) is going out of use.




[edit on 30-3-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I think Canada will become the new Middle East in terms of Oil production and export. We have the Alberta oil Sand's that have a projected 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil and perhaps another 1.5 - 2 trillion barrels that would be harder to extract but doable. Besides we have the somewhat new Hibernia and Terra Nova fields as well as Sable Island and we haven't even started to fully explore the West Coast of B.C. under the Hecate Strait which has a field that doubles the Hibernia find. Added to the fact that many geologists predict that the Prodhoe Slope that gives the U.S so much oil from Alaska actually extends far into Canada under the Northwest Territories and continues to James Bay.

Man I see gold paved roads in the future of Canada considering we have everything else the world wants(wood, coal, water(the next oil), etc.)



Link for Alberta Oil Sands www.growley.com...



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
I think Canada will become the new Middle East in terms of Oil production and export. We have the Alberta oil Sand's that have a projected 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil and perhaps another 1.5 - 2 trillion barrels that would be harder to extract but doable.
Link for Alberta Oil Sands www.growley.com...


Thats a very good point I think the reason more of it is not extracted is because its cheaper right now to pump from clssic oil wells. But if the price goes too high for oil from noraml wells it could become very profitable to try to get all that oil.

2 trillion barrels man thats alot of oil
Man Canada got hooked up with the natural resources.Oil,lumber,fresh water, even diamonds and much more. Im glad we got Alaska to give us a taste of the those wonderful resources.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
One thing else no one has mentioned that I think should be taken into account,

liquefied Coal.

The United States has PLENTY of coal, we have the technological base to make it happen.....IF and only IF we really wanted to.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
One thing else no one has mentioned that I think should be taken into account,

liquefied Coal.

The United States has PLENTY of coal, we have the technological base to make it happen.....IF and only IF we really wanted to.


Ugh! but at what cost?!

Coal is filthy, and has what, 50% MORE CO2 emissions than oil?!? I'd much rather see money spent towards research of something new. Why spend money to really take a step back?!


[edit on 30-3-2005 by negativenihil]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Coal is a possiblity if we needed it as well as Nuclear power IMO. If we really needed energy real bad we could always make many more of those powerplants. If i comes down to people freezing to death or whatever from a lack of power envoiromentalist will loose out and have to take a back seat.

I would much prefer more earth friendly power sources but if It was a crisis you have to do what you have to do.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   


I had once thought that the strategic reserves were 'strategic' in the sense that they'd be used incase of an embargo and the military needed to mobilize. Not true at all. The reserve exists soley to reduce the price of gasoline and oil.



Actually, the reserves are for national emergencies and/or times of war. They are not intended to be used to reduce the price of oil/gas, as was done by Bill Clinton prior to the 2000 election in an effort to lower prices and give Al Gore's campaign a boost. Then Governor George W. Bush openly opposed the opening of the national reserves, stating that they should only be used in times of emergency or war.

The result of Clinton wasting some of our oil reserves was barely noticeable in the price of gas at the pumps. Since being elected, Bush has steadily increased the amount of oil in our reserves to the amount they are at today.

The sad part is that I doubt there is even enough oil in our reserves to last our country more than a few weeks. I think the intention of the reserves is for our military and/or government vehicles should we be cut off from a major supplier of our oil for any reason.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
ShadowXIX -

You don't live near a coal power plant, do you?

It's filthy and does cause a range of health issues like asthma and cancer. If we switched all our modes of transportation from oil based products to coal based we'd all be living much shorter lives.

i guess if you're of the crowd that isn't keen on living past their 70s, i could see how this wouldn't bother you.

Coal would be a MASSIVE step back.

Nuclear Power on the other hand, is a worthy investment. I do feel that with enough research we could safely use it.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
negativenihil im not saying we should use it but if we found our selves in a major energy crisis that was costing people their lives I could live with it. If it comes down to people not lasting through the winter or not living to 90 Im all for coal.

But I would rather see nuclear power if we had such a crisis. No Chemical fuel can come close to the energy production of Nuclear power. I also believe it can be made much safer.

Actually I have always been for nuclear fuels in Space exploration as well. But it causes too much of a outcry, heck people even protest the use of nuclear batteries in space and they are far safer then nuclear reactors.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
negativenihil im not saying we should use it but if we found our selves in a major energy crisis that was costing people their lives I could live with it. If it comes down to people not lasting through the winter or not living to 90 Im all for coal.


Ok, coal as a short term band-aid while we get something else up to par? i can live with that.

It's just using coal as a primary, and only source of energy (for any real length of time) that gets to me.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 30-3-2005 by negativenihil]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Yeah thats only why I would suggest it during a crisis. Much smarter to work towards something like Hydrogen or solar even nuclear for the long term.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Getting the US off dependency on/of Middle East oil, and oil in general, is a/the priority.
Most of the major US oil company's are already aiding and in agreement that their goal is to be the sellers of 'energy', be it oil, hydrogen, etc.

Implimentation of hydrogen in vehicles is coming and coming in a hurry. Once this happens, though it will not entirely take the US off oil dependency, it will cut that factor. Economic stability will steadily improve without the fear of oil prices, etc.

Give it 3-5 years....







seekerof

[edit on 30-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Implimentation of hydrogen in vehicles is coming and coming in a hurry. Once this happens, though it will not entirely take the US off oil dependency, it will cut that factor. Economic stability will steadily improve without the fear of oil prices, etc.

Give it 3-5 years....



3-5 years might be a bit soon imo, but i think we're at least on the right track

a quick google search turned these up:
www.h2cars.biz...
www.h2cars.biz...
www.h2cars.biz...

So as you can see at least there are some big names in the auto industry at least *thinking* about this...

edit-

Furthermore- here is an interesting article form msnbc on the topic



www.msnbc.msn.com...

If you can’t wait five, 10 or 20 years for the much-touted "hydrogen economy," then step right up: Several companies are ready to sell you vehicles that run on the fuel that's much cleaner and gets higher mileage than gasoline or diesel.

Like sports cars? There's a Shelby Cobra with a 351 engine that runs on hydrogen. How about a Nissan Frontier pickup powered by fuel cells and hydrogen? That will soon be available. Or hankering for a hydrogen Hummer? That, too, can be yours.




But...



There are two significant catches, however. First is getting the hydrogen. Industrial gas suppliers sell hydrogen in cylinders but very few filling stations exist today. California has the most at 13 pilotstations run by utilities and carmakers, and plans some 170 commercial ones by 2010. The cost varies too, from $1 to $20 a kilo. A gallon of gasoline has the same energy content as a kilo of hydrogen, but vehicles using the latter get two to three times higher mileage.

Second is the price tag: The Shelby Cobras start at $149,000, the pickup is $99,995 and the Hummers run $60,000 for the conversion alone — you supply the Hummer.




[edit on 30-3-2005 by negativenihil]

[edit on 30-3-2005 by negativenihil]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Actually, the reserves are for national emergencies and/or times of war. They are not intended to be used to reduce the price of oil/gas, as was done by Bill Clinton prior to the 2000 election in an effort to lower prices and give Al Gore's campaign a boost.

The reserves were created in response to and in the context of the oil embargo. They're for similar emergencies. If, as one analytical company is projecting, oil 'spikes' to cf $102 a barrel, then the reserves might be tapped, but I agree that they are for dire emergencies, like opec embargoes and middle east wars.


negativnihil
Nuclear Power on the other hand, is a worthy investment. I do feel that with enough research we could safely use it.

Nuke power is completely unusable impracticle without a national repository. No Yucca, no nuke. Coal is not good, but emissions can be controled if there was some sort of oil emergency.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I question how commited the current administration, composed largely of former oil company executives, really is to reducing our dependence on oil. We've seen a lot of lip service paid to this but little real action beyond some showcase projects.

As for the inevitable crunch as the oil gets harder to get, the obvious answer is nuclear power. You can already see the Chinese (who tend to take a longer view) moving in this direction. Unfortunately we Americans have a hard time taking the long view, and if we do start building new nuclear plants it won't be until thee has already been signifigant economic dislocation due to increasing fuel costs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join