No war for oil?

fark you McCain, you troop-hating hippy!

FTV: My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.

Easier said than done.

There is not enough methane, propane, petroleum or coal reserves in this country to stop the importation of petroleum from non-domestic sources, even if you drop a well in every wilderness area in the country.

As for saying that we won't import oil from the middle east but that we will import it from friendly nations, well, that's BS. If we buy all of Canada's oil, they have to get theirs from somewhere. And there you have the problem with a liquid asset. If you don't buy Middle East oil, someone else will, because in the end, world demand remains the same.

Lots of thermal-based solar in the south and lots of nuclear. That will get us off the oil tit.

Step 1: collect underpants

Nuclear powered liquid fuel plants.

All "alternative" fuels suffer from low energy profit(EP) ratio which hinders their usefulness. However we are fortunate in that our problem is not energy in general(we could start building more nuclear plants tomorrow) but transportation fuels in particular. Nuclear power injected into the otherwise inefficient process of tar sands, ethanol, even shale could solve the EP ratio problems and supply us with economically viable "alternative" liquid transportation fuels.

This message brought to you by the laws of thermodynamics.

Hey, how about you confide in us, maybe give us some details instead of just, I dunno, blowing smoke up our ass. He has nothing. Absolutely nothing. No, I take that back. He will firmly support 4 more years of Dubya's enlightened energy policy. You know, the one that causes the US dollar to crash and world oil prices to skyrocket. Despite what he says in that video.

I will believe it when I see significant details. I want budget approximations. I want energy plans. I want usage forecasts compared to production estimates. And I bet he doesn't have one damn thing.

Failing_Junk [TotalFark] 2008-05-03 03:20:47 AM
GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2008-05-03 03:20:47 AM

Nice.

MSM should have a field day with this...

Q: Mr. McCain, do you believe we are at war with Iraq because of oil?

A: No, no I never said that I'm the straight talk express.

Q: Do you think we would be in Iraq if they had no oil.

A: No, no... I wouldn't say that, see we thought they had WMD.

Q: Then explain these comments, "I will have an energy policy, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

A: Well, umm, uhhh, I think our dependence on oil is...uhh...

You can't have it both ways... Your example basically states your true beliefs for you, regardless of what lies you cook up. If you had the balls to come out and say we went to Iraq for oil, well then you'd have a mighty large set of balls!

Failing_Junk: Failing_Junk [TotalFark] 2008-05-03 03:20:47 AM
GAT_00 [TotalFark] 2008-05-03 03:20:47 AM

Nice.

Good timing for a simulpost. And though I disagree with your idea, I have issues with nuclear waste, you've given us more than the vaunted John McCain.

GAT_00: Good timing for a simulpost. And though I disagree with your idea, I have issues with nuclear waste, you've given us more than the vaunted John McCain.

Nuclear waste is certainly a problem, but we can not sustain our current economy or even our current population(scary implications) without increasing supplies of energy. Solar and wind(a form of solar if carefully considered) are potential sources but even if they do result in a net gain of energy they are unreliable and must have backups. With dwindling supplies of highly energy profitable hydrocarbons we have little else to look to then nuclear for reliable always-on capable energy sources.

I can not stress enough that we must have net sources of energy at least fueling the liquid transportation fuel processes if we can no longer obtain energy profitable liquid transportation fuels directly from hydrocarbons.

While America certainly is dependent on foreign oil, it's not really middle eastern oil.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imp orts/current/import.html

Just rough estimating the numbers I'd say that's only about 10% coming from Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, with the rest coming from Canada, Mexico, South America, Russia and Africa.

It seems that he has gone senile.

Sure you do, Johnny...

Heh, at least Obama has lies that sound credible, this guy's just insulting everyone's intelligence.

We just have to wait 100 years.


Actually, the Pentagon already commissioned such a plan, and it is distributed free to anyone who wants to read it:

submitter: "McCain: I will have an energy policy, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East"



BULLSHIAT!

funny thing is, people will believe him.

I think some of you are missing the point here:

HE ADMITTED WE ARE IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF OIL!!!

I know this is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but for one of the most ardent supporters of this war to admit it is kinda stunning.

And this is without any provocation at all. Can you imagine what this guy might say in a debate, or if the press ever gets over flag pins and pastors and starts asking this nut some real questions?

so, did it just go over 90% of the farker's heads that mccain just said we went to war for oil?

Most of the posts in this thread are about how feasible/unfeasible eliminating our dependence on foreign oil is.

How come I don't hear resounding choruses of "HE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO WIN" from the usual suspects?

Gobobo: Heh, at least Obama has lies that sound credible, this guy's just insulting everyone's intelligence.

Tell me lies, tell me credible lies.

/credible lies?
/wtf?

If you tell the truth only accidentally does it still count?

malignantsociety: so, did it just go over 90% of the farker's heads that mccain just said we went to war for oil?

Most of the posts in this thread are about how feasible/unfeasible eliminating our dependence on foreign oil is.

It's like that story of the Native Americans who just sat on the shore for days, watching the ripples in the water as the ship carrying Columbus came toward them: they had no concept for something called a 'boat', and so their minds wouldn't let them see it.

AntiNerd

he *will* say pretty close to whatever it takes.

the trouble is that he is so stupid he doesn't have as much control over what he says as most people, and so he'll keep saying things he shouldn't

McCain: "I will have an energy policy, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East"

/sees what he did there

Tor_Eckman: I think some of you are missing the point here:

HE ADMITTED WE ARE IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF OIL!!!

I know this is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but for one of the most ardent supporters of this war to admit it is kinda stunning.

And this is without any provocation at all. Can you imagine what this guy might say in a debate, or if the press ever gets over flag pins and pastors and starts asking this nut some real questions?

I'm hoping he goes off on a "man is always in a constant state of war" tangent or something of that nature.

He's going to get pounded in the debates.

Typical flip flopping Republican.

/farking hypocrites

I guess he'll gives us the details of his cunning plan after he is elected?

Vote Old Codger 08'

It's no big suprise really The federal govn't has been lieing to the american people for years. Oh and don't forget to duck and cover.

malignantsociety: so, did it just go over 90% of the farker's heads that mccain just said we went to war for oil?

Most of the posts in this thread are about how feasible/unfeasible eliminating our dependence on foreign oil is.

You mean after the post that was the initial one in the thread? (you know, the boobies?)

C'mon. Even the most ardent of administration supporters must realize that, no matter how much they protest to the contrary publicly.

Tor_Eckman: I think some of you are missing the point here:

HE ADMITTED WE ARE IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF OIL!!!

I know this is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but for one of the most ardent supporters of this war to admit it is kinda stunning.

And this is without any provocation at all. Can you imagine what this guy might say in a debate, or if the press ever gets over flag pins and pastors and starts asking this nut some real questions?

So we lost more than 4000 of our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends over a lie's for oil.

/very very sad
//All of you blood for oil supporters can go fark yourself

Bill_Wick's_Friend: While America certainly is dependent on foreign oil, it's not really middle eastern oil.

It really doesn't matter where it is coming from. If ME oil were off the market, the people who are getting it from there today will then have to get it from the sources we are now getting it from. And as long as it is on the market, money will flow to the unsavory elements in the ME that we wish didn't have such significance today.

As long as our economy depends upon oil, we will need to project force into the ME. It's really that simple.

In unrelated news, the entire world with the exception of the majority of the population of the United States knows that we went to war to try to get control of the oil reserves in Iraq.

/operative word being 'try'

When you look at the raw physics behind "alternative energy" thinks start looking grim.

The energy density of solar makes it impractical except on gargantuan scale. (Based on simple astronomy kids, an insurmountable issue unless we build our arrays on the surface of Mercury.)

Hydro is pretty much tapped out, with potentially large environmental impacts on the local ecosystem.

Wind is unreliable at best, unable to provide the base load for American power demand. Again, like solar, the energy density isn't strong enough.

Yeah, they can help. Put a panel on every American's roof next to two small windmills and you can curb the demand, but you still need a strong source to carry the base load. We all know why fossil fuels are no good to do this.

So what's left? What can we use that won't melt Antarctica and can keep my TV and lights on while I fall asleep on the couch?


Nuclear.



Unfortunately the Nuclear industry lost it's way in a PR debacle after the three mile island incident, Chernobyl buried it. If people take the time to educate themselves on it, unfounded fears would melt away while the activists continue to throw tantrums over it. Nobody was killed, or even injured at 3-mile island, The containment system prevented anyone from ANY type of dangerous exposure. Chernobyl was a completely different type of reactor, with operators who had no idea what they were doing.


It's only a matter of time before America wakes up and revives the industry.

drhansenej: funny thing is, people will believe him.

60+ demographic will buy anything he'll say, and they are the biggest voting bloc.

malignantsociety: so, did it just go over 90% of the farker's heads that mccain just said we went to war for oil?

Most of the posts in this thread are about how feasible/unfeasible eliminating our dependence on foreign oil is.

dude this is fark, not the forum at the institute of advanced logic and reasoning.

/90% are 15-25 year olds who read and think while headphones blast twisted sisters into their ears.

We went to war for OIL?
Thanks for clearing that up for us gramps!
h-y-d-r-o-c-a-r-b-o-n l-a-w

ComradeBoris: Nuclear.

Unfortunately the Nuclear industry lost it's way in a PR debacle after the three mile island incident, Chernobyl buried it. If people take the time to educate themselves on it, unfounded fears would melt away while the activists continue to throw tantrums over it. Nobody was killed, or even injured at 3-mile island, The containment system prevented anyone from ANY type of dangerous exposure. Chernobyl was a completely different type of reactor, with operators who had no idea what they were doing.

It's only a matter of time before America wakes up and revives the industry.

Nuclear is a bad investment.

There are competing ways to reduce our fossil fuel use that are extremely cost effective--Nuclear is essentially the most expensive per kwh offset. (click on thumbnail below for graph)



quickpost this image

bolzy: /90% are 15-25 year olds who read and think while headphones blast twisted sisters into their ears

I am doubtful that many in the 15-25 yo range even know who Twisted Sister is.

if we really wanted to get the monkey off our back we'd ban these huge ass vehicles and mandate higher mpg minimums for any passenger cars sold here.

Skleenar:

Nuclear is a bad investment.

There are competing ways to reduce our fossil fuel use that are extremely cost effective--Nuclear is essentially the most expensive per kwh offset. (click on thumbnail below for graph)



You don't think that processes and materials become cheaper and more efficient if there was a resurgence in the industry?

The same goes for concerns of how much Uranium is left; people havn't been looking for it! Not to mention it's been quite a while since any breeder reactors went up.

The real point I was trying to make is that it's our best bet to get us off the oil kick. I would love for us all to live off wind, water, and sunshine; but it just doesn't have the punch.

Step 1: Invade Brazil...

now that's some "straight talk" right there...

ComradeBoris: Skleenar:

Nuclear is a bad investment.

There are competing ways to reduce our fossil fuel use that are extremely cost effective--Nuclear is essentially the most expensive per kwh offset. (click on thumbnail below for graph)



You don't think that processes and materials become cheaper and more efficient if there was a resurgence in the industry?

The same goes for concerns of how much Uranium is left; people havn't been looking for it! Not to mention it's been quite a while since any breeder reactors went up.

The real point I was trying to make is that it's our best bet to get us off the oil kick. I would love for us all to live off wind, water, and sunshine; but it just doesn't have the punch.

Actually, nuclear isn't really feasible anymore. In order to meet the energy demands of the country within about 50 years or so we'd need to build a nuclear reactor every 1.5 days. There's just not enough resources to do that. Solar power is the best option and it's in our national interest to make it affordable and efficient. This should be a top priority for science policy. Too bad all of the candidates turned down an opportunity to discuss this.

My slip. Let me show it to you.

Mistah Scrotie: In order to meet the energy demands of the country within about 50 years or so

are those figures based on a population that can only be sustained with cheap energy?

Headso: are those figures based on a population that can only be sustained with cheap energy?

I am sure that they are based on a straight-line extrapolation of current energy use into the future.

Which is highly unrealistic. The response by the US to the oil shocks of the 70's shows that conservation is a hugely untapped resource.

One could argue that the worst thing to happen to the US in the past 50 years was being so successful at conservation back then that we broke OPEC's back and allowed energy prices to drop to a point where it was perceived that conservation didn't pay anymore.

/that and Reagan taking Carter's solar panels off of the White House.

Wow. The only way this man is winning the election is if Obama is caught in bed with a dead male hooker.

re the alternative energy threadjack: Solar. Specifically, Nanosolar(^) is making systems at $2/watt - less than coal. Slap 'em on every flat surface, problem solved.

/Yes, a vast oversimplification.
//Pretty much true tho.
///Seriously, check this stuff out, it's significantly awesome.

ComradeBoris: When you look at the raw physics behind "alternative energy" thinks start looking grim.

The energy density of solar makes it impractical except on gargantuan scale. (Based on simple astronomy kids, an insurmountable issue unless we build our arrays on the surface of Mercury.)

Hydro is pretty much tapped out, with potentially large environmental impacts on the local ecosystem.

Wind is unreliable at best, unable to provide the base load for American power demand. Again, like solar, the energy density isn't strong enough.

Yeah, they can help. Put a panel on every American's roof next to two small windmills and you can curb the demand, but you still need a strong source to carry the base load. We all know why fossil fuels are no good to do this.

So what's left? What can we use that won't melt Antarctica and can keep my TV and lights on while I fall asleep on the couch?


Nuclear.



Unfortunately the Nuclear industry lost it's way in a PR debacle after the three mile island incident, Chernobyl buried it. If people take the time to educate themselves on it, unfounded fears would melt away while the activists continue to throw tantrums over it. Nobody was killed, or even injured at 3-mile island, The containment system prevented anyone from ANY type of dangerous exposure. Chernobyl was a completely different type of reactor, with operators who had no idea what they were doing.


It's only a matter of time before America wakes up and revives the industry.

Yep. Something else about nuclear...a nuclear reactor meltdown is dangerous, but no more dangerous than a large explosion at a coal powered facility. Chernobyl was a disaster because of a couple of things:

1) no oversight - the workers weren't sufficiently trained and the company was cutting corners on safety and upkeep. It's a miracle the whole plant didn't fall apart.

2) Government cover up - the government was slow to react to the explosion because they were trying to downplay it. Remember kids, this was during the Cold War when the USSR could do no wrong. To admit a disaster on this scale would severely hamper their claim of perfection.