backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Jun 25 at 5:28 PM


  (Source: Go Solar Energy For Life)

  (Source: Wordpress)
BP oil spill directs country's viewpoint toward renewable energy

recent poll by Rasmussen Reports, an American public opinion polling firm, confirmed that 73 percent of Americans believe it's important for the United States to cut its dependency on fossil fuels. Rasmussen Reports conducted the poll on June 16-17 asking 1,000 Americans what their thoughts were on fossil fuel dependency, government policies, and the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The poll states that 73 percent of American adults believe it's "at least somewhat important for the country to change it's dependency on fossil fuels" while another 42 percent of adults think it's very important. Only 23 percent say it's not important at all. As far as the government's involvement in fossil fuels goes, 41 percent believe government policies should be enacted to "discourage use of fossil fuels and encourage the use of alternative energy." 

BP's recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which began April 20 when the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, has clearly impacted more than just its surrounding environment. While countless amounts of wildlife have been destroyed and several businesses ruined, this poll indicates that Americans all over the country are speaking out in anger against this disaster, and their not just environmentalists. 

According to the poll, 43 percent of American adults believe that the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf is at least "somewhat likely to change our dependency on fossil fuels in the near future." On that same note, 54 percent of women say the Gulf oil leak will cause America to change its dependency on fossil fuels, but 61 percent of men think that idea is unlikely.

Despite the number of Americans who think cutting fossil fuel dependency is important, a majority of U.S. citizens still believe offshore drilling is vital to meet the energy needs of America. Seventy-six percent think offshore drilling is at least somewhat important in meeting these needs, and 60 percent believe offshore drilling should be allowed despite the oil spill in the Gulf.

When questioned about the United States' future purchases of foreign oil , only 29 percent of citizens believe the country will buy less oil from the Middle East. Forty-five percent think it will stay the same and 19 percent think the U.S. will buy more foreign oil over the next five years. 

There is a ray of light through some of those bleak numbers, though. According to the poll, 48 percent of U.S. citizens say they are likely to buy an alternative energy car in the next 10 years, and 63 percent say "investing in renewable energy resources such as solar and wind is the better long-term financial investment for America than investing in fossil fuels."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

True but...
By retrospooty on 6/22/2010 8:00:46 AM , Rating: 3
As expected, none of them agree on how ;)




RE: True but...
By computergeek485 on 6/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: True but...
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 9:03:29 AM , Rating: 5
Asking someone what they would like to happen is not the same as asking someone if they would pay for it to happen.

As the old saying goes, "you can wish in one hand and shit in the other. see which fills up first"


RE: True but...
By sgw2n5 on 6/22/2010 12:47:34 PM , Rating: 1
I think it's a matter of convenience and energy density.

I'd 1 kg of diesel is much easier to carry around that 50 Kg of batteries... and you get about the same amount of energy.

Hydrocarbons absolutely rock as a medium for energy storage... and I doubt this will change any time soon. Now, how we get the hydrocarbons might change (non-food crop derived biofuels for example), but we will be using hydrocarbons for a loooong time.



RE: True but...
By Samus on 6/24/2010 3:40:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Asking someone what they would like to happen is not the same as asking someone if they would pay for it to happen.


What you don't realize is that nuclear-generated electricity is currently HALF the price of electricity generated from fossil fuel.

If we ramp up nuclear power production, it'll probably be more like a QUARTER of the cost of coal/oil power.

Just to pour salt on the wound, from a perspective of safety track records in the United States, nuclear power has caused infinately less damage to the environment (pollution, ecological disasters, mining deaths, natural habitat distruction) than coal, oil, and hell, even wind power.


RE: True but...
By quiksilvr on 6/22/2010 9:05:24 AM , Rating: 1
Or like 73% of Americans agree that polls are accurate.


RE: True but...
By Scabies on 6/22/2010 11:48:12 AM , Rating: 1
more like "73% of surveyed Americans believe they were being surveyed"
Its like those misleading headlines that both ask and answer a question for you before you even read the article.


RE: True but...
By gamerk2 on 6/22/2010 12:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Example of a NY poll not to long ago: about 80% of respondents wanted to cut spending, but when each of the top 10 spending obligations were put forward, no more then 38% voted for cutting spending in any individual group.

Same thing here, they want less dependence on oil, but don't want to pay higher prices. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.


RE: True but...
By waykizool on 6/22/2010 8:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
We'll all just agree to disagree. Then progress can be made...just ask congress.


RE: True but...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 6/22/2010 8:08:47 AM , Rating: 5
RE: True but...
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 8:42:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The poll states that 73 percent of American adults believe it's "at least somewhat important for the country to change it's dependency on fossil fuels" while another 42 percent of adults think it's very important. Only 23 percent say it's not important at all. As far as the government's involvement in fossil fuels goes, 41 percent believe government policies should be enacted to "discourage use of fossil fuels and encourage the use of alternative energy."

Well, what this tells me is that alot of us don't want to use fossil fuels or oil from Iran & Venezuela. However, majority of the country does NOT want the government to impose this Cap & Tax scheme to force us to pay more for the same amount of energy that we use now, in an effort to have us pay the same amount to just use much less.

The only people that make out in that case is the energy companies - yes, those who you despise. They get the same amount of money for supplying you with half the product.

We don't need more government intervention. The free market can take care of this if the government gets out of the way and lets it happen. If people don't want to buy oil/gasoline, they will start buying cars that use much less of it or cars that run on electric/hydrogen when they're made available. The free market system tells us that when companies can start producing alternative energies on a scale which we can use, at prices that are competitive (if not lower) than what we have now, while supplying as much energy as current sources do.

If you know anything about how hard working middle class people feel, its that they do not want to waste money, they do not want to feel taken advantage of, and they do not want to feel penalized by tax policy. By instituting a cap & tax policy, all you're doing is taking more money away from people and giving them less product, thus filling the pockets of energy companies and legislators who stand to benefit from it. All subsidies do make the costs of the product appear cheaper than they are, when in fact we're paying much more from them. When those subsidies disappear, the cost goes up.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of oil companies or whoever else. But this idea that we "have to" get off fossil fuel is complete bunk. I'd like to get off FOREIGN fuel, not necessarily fossil fuel. We have the worlds largest coal reserves to power our plants, we can build more nuclear plants, we can invest in ways to convert our shale oil to cheaper usable fuel, and many other things.

If you're making the case for "energy independence" and getting off "fossil fuels" from a standpoint of climate change/global warming, then I'm not going to bother even entertaining that idea. If you want to make the case for it from a security standpoint and being independent without trying to combine it (quite laughably) with this whole Green mantra, then we already know we have what is needed - just not the political will to do so.


RE: True but...
By AssBall on 6/22/2010 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know why more people can't seem to see it your way, Mdogs.

If you ask the average person who is in the 73% of this poll a simple follow up question. "Why?" My guess is they would:

1: Regurgitate some global warming environmental propaganda.
2: Say that we are going to "run out" of these resources soon.
3: They have no idea why they answered yes.


RE: True but...
By AssBall on 6/22/2010 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 3
Oh and:

4: Security / war in the middle east.

Which would be a pretty weak platform, since contrary to popular belief, only a fraction of our oil is imported from the middle east.


RE: True but...
By retrospooty on 6/22/2010 2:08:41 PM , Rating: 3
I have always said, we need to get off oil for these 3 reasons in order...

1. Economic - We are making countries that hate us rich beyond comprehension and spending way too much at it.

2. Political - Due to oil, we keep a presence in the middle east, creating enemies. Well funded enemies. We just need to get the hell out of there.

3. Environmental - I am not a man made global warming believer... but the pollutants so thick you can see it in the air over any large city are obviously not healthy to breath for us or our children.


RE: True but...
By retrospooty on 6/22/2010 2:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
"only a fraction of our oil is imported from the middle east. "

Not really... We buy most of our imported oil from Canada, but they get most of theirs from the ME.


RE: True but...
By Danger D on 6/22/2010 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 3
Oil is fungible. It doesn't matter who you buy it from on the international market, it all benefits all the exporters. If we buy more from Canada and Mexico and completely cut out Venezuela, it won't hurt Venezuela at all. The countries that had been buying Canadian oil simply go to Venezuela to fill the need.

Saudi Arabia has by far the most oil, and they have a strangle-hold on OPEC, which basically dictates price and supply for the entire international market. If we import oil, they gain, even if we import from Canada.


RE: True but...
By Hiawa23 on 6/22/2010 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 3
The self proclaimed greatest country in the world has had decades to try to solve this issue, & put some sort of energy plan in place. Blame who you want, this goes back atleast 8 presidents, they all said the same thing but this is where we find ourselves, so, if you ask me, yes, I also would like to see less dependence, but my cars still run on fuel, & gas prices are too high as it is, the electricity that powers my home is partially made made with fossil fuels. I think we agree, problem is how, & why hasn't any of our last 8 presidents been able to solve this? I say Obama should lift the ban on the drilling, as we need to get oil wherever we can get it, just do it safely.


RE: True but...
By Clienthes on 6/23/2010 5:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why hasn't any of our last 8 presidents been able to solve this?


Because even though the technology has been improving at an incredible rate, our energy requirements have been going up faster.

Just a side note: we have more coal than we know what to do with here in the US. We don't use oil to produce electricity, we use coal. Electricity production has almost nothing to do with energy independence except possibly as it relates to transitioning to EVs, but that tech isn't ready for large scale use yet.


RE: True but...
By Clienthes on 6/23/2010 5:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
I hate when I bounce from article to article and lose track of which one I'm reading...Fossil fuel dependence vs. energy independence in this case. Please disregard the second half of my previous comment.


Only 73%?
By InvertMe on 6/22/2010 8:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly I figured it would be somewhere in the high 90s. I don't think anyone "wants" to keep burning fossil fuels it's just we don't have a good alternative at this point.




RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 9:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
we don't have a good alternative at this point.


Ever heard of...

Nuclear reactors?
Biomass? (algae being on of the most recent promising breakthroughs)
Wind?
Solar?
Tidal?
Hydro?

Most of these are small scale, but combined they can fully support our needs plus some. What we really need is a massive and QUICK transition to nuclear power (and hydro fuel cell engines). The only thing we are waiting for is the tycoons and greedy ass politicians to change investments.


RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:11:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What we really need is a massive and QUICK transition to nuclear power (and hydro fuel cell engines). The only thing we are waiting for is the tycoons and greedy ass politicians to change investments.


Perhaps you haven't noticed that we're running deficits of nearly $1.5T. We're broke, we don't have the money to invest in anything.

I know you people love to say "just tax the rich", but there aren't enough rich people to pay for it. And imposing higher taxes on middle class people who are already struggling to get by with $2.75/gal gasoline costs, ever increasing electric, heat, and water costs...while we're hovering at just under 10% unemployment is downright stupid. Haven't you noticed that jobs are leaving on massive scales because manufacturing is not as viable here as it used to be because of the ever rising costs of labor and production? Do you really think that increasing costs of energy to produce things and then charging them taxes on "carbon" from their production processes is going to gain jobs, much less keep them here?!

Perhaps you think that workers are just going to be satisfied with making the same amount of money in salary/benefits while everything they have to purchase is going up in price because of of this - food, transportation, heating, clothing, everything! Now, if you cannot purchase as many things because your budget is constrained from new energy taxes - what is going to happen? The local city and states tax revenues are going to decrease because people don't have as much discretionary income to spend on items and leisure activities. Then what? The local city and state are going to want to increase taxes again because of their new budget shortfalls. Then you have to deal with what to do about the lazy bums and people on welfare. We have to increase taxes to pay for the heating in their homes, the gas/fuel in their cars, the dollar amount of their food stamps, how much we give them for bus fares. It never ends.

Its a never ending cycle of increased bureaucracy and taxation. Before you know it, people will be giving away 50, 60, even 70 of their income in taxes.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:36:10 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
you people? It sounds like you are setting yourself up high and mighty on a golden horse with that statement.

So you are advocating for "tax the rich, and then tax some more". I'm not the one wanting to take more of what people earn, so a golden horse is not me, its you.
quote:
"We can fund this entire movement by re-writing the "free handout" laws that give all of my tax money to dead beat and free loading anti-citizens that abuse the welfare system."

I don't know about funding the entire movement by this, but reforming and rewriting has to be done either way.
quote:
Your whole whining argument is the very reason that we have not invested in anything yet.

No, my whole argument is based on economics, and principals of the individual. Your argument is based on robin hood style thievery to force everyone to live a lifestyle that you deem acceptable, regardless what their feelings are, and regardless what it can do to personal wealth and unintended consequences.
quote:
The only way to make forward progress is the just SHUT THE F*** UP AND DO IT .

Spoken like every Democrat in Congress. Pretty much exactly what they told the majority of the American people during the Health Care debate, during the Stimulus debate, right now during the beginning states of the Immigration debate, and you just confirmed it for the Cap & Tax debate. Notice how the American people don't like being told what they have to think, do, spend money on, and how and where they have to live?
quote:
We need to suck it up, do the right thing, and do what needs to be done.

No, what we need to do is sit back and analyze the entire situation and make decisions based on what is best for the individual, and what makes sense from a logical and fiscal policy. You would rather cram emotion down everyones throat and then tell them to pay for it. You must be the true angry liberal type..."Everyone needs to share. I bring nothing to the table, but I'd like some of what you have."
quote:
It's not too late yet, but the tipping point is coming soon.

So let me see - you don't care how much it costs, what it does to my savings, what my feelings are on it, and how much the government has boondoggled every other policy out there from welfare, to health care, to immigration, to stimulus packages...but I should just shut up and do what you want because you think time is running out and the earth is going to implode. No thanks.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 12:08:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So you are advocating for "tax the rich, and then tax some more". I'm not the one wanting to take more of what people earn, so a golden horse is not me, its you.

Please direct me to where I said anything about taxing the rich ...
quote:
Your argument is based on robin hood style thievery to force everyone to live a lifestyle that you deem acceptable, regardless what their feelings are, and regardless what it can do to personal wealth and unintended consequences.

Again, where did you get this idea that I support that?
quote:
Spoken like every Democrat in Congress. Pretty much exactly what they told the majority of the American people during the Health Care debate, during the Stimulus debate, right now during the beginning states of the Immigration debate, and you just confirmed it for the Cap & Tax debate. Notice how the American people don't like being told what they have to think, do, spend money on, and how and where they have to live?

1. I am neither Demo nor Repub
2. Obamacare is the worst idea I have ever seen.
3. Immigrants should be deported, and we should build a huge guarded wall along the mexico border.
4. Cap and Tax is a huge mistake
quote:
No, what we need to do is sit back and analyze the entire situation

LOL. That's exactly what we need... to sit back on our ass for another 4 decades waiting for the miricle energy fairy to come along. The technology is there for us to start implimenting! Like I said before, the big holdup is the massive investments in oil as our main source for energy. Until the masses start to shift investments, WE WILL SEE NO CHANGE.
quote:
So let me see - you don't care how much it costs, what it does to my savings, what my feelings are on it, and how much the government has boondoggled every other policy out there from welfare, to health care, to immigration, to stimulus packages...but I should just shut up and do what you want because you think time is running out and the earth is going to implode. No thanks.

Your ignorant assumption that I am a tree-hugging liberal hippy makes you look like a complete fool. Everyone under the sun with half a brain knows that NOW is the time to start building reactors and improving our electrical grid. How is this in any way an eco-freak related trolling? If we don't start something, it will never get done. The "Lets worry about it later" method has been going for decades now. I guess its you that will be changing your attitude when gas hits $10 a gallon right? What's wrong with pushing for a switch to hydrogen fuel cells + the other technologies listed above?


RE: Only 73%?
By Ammohunt on 6/22/2010 2:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am neither Demo nor Repub


quote:
Your ignorant assumption that I am a tree-hugging liberal hippy makes you look like a complete fool.
<

it appears you are worse! the mushy middle don't take sides sway with the wind; you know a principle free spineless weasel.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 3:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe It could be that I am a conservative? Think that may have been a possibility you ass hat?

quote:
the mushy middle don't take sides sway with the wind

what's wrong with not associating with a political party? It seems like everyone has to have labels nowadays. I happen to side with George Washington when it comes to political parties and governing. If you don't know your history very well; at his farewell speech, one of the things he warned us about was the dangers of parties.

So you are saying that I have to be either a Democrat or a Republican in order to have a worthy opinion?


RE: Only 73%?
By Nfarce on 6/22/2010 8:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what's wrong with not associating with a political party? It seems like everyone has to have labels nowadays. I happen to side with George Washington when it comes to political parties and governing.


That's a noble stance. Too bad it's not reality. George Washington was not perfect. Political parties were inevitable even though he was against the development of them in parliament as was John Adams (both considered themselves far too independent minded in politics).

Unfortunately, that is not the reality of today, nor has it been for the past, say 200 years or so when America really got going after 1776. Parties were inevitable. It is human nature to have disagreements and arguments. No one human is the same, not even identical twins. Everyone has different ideas, and it is up to those that share similar ideas (ideology) to band together and form a forceful opposition to those who don't share the same.

This is nothing new and has been around for thousands of years in actuality. Anyone pretending to be on the middle of the fence on any issue, especially today, is an irrelevant pawn to either side of the issue.


RE: Only 73%?
By Ammohunt on 6/23/2010 2:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
We have a two party system which for now we are stuck with. Running around attempting to make a statement by not affiliating is juvenile at best; my advice to you is to participate and influence change in the Republican party ergo the Tea Party movement. The Repulican party will once again be conservative.


RE: Only 73%?
By pequin06 on 6/22/2010 10:38:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your whole whining argument is the very reason that we have not invested in anything yet.


The fact that the alternatives might suck don't have anything to do with it?

There's more to oil than most people realize.
The derivatives from oil are in almost every product you touch in your day to day life.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/22/2010 11:52:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The derivatives from oil are in almost every product you touch in your day to day life.


No s*** retard ... we need to move away from oil as a main resource for fuel. No-one said anything about forgetting that oil exists! I don't know where you think you are, but this is a technology forum; I think we know the basics of oil economics by now.


RE: Only 73%?
By seamonkey79 on 6/22/2010 8:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the reason oil is able to be used in all these other things is that the fuel side of oil more than pays for the investment in getting the stuff out of the ground and developing the plastics and whatnot from the rest of it.

Without the fuel side, the rest of it skyrockets in price, because a great deal of what we use as fuel is 'waste' product from the other stuff.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/23/2010 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without the fuel side, the rest of it skyrockets in price, because a great deal of what we use as fuel is 'waste' product from the other stuff.

And that would be proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Almost half a barrel of crude oil is refined into gasoline. What you idiots don't understand is that we wouldn't COMPLETELY do away with using gasoline. We would just cut back prob 80% or more from using it in mainstream auto's. Using gasoline as a main resource for transportation is a stupid idea considering we have the technology and means to run off of hydro-electric power.

Like I said earlier, and I'll say it again, the investors are so tied up in oil that it would take a miracle to switch over. Make no mistake, IT CAN BE DONE.


RE: Only 73%?
By HotFoot on 6/22/2010 10:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Since the 80s, our societies have embraced the idea of buying as much as possible from overseas, because, as consumers, we've decided we can't afford to pay our neighbours to make the goods and services we want. Since that time, standards of living and real income for the average household have stagnated, while executive compensation and government deficits have ballooned out of all proportion.

If you can't afford to pay your neighbour a living wage for the goods or services you want, then you can't really afford it. Buying all the cheap Asian goods (and foreign oil, which is perhaps another matter) is bleeding the economy dry, and it will be bone-dry by the time the Asian economies catch up and begin to match our standards of living and costs of labour.


RE: Only 73%?
By mdogs444 on 6/22/2010 10:58:40 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Since the 80s, our societies have embraced the idea of buying as much as possible from overseas, because, as consumers, we've decided we can't afford to pay our neighbours to make the goods and services we want.

Ok, that is very nice spin, but not entirely accurate.

First off, its not the average consumer who decided that they cannot afford to pay for our "neighbors". Its other countries are finding ways to produce good cheaper than we can, thus making their products more attractive. It's nothing against the actual workers themselves, but in certain cases, we see what's going on in these work places and we decide that its not worth it to us.

For example, someone goes to buy a car and see two cars priced relatively similar - a Toyota and a Chevy . If the Honda is offering more value at the same price, or the same value at a lower price - the choice is pretty clear. If you're going to ask me to pay an additional $2,000 for a car, not because its better, but because the labor costs are more expensive....good luck with that. Granted, Toyota may not be the best example right now, but you get the point.

The real fact is that our government including everyone from Congress writing new tax laws, to ever increasing environmental policy inflicted on these businesses, makes producing a product more expensive. When the average person goes to the store, he/she wants to get as much as they can for their money. We all know there is a fine line between cheaply made junk, and paying more money just because of where its produced.

Blaming it on not wanting to take care of your neighbors isn't true at all, and that wreaks of a Union talking point. The only real way to stop what you claim is "bleeding us dry", is to relax all the cost increasing restrictions put on companies - like the newly proposed Cap & Tax, and let companies try to make things cheaper and more efficiently without having to deal with regulation after regulation, when our competition is not playing by the same rules.


RE: Only 73%?
By tallcool1 on 6/22/2010 12:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Nuclear, Wind, Solar, Tidal, etc., ...combined can fully support our needs plus some.
Unfortunately those combined cannot "fully" support our needs since oil is used for more than just generating power.

Oil (Petrochemicals) are used in a variaty of industries and products, everything from lubrication, plastics, pharmaceuticals, food additives, adhesives, solvents, detergents, fibers, pesticides and so on.


RE: Only 73%?
By Quadrillity on 6/23/2010 9:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
If you would have read the ongoing thread before posting you would see that we have already addressed that it is common knowledge that a little less than half of crude oil is refined into gasoline.

So yes, those combined technologies would fully support our ENERGY needs. I figured that the word energy would be implied, but I guess some thing have to be spelled out. You are an idiot for coming to a tech forum and trying to explain common sense principals about oil that everyone already knows about.

In summation: "no s***, you retard".


At least part of this is really not that hard
By klstay on 6/22/2010 9:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
Can you say CNG?

Practically zero emissions. Cradle to grave NO other cars create less overall. In fact nothing else is even close.

100% US domestic with a HUGE reserve given the recent field discoveries.

Half of all US homes today have natural gas already. If this alternative got 1/10 the support of the far less viable options getting billions low pressure home pumps would cost only hundreds of dollars.




By Dr of crap on 6/22/2010 10:15:21 AM , Rating: 2
You, my friend are soooo right.
Why have they not put any funds towards CNG?????
It's the better solution right now.

No food has to be used to make it,
No big cost is needed to make it,
It's not going to polute oceans,
We mine it and deliver it right now,
It's not $$$ over what cars cost now - Honda makes one right now, and yes the cost of it is higher right now, but if they sold over 100,000 cars, the cost would be that same as a gas burning car.

Where is the down side, really!


By IcePickFreak on 6/22/2010 1:29:54 PM , Rating: 1
Check out the wells (unmanned) that are strewn across the southwest. Some of the local areas have smog worse than LA (by several fold), the drinking water coming out of the faucet is flammable, etc. Ask the people who live around all these wells feel about switching to CNG. Heck, look at the smog that blankets downtown Dallas.

I'm not saying CNG couldn't work, but the current state of natural gas well operations doesn't make me want to support it in the slightest. Each site is it's own entity so to speak so they slip by regulation for pollution. Add up the thousands of them just around the Dallas/Ft. Worth area though and the collective is anything but 'green'. Then don't forget to figure the thousand or so truck loads of stuff taken to the site, and taken from each of these sites (chemical wastes etc) which are burning diesel anyway.


By ZachDontScare on 6/22/2010 2:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can you say CNG?


So go build or buy one. Its not like they dont exist. All the buses in my area run on natural gas.

Oh, you may end up paying $10,000 more for it... but thats the price for being a leader, right?


By Solandri on 6/22/2010 3:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
CNG is notoriously difficult to package and ship due to its gaseous nature. The pressures are enormous (over 10k psi), and volumes are huge compared to gasoline. The CNG Civic, which gets about the same range as a gasoline Civic, uses a CNG tank which fills up pretty much all of the trunk except enough space for a couple grocery bags near the edge. Its so difficult and unwieldly to work with and transport that even though significant quantities of it come out as a byproduct of drilling for oil, most oil companies simply flare it (burn it off).

Remember, for transportation applications, it isn't enough for the energy source to be cheap. It also has to be portable, safe, and easy to handle. Gasoline and especially diesel are the best match for those specifications. Nothing except biodiesel and alcohols (for hydrogen fuel cells) comes close.


By FreeTard on 6/22/2010 11:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for CNG. However that doesn't get us off the foreign teet. Right now due to the low market value of natural gas, it's more cost effective to import it from India in liquid form than it is to drill for it.

Many of the companies that were drilling during the downturn, and continue to drill now, are doing so because they hedged the price back when it was at it's peak. As the hedged prices run out drilling slows down again. $3/unit on a 1-2mcf well isn't a very good investment.

I agree with the reserves though. We've got trillions of units of gas in NA, and I'm all for switching that way.


so they ask 1000 people
By rocky12345 on 6/22/2010 10:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
They ask 1000 people & 73% said yep lets get rid of it. So these 1000 people speak for the whole country I guess. Talk about a lame poll if they want to know how ALL Americans feel have a online poll where millions can vote & state their ideas not just 1000 people. Yet another useless poll wasting every ones time & to try to scare people into something they are trying to sell to the public.




RE: so they ask 1000 people
By HighWing on 6/22/2010 2:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
That is exactly what I was thinking.

Google lists the population of the USA currently at 307,006,550 people. How can 1,000 people even begin to be a representation of that total! How can you even take their numbers seriously with such a small sample size when you consider that 1,000 people could easily be living in just a few square blocks of any major US city!


RE: so they ask 1000 people
By Solandri on 6/22/2010 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Statistically, a sample size of 1000 gives you a 4% margin of error with a 99% confidence interval, That makes you could poll 1000 random people a hundred times, and 99 of those times the % you get will be within 4% of what you'd get if you sampled all 300 million people in the U.S.

The polling methodology is statistically valid. It's the question which is flawed. If you ask 1000 people, "would you like a pizza for dinner?", I'm sure 75% or more will answer yes. But if you ask, "would you like to pay $20 for a pizza for dinner?", the answer is going to be a lot lower. You can't ask a poll question which only gives the positive outcomes of a choice. The question has to list the positive and negative outcomes before people can make an informed decision.


RE: so they ask 1000 people
By rocky12345 on 6/22/2010 7:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
that is both partly true it also depends who you ask meaning if you ask most people that live is Texas you would get probably 70% to 80% of the people saying they want to keep fossel fuels Im just saying lol.

As another pointed out if also depends on how you ask the question more. I for one do not think these new electric cars are the answer all they are is a patch to the bigger problem. They use parts built by plants that use the same type of equipment to build them as a regular car or truck. BUt now you take into effect that you loads these new electric cars up with a few hundred pounds of batt's & it makes matters worse than a car that is powered by gas. Yes in the short term it is cleaner but in the long run our landfills are going to be filled with dangerous batt's that make our soil toxic. Just looking at the long term not a quick fix.


73% say it in a pole but its just a pole
By tastyratz on 6/22/2010 8:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
Its easy to say they want to reduce foreign oil dependency, but you can pry their plastic goods and private vs public transportation from their cold dead hands.

There also is a misconception that opec drives a large majority of foreign oil, media has branded us to believe that oil = terrorist funder. USA gets most of its oil from Canada.

There have been a few major disaster spills with the gulf being the freshest. The problem however is with procedure and planning not product. Oil did not spill on its own, and the proper safety precautions were not taken. Offshore oil drilling should be heavily regulated monitored and inspected by government officials and/or independent third parties on a regular basis.

We just are not anywhere near reducing our dependency very much for so many years its not funny. Technology has developed but alternative energy at the very least for the transport sector just does not have a viable alternative... just proofs of concept. We need some major breakthroughs.




By inperfectdarkness on 6/22/2010 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
screw the environment. the #1 reason we need to be independant of foreign oil is national security. unless, of course, you believe that the 1973 oil embargo wasn't actually caused by our support of israel in the yom kippur war. roflmfao.


By tastyratz on 6/22/2010 12:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Environment or not there are a hundred reasons to

If we reduce overall oil dependency we either reduce energy use as a whole (near impossible, likely to grow) or reduce oil consumption/ increase domestic production. Alternative energies provide an alternative source (just not yet for the transport sector)

After the BP mess do you think turning Alaska into swiss cheese is going to be first on the approval list? If anything the spill is going to screw us into buying more foreign oil due to fear of domestic production failures.

Here are some real numbers though:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_...

Look at total petroleum imports at the bottom. Canada and Mexico almost quadruple Saudi Arabia which is also less than Venezuela. High risk security imports are big but a minority compared to other sources. If we were to completely cut ties to at risk countries it would likely be something easily absorbed through alternative sources.


By ZachDontScare on 6/22/2010 2:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
Total agreement. Its more of a national security issue.

Which is why we should drill here, drill now, and drill everywhere we can. We have so much oil and shale (and gas and coal) here its rediculous. Instead, we transfer massive amounts of wealth overseas which then get used against us. Thats wealth that instead could be invested here and make us richer.

The thing most people dont understand about the environment is that a clean environment is a luxury. If you are starving, you're not going to care about the pelicans because you are too busy trying to find food. The nations with the best environmental records are the wealthiest nations who can then use their spare wealth to protect the environment.

Thus, there's this basic truth that most 'environmentalists' dont want to accept: If you want to help the environment, help the economy . Once people get beyond subsistance, they'll start worrying about the environment. And the wealthier they are, the more they'll be able to spend to protect it.


How about a correct headline?
By mydogfarted on 6/22/2010 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
It isn't 73% of Americans want it, it is 73% of people polled. In this case ~730 people. Don't get me wrong, we need to cut our dependance on oil, but misleading headlines suck.




RE: How about a correct headline?
By The Raven on 6/22/2010 10:55:24 AM , Rating: 2
Easy there. It's statistics. They take a REPRESENTATIVE sample here to get a pretty accurate picture of the larger population.


RE: How about a correct headline?
By HakonPCA on 6/22/2010 12:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
at least somewhat important for the country to change it's dependency on fossil fuels


'At least somewhat' is VERY VERY different from 73% want to CUT all ties to fossil fuels; sure, cut can mean reduce, but the way it is written, to me DT's headline implies that 73% want to fully cut, not just some reduction; something the poll clearly did not indicate.

quote:
"Common!" - Gob Bluth


It's all about the question
By nafhan on 6/22/2010 8:54:04 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure if the question was "Would you like to pay more money to do a lot of the things you do now?", close to 100% would have said no.




RE: It's all about the question
By andrewpo on 6/22/2010 9:30:15 AM , Rating: 2
The question should have been: Are you willing to double, triple, or quadruple your electric bill and transportation costs to begin moving away from fossil fuels.


Nice news today
By bill4 on 6/22/2010 1:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
There are NO JOBS due to Co2 regulations. Go check Rasmsussen (the only real, non-liberal infiltrated pollster) for Obama's approval rating, now below 45%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/...

quote:
By Alan Zibel updated 1 hour, 12 minutes ago WASHINGTON - Sales of previously occupied homes dipped 2.2 percent in May, signaling that a boost from home-buying tax credits is fading sooner than expected. Last month's sales fell from the previous month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 5.66 million, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday. Analysts who had expected sales to rise expressed concern that the real estate market could tumble once the benefit of the federal incentives is gone entirely, starting next month.




RE: Nice news today
By bill4 on 6/22/2010 1:04:44 PM , Rating: 2
Fastest president in history to reach that low of an approval rating. It's too bad there will never be anywhere near the level of vitriol we got in the media and celebosphere as we did with Bush.


Yes ...but just fix it please.
By armagedon on 6/22/2010 8:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
yes I am all for it but that said, please don't ask me to reduce my car usage and please give me my cheap fuel as usual. I don`t give a sh?t about public transport and I`m certainly not walking or biking to work. Just fix it so that I can continue as usual. Thank you.




By chunkymonster on 6/22/2010 8:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way that the United States can stop using fossil fuels, not without completely overhauling the entire energy delivery infrastructure, not without completely redesigning every piece of machinery and equipment that services the entire economy. One simple example; tractor trailers and semi trucks.

The U.S. not relying on fossil fuels is a nice a pipe dream, nothing more.




I like
By bill4 on 6/22/2010 12:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
How Dailytech thought that Mick's 75 global warming myth propaganda posts a day weren't enough. No they had to bring in a second blogger to post 47 of these day.

I mean seriously guys, why not just change Dailytech's name to "constant global warming propaganda with a dash of Apple news thrown in" and be done with it. Because you know that's the truth.

I support it though, environmental restrictions have destroyed the USA economy and that will mean very bad news for Democrats in future elections. There are no jobs due to CO2 caps. 2010 should be pretty devastating for the Dems, and 2012 even worse. Because the EPA's CO2 caps have ended all new jobs. There's no way to repeal them until 2012 either, so the Democrats losses are locked in.




In another poll
By ZachDontScare on 6/22/2010 2:22:59 PM , Rating: 2
95% of Americans wish they had more money.

So what? This is news? No one 'wants' the US to be dependent on foreign oil.




Whatever it takes
By CalSolarEng on 6/22/2010 7:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I think if this oil spill is waking people up to the seriousness of our dependency on oil then perfect. We just have to take that energy and create clean energy from it. Lets turn outrage into solar panels and wind farms!
If you're in Los Angeles and want to do it personally check us out at www.CalSolarEng.com




By shin0bi272 on 6/22/2010 7:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
Recently I heard from some oil person in a news blurb that we here in the US (and off the continental shelf) have 300 years worth of oil (just oil not including coal and natural gas) but we arent allowed to get it because of eco-nutjobs like the idiot green girls pictured in this article lobbying the government to buy up private land (30% in some states) and ban drilling in those areas.

The incompetence of us moving to a "green economy" when there is nothing that can replace oil, coal, or natural gas is like Saudi Arabia saying "tomorrow we're going to move to an all volcanic hydrothermal electricity system and stop pumping and selling oil"... Its insane! You don't jump into the new boat and paddle out to sea if the boat is only half finished! But that's what the people who cant do math but "love mother earth" want us to do!

That's why the media is showing its muscle here. The poll (conveniently taken during an oil spill) is asking if we should stop using so much oil... duh of course people are going to say yes... its all they've been hearing about for 67 days! The propaganda machine is in full force on the environment and its working... the sheeple are falling for the socialist message.

This poll will be used and touted by the left as reason to push cap and trade. Then next year when gas is 7 or 9 bucks a gallon and the economy has fallen off a cliff all the ecomentalists will have gotten their way and we will all be living in mud huts with horse manure binder and using solar panels handed out by the "benevolent government" for power. yay "progress"!!




Like the public option
By superstition on 6/23/2010 12:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
"A study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent."

We know how much our Congress and White House cared.




"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki