Ideas about ending our dependency on foreign oil?

[Ryan]

Anybody think this will ever be possible? After having a discussion about this at another messageboard, I want to see what ATOT thinks.

Personally, I think we need to do something about it soon. OPEC has our country by the balls when it comes to oil, our country is dependant on them like a baby to a nipple. Without OPEC, our economy would crash and country crumble. Plus, it bothers me that we are basically feeding the cesspool of the world, the middle east (or at least, the dozen or so families who control OPEC).

After thinking it over, I believe these are some ways the US can ween itself off of foreign oil:
- promoting mass usage of nuclear power, building more plants and facilities.
- opening up the reserves off of our coasts, allowing companies to drill in Alaska so long as they come up with enviromentally friendly ways to do it.
- upping the minimum MPG limits imposed on automobile companies
- offering companies and people large tax breaks for building hybrid and hydrogen cars
- building a national hydrogen infastructure, funding more research on how to make hydrogen an easier to use resource.

What do you guys think about these ideas?

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

1. promoting mass usage of nuclear power, building more plants and facilities.
2. opening up the reserves off of our coasts, allowing companies to drill in Alaska so long as they come up with enviromentally friendly ways to do it.
3. upping the minimum MPG limits imposed on automobile companies
4. offering companies and people large tax breaks for building hybrid and hydrogen cars
5. building a national hydrogen infastructure, funding more research on how to make hydrogen an easier to use resource.

1. Good idea that will be necessary in the future when power demands increase even more.

2. If it could be done without destroying the environment it would be a tremendous idea.

3. Would that only apply to new vehicles, or would older vehicles be effected? Car enthusiasts would get mighty pissed if they couldn't drive their restored classic car around.

4. Good idea.

5. Sure, why not? Wind & solar energy should be explored as well.

 

[Ryan]

Also, I think that the type of smog testing for vehicles that california does should be implemented throughout the whole US. Hell, here in FL we don't even have any yearly testing! It's kinda OT, but Vehicles that are not running optimally waste a lot of gas, plus they pollute more. If you can't maintain your vehicle, you shouldn't own one.

 

[SherEPunjab]

i would like to see us using clean power, so we won't have any dependency from anyone.


edit: you know what, i was just thinking that i'm sure we have the technical know how to get it done, but i bet its the oil companies that are lobbying to prevent too many hybrids from going mainstream.

 

[ElFenix]

the vast majority of oil is used in generating electric energy. we should invest heavily in wave and tidal power.

 

[Aharami]

nothing gonna happen cuz most americans dont give a rats ass. it's so sad. it truly is. check out skoorb's thread about the same issue. its evident from most of the posts that most dont care

 

[bradruth]

Originally posted by: Aharami
nothing gonna happen cuz most americans dont give a rats ass. it's so sad. it truly is. check out skoorb's thread about the same issue. its evident from most of the posts that most dont care

It's most Americans that don't vote, either. Therefore, those who do care will be the ones that do something about it.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
i would like to see us using clean power, so we won't have any dependency from anyone.


edit: you know what, i was just thinking that i'm sure we have the technical know how to get it done, but i bet its the oil companies that are lobbying to prevent too many hybrids from going mainstream.

c'mon. our president's an oil barron

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Aharami
nothing gonna happen cuz most americans dont give a rats ass. it's so sad. it truly is. check out skoorb's thread about the same issue. its evident from most of the posts that most dont care

I think that most don't care, but once gas prices hit 3 dollars a gallon, most will wake up and smell the bullshit that OPEC if feeding us. Most say it won't bother them, but I don't think it's true. Once the cast majority realizes that oil isn't cheap, I think that even more will look towards hybrid vehicles and cheaper alternatives to fuel will start becoming more important to produce.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rbloedow
Anybody think this will ever be possible? After having a discussion about this at another messageboard, I want to see what ATOT thinks.

Personally, I think we need to do something about it soon. OPEC has our country by the balls when it comes to oil, our country is dependant on them like a baby to a nipple. Without OPEC, our economy would crash and country crumble. Plus, it bothers me that we are basically feeding the cesspool of the world, the middle east (or at least, the dozen or so families who control OPEC).

After thinking it over, I believe these are some ways the US can ween itself off of foreign oil:
- promoting mass usage of nuclear power, building more plants and facilities.
- opening up the reserves off of our coasts, allowing companies to drill in Alaska so long as they come up with enviromentally friendly ways to do it.
- upping the minimum MPG limits imposed on automobile companies
- offering companies and people large tax breaks for building hybrid and hydrogen cars
- building a national hydrogen infastructure, funding more research on how to make hydrogen an easier to use resource.

What do you guys think about these ideas?

It's more than just OPEC having us by the balls. Our supposed own Companies and Politicians that are in the back pockets of the Saudi's is the problem. The knife is not in our back, it's in our gut and we still don't take it out.

 

[TitanDiddly]

I like the concepts coming out about hydrogen. I think it has real potential, from what I've read in scientific magazines.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Nuclear power is ridiculously inefficient when you examine the cost/benefit ratio. I say go for solar/wind hydrogen.

Also offer federal tax incentives for adopting solar/wind power on a personal level. Some states already do it.

 

[Dragnov]

1. Ain't going to happen. No one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard, especially with concerns of terrorist threats.

2. That does nothing to end our dependence on OPEC. Doesn't produce enough and at an as efficient rate. Besides, it's going to be hell for the federal government to get Californians at least to go along.

3. Logical but politically I don't think it will happen. Again, just delays our dependence. Not to mention it puts a hamper on individual rights. It will be challenged legally if it is ever considered I'm sure. Here in the US, individual rights > collective rights 99% of the time.

4. Free market critics will argue to let it happen naturally. But besides that there has to be TONS of change in infrastructure in order to make this legitimate. Theres going to be lots of companies effected. It will be a long and grueling process for this to happen.

5. See #4.

And OPEC doesn't have the USA entirely by the balls... a reason why gas is so much cheaper here than in just about every other country. Anyways, pretty much any changes to truly get us off our dependency, would require more R&D, and HUGE changes in society. Think another industrial revolution. It's not just cars that use oil.

Personally, I don't think anything is going to change drastically in the next couple decades. There has to be a major event that happens and serious legitimate concerns for things to change. It's going to require one hell of a charismatic and convincing President as well.

 

[Fronic]

Won't happen any time soon.
There is a multi-trillion dollar infra-structer in place that will be making money till the last barrel.
They will not allow that to be replaced, too many people making scads of money.

 

[TommyVercetti]

As long as I can drive me 13 MPG (on the highway) SUV, then I give it my thumbs up.

 

[SherEPunjab]

u know guys, if that does happen though, we can say bye-bye to our muscle cars


*tear*

 

[bernse]

Most of the oil in the world is not controlled by OPEC, they just control something like 20%.

Russia has massive reserves and Alberta Canada has supposedly has more than all of Saudi Arabia. We have hardly scratched whats under the ocean.

However, OPECs clout is a double edged sword, while it makes it cost more, without high prices you wouldn't see the exploration there is everywhere else.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Dragnov
1. Ain't going to happen. No one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard, especially with concerns of terrorist threats.

- I can understand this, but how about putting plants in areas not surrounded by cities, and make the areas surrounding them no fly zones. Impose VERY strict restrictions for upkeep, management, and employment.

2. That does nothing to end our dependence on OPEC. Doesn't produce enough and at an as efficient rate. Besides, it's going to be hell for the federal government to get Californians at least to go along.

- I understand this, but once prices do start getting higher, I can definitly see more people agreeing to let the offshore drilling happen. Since the majority of the oil the US does use is for energy, nuclear power plants could take out a very significant amount of oil that we use. From the studies that I've read, the US uses around 8.5 million barrels of oil a day just in vehicle gasoline. Currently, Alaska is only pumping out a little amount of oil - around 2 million barrels a day. We could easily open up the reserves in alaska to cover vehicle gasoline usage, and the rest could go towards other misc production. Plus, there are large reserves off of the coast of California, and off of the Southern Gulf coasts. Those along pumping out a few million barrels a day.

3. Logical but politically I don't think it will happen. Again, just delays our dependence. Not to mention it puts a hamper on individual rights. It will be challenged legally if it is ever considered I'm sure. Here in the US, individual rights > collective rights 99% of the time.

- Of course, I'm talking about new cars only. Although, as stated about, I think it would be smart to make yearly emissions tests a federal mandate. The US government already imposes average MPG restrictions for companies, every 5 years bump the number up 1mpg or two.

4. Free market critics will argue to let it happen naturally. But besides that there has to be TONS of change in infrastructure in order to make this legitimate. Theres going to be lots of companies effected. It will be a long and grueling process for this to happen.

- But by offering incentives to do it, the process switching to cleaner and better alternative will definitly be sped up.

5. See #4.

- I agree that building an infastructure woudl take a long time, but govt incentives would greatly speed up the process.

And OPEC doesn't have the USA entirely by the balls... a reason why gas is so much cheaper here than in just about every other country. Anyways, pretty much any changes to truly get us off our dependency, would require more R&D, and HUGE changes in society. Think another industrial revolution. It's not just cars that use oil.

Personally, I don't think anything is going to change drastically in the next couple decades. There has to be a major event that happens and serious legitimate concerns for things to change. It's going to require one hell of a charismatic and convincing President as well.

You're right, It will require a HUGE change in our society, but it's going to happen either farther down the road when oil supplies are depleated, or it can happen via a natural progression, so our economy and society is prepared for the switch. Also, gas is much cheaper in the US because our government doesn't tax the hell out of gasoline like governments in Europe, if ours did, we'd be looking at prices that were ust as high.

 

[Dragnov]

- I can understand this, but how about putting plants in areas not surrounded by cities, and make the areas surrounding them no fly zones. Impose VERY strict restrictions for upkeep, management, and employment.

Still aint going to happen. It simply won't fly with the public. But a better argument being... where are we going to put the waste? No state wants to be the dumping ground of something inredibly dangerous that won't dissapear until way into the future. Not to mention the transportation of nuclear waste...

I understand this, but once prices do start getting higher, I can definitly see more people agreeing to let the offshore drilling happen. Since the majority of the oil the US does use is for energy, nuclear power plants could take out a very significant amount of oil that we use. From the studies that I've read, the US uses around 8.5 million barrels of oil a day just in vehicle gasoline. Currently, Alaska is only pumping out a little amount of oil - around 2 million barrels a day. We could easily open up the reserves in alaska to cover vehicle gasoline usage, and the rest could go towards other misc production. Plus, there are large reserves off of the coast of California, and off of the Southern Gulf coasts. Those along pumping out a few million barrels a day.

Though more people would agree to let offshore drilling to happen, it won't fly on those affected states. Homeowners, environmentalists, etc. I believe people would rather pay for to move onto the next technology if it reaches tha point. But meh, either side can be endlessly argued... all depends on the public opinion at that time pretty much.

Of course, I'm talking about new cars only. Although, as stated about, I think it would be smart to make yearly emissions tests a federal mandate. The US government already imposes average MPG restrictions for companies, every 5 years bump the number up 1mpg or two.

Lots of financial concerns here and politics involved here. I think this is the most likely of things to happen though again, just delaying things out.

But by offering incentives to do it, the process switching to cleaner and better alternative will definitly be sped up.

Where is the money going to come from anyways? More taxes? If not, that money is going to be taken away from somewhere and those people certainly won't be happy. Again, free market advocates and lots of politics involved. But yeah...

I agree that building an infastructure woudl take a long time, but govt incentives would greatly speed up the process.

Incentives would still be a relatively slow process. And plus they have to be pretty damn huge incentives for companies to change what is a billion dollar industry? I cant emphasize enough the drastic effect this will have on numerous companies and society itself.

Also, gas is much cheaper in the US because our government doesn't tax the hell out of gasoline like governments in Europe, if ours did, we'd be looking at prices that were ust as high.

We don't tax the hell out of gasoline like governments in Europe because we're not as dependent on the Middle East as they are.

And just in case... I'm not really trying to argue for or against anything, but just stating the problems and likelyhood (sp?) of such things happening in my eyes.

 

[JoeKing]

Hamster power. A vastly untapped resource of pure pellet power.



Hamsters

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Dragnov

- I can understand this, but how about putting plants in areas not surrounded by cities, and make the areas surrounding them no fly zones. Impose VERY strict restrictions for upkeep, management, and employment.

Still aint going to happen. It simply won't fly with the public. But a better argument being... where are we going to put the waste? No state wants to be the dumping ground of something inredibly dangerous that won't dissapear until way into the future. Not to mention the transportation of nuclear waste...

I understand this, but once prices do start getting higher, I can definitly see more people agreeing to let the offshore drilling happen. Since the majority of the oil the US does use is for energy, nuclear power plants could take out a very significant amount of oil that we use. From the studies that I've read, the US uses around 8.5 million barrels of oil a day just in vehicle gasoline. Currently, Alaska is only pumping out a little amount of oil - around 2 million barrels a day. We could easily open up the reserves in alaska to cover vehicle gasoline usage, and the rest could go towards other misc production. Plus, there are large reserves off of the coast of California, and off of the Southern Gulf coasts. Those along pumping out a few million barrels a day.

Though more people would agree to let offshore drilling to happen, it won't fly on those affected states. Homeowners, environmentalists, etc. I believe people would rather pay for to move onto the next technology if it reaches tha point. But meh, either side can be endlessly argued... all depends on the public opinion at that time pretty much.

Of course, I'm talking about new cars only. Although, as stated about, I think it would be smart to make yearly emissions tests a federal mandate. The US government already imposes average MPG restrictions for companies, every 5 years bump the number up 1mpg or two.

Lots of financial concerns here and politics involved here. I think this is the most likely of things to happen though again, just delaying things out.

But by offering incentives to do it, the process switching to cleaner and better alternative will definitly be sped up.

Where is the money going to come from anyways? More taxes? If not, that money is going to be taken away from somewhere and those people certainly won't be happy. Again, free market advocates and lots of politics involved. But yeah...

I agree that building an infastructure woudl take a long time, but govt incentives would greatly speed up the process.

Incentives would still be a relatively slow process. And plus they have to be pretty damn huge incentives for companies to change what is a billion dollar industry? I cant emphasize enough the drastic effect this will have on numerous companies and society itself.

Also, gas is much cheaper in the US because our government doesn't tax the hell out of gasoline like governments in Europe, if ours did, we'd be looking at prices that were ust as high.

We don't tax the hell out of gasoline like governments in Europe because we're not as dependent on the Middle East as they are.

And just in case... I'm not really trying to argue for or against anything, but just stating the problems and likelyhood (sp?) of such things happening in my eyes.

We;re not arguing, we're having a good discussion I do agree with a lot of your points, and did not think about the nuclear waste until you pointed it out. Thanks for a different perspective