[QUOTE=sailaway21;310381]However, that is not the case - now is it? We cannot produce enough to meet our needs, we are dependent on a foreign product for our survival (reason enough to get off - no matter the cost), and it IS an exhaustable resource. Drilling is only a stop-gap and not a long term solution.
What evidence do you have for the above statement? We don't even explore many of our most abundant areas for oil since we've banned drilling in them regardless of technology used.
(refer to your previous stmt)
QUOTE]
Sway, no offense on this thread. It is simply a debate. Ok? I will not get offeneded, and you do not. Fair enough?
You are obviously much more educated on this than I am. I would ask where you received the education? From more than one source and one point of view, I would hope. I would hope that you have also reviewed, in depth and with an open mind, the oppositions point of view before making any final decisions?
Ok, then I will ask you or anyone that can answer the questions as I am, as I have already mentioned before my message, uneducated in the matter:
1) Can the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?
2) Does the US currently produce sufficient oil to sustain itself?
3) Are we currently dependent on foreign oil for our survival? I do not mean whether you eat or have a house (though that too could be debated) but our economic survival? Our energy survival? Our production survival?
4) Am I wrong to assume there is only so much oil? In essence, is it an exhaustable resource or will there always be oil no matter how much we use?
5) Can we, by putting a pumper in everyones backyard, even with the most unrealisticly high estimates, produce enough to permanently sustain our country? Permanent, not a few years. If so, is this an economically feasible solution?
6) Now, given your answers to the above questions, is drilling for more oil only a stop-gap and short term solution?
Now, to counter your points you have made:
Solar and Wind may just be wishful thinking now... but that may not always be the case. If we always, until the end of time, have a cheap, alternative, clean, relenishable energy source, then yes... why develop them??? It makes no sense. But the market will drive them to better technologies. There are no limit to examples in this statement, from carraiges to automobiles, from horses to tanks, from my old TRS-80 to the laptop I currently type on. The market force will make them better unless we get really cheap oil again.
Where did you come up with covering Arizona to supply LA? I can, on my property, convert to SOLAR ONLY for $35,000. It did not require covering 120 acres. This information and specifics are available at:
Solar Electric Systems Ask for Ryan. That is who I have used. That is about all they do. Now, $35,000 is a lot. Is that because of the true cost, or because of supply and demand and economics. Imagine the supply and resources to outfit your home with solar if it was as commonplace as the air conditioning guy or plumber? Also, for non-off the grid applications, you can get by for about $16,000. What you effectively do is run off the city for the high loads (A/C) but put back into the grid with yours. The point of this is not to say that it is an economically great way to go right now. It is expensive. But market dynamics can change that over time. My point is that it CAN be done with todays technology. What will tomorrow yield?
Regarding Iraq I or II, the Korean War, WWII or the conquests of Rome, it is in the interest of every person(s) to stand back and ask the question: Ok, this is what we did. Was it worth it? Would we do it again? Could those resources have been put to better use? This is not an attack on our invasion of that country. I was for it then, and (gulp) still am (no Candian attacks, please). But that surely does not stop me from standing back and constantly questioning what we have done and if it was the right thing or could there have been better options. To not do so is blind arrogance that all of your decisions are right and all future decisions do not depend on past decisions. But this is a debate for another topic.
I do not understand your point about the Prius. I have heard that argument that they do not make any money on them. I guess I should accept a companies stance that they are solely in it for the charity and all green will to mankind. It's just that, something bothers me about that. I guess I should not question them. If they say they don't make money, they don't make money. They just do it for the love of green machines. God bless them. Or maybe, they do make money off of them but calculate it in such a way that it looks like they do not to discourage competition (or other reasons)? Or maybe it is because they see it is the future too and are trying to stay ahead of the curve and have already answered my questions above and came to a similar conclusion? Or maybe - nah, they just like losing money. Yep. They Japanese are like that.
Regarding the next two statements, I live in the country AND I drive a F150. But let me ask you: Can a city survive without the country? The country CAN survive without the city. Contrary to popular urban belief, Kroger and Tom THumb (etc) have not masterd the art of growing those exqusite tomatoes out of fresh air overnight to land at your local grocer. They come... from the country and not the city. You imply that we should leave the country and live in the city? I tell you the cities need the country more than likewise. These guys out here, they have had this land for generations (well before the turn of the 1900s). I have a house sitting right beside me that dates to the 1900s. The town I live in goes back to nearly the mid to early 1800's. They don't need you as bad as you need them. If this coutry dropped into the worst depression it has ever known, someone would have to break it to these guys out here cuz they wouldn't know. They fly an American Flag out front, help out their neighbors, go to church on Sundays and will give you the shirt off their back at a moments notice. I have lived in both and cannot imagine living anywhere else. The quality of life out here is vastly better and a vastly better place to raise a family. Cities suck worse than Sea Rays. That is a tall statement. I am not sure what else to make out of those paragraphs.
Regarding your final paragraph, on that we do disagree for the most part. You seem to feel that by drilling and oil getting cheap, all of our problems are over. I feel that by doing so, we simply put off the inevitable for our kids to solve. I would rather my generation suck it up and get it figured out then hand my kids a country in worse shape than it is. But that's just me... and I don't like Starbucks.
- CD
PS I have no issue with Nuclear.