$3.00 per gallon gasoline. Why is everyone so panicked?

Cars have the ability to destroy entire landscapes, with pollution that cannot be cleaned up for thousands of years?

You aren't listening.

Non Sequitur.

We use very little crude oil to generate electricity, which is what nuclear power plants do. Allowing nuclear power plants would not change how we travel. It would not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Your claim that buying Canadian and Mexican oil is supporting terrorism is unfounded, grossly in error, and abjectly stupid; but your dishonesty on this topic has been noted previously, so it comes as no surprise.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson
Loading thread data ...

I disagree. There were two emergencies, one of which led to wide-spread contamination and several deaths. The risks of nuclear power are large. But so are the potential benefits.

I disagree. You have weigh the potential risks and benefits. The benefits of nuclear power are relatively safe and cheap power. The risks and costs of nuclear power include the need to handle the nuclear waste on a permanent basis and the risk of a disaster. In addition, the nuclear waste can fall into the hands of a terrorists, which is not good.

Recognizing the risks and benefits of something doesn't make one a liberal.

Personally, I would like to see more nuclear power plants. Had you read what I said before, you would also realize that I think that by having one standardized design, both the cost and safety of nuclear power would be improved.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

That, to me, is poor thinking. Nuclear power, if not implemented properly, puts millions of people at risk. There are something like 10,000,000 people downwind of the nuclear power plants in Berwick, PA.

There is also something else different. I choose whether to take a bus, train or car. A person doesn't get to choose whether or not to let a power company build a nuclear power plant.

I don't walk that far, but I walk when reasonable, like when I go to the grocery store for small items. I take a car when I want a case of soda.

I don't.

Excellent idea. Also, improve the efficiency of cars, houses, etc., so that we need less energy. This will make us more secure and reduce costs.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Actually, about 3% of the electricity in the US comes from oil.

We would get much better results on reducing imports if we increased efficency, but buying cars that are more efficient, cut back on highway speeds, and drove in a more efficent manner (e.g., driving with tires properly inflated and no jack rabbit stops or starts).

But much of the world's oil comes from the Middle East. Regardless of whether we buy it, or India does, the money ends up in the pockets of the people in the Middle East.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Actually, the return on ExxonMobile over the last two years has been a total of about 25%, so about 12% annually, including dividends. And ExxonMobile had a profit of about $69,000,000,000 not $500,000,000,000 as you claim.

formatting link
Next time, when numbers are readily available, please to make them up.

BTW, I was aware of ExxonMobile's profit because I own their stock.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

But we don't buy foriegn oil instead of using nuclear power. I said "very little", you say 3%... which is the same thing.

Regardless *we* don't buy most of our oil from terrorists, and suggesting that our oil purchases support terrorism is abject stupidity.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

I disagree. Some of the Middle Eastern countries do support terrorism. And the only reason why the US is friendly with them is that the world needs oil. So even if we don't use oil from a particular country, because oil is a commodity, it doesn't really matter.

But the only way to reduce the use of oil by the world and the US is to improve conservation measures and find alternative fuels, including things like wind, solar and nuclear power. It is going to be many years before we can reasonably do this.

In addition, we need a new infrastructure to handle whatever is the next big thing in energy. We might be able to replace gasoline with hydrogen, but, to do this, we need a whole new infrastructure.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

You are not paying attention. We don't buy most of our oil from the Middle East; therefore, even if every country there supports terrorists, _we_ _don't_ _buy_ _most_ _of_ _our_ _oil_ _from_ _countries_ _that_ _support_ _terrorists_.

Unless of course you want to claim that Canada and Mexico support terrorists. They are the source for most of our foreign crude.

So what? That is true, but has *no* bearing on the statement you are commenting on.

So we take our trade elsewhere... it's a free market.

Nuclear power simply wouldn't have any significant effect on our use of oil. As you have admitted, oil is only used for 3% of the power generation in this country.

You also claim nuclear power is safe... except for the extreme danger it presents to millions of people:

"The benefits of nuclear power are relatively safe and cheap power. The risks and costs of nuclear power include the need to handle the nuclear waste on a permanent basis and the risk of a disaster. In addition, the nuclear waste can fall into the hands of a terrorists, which is not good."

A ridiculous contradiction.

Hence it probably is not going to happen. Certainly not as long as Canada, Mexico and other friendly countries continue to sell us a plentiful supply of crude oil.

Reply to
Floyd L. Davidson

You might want to check your "facts" again. Saudi Arabia supplies about as much oil as Mexico. The US also gets a lot of oil from Venezula, which has a dictator for President.

formatting link
(I love the way people make conjectures, but don't do anything to check them out! They make idiots of themselves.)

Together, they supply less than 1/2 the crude oil the US imports.

I think I have shown that the US imports much oil from the Middle East.

And someone else will buy the oil from the Middle East.

Yet, if we would be able to use electricity to reduce our use of oil. For example, electricity could be used to replace oil used for heating houses. And electricity can be used to for transportation, too, as in electric cars and cars that use hydrogen, which can be made through electrolysis using electricity as the source of energy.

No, it is not a contradiction. There are risks involved. There is a risk of diaster with subways and other forms of public transportation. The risk of diaster are minimized with proper design, oversight and training of operators. Likewise, the risk of radioactive material can be minimized with proper handling.

There are risks involved with relying on fossil fuels, like global heating, supporting terroists (from what country in the top three suppliers to the US did most of the terrorist who flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon come) and environmental damage from broken pipes and ships.

Whenever we use energy in any form, there are risks. The best we can do is minimize the risks.

You mean like Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Azerbaijan and Russia (which owns Luk Oil and Getty Oil)?

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

"Environmentalists" yes, but not the "Environuts" who are trying to force legislation. . You of course are free to believe whatever you choose, but respect must be earned. The fact is environmental extremists do more harm than good in our efforts to clean up where we can. More level headed environmentalist have been speaking out about those. like Al Gore, who over represent and exaggerate environmental problems to gain attention to their extremists views of the problems .

The history of the automobile industry since 1970 is a prime example. I personally witnessed that forcing our industry, by demand, to spend billions to jury rig contemporary technology to meet environmental and safety standards by dates certain, rather than allowing us to meet those same goals by developing new technology in new vehicles with the same funds over the same amount of time, merely delayed by nearly fifteen years todays technologically advanced automobiles. mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

It is currently, I have two nuclear power plants 'in my back yard' that have been storing nuclear waste under six feet of water since day one. ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

What a funny guy you are. You think the manufacturers would've dealt with pollution issues with being constantly kicked in the ass. If you can't handle the drugs, you shouldn't do them, Mike.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom

At least say in my opinion because you have no idea of what you are talking about on the subject of the nuclear power industry. Perhaps you might want to do a search about how nuclear waste is treated even before it will be transported to be stored at Yucca Mountain, then get back to us. You might also look to see how much less protection is provided, before it gets to a nuke plant. You might ask yourself, where did the nuclear material come from in the first place?

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

As usual, when you say something about believing what I want, you usually are expressing your opinion.

Global heating is going to be a real problem if we don't do something about it. Almost all leaders of developed countries, including Pres. Bush, have come to this conclusion.

Your last paragraph doesn't make sense. The regulations required that certain goals be met. The car makers were free to make those standards however they wanted. They had the choice on how to meet the standards, with new technology or old. The people who made the standards had plenty of time to meet the standards.

But, as you say, you can choose to believe what you want.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

For once you acknowledge that this is your opinion.

Have a nice day.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Actually, neither Berwick nor TMI is in your back yard.

They were within 100 mi, however, of your back yard. As they were mine.

Perhaps you can talk to the officials at TMI or Berwick, and see if you can move there.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

In message news:FZULh.23$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe12.lga, Tom sprach forth the following:

It's fairly obvious that they're not getting much oxygen to their brains.

Reply to
Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute

You do not know as much as you think you do. My back yard most of the time is in Delaware, near different plants, but I spend a lot of my time in another of my homes, north of Allentown Pa. located between the TMI or Berwick plants. On a clear day, from the top of the mountain, I can see the vapor from their cooling towers. I've been in the PPL Berwick plant as well as the TVA breeder reactor plant at Oak Ridge Tennessee. ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

I guess in you stupor you missed the operative part of the post that referred to meeting those the goal on dates certain. Then again that is what one can expect from you LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Why do you like to comment on subjects of which you have little or no knowledge. First one must understand the problem, obviously you do not. To meet those goals by times certain we need to re-engineer what we were building or we could not sell vehicles until we developed totally new types of vehicles. Had we been allowed to work on new technoclgy rather than jury rig we cold ahv ahd tocay cars on the market in the late eightes. Get a clue

mike

.

Reply to
Mike Hunter

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.