
hide menu
Latest users (4): cabbagemayhem, jewishcommunazi, thatguyontheright, youregaylol, anonymous(18).
User avatar #2996 - walkingdisaster (07/03/2012) [-]
Drilling in the Arctic.

User avatar #3005 to #2996 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
it is dirty, unsafe and unnecessary
User avatar #3010 to #3008 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
no... we have the technology to move on from dirty resources. One needs only too look at Alberta to know that it is unsafe
#3043 to #3010 - repostsrepost (07/04/2012) [-]
Solar and Wind don't work, it takes more resources to produce less power. Natural Gas has the potential to replace Oil. Its safe, clean, and america has a shit ton of it. For large scale energy production nuclear energy is the way to go. It releases 0 pollutants into the atmosphere, is the most efficient power source current science can generate, and its safe. You can talk all you want about Exon Valdez, BP oil spill, and Chernobyl, but 1. these incidents are very rare. 2. If we should shut down energy production because 1 incident happens, might as well go back to the Bronze Age.
User avatar #3096 to #3043 - AmusableBman ONLINE (07/05/2012) [-]
The problem with nuclear is that it doesn't like to fluctuate much. Nuclear puts out a constant stream of power, and that power has to be consumed, or you get meltdowns. Nuclear production should be kept at or slightly below the minimum power consumption of a country to prevent big fuckups
User avatar #3084 to #3043 - szymonf (07/05/2012) [-]
these incidents might be "rare" (there are regular oil spills) but when they do happen it is on a catastrophic scale affecting vast amounts of land, water and people. And nuclear energy may release 0 pollutants into the atmosphere but we have no solution for getting rid of the nuclear waste. there are reasons as to why cancer levels explode in areas surrounding nuclear sites
#3251 to #3084 - anonymous (07/06/2012) [-]
Nuclear power would become much better if we were able to accomplish nuclear fusion in our reactors.

Nuclear fusion leaves less waste (which also has a much shorter half-life than fission waste), has pretty much no risk of meltdown, and can be run from plentiful resources that can far outlast anything we have today.

Unfortunately, the research has been full of difficulties and an economically viable fusion reactor may not be possible any time soon. Still, gotta hope for the best.
User avatar #3252 to #3251 - szymonf (07/06/2012) [-]
and maybe spock will come to help us
#3058 to #3043 - anonymous (07/04/2012) [-]
Better than nuclear is the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor here is a link with a few videos to learn about it. You need to login to view this link
User avatar #3085 to #3058 - szymonf (07/05/2012) [-]
it is a long video... sounds interesting though after the first 2 minutes
User avatar #3057 to #3043 - arisaka (07/04/2012) [-]
>Good for America
>Good for the world

Shut up.
User avatar #3080 to #3057 - lecherouslad (07/05/2012) [-]
that's short sighted..
#3022 to #3010 - anonymous (07/03/2012) [-]
But the "green" energy sources we're being presented with are more expensive and less efficient. You're paying more to get less energy. When the price of energy goes up, so does the price of everything else. It would destroy an already-weakened economy.

Besides, our technology to use "dirty" energy sources is improving over time, allowing us to get more out of them with less pollution.

And guess what happens every time we choose not to drill for oil somewhere? Some other country moves in and drills there and we end up buying the oil from them. So in our "crusade" for going green, we don't make a difference in the environment and just end up with more foreign oil dependence.
User avatar #3025 to #3022 - Slipperynuts (07/04/2012) [-]
Nuclear energy. Did everyone forget about this?
#3250 to #3025 - anonymous (07/06/2012) [-]
People are still too paranoid about it, especially after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, even though Japan shouldn't have built a nuclear plant on a tsunami-prone coast to begin with.
User avatar #3024 to #3022 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
the reason why green energy is less efficient and more expensive is due to the fact that for the past 40 years big oil has been slowing down the development of green industry.

Lastly, when the Saudi Oil minister says that there is no future for oil and that the government is looking towards creating a massive renewable energy sector, then you know that the time has come to ditch oil.
User avatar #3011 to #3010 - reaganomix (07/03/2012) [-]
As the price of oil increases it would become more profitable to go to these places in search of raw materials.

Much like when telephone polls were being erected across the country. The wire used copper and it was uncertain whether there was enough copper to cover the country. As the price of copper increased, more people searched for copper because of how much it was worth, it became more cost efficient to mine in areas that were once too expensive to mine into, and we innovated with the invention of fiber optic cables.
User avatar #3016 to #3011 - walkingdisaster (07/03/2012) [-]
But imagine if there was an oil spill. It would be 100 times worse than the gulf or the ship in Alaska (exon valdeeze or however you spell it)
User avatar #3012 to #3011 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
i know what happened with the tar sands in alberta.
User avatar #3015 to #3012 - aerialz (07/03/2012) [-]
Drilling is much safer than tar sands, the only danger, fracking, is not that much of a danger at all, look at texas, it has had millions of wells drilled, and it is still quite safe to live in.
User avatar #3017 to #3015 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
exxon valdez oil spill... there is a difference between freezing temperatures in the arctic and boiling temperatures in texas
User avatar #3018 to #3017 - aerialz (07/03/2012) [-]
1. boiling temperature is 100 C, not the 40 C it gets to in texas
2. the exxon valdez spill was caused by drunk driving, and tankers can survive alot worse hits now
User avatar #3019 to #3018 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
1. exaggeration
2. ok
 Friends (0)