Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DirkFTW
My understanding of "alternative energy" is that it's a hodgepodge of possibilities. We don't know which one(s) are viable replacements on a nation-wide scale. So, the idea isn't to drill domestically exclusively. Or to do nuclear power exclusively. Or to do wind exclusively. Or to do biofuels exclusively. Or to do solar exclusively. Or to do natural gas exclusively. It's to do all of it. Maybe if we knew which solution would be the fix-it-all solution, then we could dump 100% of everything we've got into it... but what if it's another corn ethanol? Leaps of faith sound good, but before we totally sever/steer away from oil, let's have a place to land.
And while we're looking, let's do what we can to make things better until that day. Even if global demand increases will outpace domestic drilling benefits, it's better than nothing. If you knew that the oil price would double right now if you did nothing, but if you drilled, it would only go up by 50%, which would you do? And even if we've only got enough nuclear fuel to power the entire world for 15 years, that means we've got more than enough to power just the United States for the 10 years (or however long) it would take to develop something else.
I'm not categorically against oil companies. This is probably going to open a can of worms, but Exxon invested over $100 million into alternative energy research last year. Lots of people poopooed that amount saying "oh, it's only 1% of all their profits." But, in the end, that was $100 million that wasn't there before. Chevron invested $300 million. I sure as heck don't have money to spare for alternative energy research.
If Big Oil invents something that is totally clean and totally renewable, do you say "Hallelujah!" or do you knee them in the crotch and walk away?
|
They invest for profit but it´s better than nothing. The thing is that a fix-it-all solution really allready exists. Solar is that solution. If you don´t think so just follow the link I gave (yes it´s just Wikipedia but at the bottom there are alot of links and books that are credible, and actually the Wikipedia article is ok too). If you use two acres of land and on one acre you produce corn ethanol on the other you use the latest csp/solar technique, then you get 85 times (and no that´s not a typo, why do people even talk about corn ethanol?) more energy through solar. Solar is ready, all that´s needed is a huge investment in infrastructure and carrier infrastructure. Obviously there are huge interests against such a solution which is what stops it from happening (and yes it is more expensive than other resources right now which is another big reason, the biggest from an economic standpoint. But the price would drop dramaticly if we´d produce our energy through solar mainly. Sure other resources would get even cheaper then but I think there could be an easy political solution like taxing or something else). That´s the biggest problem with politics right now. Too often they only care about the interests of a few, instead of doing what´s best for all and what is the obvious and intelligent solution to a big problem.