In other news. No one can say anything about Obama without being called racist.

Terry Neal of the Root:

Quote :

"When Camp McCain says he's arrogant, they're playing to those who think he's another black man who doesn't know his place."

http://www.theroot.com/id/47536/page/1

Timothy Noah of Slate Magazine:

Quote :

"My point is that any discussion of Obama's "skinniness" and its impact on the typical American voter can't avoid being interpreted as a coded discussion of race."

http://www.slate.com/id/2196756/

Maybe this is why Obama doesn't lead in the polls. His supporters are overly zealous. Most people don't like this type of a horse shit.

8/6/2008 9:28:51 AM

^^ if i remember correctly, there are tax incentives for making your home solar powered.....

Anyway, this is where I disagree with you. In the short run, solar panels do not make any sense. In the long run, they do. With the recent housing boom, people dont stay in one place long enough to justify putting panels in. Is anyone on this board planning on staying at their current residence long enough to justify panels? I bet not.

Landlords simply dont want panels because it becomes a hassle for them.

Homeowners dont want panels because it can limit market demand on your home.

Thus, we are back where we started. The knowledge to severely decrease our energy demand with no driving force for change.......

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2008 9:49:54 AM

Quote :

"If one could easily replace their current power source with personal solar panels, why not do it? Solar panels have been available for residential use for years, yet a very small portion of the population actually uses them. "

As I noted in http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=529192&page=12#11901325 post, I was talking about solar panels in the future when they are cheaper (polymer based) and more efficient, not our current very expensive and inefficient solar cells.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 10:07 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 10:05:48 AM

^ Sorry, didn't catch all of the preceding conversation.

8/6/2008 10:07:55 AM

Quote :

""beaming" power in the quantities you're talking about is not yet possible. I haven't even read promising research in to this type of technique. You're talking about something decades away, at best, i'd imagine."

Beaming power via microwave has been demonstrated repeatedly. I'm not talking about Trek-style transportation here. Use a rectenna. They've managed extremely high efficiencies in tests. Of course they haven't attempted the kind of juice I'm talking about. You can't waste the Earth's entire electrical output on an experiment. People take this idea seriously. Dates for the Japanese program range from 2020 to 2040. At least a decade, yes, but probably not too many.

The moon could be a superior option, as it contains the material need to build solar panels. Scientists have already demonstrated the ability to convert moondust into the base for solar panels. Send a panel-making robot up there and let it go to town. (A little molecular nanotechnoloy turns this option into pure win.)

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 11:27 AM. Reason : solar power ain't no joke]

8/6/2008 11:24:40 AM

moondust?

is that what you been snortin?

8/6/2008 11:53:26 AM

^^ oh, i'm sure we could do all of those things.

i don't think any of it would be the most cost effective solution, though...certainly not now, and i seriously doubt even in a couple more decades.

8/6/2008 11:55:26 AM

look, all this talk of spacemen building solar panels out of moondust and shooting huge power beams back to earth

thats all real groovy and shit.

so, y'all keep up the R&D on that, okay? for serious. and maybe by the end of the century we'll have something like that in place, or at least a prototype.

but the point is, none of that is remotely feasable in any realistic timeframe... if you seriously think this is something that can remotely be accomplished in 10 or 20 years, you're stoned. Take off the beret and leave the comic book store, okay? embrace reality. we're talking presidential campaigns here. no one is going to look like a fool in public and talk about some shit that won't have any ROI for at least 50 years.

the point is, nuclear power is here and now. its real, it works, it's been a real, practical, scalable, cost-effective, clean energy solution for 50+ years. There is at least one major western nation on this planet that currently supplies 70-80% of their domestic power needs purely with nuclear reactor power. and they havent had one single accident in the several decades they've had their program in place.

now you take your moondust back to your basement lab and keep working on it, okay. you can even apply for some government grants for your research, okay? meanwhile, we need to be realistic about solutions for the current energy crisis that is only going to get worse by the year.






[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 12:07 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 12:05:07 PM

I don't know if it's cost effective or not, but Viper's idea is cool as shit.

Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?


PS* Schmoe is right, though. Nuclear Power is actually the way to go, imo. It's a proven technology that is actually also cool as shit.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 12:10 PM. Reason : ``]

8/6/2008 12:09:17 PM

joe, i think we might agree on something. Great points on nuclear.

For some reason I just cant get over that stupid ass tire pressure comment. Its unbelievable he actually said that. I dont know why that isnt getting more air time. Its one of the most childish BS ive heard, esp from someone running for president of the US.

8/6/2008 12:54:53 PM

while he's on the subject of auto maintenance maybe he can inform us that its a good idea to change our oil every 3,000 miles and rotate our tires every 6,000 miles

8/6/2008 12:56:40 PM

Its just hard to take him seriously when he says stupid shit like that. The fact that people tried to defend it shows they cant think rationally or independently and will swallow whatever BS he is selling today.

While its a good tip, its FAR from a solution. I hope republicans keep this in the news.

8/6/2008 1:06:30 PM

exactly...its a good tip for maintaining a car...but he implies that if we all properly inflated our tires, it would save just as much oil as we could gain from drilling...he makes it sound like its a solution

8/6/2008 1:08:32 PM

Quote :

"none of that is remotely feasable in any realistic timeframe... if you seriously think this is something that can remotely be accomplished in 10 or 20 years, you're stoned."

Tell that to the Japanese. They're working on solar satellites as we type. Dismiss solar all you want. It'll just continue improving. One day, you'll look up and notice that it provides a significant percentage of the electricity you use daily.

I don't why you think I'm opposed to nuclear power. I'm not, as I noted in another thread. But focusing only on fission isn't much better than focusing only on solar. We have tons of ways to access energy, and we should use them all. Fusion and solar (another form of fusion) are the best for the longterm, but fission, wind, hydroelectric, and so on will help us last that long.

8/6/2008 1:22:38 PM

Quote :

"Tell that to the Japanese. They're working on solar satellites as we type. Dismiss solar all you want. It'll just continue improving. One day, you'll look up and notice that it provides a significant percentage of the electricity you use daily."

AHA, people have been hearing that for 40 years.

Solar is a mature technology. It's been around for a century, and in production for a half a century. the days of annual double-digit leaps in efficiency are long gone. It's good in niche applications, but way overrated as an energy "solution".

8/6/2008 3:31:36 PM

The developments in the film stuff are certainly more than trivial.

8/6/2008 3:32:27 PM

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=solar&id=18259&a=

http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/2007/07/09/nanotech-roscheisen-solar-pf-guru-in_jw_0709adviserqa_inl.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071218105420.htm

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/solar-textiles.php

Nanotechnology is one of these areas that's still in the exponential development stage, and it's the key to future solar development. The future looks pretty bright for solar efficiency improvements. No pun intended.

8/6/2008 3:36:57 PM

regarding the tire pressure ruckus:

-- its a fact that increasing your tire pressure decreases resistance and thus increases fuel efficiency.

-- how much does it increase fuel efficiency? i dont know. 1 MPG, 3 MPG? depends on several obviously.

-- how many millions of trucks and cars are on the road?

-- what percentage have tires that are under inflated and/or could be inflated a bit higher?

-- how much fuel could be saved if everyone kept the max tire pressure?


I don't know totals, but i'll bet it's a measurable amount, and may be a significant fraction of the total fuel used by vehicles..

...

so what he's saying isn't wrong. and obviously he's not saying it's "THE" solution. hes saying it's part of an overall conservation effort.

8/6/2008 3:54:44 PM

Carter's sweaters... Obama's tires...

Some Republicans enjoy rolling around in their willful ignorance like pigs in filth.

8/6/2008 3:59:40 PM

how many of you are willfully ignorant to the fact that the surge is working

8/6/2008 4:10:02 PM

Here is exactly what he said Joe. You can spin it all you want, but its pure fantasy. We can save just as much oil by putting air in your tires than drilling would produce.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzZNP4tTfV0

Im not saying he wasnt wrong to suggest people put air in their tires to conserve, but he suggests its better than drilling. That is pure fantasy.

Today he tried to spin it, which makes him look even dumber. I hope he keeps talking. He is terrible on issues.

Joe, I see your point, but even some of your questions are pure fantasy and somewhat naive.

"how much fuel could be saved if everyone kept the max tire pressure?"

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : forgot the link]

8/6/2008 4:10:25 PM

ban air conditioning

8/6/2008 4:12:22 PM

Quote :

"For some reason I just cant get over that stupid ass tire pressure comment. Its unbelievable he actually said that. I dont know why that isnt getting more air time."

I've got a couple of ideas why...

8/6/2008 4:16:54 PM

^what might those be?

8/6/2008 4:24:37 PM

Quote :

"LIBERAL JEWRUN MEDIA"

8/6/2008 4:30:15 PM

seriously, this election has become more about how the GOP can spin any 5 second sound bite or character trait than it is about the issues.

I've watched TSB and this thread and I don't think I've seen more hackery and less substance since....2004.

Come on people, gas pressure? paris hilton? Honestly this is beneath your intelligence. And its only AUGUST.

8/6/2008 4:45:32 PM

Actually the gas pressure thing demostrates just how stupid he thinks his supporters are and how childish he is on an actual issue.

Obama is best served by avoiding or lying about his stance on issues. He either makes statements then apologizes for them and changes his tune, or uses sweeping statements like "end global poverty" that arent grounded in reality.

Rewatch that video rogue. What exactly am I spinning when its his own damn words?

8/6/2008 4:50:09 PM

you are really bashing the GOP for a lack of issues when they are going up against the King of Lack of Issues, my Hope, Change, Belief, and tire gauges?

8/6/2008 4:50:16 PM

The question he was responding to was "What can I do as a citizen to help the energy crisis?" With the amount of drilling they're planning on doing off of Florida, the numbers are comparable if everyone would theoretically do it. It's clearly not the cornerstone of his energy plan like you clowns are making it out to be.

Quote :

"We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges unlike any we’ve ever known. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our changing climate is putting our planet in peril and our security at risk. And our economy is in turmoil, with more and more of our families struggling with rising costs, falling incomes, and lost jobs. ... How, exactly, did we get to this point? Well, you won’t hear me say this too often, but I couldn’t agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, “Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country.” What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. Now, yesterday, Senator McCain started running a TV ad saying that Washington is broken. No kidding. It only took Senator McCain those 26 years in Washington to figure that out. But here’s the thing, Elkhart. I’m having a little trouble squaring that statement with Senator McCain’s declaration a few months ago that we’ve made “great progress economically” over the past eight years. Or his boast that he’s voted with President Bush over 90% of the time. Or his assertion that overall, the American people are better off now than they were when George W. Bush came into office. You know from your own lives that we’re not better off than we were eight years ago. Back then, you were paying about $1.50 for gas. Today, you’re paying around $4 a gallon. Back then, you were paying $875 a year on electric bills. Today, you’re paying more than $1,100. Back then, you were paying about $900 for heating oil to get you through the winter. This winter, you’re likely to pay nearly $2,500. This didn’t happen by accident. It happened because for too long, we haven’t had a real energy plan in this country. We’ve had an oil company plan. We’ve had a gas company plan. But we haven’t had a plan that made sense for the American people. So if Senator McCain wants to talk about why Washington is broken, that’s a debate I’m happy to have. Because Senator McCain’s energy plan reads like an early Christmas list for oil and gas lobbyists. And it’s no wonder – because many of his top advisors are former oil and gas lobbyists. Instead of offering a plan with significant investments in alternative energy, he’s offering a gas tax gimmick that will pad oil company profits and save you – at most – a quarter and a nickel a day over the course of an entire summer. That’s why Washington is broken. Instead of supporting my plan to use the windfall profits of oil companies to help you pay rising costs, he’s offering $4 billion more in tax breaks to oil companies like Exxon that just made the largest quarterly profit in the history of the United States of America. That’s why Washington is broken. Instead of offering a comprehensive plan that will lower gas prices, the centerpiece of his entire energy plan is more drilling. It’s a proposal that won’t yield a drop of oil for at least seven years, but it’s produced a gusher for Senator McCain. Because after he announced his drilling proposal to a room full of oil executives, the industry ponied up nearly a million dollars in contributions. That’s the kind of special interest-driven politics that’s stopped us from solving our energy crisis. And that’s why Washington is broken. So I know Senator McCain likes to call himself a maverick – and the fact is, there are times when he’s shown independence from his party in the past. But the price he paid for his party’s nomination was to reverse himself on position after position, and now he embraces the failed Bush policies and politics that helped break Washington in the first place – and that doesn’t exactly meet my definition of a maverick. By the way, while we’re on the subject of Senator McCain contradicting himself, a few days ago someone asked me what they could do to help America save energy. I suggested that we could get better gas mileage in our cars and save oil in the process just by keeping our tires inflated, and experts agreed. But Senator McCain and his party mocked the idea, and they even sent out tire gauges. Well, get this – last night, after all that, Senator McCain actually said that he agreed that keeping our tires inflated was a good idea. We just agreed to a series of debates in the fall, but the most interesting one that’s going on these days is the debate between John McCain and John McCain. But understand, this isn’t just about tire gauges and it isn’t just about a single TV ad – no matter how misleading it is. It’s about everyone in this room. It’s about your lives and your family’s future. Because you know that what we’ve been doing for the past eight years hasn’t worked – and that we can’t afford another four years of the failed policies that we’ve had under George W. Bush. And if you needed one more example of what’s wrong with our energy policies or the Bush policies in general, there’s a new report out saying that Iraq has hit a windfall because of high oil prices. They have a $79 billion budget surplus at a time when were spending $10 billion a month to defend and rebuild that country. Their money is not being invested in services for suffering Iraqis or reconstruction. While some of their money is sitting in American banks, American money is being spent over there. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for rebuilding their own country, and it’s time for us to address own concerns here at home. That’s why earlier this week I laid out a plan to help end the age of oil in our time. Here’s how we’ll do it. In the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. Right now, oil companies have access to 68 million acres where they aren’t drilling. So we should start by giving them a choice: use the land you have, or give up your leases to someone who will. But the truth is, this won’t seriously reduce our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. Breaking our oil addiction will take nothing less than a complete transformation of our economy. It will take an all-hands-on-deck effort from America – effort from our scientists and entrepreneurs; from businesses and from every American citizen. We all know that this is the great challenge of our time. But it’s also a great opportunity because if we can seize this moment, we can open the door to a new economy for the 21st century that will bring new energy, new jobs, and new hope to families in places like Elkhart. That’s why I voted for an energy bill in the Senate that was far from perfect, and that included tax giveaways to oil companies that I fought to eliminate, but that also represented the single largest investment in renewable energy in history. And that’s why if I am President, I will put the full resources of the federal government and the full energy of the private sector behind a single, overarching goal – in ten years, we will eliminate the need for oil from the entire Middle East and Venezuela. To do this, we’ll invest $150 billion over the next decade and leverage billions more in private capital to harness American energy and create five million new American jobs – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced, good union jobs that lift up our families and communities. There are three major steps I’ll take to achieve this goal. First, we’ll commit ourselves to getting one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrid cars on our roads within six years. And we’ll make sure that the cars of tomorrow are built not just in Japan or China, but right here in the United States of America. Second, we’ll double the amount of our energy that comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term. That means investing in renewables like wind and solar power, and we’ll also invest in the next generation biofuels. Third, I will call on businesses, government, and the American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15% by the end of the next decade. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption – and it will save us $130 billion on our energy bills. In just ten years, these three steps will produce enough renewable energy to replace all the oil we import from the Middle East and Venezuela. I won’t pretend these goals aren’t ambitious. They are. I won’t pretend we can achieve them without cost, or without sacrifice, or without the contribution of almost every American citizen. We can’t. But I will say that these goals are possible. And I will say that achieving them is absolutely necessary if we want to keep America safe and prosperous in the 21st century. It’s necessary if we want our families to thrive again – to have good jobs with good wages that let them get ahead again."

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM. Reason : Today's remarks]

8/6/2008 4:52:18 PM

^yeah, that is what he is trying to say today. If he would have left it at filling up your tires will help, there isnt an issue. His statement about about it being better than drilling isnt grounded in any remote island of reality. Its pure bullshit, and people eat this shit up.

I have never ONCE said this was his cornerstone of his energy plan. Stop making shit up. Ive stated VERY CLEARLY what my objection to his claim is. Stop acting like a child.

What a fucking surprise. Now he is acting like he didnt make the claim at all. How dont you people see this bs?

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2008 4:55:35 PM

How don't you?

8/6/2008 4:59:32 PM

I can see his bullshit, im not blinded by image.

Listen to that audio again, does it look like he is responding to a question or in the middle of a talking point?

You really feel there that is tire pressure comment is accurate or based in reality? If so, you have some serious idol issues.

8/6/2008 5:03:37 PM

Uhh well it was at a town hall meeting and a guy had just asked him what normal citizens can do prior to your 22 second clip soooo...................

Anyway, the US Interior Department estimates 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil off the coast, while we use 7.6 billion barrels a year now. That's a little over two years' worth. In the long term, conservation is entirely capable of being more beneficial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7460767.stm

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2008 5:07:02 PM

Quote :

"and a guy had just asked him what normal citizens can do prior to your 22 second clip "

LOL, show me the question please. Are you seriously trying to use the "out of context" line again?

Ive stated my point time very clearly for you. SO by your numbers and obamas own make believe world, if we put air in our tires we could go oil free for two years? Using his fuzzy math, which is also a fantasy. Im sure he can get ALL AMERICANS to do this, just as he can get ALL LOOSE nuclear material in the world. LOL, more of the same.

8/6/2008 5:22:04 PM

Quote :

"Anyway, the US Interior Department estimates 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil off the coast, while we use 7.6 billion barrels a year now. That's a little over two years' worth. "

This is the dumbest logic for not drilling, and yet it gets repeated over and over. 18 billion barrels of oil is a SHIT TON. You don't measure the amount of oil versus the amount consumed by our country each year. thats asinine. You measure it against the size of other fields. And our offshore reserves are considered giant oil fields, plain and simple.

8/6/2008 5:29:25 PM

It's sourced here and in Obama's own speech today http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/08/obama_bayh_on_s.html, but believe it or don't since you think he's a liar anyway and it's not like you're going to change your mind

In any case, the goal is still to get off of oil in the long-term. Of course we're not going to be oil free for two years but pumping more of it isn't going to make us oil-free either. Look, I'm not saying everyone's going to do it, or that all the loose nuclear material in the world can be rounded up for that matter, but it's a good goal to aspire to. And it's not like Obama is trying to stop drilling, he said today that he wants the land that's already leased to be drilled, and we don't know how much that will produce.

8/6/2008 5:36:22 PM

Quote :

"AHA, people have been hearing that for 40 years."

So? That's not an argument against anything. (Remember this, folks. Inaccurate claims about a technology in no way prevent it from fulfilling those promises at a later date.)

Quote :

"Solar is a mature technology. It's been around for a century, and in production for a half a century. the days of annual double-digit leaps in efficiency are long gone. It's good in niche applications, but way overrated as an energy "solution"."

New advances in solar power happens each week. Maybe each day. Look at the numbers. That giant fusion reactor in the sky spits out 3.8E+26 J every second. Our little dirtball receives 1.7E+17 J. Solar power's an obvious energy solution, because the nuclear power plants we build ain't never going to match what's already there. Based on our current understanding of the universe, the Sun is as good as it gets in this neighborhood.

8/6/2008 6:06:51 PM

Quote :

"18 billion barrels of oil is a SHIT TON. "

bullshit.

the worlds proven oil reserves is well over 1000 billion barrels.

now you're trying to tell me that drilling our coastlines for 18 more is going to somehow make a dent in the market? that its going to help american consumers or the tranportation or manufacturing industries?

you're either ignorant or lying. because i like you, i'm gonna go with ignorant.

because after the cost to reclaim such a piddly fucking amount we're going to break even economically, at the cost of destroying miles of coastal areas.

so we WOULD be better off wearing sweaters and pumping up our car tires





[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 6:08 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 6:07:47 PM

Quote :

"Im not saying he wasnt wrong to suggest people put air in their tires to conserve, but he suggests its better than drilling. That is pure fantasy. "

He was suggesting that the total sum of people making efforts to reduce their consumption could equal oil drilled for at an increased consumption, and this actually makes sense considering the recent drop in gas prices is due to people having a decreased demand for oil.

It's hilarious to me though that in order to make yourself hate Obama you have to tell yourself that inflating tires is what encompasses his energy policy. If Obama is really as bad as you say, I'd think you'd have some objections based in reality, and not eyedrb's internal self-delusions.

8/6/2008 6:19:17 PM

Quote :

"the worlds proven oil reserves is well over 1000 billion barrels. now you're trying to tell me that drilling our coastlines for 18 more is going to somehow make a dent in the market? that its going to help american consumers or the tranportation or manufacturing industries?"

Thats exactly what I'm trying to tell you. It's not a "solution" per se, but it's just a small part of a sweeping set of changes that would allow us to become energy independent.

If we drill offshore, and ANWR, and the Strategic National Petroleum Reserve and develop the Bakken fields in North Dakota, and convert the huge reserves of shale oil we have in the Green River Basin, we're halfway towards our energy security goals. On the demand side, if we switch over to plug-ins, and insulate new homes, and install solar panels on new homes in the southwest, and build a couple dozen nuclear power plants, and check our tire pressure, we'll make it all the way there.

You scoff at the idea that drilling will solve anything, just the way conservatives scoff at the idea that tune-ups and tire pressure will make a difference. You both sound like idiots.

Quote :

"because after the cost to reclaim such a piddly fucking amount we're going to break even economically, at the cost of destroying miles of coastal areas."

You're a pretty good poster when you're not on a rant, using hyperbole and talking out of your ass.

18,000,000,000 x $100 (per barrel) = $1,800,000,000,000. I seriously doubt it costs 1.8 trillion dollars to get that oil out of the ocean floor.

8/6/2008 6:45:07 PM

I think drilling would definitively reduce the price of oil/gas, primarily because oil prices are a futures market, susceptible to the whims of ordinary humans. Drilling would have a great effect on these whims.

I just don't think it's worth it, considering the price of gas can still drop without drilling (as it has been), and that the current levels are forcing people without direct gov. intervention, to adopt more efficient lifestyles and technologies.

I do understand though in the game of politics you can't get what you want, but we should stay on the conservationist side of the line, as much as possible.

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 6:47:54 PM

^ solid post and I understand the reasoning. I just think the risks of drilling offshore are overstated, and the only solution to the current problem involves concessions on both sides.

^^^^^

Quote :

"New advances in solar power happens each week. Maybe each day."

Yeah, I keep reading about these "new advances" in solar tech. It's funny how they never hit the market. I'm pretty sure all these fancy new advances keep the venture capital flowing to the companies announcing them, however, especially in times like these where everyone is scrambling to hop on the next energy trend.

Solar cell efficiency hasn't made any big gains since the 70's. When a product ON THE MARKET can achieve a big jump in efficiency, let me know. Until then, it's all just pipelines and press releases.

2

[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 6:52 PM. Reason : 2]

8/6/2008 6:50:28 PM

Efficiency isn't the only concern. Ease of manufacture matters as well. That's why Nanosolar and First Solar are making money.

8/6/2008 7:17:41 PM

Quote :

"18,000,000,000 x $100 (per barrel) = $1,800,000,000,000. I seriously doubt it costs 1.8 trillion dollars to get that oil out of the ocean floor."

no of course not.

but if you think the US adding 18 Bbls to the global reserves of >1000 BBls is going to affect anyone -- individuals or industry -- you're seriously deluded.

unless of course you're talking about a certain few multinational oil companies and their ongoing quest to repeatedly break all-time global records for their quarterly profits

then yeah. i guess you're right. Go ExxonMobil. woo hoo. USA #1. fuck the ecosystems, drill them coastal shelves.




[Edited on August 6, 2008 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/6/2008 7:52:25 PM

By your logic, we should stop all new drilling on any fields smaller than the one Saudi Arabia is floating on.

Drilling one area, in and of itself, won't have a significant global impact. But opening up several areas will, not just on prices but on our energy independence.

To quote moron:

Quote :

"I think drilling would definitively reduce the price of oil/gas, primarily because oil prices are a futures market, susceptible to the whims of ordinary humans. Drilling would have a great effect on these whims."

8/6/2008 8:44:31 PM

Quote :

"It's hilarious to me though that in order to make yourself hate Obama you have to tell yourself that inflating tires is what encompasses his energy policy."

Jesus, not again. Are you guys that fucking brain dead? Where the FUCK have i said that? (I await your response, bc there wont be one)

Ive stated before its pure fucking fantasy what he suggested. To even suggest he can make EVERYONE do something is ridiculous claim of itself. He he really has that power, why doesnt he make everyone not commit crimes? Imagine how much fucking energy we can save by not having prisions.

im sorry, I cant dumb down that arguement anymore for a couple of you. The fact he can say sell this fantasy land and people defend it is scary.

Joe, then why not let these stupid evil gas companies waste all thier money trying to provide us with more energy. After all, if they waste all thier money drilling for such little oil the quicker they will go out of business.

8/6/2008 9:50:53 PM

^ Let's not forget that even if he could force everyone to do something (clearly out of his power), there is most likely not enough people riding around with under inflated tires for this "plan" to generate the type of gains that Obama talks about.

Quote :

" However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says. "So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output," he rules. "

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html

This is nothing but a gimmick, just like McCain's gas tax holiday. It's easy to understand and he's hoping it will play well with the anti-drilling crowd.

PS* moron, quit your bitching about mocking this gimmick as "Obama's entire energy plan". No one on here said it was. And those in the news that have are simply driving home the point that this is a silly political gimmick. It's EXACTLY what Obama and his supporters do as well. I mean, How many times has Obama addressed McCain's entire energy plan in detail? None. But how many times has Obama chosen to instead specifically attack McCain's less popular gas tax holiday idea or the fact that McCain "invests less in alternative energy sources" (never mind McCain is proposing to invest less in solar to invest more in nuclear, a less popular energy alternative among Democrats). It's called fucking politics.

[Edited on August 7, 2008 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ``]

8/7/2008 9:24:40 AM

I'm over the pissing contest that this thread has become. Can we talk about something substantive? Something like...

Is Obama too skinny? Is Obama too pro-tire gauge? Is Obama too arrogant?

8/7/2008 9:53:05 AM

^^ If you, et al, acknowledge this is only a small part of Obama's energy plan, then why is it even worth discussing? Or do you not believe, as Obama was obviously trying to say, the average person can take measures to reduce their oil usage? You're as bad as any troll by nitpicking what boils down to semantics, instead of looking at the actual issues. You always talk about issues, but you never seem to actually address any.

8/7/2008 10:14:52 AM

haha, Im addressing the ISSUE of him suggesting that filling up your tires will save as much oil as drilling would create. You seem to be wanted to ignore that, and either try to change the subject or try to suggest im saying something else entirely.

8/7/2008 10:35:20 AM