Inflation is kickin in
- Thread starter Collapse
- Start date
I see you have some of the same problems as thag. His argument is not that jiffy pop or bottled water are more effective/efficient means of energy. His argument is that once oil is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else, and once that is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else. Moreover, when he mentioned water, he simply mentioned that as a type of energy source they would possibly switch to. Proof of this is when he said, "I am sure they have another source (such as water) to provide energy." Therefore, simply citing water as a source does not equate to being the sole source and does not imply there are no other forms of energy they have planned.
For more info about alternative energy hit SECO, EERE or any site devoted to such subjects. In addition, there is really no need for him to provide any type of source or evidence to support his claim that america will bleed the citizens, when all you have to do is look at americas growth as a post-industrialized nation as well as it's version of capitalism for such proof/evidence.
For more info about alternative energy hit SECO, EERE or any site devoted to such subjects. In addition, there is really no need for him to provide any type of source or evidence to support his claim that america will bleed the citizens, when all you have to do is look at americas growth as a post-industrialized nation as well as it's version of capitalism for such proof/evidence.
Water is not a source of energy, it simply can't be unless you have some antimatter in hand for the simple reason that it is a highly oxidized compound. You have to use energy to get the hydrogen from water and then you get less in return. Hardly a solution to our energy problem.
BTW, the same kind of unpleasant calculation applies to every alternative energy source (including solar and wind, unfortunately), because the current state of the technology is such that you need to invest large amounts of fossil fuel energy to build the infrastructure necessary for alternative energy production while the lifetime and output of that infrastructure are such that, while in the range of 4-5, the EROI is hardly sufficient to sustain a civilization at the current intense level of energy use. And when that infrastructure breaks down we may not have the energy and materials to rebuild it
These are very simple concepts and it is very disturbing that many, often very smart people simply don't think about these things
BTW, the same kind of unpleasant calculation applies to every alternative energy source (including solar and wind, unfortunately), because the current state of the technology is such that you need to invest large amounts of fossil fuel energy to build the infrastructure necessary for alternative energy production while the lifetime and output of that infrastructure are such that, while in the range of 4-5, the EROI is hardly sufficient to sustain a civilization at the current intense level of energy use. And when that infrastructure breaks down we may not have the energy and materials to rebuild it
These are very simple concepts and it is very disturbing that many, often very smart people simply don't think about these things
Exactly
Which is total nonsense
The only technology that might save us is fusion, because it has the potential to provide the necessary quantities of energy, at the necessary EROI, and for sufficiently long (fusion is not renewable, unless a major breakthrough happens, allowing us to extract energy from nuclear reactions involving very common nuclei, because the isotopes needed aren't found in such vast quantities, and that's true even for the proton-boron aneutornic fusion reaction, which is the most promising candidate)
Which is total nonsense
The only technology that might save us is fusion, because it has the potential to provide the necessary quantities of energy, at the necessary EROI, and for sufficiently long (fusion is not renewable, unless a major breakthrough happens, allowing us to extract energy from nuclear reactions involving very common nuclei, because the isotopes needed aren't found in such vast quantities, and that's true even for the proton-boron aneutornic fusion reaction, which is the most promising candidate)
You still don't get it, so I'll retype it again, bold and underline the text so you get it this time. His argument is not that jiffy pop or bottled water are more effective/efficient means of energy. His argument is that once oil is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else, and once that is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.
No. In order to "have the right to be in this discussion" one should have the ability to read and think critically, not to mention, stay on topic. What is the topic? Is it caramel corn or 50 Cent Vitamin water, and how they are great ways to reduce global warming? Is it how one needs to utilize other forms of energy? Or is the topic inflation? I believe the topic is inflation, and I believe Blights post reflects the spirit of the topic. You on the other hand? No. You're simply using this thread, like you do others, as a means of projection.
So once again, his post is not one of "this form of energey" V.S. "that form of energy." Rather, his post is one of, "The american government will bleed us dry no matter what form of energy."
Until YOU "get this simple concept" you should probably do what comes natural...exit -------------->
This has absolutely nothing to do with what you quoted.
No. In order to "have the right to be in this discussion" one should have the ability to read and think critically, not to mention, stay on topic. What is the topic? Is it caramel corn or 50 Cent Vitamin water, and how they are great ways to reduce global warming? Is it how one needs to utilize other forms of energy? Or is the topic inflation? I believe the topic is inflation, and I believe Blights post reflects the spirit of the topic. You on the other hand? No. You're simply using this thread, like you do others, as a means of projection.
So once again, his post is not one of "this form of energey" V.S. "that form of energy." Rather, his post is one of, "The american government will bleed us dry no matter what form of energy."
Until YOU "get this simple concept" you should probably do what comes natural...exit -------------->
The idea that a quick technological fix will save us is a total nonsense, for reasons that, again, have been listed numerous times before - there are issues with EROI, scalability, environmental impacts, and last, but not least - the very existence of such fixes. I know that I get this very well and I also know that is what most cornucopian idiots do not get at all
His argument is that once oil is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else, and once that is no longer affordable, they will switch to something else.
So once again, his post is not one of "this form of energey" V.S. "that form of energy." Rather, his post is one of, "The american government will bleed us dry no matter what form of energy."
Until YOU "get this simple concept" you should probably do what comes natural...exit -------------->
So once again, his post is not one of "this form of energey" V.S. "that form of energy." Rather, his post is one of, "The american government will bleed us dry no matter what form of energy."
Until YOU "get this simple concept" you should probably do what comes natural...exit -------------->
All that is fine, and I agree that whatever technology we will utilize next will probably be one that can be controlled and distributed and not individually accessible, however....
Once again, he also suggested that the US government ALREADY has this technology without any type of evidence to back up that claim; and that would be something which would require more than an objective look at American society to justify.
If you google the organizations I listed, you'll see each talk about what america has, what research is currently being developed, what research has been developed, and how much money has been devoted to such research.
So again, you and thag are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Regardless of what the government comes up with, he is saying they will use it to milk the population. You do not need proof or evidence of this as it has already been proven by americas form of capitalism and americas growth as a post-industrialized nation.
So again, you and thag are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Regardless of what the government comes up with, he is saying they will use it to milk the population. You do not need proof or evidence of this as it has already been proven by americas form of capitalism and americas growth as a post-industrialized nation.
No one said they had a "reason" to do it, so saying that such a statement was made/implied or exists is moronic. Moreover, you are incorrect when you say "money" (a general term) has no value once peak oil hits. Whatever would be used to trade, acquire or use the new forms of energy will come at a price which means it will have value. This is what the government will bleed you for.
