RE: RE: RE: RE: The Threat of Oil Drilling

Steve Brenneis responds to Behethland B. Clark:

Another liberal dichotomy! You want us to believe in Darwin, but you don't want us to let him work! Seriously though, that is yet another conservative semantic for Robert. If tourists wander around in some dangerous environment and end up doing an impersonation of a matchstick, then conservatives are heartbroken, but not really interested in changing the world to prevent it from happening again. We like to believe there is merit in learning from our own mistakes as well as the mistakes of others. Therefore, if you just put up a sign that says, "This place is dangerous and you are flammable. Watch it!" most conservatives will be fine with that. It's the child safety seat thing on a different scale. But I digress...

I'm having a little trouble with the whole bulldozers and oilspills thing. How are they different than glaciers and tar pits? I know good and well the EPA never levies fines on them or requires environmental impact statements from them. Yet they are functionally identical in the environmental change department.

I would be interested in any sources that claim ANWR is a low-yield oil field. All my reading says differently.

Solar energy is promising, but untenable. At the current time, it costs more, in both money and natural resources, to produce solar energy elements than they save as an alternative. The only thing you can say about solar energy is that it is not fossil fuel. Whether or not that is a good thing is (obviously) debatable.

Ethanol is not a workable fuel when used by itself. The conversion factors from kinetic energy to heat are not high enough to warrant it as a complete replacement for fossil fuels. Furthermore, long-term use of ethanol in blends higher than are currently sold is mechanically harmful to internal combustion engines. The balance of what is not used in fossil fuels is overcome by the need to repair engines and produce new ones more often. Ethanol is a reasonable interim solution, but it doesn't solve the fossil fuel dependency problem and it isn't as non-polluting as it marketers would have you believe. It still produces a substantial amount of waste in the form of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. I believe its ozone byproduct is also higher than gasoline.

As for a few others: biodiesel is economically attractive, but the mixture rates are so small (2%) that it has little impact on fossil fuel dependency or pollution. Hydrogen cells are insanely dangerous. Ever heard of the Hindenburg? Hydrogen fusion is actually safer than hydrogen combustion. Even us daredevil conservatives are wary of that source. Wind power is reasonable, efficient, and economical in places where (obviously) the wind blows. It is not any better than a supplement though since blackouts during doldrums wouldn't be generally acceptable. Hydrostatic power is a great alternative (though not necessarily in your car). The trouble is, environmentalists won't let us build dams for fear we will drown some weed or bug we never heard of.

Nuclear energy is clean, efficient, and safe, even if we limit it to fission reactions. Unfortunately, a fission reactor for your car would put the severe willies in those people who feel like the entire universe is out to get them. Fusion yields the highest ratio of energy to size. Once again unfortunately, no research can be done on developing a usable small fusion system because said shrinking violets above and the anti-nuke nut-popsicles I mentioned before have managed to convince our spineless Congress-critters to pass a ban on all fusion research.

The sandals reference was for visual effect. I don't wear them because they make my feet feel funky, but I guess they're okay for some folks.