Have you seen what Halliburton & others are doing in Australia? Fracking is no joke. It's scary. Natural gas is great. The process for extracting it isn't. It's poisoning our water, land & people. The gas is going for sale on the foreign markets. The proceeds are going to a very small handful of people. States are not even adequately taxing the process. Petro-fuels need to be a distant memory. There is nothing good about them. We need education, investment & encouragement toward our future.
@esigus You and I agree that we need to move away from fossil fuels, but there needs to be a transition plan until alternatives become viable. Technology hasn't caught up yet, and Natural gas is a U.S. based fuel that can bridge the gap for the next 20-30 years, until the technology you are suggesting can be perfected.
If we invest in sustainable, clean energy development & distribution instead of investing in furthering petro-fuels, we'll get there so quick it'll be overwhelming.
The problem is two-fold: people buy into the "emergency" that we're relying on terrorism & foreign energy sources; & that there is no other way.
I'd rather see the Middle East extract petro-fuels until we find the next step & leave our land & water alone.
If we invest in innovation, we'll pull the US to the top.
@esigus We agree on the fact that investment should be made in clean energy and the infrastructure to allow it to be economically feasible. The part that I don't think you are accepting is that like any other technology leap, we're not quite there yet. We need a bridge to your vision. I support the idea of using our own resources, instead of buying others while we sell ours to foreign entities.
@esigus What's up...stop with the rhetoric. I've already said that I want to reduce our dependence on oil by 50%. There are paths. The stop gap is natural gas, the long-term solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind. I also believe that we need to start looking at each home producing a certain amount of its own power through wind and solar. Check the Geo-Thermal risks with water supplies and fault lines...way too risky!
Advanced education in engineering & geology can bring about safe & successful geothermal wells. GW's house in Crawford is 100% geothermal, why can't more be? NM, for instance, is full of hot springs.. perfect!
Our oil & gas co's take short-cuts that always end up in huge catastrophes. Haven't they already proven that?
We've got cars in production today without steering wheels! Why are they running on petro-fuels?
Encourage innovation, not destruction of our water & land.
@esigus The greatest minds in the field admitted last year to causing a set of earthquakes by injecting water into a superheated fissure. I don't know about you, but that doesn't instill confidence in me?
Regulators that stop paying attention is what allows for those things to happen. How about sending the regulators that allowed the BP oil spill to jail.
@esigus I think you have to realize that the technology you are looking for is 30 or 40 years away. In the mean time why don't we use U.S. based natural gas and nuclear power as our stop gap?
@esigus I agree that we need to use more nuclear, solar, and wind energy; but that won't and can't happen until we build a 765kv national infrastructure. The idea of using natural gas is a short -term solution allowing us time to get there with the infrastructure and technology. Geo-Thermal is one of the most over-rated and possibly dangerous large scale energy concepts. Once you start injecting pressure into cracks there are too many unintended consequences. earthquakes for one.
So I assume it's okay to put the nuclear waste in your back yard?
How many leaky nuclear plants does this nation need to see that we're too Homer Simpson-like for nuclear?
Geo-thermal, wind, solar, magnetic energy ...something new?
Natural gas WOULD be a great alternative to tide us over, but the shale boom is quickly going to make our nation look like Saudi Arabia & screw up our food production areas. Fracking the US puts us on-par with China in environmental destruction.
@esigus Stop reading all of the propaganda on Nuclear waste. 95% of all nuclear waste is low grade exposure (suits and tools). The rest is dangerous, but there are ways of dealing with it. The small self contained nuclear cubes are very safe and will last a small city 30 years with no leaks or exposure issues. Also, did you know that the byproducts from coal production puts off more nuclear radiation than all of the nuclear plants currently running?
@esigus The Europeans have more nuclear power plants that anywhere in the world. France's main power source is nuclear. The power plants that are leaking aren't all leaking radiation...they are leaking chemicals that are used int he cooling process. These plants are old and out of date. The technology is light years ahead of what your talking about. Waste has become minimal. Your okay with drilling down into and though water tables for power, yet you're concerned for the envorinment...huh?
Not true. MANY of the European nuclear plants leak. Many of our nuclear plants leak. I, personally, do not care what they leak... they leak. One of the concerns about nuclear waste is that it could "fall into the hands of terrorists." If we had a fool-proof way to use it safely, then I'd be more at ease about it. But we don't.
The thing about geothermal is that there is the potential for it to be a fantastic alternative... clean & safe. The technology needs to be developed.
@esigus First, nuclear material that is used in a power plant can't be used in a explosive weapon, and even if it is used as a dirty bomb of sorts it is less dangerous than most conventional weapons.
Geothermal is fine, but don't kid yourself on the risks. As they push the edge of the envelope they are causing seismic reactions. It is a viable source of energy where there is already geothermal hot spots, but otherwise it is no a viable energy alternative.
That is, exactly, my point. We need to innovate through research & development in non-toxic, safe, clean energy sources. New ideas. Build them up instead of tearing them down. If someone comes up with something that is not practical for our situation, we shouldn't knock that person & the idea down... we should applaud them & encourage them to keep thinking & progressing. One idea can be the catalyst to another... a chain reaction leading to a practical solution.
Cheney excluded Halliburton's procedures from the Clean Water Act & EPA oversight WHILE he was VP, in order to fatten his wallet. Halliburton drills every well in the US, most of Europe, most of Africa & most of Asia.
The natural gas that he's fracking isn't to be distributed to Americans, it's to be sold overseas.
How many people have to get sick & how many catastrophes have to happen for us to wake up to this bastard wrecking his own nation?
@esigus If you hate Cheney then fine, but what the heck does that have to do with our conversation. Did Halliburton cause the BP spill? Please enlighten me on the number of people who have been killed by radiation poisoning, oil spills, or natural gas catastrophes? I agree that regulation needs to be upheld, but what is your problem with a 765kw power grid and more pervasive use of solar and wind?
Yes, Halliburton caused the BP leak in the gulf. They poured the concrete that didn't hold. They took short-cuts & then BP used their own toxic chemical dispersant (& bolster their quarterly earnings) when there were non-toxic "oil-eaters" readily available that would certainly have been safer for life in the Gulf.
I have No problem with solar & wind.
Encourage hard & heavy investment in development including storage & distribution.
@esigus What does the concrete have to do with the faulty valve shutoffs? The world is not one big conspiracy. The blame lies mostly with the regulators who gave BP and Transocean a pass on regular safety checks. IMHO
Ok. I concede Halliburton didn't CAUSE the original problem, but the faulty concrete caused the entire rig to fall into the sea. Halliburton has a horrible safety record in general. Their mindset is to get as much out as fast as possible, damned the rules.
We shake our heads at the Chinese & developing nations when we see how they pollute & sicken their people. But our leaders are doing it to us ...& we're allowing it. If you've got kids, you better think about their future.
@esigus I agree that the people watching the store can't be trusted. We need to do a better job picking the leaders of our country, so we can have more faith in the regulators. It's time the regulators and the the political leaders who have benefited from these breaches in regulations be arrested for the crimes they committed.
What I'm saying is that we need to either improve engineering (geological & drilling) or improve on solar/wind or find something altogether different.
I am really stuck on the idea of magnetic energy & pushing that idea forward.
What a concept!
A magnetic motor that never stops & powers your home, office, factory... & it's free (outside building/maintaining the motor).
@esigus I like magnetic energy production, but realize it is not without risks. The powerful magnets needed cause cellular and genetic mutations that make radiation look like sun burn. I like your ideas, but as physics shows us: it takes energy to create energy. This makes all power production dangerous at some level. That is why we need more time and a bridge until we get there.
There are also guys out there developing perpetual water motors.
At this point, it appears they need a jump start from an outside source, but with a bit of work, they might be able to solve that. And if they can't... it's still something to have one initial start, then have it run indefinitely without outside assistance.
If one wants to get into semantics, I think that the best way to look at it is "self-sustaining" instead of "perpetual." Maybe the things will die in 200years.
@esigus I like the idea, but in my research I haven't found any that can provide substantial energy above its own self perpetuation. I hope that they can get there with this technology, but we need to have a bridge until then.
I believe that governments are afraid of what people might do with free energy... including the potential to produce all sorts of things... good & not so good. More than that, I think that the premise of energy not being metered freaks out the energy corporations more than anything else.. it's why Dick & co are in such a hurry to exploit as much fossil fuel as quickly as possible
@esigus I love the idea of tapping theoretical and practical physics to solve our energy problems. We need more scientists and engineers instead of sales managers and lawyers.
Look, the answer to our energy (& just about every single other) problem is in education. If we stop pouring every cent we have into war & terrorists & other such nonsense, & instead pour it ALL into educating every single one of our citizens so each can reach his/her highest potential, we might just find the next energy source before anyone else (if someone hasn't already). If we think, "nah, it's better to find terrorists," then we'll stay in the back of the pack in every area.
My favorite idea is to completely socialize education 100% & get rid of nearly every other fed government agency. I'd like to see each & every income earner in America taxed a certain percentage (I don't know how much) straight across the board, no exceptions, the money go into a general pool & divied up equally per student. The $ from those who choose private ed remain in the pool. That poor, kid with no hope might be the one who has the answer stuck up in his/her noggin somewhere
I think that's our best hope for the future BECAUSE the future is in the best & brightest in science, technology, physics & anything innovative. Right now we don't produce much & our people aren't educated enough to be very innovative. Other nations (including far poorer ones) have & are surpassing us like mad because our priorities are out of whack. The future, including money, is in reaching our highest potential.
Think science fiction... cuz that's what's happening all around us
My second choice (because I know most Americans are way behind in our thinking & won't ever concede to pull EVERYone ahead, only the specifically chosen few with cash) is to elect Gary Johnson &/or Ron Paul cuz they're just radical enough to MAYBE get our system overhauled.
But, if we look at the most economically stable/successful nations right now, they are democratically socialist nations. But our people are afraid of a word... even though a mix of concepts is proven to work.
@esigus I like your enthusiasm, but I'm one of those engineer types that understand the gap between vision and implementation. I think there are several good possibilities out there, but they all need money (as you've suggested). The key is being less reliant of power sources that are out of our control and move toward what we can control. Small, self contained nuclear cubes, natural gas, and eventually solar and wind when we build out the 765kv grid is my suggestion.
I have no problem with business relationships with China. I have no problem with legal immigration of highly skilled specialty Chinese workers. This is very different from selling domestic resources, when we're already forced to import so much oil. There is no doubt that tying economic fortunes together provides more security than all the missiles in the world, but it must be done strategically. Without a strategic U.S. energy plan we're just spitting into the wind.
what about water power? Hydrogen power?
Flakita3O5 6 months ago
@Flakita3O5 Not sure what you are asking... i think that any fuel that we can produced or create domestically is the better choice.
brianboeheim 6 months ago
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus You and I agree that we need to move away from fossil fuels, but there needs to be a transition plan until alternatives become viable. Technology hasn't caught up yet, and Natural gas is a U.S. based fuel that can bridge the gap for the next 20-30 years, until the technology you are suggesting can be perfected.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
If we invest in sustainable, clean energy development & distribution instead of investing in furthering petro-fuels, we'll get there so quick it'll be overwhelming.
The problem is two-fold: people buy into the "emergency" that we're relying on terrorism & foreign energy sources; & that there is no other way.
I'd rather see the Middle East extract petro-fuels until we find the next step & leave our land & water alone.
If we invest in innovation, we'll pull the US to the top.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus We agree on the fact that investment should be made in clean energy and the infrastructure to allow it to be economically feasible. The part that I don't think you are accepting is that like any other technology leap, we're not quite there yet. We need a bridge to your vision. I support the idea of using our own resources, instead of buying others while we sell ours to foreign entities.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
What's wrong with free energy?
I don't understand why people are afraid of the concept.
Do you LIKE being a slave to dick & george & friends?
What the hell is wrong with new ideas?
Don't hide comments that propose something new & thinking outside the box.
Even if it ends up not being practical, at least it's forward thinking.
We need MORE of that, not less.
Encourage people to find a new path & get us off this old bullshit shackle.
This is 2010, for gawdsake.
Set your mind free!
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus What's up...stop with the rhetoric. I've already said that I want to reduce our dependence on oil by 50%. There are paths. The stop gap is natural gas, the long-term solution is a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind. I also believe that we need to start looking at each home producing a certain amount of its own power through wind and solar. Check the Geo-Thermal risks with water supplies and fault lines...way too risky!
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Advanced education in engineering & geology can bring about safe & successful geothermal wells. GW's house in Crawford is 100% geothermal, why can't more be? NM, for instance, is full of hot springs.. perfect!
Our oil & gas co's take short-cuts that always end up in huge catastrophes. Haven't they already proven that?
We've got cars in production today without steering wheels! Why are they running on petro-fuels?
Encourage innovation, not destruction of our water & land.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus The greatest minds in the field admitted last year to causing a set of earthquakes by injecting water into a superheated fissure. I don't know about you, but that doesn't instill confidence in me?
Regulators that stop paying attention is what allows for those things to happen. How about sending the regulators that allowed the BP oil spill to jail.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@esigus I think you have to realize that the technology you are looking for is 30 or 40 years away. In the mean time why don't we use U.S. based natural gas and nuclear power as our stop gap?
brianboeheim 1 year ago
You had me until you said "...natural gas... ."
I disagree after that point.
There has to be an option outside fossil fuels.
Geo-thermal, for instance.
Something completely different... that we don't know about yet.
But the true patriot will invest in innovation & thinking beyond the short-term that strips our nation's water & beauty.
We CAN have it both ways.
We just have to DO it.
Completely change our thinking... not just 20degrees.
We can live without energy, but we can't live without water.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I agree that we need to use more nuclear, solar, and wind energy; but that won't and can't happen until we build a 765kv national infrastructure. The idea of using natural gas is a short -term solution allowing us time to get there with the infrastructure and technology. Geo-Thermal is one of the most over-rated and possibly dangerous large scale energy concepts. Once you start injecting pressure into cracks there are too many unintended consequences. earthquakes for one.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
So I assume it's okay to put the nuclear waste in your back yard?
How many leaky nuclear plants does this nation need to see that we're too Homer Simpson-like for nuclear?
Geo-thermal, wind, solar, magnetic energy ...something new?
Natural gas WOULD be a great alternative to tide us over, but the shale boom is quickly going to make our nation look like Saudi Arabia & screw up our food production areas. Fracking the US puts us on-par with China in environmental destruction.
Booo!
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus Stop reading all of the propaganda on Nuclear waste. 95% of all nuclear waste is low grade exposure (suits and tools). The rest is dangerous, but there are ways of dealing with it. The small self contained nuclear cubes are very safe and will last a small city 30 years with no leaks or exposure issues. Also, did you know that the byproducts from coal production puts off more nuclear radiation than all of the nuclear plants currently running?
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Would you hold one of those containers in your backyard?
In whose backyard is it okay to put the stuff?
If the wrong people get hold of it, they can build a bomb.
The nuclear plants in NJ are leaking.
Sorry... I think it's you who's reading the wrong info.
Fracking our nation is NOT the answer.
The Europeans are about 10 years away from clean, sustainable energy.
As I said, education to improve geological engineering can bring geothermal to the forefront.
We HAVE to think forward!
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus The Europeans have more nuclear power plants that anywhere in the world. France's main power source is nuclear. The power plants that are leaking aren't all leaking radiation...they are leaking chemicals that are used int he cooling process. These plants are old and out of date. The technology is light years ahead of what your talking about. Waste has become minimal. Your okay with drilling down into and though water tables for power, yet you're concerned for the envorinment...huh?
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
1
Not true. MANY of the European nuclear plants leak. Many of our nuclear plants leak. I, personally, do not care what they leak... they leak. One of the concerns about nuclear waste is that it could "fall into the hands of terrorists." If we had a fool-proof way to use it safely, then I'd be more at ease about it. But we don't.
The thing about geothermal is that there is the potential for it to be a fantastic alternative... clean & safe. The technology needs to be developed.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus First, nuclear material that is used in a power plant can't be used in a explosive weapon, and even if it is used as a dirty bomb of sorts it is less dangerous than most conventional weapons.
Geothermal is fine, but don't kid yourself on the risks. As they push the edge of the envelope they are causing seismic reactions. It is a viable source of energy where there is already geothermal hot spots, but otherwise it is no a viable energy alternative.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
2
That is, exactly, my point. We need to innovate through research & development in non-toxic, safe, clean energy sources. New ideas. Build them up instead of tearing them down. If someone comes up with something that is not practical for our situation, we shouldn't knock that person & the idea down... we should applaud them & encourage them to keep thinking & progressing. One idea can be the catalyst to another... a chain reaction leading to a practical solution.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I agree completely.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Cheney excluded Halliburton's procedures from the Clean Water Act & EPA oversight WHILE he was VP, in order to fatten his wallet. Halliburton drills every well in the US, most of Europe, most of Africa & most of Asia.
The natural gas that he's fracking isn't to be distributed to Americans, it's to be sold overseas.
How many people have to get sick & how many catastrophes have to happen for us to wake up to this bastard wrecking his own nation?
He's got you sold.
You're his slave.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus If you hate Cheney then fine, but what the heck does that have to do with our conversation. Did Halliburton cause the BP spill? Please enlighten me on the number of people who have been killed by radiation poisoning, oil spills, or natural gas catastrophes? I agree that regulation needs to be upheld, but what is your problem with a 765kw power grid and more pervasive use of solar and wind?
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Yes, Halliburton caused the BP leak in the gulf. They poured the concrete that didn't hold. They took short-cuts & then BP used their own toxic chemical dispersant (& bolster their quarterly earnings) when there were non-toxic "oil-eaters" readily available that would certainly have been safer for life in the Gulf.
I have No problem with solar & wind.
Encourage hard & heavy investment in development including storage & distribution.
Get us off the slave mentality of petro-fuels.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus What does the concrete have to do with the faulty valve shutoffs? The world is not one big conspiracy. The blame lies mostly with the regulators who gave BP and Transocean a pass on regular safety checks. IMHO
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Ok. I concede Halliburton didn't CAUSE the original problem, but the faulty concrete caused the entire rig to fall into the sea. Halliburton has a horrible safety record in general. Their mindset is to get as much out as fast as possible, damned the rules.
We shake our heads at the Chinese & developing nations when we see how they pollute & sicken their people. But our leaders are doing it to us ...& we're allowing it. If you've got kids, you better think about their future.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I agree that the people watching the store can't be trusted. We need to do a better job picking the leaders of our country, so we can have more faith in the regulators. It's time the regulators and the the political leaders who have benefited from these breaches in regulations be arrested for the crimes they committed.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
That is exactly what the fracking process does.
What I'm saying is that we need to either improve engineering (geological & drilling) or improve on solar/wind or find something altogether different.
I am really stuck on the idea of magnetic energy & pushing that idea forward.
What a concept!
A magnetic motor that never stops & powers your home, office, factory... & it's free (outside building/maintaining the motor).
Why not?
I don't think we're far away.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I like magnetic energy production, but realize it is not without risks. The powerful magnets needed cause cellular and genetic mutations that make radiation look like sun burn. I like your ideas, but as physics shows us: it takes energy to create energy. This makes all power production dangerous at some level. That is why we need more time and a bridge until we get there.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
There are also guys out there developing perpetual water motors.
At this point, it appears they need a jump start from an outside source, but with a bit of work, they might be able to solve that. And if they can't... it's still something to have one initial start, then have it run indefinitely without outside assistance.
If one wants to get into semantics, I think that the best way to look at it is "self-sustaining" instead of "perpetual." Maybe the things will die in 200years.
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I like the idea, but in my research I haven't found any that can provide substantial energy above its own self perpetuation. I hope that they can get there with this technology, but we need to have a bridge until then.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
@brianboeheim
Go to daily motion & put this video on:
video/xb0bt6_magniwork-the-energy-of-tomorrow-in_shortfilms
I believe that governments are afraid of what people might do with free energy... including the potential to produce all sorts of things... good & not so good. More than that, I think that the premise of energy not being metered freaks out the energy corporations more than anything else.. it's why Dick & co are in such a hurry to exploit as much fossil fuel as quickly as possible
esigus 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
There are already companies trying like mad to build magnetic energy machines.
Personally, I think that's where the future's at.
We'll get there ..& it won't take long.
The question is: Will America be first or will we follow someone else's lead?
If we can find the answer to energy first, we can re-build our entire economy. Problem solved.
Education!
Educated populations tend not to over-populate, have higher incomes, have lower crime rates & go to war less often.
Education!
esigus 6 months ago
@esigus I love the idea of tapping theoretical and practical physics to solve our energy problems. We need more scientists and engineers instead of sales managers and lawyers.
brianboeheim 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
Look, the answer to our energy (& just about every single other) problem is in education. If we stop pouring every cent we have into war & terrorists & other such nonsense, & instead pour it ALL into educating every single one of our citizens so each can reach his/her highest potential, we might just find the next energy source before anyone else (if someone hasn't already). If we think, "nah, it's better to find terrorists," then we'll stay in the back of the pack in every area.
esigus 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
My favorite idea is to completely socialize education 100% & get rid of nearly every other fed government agency. I'd like to see each & every income earner in America taxed a certain percentage (I don't know how much) straight across the board, no exceptions, the money go into a general pool & divied up equally per student. The $ from those who choose private ed remain in the pool. That poor, kid with no hope might be the one who has the answer stuck up in his/her noggin somewhere
esigus 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
I think that's our best hope for the future BECAUSE the future is in the best & brightest in science, technology, physics & anything innovative. Right now we don't produce much & our people aren't educated enough to be very innovative. Other nations (including far poorer ones) have & are surpassing us like mad because our priorities are out of whack. The future, including money, is in reaching our highest potential.
Think science fiction... cuz that's what's happening all around us
esigus 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
My second choice (because I know most Americans are way behind in our thinking & won't ever concede to pull EVERYone ahead, only the specifically chosen few with cash) is to elect Gary Johnson &/or Ron Paul cuz they're just radical enough to MAYBE get our system overhauled.
But, if we look at the most economically stable/successful nations right now, they are democratically socialist nations. But our people are afraid of a word... even though a mix of concepts is proven to work.
esigus 6 months ago
@brianboeheim
And isn't the point to free our minds into thinking that "we can" instead of "we can't?"
I listen to the people around me say, "...but they would never allow us to..."
I say, "Don't ask permission. Just do it."
I believe we can do anything we believe we can do.
If I was one of those guys who understands engineering, I'd be doing it instead of talking to you about it
But I'm not
I want to encourage people to encourage other people
Look at the maps
Fracking's going to quickly ruin us
esigus 1 year ago
@esigus I like your enthusiasm, but I'm one of those engineer types that understand the gap between vision and implementation. I think there are several good possibilities out there, but they all need money (as you've suggested). The key is being less reliant of power sources that are out of our control and move toward what we can control. Small, self contained nuclear cubes, natural gas, and eventually solar and wind when we build out the 765kv grid is my suggestion.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
I have no problem with business relationships with China. I have no problem with legal immigration of highly skilled specialty Chinese workers. This is very different from selling domestic resources, when we're already forced to import so much oil. There is no doubt that tying economic fortunes together provides more security than all the missiles in the world, but it must be done strategically. Without a strategic U.S. energy plan we're just spitting into the wind.
brianboeheim 1 year ago
I for one welcome the Chinese. Let's build a better future together.
Isreal4realz 1 year ago