RustyGunz1960 wrote: My approach, given these uncertainties, is to look at the pros and cons of some of the suggested actions. Can it really be argued that we are putting too little particulates and other substances into the air? Can your car get too good gas mileage? Are we really using up non-renewable resources too slowly? Alternatives to heavy fossil fuel reliance aren’t just about possible climate change. Don’t we want these fuels to last as long as possible? Some things just make sense. Why has our space program relied on solar power since its inception, rather than hauling extra fuel or batteries into space? I also feel expanded nuclear power has been greatly neglected as a solution to many of our energy problems. That stance certainly isn’t popular with the left. Going back to my original assertion, alternatives are too often written off due to their being aligned with the right or the left, rather than simply being taking into on their merits.
You're right, but jumping the gun on unproven technology can lead to disaster.
We do want petroleum and LP to last as long as possible. Right now at our current rate of expansion, if we open all of the available oil field to our current capabilities, we have enough petrol on/under US grounds to last more than 300 years. A lot of that is thanks to hydrofracing. Over that 300 years we are likely to expand our drilling and recovery abilities and extend that time to who knows a 1000 years, after all Jimmy Carter said we would have already run out! If we expand our abilities at that rate we have 3000 years.
Even if our capabilities stay the same and population growth increases, we have hundreds of years to come up with a viable renewable energy source... Heck, LP is a good one, hydrogen has strong possibilities, even solar and wind have their place. But to expand those fields while they are still immature will leave power shortages, brown outs, black outs, etc...
We do need to think about the future and prepare for it! Luckily we have time, and enough of it that panic was not needed. They wanted panic... panic is good for politicians that are selfish and for businesses set up to prevent the fake disaster.
Right now solar and wind are incapable of providing reliable energy at a rate high enough. Their infrastructures also have a pay back time longer than life-expectancy/maintenance period... That means manufacturers of equipment make bank, while users and operators loose money. Eventually it will all fall apart and a collapse will follow.
Coal which has been demonized is actually quite clean these days, the stuff coming out of the towers is water vapor and that's about it. Nuclear, same thing... The only problem is what to do with the waste, but there are many uses for depleted uranium and most of it can me reconstituted.
For vehicles, E85 not only causes damage to your engine it is only cheaper than petrol because of government intervention. The fed pumps money into the corn/ethanol industry while over taxing and penalizing oil companies.
Electric cars as we all know are a net negative on energy use and even money (until 250,000 miles).
And their life expectancy is 175,000 miles. Also, worthy of note is the fact that the 250,000 miles is when compared to a quarter ton (150, 1500...) truck running a 5+ liter engine. If companies to an equivalent vehicle that is smaller like a mid sized sedan it gets all blown out of proportions and is not even believable.
The car companies are forced by the EPA to make non profitable and unsafe vehicles and shortages of what we really want artificial are inflated... The requirements on OBD systems do the same thing for the same reason...
The thing most people don't take into consideration is the fact that not only are the fuel sources not renewable neither are the building materials. It takes a lot more materials to build the structures to take advantage of "renewable" sources than it does the conventional ones.
All in all, if the fight was taken up on the right set of morals and goals the idea of green energy is a good one to start looking into,but not implementing. The problem is they are not interested in helping, they are interested in their own pockets and self preservation, that is evident by their jump to implement prematurely... Either that or they are just stupid!
Both of those prospects are dangerous as characteristics of leaders.