Jump to content

Alternative Fuels/Oil Drilling

Dark

By Dark
in General

Should we continue drilling?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Should we continue drilling?

    • Yes, we should continue drilling off-coast or in the Mid-West.
      2
    • No, we should not drill, use our reserves, and then find a different fuel.
      9

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 510
  • Created
  • Last Reply
PrometheusMFD Newbie

PrometheusMFD

Posted
Posted

No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone.

 

We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller

There have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.

The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels.

 

They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?

[/quote']

So?

 

I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding

Again' date=' so?

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

 

you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?

[/quote']

For a third time, so?

 

good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy

[/quote']

Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants

 

Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.

true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion

[/quote']

... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organisms

And what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it.

 

Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?

[/quote']

 

... That is why I say we should go nuclear.

Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Atomix Newbie

Atomix

Posted
Posted

No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone.

 

We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller

There have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.

The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels.

 

They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?

[/quote']

So?

 

I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding

Again' date=' so?

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

 

you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?

[/quote']

For a third time, so?

 

good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy

[/quote']

Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants

 

Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.

true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion

[/quote']

... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organisms

And what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it.

 

Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?

[/quote']

 

... That is why I say we should go nuclear.

Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium

 

No more so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrometheusMFD Newbie

PrometheusMFD

Posted
Posted

No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone.

 

We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller

There have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.

The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels.

 

They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?

[/quote']

So?

 

I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding

Again' date=' so?

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

 

you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?

[/quote']

For a third time, so?

 

good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy

[/quote']

Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants

 

Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.

true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion

[/quote']

... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organisms

And what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it.

 

Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?

[/quote']

 

... That is why I say we should go nuclear.

Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium

 

No more so?

 

I said "so" every time you didn't explain the importance of your post

The others were just my rebuttles

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ragnarok1945 Newbie

ragnarok1945

Posted
Posted

No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone.

 

We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller

There have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.

The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels.

 

They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?

[/quote']

So?

 

I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding

Again' date=' so?

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

 

you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?

[/quote']

For a third time, so?

 

good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy

[/quote']

Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants

 

Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.

true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion

[/quote']

... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organisms

And what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it.

 

Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?

[/quote']

 

... That is why I say we should go nuclear.

Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium

 

there is still only so much uranium, you know

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PrometheusMFD Newbie

PrometheusMFD

Posted
Posted

No but it would be a good idea. Get rid of some of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Ummm... CO2 is good. Plants use a process called photosynthesis that converts CO2 in the air into O2. As the levels of CO2 increase' date=' so does the availability of life for plants. Also, the increase in CO2 has been miniscule (about .05%), and CO2 is further dialated by NItrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor, and the Toxic Ozone.

 

We already are trying that, that's why the ozone holes are getting smaller

There have always been, and always will be, holes in the Ozone layer. If we were surrounded by a complete sphere of Ozone, we would all suffocate because any increase in it would thicken the layer, therefore carry it down to the surface.

The Ozone layer is more of a net than a shield, catching the worst of the UV and IR rays, and sending the rest down to fuel plants and solar energy *snort* panels.

 

They are' date=' isn't there only one over antartica?

[/quote']

So?

 

I thought there was one over the north pole too. Maybe that was just a thin layer but still holding

Again' date=' so?

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

Actually, I would prefer no Ozone anywhere near cities, since Ozone is toxic

 

Well as long as it's not over cities then I don't really care.

 

you DO know why it's over the poles' date=' right?

[/quote']

For a third time, so?

 

good. Though in terms of fuel' date=' what would be best is if we can use water. I hope you know water was the among the first sources of energy

[/quote']

Wait, what? If you are talking about a water wheel, we already use that. It's called Hydro and Tidal electric power plants

 

Yeah I know but the bad thing is that it is limited.

true. We need the water in the right form. Again' date=' all of this still comes down to conversion

[/quote']

... Wait, you do realize that the Earth is 75% water, right? That doesn't include ice caps, the atmosphere, sub terrainian, and in organisms

And what kind of forms of water are there? You have Ice, Water, Water Vapor, Plasma, and that's it.

 

Well' date=' that's not the real issue. It's not how hard it is to convert it or not, it's how much energy is needed to convert it. What's the point of capturing energy if most of it is going to be used up to convert it into the form that's useful to us?

[/quote']

 

... That is why I say we should go nuclear.

Energy Produced by Uranium>Energy Used to convert waste back into Uranium

 

there is still only so much uranium, you know

 

We are not going to run out of uranium. It is easily accessed and pretty abundant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...