tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post4400283424063936443..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Saudi royal: "U.S. can't be energy-independent"Freedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-54547261737168274412009-06-02T14:08:27.924-07:002009-06-02T14:08:27.924-07:00I didn't see you mention natural gas, the US a...I didn't see you mention natural gas, the US also has a lot of that. <br /><br />The fact is we simply don't have the leadership and political will to achieve energy independence, but we do have the means.<br />Brazil achieved independence with a combination of sugar cane methanol, and drilling for oil offshore. France, as you mention, has lot's of nuclear power, making it more, but not totally independent. <br /><br />The diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil, and does so nicely in warmer temperatures. We could actually power city buses with McDonald's used french fry oil. Why don't we? Must be those presidential libraries.<br /><br />Model airplane engines run a combination of methanol (ethanol?) & castor oil. There are alternative fuels out there. Their viability of course depends on the price of a barrel of oil. over $75, a lot stuff makes sense. The fact is, we really aren't working on the problem very hard.Roseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05831258809546539352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-32457968788126257352009-06-02T12:49:21.806-07:002009-06-02T12:49:21.806-07:00Hi Anonymous,
I'm always suspiicous of stuff comi...Hi Anonymous,<br /><br />I'm always suspiicous of stuff coming from wikipedia. I've seen numerous estimates on various energy sites that put the figure far higher.<br /><br />You also haven't brought shale oil into the equation, which we also have in abundance.<br /><br />As for getting the technology up and running, Hitler was able to do it in a matter of months when it was brand new technology, during wartime. There no reason to suppose that we couldn't do it in the same time frame if it wasn't for the other political factors I mention. Nor is there any real evidence I can find that gasification 'uses the coal up faster' than simply burning it.<br /><br />The US actually had a synthetic fuel program in the 1970's that was online fairly quickly. It was terminated when th eprice of crude fell far below the $50 or so a barrel synthetic fuel costs to produce. <br /><br />With crude now at $65 a barrel and climbing sharply, we might just want to revisit it.<br /><br />Thanks for dropping by..<br /><br />Regards,<br />RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-76407664265322873512009-06-02T10:40:15.948-07:002009-06-02T10:40:15.948-07:00The 400 to 600 yrs. figure might be based on old n...The 400 to 600 yrs. figure might be based on old numbers. Other estimates are between 100-250 yrs. (see http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/004343.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal). If we go to coal gassification, the coal will be used up even faster. I do agree with your general point that we need to use our resources rather than play politically correct games, but I think you're underestimating the difficulty and the speed in which improvements can be accomplished.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-40603908746140793292009-06-01T19:08:02.665-07:002009-06-01T19:08:02.665-07:00Rob,
Too true!Though at least the demography b...Rob,<br /> Too true!Though at least the demography book was funny.I speak of course of Mr. Steyn's "America Alone". Ms. Y'eor's "Eurabia",not so much.Christian Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10261503066045033010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-37512641667519147912009-06-01T18:50:26.985-07:002009-06-01T18:50:26.985-07:00Correct, CA.
But as I'm sure Bat Yeor would ...Correct, CA.<br /><br />But as I'm sure Bat Yeor would tell you, the 'embrace of the keffiyah' as you put it was a response to Europe's declining birth rate, commercial appetite to sell manufactured goods to the Arab world, the need for new immigrants to pay for Europe's social welfare programs and especially ( in the case of DeGaulle, who originated the 'Eurabia' policies) as a counterweight to the hated Americans and a means for the restoration or French 'grandeur' and importance on the world stage.<br /><br />Regards,<br />RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-45460862982347608202009-06-01T17:25:28.142-07:002009-06-01T17:25:28.142-07:00Rob,
Good points as usual.....but,
it should s...Rob,<br /> Good points as usual.....but,<br />it should surely be noted that nukes weren't the only thing Europe embraced in the '70s in response to the embargo.They also embraced the keffiyah. According to Bat Y'eor that decade also saw them throw Israel under the bus in order to clear the way ahead for the project she would christen "Eurabia". I'm sure you're aware of this but I never could resist carrying coal to Newcastle! <br />Especially since it is so lovely there this time of year ;~). .Christian Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10261503066045033010noreply@blogger.com