Dual source: Ex-Shell president sees $5 gas in 2012 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=thisispain;27015465]BECAUSE NUCLEAR POWER DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONS EITHER THAT WE HAVE NOT YET FULLY WORKED OUT Right do i have it right[/QUOTE] Nuclear power has the potential to be cleanest and long lasting power source. That is if you use several meters of lead, concrete, steel, and other dense material as radiation shielding. Combine that with proper management and transport of hazardous materials.

[QUOTE=thisispain;27015572]i'm just saying, it's not like we just have to say YES TO NUCLEAR and suddenly everything is shitting pure clean energy nuclear power still has a tremendous impact on the environment and other sources of power are not even fully realized yet[/QUOTE] Nuclear only has an impact when not properly disposed of.

[QUOTE=thisispain;27015572]i'm just saying, it's not like we just have to say YES TO NUCLEAR and suddenly everything is shitting pure clean energy nuclear power still has a tremendous impact on the environment and other sources of power are not even fully realized yet[/QUOTE] Nuclear power has less impact on the environment than burning millions of tons of coal and oil

Also betavoltaic batteries use tritium, which is really only dangerous if you inhale it. [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] Zeke we're agreeing on something this is the end of the world

[QUOTE=thisispain;27015413]what green movement there's one about um, elections, and um, energy shit and like um, cars and shit so um which one[/QUOTE] Really? I thought it was to counteract "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" under the basis that it was caused by Carbon Dioxide when it's really caused by the Sun.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27015691]Really? I thought it was to counteract "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" under the basis that it was caused by Carbon Dioxide when it's really caused by the Sun.[/QUOTE] A proto-green movement started in the 70s before it was a major topic....

Even though American is privileged to have such low gas prices compared to the world, we don't have fuel efficient cars, hence job loss will increase and another recession will occur.

[QUOTE=cqbcat;27015607]Nuclear power has the potential to be cleanest and long lasting power source. That is if you use several meters of lead, concrete, steel, and other dense material as radiation shielding. Combine that with proper management and transport of hazardous materials.[/QUOTE] There's still vast amounts of nuclear waste we don't really know what to do with other than bury it. Right now coal is the number one source of energy in the United States, especially in the southeast. There should definitely be a push for Nuclear Power in the southeast but more plants across the globe means more waste. It wouldn't be a huge deal if the waste wasn't dangerous and didn't just sit around for half a millennium. Work on fusion reactors needs more funding though. Fusion reactors would carry a very large amount of the workload of powering the modern world and it's wonder we aren't pouring resources into it's development already.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;27014610]What are we going to do? Fully synthesize hydrocarbons that we use for plastics? It's possible but unlikely to ever be practical. We have to stop burning oil, it's the biggest waste of an amazing resource. For the environment and climate, and to save our source of hydrocarbons that we use for far more important things than fuel.[/QUOTE] What I really think we need to do is stop wasting food.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27015691]Really? I thought it was to counteract "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" under the basis that it was caused by Carbon Dioxide when it's really caused by the Sun.[/QUOTE] you are so dumb it's not even amusing anymore

[QUOTE=Glaber;27015691]Really? I thought it was to counteract "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" under the basis that it was caused by Carbon Dioxide when it's really caused by the Sun.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations]List of Scientific organizations supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change.[/url] Fuck you. Additionally: "With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming."

[QUOTE=Glaber;27015691]Really? I thought it was to counteract "Global Warming"/"Climate Change" under the basis that it was caused by Carbon Dioxide when it's really caused by the Sun.[/QUOTE] No, it's to counteract global warming (or climate change) under the general consensus of thousands of scientists much more informed than yourself (or whoever feeds this shit to you) that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;27015626]Nuclear only has an impact when not properly disposed of.[/QUOTE] right and we don't know how to properly dispose of it throwing it into a mountain is not my idea of proper

[QUOTE=thisispain;27016075]right and we don't know how to properly dispose of it throwing it into a mountain is not my idea of proper[/QUOTE] are you a source of authority when it comes to what is proper and what isn't?

[QUOTE=that1dude24;27016064]No, it's to counteract global warming (or climate change) under the general consensus of thousands of scientists much more informed than yourself (or whoever feeds this shit to you) that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions.[/QUOTE] You want to Explain why there was Global warming on Mars at the same time then?

oh no gas prices going up maybe i'll drive less and walk more [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;27016340]You want to Explain why there was Global warming on Mars at the same time then?[/QUOTE] source for your claim?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;27016274]are you a source of authority when it comes to what is proper and what isn't?[/QUOTE] i do believe i said MY idea of proper

[quote=prismatex;27016350]oh no gas prices going up maybe i'll drive less and walk more [editline]27th december 2010[/editline] source for your claim?[/quote] am 760 wjr. And a yahoo search [url]http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=mars+global+warming&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35[/url]

[QUOTE=Glaber;27016447]am 760 wjr.[/QUOTE] oh look more of glaber's fantastic "HURR DURR TALK RADIO IS INFALLIBLE" logic gtfo

[QUOTE=Glaber;27016447]am 760 wjr. And a yahoo search [url]http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=mars+global+warming&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35[/url][/QUOTE] Oh god lol AM talk radio and a Yahoo search with all results being from the same study that showed not even a real corollary link.

Well when you have scientists saying that everything is because of global warming. I find it just as hard to believe them. We have snow, it's global warming. We don't have snow, it's still global warming.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27016823]We have snow, it's global warming. We don't have snow, it's still global warming.[/QUOTE] herp anyone who keeps arguing with you after this point are either brave or dumb

[QUOTE=Glaber;27016823]Well when you have scientists saying that everything is because of global warming. I find it just as hard to believe them. We have snow, it's global warming. We don't have snow, it's still global warming.[/QUOTE] Global warming doesn't mean every location generally gets hotter (aka, no more snow in winter.) It means seasons will be a lot more extreme; summers will be hotter, and winters will be colder.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27016823]Well when you have scientists saying that everything is because of global warming. I find it just as hard to believe them. We have snow, it's global warming. We don't have snow, it's still global warming.[/QUOTE] That's called winter [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;27016899]Global warming doesn't mean every location generally gets hotter (aka, no more snow in winter.) It means seasons will be a lot more extreme; summers will be hotter, and winters will be colder.[/QUOTE] Can we use the term Climate Change instead?

When I lived in Miami a few years ago we were already paying $4-5 a gallon depending on the price of oil per barrel.

Paying over 3.10 pisses me off. [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] I'll be damned if I have to drive the vagina on wheels: prius

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;27016920]Paying over 3.10 pisses me off. [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] I'll be damned if I have to drive the vagina on wheels: prius[/QUOTE] all about the diesels

Naw, I drive a 94 Jeep Cherokee. I get like 17 miles to the gallon.

[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;27016920]Paying over 3.10 pisses me off. [editline]27th December 2010[/editline] I'll be damned if I have to drive the vagina on wheels: prius[/QUOTE] What are you talking about man vaginas are awesome.

You know the only thing the Global Financial Crisis meant to me? That gas dropped to $1.37 like a brick, that's it.