Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I hear often that we have 100 years of natural gas left, mostly from gas and oil producers in their PAC ads. That ain't a lot. What will happen when we run out of that, Conks? Do you care about your grandchildren and their kids?

Let's hear it.

I and the conservatives I know are acutely tuned to how today's actions affect our children tomorrow. For instance, we are hoping to avoid saddling them with debt so crushing that they will never have the opportunities that we did.

Relax, Cap'n. As natz gas and oil become more and more expensive to extract, and as those resources become more difficult to find, we'll go nuclear, then hydrogen (because it is practical when produced with nuclear) and as usual America will lead the way. The only roadblock to this obvious source of energy is not coming from the conservative side, by the way. Maybe we ALL need to get a handle on our extremists.

CID1990 wrote:I and the conservatives I know are acutely tuned to how today's actions affect our children tomorrow. For instance, we are hoping to avoid saddling them with debt so crushing that they will never have the opportunities that we did.

Relax, Cap'n. As natz gas and oil become more and more expensive to extract, and as those resources become more difficult to find, we'll go nuclear, then hydrogen (because it is practical when produced with nuclear) and as usual America will lead the way. The only roadblock to this obvious source of energy is not coming from the conservative side, by the way. Maybe we ALL need to get a handle on our extremists.

Good thoughts, STD. We've know about hydrogen for years, but the oil lobby beats back progress there. Nuclear cars?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I and the conservatives I know are acutely tuned to how today's actions affect our children tomorrow. For instance, we are hoping to avoid saddling them with debt so crushing that they will never have the opportunities that we did.

Relax, Cap'n. As natz gas and oil become more and more expensive to extract, and as those resources become more difficult to find, we'll go nuclear, then hydrogen (because it is practical when produced with nuclear) and as usual America will lead the way. The only roadblock to this obvious source of energy is not coming from the conservative side, by the way. Maybe we ALL need to get a handle on our extremists.

Good thoughts, STD. We've know about hydrogen for years, but the oil lobby beats back progress there. Nuclear cars?

The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

CID1990 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Good thoughts, STD. We've know about hydrogen for years, but the oil lobby beats back progress there. Nuclear cars?

The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

We need to return to an agrarian society.

Haven't we been saying for decades now what's going to happen when the oil and other fossil fuel runs out, and time and time again we always seem to find more and more of it. People were saying just a few years ago that we were maybe 20-30 years left of natural gas, then we find ways to get into the Marcellus Shale and other places and now we have more than 100 years left. We keep finding ways to get to more fossil fuel reserves and we keep finding ways to do it more efficiently. That's the funny thing about our species - we seem to keep coming up with inventive ways to accomplish things. I have no doubt that one day we'll be out of fossil fuels, but I have a feeling that our kids and grandkids and even their kids won't see that day. And even when it does happen, I have a feeling that we'll come up with a pretty good alternative to them. We keep seeming to come up with new ways so I don't see why the future should be any different. Have faith man.

Cap'n Cat wrote:I hear often that we have 100 years of natural gas left, mostly from gas and oil producers in their PAC ads. That ain't a lot. What will happen when we run out of that, Conks? Do you care about your grandchildren and their kids?

Let's hear it.

Sticking a hose up your *** should add a few more years, especially after you've had a nice whole pepperoni or two.

GannonFan wrote:Haven't we been saying for decades now what's going to happen when the oil and other fossil fuel runs out, and time and time again we always seem to find more and more of it. People were saying just a few years ago that we were maybe 20-30 years left of natural gas, then we find ways to get into the Marcellus Shale and other places and now we have more than 100 years left. We keep finding ways to get to more fossil fuel reserves and we keep finding ways to do it more efficiently. That's the funny thing about our species - we seem to keep coming up with inventive ways to accomplish things. I have no doubt that one day we'll be out of fossil fuels, but I have a feeling that our kids and grandkids and even their kids won't see that day. And even when it does happen, I have a feeling that we'll come up with a pretty good alternative to them. We keep seeming to come up with new ways so I don't see why the future should be any different. Have faith man.

If he had faith he'd vote conservative. All the donks have left to preach is fear.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Haven't we been saying for decades now what's going to happen when the oil and other fossil fuel runs out, and time and time again we always seem to find more and more of it. People were saying just a few years ago that we were maybe 20-30 years left of natural gas, then we find ways to get into the Marcellus Shale and other places and now we have more than 100 years left. We keep finding ways to get to more fossil fuel reserves and we keep finding ways to do it more efficiently. That's the funny thing about our species - we seem to keep coming up with inventive ways to accomplish things. I have no doubt that one day we'll be out of fossil fuels, but I have a feeling that our kids and grandkids and even their kids won't see that day. And even when it does happen, I have a feeling that we'll come up with a pretty good alternative to them. We keep seeming to come up with new ways so I don't see why the future should be any different. Have faith man.

If he had faith he'd vote conservative. All the donks have left to preach is fear.

Forcing women to have government mandated ultrasounds is a "fear" being perpetrated by Progressives?



And don't give me any of that "faith" shit. You're a non-believer and you know it. You haven't been to a church service since you were a kid!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

We need to return to an agrarian society.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

We need to return to an agrarian society.

How "Progressive" of you.

Maybe kalm will appreciate that little piece of irony.

Baldy wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


We need to return to an agrarian society.

How "Progressive" of you.

Maybe kalm will appreciate that little piece of irony.

Irony being that you don't understand what the political term "progressive" means?

Cap'n Cat wrote:We need to return to an agrarian society.

I would pay good money to watch the almighty Cap'n Cat guiding a plow behind a horse 16 hours a day.

Gil Dobie wrote: I would pay good money to watch the almighty Cap'n Cat guiding a plow behind a horse 16 hours a day.

My bet is that if fossil fuels run out, someone will be using Cap'n as a plow horse.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Forcing women to have government mandated ultrasounds is a "fear" being perpetrated by Progressives?

The only fear I see is that you fear more people will see abortion for what it is.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Forcing women to have government mandated ultrasounds is a "fear" being perpetrated by Progressives?

The only fear I see is that you fear more people will see abortion for what it is.

You're right, Monsignor Hen - no one's business but hers.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
How "Progressive" of you.

Maybe kalm will appreciate that little piece of irony.

Irony being that you don't understand what the political term "progressive" means?

Sorry that went right over your head......again.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: The only fear I see is that you fear more people will see abortion for what it is.

You're right, Monsignor Hen - no one's business but hers.

What is the fear?

CID1990 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:


Good thoughts, STD. We've know about hydrogen for years, but the oil lobby beats back progress there. Nuclear cars?

The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

No doubt that nuclear is going to be back, things have come a long way since the boondoggles and clusterfucks of the 70s. Lets hope we're a little smarter about where we build the plants next time. And nuclear won't be at all useful if we don't replace the grid.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The oil lobby won't have an option.

The roadblock to hydrogen is tied to nuclear power. The only way hydrogen becomes practical is when you are using nuke power to electrolysize water. If you try to do it with coal or oil fired electric plants, you have no real energy savings, AND you also pollute to levels commensurate with just running gas cars and NOT using the power plants to crack water.

The day we go more than 60% nuclear will also be the day that companies like BMW will roll out their 30 year old hydro technology, and the oil and gas companies will be scrambling to crack water and add hydrogen fueling points to their gas stations. Then the only thing we will need to figure out is how to deal with car exhaust on the roads turning to ice on Minnesota highways and turning them into skating rinks. Heck, Cappy, you can even collect your exhaust and water your hydroponic ... er.... tomatoes with it.

No doubt that nuclear is going to be back, things have come a long way since the boondoggles and clusterfucks of the 70s. Lets hope we're a little smarter about where we build the plants next time. And nuclear won't be at all useful if we don't replace the grid.

The future is nuclear for sure, but a couple things are going to have to happen first:

1) The greens are going to have to be proven wrong on wind and solar. Those two combined will never be anything more than supplemental energy sources. Until this happens, I don't think enough of the green lobby will be neutralized to get rid of the crushing restrictions on nuke power we see today. Unfortunately, there are going to be a LOT of Solyndras before this happens. Just as there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job and Obama is an African Muslin and GWB was dishonorably discharged, there are going to be people who think we can replace fossil fuels entirely with a combination of solar, wind, and biofuels.

2) We are going to have to start educating people. The reason we have these GINORMOUS nuclear plants all over the world is because nobody wants one in their neighborhood. So, when you actually find a place to build one that doesn't bring the idiots out of the woodwork, you have to build one that is freaking huge to accomodate the fact that there isn't another one within 500 miles. Admiral Rickover's Navy is the best place to look for the answer: small reactors. They are much less prone to damage from things like earthquakes. Put one in every town. There would be simple ways to safeguard them from people who would want to steal the fuel or the reactors themselves. The US Navy has never had a true nuke accident since nukes have been in use. Not one. We are the world's leaders in small reactor safety.

3) Fossil fuels are going to have to become much more expensive to find and collect. This cannot be done artificially, as the Obama Admin is currently trying to do. The stuff is going to actually have to start running short. Trying to manipulate us into solar and wind is never going to be a good political move. Only when it becomes necessity will people change their minds.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
No doubt that nuclear is going to be back, things have come a long way since the boondoggles and clusterfucks of the 70s. Lets hope we're a little smarter about where we build the plants next time. And nuclear won't be at all useful if we don't replace the grid.

The future is nuclear for sure, but a couple things are going to have to happen first:

1) The greens are going to have to be proven wrong on wind and solar. Those two combined will never be anything more than supplemental energy sources. Until this happens, I don't think enough of the green lobby will be neutralized to get rid of the crushing restrictions on nuke power we see today. Unfortunately, there are going to be a LOT of Solyndras before this happens. Just as there are people who think 9/11 was an inside job and Obama is an African Muslin and GWB was dishonorably discharged, there are going to be people who think we can replace fossil fuels entirely with a combination of solar, wind, and biofuels.

2) We are going to have to start educating people. The reason we have these GINORMOUS nuclear plants all over the world is because nobody wants one in their neighborhood. So, when you actually find a place to build one that doesn't bring the idiots out of the woodwork, you have to build one that is freaking huge to accomodate the fact that there isn't another one within 500 miles. Admiral Rickover's Navy is the best place to look for the answer: small reactors. They are much less prone to damage from things like earthquakes. Put one in every town. There would be simple ways to safeguard them from people who would want to steal the fuel or the reactors themselves. The US Navy has never had a true nuke accident since nukes have been in use. Not one. We are the world's leaders in small reactor safety.

3) Fossil fuels are going to have to become much more expensive to find and collect. This cannot be done artificially, as the Obama Admin is currently trying to do. The stuff is going to actually have to start running short. Trying to manipulate us into solar and wind is never going to be a good political move. Only when it becomes necessity will people change their minds.

Don't necessarily disagree nor am I opposed to expanding nuclear but what are the true costs of renewable energy versus fossil and nuclear? The government has and continues to invest a butt load of money in both of these. If you add up all of the subsidies for both, the tax breaks, the investment in infrastructure, the externalities like environmental cleanup, health care costs, military spending etc, the cost of both nuclear and fossil fuels is much higher than most people perceive.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have made these investments but if renewables are given the same type of support and funding to get off the ground and gain efficiency to the point where private sector investment becomes more feasible, you might be surprised how viable they become.