Welcome to Slashdot Television Slashback Privacy Linux Mandrake Graphics
 faq
 code
 osdn
 awards
 privacy
 slashNET
 older stuff
 rob's page
 preferences
 submit story
 advertising
 supporters
 past polls
 topics
 about
 jobs
 hof

Sections
6/19
apache
6/26 (2)
askslashdot
6/21
books
6/25
bsd
6/26
developers
6/21
features
6/21
interviews
1/9
radio
6/26 (3)
science
6/26 (2)
yro
OSDN
freshmeat
Linux.com
SourceForge
ThinkGeek
Question
 Exchange

NewsForge
SlashCode

'GM Investing in Fuel Cells' | Login/Create an Account | Top | 454 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Flamebait)
by Martini Man on Wednesday June 13, @10:03AM EST (#16)
(User #265244 Info)
For years now I've been hoping that somebody would put some serious effort into developing clean fuel technologies that would reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels and other polluting agents. If GM, one of the heavy hitters in the automotive world, is committed to this, that's great. But I have to admit that at this point in time, I'm a bit cynical. How long will it take for the Bush administration (both the President and Vice President are former oil executives are heavily indebted to Big Oil for getting elected) to put a stop to this? Will the Grand Oil Party sit back and watch this without trying to do something about it? Somehow I doubt it.

Bush has already announced his intent to drill the fuck out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. If technologies appear on the horizon that make oil appear less important, the public will be even less receptive to drilling than they already are. This will make it impossible for Bush to help his oil cronies set up lucrative oil wells up there. And if he pisses them off, look for huge repercussions in the 2002 and 2004 elections. For Bush, it's "do or die" .. if he doesn't get ANWR full of oil derricks by 2003 he will be a one-term President.

This is why "clean fuel" efforts will be fought to the death. It's interesting that this administration has pledged to take a "hands off of business" approach, and to not impose any more government regulations. Well, the proof is in the pudding, Dubya .. are you ready to practice what you preach? Somehow I doubt it.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
<<But it still uses gas by Patrick McRotch (Score:-1) | Finally by Rackemup (Score:1) >>
Moderation Totals:Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Insightful=5, Interesting=3, Overrated=2, Total=13.
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2, Funny)
by Misfit on Wednesday June 13, @10:43AM EST (#46)
(User #1071 Info)
"Dubya .. are you ready to practice what you preach?"...

Of course not. It's our (GOP) goal to destroy the planet. Our only desire on this planet is to watch it burn while we dance around on our children's graves singing hallelujah.

Not only do we want to destroy the planet, but we want to see all our children wielding guns.

We want only the rich to have money, start wars for no reason, and keep everyone from making their own decisions.

Misfit
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @10:48AM EST (#59)
    Holy living crap, an honest republican. Who would have thought.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
      by SirTreveyan on Wednesday June 13, @11:34AM EST (#124)
      (User #9270 Info)
      Hell, I need a gun to keep the bona fide Democrats from mugging me as I go to work. And I need an friggin army to keep the same wimpy milk toast 'pity me I am not as fortunate as you' jack offs from stealing from my paycheck as I "earn" it.

      I am responsible for my "good fortune". I made my "good forture" through hard work and perserverance. Hell will freeze over before one Democrat ever believes a person is responcible for making their "good fortune"
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @11:56AM EST (#162)
        Well, you have to give the Slashdot Politburo a little bit of slack. They have had this bullshit pounded into them in the public schools all their lives. It may take another 10-20 years before they realize they were basically brainwashed into believing lies.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
        by oogoody on Wednesday June 13, @12:35PM EST (#218)
        (User #302342 Info)
        I am responsible for my "good fortune". I made my "good forture" through hard work and perserverance. Hell will freeze over before one Democrat ever believes a person is responcible for making their "good fortune"

        Then you are also resposible for yourself beging an idiot. Saying every democrat believes X is just plain stupid. Some of us are demo/independence because we don't believe corporate america should rule us and the government shouldn't control how we birth, use drugs, worship, etc.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:56PM EST (#242)
          >Some of us are demo/independence because we don't believe corporate america should rule us and the government shouldn't control how we birth, use drugs, worship, etc.


          Some of us are so stupid that we don't know what libetarian is.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @01:54PM EST (#289)
            Some of us are so stupid that we don't know what libetarian is.

            Apparently you're referring to yourself, if you believe libertarians would protect people from megacorps.
            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @09:03PM EST (#394)
          Go take a look at who gave what to whom in the last election. I know you'll just ignore this because it doesn't fit in your nice little worldview, but almost EVERY multinational company gives fairly equally to both the GOP and the Dems.

          Oracle is an interesting exception. As a shareholder, I am furious at Ellison for taking such a stupid risk (he chose to pay off the wrong party this time around). 2 extra million is hardly too much to pay for a sure thing. Two party systems are good for business since its feasible to cover the board.

          Microsoft is an example of a smart company. They have 4 million to both Al Gore and W's campaign. That's 2% of W's ENTIRE election fund from one company, and an even higher percentage of Gore's.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2, Insightful)
    by Pahroza (moc.cam@ireiba) on Wednesday June 13, @11:09AM EST (#95)
    (User #24427 Info)
    We're not destroying this planet. The planet is doing just fine. It's we who are slowly diminishing our capability to survive on the planet. The planet will still be around when we're gone, and it will once again clean itself.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      "we" (Score:1)
      by ciole on Wednesday June 13, @01:01PM EST (#251)
      (User #211179 Info) http://www.fancyduckmisfit.com
      That's a pretty long term perspective. In the shorter term, i see it more like this:

      it's the very rich who are dimishing the capacity of the earth to support everyone else. The poorer and their children are always the first to feel the effects of pollution and the tightened belts of unsustainable development. The very rich will be around and comfortable for a long time.

      i always think of East St Louis.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:"we" (Score:1)
        by Pahroza (moc.cam@ireiba) on Wednesday June 13, @03:44PM EST (#341)
        (User #24427 Info)
        East St. Louis... *shiver*

        I agree with your comment except for one thing, and it's partially semantic. The very rich aren't the only culprits, the just benefit from it. How frequently do you see very rich people driving around in automobiles that produce an enormous plume of smoke when they drive past? Not very.

        On the flip side of the coin, they're probably some of the last to carpool. I could easily argue for both sides of this point.

        I do agree that the poor and their (numerous) children usually feel the first effects of pollution. More children means more people to use resources, who produce more children to use more resources, etc.

        This post seems to be self defeating. I inevitably end up arguing both sides of an issue, end up contradicting and confusing myself.

        One thing I can't argue both sides of, we NEED more fuel efficient vehicles, as well as alternative and renewable sources of energy to power our vehicles and homes. Too bad there's so much money to be made in the oil industry.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:"we" (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @06:24PM EST (#377)
          This post seems to be self defeating. I inevitably end up arguing both sides of an issue, end up contradicting and confusing myself.

          Don't worry about it. It only means you have not yet been brainwashed. People are taught to argue as if their view is correct and all others are wrong. This does create a forceful argument but it does not aid understanding of the truth.

          Understanding is a gradual process, reaching ever closer toward an unattainable goal.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
    by Phil-14 on Wednesday June 13, @12:57PM EST (#245)
    (User #1277 Info)

    Ah, yet another democrat setting up a straw man.

    The neat thing is, it's self-defeating; the more they bitch about local energy producers, the more they're at the mercy of nasty, undemocratic, foreign cartels. I know many of you would rather pay $ 40 dollar/barrel to people in the Middle East than acknowledge that people in the energy business in the US have a right to make a living; but I wonder, why, after you actually accomplish that task, you persist in blaming anyone besides yourselves for high energy prices?


    (currently testing something about signatures here)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Scuse me? (Score:1)
by Unknown Poltroon (george42@Usspama.net) on Wednesday June 13, @10:45AM EST (#52)
(User #31628 Info)
Clean fuel? Hydrogen from petrol you call clean?? Bwahahahah. Most moden cars are already so damn "clean" the burning hydrogen isnt gong to matter much. If you want clean, go to hydrogen generated from nuclear, wind, water, solar, tides, or methane/bio/alcohol, but dont even pretend that anything involving gasolene of fossil fuels is clean these days. I saw an ad for "D.C. METRO(subway) Powered by newer clean coal power" I laughed outloud. If you want to save the enviornmet, push for nuclear, and I dont wanna hear about waste, thats what empty oil wells are for.
Ok, the cats dead, for sure. I looked in the box, and found out that Dr. Schrodenger had killed it with a hammer.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
    by Kool Moe (koolmoe@crosswinds.net) on Wednesday June 13, @10:56AM EST (#72)
    (User #43724 Info)
    and I dont wanna hear about waste, thats what empty oil wells are for.

    Well, sorry, but you have to hear about it. I'm a rather environmentally-conscious fellow. Sierra Club and their ilk get my full support...most of the time.
    However, I think nuclear energy is certainly a great solution for most power needs. BUT UNTIL we figure out a way to either recycle or safely dispose of nuclear waste, it's simply not a good alternative.
    'empty oil wells' my patootie. What do you put nuclear waste IN? Just dump it in wells? You're just asking for radiated groundwater. Seal it in lead barrels, then dump it? Great, now we drink leaded water until the radioactive material seeps through.
    Nuclear will be great, once we solve the waste problem...sorry you don't wanna hear that...
    KM
    Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
      by chinakow on Wednesday June 13, @11:24AM EST (#113)
      (User #83588 Info)
      I may be wrong her e but , wasn't all that nuclear material radioactive before we stuck it in a reactor ? wouldn't that seem to mean that we could just but it back when we are done with it? or does the proccess of using the material to make electriucity make the stuff more radio active?


      Jon
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
        by angelo (anrkngl@lowmagnet.org) on Wednesday June 13, @11:50AM EST (#156)
        (User #21182 Info) http://www.lowmagnet.org/
        Like Petrol, nuclear fuel must be refined from something else.
        Lowmagnet.org
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
        by No One (alive28@my-deja.com) on Wednesday June 13, @11:56AM EST (#163)
        (User #142157 Info)
        That's right. Uranium ore is radioactive, but it's not especially dangerous. You don't even really need protective gear to handle the fuel before it goes into the reactor, unless it's your job and you're doing it regularly

        Afterward, however, the spent fuel contains isotopes much more radioactive than U-235/238, as well as transuranic elements, making it about the most lethal stuff around.

        --

        There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
      by nekid_singularity (naked_singularity@MS-owned-free-web-based-email-se) on Wednesday June 13, @11:41AM EST (#138)
      (User #196486 Info)
      A recycling technology for nuclear waste already exists, its called reprocessing. Only thing is that it was outlawed by I think Carter because it produces weapons grade plutonium. IMHO I think this was incredibly stupid. Also, there is a nifty way of processing nuke wast for storage. It's called vitrification, and produces these glassy disks. Also, the government is looking at a permanent storage facility at Yucatan Mountian(?) in New Mexico because it is the most seismecaly stable places in the country.
      Click here and make a spammer spend some money
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        No, 'scuse ME! (Score:2)
        by Spamalamadingdong on Wednesday June 13, @01:00PM EST (#250)
        (User #323207 Info)
        A recycling technology for nuclear waste already exists, its called reprocessing. Only thing is that it was outlawed ... because it produces weapons grade plutonium.
        Except it doesn't; weapons-grade plutonium is specially made (from uranium irradiated for very short periods, then reprocessed) to be low in the higher isotopes of plutonium (Pu-240 and Pu-241).  Nobody's ever made a bomb from plutonium anything like the mix that comes out of today's pressurized-water reactors; the closest anyone ever came was a bomb made from Pu from a British "Magnox" reactor, at a fraction of the "burnup" used today... and it wasn't a notable success IIRC.  Making a bomb out of material from a power reactor would require isotope separation facilities to remove the contaminant isotopes, and if you have that you might as well make your bomb from uranium instead.
        --
        It's amazing how many more replies a response gets when it's posted at +2 instead of +1.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Scuse me? (Score:2)
        by ncc74656 (salfter@salfter.NdOySnPdAnMs.org) on Wednesday June 13, @06:40PM EST (#380)
        (User #45571 Info) http://salfter.dyndns.org
        Also, the government is looking at a permanent storage facility at Yucatan Mountian(?) in New Mexico because it is the most seismecaly stable places in the country.

        It's Yucca Mountain, and it's in Nevada. It's the "third rail" in this state, as anybody who announces he's in favor of the dump might as well kiss his political future goodbye. The states that produce nuclear waste (Nevada isn't one of them) don't want a dump in their backyards, so the Democrat majority in Congress pushed a bill through in 1987 that says only Yucca Mountain is to be considered as a dump site.

        Breeder reactors and waste reprocessing would be the smarter approach as they'd greatly reduce the amount of waste that eventually gets thrown out, but (as someone already noted) you can thank another Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for putting the kibosh on that idea.

        Gore lost. Bush won. Get over it.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Scuse me? (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @09:10PM EST (#396)
          Liar! Everyone knows that the Dems would never do something underhanded like that! It was Dubya's fault, just like everything else that's wrong in the world today.

          Quit slandering Jimmy Carter with your rich, white lies! He was a true homie, black as black and straigh up from the 'hood.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:4, Informative)
      by Spamalamadingdong on Wednesday June 13, @12:53PM EST (#239)
      (User #323207 Info)
      However, I think nuclear energy is certainly a great solution for most power needs. BUT UNTIL we figure out a way to either recycle or safely dispose of nuclear waste, it's simply not a good alternative.
      That's the stock anti-nuke line:  say it would be great if we could just do X, but we can't do X (while blocking efforts to find ways to do X and ignoring known ways of doing X while propagandizing that X is impossible to do).  This tactic has taken in lots of unsuspecting people, including yourself from the looks of it.
      What do you put nuclear waste IN?
      The first issue is how you define "waste".  If you are talking about the raw fuel as it comes out of the reactor, cladding and all, you're defining it much too broadly (you're throwing away over 90% of the energy inherent in the original uranium).  If you are talking about the fission products, it's a much simpler issue.

      Fission products have an inherent environmental advantage over most other poisons.  The mercury from the coal plant, the lead in old house paint, the arsenic in your well water... these things are toxic forever.  Fission products decay away!  Even icky nasty plutonium decays back to uranium with a maximum half-life of less than 25,000 years; if you can put it someplace where it can't leak out for a million years, 40 half lives will have passed and only a trillionth will remain.

      There are a few fission products that last millions of years, like technetium-99.  The anti-nukes raise this like a banner, but they don't tell you these two important things:

      1. An element with a half-life of a million years is 100,000 times less radioactive than one with a half-life of ten years.  In other words, it takes a whole lot of technetium to be dangerous.
      2. It's easy to stop technetium from migrating in groundwater.  It's less chemically active than iron, so all you have to do is plant your waste deposit in the middle of a bunch of scrap iron or steel.  The technetium plates out on the steel and iron ions go into the seeping water instead.  (This is how dissolved copper is recovered from the water trickled through piles of ore; the mining companies buy the steel cans from your recycling bin and run the copper-sulfate mixture through them, let the iron-sulfate run off and smelt the remains for the copper.)
      Seal it in lead barrels, then dump it? Great, now we drink leaded water until the radioactive material seeps through.
      Convert the metal radwaste ions to salts, absorb the salts in zeolites, press the zeolite powder under heat to form it into solid billets (inside stainless-steel cans), stick the cans in concrete bunkers above ground until the fast-decaying isotopes have bled off most of their energy and the heat output has mostly disappeared, then dump them in the mine shafts under Yucca Mountain with a few feet of iron filings as a buffer against groundwater seepage (the iron will be there for much longer than the technetium; there's still native iron on Earth from before the rise of oxygen-producing plants).  That's a lot more secure and responsible than anyone has ever been with the nasty crap from coal ash.
      --
      It's amazing how many more replies a response gets when it's posted at +2 instead of +1.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Problem with Yucca mtn is the transport, stupid! (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @01:12PM EST (#258)
        How do you get the waste to Yucca? Rail? Interstate system? That means radioactive waste in every city and rolling by every schoolyard in the US. One accident and it's all over the highway, seeping into the ground, or on fire and going into the air.

        Keep it where it's produced. Yucca also has seismic issues making waste storage for 25000 years unsuitable.

        I know. I live in Nevada.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Problem with Yucca mtn is the transport, stupid (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @01:28PM EST (#276)
          I don't think he responds to ACs. I suggest you log in and ask again.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Everything you know is wrong (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @02:08PM EST (#299)
          How do you get the waste to Yucca? Rail? Interstate system?

          Sure, why not?

          That means radioactive waste in every city and rolling by every schoolyard in the US.

          Is that so? I didn't realize that every city and schoolyard in the US was sited on a rail line or Interstate. Someone must have missed all the ones I went to, they were all quite some distance away even from the closest ones.

          One accident and it's all over the highway, seeping into the ground

          Even through those huge lead, concrete and steel casks that are designed to transport the stuff? Really? That'll be a huge surprise to the people who did the impact testing and flame-resistance testing. I'm so glad you know so much more than they do, now they can retire.

          , or on fire and going into the air.

          On fire, you say? How's that monster cask going to burn?

          Keep it where it's produced. Yucca also has seismic issues making waste storage for 25000 years unsuitable.

          And the places where it's produced are more suitable for storing it than Yucca Mountain? Why? Because an Anonymous Coward says so? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          I know. I live in Nevada.

          See the subject line. You're nothing but a NIMBY.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:2)
        by HiThere (I.am..charleshixson@earthling.net) on Wednesday June 13, @03:42PM EST (#339)
        (User #15173 Info)
        OK. Not my favorite answer, though.

        I like the one where you vitirfy the high level waste and use it as a heat source for a few years. When it gets cool enough to not be worth bothering with, you encapsulate it in parafin (or tar or asphalt or ...) and stick it down a hole somewhere. Hardly matters just where...you've already used up most of the high-level radiation waste, so what you're doing is basically safety-first stuff, and wax over a vitrified hunk of stuff it pretty safe anyway. The was keep the water out and traps the radiation. You could probably use it for building insulation (OK, that's a bit of hyperbole, I think), but just to be safe, bury it in a pit. Preferably where nobody is going to be digging without being warned. But if everything collapses, Ug mark II won't be hurt anyway. Or at least only him personally. (I envision the size of the vitrified chunks as about the size of a large glass brick. And similar composition [you mix in a bunch of melted sand during the vitrification process]).

        Now I'll be the first to admit that there may be some problems with this solution, but I don't know what they are. OTOH, I didn't invent it. I just heard of it and thought it sounded good.

        Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
        Don't let THEM imminetize the eschaton.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:2)
          by Spamalamadingdong on Wednesday June 13, @04:07PM EST (#348)
          (User #323207 Info)
          You might want to ask a nuclear scientist what the remnant radioactivity is likely to do to the wax, and a geologist about how likely the wax is to stay around your stuff.  If the wax is decomposed into gases and coke by radiolytic cracking, or if it melts from the heat and floats away upward, or migrates into pores in the rock, it doesn't do you much good.

          I know, I'm a wet blanket.
          --
          It's amazing how many more replies a response gets when it's posted at +2 instead of +1.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @03:55PM EST (#344)
        Notice that's the stock anti-solar line, too, as well as the stock anything-but-fossil-and-nuclear line: say it would be great if we could just do X, but we can't do X (while blocking efforts to find ways to do X and ignoring known ways of doing X while propagandizing that X is impossible to do).

        Whooo, I've seen those tactics used a LOT around these parts.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:2)
        by rkent (rkent(at)acm.org) on Wednesday June 13, @05:15PM EST (#363)
        (User #73434 Info) http://max.cs.kzoo.edu/~rkent/
        Fission products have an inherent environmental advantage over most other poisons. The mercury from the coal plant, the lead in old house paint, the arsenic in your well water... these things are toxic forever. Fission products decay away!

        Yeah, except that neither coal, house paint, or well water produce additional toxins: they just shuffle around the stuff that's already there. Fission reactions, however, produce these hideous poisons not found in nature (on earth anyway) basically out of thin air.

        And sure 50K years is not long by geological standards, but it could sure bung up our civilization, and the next 10 civilizations after ours. Here's hoping we can find a way to warn them about it...

        ---
        Trying to find the orphanage.

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:2)
          by Spamalamadingdong on Thursday June 14, @10:50AM EST (#435)
          (User #323207 Info)
          Yeah, except that neither coal, house paint, or well water produce additional toxins...
          All of the energy released by the fission products of uranium (and plutonium) was already there in the uranium atom; nothing was created there either.
          they just shuffle around the stuff that's already there.
          Like the conversion of cinnabar into methyl mercury "just shuffles around the stuff that's already there".  Never mind that it's thousands or millions of times as toxic.  Pulling down the water table admits air into rock formations which were formerly anoxic, oxidizing arsenic into soluble forms and making whole aquifers undrinkable.  That's also "just shuffling around the stuff that's already there".  The issue is the damage it can do and how it can be limited.  For nuclear, the minuscule volume of the waste and its time-limited toxicity means that it can be guaranteed not to do more than X amount of harm if isolated in a suitable fashion.  You can't do that for stable chemical elements like mercury and arsenic.
          Fission reactions, however, produce these hideous poisons not found in nature (on earth anyway) basically out of thin air.
          It doesn't come "out of thin air", it comes from a ubiquitous naturally-occurring element.  Ask anyone who's spent a pile of money to vent radon out of their basement!
          And sure 50K years is not long by geological standards, but it could sure bung up our civilization, and the next 10 civilizations after ours.
          Most fission products have half-lives under 30 years.  1000 years is at least 33 half-lives, leaving about one ten-billionth of the original quantity.  The oldest of the great pyramids in Egypt is what, 5000 years old?  That's proof that civilizations - even ones we consider primitive - can build structures sufficiently durable to hold things as long as would be required for nuclear waste disposal.  Putting things in sealed underground passages would be good for probably 100 times as long at a minimum.

          What does this buy us?  It gives us enough energy to run a civilization without altering the climate in untoward ways (which may upset civilization all by itself) and without generating toxic ash heaps too big to effectively isolate from the environment for even a few decades.  My money's on nuclear for a safe future.
          --
          It's amazing how many more replies a response gets when it's posted at +2 instead of +1.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Bung up civilization (Score:0)
          by marx on Sunday June 17, @09:33AM EST (#448)
          (User #113442 Info)

          The thing is, that if you come up with a scenario that bungs up our civilization, that scenario will produce a lot worse stuff than some canisters with radioactive material.

          First you can look at violent scenarios. You can have a nuclear world war. Ok, now your canisters don't look so bad. It's not very probable you'll have a non-nuclear world war. If someone seems likely to win, or refuses to give up the other side will just use nuclear weapons (see WWII).

          The second possibility is that you have a gradual decay, say over a 1000 year period. Let's take a worst case estimate and assume that technological development stagnates quickly. The problem is that the existing artifacts won't go away. So we will have a non-technological society with some old nuclear reactors and missiles. What is the probability these will not be (mis)used in this period? A decaying society is not very likely to have a firm structure, and you'll have crime and anarchy. Care for the earth will not be a high priority. A few canisters will not be anything compared to the potential of such a scenario. The risk is that Mad Max or "the Mariner" will die from radiation poisoning when they make an unfortunate exploration, but compared to flooding the Netherlands or whatever, I think it's a risk we can take.

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:Things Ralph Nader doesn't want you to know (Score:1)
        by Unknown Poltroon (george42@Usspama.net) on Thursday June 14, @05:07PM EST (#442)
        (User #31628 Info)
        Or if the warm nuclear material simply melts its way out of the wax over a year or two. Try using glass or plastic instead.
        Ok, the cats dead, for sure. I looked in the box, and found out that Dr. Schrodenger had killed it with a hammer.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
      by Phil-14 on Wednesday June 13, @01:00PM EST (#249)
      (User #1277 Info)

      We have ways of recycling nuclear waste. The technique is being held up by those who want there to be a nuclear waste problem, so they can have reasons to be against nuclear power. Rather disingenous if you ask me.


      (currently testing something about signatures here)
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Your sig (OT) (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @10:56AM EST (#76)
    It is reasonable to assume that a cat locked in a box would not be happy about his situation and would be doing everything within his power to escape. Any cat owner could tell you that this would create quite a bit of noise. What is the box made of? Surely, one would be able to hear an angry cat through a cardboard or wooden box if the cat were alive. If there were no noise coming from the box, and the walls of the box were thin walled, it would be reasonable to assume the cat to be dead. If the box was thick, and afforded enough insulation to muffle cat noises, it is also reasonable to assume that such a box would also stifle the cat's airflow, and the cat must be dead.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
    by TheCaptain (they_use_freebsd@hotmail.com) on Wednesday June 13, @11:43AM EST (#142)
    (User #17554 Info)
    Actually have you read anything lately about the advances in making coal power burn cleaner? It's not like years ago when any nearby town would be covered in soot....they are actually getting quite advanced. A friend of mine works in the power industry (powerplant design), so I am going on what he has told me...but I'd have to say by the tone of that, that you haven't done much homework on it.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Scuse me? (Score:1)
      by Firethorn (firethorn666@nospam.hotmail.com) on Wednesday June 13, @02:57PM EST (#326)
      (User #177587 Info)
      That simply means that they aren't releasing the soot into the atmosphere anymore. Mercury and such is still produced. When you figure out the relative 'deadlieness' vs. sheer amount, the coal plant will loose every time.

      Sure, Nuclear is 'Very Deadly'
      But only at 2-3 drums a year...
      VS.
      Coal's 'Nasty Stuff' at thousands/millions of tons per year.

      Coal loses...


      Firethorn
      Remove the nospam to email
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:2, Insightful)
by SiliconJesus (sengir at erols dot com) on Wednesday June 13, @10:46AM EST (#54)
(User #1407 Info) http://hellbound.dhs.org
The fact that the Bush administration is backed by "Big Oil" *should* not interfere with the fact that the man still has a job to do. At this time, Oil is the most cost effective naturally obtainable resource available to the US, if ONLY we could get to it.

During the Clinton administratrion, they tried (and thankfully failed) to "restructure" health care so that it was in the hands of government agencies in its entirety. Did he do this out of the goodness of his heart? No - he did it because he was backed by the pharmecudical industry, and they knew it would be easier to scam the US government rather than the individual HMO companies out of millions each year.

Don't get the idea that polital agendas aren't anything else. So what if he wants to drill the oil out of the ANWR? What is it going to do sitting in the ground? Will it solve the Energy Crisis in California? Will it keep gas prices down here in the US. No, it won't. Keeping us from that oil is what keeps us dependant on foreign countries for our energy, at least until I have a neuclear reactor in my car (we have a lock on Uranium and Plutonium).

Also - how much farther hands-off do you want him to get if he doesn't repeal laws that hurt business.


Secret windows code
while (1) { if (num_process > 1) { bluescreen(rand()); } }
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:1)
    by ChannelX on Wednesday June 13, @11:34AM EST (#125)
    (User #89676 Info)
    Keeping us from that oil is what keeps us dependant on foreign countries for our energy, at least until I have a neuclear reactor in my car (we have a lock on Uranium and Plutonium).
    Thing is that drilling there isn't going to solve our dependency on foreign oil. We will always be dependent on foreign oil now. We simply use too much and dont have the resources in this country anymore. My choice is to keep ANWR as it is and not worry about the small percent difference it would most likely make (if any) on our foreign oil dependence.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:2)
    by Rogerborg (slashdot at colinmacdonald dot org) on Wednesday June 13, @11:38AM EST (#134)
    (User #306625 Info) http://colinmacdonald.org
      So what if he wants to drill the oil out of the ANWR? What is it going to do sitting in the ground?

    Ice ages are regular events. There's another one coming RSN in geological terms. Sure, maybe it won't be for thousands of years. But maybe it will be this year. (cue scoffing laugher)

    We'll get through it; we're tricksy beasts. But we're talking a massive dieback, resource and land wars, a collapse of anything like a global economy.

    When the glaciers recede (or when the asteroid impact or supervolcano crud clouds dissipate), what resources are our descendents going to use to recolonise of the planet?

    I'd like us to leave some stuff for them. If not them, won't someone please think of the rats? ;)


    "Enough techno babble, gadget girl. Will it work or not?" - Farscape, the best known antidote to Voyager.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:1)
    by kevin lyda (kevin@suberic.net) on Wednesday June 13, @11:43AM EST (#143)
    (User #4803 Info) http://suberic.net/~kevin
    uh, no. the pharmacutical companies hated clinton - in part because of his health care plan. lawyers, insurance companies and a host of other groups hated his program. why? they'd lose money.

    the question i've always had was: if private industry is so much more efficient, then who was going to be raking in all the money?

    of course now i don't care - i live in a country that has "socialised medicine" (shock! horror!) and all my health care needs are taken care of, and my taxes aren't much higher then when i lived in the states.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:1)
      by mheckaman on Thursday June 14, @05:28AM EST (#426)
      (User #149644 Info)
      of course now i don't care - i live in a country that has "socialised medicine" (shock! horror!) and all my health care needs are taken care of

      Well, I'm glad you don't care. As someone living in Canada who has actual medical issues, this system is horrible. Sure, it's all fine and nice if you go to the doctor once a year and never have any real problems, but when it's all said and done, the rest of us get hurt by this system badly.

      I don't know about you, but I'm tired of waiting 6+ months for a simple MRI and a neurology consult. Fortunately, for the time being, I can opt to pay the money and get the MRI privately (which I do), but the good old federal government is trying to take that away from us too by threatening to kill federal health care funding if the provinces (most notably Quebec and Alberta) allow private clinics to do procedures covered under medicare.

      Now, this is not to say that there are not countries with wonderful socialized systems, there are. From my limited knowledge based on conversations with friends, some of these places actually care about the health of the person and not just the money. Go figure!

      I'm so tired of people hailing the socialized health care system as the holy grail to all our problems. Until the government decides to give it some real funding so people aren't waiting half a year or more for critical tests, and so that the hospitals actually have recent equipment and appropriate staffing, Canada's health care system will remain as horrible as it is now.

      I don't know about you, but I'd rather be forced to pay for medical treatment than having to waste critical time waiting for _BASIC_ tests to be done. In the end, expensive and good treatment is better than free and low quality treatment, if you can even call it treatment.

      Matt

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    I cant believe it.. (Score:2)
    by SubtleNuance on Wednesday June 13, @12:24PM EST (#203)
    (User #184325 Info)
    No - he did it because he was backed by the pharmecudical industry

    Bullshit. BigPharm *WANTS* a for-profit health-care system. Otherwise, how do you convince the American people that they should be making profit while the public co-operates on their Health-care?

    and they knew it would be easier to scam the US government rather than the individual HMO companies out of millions each year.

    Bullshit. Canada regulates prices to BigPharm. The entire country sets a price, everyone buys at this price and it is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than what HMOs and US Citizens pay. BigPharm can make up the difference in marketing/sales bullshit... all unnecessary in for Health Care. (BTW: BigPharm spends 3X (thats 300%) more on Marketing than they do R&D... just in case you wanted to say something about 'supporting research')

    So what if he wants to drill the oil out of the ANWR?

    Pristine, unmolested natural habitat is necessary to support bio-diversity. Humans are animals - we cannot pave and pollute the entire planet and expect to be able to live here ourselves... try running your car in a garage with the door closed.. .while sitting in a kiddie-pool of oil... Id bet you wont feel too well for to long.

    What is it going to do sitting in the ground?

    Whats it going to do above ground? And at what cost? Fuel *another* mCBlOnDaLds McCrappyMeal kid-toy factory? *ANOTHER* pair of Tommy Hillfiger Jeans for your vapid teenage brat? We dont need a greater *SUPPLY*! We need to wake up and start using what we already have *more wisely*! C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N. If Californians stopped watering their lawns in the dessert, you'd probably save more energy (water/processing/transport/etc/etc/etc) than some small countries use every year. Unfortunately American corporate leadership is accelerating in a direction totally opposite.. America, through its lowest-common-denominator-mass-market-consumer-hyp er-consumption "culture" is being directed by self-serving Capitalists who are more interested in building markets and profit than communities and sustainable and healthy futures. Leaders indeed.

    Will it solve the Energy Crisis in California?

    Hello - Earth to confused American. Welcome back to reality. There is *no* energy crisis. What does exist is a powerful Corporate effort to kill the Community-Centered laws and regulations that Californians fought to win for themselves. There is no need to increase supply at the expense of everything else when simple and wise initiatives to conserve will far outstrip any effort to increase supply. Rolling Blackouts? Ha! Try 'corporate muscle flexing extortion'. Do you really believe that was necessary? Do you really believe the Bush-BigMedia-BigOil propaganda? They turned off the power on Californians to extort more money from them - not because they didn’t have enough power available. Privitization and De-Regulation have delivered exactly the opposite of what 'they' (plutocrats) promised: Higher Prices, Low Supply, Poor Service and Degredation of the Commons. Californians should demand their non-profit public utilities be returned to the people who could run them!

    Will it keep gas prices down here in the US. No, it won't. Keeping us from that oil is what keeps us dependant on foreign countries for our energy

    Well, frankly, you dont even understand the crux and contradiction of the problem. You do understand that America purchases its 'energy' in an international market. If some American Company increases supply, you will influence international prices. You will not create a lower price for Americans and magically insulate yourself from the evil rogue nations and terrorists who are trying to starve you of the 'energy' you desire... There will be *no* marked difference in price for Americans vs. Canadians vs. Ozzies vs. Brits vs. Ugandans vs. Columbians vs %your_country_here%. We would rather you start waking up to your rampant

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Conservation is a MUST. (Score:1)
      by gwyrdd benyw (gwyrdd(at)froods(dot)org) on Wednesday June 13, @05:56PM EST (#371)
      (User #233417 Info)
      There is no need to increase supply at the expense of everything else when simple and wise initiatives to conserve will far outstrip any effort to increase supply.

      I agree completely. In fact, nothing *but* usage-side conservation will work.

      Why? Let's say we have a 100-year supply of oil left, that is, the oil would last 100 years if it were consumed at its current rate. But the oil is consumed at a rate that grows by 5 percent each year. How long would it last under these circumstances? This is an easy calculation; the answer is a paltry 36 years.

      Oh, but let's say we underestimated the supply, and we actually have a 1,000-year supply. At the same annual 5 percent growth rate in use, how long will this last? The answer is about 79 years.

      Then let us say we make a striking discovery of more oil yet a bonanza and we now have a 10,000-year supply. At our same rate of growing use, how long would it last? Answer: 127 years.

      Estimates vary for how long currently known oil reserves will last, though they are usually considerably less than 100 years. But the point of this analysis is that it really doesn't matter what the estimates are. There is no way that a supply-side attack on America's energy problem can work. The exponential function describes the behavior of any quantity whose rate of change is proportional to its size. Compound interest is the most commonly encountered example it would produce exponential growth if the interest were calculated at a continuing rate. I have heard public statements that use "exponential" as though it describes a large or sudden increase. But exponential growth does not have to be large, and it is never sudden. Rather, it is inexorable.

      Calculations also show that if consumption of an energy resource is allowed to grow at a steady 5 percent annual rate, a full doubling of the available supply will not be as effective as reducing that growth rate by half to 2.5 percent. Doubling the size of the oil reserve will add at most 14 years to the life expectancy of the resource if we continue to use it at the currently increasing rate, no matter how large it is currently. On the other hand, halving the growth of consumption will almost double the life expectancy of the supply, no matter what it is.

      This mathematical reality seems to have escaped the politicians pushing to solve our energy problem by simply increasing supply. Building more power plants and drilling for more oil is exactly the wrong thing to do, because it will encourage more use. If we want to avoid dire consequences, we need to find the political will to reduce the growth in energy consumption to zero or even begin to consume less.

      I must emphasize that reducing the growth rate is not what most people are talking about now when they advocate conservation; the steps they recommend are just Band-Aids. If we increase the gas mileage of our automobiles and then drive more miles, for example, that will not reduce the growth rate. Reducing the growth of consumption means living closer to where we work or play. It means telecommuting. It means controlling population growth. It means shifting to renewable energy sources.

      And nothing, nothing, else will be sufficient.

      Blessed be the prime numbered slashdotters

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Offtopic - you've been warned (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Wednesday June 13, @12:37PM EST (#220)
    (User #49548 Info)
    "So what if he wants to drill the oil out of the ANWR? What is it going to do sitting in the ground? Will it solve the Energy Crisis in California? Will it keep gas prices down here in the US. No, it won't."

    Because, you know, the environment is obviously something we should exploit for immediate gratuitous desires (hey, mother earth's next door, I think we should go rape her - we'll just explain that we "didn't really want to pay money for a hooker" and she'll understand). Hell, we could get a whole 130 DAYS out ANWAR. Let's just disregard that the problem is not with oil supply, but with *refining* capacity. But we wouldn't want to build more refineries, that would bring down the profit margin!

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're unamerican?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    USA needs more refineries, not raw oil... (Score:1)
    by Artemis3 on Wednesday June 13, @12:48PM EST (#231)
    (User #85734 Info) http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6905/
    Perhaps you know it, probably you dont. But one of the real problems USA has regarding fuel is, the ever shrinking refinery capacity. It has gotten to the point, where USA can't satisfy anymore the 100% of its own internal demand of procesed fuels, and its only getting worse. Apparently, is not that atractive business to run refineries, so one after another, they have been closing; without any replacements put back in place. Furthermore, the current ones in operation are already at max capacity; and this wont help USA citizens to get good prices on anything but crude oil. Sure, you can burn crude oil and produce energy; but its not very efficient and pollutes a lot more. Think about it.

    GAS prices comes mostly from three factors: The oil, the transport, and the taxes. In USA, about 40% of the price comes from the transport (oil from middle east, remember?) and about 40% goes for taxes. In European countries, citizens pay much more in taxes (up to 80% in UK!) than transport. And the oil itself, usually accounts to about only 20% of the total price. There is not much gain in the refinement; which is the reason why US refineries have been decreasing.

    What can you do with more crude oil? For most people, you have to transform it in a more energy efficient form of fuel, such as gasoline, or diesel or whatever; and the USA have an extra issue, which is its reduced refinement capacity; they have to depend in other countries for a small (but growing) percentage of the refinement (so, more transport, taxes, etc).

    Yes it is a dormant crisis, but perhaps some are seeing it approach. The research of alternate fuels can never be bad, and, a true fact is: The United States of America; having less than 8% of the world population, is at least responsible of 25% of the pollution of the whole planet. No point arguing about it, climate changes are already in process, and its only getting worse... For all.

    --
    "Tsukini kawatte... Oshiokiyo!" Bishoujo Senshi Sailormoon, 1992.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1, Troll)
by rho (rho@netdoor.com) on Wednesday June 13, @10:47AM EST (#56)
(User #6063 Info) http://www.splatdotsplat.net/

I'm getting pretty tired of the "big oil conspiracy" nuts. There's a whole lot to get mad at GW about, but allowing companies to drill for oil is not one of them.

I like the fuel cell technology and think it has a future -- however, it's not widespread enough technology to base our future on (yet). In the meantime, we have millions of cars and boats and trucks that need fossil fuels to operate. The Great Engine of Capitalism requires oil, and we have to come up with it somewhere. We can either look for it on our own lands (vis, the Arctic Refuge) or we get it from sombody else (primarily the OPEC nations, most of which are not exactly buddy-buddies with the USA due to our involvement with Israel)

Until such time we can run our cars and trucks and heat our homes with something other than oil (both in a technical sense and an economic sense -- if it's cheaper to use gas than a fuel cell, you won't have a lot of people switch to fuel cells), we have to have a supply of oil.

If you're so all-fired up about saving the planet from the its destruction by the Evil Oil Companies (the dividends of whose stock is probably keeping your (or somebody else's) grandmother from eating Meow Mix), go to school, get a chemical/mechanical/electrical engineering degree and develop a better solution that's cheaper and safer. Hurling deprecations from the peanut gallery doesn't impress me one bit.

  *.*

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
    by revscat (revscat@ughnolikeyspam.swbell.net) on Wednesday June 13, @11:36AM EST (#130)
    (User #35618 Info) http://home.swbell.net/revscat

    If you're so all-fired up about saving the planet from the its destruction by the Evil Oil Companies (the dividends of whose stock is probably keeping your (or somebody else's) grandmother from eating Meow Mix), go to school, get a chemical/mechanical/electrical engineering degree and develop a better solution that's cheaper and safer. Hurling deprecations from the peanut gallery doesn't impress me one bit.

    Are you completely fucking stupid? Let me see if we can get to the bottom of this: if someone has a problem with policy X, they should go get training in X and fix the problem themselves. So if I have a problem with, say, the AIDS epidemic, then the only way to "impress" you is to go to medical school and train myself, right?

    Hmm. What if I'm a Sudanese orphan who has been conscripted at the age of 11 into the military? Do I have that option then? If I were to complain about the AIDS epidemic, would your ear be deaf?

    Let's take another example: For the sake of argument, let's take global warming as a fact. Now, I live in a coastal area that is beginning to be affected by melting ice shelfs. (Again, this is for the sake of argument.) I'm a 49 year old farmer, and the encroaching sea is damaging my ability to make my livelihood. Dykes, windmills, and other such instruments are becoming less and less effective. According to you, I should go out and invent a better fuel technology, correct? Me, an aging farmer, should go back to school, get a degree in whatever, and just fix the problem myself, correct?

    Or let's just take an example from the typical /.ers life: I just got done working on this really nifty program and released it under the license Y. Three months down the road, I find out that Pokersoft has snatched my wares and put them into their proprietary for-cost software, in the process violating some term of the license. According to your brilliant system, instead of hiring a lawyer, I should go to law school myself, right? No good bitching about it if I can't fix it myself, after all!

    Moronic. Absolutely moronic. Fact of life, dumbass: Not everyone can solve their own problems. That's the "sevices" part of "goods & services." Sometimes it takes others to do it, whether out of goodwill or a profit motive. And sometimes the marketplace fucks people over, requiring government to step in and nudge things in the right direction.

    Christ. Go back to the Freeper that spawned you.

    - Rev.
    "When I die I would like to be born again as me." -- Hugh Hefner, speaking at Oxford.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2)
      by rho (rho@netdoor.com) on Wednesday June 13, @12:25PM EST (#204)
      (User #6063 Info) http://www.splatdotsplat.net/
      Are you completely fucking stupid? Let me see if we can get to the bottom of this: if someone has a problem with policy X, they should go get training in X and fix the problem themselves. So if I have a problem with, say, the AIDS epidemic, then the only way to "impress" you is to go to medical school and train myself, right?

      As opposed to waving your arms and jumping up and down (or posting dysfunctional ravings on a techie bulletin board)? In a word, yes.

      But your examples are flawed -- it's not a policy or a disease or a license: it's a component (or a catalyst, if you prefer). Oil is not something people want (in particular) -- it's something that enables us to do what we want. If you don't like that component, come up with a better one, don't whine and complain about how you don't like the current one.

      Put in terms of computers, it's like a library. You don't like the current X libraries, because they're bloated. Okay, don't whine and bitch about it, go fix the code or write new ones. Don't know how? Go learn. Don't want to learn? Then accept the fact that there are people (like me) who aren't interested in listening to your infantile whining. Serious, constructive criticism is always welcome -- blind, hand-waving lunatic raving isn't.

        *.*

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @02:04PM EST (#295)
        You are just really fucking stupid. See, about 10,000 years ago, people started to specialize. This means that I can drive a car without knowing how to build a car from raw steel. Also, combined with our form of government, it means I can do certain things(become a legislator, start a NGO, etc.) to try to convince our government to do things I think it should do. Such as fund alternative fuel tech.

        What this all means is that even though I don't know enough to come up with an alternative form of energy, I can work through the government to fund people who do, or people who already have one and need some help. And this is exactly what people are doing. So too fucking bad for you.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
          by rho (rho@netdoor.com) on Wednesday June 13, @03:48PM EST (#342)
          (User #6063 Info) http://www.splatdotsplat.net/
          I can do certain things (become a legislator, start a NGO, etc.) to try to convince our government to do things I think it should do. ... What this all means is that even though I don't know enough to come up with an alternative form of energy, I can work through the government to fund people who do, or people who already have one and need some help. And this is exactly what people are doing. So too fucking bad for you.

          Great... Because you use the Government to fund the things that you particularly like (and thus increasing the Government's powers), other people can use the powerful Government to pass things like the DMCA, and then we have to listen to you bitch and moan about that as well.

          If you can work through the Government to get your pet projects accomplished, then oil lobbyists can get their pet projects accomplished. So who's fucking stupid?

            *.*

          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:04PM EST (#173)
    Arghh... that was supposed to mod as "insightful", not "off topic". Stupid scroll button... my apologies. Good post.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 14, @06:26PM EST (#443)
    Funny how anything that doesn't declare straight off that Bush and the republical party is evil, or that a big company is evil, is marked troll. Gotta love the Slashdot mindframe Open Source has nothing to do with open minds.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @10:47AM EST (#57)
For Bush, it's "do or die" .. if he doesn't get ANWR full of oil derricks by 2003 he will be a one-term President.

More likely, if he doesn't learn to "speek all gramertical like" in any f'in language, he'll be a one term president. For pete's sake, couldn't we have just sent some grade school children to Europe to discuss foreign policy? Chances are they would have done a far better job at keeping us from looking like a nation of idiot yokels with "big guns and stuff".

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2, Informative)
by SirTreveyan on Wednesday June 13, @11:21AM EST (#112)
(User #9270 Info)
You sound like a typical democrat. You spout lots of "emotional rhetoric" but give no facts to back up your feeble claims.

The following is a quote from a well established nationally recognized synicated talkshow host.

"The Democrats and anti-capitalist environmentalist weirdoes who never have and never will visit the ANWR will continue to protest; the people who actually DO live in the ANWR will continue to lobby FOR the drilling, and the leftist media will continue to distort the facts.

Just remember: The amount of the ANWR on which you would actually see any human presence – including drilling and production equipment – would equal about one child’s footprint on a 120 x 120 foot piece of real estate. Another example … it would equal about one-half of a square inch in the corner of a 9 x 12 foot rug.

Sounds like it would be a real disaster for the ANWR, doesn’t it?" -- NEAL BOORTZ

If you really want to see some numbers, see his May 1 web page at http://www.boortz.com/may1.htm

In the light of reason it sure DOES NOT sound like the ANWR is getting the "fuck" drilled out of it. And dont forget...the locals want the jobs taht come with the drilling...but that doesnt matter much to you as long as you get you way. QUIT TELLING OTHERS WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM...LET THEM DECIDE.

It seems you have forgotten the lesson of California. Stifle expansion of current and future energy sources...voila...rolling blackouts...and hot tempers. If you want to live like our ancestors 100-150 years ago did...be my guest...but dont do anything to force me to live the same way.

But I wonder about you...falling hook, line and sinker for the Democratic Party's watermelon adgenda...socialist/communist idealogy thinly veiled with a veneer of environmentalism.


[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Mod this up! (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @11:48AM EST (#150)
    I don't have any mod points left.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    What are you .. 8 years old?? (Score:3, Troll)
    by Martini Man on Wednesday June 13, @11:48AM EST (#151)
    (User #265244 Info)
    The following is a quote from a well established nationally recognized synicated talkshow host.

    ROFLMAO! Neal Boortz?

    For people who may be unfamiliar with this "man", he is the author of a "book" called The Terrible Truth About Liberals, wherein he accuses anybody who is left of far-right of wanting to confiscate all private property and kill children. Talk about perfecting the straw man argument. For you to suggest that Neal Boortz is an objective source of information and that he is well-versed in matters related to exploratory drilling is ludicrous; it is childish and borderline hateful. It hints at the mentality of an 8 year-old.

    The drilling of ANWR will not involve just a single, tiny well in a secluded location. It will involve scores of them scattered throughout the region. It will require the absolute decimation of the landscape. The oil corporations will have to maintain large "kill fires" where the bodies of caribou and bears can be disposed of before they are photographed by the media. In short, it will turn one of America's most cherished national treasures into something out of a Mad Max movie; a post-apocalyptic wasteland that is a mere shadow of its former self. And for what? ANWR doesn't even contain enough oil to run all of the vehicles in the United States for a single day. But we'd better get drilling right away!

    I do get a kick out of you accusing me of "falling hook, line, and sinker" for an "agenda" right after you get done quoting a Neal Boortz propaganda piece verbatim. Pot, kettle, black. At least my agenda doesn't involve the rape and pillage of the natural world, and it doesn't involve blaming environmentalists for a California problem that was caused by a right-wing deregulation fiasco of unimaginable proportions.

    At any rate, this is all academic now, anyway. Now that we've got a Democratic Senate, drilling in ANWR is dead. It is dead. It's not gonna happen. You oil-worshippers will have to get your fix by putting poisoned water dishes in your backyards and videotaping squirrels in their death throes. The tragic thing is that the movement to preserve the environment used to be a Republican thing (conservationism; an attempt to preserve God's creation.) In recent years, their attitude has changed to "plunder God's creation so we can make as much money as possible." They may not realize the ultimate irony until it is too late.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      We'll have the Senate back this year (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:09PM EST (#179)
      After Torricelli gets indicted and has to resign.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      You are a bozo. (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:14PM EST (#188)
      It will require the absolute decimation of the landscape.

      BWAHAHAHAHA!

      Your ignorance is breathtaking.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:1)
      by The Fat Controller on Wednesday June 13, @12:22PM EST (#201)
      (User #325029 Info)
      The tragic thing is that the movement to preserve the environment used to be a Republican thing (conservationism; an attempt to preserve God's creation.) In recent years, their attitude has changed to "plunder God's creation so we can make as much money as possible." They may not realize the ultimate irony until it is too late.

      So Republicans are going to Hell for not being greenies? ROFLMAO, you are either an idiotic troll or a COMPLETE nut.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:1)
        by Martini Man on Wednesday June 13, @12:27PM EST (#206)
        (User #265244 Info)
        The Bible says that "the love of money is the root of all evil." The Republicans in recent years have demonstrated that they love nothing but money. You do the math. At any rate, they definitely put money at the top of their list.

        You wouldn't want to spend eternity with Bob Barr or Tom DeLay anyway.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:0)
          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @09:20PM EST (#398)
          Its amazing how naive you are. Most global companies gave equally to both the Republicans and the Dems.

          Microsoft, /.'s favorite villian gave 4 million to both Al Gore and Dubya.

          Think about it from a business perspective. Campaign contributions are small change for a multinational. Why risk paying off the wrong politician when its so cheap to just pay them both off?

          It shocks me that some people can't see through the incredibly thin veil the democrats put up around how easily they're bought and sold. At least the GOP is ethical enough to do it more or less in the open.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:1)
        by _xeno_ on Wednesday June 13, @12:35PM EST (#219)
        (User #155264 Info)
        Well we can see Post #16: Bush is going to rape the Artic wilderness!
        Then we move to Post #151: Bush can't possibly rape the Artic wilderness.

        So, yeah, based on his incredible consistancy, I'd say troll is more than likely. Of course, it's also possible that he's a complete nut and can't remember to check his stance on anything before posting.

        Besides, I've yet to hear one good argument against drilling in ANWR or whatever. Other than "but it's wilderness!"

        --
        Sig Removed Due To Utter Lameness

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:2)
          by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @01:05PM EST (#254)
          (User #6130 Info)
          Besides, I've yet to hear one good argument against drilling in ANWR or whatever. Other than "but it's wilderness!"

          And if that argument isn't good enough for you, or the majority of the people... welp, we're fucked. Been a nice few million years. The dinosaurs are laughing.
          --Chris Burke. Think free speech; drink free beer.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
            Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:1)
            by _xeno_ on Wednesday June 13, @02:00PM EST (#294)
            (User #155264 Info)
            Why should that argument be good enough for me? Come on, if all you can say to prevent drilling is that "well, we haven't drilled there before" than you need a reality check.

            Guess what - your house used to be on wilderness. Guess it's time to wreck the cities and let the wilderness come back... tear up the highways, forget about any progress, because, after all, they're PREVENTING WILDERNESS.

            Please. Either demonstrate that drilling in Alaska will cause irreperable harm using actual facts or just shut up. I don't wanna hear "we have to conserve because we must." There's no reason in there. It's just "well, we haven't drilled there yet, so obviously it would be destroyed if we did so now." Not a good reason. At all.

            --
            Sig Removed Due To Utter Lameness

            [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:2)
              by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @03:03PM EST (#327)
              (User #6130 Info)
              Why should that argument be good enough for me?

              Because we've destroyed so much wilderness already, that we endanger ourselves by wantonly destroying more. It's time to start to slow down our pace, and I think a damned good start is not drilling in a wildlife refuge.

              Guess what - your house used to be on wilderness. Guess it's time to wreck the cities and let the wilderness come back...

              Right. And by putting those words in my mouth, you make me sound like a loon. But you're the one not happy with how much we've already destroyed. Yes, they cut down trees to make my home. Why must we cut down _more_, for no demonstrable benefit?

              Do you really think that the "well, we destroyed to get where we are, so more must be ok" argument is going to last us to the end?

              Do you really think that piddling amount of oil will make your gas cheaper? Will it truly let us continue consuming at our current rate even a tiny bit longer? Make us less dependent on foreign oil? Please.

              I ask you: Why should we drill in a national refuge? You're answer seems to be "why not?"

              Either demonstrate that drilling in Alaska will cause irreperable harm using actual facts or just shut up.

              Ever seen an oil drilling operation? That is my demonstration.

              But see, I think we see this in different lights. I think that prior to being able to drill for oil in a wildlife refuge, where the caribou of an aboriginal people give birth, you should have to demonstrate that it will not have any lasting harm.
              --Chris Burke. Think free speech; drink free beer.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @07:27PM EST (#385)
              Why must we cut down _more_, for no demonstrable benefit?

              Because our population is increasing.

              Less and less from birth rate, and more and more from immigration.

              That's OK with me; how about you? Would you cut off immigration?

              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
              Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:0)
              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @09:23PM EST (#399)
              Right. And by putting those words in my mouth, you make me sound like a loon. But you're the one not happy with how much we've already destroyed. Yes, they cut down trees to make my home. Why must we cut down _more_, for no demonstrable benefit?

              You mean "no demonstrable benefit TO YOU." Before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, please think about exactly how bulldozing trees for your house is any different than bulldozing some trees to power your car?

              The subdivision or neighborhood you live in resulting in far more trees being cut down than drilling for oil does. But hey, you got a house out of that one.
              [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:So Republicans are going to hell? (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @09:05PM EST (#395)
        "So Republicans are going to Hell "

        Actually, yes ;->.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:What are you .. 8 years old?? (Score:2)
      by bnenning on Wednesday June 13, @12:44PM EST (#229)
      (User #58349 Info) http://home.houston.rr.com/wobrian
      The drilling of ANWR will not involve just a single, tiny well in a secluded location. It will involve scores of them scattered throughout the region.

      Sources, please. The Greenpeace flyer doesn't count.

      and it doesn't involve blaming environmentalists for a California problem that was caused by a right-wing deregulation fiasco of unimaginable proportions.

      "Deregulation" never happened in California. Price controls and massive bureaucratic obstacles to producing and selling power happened.

      Now that you've established that you are a morally superior individual to those of use who want to rape the earth and kick puppies, what exactly do you propose to do about the problem that our civilization requires large amounts of energy? Conservation is fine and well, but as CA demonstrates that by itself is not sufficient. And I'm guessing you're not a huge fan of nuclear power either, so what's the answer?

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:What are you .. 8 years old?? (Score:2)
        by Brand X (yospe at kanga nu) on Wednesday June 13, @04:51PM EST (#355)
        (User #162556 Info)
        "Deregulation" never happened in California. Price controls and massive bureaucratic obstacles to producing and selling power happened.

        >sputter I'd like to know what you define legislative mandates (under the last Republican Gov, but delayed as a time bomb that that ineffectual loser Davis couldn't even see until it had not only exploded under him, but proceeded to shower the atmosphere with sun-killing radioactive dust - sorry, got lost in the metaphor) to force state power utilities to sell plants off to *unsupervised* companies eager to underbid on them and then overcharge for selling back power *generated by plants originally built by the state* but now owned by companies *including one of the biggest private funders of the Bush/Cheyney campaign* and under investigation for suspected collusion and conspiracy to artificially inflate shortages to increase profits.
        -- Still waiting for the Nike endorsement
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:What are you .. 8 years old?? (Score:1)
      by zdarnell (zach@zdarnell.org) on Thursday June 14, @06:35PM EST (#444)
      (User #16295 Info) http://www.zdarnell.org
      As somebody who lives in alaska, and has seen the so called 'decimated landscape' where the oil companies drill, I'd like to state that you are nuts. The oil companies' footprint in the north slope is extremely small, and the amount of money that they pour back into the communities in Alaska is tremendous. People like you with your self-righteous babbling hurt the US more than any oil company could. Oh, and on the subject of 'oil worshippers', im sure you'll be happy when we run out of oil and you can't drive your minivan to soccer practice or buy your bottles of cola. Fools that believe that drilling has ruined Alaska should ask those that actually have lived there, and they see little downsides, but do love what the industry has done FOR the people.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:3, Funny)
    by revscat (revscat@ughnolikeyspam.swbell.net) on Wednesday June 13, @12:00PM EST (#166)
    (User #35618 Info) http://home.swbell.net/revscat

    The following is a quote from a well established nationally recognized synicated talkshow host.

    Wait... You're using a talk radio host as a source? And I bet you think you're a free thinker, too! "You are all individuals!" "Yes, we are all individuals!"

    Mooo, cow, mooooo. Follow the herd. Liberals: Bad. Conservatives: Good. Always. And they're not "environmentalists" they're "environmentalist weirdos." Use the right language, for Big Radio insists on it. Mooooo, cow.

    Wow, I disagree with the Republican Party on some key issues! I must be a libruhl! Bwahahahahaa. Morons.

    The thing about you Freeper clones is that you really are easy targets. I get this guilty kind of pleasure from fucking with you guys.

    - Rev.
    "When I die I would like to be born again as me." -- Hugh Hefner, speaking at Oxford.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2)
      by bnenning on Wednesday June 13, @12:53PM EST (#238)
      (User #58349 Info) http://home.houston.rr.com/wobrian
      Excellent ad hominem, but you seem to have left out the part where you actually refuted his claims.

      Here is an article stating that the Eskimos who actually live in the area support drilling, and based on past dealings with oil companies do not believe it would not harm the environment. But I'm sure you know more than they do.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        OMFG (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @01:19PM EST (#267)
        I can't believe you had the balls to use an article from the National Review to support drilling for oil in ANWR. Is this the National Review, the arch-conservative periodical that was founded and is run by William F. Buckley, the son of a rich oil man? And you are honestly standing here in front of your fellow Slashdot readers and pawning this off as objective journalism?

        Jesus H. Christ .. have you no freaking shame?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:0)
        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @03:50PM EST (#343)
        so the natives "do not believe it would not harm the environment"? so... they're against it, isn't that right, double-negative boy?
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Don't believe him anyway. (Score:2)
          by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @05:19PM EST (#365)
          (User #6130 Info)
          Aside from the strange double-negative...
          Doing my research, I found it funny how all the pro-drilling opinions would meantion how the "natives" were for the drilling. What they don't tell you as that by "natives", they mean the Inupiat nation. They are for the drilling, because they want jobs. What these reports don't mention is that the other nearby nation, the Gwich'in, are strongly opposed to drilling. The reason is that the area be drilled in is the birthing area of the caribou which they depend on much like the plains native americans.


          --Chris Burke. Think free speech; drink free beer.
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:1)
    by StenD (stend+slashdot@sten.org) on Wednesday June 13, @12:13PM EST (#187)
    (User #34260 Info)
    If you really want to see some numbers, see his May 1 web page at http://www.boortz.com/may1.htm
    WARNING!
    Don´t believe anything you read on the Internet or hear on my radio show (or any other show, for that matter) unless you can confirm it with another source, and/or it is consistent with what you already know to be true. Yes, that does include information obtained from this site.


    So, can you give us another source to confirm your claims? Boortz, at least, is an honest liar - he tells you right up front (on his radio show) that he will lie to you. You, on the other hand, just lie. Even if Boortz is telling the truth (and that's still up for verification), you lied as to what his statements were. He compared the amount of land to be explored for oil with the size of Alaska, not ANWR, it was less than a size 12 shoe on a 120x250 piece of real estate, and .824 square inches on the rug (which, again, represented Alaska, nor ANWR). Of course, you're a stupid liar - you lied to us, then pointed us to the actual statements.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:3, Insightful)
    by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @12:16PM EST (#191)
    (User #6130 Info)
    You sound like a stereotypical caricature of a republican: don't give a fuck, long as it makes a buck. Sad, because some republicans care.

    A single childs footprint in a 120x120 piece of real estate... Wow, that's small... No. The ANWR is huge. The result is a big-ass footprint. And unlike a child's shoe tread, this footprint is going to be a stinking, filthy, contaminated cesspool of pollution, disrupting the lives of wildlife all around. So I wouldn't see much human presence. How much would I hear? Or smell? It doesn't take much drilling to be drilling the fuck out of something.

    And what makes you think it will stop there? Considering that the amount of drilling there is now zero, I observe an alarming trend. And since the oil industry has done such a great job with the coastal plain, I'm sure they'll do a great job preserving the AWNR.

    Not that you'd give a shit, and neither would Neal Boortz. Well, I would. I've been to Alaska. I've been to the refuge. And when I go back, I don't want to see a damn oil drill there. How long till someone finds something valuable in Yellowstone?

    I'm sure the locals would love the jobs. If I knew a way to give them jobs without drilling, I would. I don't. Sad. But this isn't just about them. I'm not telling them what is best for them. It isn't, in the short term anyway. But what, you think they are the only ones this decision will affect? I'm not saying what's best for them. What I'm telling everyone who will listen is: "Hey, cut it out, or we're all fucked."

    What's the lesson of California? Have you ever been to LA? You ever been a few miles out of LA, and not been able to see the damn city? It's fucking disgusting. Or Gary, Indiana, which you can tell when you are driving past by the smell. And it had to get that bad before they started to open their eyes and say "gee, this is kinda fucked."

    The answer isn't to expand "present" energy sources. Those sources will be gone soon, ANWR drilling or not. We need to change our methods, and attitudes, or we will be living like our ancestors. And like or not, you will be too.
    --Chris Burke. Think free speech; drink free beer.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2)
      by ksheff on Wednesday June 13, @01:23PM EST (#272)
      (User #2406 Info)

      The proposed drilling area in the ANWR is about 6000 acres at the edge of it. What is going on the land outside of the ANWR in that location? Oil Drilling! IMHO, 6000 acres out of a few million isn't that bad as some people want to make it. Besides, with the horizontal drilling techniques available, they don't have to drill that many wells.

      BTW, I always thought the Gary's smell was due to the collective stench of the inhabitants.


      An org that treats its programmers as morons will soon have programmers that are willing & able to act like morons only
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2)
        by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @03:11PM EST (#331)
        (User #6130 Info)
        6000 acres which happens to be right where the Porcupine Caribou heard births, which are important to the Gwich'in aboriginal peoples that live near there.
        --Chris Burke. Think free speech; drink free beer.
        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
          Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2)
          by ksheff on Thursday June 14, @11:01PM EST (#446)
          (User #2406 Info)

          And these animals can only give birth in an area that's approximately 3 miles by 3 miles? That's a pretty lame reason to hold up development, IMHO. I would think that if they are hardy enough to live in that environment, they could certainly have their calves someplace else. Once the wells and pipelines are in place, they could still still go back to some of the same areas. The original Alaskan pipeline is elevated in several spots in order to not disrupt animal migration, so the same thing could be done here. I'm also sure that some of the Eskimos wouldn't mind having the option of working for the oil companies too.

          Why is it that the tree huggers want to freeze progress in order 'to save nature for future generations'? Several wilderness areas are being closed off to the public, so what's the point of 'saving' them, if the public isn't even allowed in? Why not work with these companies and make sure that they operate in a responsible manner? I've been to places in the mountains of my home state where there used to be open pit gold mines a few years ago. I wouldn't have known that if someone hadn't pointed it out.


          An org that treats its programmers as morons will soon have programmers that are willing & able to act like morons only
          [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:1)
      by $hotgun on Wednesday June 13, @03:42PM EST (#340)
      (User #449276 Info)
      I usually try to stay out of flame wars, but you just make such a tempting target.

      LA and Gary, Indiana are bad, you say. Well, how would you know. If you hiked from between them and Alaska, then Kudos and hats of to you. But I don't think that likely. If you have a solar powered car, then Kudos and hats of to you. But I don't think that likely. If I had to put money on it, I would say that you drove around in a big iron shell powered by OIL. I bet you drove that huge monstrosity to the ANWR so that you could see the wilderness. Probably took along some camping gear like a tent made of artificial materials and a camp stove the burn LP gas which comes from OIL.

      I would also put money on you sitting in front of a big, power hungry CRT with nothing better to do than post useless drivel to /. (forgive me if you are using a hand-powered computer). Hell, I bet you even use deodorant, and were shoes, you nasty polluting fucker. (again, forgive me if you stink and only make your clothes from dead animals you find on the side of the road).

      We're not 'all' fucked if a few oil wells are drilled. If the oil companies put up all they could afford, you'd still be able to walk for days in the reserve without seeing one. And no one gives a shit if you don't want to see it because it might desecrate your idea of wilderness.

      I agree that drilling for oil is a nasty sort of business. But unless you go to sleep at sundown so that you don't have to use electric lights, you'll have to agree that we owe our current standard of living to burning the stuff.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re:drill the fuck out of the ANWR?? Dont Think so (Score:2)
        by Chris Burke (wyrm@engin.stupidspammersgettingsmarter.umich.edu) on Wednesday June 13, @04:57PM EST (#359)
        (User #6130 Info)
        LA and Gary, Indiana are bad, you say. Well, how would you know. If you hiked from between them and Alaska, then Kudos and hats of to you. But I don't think that likely. If you have a solar powered car, then Kudos and hats of to you.

        Right. Because of course you're not allowed to observe that LA is a smog-obscured shithole or wonder how long the Gwich'in will last without caribou if you've ever so much as farted a pollutant. I drive a nice, fuel-efficient Tercel, by the way. Certainly not as good as it could be, but a step in the right direction from the Expedition. I'd like an electric, or biodiesel, or even better solar. Sadly they aren't adequate yet.

        These "you're no better" arguments are truly tiring. They are dodging the issue. I'm not claiming any moral superiority. I don't shit roses. I'm not any better - I like my car, and yes my synthetic material tent and Coleman stove when I go camping. It just has become an increasingly unavoidable conclusion to me that we have to change. We have to slow down. The first step is figuring out where we are headed, and seeing that it's not good. That's where I am.

        We're not 'all' fucked if a few oil wells are drilled.

        Is no one here able to look long-term? Do you really think it will stop with just a few wells? Do you think this is the only wilderness area we have destroyed, or will if we allow it? It's just a few wells, but a few wells on top of more and more and more -- where does it end?

        This is a preserve we're talking about. It's one of the few areas of this planet we've set aside and said "okay, let's not screw with this." Except now we want to screw with it. This is not a good prescedent.

        And no one gives a shit if you don't want to see it because it might desecrate your idea of wilderness.

        Heh. "My idea." As if someone's idea of wilderness has a big oil drill pumping away in it.

        If you haven't seen it, then you don't know what you'll be missing once it is gone. Maybe that's the problem -- too many people never really see the parts of the planet where humans are visitors, and thus don't think anything of their destruction. Don't think it will affect them when it's gone.

        But unless you go to sleep at sundown so that you don't have to use electric lights, you'll have to agree that we owe our current standard of living to burning the stuff.

        Well, no shit. At what point did I say we should live a low-tech life? Obviously I like high-tech, I'm a frickin computer engineer.

        The key point - the point that everyone is going to get, either sooner or later - is that if we want to maintain our lifestyle, we have to find a way to do it that doesn't depend on unreplinishable resources, that doesn't disrupt the already reeling ecosystems of our planet, that doesn't give us a 20 year time limit before we really are fucked.

        What happens when the oil runs out? Did you think about that? I have, and it sucks.

        You think drilling is going to lengthen our oil supply? No way. You know what will happen? We get more oil, oil prices go down, and then oil _consumption_ goes way up, possibly (like it did before) beyond what the drop in prices would make seem reasonable. We run out of oil faster. Ford makes a bigger SUV, and we run out of oil faster. Drilling in the ANWR is counter-productive to maintaining our lifestyle.

        There's only so much oil. You can keep searching, you might find some here and there, but it will run out. The question is, at what point are we going to react? Are we going to wait until there is no more oil, or are we going to do something now, while there is still time enough to wean ourselves of it. If we start soon enough, maybe we'll get luck and be able to make our oil supply last until when it finally runs out we truly won't need it anymore anyway.

        But people who don't care dictate that this won't happen, so in the meantime I'd study up on s

        Read the rest of this comment...

        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Impress your friends today! (Score:1)
by Salieri on Wednesday June 13, @11:37AM EST (#132)
(User #308060 Info)
Well, the proof is in the pudding, Dubya .. are you ready to practice what you preach?

That's a common misuse-- "the proof is in the pudding" makes no sense at all.

The phrase is supposed to be, "the proof of the pudding is in the tasting."

--------------------------------
You cannot stay. The Master would not approve.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
by angelo (anrkngl@lowmagnet.org) on Wednesday June 13, @11:47AM EST (#148)
(User #21182 Info) http://www.lowmagnet.org/
Oops, I must have stumbled onto Plastic by accident. My bad.
Lowmagnet.org
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:3, Funny)
by rkent (rkent(at)acm.org) on Wednesday June 13, @11:50AM EST (#154)
(User #73434 Info) http://max.cs.kzoo.edu/~rkent/
Bush has already announced his intent to drill the fuck out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

No kidding. Personally, I think they should set up an offshore rig and hire Burns Slant Drilling Co. to get at the oil. Then the pretty animals can run around freely, and we get our oil! It's win-win!

---
Trying to find the orphanage.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:2, Informative)
by Baba Abhui on Wednesday June 13, @12:00PM EST (#167)
(User #246789 Info)
How long will it take for the Bush administration (both the President and Vice President are former oil executives are heavily indebted to Big Oil for getting elected) to put a stop to this? Will the Grand Oil Party sit back and watch this without trying to do something about it? Somehow I doubt it.

But they're working on fuel-cell systems that will run on gasoline. Surely the oil companies would be for such a thing? Such a development could actually expand the the fuel-oil market as new applications are developed. Kerosone-powered laptop, anyone? 50 hours run-time on one tank...
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
    by pagsz on Wednesday June 13, @01:16PM EST (#261)
    (User #450343 Info)
    The problem (for the oil companies) is that it will be too efficient. The oil industry rakes in billions because we use so much oil to do so little. How can they keep up their insane profits (which Bush is doing everything in his power to protect) if people use oil for 10 times as many applications but use 10 times less (because of efficiency)? That's why big oil (and its lap dog, President Bush) will try to stop this type of technology. It's profitable, but not profitable enough.

    The thing is, though, that this technology is absolutely necessary. Current predictions show that oil production will drop of drastically beginning in 2010 (because of dwindling reserves). If we don't start switching to cleaner, more efficient systems now, we'll be fucked. And not three generations from now, but soon.

    Bush wants to keep the economy humming on oil, but what happens when we start running low? That's where this comes in. So I hope and pray that this gets developed, and more importantly, implemented.

    Wondering why in the hell you read this entire comment,
    Pagsz, World's Smartest Moron
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:0, Troll)
by The Fat Controller on Wednesday June 13, @12:06PM EST (#174)
(User #325029 Info)
You know what?? I hope that they DO drill in Anwar, and I hope that lot's of elk and caribou DO die. Wanna know why? Because elk are a dime a dozen and they WILL come back, but the look of anguish on the faces of the greenie bastards is PRICELESS!! Call me immature but I love watching the envirowhackos cry in their cappucinos whenever a tanker hits a rock and oily seagulls wash up on shore. GET OVER IT! They're goddam seagulls, they'll come back! If you had a brain in your fscking head you'd be crying about all of that wasted oil.

All you greenies want your cake and eat it too. You want electricity and big SUV's and all of that, but you don't want to pay for it and you don't want to accept that there is a price to pay for it. Well make up your damn minds! Either you want us to live in the dark ages (LITERALLY) or you're willing to accept a few mooses and ducks and shit like that dead. You might live in a fantasy world where you can have it both ways, but the REAL world is a lot different.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:12PM EST (#184)
    retard
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:2)
    by Hard_Code on Wednesday June 13, @12:29PM EST (#211)
    (User #49548 Info)
    Wow, you must have studied to be an asshole. I wonder if you are really like that in real life.

    "All you greenies want your cake and eat it too. You want electricity and big SUV's and all of that, but you don't want to pay for it and you don't want to accept that there is a price to pay for it."

    Who does? Who are you talking to? I'm sure you'd just as soon criticize people who use bicycles and public transport and buy locally grown food as cuh-razy green tree-hugging commie nuts. I don't know who you are talking about, but there are no "greenies" I know of that "want electricity and big SUV's and all of that"...in fact, that conspicuous consumption is EXACTLY what they despise. Yet when they do something about it, they are all of a sudden crazy loony greens. I think perhaps you are talking about Bobos (who, yes, have co-opted much of the environmental movement - hey, soccar moms, buy your "RealSimple" magazine subscription now!).

    "Either you want us to live in the dark ages (LITERALLY) or you're willing to accept a few mooses and ducks and shit like that dead. You might live in a fantasy world where you can have it both ways, but the REAL world is a lot different."

    And you might live in a totally black and white fantasy world where any progress MUST come at a cost to the environment, where no compromises are possible, and where you can peacefully go about your life conscience-free conveniently convinced that there's nothing you can do about it anyway...but the REAL world is a lot different.

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're unamerican?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:0)
      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @02:15PM EST (#303)
      Who does? Who are you talking to?

      If you are wasting power to rant on Slashdot while insisting that ANWR should not be drilled, you are exactly the sort of person he was talking about.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:1)
      by dlkf on Wednesday June 13, @02:36PM EST (#317)
      (User #261011 Info)
      This may not be exactly what the previous poster was talking about, but heres a more specific situation.

      Im from Alaska and there are alot of environmentalists here. Now back when the pipeline was first put in, Alaska was making alot more money then even the politicians could spend (sounds crazy but its true) so they invested the money and now give the yearly interest to all residents of the state. Last year I received a check for nearly $2000. This money is the direct result of the oil industry. The same industry that is supposedly leaving such a big scar on the wild life here. Now do the environmentalists here return the checks and say "No thank you. That money was generated by raping Mother Nature."? Nope. They say "Thank you. Now where shall I spend this?" Are they lobbying the politicians to use the money to clean up after the oil companies? No again. When the politicians try to take the money away, guess whos there along with every one else making sure they dont. Granted, there may be some who dont take the money, and there may be some who use it for environmental purposes, but the vast majority use it for Christmas gifts (we receive the money in October) and vacations.

      Like I say, this is not exactly what the previous poster was talking about, but it is a more specific illustration of environmentalists who criticize an industry, but only so far as it wont hurt their pocket book.

      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    An Alaskan Take on it... (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:31PM EST (#213)
    If you want to talk about the real world, talk to the G'witchin Eskimos following the Porcupine heard, for the last Thousand years or more. In the REAL world there are alternative fuels avalible which are not being used, and rather than be put out even a little bit this, folks like you have decided that since we've already all but wiped out the Native populations of this country, why stop now? I am talking about human lives here, people with traditions and religion based several times older than our 'American' way. Destroying peoples lives, and a culture older than our own for the sake of a greasy buck is wrong.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 13, @12:57PM EST (#244)
    Whomever modded this faggot up must really have been sleeping. Never heard of a TROLL??? And if it wasn't a troll, the sucker needs to be edutcated badly.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Bull$hit (Score:2)
    by Once&FutureRocketman (fmb1i93k05lbh001@NOSPAMsneakemail.com) on Wednesday June 13, @02:47PM EST (#321)
    (User #148585 Info)
    You might live in a fantasy world where you can have it both ways, but the REAL world is a lot different.

    Actually, you can have your cake and eat it too. Business does not have to rape the environment to turn a profit.

    "Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Piss up a flagpole, Greenie (Score:1)
    by matrix29 on Thursday June 14, @03:36PM EST (#440)
    (User #259235 Info)
    Please mod this back up as SARCASM.

    Republicans can be so thick.

    ---Genius is often ignored. Ignorance never lets itself be ignored.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
by GreenJeepMan on Wednesday June 13, @12:52PM EST (#237)
(User #398443 Info) http://upallnite.com
"both the President and Vice President are former oil executives are heavily indebted to Big Oil for getting elected"

What are you talking about? These cars will still use gas, but a more refined version of it.

Heck, they'll probably charge more for it!

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:0)
by E10k_desperado on Wednesday June 13, @04:13PM EST (#350)
(User #301246 Info)
It is already here. My car, the vehicle I commute in is a 1998 VW new Beetle. It's Diesel, it gets 49 MPG, or about 500 Miles per tank. Sure Diesel is a fosill fuel. But Bio-Diesle is not.

http://www.veggievan.org/

Biodiesel act likes alot like diesel but is not produced from crude oil. It's produced from vegtible, grain oil, or lard.

From an envriomental stand point the most important thing is carbon. Mostly in the form of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Fossill fuiles dredge up carbon that has been locked in the earth as oil, coal or gas and release it into the atmostphere. That carbon stays in the atmosphere, helping to producing the green house effect.

Biodiesel is derived primarily from plant oils. To get this oil the plants convert the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into the oil that gets used in biodiesel. A nice reasobibly sustainable short loop.

As soon as I can find a supplyer I'll be converting to biodiesel. Saddly the only places I can find that sell it are there selling to yuppie sailboat owners, or fleets of comercial vehicles.

It's not nearly as cool as a fuel cell, but it is here today, with simple proven technology.

Note some of the new diesel engines that are coming down the production lines are %15 more fuel efficent than the one I have in my car and get have better emissions to boot. http://www.newswise.com/articles/2000/6/ENGINES.UW I.html

Now of course it isn't that simple, nor that clean. In the non-idealized world there are other polutants that get created. But the primary facts remain.

  1. much better milage/efficency.
  2. better emissions.
  3. no dependancy on petrochemicals
  4. Decrease dependancy on oil extracting countrys for a vital infrastructure component.

Note: Please do not construe this as an article indorsing VW cars, mine keeps breaking, and I'm kinda pissed about that.

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:I'll believe it when I see it (Score:1)
    by flink (danello@danky.com) on Wednesday June 13, @05:19PM EST (#364)
    (User #18449 Info) http://danky.com
    What I never understood is why it would be such a bad thing if the earth got warmer. 65 million years ago, my 8th grade geology class told me, most of the planet was desert/swamp. So what if we quit using fossil fuels and it turns out the planet is going through a natural warming cycle?

    Do we start seeding clouds to increase albedo and cool it off? The idea that the climate is a big stable constant is a crock. It's a chaotic system. Right now it is at a local min. that we find very comfortable, but it could jump to a radically different one very quickly.

    I have no opinion on the global warming issue one way or the other. I do, however, believe it's best to err on the side of caution and aviod dumping crap into the environment if we can avoid it.

    Don't poop in the tub!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  ... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2001 OSDN.

[ home | awards | supporters | rob's homepage | contribute story | older articles | OSDN | advertising | past polls | about | faq ]