I know nothing about energy policy. Absolutely nothing. The only area of politics I know or care less about is Medicare, social security, and the rest of that geriatric policy area. So this is going to be, as Foster said, an exercise in pissing into the wind. Since the point is to disagree and yell at each other, I can only hope my piss hits Foster.
So here goes.
I think the point of contention in energy policy is drilling for oil in the Arctic. I, for one, don't give a shit. As long as you're not drilling for oil in baby seals or Eskimos, drill away. I'm not too comfortable with us relying on Middle East oil, so at least with drilling in the Arctic we don't have to worry about propping up any pro-American dictators or invading any countries.
The dirtiest of the dirty hippies might object to this, since we're hurting animals and whatnot. But know what? I'd rather have a few polar bears covered in oil than start wars for control of oil. And I'll tell you something about polar bears. They'd kill you and everyone you know and love if they had the chance. Don't let those beady eyed, coca-cola guzzling killers fool you. They're only cute until they maul you to death for some drug money and a cell phone.
Not that I'm advocating killing animals, but the utilitarian in me just puts human lives over animal ones. I eat meat. I kill bugs. Hell, I poured salt on a slug only last week. Whatever.
I suppose there are some alternatives to oil as a source of energy. You have solar. That's pretty interesting, but it has it's limits. For example, the Polish-invented solar powered flashlight... That met the same fate as their submarine with screen doors.
Nuclear is another option, but Chernobyl taught us a little something about that. Plus that's really just an invitation for super-villains to steal our plans and blackmail us with a nuke. Or worse than that, free masons with nukes...(shudder).
Word on the street is that "scientists" have been working on "hydrogen fuel cells" for "cars."
I seem to remember Bush saying something about that in his State of the Union a few years back. Something to the effect of cars spitting out water instead of exhaust with this technology. Sounds pretty cool, but I don't see this sitting well with the fat cats at Poland Spring (which apparently is not in Poland!) I say, if they're going to work on converting exhaust, why not invent a butt muffler so my farts smell like roses. Or a reverse one where roses smell like farts. Haha. "Happy Valentine's Day, sweetie. What kind of flowers are these? Oh, I think they're navy bean roses."
If you ask me, what scientists really should be working on is a perpetual motion machine. Yeah, yeah, I know it's physically impossible, but there's got to be a way around friction. The United States will not seek a permission slip from the laws of thermodynamics to defend out nation! Those quasi-perpetual motion machines work pretty well--the ones with the four balls hanging that keep bouncing back and forth. Or better yet, what about those drinky-birds that bob up and down drinking water. They're almost perpetual. We'd just need to build an army of those, and pay some guy to tap their tails every couple of hours when the motion dies down. Now how hard is that, really?
So until we build a frictionless drinky-bird, magical water car, or just settle for having energy during daylight hours, I say drill away. And aim for that polar bear...he's eyeing my coke.
(Did the best I could with the topic and a headache. As for the name of this weekly feature, I propose "pissing in the wind." It has a nice ring to it).
same post, different blog
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
1) Modern nuclear technology is not Chernobyl. China's building some pebble-bed reactors. Good for them. The issues here are control of fissile material, disposal of spent fuel and eventual scarcity of uranium. Those are tough to grapple with, but this is an option that still deserves consideration. Really, every alternative energy source has _something_ wrong with it, and burning fossil fuels is something that needs to get under control
2) Is that our oil under the ocean or ice caps or wherever it is we're talking about? International law gives you rights to resources 12 miles off your shores. You get another 200 miles of regulatory authority. As of now, this is a common resource. As for oil in Alaska, with the rate our consumption is growing, that might provide us about 3% of our supply by the time they get around to drilling it. And no one knows how long it will last.
3) Butt mufflers would be bulky and expensive. Developing countries would not be able to afford into that kind of technology. I expect the opposing side to thoroughly refute this faulty argument.
--Joel
Post a Comment