Reads with Scotch ’s
Comments
(group member since Mar 14, 2008)
Reads with Scotch ’s
comments
from the Axis Mundi X group.
Showing 761-780 of 1,977



Realistically, I think we could have Hydrogen off the ground and running within 10 years. It would take a lot of government investment. I think a suitable split would be 40% government investment to 60% private. I know **they say hydrogen is too expensive, but what they really mean is setting up the infrastructure is expensive. I argue that if we quit bailing out the airline industry we would have plenty of moneys available to invest into the infrastructure.
I am all for Hydrogen, it is the ONLY alternative energy source that has a realistic chance of being clean and abundant.
Additionally I would like to see a lot of money go into a nationwide “bullet” train system. Fast affordable mass transportation that doesn’t require a stool sample to ride.
** “They” I don’t know who they are. I just always hear that hydrogen is uber expensive. I think “they” know that their argument won’t stand up to much scrutiny.

But if you give the well "rest" the deep oil rises to the surface again. Nobody knows where it comes from, but if you let an oil field rest long enough it will fill itself back up. So why not use it? Because congress passed a law, saying that if a company isn't using the well they loose it, once you loose the rights to that well it is next impossible to get the rights back. So the oil companies reduce production on near exhausted wells to allow the well to rest, this drives production statistics way down since the wells are officially open but not really producing.
Am I making this clear, or just mumbling?

Oil Companies have a pretty bad image. Sometimes it is warranted but often it is not. I really can’t comment on Pickens because until very recently I have never herd of him.
A word on Oil prices: I think your assessment is sound NB, The mere mention of drill offshore dropped oil considerably in just a few days. To say that is all due to people driving less is ridiculous. The change wouldn’t be that drastic. I think it has more to do with President Bush opening offshore drilling (even though congress didn’t act on it).
This is something people need to pay close attention to. You see; people in the industry know we are sitting on enough oil/natural gas to command the market. Not think we are, KNOW we are. Nobody in the Middle East wants the US to exploit our own resources, and develop the fields. We would take all the wind out of their sails. Oil prices would plummet and there would probably be an economic crunch for 6 months wail the markets adjusted back to normal. 6 months is actually more then enough time, as soon as oil drops fuel drops food prices drop, shipping drops, with all that added money freed up in the economy we might even be able to turn the housing market around (that is a whole thread on its own, and really requires some regulation of lenders, mortgage brokers).
With the pressure off everyone’s pocket, it also frees up more moneys for viable alternative energy. I think Bio-fuels have been talked about enough to know they will never replace oil based energy. The rate of return just isn’t there. Every major city in the country would be strapped to produce enough. (Because it has to be produced locally otherwise you consume its gained energy during transportation.) Additionally I have herd it actually produces more greenhouse emissions then normal fuel, just different kinds. So expensive dirty alternative to oil… hmm I don’t think so, where is the progress in that?
I think I have strayed off course here so I will step off my high horse and go do some work. ;)


Wait that is probably exactly what you’re talking about isn't it.

I take that back I did have a good conversation with Lisa. I think she really missed the point and didn't understand what I was saying. Either I was not articulating myself properly, or she just buried her head in the sand. Either way the topic was never fleshed out.


As usual Donna surpasses her peers and flaunts it without seeming like she is… crafty crafty… I’m so on to you Donna.


A word about accuracy: For the most part the show is accurate however I think they are over inflating the number of the poor leadership. Every unit has a weak link in the command chain, but this unit is riddled with poor leadership. Except for the enlisted ranks. It might be that HBO is trying to emphasize the important's of the enlisted ranks in the Iraqi war; being the back bone. This can be helpful to those that do not have an intimate knowledge of the military, but as a military man, I find it to be blown way out of proportion. Another problem I had with last nights showing was when “Godfather” changed the ROE’s. That is not the role of a battalion commander. That comes from the top of the food chain. If a Batt. Commander changed the ROE’s then I believe he would be relieved of command and facing some pretty heavy court marshal charges.