Obama Set to Introduce Offshore Oil Proposal

[*Shinzon*]

Except batteries can be recharged and can last for years without being replaced, whereas gasoline is consumed as it's used and has to be replaced far more often. I mean come on now. Plus I'd rather be dependent on Russia than the middle east.

The flip side of more electric power? More pollution via the powerplants that are producing it. The real solution to gasoline consumption and reduced pollution on a realistic level is the use of Hydrogen fuel cell technology. It is an incredible misconception that if we replace gasoline engines and oil with batteries we will some how be better off. All we will be doing is trading one evil for another. The current stable of nuclear power plants could not support even 25% of the American population if we all switched to electric vehicles.

Hydrogen is a resource that will never dwindle and never be at a premium like oil prices. The problem is the technology needed to efficiently and effectively harness hydrogen and then compress it is in early stages and without government or big business funding will continue to grow very slowly.

It's a well known fact in the automotive industry that hydrogen is an incredibly more beneficial technology, the problem is governments are only going to help fund lithium-ion battery technology and not hydrogen technology. California is currently the only state where Honda can actively test one of their hydrogen fuel cell cars because the technology is that scarcely used. The investment into hydrogen over battery technology would take many years even with unlimited funding, but is infinitely more practical and more eco-friendly.

[Cadsuane]

No unfortunately that's completely wrong. You can't use hydrogen to produce primary energy because you need energy to produce hydrogen, either by water electrolysis or by extraction from hydrocarbons. The latter of which, by the way, would be irrelevant in an economy without fossil fuels which is really too bad since it's the only way it's half way efficient with current technology. That is a fact that no amount of research will alter, which makes hydrogen analogous to batteries as a unit of energy storage, not production, or in other words an increase in hydrogen consumption means a hike in electricity consumption to produce more hydrogen which renders your whole argument about nuclear power plants (which are virtually emissions free anyway) pointless. Nor is hydrogen even a clean energy source since burning it produces greenhouse emissions. Also there is in fact a scarce supply of water on earth, and in the case of fresh water, a very scarce supply.

[Yugl]

Nothing new: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

[*Shinzon*]

No unfortunately that's completely wrong. You can't use hydrogen to produce primary energy because you need energy to produce hydrogen, either by water electrolysis or by extraction from hydrocarbons. The latter of which, by the way, would be irrelevant in an economy without fossil fuels which is really too bad since it's the only way it's half way efficient with current technology. That is a fact that no amount of research will alter, which makes hydrogen analogous to batteries as a unit of energy storage, not production, or in other words an increase in hydrogen consumption means a hike in electricity consumption to produce more hydrogen which renders your whole argument about nuclear power plants (which are virtually emissions free anyway) pointless. Nor is hydrogen even a clean energy source since burning it produces greenhouse emissions. Also there is in fact a scarce supply of water on earth, and in the case of fresh water, a very scarce supply.

I wasn't referring to it's use as a primary source of fuel in the sense of replacing all oil, but primarily a replacement for gasoline engines. You're right, I suppose hydrogen is a limited resource on the planet, but considering how abundant it is in the universe, future research would eventually lead strides into making it viable.

I wasn't also talking about Nuclear power plants as they are not the problem. Dunno if or why it sounded like I was referring to them being bad, just meant to to say that we don't have enough of them. Was actually trying to support them.

To the point about the hydrogen fuel cells in cars, specifically the ones in the Honda FCX Clarity: The hydrogen is used to create electricity on board the vehicle. The fuel tank is filled with liquid hydrogen and combined with oxygen and then converted into electricity by the fuel cell to power the vehicle. It doesn't produce any emissions at all. The only thing produced, is water. So maybe I wasn't clear in what I was explaining before, but there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be considered over electricity in terms of automotive use.

Incase you're interested in seeing it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AUurBnLbJw

[Neosutra]

Well, looks like the wacky right figured out their attack plan:

"OMG HE CHANGED HIS MIND, HE'S FLIP FLOPPING!!". God I love faux news, never ending source of entertainment.

All I've seen on faux news thus far:

"Companies are coming forward saying the health care bill will cost them money!"

"States are banding together to repeal health care!"

"Obama is ignoring the will of the people!!"

"OMG WHY IS OBAMA FLIP FLOPPING ON OIL!>?!?"

[Jaybar]

My conservative colleagues have stopped talking about healthcare and are now concerned about how Obama has appointed lobbyists...in 2009. I'm seriously what-the-fucking at them. Somehow a campaign promise about banning lobbyists is grounds for "flip-flopping" when the executive order he signed didn't even ban lobbyists outright. News flash - Campaign promises always come true, amirite.

Fuck I'm pulling out my hairs right now.

"When Obama came into office, is when he hired most of his people, so it really doesn't matter if he didn't hire anyone recently. all politicians lie all the time. The main thing with Obama, is not that he hired lobbyists, but that he said he would ban them from his administration, and then didn't. how can he bring change and hope if he goes against his own rhetoric."

[Olo401]

edit: but yes, the rebuttal that liberals in america simply do not feel so strongly about the environment at least in regards to oil drilling that would explain the behaviour rather than the idea that american liberals are in a weak position.

I actually disagree with this to an extent, because some of us are more of the mind that energy exploration & creation (or environmentalism in general) can be done in a responsible manner that respects both the needs of society and still preserves the environment. I kinda kept quiet on this oil drilling subject until now because I wanted to figure out exactly what's going on behind this decision.

First off, there's the context. In 2008, Congress let a law expire that held a ban on offshore drilling. Soon after, President Bush lifted an executive order that held a moratorium on offshore drilling sites. So since before this decision, for almost two years, there had been no limits whatsoever.

Second, there's the specifics. 50 miles offshore is a LONG way out - on the Eastern coast we're talking near the edge of the undersea continental shelf. It's far enough offshore where it doesn't interfere with the scenery, doesn't pose a major risk to the population if attacked, and if an environmental problem were to arise it wouldn't impact the coastal areas very easily because of the distance (it could be contained before reaching land).

And last you have politically moderate common sense - we will need a cushion as we change out energy infrastructure from almost all fossil fuels to a great mix of all energy sources.

Yes, there are many liberals who believe oil drilling is bad news. Well, yes it is if it's not done properly and not regulated! It's the same argument about modern production of nuclear energy. New technology has increased the "stability" of nuclear power generation, and even found a kinda smart way to deal with the toxic byproducts. Yet we still have a great voice that shouts down nuclear energy because of how bad it can get if something goes wrong. They just don't see that with technology and proper, strict regulation it can work.

To counter that rebuttal, i would have brought in the healthcare debate, for example, and other examples to show that there is a pattern to that idea. That is, that liberals are much weaker than conservatives in america. However, there are a lot of explanations for why that is, ranging from the idea that liberals are too idealistic to the idea that the conservatives have successfully made the democrats co-opt their agenda.

I wouldn't say idealistic.. pragmatic is a much more accurate word. We just don't lock ourselves into a single set of beliefs on a given subject. That's both our greatest strength and weakness - we all don't just follow the leader all the damn time like the absolutist conservatives do.