The new Manhatan Project.

[Joe for Clark]

Joe for Clark (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-19-06 01:52 PM
Original message
A new "Manhattan Project"
In something less than 36 months the United States can be totally self sufficent in oil needs.

I don't think so, I know so.

The consequences are something like a calculus problem.

Regimes will collapse, fuel for our cars will be set at about $3.18. The open market for sweet crude will drop, maybe making the move seem problematic. Other problems.

But you know what, our prices will stabilize at that rate - and more, our dependence will shift away from the area - maybe more importantly, our money will stay in our country. And jobs, good jobs will stay in our country.

There is this concept in finance - "velocity of a dollar". A dollar isn't really worth a dollar when kept in circulation, it is worth 4 - if you keep it in circulation.

When our country sends funds to the middle east - it is gone. Write the same checks to americans, and it takes on a velocity. And we fund the same people that would kill us, this is just crazy.

That something like this is possible, it has been done before.

The oil companies looked at the same possibilites in 1974 and 1979 - they aren't going to oppose it, they may be the best backers.

And we sure don't need to burn our foods to produce these fuels.

Joe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I ain't buying it.

:shrug:

[Joe for Clark]

4. I don't understand what you don't buy.

I sure don't understand why.

It has been done, and I suggest it is very cost effective for us at this point in history, given the alternatives.

The day we shut off our money to the middle east is the day we can really start measuring our safety.

Really,

Joe

Ps - we are the same country that took a math problem and turned it into a nuclear bomb.
Oh, we can do this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Here's the thing...

Building an atomic bomb in 36 months from scratch seems feasible. Given that you have a blank check and lots of talented scientists.

I don't see how the U.S. could get off its dependance of foriegn oil in the next 36 months even if we wanted to, without doing something worse like massive oil shortages.

[Joe for Clark]

8. Well, Germany did it, - fought a war on two fronts and kept their

economy booming.

And we know Just how they did it.

And it didn't take them 36 months and we have 60 years of technology they didn't have.

We really could do that.

Joe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. No, Germany didn't do it.

Germany didn't convert coal into fuel because it was a better alternate to foriegn dependence. Germany did it because they had no choice. Converting coal into gasoline causes horrible environmental damage, it's terribly inefficient, it caused plenty of damage to the engines, and they still had massive oil shortages.

Germany also resorted to using mules and oxen, but I don't think that's a very practical alternative either.

[Joe for Clark]

10. Well, they did.

They didn't just use coal, either.

I see you have a search engine on your computer.

Type this -Zeitz 1945 - that was one of about, what 200 syn oil oil plants the germans had??

You do that and tell me what you see.

What does "plenty of damage to the engines" even mean?? Alcohol does damage engines, really.

I know of some guys you might try and explain that to, but they died fighting those german planes near - Zeitz.

Joe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Alright, I googled it.

It didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

And it doesn't change anything I haven't already said.

[Joe for Clark]

12. So what did you learn??

You know, I don't think anyone is really stupid, except a person who doesn't or can't learn from a lesson paid in blood.

Since we really can't afford to pay for the same lesson learned - what did you learn???

Joe

[ClassWarrior]

2. I love it. Isn't Gore talking about something like this called the...

...Apollo Project?

NGU.

[Joe for Clark]

3. Yes, he sure is!!!

He sure has the right idea -

Joe

[livvy]

6. I think you are talking about the Apollo Alliance.

http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/

Check out their site, and see if your state has an active chapter. You can also find out more about their ideas and strategies for energy independence.

[brokensymmetry]

7. I urge you to read the updated Hirsch report.

Its findings are notably less optimistic.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_peaking_of_world_oil_production_study_hirsch.htm

[Joe for Clark]

13. And if I said it was incorrect, grossly -

Pointed out why -

Would it even matter??

It is really screwed up - it deals with problems that were solved 30 years ago.

Not surprising I guess, since it is a governmental report.

I appreciate the thought,

Joe

[brokensymmetry]

14. Exceptional claims require

exceptional proof.

The authors of the Hirsch report have credentials
and an established track record.

At a minimum, I would need several citations from
established, well-accepted peer reviewed journals
refuting the various elements of the report.

Assertions on an internet forum - even so fine a
forum as DU - must be taken with some salt.

[Bushwick Bill]

15. Nine questions to ask about alternative energy.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions.html

[Posteritatis]

16. Okay, that makes my bookmark list. (n/t)