Bush wants natural gas exploration next to Philmont

[Fat Old Guy]

"If we had pursued a Hydrogen powered economy in 1974 with the first petroleum crisis, we would be well on our way to energy independence now, 30 years later. The byproduct is water."

 

There isn't much free hydrogen floating about, it tends to combine with other things. Until recently, about the only way to get hydrogen was to break water apart. However, now they're experimenting with algae to produce hydrogen. It's gonna take a whole bunch of pond scum to produce fuel for vehicles.

 

[whitewater]

I think the hydrogen fuel cell will be viable soon. President Bush has been pushing it.

 

The current problems with it are that the fuel cells are very expensive to produce, there is no infrastructure in place to provide hydrogen to fuel-cell cars, and the hydrogen itself is about 4 times as expensive as gasoline to produce. These will improve with time and I think we will start seeing hydrogen-fuel cell cars on the road in 5-10 years (maybe sooner if oil prices continue to climb).

 

Also, someone mentioned burning hydrogen- fuel cells work by a chemical reaction that combines the hydrogen with oxygen and creates electricity and water. There is no combustion taking place.

[scoutingagain]

If the premise of this article is correct, it would seem there are other places we can go looking for oil and gas before we need to start poking holes near Philmont.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20040813/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/oil_leases_exploration

 

 

I tend to agree with others, that we should be looking to other technologies as well and believe they will be developed as they become economically viable. Economic viablity will come from developing ways to offer alternative technologies at lower cost and continued increases in the cost of petroleum based fuels. At some point the line will be crossed and it will be cheaper to buy and operate a hybrid vehicle than it is to pay $3.50 - $4.00/gal for gas in a traditional internal combustion engine. The government could accelerate this transition by increasing gas taxes, or it can delay the process by passing protectionist policies that protect the status quo and current players in the industry.

 

It's not uncommon for a new generation of companies to take over dominance with a new technology. I.e. Why didn't IBM come up with Windows? Anyone remember companies like, Wang, Digital, etc. This is what has the Exxons, Texacos, and Shells of the world concerned. What happens to the stock price of these companies when XYZ Inc. comes out with a fuel cell that can be installed in a Ford Explorer, Chevy Blazer or Dodge Durango, that allows the vehicles to perform as well as they do today, but to refuel them, you bypass the gas station and go home, add water and plug them into your home micro turbine generator that runs on gas produced from your home compost pile?

 

Given the backgrounds of the current leadership of the executive branch of government, is there any reason to believe, this administration would truley support policies to change our dependance from an oil based economy? How many alternative energy companies has Dick Cheney met in secret with?

 

SA

 

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

Oboy! Water as an exhaust! Now instead of smog, we'll have fog. Tuscon may become as humid as St. Louis.

[hops_scout]

Oh no, that means its really going to be HUMID here!!!!!!!!!!!AHHHHHHH!!!

 

Sure hope I'm done with football before that happens;)

 

 

[scoutingagain]

Think of all the bad hair days to come.

 

SA

[Fuzzy Bear]

I did not post about two pages ago when I should have. I wanted to react to Eagle's reply about whether this topic is a two party question or is it a collective question that we as a people are working on. The answer is that this (Philmont) is not a one event problem that has signaled a danger and now we are presently confronted with it. This issue has gone on for years and both political parties and the folks at home have battled over it continuously. When I say "SUV" people it means people driving gas guzzling automobiles without a thought about this issue. Look around. If your town, city, metropolis does not have thousands of these gas guzzlers on the streets, then I would have to believe that you don't live in the U. S. A.

 

The problem at Philmont is but a pimple when compared to the larger festering problem of energy usage/waste. Do we have an answer? No. Are people evil because they are ignoring the problem? Yes. Ignoring a problem is called in Christian parlance "sins of omission". Would Christians see the energy problem as a sin, it depends on the denomination. I would encourage you to survey their parking lot on the one day of the week that they use their huge air conditioned buildings to see the color of their political leanings and religious message.

 

At the turn of the century it was predicted that NYC would be two miles deep in horse manure if there was not a replacement. Was people evil that drove a team of horses? I would imagine the discussion centered on if a family of two drove a team of horses or used a surrey with the fringe on top with one horse. I am sure that it was an issue for some while others went about their daily deliveries without a thought. Most were waiting on Henry Ford to deliver them from evil.

 

I came out of the sixties where energy was one of the top political arguments. The world was coming to an end and we would all die of toxins and air pollution or the world would lose its temperature and go into a deep freeze or the atmosphere would lose its ability to keep the sun's radiation from frying us into a cancerous heap. Some of these things are beginning to look like they are true. Since I work with people with disabilities, I come in contact with some of the victims. As the number grows, so will the concern. Being proactive hasn't worked. Name calling doesn't work. Be frustrated doesn't work. I am left hoping that Henry will return.

 

 

FB

 

[scoutldr]

I rememeber the gas crisis of 1974...lines of cars around the block, you could only buy gas on even-numbered days if your license plate was an even number, a 6 month waiting list to buy a new Honda Accord. At that time, gas reached the outrageous price of about 69 cents a gallon.

 

The only thing that will get people to give up the gasoline habit will be to make it prohibitively expensive. Appealing to their patriotism or environmentalism doesn't work. We're much too selfish for that as a people.

 

I work for a health related organization and we recently requested that the vendor add some "healthy choices" to the snack vending machine. Lo and behold, the "healthy choices" cost $1.25 while the junk food still costs 50-65 cents. Guess what people are buying?

 

"Change will not occur until the pain of remaining the same exceeds the pain of the change."

[Fuzzy Bear]

scoutldr,

Then we need a leader with the fortitude to strap a hefty gas tax of $4.00 per gallon onto what ever price exists and use that excess to develop what ever option their brother-in-law has invented in their garage to give us a new people mover.

FB

 

[tall buffalo guard]

fuzzy bear, i think you're right. but the problem is that we will never get a leader with the guts to take on the oil industry because the oil industry is too deep into the administration's pockets. until we have a leader who has nothing to do with corporate america, we arent gonna see a change. i still have hope that america is gonna wake up and say, "hey! how come all the fat cats with lotsa cash are callin all the shots and helpin the big guys when they should be taking care of the planet?" and thats what they need to do is take care of the planet instead of themselves. 'cause this is the only earth we've got.

[boleta]

Let's not be politically naive. When the proposition of a 50 cent tax on gasoline, (to be used for repair of infrastructure, research into alternatives, new road construction and to promote conservation) is met by ridicule and then distortion to defeat the person who proposed it, then no changes will occur. Ross Perot proposed this in 1992 and it was fairly well recieved at that time (before he was considered to be an eccentric nut).

 

Remember to quote me when the Saudis have control of Iraq's oil, too. Coming to the future near you. You heard it from me first.

[tall buffalo guard]

it isn't political naivete that drives my thought process. president bush and vice president cheney both had stakes in the oil and energy industry. the bushs made millions in the texas oil boom during the 50s and 60s and cheney, of course, was head of halliburton, one of the world's leaders in oil production. it isn't naive to think that these men would tend to have their actions affected by the industries to which they owe their fortunes, is it? to me it is common sense. what does the president's energy plan call for in the next four years? besides drilling for gas in philmont and oil in alaska?

[OldGreyEagle]

To paraphrase Dorothy Gale, My, things certainly happen quickly here. The title of this thread is Bush wants natural gas exploration NEXT to Philmont, where is it written he wants to drill for it in Philmont?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[tall buffalo guard]

i've lived in the country in northwest missouri for about 16 years. last year my neighbor sold his dairy farm to a developer who is now turning the land into a suburban neighborhood. the developer ran power lines along our fence for one of the houses and they are almost touching a line of walnut trees on our land which we are going to have to cut down before they become a hazard. so to paraphrase, well, me, any dramatic change is going to affect the immidiate areas...including philmont. besides, how many people have camped in the valle vidal over the years?

[OldGreyEagle]

I don't think anyone will doubt exploring for natural gas will have no effect on Philmont, but saying Bush wants to explore for Natural Gas in Philmont is a distortion of the news story that leads off this thread.