It seems that Bush may win in his fight to allow drilling in Alaska. I have never agreed with the republicans on this one. What do you all think?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

I don't agree either. Alaska is our "last frontier", and I'd like it to stay that way.

It's like this, does any sane person really think that once we've depleted all the gasoline on Earth, everyone is just going to let the oil deposits in ANWAR just sit there?

I say let's just drill into it now and try to reduce our dependence on foreign oil because, really, there's enough oil there to last for thirty years.

Is it 30 years or is it 8 years? I've heard both but haven't seen any data yet supporting either contention. Either way, is it enough to let us thumb our nose at OPEC? I tend to doubt it. I think we should be finding alternative energy resources so we _can_ thumb our nose at OPEC and for good. The fuel cell, magnetism, and yes, solar power can be developed more than they are. There are probably other things as well. The US military is of course, already working on this with their AFVs (Alternative Fuel Vehicles). There's plenty of info about it but here's some links:

http://hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov/programs/afv.asp
http://www.dtic.mil/dust/focusfy01/army/nac0102.htm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o.../Air_Force.htm
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun00/MS492.htm
http://www.dcmilitary.com/navy/sease...s/32730-1.html
http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/Pre...yNACtoJoin.htm
http://www.reserve-nationalguard.com...l/hybrids.html

I've said this before... I think that there is no lack of intellectualls looking for a solution because the man that invents a way to circumvent fossil fuels is going to make Bill Gates evious.

Until such breakthrough it made, we have to make due with what we've got. And that means doing a little drilling of our own.

Don't know much on the issue, but I oppose it. Uhm yeah read somehting about the elks or protected environment too.

For the eternal loss of habitate, and natural splendor we get 8 to 30 years at most (depending on who you listen to) of some addition to our fossil fuels which will not remove our dependance on OPEC. Seems a poor bargin to me. It may at some point come to be needed out of desperation until enough alternative methods are in place. I don't think we're anywhere near that yet and I think with a concerted effort we could easily have the alternative methods in place long before we come to that point. We could start with driving fuel efficient vehicles that exist now. That doesn't mean giving up SUVs. It means driving ones that make sense.

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

I've said this before... I think that there is no lack of intellectualls looking for a solution because the man that invents a way to circumvent fossil fuels is going to make Bill Gates evious.

Until such breakthrough it made, we have to make due with what we've got. And that means doing a little drilling of our own.

I think we have more options than you may believe, it's a matter of convenience. We could choose to buy more fuel-efficient autos, or hybrids, or even just take public transportations more frequently. It doesn't take much. Over here my team members and I have a public transportation day every month -- where everyone takes public transportation to work. Maybe we could up it to once a week. Yeah sure it'll be a pain in the butt and it'll take longer, but we're happy about it. 10 people saving on 20 miles of gas consumption may not be significant, but imagine it's brought to a national level -- that'll save the US lots of gasoline every year -- just might be enough to make the drilling seem less necessary?

Most people just decide to sacrifice the environment for convenience, it's really that simple.

I am in league with charge 7. The oil in Alaska does very little to change the problem of the US's reliance on the black gold. The government is a bit behind in its thinking. More oil solves nothing. The solution is in alternative fuel technologies. I am a fan of hydrogen fuel cells.

Originally Posted by Doody

I did a research paper on hydrogen fuel cells, and I believe that it is the technology of the future. Here is how it works in laymen terms

The hydrogen and oxygen are moved separately through the fuel cell. The oxygen and hydrogen are separated by a think membrane of material. This material is thin enough to excite the electron in the hydrogen atom. The material used use to be platinum, but I believe new materials are being tested to bring down the cost of fuel cells. At some point, the excited hydrogen electron rips apart and travels through a circuit. In a cars case, it is the electric motor. After traveling through the circuit, the electron meets back up with the hydrogen. The hydrogen combines with the oxygen to make water.



So you have a power source that uses hydrogen to make power and it's only byproducts is water and oxygen.

Also, Great Britain is leading the world in the use of hydrogen fuel cells. I believe London's bus system is totally ran by fuel cells. The london study found that after a curtain number of buses, the cost of maintaining buses with fuel cells becomes less than running gasoline powered buses. The mayor of London drank water from the tail pipe of one of the buses after riding in it to demonstrate that it was water.

oh yeah as of today the drilling deal passed the senate 51-49

I studied hydrogen fuel cells in my Environmental Biology class. My teacher brought one in too. They're quite neat.