Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Is it getting hot in here? [the main forum]
Energy independent?

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Purplepiratelynn

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:44 pm


So I am watching Glenn Beck and Mitt Romeny is talking about his plan of America being independent of foreign oil/energy in twenty years. Does anyone think this is possible?

Furthermore do you think that Nuclear is a possible way out of the oil crisis?
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:06 pm


Nuclear energy is an alternative to oil. However after those incidents in Russia, with the leaks, I feel that it's just too risky. But, I did once hear that if you cover 90 miles of arizona in solar panels, you could power the entire U.S.

WeHappyFew

4,750 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Contributor 150
  • Member 100

Purplepiratelynn

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 2:03 pm


luvSimpson3
Nuclear energy is an alternative to oil. However after those incidents in Russia, with the leaks, I feel that it's just too risky. But, I did once hear that if you cover 90 miles of arizona in solar panels, you could power the entire U.S.
yes that would be good. but in all reality most of those nuclear messes probably happened because it was not as regulated in Russia. With a more watchful eye it really is not that hazardous.
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:16 pm


Purplepiratelynn
So I am watching Glenn Beck and Mitt Romeny is talking about his plan of America being independent of foreign oil/energy in twenty years. Does anyone think this is possible?

Furthermore do you think that Nuclear is a possible way out of the oil crisis?


Unfortunately, being independent of foreign oil won't solve the whole problem. In fact, it won't solve much at all. We'll be using just as much energy, just burning oil from Alaska. So even if it is possible, it won't do much of anything at all for the entire climate crisis. (And on a political note, Mitt Romney isn't concerned much at all with global warming. He's concerned with money.)

Nuclear energy is extremely powerful and promising, but it has a lot of problems. Not only do we have to worry about leaks, but all of the Uranium, after it's used, has to be put in basically giant concrete containers and buried in the ground. That's okay for a while, but we have no idea what will come out of it in hundreds of years. Remember, not knowing what we were doing to the environment is what got us into this whole mess to begin with.

Short answer, it won't make a difference, and no.

This Rae


Dr.Vertigo

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:45 pm


If every house, apt,bussiness in the U.S. turned there heat down to 69 in 5 years we wouldent be dependate on forien oil also we got 31 years left of oil and by 2011 we will be at maximum production so if consumption increases well gas prices will be threw the roof and we need to do something now.......and you know what? 14% of all the oil that isent used to drive down the street in used to make plastic and pestasides so what will we do then.....
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:13 pm


In all honesty, nuclear power could be a way to solve our energy/oil crisis. But then, what would happen to people? No matter what, nuclear energy is BAD for the human body, in whatever form.

I am much more like the idea of Solar Panels. They are cheap to make *or so I here* and have, basically, an unlimited fuel supply *the Sun* All in all, I wouldn't be very surprised if Romney, hypothetically speaking, gets to be the President and doesn't do anything. All politicians are sleazy and never keep their promises. Just my opinion though~

mazuac

4,500 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Statustician 100
  • Contributor 150

mazuac

4,500 Points
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Statustician 100
  • Contributor 150
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:15 pm


Purplepiratelynn
luvSimpson3
Nuclear energy is an alternative to oil. However after those incidents in Russia, with the leaks, I feel that it's just too risky. But, I did once hear that if you cover 90 miles of arizona in solar panels, you could power the entire U.S.
yes that would be good. but in all reality most of those nuclear messes probably happened because it was not as regulated in Russia. With a more watchful eye it really is not that hazardous.

I disagree. Eventually the nuclear radiation could, and would, leak out and then what? Plants, animals, and humans would die off, or become mutated. I am opposed to nuclear energy consumption and use~
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:19 am


right, but the fact that radiation spreads should also be considered. With those nuclear messes the area had to be immediatly closed off, or else the radiation would have spread, the fish that were contaminated needed to be destroyed or else risk the spreading of disease, what happens the day when no one notices the leak? the contamination can spread through states or at the very least miles....

WeHappyFew

4,750 Points
  • Signature Look 250
  • Contributor 150
  • Member 100

Rico Morgenstern

PostPosted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:02 am


mazuac
In all honesty, nuclear power could be a way to solve our energy/oil crisis. But then, what would happen to people? No matter what, nuclear energy is BAD for the human body, in whatever form.

I am much more like the idea of Solar Panels. They are cheap to make *or so I here* and have, basically, an unlimited fuel supply *the Sun* All in all, I wouldn't be very surprised if Romney, hypothetically speaking, gets to be the President and doesn't do anything. All politicians are sleazy and never keep their promises. Just my opinion though~

I agree with you about solar power. It's like... mimicking nature. Plants get energy from the sun. I see now down side to solar power.
Reply
Is it getting hot in here? [the main forum]

 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
//
//

// //

Have an account? Login Now!

//
//