osamanobama said:
zarx said:
osamanobama said:
NJ5 said:
osamanobama said:
NJ5 said:
osamanobama said:
America may very well be the most resource rich nation/region in the entire world.
whats stupid is that we dont even use it. we should be energy independent
|
What energy resources are you talking about? When it comes to oil and gas, the U.S. has less reserves than other countries (I think Russia is the top in gas).
Apparently the U.S. has the most coal, but that's the dirtiest fossil fuel, not something you want to burn quickly to become energy independent.
Still, I agree that it's ridiculous to say the U.S. has no natural resources.
|
perhaps you havent heard of Alaska, the Dakotas, Texas, tons of other states, and our sea shores
|
I have heard. Despite all the frequent propaganda (drill drill drill!) about the oil reserves in those places, they're nowhere near substantial enough to make the U.S. the nation with most oil.
There are billions of barrels of oil in those places, but remember the daily consumption rate is 20 million barrels in the U.S. alone, that's 7.3 billion barrels per year. The whole world consumes 4 times that, or around 30 billion barrels per year.
To give some examples, Canada has much more oil than the U.S. So does Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.
|
thats very very debatable.
we have enough to last us a century or 2. but whhy should we soley rely on oil, we have an abundance of other resources, some very large desserts (but we cant put solar fields there either, guess why?) lets not forget nuclear either, i dont know why so many greenies are against this, it doesnt release any carbon.
|
actually mining and refining Uranium is a very carbon intensive proccess and uranium is a a finite resource and the USA doesn't have very large Uranium production sitting at a distant 8th in production, then there is the costs of safely storing spent uranium not a trivial task considering that uranium waste stays radioactive for tens of millions of years and has to be actively cooled (in massive vats of running water that becomes irradiated) for 20 years before it can be "safely" stored 500-1000 meters underground for long time storage and then there is the large amounts of clean water required for power generation. Nuclear power is actually very carbon intensive when you add it all up.
|
even if it was (which it isnt), i wouldnt care
edit: im taliking about the carbon part
|
Of all aternative energy sources other than coal and oil it is the most carbon intensive. Uranium is very heavy and hard to mine and refine very carbon intensive. Nowhere near coal or other fossil fules but per Kw it is much more carbon intensive than wind solar or other renewables. I know you don't care I was just explaining why "greenies" don't like nuclear, that is not to say solar and wind don't have their own problems but Nuclear is not sustainable or clean.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
