A good buddy of mine told me that in the next 20 to 40 years china will be as powerful if not more powerful than the US. If we ever piss off the east we are fucked. Imagine, 40 years the majority of the worlds oil supply runs out, countrys like Iran, saudi still pump out the oil but decide to cut it off to the west. Without oil the west is fucked. No jets, tanks ect. so imagine if saudi gave oil to eastern countrys instead and they decided to invade the west. BOOM!
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Here is a thought, 20 or 40 years from now...
Which is exactly why supporting a resource-cripple like Israel, the arch-nemesis of practically all major oil-producing nations, is the WRONG move on the part of the US and could be their undoing.... China and Russia appear to have their strategic thinking caps on.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-30 11:19:41)
Hey, don't worry ... the infantryman will be always ready the fa%$% all "super powers" in 20-40 years And I also believe that in 20 years probably all our Abrams will run on something different - nukes may be
All china would have to do is use j-10's LMAO
You have to learn the rules of the game and then you have to play better than anyone else.
How about ethanol?....made from corn...thats a fuel we are starting to use more....
That's just another reason to find an alterantive resource.
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
Can you name your resources on this or are you just shooting from the hip?JG1567JG wrote:
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
Sorry, not an option for the US currently. Corn ethanol is so incredibly farfetched it isn't funny, we don't have the land to feed ourselves, let alone fuel ourselves, and it really isn't effecient at all. Ethanol is only an option when a cheap flourishing plant is avaliable, such as sugar cane in South America. Sugar cane is essentially banned in the US due to the sugarbeet farmer lobby.Cuttin_cut wrote:
How about ethanol?....made from corn...thats a fuel we are starting to use more....
Many countries have oil reserves like that, but they are generally reserves because they are in forms of oil that are costly to harvest. An example would be shale oil, for the longest time it required full scale excavation and destruction of land and rock simply to extract the oil. Only recently, as oil prices have risen, have incentives been great enough for companies like Shell to investigate more effective forms of extraction.JG1567JG wrote:
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
No we don't. The strategic oil reserve holds about 570 million barrels of oil. The US consumes ~20 million barrels of oil per day.JG1567JG wrote:
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
yea in 40 yrs gas will be obsoleteGATOR591957 wrote:
That's just another reason to find an alterantive resource.
We have enough land to feed ourselves. In fact, we can grow far more food than we can consume, which is why farm subsidies pay farmers to keep land out of production. It's basically a way to artificially reduce production to keep prices up.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, not an option for the US currently. Corn ethanol is so incredibly farfetched it isn't funny, we don't have the land to feed ourselves, let alone fuel ourselves, and it really isn't effecient at all. Ethanol is only an option when a cheap flourishing plant is avaliable, such as sugar cane in South America. Sugar cane is essentially banned in the US due to the sugarbeet farmer lobby.Cuttin_cut wrote:
How about ethanol?....made from corn...thats a fuel we are starting to use more....Many countries have oil reserves like that, but they are generally reserves because they are in forms of oil that are costly to harvest. An example would be shale oil, for the longest time it required full scale excavation and destruction of land and rock simply to extract the oil. Only recently, as oil prices have risen, have incentives been great enough for companies like Shell to investigate more effective forms of extraction.JG1567JG wrote:
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
Hell, fusion reactors anyone? Clean safe energy without the nasty side-effects like radiation and toxic waste. Now, if we can figure out a way to heat up hydrogen into extreme temperatures and not burn off/melt everything around it...
That's why theoretical physics are fun. You come up with crazy ideas and pass them on to engineers and practical physicists to figure out.
But seriously. Fusion power is the future. Though "tree-hugging hippies" will probably object to the word "fusion"'s resemblence to "fission", the forementioned evil twin of fusion.
Sigh...
That's why theoretical physics are fun. You come up with crazy ideas and pass them on to engineers and practical physicists to figure out.
But seriously. Fusion power is the future. Though "tree-hugging hippies" will probably object to the word "fusion"'s resemblence to "fission", the forementioned evil twin of fusion.
Sigh...
Well i don't know about u guys, but i got loads of family in the east, plus my family owns two homes, and a shitload of farm land. If anything such as East attack West happens, I flee west with my family.
Uh. No. We have little airable land here, and only a percentage of that is devoted to corn. And you misunderstand subsidies, they are tools to allow farmers who cannot produce as effeciently as foreign countries to stay in business. Subsidies do not reduce production, they encourage surplus production because farmers are ensured the government will buy anything they can't sell. They are a crutch to those few farmers that are unwilling to move into a different market.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We have enough land to feed ourselves. In fact, we can grow far more food than we can consume, which is why farm subsidies pay farmers to keep land out of production. It's basically a way to artificially reduce production to keep prices up.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, not an option for the US currently. Corn ethanol is so incredibly farfetched it isn't funny, we don't have the land to feed ourselves, let alone fuel ourselves, and it really isn't effecient at all. Ethanol is only an option when a cheap flourishing plant is avaliable, such as sugar cane in South America. Sugar cane is essentially banned in the US due to the sugarbeet farmer lobby.Cuttin_cut wrote:
How about ethanol?....made from corn...thats a fuel we are starting to use more....Many countries have oil reserves like that, but they are generally reserves because they are in forms of oil that are costly to harvest. An example would be shale oil, for the longest time it required full scale excavation and destruction of land and rock simply to extract the oil. Only recently, as oil prices have risen, have incentives been great enough for companies like Shell to investigate more effective forms of extraction.JG1567JG wrote:
Did you know that we have over a hundred year oil supply stored in this country. When ever you hear about the government tapping the oil reserves to help bring down prices, it is this 100+ year supply they are talking about. If the oil in the ground ever runs out there will still be over a 100 year supply in the United States that will be ready on tap.
doh gas will be absolete in 10 years anyhow, some danish scientist found out a cheap way to bind oxygen to some pills so that it could run some machines way more efficiently than oil machines the only problem is that they gotta find a way to integrate some of the pill into water so that i can become fluid and run jets n stuff. the only thing the us need is access to water and they can keep back the frigging chinese with no problem at all. and since the chinese dosn't have at highest more than 5 carriers they are basically screwed since they can't transport their troops not to mention feed them.
You know I coulda swore that modern tanks and shit ran off Nuclear reactors...(looks in Wikipedia) Nope I was wrong, but is it really so far-fethced that these bastards can run off a nuclear reactor similar to our Subs? What amazes me is the worlds thirst for drama, its almost like some/most of you guys are begging for a war to spark between the east and the west. China wants a giant war almost as much as we want to kiss their ass for something. I understand that we have pissed them off, and the ground is a little shaky, but you know that when China's leader came to visit before and apparently got pissed off because Bush's PR reps said he couldnt have a real American steak dinner, that wasnt the fault of the prez that was poor planning. I have a feeling that all this talk about China attacking, invasion of the US, all that shit, is going to pass and most of you American hating douchebags are gonna be sorely disappointed that your favorite country you love to hate is going to be on top 20-40 years from now, but hey I been wrong before....
How about 5-10 years? Think more realistically.pure_beef_69 wrote:
A good buddy of mine told me that in the next 20 to 40 years china will be as powerful if not more powerful than the US.
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
We have little arable land in comparison to inhabitable land, but a large amount nonetheless. I believe it is somewhere around 1.7 million square kilometers of arable land, which I consider a large amount of land. Both (Jonsimons and Agents) of your comments are correct as far as subsidies. The US government subsidizes many agricultural products to both keep the prices down for foreign competition and keep the prices inflated enough for certain farmers to make a living within the US. US subsidies DO reduce production, because they effectively allow large companies to have fallow land and claim a tax write-off. Why would the large agribusinesses invest money in cultivating fields when they can let them be and get money for it? True, the government does buy excess crops (which it surpluses and gives to the World Food Bank), but subsidies are enacted to help large agribusiness far more than to help farmers unwillling to grow anything else. In fact, many small co-op style farmers are against subisidies for this reason.jonsimon wrote:
Uh. No. We have little airable land here, and only a percentage of that is devoted to corn. And you misunderstand subsidies, they are tools to allow farmers who cannot produce as effeciently as foreign countries to stay in business. Subsidies do not reduce production, they encourage surplus production because farmers are ensured the government will buy anything they can't sell. They are a crutch to those few farmers that are unwilling to move into a different market.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-08-30 12:19:55)
We have enough land, and yes we do pay farmers to keep land out of production. It isn't the only type of farm subsidy, but we do in fact do it.jonsimon wrote:
Uh. No. We have little airable land here, and only a percentage of that is devoted to corn. And you misunderstand subsidies, they are tools to allow farmers who cannot produce as effeciently as foreign countries to stay in business. Subsidies do not reduce production, they encourage surplus production because farmers are ensured the government will buy anything they can't sell. They are a crutch to those few farmers that are unwilling to move into a different market.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We have enough land to feed ourselves. In fact, we can grow far more food than we can consume, which is why farm subsidies pay farmers to keep land out of production. It's basically a way to artificially reduce production to keep prices up.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, not an option for the US currently. Corn ethanol is so incredibly farfetched it isn't funny, we don't have the land to feed ourselves, let alone fuel ourselves, and it really isn't effecient at all. Ethanol is only an option when a cheap flourishing plant is avaliable, such as sugar cane in South America. Sugar cane is essentially banned in the US due to the sugarbeet farmer lobby.Cuttin_cut wrote:
How about ethanol?....made from corn...thats a fuel we are starting to use more....
Many countries have oil reserves like that, but they are generally reserves because they are in forms of oil that are costly to harvest. An example would be shale oil, for the longest time it required full scale excavation and destruction of land and rock simply to extract the oil. Only recently, as oil prices have risen, have incentives been great enough for companies like Shell to investigate more effective forms of extraction.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1340
Farm subsidies also do not go to farmers that can't or won't produce more efficiently. In fact, most subsidies end up going to the large farming conglomorites.Farm subsidies are not intended to reduce the cost of food significantly. If prices fell too much, farmers would lose money. To prevent this, Congress also has “environmental” conservation subsidies that pay farmers not to cultivate their land, resulting in higher prices for crops that are thus made scarcer. Consequently, from 1995 through 2002 we paid $14 billion for farmland conservation subsidies that increased the price of our food.
As for growing enough food to feed ourselves, we have more than enough capacity. I'm not necessarily saying we should start growing more corn for ethanol, as there are other issues to that, but to say that it isn't viable because we can't grow enough food for ourselves simply isn't true.The most enduring political illusion is that farm subsidies are necessary to maintain the small family farmer. In fact, 77 percent of Americans support giving subsidies to small family farms, according to a 2004 poll by the PIPA/Knowledge Network. Small family farmers are not the primary dollar recipients of federal subsidies, however. According to the subsidy watchdog, Environmental Working Group, 71 percent of farm subsidies go to the top 10 percent of subsidy beneficiaries, almost all of which are large farms. In 2002, 78 farms, none small or struggling, each received more than a million dollars in subsidies. The bottom 80 percent of recipients average only $846 per year.
The result of subsidizing the rich, more landed farmers is that they can reduce the prices of their goods, making it much harder for small farmers to compete. Rather than being the small family farmers’ savior, subsidies work against them.
Rich farmers are a powerful lobby in American politics. In the last election, crop producers gave $11.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and they are likely to give much more by this November.
oh great... here we go again....ok you win. whatever we suck your great...we stick our nose in too many places or whatever, no can everyone just shut up with the U.S. being the great satan? pleaseCameronPoe wrote:
Which is exactly why supporting a resource-cripple like Israel, the arch-nemesis of practically all major oil-producing nations, is the WRONG move on the part of the US and could be their undoing.... China and Russia appear to have their strategic thinking caps on.
Subs and carriers can afford to run off nuclear reactors because they have the space. Reactors are huge.d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
You know I coulda swore that modern tanks and shit ran off Nuclear reactors...(looks in Wikipedia) Nope I was wrong, but is it really so far-fethced that these bastards can run off a nuclear reactor similar to our Subs? What amazes me is the worlds thirst for drama, its almost like some/most of you guys are begging for a war to spark between the east and the west. China wants a giant war almost as much as we want to kiss their ass for something. I understand that we have pissed them off, and the ground is a little shaky, but you know that when China's leader came to visit before and apparently got pissed off because Bush's PR reps said he couldnt have a real American steak dinner, that wasnt the fault of the prez that was poor planning. I have a feeling that all this talk about China attacking, invasion of the US, all that shit, is going to pass and most of you American hating douchebags are gonna be sorely disappointed that your favorite country you love to hate is going to be on top 20-40 years from now, but hey I been wrong before....
Nuclear reactors heat water to produce steam which turns a steam turbine. It may sound very fancy
but really it's just an expensive, efficient water boiler
You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo jumbo do you?Janysc wrote:
Hell, fusion reactors anyone? Clean safe energy without the nasty side-effects like radiation and toxic waste. Now, if we can figure out a way to heat up hydrogen into extreme temperatures and not burn off/melt everything around it...
That's why theoretical physics are fun. You come up with crazy ideas and pass them on to engineers and practical physicists to figure out.
But seriously. Fusion power is the future. Though "tree-hugging hippies" will probably object to the word "fusion"'s resemblence to "fission", the forementioned evil twin of fusion.
Sigh...
Actually...I imagine the problem would be getting the fuel source/reactor small enough to fit into a vehichle/aircraft...and I just can't imagine something safe enough yet small enough to work.
It is amazing if you think about how much gas an F-18 goes through on one flight...8-10k lbs on average (about 1200 - 1500 gallons) for 1 - 1.5 hours of flying.
Cold fusion is about achieving nuclear fusion at room temperatures. The fusion everyone else in this thread is talking about is the more conventional extreme temperatures type fusion.Navyholdi99 wrote:
You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo jumbo do you?Janysc wrote:
Hell, fusion reactors anyone? Clean safe energy without the nasty side-effects like radiation and toxic waste. Now, if we can figure out a way to heat up hydrogen into extreme temperatures and not burn off/melt everything around it...
That's why theoretical physics are fun. You come up with crazy ideas and pass them on to engineers and practical physicists to figure out.
But seriously. Fusion power is the future. Though "tree-hugging hippies" will probably object to the word "fusion"'s resemblence to "fission", the forementioned evil twin of fusion.
Sigh...
edit: nm, guess he was talking about CF
Last edited by PRiMACORD (2006-08-30 13:26:27)
Why shouldn't I? I can imagine some hundred years ago, people were asking, "You don't believe all this heliocentrism mumbo jumbo do you?" As well as "nuclear power mumbo jumbo", "radiation mumbo jumbo" (the man behind the Periodic Table refused to believe it), "believe-in-nothing mumbo jumbo", and "genetic engineering mumbo jumbo" over the last years.Navyholdi99 wrote:
You don't believe all this cold fusion mumbo jumbo do you?Janysc wrote:
Hell, fusion reactors anyone? Clean safe energy without the nasty side-effects like radiation and toxic waste. Now, if we can figure out a way to heat up hydrogen into extreme temperatures and not burn off/melt everything around it...
That's why theoretical physics are fun. You come up with crazy ideas and pass them on to engineers and practical physicists to figure out.
But seriously. Fusion power is the future. Though "tree-hugging hippies" will probably object to the word "fusion"'s resemblence to "fission", the forementioned evil twin of fusion.
Sigh...
People have always said, "No way that's gonna work" until hey presto! science saves the day.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Here is a thought, 20 or 40 years from now...