With allies like these...

**triggerhappy2005** · 05-30-11, 07:42 AM

...who needs enemies?

Saudi prince calls for lower oil prices - CNN.com

This why $4 gallon of gas is good for the US. It's time to make some difficult changes to protect our future.

**Cleric** · 05-30-11, 02:47 PM

Well that's actually surprising for him to say. He'll be branded a heretic by the other OPEC loons, which makes it even more surprising, and he more than likely wont get anywhere with it either. Its a good though that at least someone is starting to see the problem. However, i don't think a $20 or even $30 drop for a barrel of oil would really make that much of a difference in gas prices. You'll have to get past Exxon, Shell, and other big oil companies who are big time political campaign contributors. I think they have grown too comfortable with their $100 billion plus in yearly profits to want to change prices much. Now if they were willing to make a sacrifice and drop the price of gas to help out their fellow man, then i could understand a little tax break for them. Another thing is that we have alternatives! Bio-diesel, ethanol, solar power, lithium cells, water turbines (yes, i read this in a science newsletter they hand out where i work. Basically it works like the ones in the hoover dam or something like that). I mean hell, scientists have even altered the genetic code of specific algae so they use natural photosynthesis to create bio-fuels. Yet, have we truly, TRULY made a big push or big investment to use these alternatives? Noooooot really. I mean come on, if we really put enough money and effort into other means of fuel, we could greatly decrease our dependence on foreign oil in about 10 years. Thank you mr. monarch for making your statement.

**deathgodusmc** · 05-30-11, 07:17 PM

Sounds more like a business man talking then anyuthing else. I cant judge him on wanting to make a profit and a continued livelyhood. Either way the problem does not stem with oil. It comes from our own reps pumping money into oil companies instead of finding alternative way that can actually replace it. Ethonal has to many issues associated with it and biodiesil isn't realistic as a replacement. Their is a big potential in solar, wind, and water turbine but we aren't getting what we need from it at this point. Not to mention oil isn't just about powering things. In one shape or form its in most of the things people come in contact with every day. So it isn't as easy as saying we need to change to this or that.

**DJ Ms. White** · 05-30-11, 07:32 PM

Fusion isn't viable. It's pity people have their panties in a wad about nuclear energy. That shit is cheap and safe with modern powerplants.

**deathgodusmc** · 05-30-11, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Fusion isn't viable. It's pity people have their panties in a wad about nuclear energy. That shit is cheap and safe with modern powerplants.

Like in japan? There is nothing safe about nuclear energy and if its so cheap why the hell is my power bill 400 bucks a month? Once again i give progress energy the middle finger you bunch of bastards.

**CivilWars** · 05-30-11, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Like in japan? There is nothing safe about nuclear energy and if its so cheap why the hell is my power bill 400 bucks a month? Once again i give progress energy the middle finger you bunch of bastards.

So how many people died in Japan as a direct or indirect result of the earthquake and tsunami, and how many have died as a result of the nuclear plant? Based on those numbers I would call nuclear safe.

**reject_wolf** · 05-30-11, 09:51 PM

nuclear might be safe, but the cost associated with clean up of a nuclear site once they expire or have an accident really doesn't make it very cheap. things like stuxnet also make me weary of using too much nuclear power.

**deathgodusmc** · 05-30-11, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

So how many people died in Japan as a direct or indirect result of the earthquake and tsunami, and how many have died as a result of the nuclear plant? Based on those numbers I would call nuclear safe.

You wont know that total for a while to begin with. Radiation doesn't always kill right off the bat. More to the point though just because right now the body count is low means its safe? Natarual disasters are unpredictable by the very nature of the beast. It only takes one mistake and nuclear can kill. Not to mention the waste producted by the nuclear process.

Lets look at the last nuclear disaster Chernoble. How many died then? Last i knew it was near 1 million globally from explostion to years later. Now what about those that didn't die? How about all the side effects that generations live with?

Dont mistake luck for safe.

Actually luck is only a part of what saved hundreds of thousands from death. Those 300 engineers played a pretty vital roll in that. Just felt i should give credit where its due.

**CivilWars** · 05-30-11, 10:17 PM

And how many people die drilling for and shipping oil? How many die mining coal? If we eliminate fuel sources because people die harvesting, refining, producing, and/or shipping them then we need to eliminate all fuel sources. The nuclear meltdowns attract attention because they cause massive trauma at one time whereas other sources create trauma over time.

**deathgodusmc** · 05-30-11, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

And how many people die drilling for and shipping oil? How many die mining coal? If we eliminate fuel sources because people die harvesting, refining, producing, and/or shipping them then we need to eliminate all fuel sources. The nuclear meltdowns attract attention because they cause massive trauma at one time whereas other sources create trauma over time.

So your justification for it being safe is people die in other jobs? Sorry but that doesn't equal safe. It simply means we accept the possible consiquences of the process.