Ohhhh that’s what he ment

So apparently, when bush said in the state of the union that he was going to cut middle east oil imports by 75% by 2025 he was just using it as an example and didn't actually mean it. Thank god I'll be president after the 2020 election.

Oooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Well, now Im disapointed. I fully and completely expected our consuption of oil to decrease by 75% when he said that.

And when you become president, will you still have the Mbro cam?

True, but to the average american they take what he says literally and he did state it as such that he was going to end the consumption by 2025 with the new technologies.

Gatyr, I think then it'd be the oval office cam

ShortyBP wrote: When you become President mbro... I expect you to up the ante and decrease oil imports by 76%.

Please shorty, 76%? That's crazy talk. 75.2% I could do, but 76? HA

I took his comment to mean that we will cut our dependance on oil GENERALLY by 75% by 2025, which would of course also reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

Now, while that certainly is an extremely aggressive proposition, it isn't necessarily as far-fetched as one might think.

There are two principal uses of petroleum fuels in the US - electrical generation and automobiles/trucks.  There are other large ones - residential heating and airplanes - but those two are the main ones.  They each account for almost 50% of total petrousage in the US. 

(Of course, we also use a pile of natural gas, oil's cousin, but that was conveniently left out of the question)

20 years is enough time to build a buttload of nuclear reactors - enough to replace all the diesel-burning generators out there.  That alone would cut our oil usage almost in half. 

Then we just need to cut the diesel/gasoline usage in automobiles in half and we have cut our oil usage by 75%.  Car gas usage could be significatly reduced by a combination of minimum mileage requirements, increased gas taxes, new engine technology, and alternate fuel usage.

It could be done, IMO.  It would require some very aggressive action that would be unpopular with many, but it could be done.  It won't be done, but it could be.

Granted nuclear reactors are a good option but you run into the "not in my back yard problem." There hasn't even been a nuclear powerplant built in america in over 20 years. I think it would be a hard sell to get america to go along with it although I myself like the option.

Footnote: If I hear one politician talk about fuel cells in the energy debate I will personally fly to washington to slap them.

mbro wrote: Granted nuclear reactors are a good option but you run into the "not in my back yard problem."

You have NIMBY problems no matter what you build.  I have seen shots fired trying to stop construction of windmills.  Granted that the NIMBYs would work hard to stop nukes, my timeline factors that in.

5 years for construction, 3 years for pre-construction development work, and 10 years for politics and litigation before that.  Although we actually can't afford 10 years of litigation - if we are to build 100+ nuclear reactors, that can't all be done at the same time; there just aren't enough construction companies with the expertise in the world.  Construction would have to be staggered, which means that several plants would have to be underway within the next 5 years or so.

mbro wrote: Of course we could always ask North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran or Isreal for help.

I would LOVE to see GW call up Kim Jung Il and ask for help with nuclear technology.

:)

Actaully, I'm currently looking at these warm fusion reactors, they seem much more plausable

Rambino wrote: mbro wrote: Granted nuclear reactors are a good option but you run into the "not in my back yard problem." You have NIMBY problems no matter what you build.  I have seen shots fired trying to stop construction of windmills.  Granted that the NIMBYs would work hard to stop nukes, my timeline factors that in. 5 years for construction, 3 years for pre-construction development work, and 10 years for politics and litigation before that.  Although we actually can't afford 10 years of litigation - if we are to build 100+ nuclear reactors, that can't all be done at the same time; there just aren't enough construction companies with the expertise in the world.  Construction would have to be staggered, which means that several plants would have to be underway within the next 5 years or so.

Really we need refineries (enrichment plants). Which under some of the new plan are going to be built very soon. You can have all the nuclear plants you want but then you run into "What do we do with the waste now?" questions. We need plants, and refineries.

PS. I think I would rather have a nuke plant in my backyard, then a propane tank. Just my thoughts on it. It just gets me PO'ed when people drive behind giant trucks full of explosive products, then complain that a train carrying nuclear waste (in a sealed and uber protected boxcar) goes through their state.....retards.