POTUS promised lower gasoline prices in 2012 election and he delivered. Congress sat on their hands when he mentioned gas under $2/gal at the STOU. Why? Their campaign donors market cap was shrinking. How sad that something so good for the economy is so hated by wealthy.
Suez Canal played a small role there. Seems to me that we are in a position to deny oil resources to others with extreme prejudice if we don't need to use it ourselves. May prove to be an advantage in diplomatic efforts that prevent war.
I know we are more in a posture to hunt down terrorists these days, but having the option to destroy rather than capture enemy controlled oil fields owing to strategic oil independence means an easier slog in the more traditional strategic posture. Always winning the last war faster is not a bad contingency to cover.
Nice video. He's wrong about reactors in a civilian context, it'll be remote offshore wind, like where it always blows south of Iceland, for example, but the military concept is sound.
One more time. Peer reviewed work demonstrates economic viability, indeed cost savings, working country by country. Internet troll link old shill site ravings that don't even address the new work. Why not simply call this what it is: foolishness?
Slashdot Mirror
POTUS promised lower gasoline prices in 2012 election and he delivered. Congress sat on their hands when he mentioned gas under $2/gal at the STOU. Why? Their campaign donors market cap was shrinking. How sad that something so good for the economy is so hated by wealthy.
Good thought, though ISIS seems to have a workaround.
Yeah, China is in recession if words don't mean what they mean. http://www.wsj.com/articles/as...
The source for this is Greenpeace, one of the more fair and balanced sources of information.
Stop trying to take credit. You're always doing that.
We did.
Suez Canal played a small role there. Seems to me that we are in a position to deny oil resources to others with extreme prejudice if we don't need to use it ourselves. May prove to be an advantage in diplomatic efforts that prevent war.
OP says mod parent up.
I know we are more in a posture to hunt down terrorists these days, but having the option to destroy rather than capture enemy controlled oil fields owing to strategic oil independence means an easier slog in the more traditional strategic posture. Always winning the last war faster is not a bad contingency to cover.
Oil wells are strategic targets. That's why Rommel was in Africa. Feedlots may end up being harder to capture or destroy.
Still waiting for an apology from Iran....
Every war we avoid through better logistics saves blood and treasure.
Nice video. He's wrong about reactors in a civilian context, it'll be remote offshore wind, like where it always blows south of Iceland, for example, but the military concept is sound.
Nuclear is a great fit for the Navy. It is not going anywhere.
President Obama pointed out that our military spending is extensive and our enemies can't escape us. Glad our pilots can keep out of return fire.
You example is foolish and illogical as you would know if you understood the study.
And yet it works even if you don't.
One more time. http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
And the news differs from government projections. Never happened before. That's why oil us over $80/bbl these days.
Best one for thorium fanbois.
One more time. Peer reviewed work demonstrates economic viability, indeed cost savings, working country by country. Internet troll link old shill site ravings that don't even address the new work. Why not simply call this what it is: foolishness?
Admit it, you didn't even look at the abstract of the peer reviewed study I linked. You have absolutely no idea what you are writing about.
How about, don't offer a shill site to counter published peer reviewed work. It is a waste of time.
And business shuts down because it can't meet peak. You are very thick I think.
Average price for utility scale solar is $0.05/kwh and still dropping. http://www.energybiz.com/magaz... Less than nuclear.