NationStates Jolt Archive

We will have to drill more oil in the US. The thing with McCain is, he wants to sell the gas to grandma so she can get back & forth to bingo. That oil should only be used by the military. (just in case the rest of the world dosn't want to play nice in the future)

Thoughts?

We will have to drill more oil in the US. The thing with McCain is, he wants to sell the gas to grandma so she can get back & forth to bingo. That oil should only be used by the military. (just in case the rest of the world dosn't want to play nice in the future)

Thoughts?

Drill. The military is already on biofuels. (something similar to bio Diesel called Jp-8). So if a corporation finds it cost effective to drill then by all means let them drill. Not to mention we can produce fuel from coal which we have plenty of if cost is not a consideration(which for the military it isn't.) look at Germany's fuel supply during WWII.

and where are you talking about drilling ?
off shore.
ANWR?
or South Dakota?

We will have to drill more oil in the US. The thing with McCain is, he wants to sell the gas to grandma so she can get back & forth to bingo. That oil should only be used by the military. (just in case the rest of the world dosn't want to play nice in the future)

Thoughts?

Oh, yeah. I'm "grandma" and I don't play Bingo or do any frivolous driving. Most "grandmas" these days do a lot of things - usually things like working to supplement insufficient pensions or, if our pensions are adequate, we volunteer with youth groups, literacy programs, soup kitchens, etc. We tend to find that public transportation is time consuming, inefficient and, sometimes, dangerous. So yeah, by all means, make sure that we don't have access to necessary and, dare I say it, liberating transportation, because we're trivial, useless and marginal. You might limit our access to other forms of energy, too - like natural gas or electricity for heating and cooking. We haven't earned it and we'd only use it stupidly, for things like survival.

Excuse my rant. Yes we should drill. Carefully, and with due attention to safety and the environment, but we should drill.

I wouldn't mind a little more drilling, provided it's done responsibly, but I would much rather automakers get a red-hot fireplace poker up the ass regarding fuel efficiency.

Drill. The military is already on biofuels. (something similar to bio Diesel called Jp-8). So if a corporation finds it cost effective to drill then by all means let them drill.

and where are you talking about drilling ?
off shore.
ANWR?
or South Dakota?

America only holds about 3% of the world's oil reserve.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp

Bio fuels are on their way out. (McCain & Obama agreed on that much in the debates) If alt energy can be used in whatever super stealth jets they come up with in the future then then great. But let's not squander the little bit of oil we have, just in case.

Oh, yeah. I'm "grandma" and I don't play Bingo or do any frivolous driving. Most "grandmas" these days do a lot of things - usually things like working to supplement insufficient pensions or, if our pensions are adequate, we volunteer with youth groups, literacy programs, soup kitchens, etc. We tend to find that public transportation is time consuming, inefficient and, sometimes, dangerous. So yeah, by all means, make sure that we don't have access to necessary and, dare I say it, liberating transportation, because we're trivial, useless and marginal. You might limit our access to other forms of energy, too - like natural gas or electricity for heating and cooking. We haven't earned it and we'd only use it stupidly, for things like survival.

Excuse my rant. Yes we should drill. Carefully, and with due attention to safety and the environment, but we should drill.

10 years from now, grandma, Joe the plumber, Joe 6-pack and Joe 9 to 5 will be in electric cars. Between Obama and the "WE" folks. I think it will be done.
http://www.wecansolveit.org/

10 years from now, grandma, Joe the plumber, Joe 6-pack and Joe 9 to 5 will be in electric cars. Between Obama and the "WE" folks. I think it will be done.
http://www.wecansolveit.org/

So what are we supposed to do for the next ten years?

And yes, it's more than probable that Obama will win, but there is the off chance that he won't, so what do you predict in that unlikely event?

America only holds about 3% of the world's oil reserve.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp

Bio fuels are on their way out. (McCain & Obama agreed on that much in the debates) If alt energy can be used in whatever super stealth jets they come up with in the future then then great. But let's not squander the little bit of oil we have, just in case.

by reserves as listed in the media are based off of two things.
1. we can only pull 40% of the oil out of the ground with current technology.
2. is it cost effective to pump the oil out with oil prices as is.

#1 comes into play long term world wide fuel reserves. if we can only pump at 40% of the fuel now means there is another 60% waiting for us. prices go up technology will adapt prices will go back down.

#2 comes into play in the US with south Dakota. South Dakota has oil roughly equal to the reserves of Saudi Arabia The problem is we need oil to be over 100- or 120 dollars to make it profitable to pump out of the ground.
So most oil reserve reports don't mention it. though the last peak in oil price came close to making South Dakota profitable. Prices crashed before serious drilling commenced.

#3 we can make gasoline Diesel from Coal. need oil above 70 a barrel to be cost effective. Guess who has the world's largest Coal reserve??? The USA with 27% of the worlds coal supply.

also
#1 tells you that buying old "dry" oil wells (remember to get the mineral rights) is a good long term investment. As if not you your children will be approached as technology allows pumping again.

So what are we supposed to do for the next ten years?
The next 10 years is the transitional period. The question is which way to go?

And yes, it's more than probable that Obama will win, but there is the off chance that he won't, so what do you predict in that unlikely event?

McCain will build 45 new nuke plants. Obama wants less nuke plants and more solar & wind turbine farms. (nuke plant utility bills will cost more than wind/solar utility bills so let's hope Obama wins) And if McCain wins he will drill what little oil we have left. Then if we were to need oil for the war machine 20 years from now, we would have to go to the Middle East, hat in hand and ask for permission to defend ourselves.

McCain will build 45 new nuke plants. Obama wants less nuke plants and more solar & wind turbine farms.

At least McCain has a sound energy plan.

Wind turbines and solar power are COMPLETELY USELESS for your primary electricity generation because their power output is circumstancial, while power consumption is not.

Every megawatt of solar or wind power used directly for electricity generation needs a megawatt of backup power, usually generated by fossil fuels.

For example, Denmark the promised land of wind energy produces MORE carbon emissions per capita than other nordic countries.

edit:
That is not to say wind or solar power don't have their uses...One very, very useful application would be to use them as a clean platform for hydrogen economy.

At least McCain has a sound energy plan.

Wind turbines and solar power are COMPLETELY USELESS for your primary electricity generation because their power output is circumstancial, while power consumption is not.

Every megawatt of solar or wind power used directly for electricity generation needs a megawatt of backup power, usually generated by fossil fuels.

For example, Denmark the promised land of wind energy produces MORE carbon emissions per capita than other nordic countries.

edit:
That is not to say wind or solar power don't have their uses...One very, very useful application would be to use them as a clean platform for hydrogen economy.

Check out the Pickens plan:
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

At least McCain has a sound energy plan.

Wind turbines and solar power are COMPLETELY USELESS for your primary electricity generation because their power output is circumstancial, while power consumption is not.

Every megawatt of solar or wind power used directly for electricity generation needs a megawatt of backup power, usually generated by fossil fuels.

For example, Denmark the promised land of wind energy produces MORE carbon emissions per capita than other nordic countries.

edit:
That is not to say wind or solar power don't have their uses...One very, very useful application would be to use them as a clean platform for hydrogen economy.

Denmark, also, does not have access to hydroelectric or geothermal power, as Iceland, Norway and Sweden have.

It also doesn't use wind power to any large extent. It's quite pitiful really, compared to Germany, for example.

Yes, all resources should be exclusively for the industrial military combine - screw the population, what do those useless bastards do except vote anyway. Thomas Jefferson would be so proud

I've always thought that so long as you can import resources such as oil, gas etc. then you should leave your own resources for when it is no longer possible to import any longer. As for exclusive military use of resources - I wouldn't be able to agree with it because it just goes against my mostly sharey-sharey attitudes.

:p

So what are we supposed to do for the next ten years?

And yes, it's more than probable that Obama will win, but there is the off chance that he won't, so what do you predict in that unlikely event?

Is oil suddenly going to disappear in the next 10 years? Better hope not because that is the time it is going to take us to get the 2% of our current daily use of theoretical oil wells in areas that the Republicans want to open to the oil companies.

Check out the Pickens plan:
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
Pickens is a self-interested douchebag.


Wind turbines and solar power are COMPLETELY USELESS for your primary electricity generation because their power output is circumstancial, while power consumption is not.
Isn't it? There is more need for electricity during the summer for cooling, at night for lighting, on weekends when people are home, etc. Less at other times.

I never understood why we can't just hook solar generators to very very large batteries. I suppose that's being naive.

Personally, I don't want more oil drilled for off of my coast. I don't care how high gas prices are or what inlanders are whining about. They can drill in their back yards for all I care.

Seriously, though, we need to get off oil. Even if we drilled for more, we'd likely not see any effect from such for a long time. In the mean time, we're running out, and I'm sure I'll be called a tree-hugger or hippy or a pinko (for the more retro minded) or some other such thing, for saying this, but maybe it's a good thing, in the long run, that we are.

A lot of the "drill for more oil" whining sounds to me like "Give me convenience or give me death!"

[to OP]

It's not a serious question. The decision will have no appreciable effect on the lives of regular citizens.

US only has 21 billion barrels to drill into, and regularly consumes 7, now with all these SUVs probably 8 billion barrels a year. The US oil reserves would only last for 2.5 years.

Of course, they can also be used rationally, to supply 10% of the needs, which they realistically should. But then, if drilled by gov't and provided at half the market price, it will only make a 5% dent into fuel cost.
So, is $3.15 gas instead of $3.30 gas going to revolutionize your life?

When talking about using US oil, everyone thinks about the new '60s, buck-per-gallon oil, oversized engines in cheap cars, all that stuff. But it ain't gonna happen. Drilling for oil in US, even if done on non-profit basis, will only slightly affect gas price.

Isn't it? There is more need for electricity during the summer for cooling, at night for lighting, on weekends when people are home, etc. Less at other times.
It's completely true that the need for electricity fluctuates, but the fluctuation doesn't follow eg. the pattern of windpower output by any significant degree.

Also, lights at night or heating in the winter fuelled by solar power - Does not compute.

Running air conditioning locally using solar power on the other hand would make a lot of sense.
Denmark, also, does not have access to hydroelectric or geothermal power, as Iceland, Norway and Sweden have.
The flip side of the coin is that the winters are less chillier and the distances for transport much shorter.

edit:
And you can use geothermal heat pumps for heating even in Denmark. A technique that is widely and succesfully used in Sweden.
It also doesn't use wind power to any large extent. It's quite pitiful really, compared to Germany, for example.
Two quotes from wikipedia:
Wind power provided 19.7 percent of the Denmark's electricity

Wind power currently produces about six percent of Germany’s total electrical power

Here's (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=842) another point:
Much has been written about Denmark’s success as the world’s wind power pioneer. But the regularly repeated claim – that Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity demand from wind sources – is highly misleading.That 20 percent of electricity is not supplied continuously from wind power. Denmark’s wind supply is so variable that it relies heavily on neighbors Norway and Sweden, taking their excess production. In 2003 its export figure for wind power electricity production was as high as 84 percent, as Denmark found it could not absorb its own highly variable wind output capacity into its domestic system. The scale of Denmark’s subsidies was such that in 2006-07 the government increasingly came under scrutiny from the Danish media, which claimed the subsidies were out of control.

I never understood why we can't just hook solar generators to very very large batteries. I suppose that's being naive.
Why not use solar power to create hydrogen? You could then run clean cars, power plants or practically anything with it.

Pickens is a self-interested douchebag.

A Republican douchbag at that. But it dosn't take rocket science to know where the wind belt is.

Why not use solar power to create hydrogen? You could then run clean cars, power plants or practically anything with it.
It's not that simple to work with hydrogen. As gas, it's very voluminous, and liquefying hydrogen requires a lot of energy and fairly expensive equipment. Storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen is also no easy task.


McCain will build 45 new nuke plants. Obama wants less nuke plants and more solar & wind turbine farms. (nuke plant utility bills will cost more than wind/solar utility bills
Only in the Obamadreamland. The only way nuclear would cost more is if Obama taxes it into the ground while subsidizing solar and wind power. Per se, nuclear power is even cheaper than coal. It's artificial costs that drive it a bit above coal, and I don't mean safety, I mean things like setting funds for dismantling while only starting the construction, which coal plants don't do (despite there's a lot more radioactives in an abandoned coal plant than a nuclear one).
Wind power is only economic in a small part of land, where it does some damage of its own. Solar is, near the equator, more reliable, but it's the most expensive of them all.


The military is already on biofuels. (something similar to bio Diesel called Jp-8).
The military also has electric Humvees, oh yay.
JP-8 is not a biofuel, it's regular oil-based fuel.

Also, the fuel systems and turbines of jet fighters are too fragile and vulnerable to use biofuels, which are unstable and dirty, harmful even to big jets. Processing them to be cleaner is unreasonably expensive.

there's a lot more radioactives in an abandoned coal plant than a nuclear one.

Have you been sniffing glue?

Have you been sniffing glue?
An understandable reaction.

Once the reactor has been unloaded, which is part of regular operation, the plant only has slightly irradiated concrete and metal. Nothing of actual danger, actually, unless you play inside the former active zone.

In contrast, a coal plant leaves mountains of waste and residue, which is more capable of spreading around. While it's all a low radioactive, total radioactivity is higher.

Check out the Pickens plan:
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

too bad during the summer a high pressure system rest over the great plains and the winds die.

Only in the Obamadreamland. The only way nuclear would cost more is if Obama taxes it into the ground while subsidizing solar and wind power. Per se, nuclear power is even cheaper than coal. It's artificial costs that drive it a bit above coal, and I don't mean safety, I mean things like setting funds for dismantling while only starting the construction, which coal plants don't do (despite there's a lot more radioactives in an abandoned coal plant than a nuclear one).
Wind power is only economic in a small part of land, where it does some damage of its own. Solar is, near the equator, more reliable, but it's the most expensive of them all.

In McCainland, their bean counter suck. Nuclear energy costs more than you think. How many of the 45 new ones will turn out to be like Brown's Ferry?
http://www.tradewatch.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=140
Then you have to factor in the operational costs for the plants that do work. High dollar techs and a whole bunch of security. A windmill farm would need someone that went to a trade school.

Much of the cost of Nuclear is tied up in externalities like fighting successive lawsuits AFTER the permits are approved. Lawyers...are not cheap, and there's a REASON no new Nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. since 1978. (in case you aren't tracking, most of the extant plants are running on technology between 40 y/o and 60 y/o in the U.S., unlike the ones in, say, France, the bulk of US nuclear power is being generated by machinery designed in the late forties!)

Coal dust contains trace radioactives, including Uranium-this is in the smoke, and it's still there after the scrubbers are finished.

Even with so-called "Clean-Coal" technology.

Hydrogen is a high-volume/low-energy-density gas that requires either some really nasty chemicals to produce in volume, or very large amounts of another energy form-electricity (more joules than you get out of it) to render into useful levels of purity and density. To reduce it to a volume that's useable, say, in an auto, you're looking at the need to liquefy it-which requires high-volume high-compression pumping and refrigeration equipment, as well as very good sealing on any tank that can carry it. (and exotic materials or high-fragility/high-bulk insulated containers). Basically, it's not a practical "Source", it's a secondary-source fuel (means it takes more energy to make it useful than you get out of it.)

Biodiesel/biofuel/algaediesels require expensive and extensive processing (making them a secondary fuel) that again exceeds the amount of energy derived (as well as the cost of that energy).

Solar: requires exotic chemicals to produce the cells/panels, has a low efficiency requiring large surface areas (making it impractical for any but stationary installations or recharging relatively low wattage devices), it is also highly vulnerable to weather, and the plants are easily damaged or rendered inoperable. (say, by a dust storm, mild tropical storm, hailstones, and the like). Solar installations require service trucks, which in turn require fuels.

Wind turbines: high maintenance requirement (that means trucks, or boats, lubricants and frequent servicing of the moving parts), are low-energy-density (means you have to have a lot of materials and equipment for each watt produced), and, like solar, cover a lot of real-estate, are very, very, vulnerable to weather (Lightning storms, wind-storms, tornadoes and thunderstorms), and require a lot of mechanical resources to produce and maintain (Lubricants, spare parts, and the like).

Tidal: Silt? Environmental Protesters? not to mention the sheer number of ships that founder or have trouble just-off-the-coast. A bit more reliable than Wind or Solar, but suitable zones aren't that common near your customer base, and it's still a very low-density-for-wattage option.

Hydroelectric: works fine-right up to the point you start getting hate-mail from the fish-lovers. Hydroelectric is probably the most "bang for your buck" renewable source, as it provides excellent generation capacity for the amounts invested in maintenance and construction. Downsides are similar to, but not exactly the same, as Nuclear, namely that Hydro projects are often targets of Eco-fascist lobbying, lawsuits for "Destroying mother earth", and are vulnerable to eco-terrorism (the amount of explosive needed to drop most dams is truly pathetic-two activists with backpacks of C-4 and det-cord can blow most dams thanks to prevaling levels of pressure and how the structure is stressed!)

What's that leave?

Oil. Petroleum, which is not only needed for fuel and energy, but also for chemical feedstocks, lubricants, and non-degradable plastics (which you need for most of your medical/pharmaceutical /Chemical industries or any of the Obamapopular "renewable resources energy'' so-called "Solutions".)

Reducing dependence on Oil is a good idea. It's a fantastic idea, in fact. so is increasing controllable sources (that means weaning off of imported sources in favour of sources that are not so vulnerable to someone ELSE's political instabilities.)

However, there's a point of diminishing returns in "COnservation"-most of the North American economy relies on motor transport of some sort (Shipping, rail, air, and Road), as well as freedom of movement (for instance, bus lines often don't work for workers who work graveyard shift-the bus either isn't running when they go to work, or isn't when they've completed their shift, just as an example). Diminishing returns in the conservation game is a bit like "cost cutting" in the corporate world-you can never cut costs so far that you don't have to produce SOMETHING. The same thing applies to energy policy- increasing efficiency does NOT mean you can become totally efficient. the best "Second choice" option is to control 'costs' as much as is practical by controlling the logistics (or keeping the logistics out of the hands of outside, often unfriendly, powers.)

Nuclear power has several things to recommend it as a replacement both for aging "Old model" N-plants, and oil-fired/coal-fired plants. Among them is the rate of fuel USE, the ability with Generation III plants to control waste (it's not sprayed pell-mell into the atmosphere), and, with designs like the Helium-Pebble-bed reactor, even a breach isn't the problem that it is with old-model plants since the hazard can be pretty much cleaned up by a guy in a suit with a shovel, (and it won't go far, because it won't be flying like Tchernobyl did.)

"Build it all" is probably the strongest option-but even with "Build it all" you still need those chemical feedstocks and lubricants and solvents and such that are derived from processing Crude Oil. ("Synthetic" or organic-base options aren't just inflationary, in many cases they're impossible, as in the technology to produce them simply does not exist, or is so expensive it might as well not exist.)

At this point, we still need dead, fermented, carbonaceous era sea-life that has marinated for millions of years (Petroleum), and as long as we need it, we're going to need to drill for it. It's not going away no matter how many tilting windmills you build.

Once again, threatening to drill in the arctic will never be as effective as threatening to drill in the skulls of oil execs. :p

There are plenty of countries that use CNG -- Compressed Natural Gas -- for fuel. In the U.S., we have plenty of natural gas reserves. In fact, a large number of government vehicles run on CNG. Why don't we see any promotion for this energy source, while we're working on the more difficult sources like fuel cells?

In McCainland, their bean counter suck. Nuclear energy costs more than you think. Actually I'm basing everything on specific figures.

So, if you have better ones, how much exactly does it cost and how is that more expensive?



High dollar techs and a whole bunch of security. A windmill farm would need someone that went to a trade school.
Except it needs a lot of them, and a lot of work to construct.

AND a backup system for when the wind is too weak. Or, for that matter, too strong.

There are plenty of countries that use CNG -- Compressed Natural Gas -- for fuel. In the U.S., we have plenty of natural gas reserves. In fact, a large number of government vehicles run on CNG. Why don't we see any promotion for this energy source, while we're working on the more difficult sources like fuel cells?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tvOhL28nAw

I've seen just this one ad in Massachusetts. Self-interested corporate douche friend of self-interested corporate douche T. Boone Pickens, but so what? I have no problem with self-interested, profit-seeking douches, if their profit will also profit me by giving me something I want.

I have little patience with the "let's get drillin'" crowd, because I do not believe new drilling in US territory will produce enough oil, even over time, to make any difference at all to our current situation. Considering the time it will take to extract it and the amount there likely is to be extracted, I doubt it will even keep up with consumption.

Some of the oil companies want to drill? Fine, let them start with all that acreage they've already got drilling leases on but haven't touched yet. But I am not interested in any energy plan that does not put the main emphasis on a duel approach of reducing consumption and developing new energy sources/tech. People who come to me enthusiastically pushing drilling, get the door shut in their faces.

It's not that simple to work with hydrogen. As gas, it's very voluminous, and liquefying hydrogen requires a lot of energy and fairly expensive equipment. Storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen is also no easy task.
True that...However energy needed would come from the solar cells or wind power.

The problem with batteries is that they contain nasty chemicals, recharge rather slowly and are also expensive to manufacture.

In anycase, hydrogen economy - hydrogen as common fuel - would be the logical next step unless someone can come up with a battery that's as usable as a tank o' fuel.



Overall, in my opinion, the only rational base electricity production method is nuclear power, be it fission or fusion. Well, that and hydropower.

As for the waste issues...

Well, the actual amount is not a lot: An olympic size swimming pool could theoretically store the waste produced in the operational lifetime of tens of nuclear plants.

Secondly, a coal plant produces more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant does in its lifetime. Here's an interesting tidbit (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n14_v146/ai_16387382) related to this fact:
Thus in 1982, he estimates, U.S. coal-burning power plants, which collectively consumed 616 million tons of coal, released 801 tons of uranium and 1,971 tons of thorium into the environment -- virtually unnoticed.
..
..
In 1982, 111 U.S. nuclear power plants used 540 tons of nuclear fuel to generate electricity. Thus, "the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels,"

Thirdly, that's with old school reactors. I'm not delving into breeders, let alone fusion plants.

Of course, they can also be used rationally, to supply 10% of the needs, which they realistically should. But then, if drilled by gov't and provided at half the market price, it will only make a 5% dent into fuel cost.
So, is $3.15 gas instead of $3.30 gas going to revolutionize your life?


Same argument was used against the Alaska pipeline. but lets look at recent oil price changes and their causes.
Oil demand is down 9%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122418052416641331.html

however prices have fallen closer to 50%.(2.15 a galleon here was 4.00) And this is with OPEC cutting supplies to try and maintain price.
Add a 10% increase in domestic production would likely bring back the 80's and 1 dollar a gallon gas.

however prices have fallen closer to 50%.(2.15 a galleon here was 4.00) And this is with OPEC cutting supplies to try and maintain price.
This is not due to the drop in demand/supply ratio. This is due to the economic crisis.


Add a 10% increase in domestic production would likely bring back the 80's and 1 dollar a gallon gas.
In a dream, as it would require pumping oil at an unprecedented rate.
But even if so - just for a few years, if the oil is drilled and sold non-profit. SUV craze, new muscle cars, etc. will quickly soak up the increase in supply.

And then the other countries will keep US entirely hostage to their oil supply, because it won't have any at all.

Same argument was used against the Alaska pipeline. but lets look at recent oil price changes and their causes.
Oil demand is down 9%.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122418052416641331.html

however prices have fallen closer to 50%.(2.15 a galleon here was 4.00) And this is with OPEC cutting supplies to try and maintain price.
Add a 10% increase in domestic production would likely bring back the 80's and 1 dollar a gallon gas.

I think you should be heading back to the gas prices in 1918.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price.jpg

This is not due to the drop in demand/supply ratio. This is due to the economic crisis.



In a dream, as it would require pumping oil at an unprecedented rate.
But even if so - just for a few years, if the oil is drilled and sold non-profit. SUV craze, new muscle cars, etc. will quickly soak up the increase in supply.

And then the other countries will keep US entirely hostage to their oil supply, because it won't have any at all.

The economic crisis effect price by reducing demand unless you think the economic crisis fairy showed up magically reduced oil prices with a wave of his wand.

At peak the Alaskan pipeline increased domestic production 10%.
Not really it takes awhile for people to go back to less fuel efficient cars, also other means to save energy are not ripped out such as insulation and the like.

Last oil glut was started by an economic crisis (late 70's) and lasted about 20 years. This one should last at least a good 10 years.

I think you should be heading back to the gas prices in 1918.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_adjusted_gasoline_price.jpg

adjusted for inflation 1997 was the cheapest we ever had gas.

adjusted for inflation 1997 was the cheapest we ever had gas.

Well done. You can read a graph.

Not demanding 80's gas prices anymore?

The economic crisis effect price by reducing demand unless you think the economic crisis fairy showed up magically reduced oil prices with a wave of his wand.
By reducing the ability to pay, first of all. It's not exactly the same as demand itself. People simply can't pay $4 a gallon anymore.

Not really it takes awhile for people to go back to less fuel efficient cars,
A century maybe. In US, the SUV market responds to oil price fluctuations rather peculiarly. When the oil goes up, SUV sales go up, because people buy them to prove they can afford the gas [95% of the time, it's people who can't really afford it, because if gas price is really a non-issue for you, why would you bother to boast about being able to afford it.] But when the oil goes down, SUV sales also go up, because more people can pay for the gas and get the "SUV status symbol".



Last oil glut was started by an economic crisis (late 70's) and lasted about 20 years. This one should last at least a good 10 years.
There only is a fall in prices because people have less money, and the oil price is always about what you can pay.

adjusted for inflation 1997 was the cheapest we ever had gas.
But the price of gas is a major component of the inflation index, so this is not as meaningful as it might look. Compare it to loaves of bread, or hours of unskilled manual labor, or something else less self-referential.

Actually I'm basing everything on specific figures.

So, if you have better ones, how much exactly does it cost and how is that more expensive?

I have already provided the links in this thread. The Pickens plan is for 1.2 trillion dollars. That's a one time cost. In the long run all your high dollar techs, security, inspections, cracked pipes (a couple of billion dollars everytime a reactor is shut down and has to be restarted) will make the utility bill too high.

What I think the best plan for wind turbines is though would be for charging batteries for electric cars. Just run batteries back and forth across America with trains, and turn gas stations into battery replacement stations.

I have already provided the links in this thread. You haven't provided links to specific costs and costs per megawatt.

$1.2 trillion dollars, BTW, is enough to buy 1000 gigawatts of nuclear power. Not nearly that much of alt-power.

And, no, it's not a one-time investment for wind power either, it needs constant repairs.


In the long run all your high dollar techs, security, inspections, cracked pipes (a couple of billion dollars everytime a reactor is shut down and has to be restarted) will make the utility bill too high.
And you know that because?

JFYI, the entire cost of a modern nuclear reactor is between $1.3 and $1.8 billion dollars. And through its life, a reactor has at least 12 scheduled shutdowns.

You'd need links for your claim of "a couple of billion dollars everytime a reactor is shut down", to keep it from being classed as BS (rather than a simple mistake).


What I think the best plan for wind turbines is though would be for charging batteries for electric cars. Just run batteries back and forth across America with trains, and turn gas stations into battery replacement stations.
And then spill the acid from used up batteries around.
Furthermore, batteries have such a low energy capacity that running them back and forth can easily waste more fuel than they contain.

You haven't provided links to specific costs and costs per megawatt.

$1.2 trillion dollars, BTW, is enough to buy 1000 gigawatts of nuclear power. Not nearly that much of alt-power.

And, no, it's not a one-time investment for wind power either, it needs constant repairs.

And your point is? Repairs on a windmill? You apply the breaks, you change the blade because a terrorist flew his plane into into it and your up and running again for a couple-few thousand dollars, a short time later. When a terrorist flies into a nuke plant, how long will that take to restore power?. Bzzzzzzzt Trick question. Power is not needed in the fallout zone!


And you know that because?


I've been living it. Google "Browns Ferry" and see what you come up with.

Count me in among the pro-nuclear crowd. Shame I didn't click this thread earlier; there are so many fantastic posts already.

I have already provided the links in this thread. The Pickens plan is for 1.2 trillion dollars. That's a one time cost. In the long run all your high dollar techs, security, inspections, cracked pipes (a couple of billion dollars everytime a reactor is shut down and has to be restarted) will make the utility bill too high.

What I think the best plan for wind turbines is though would be for charging batteries for electric cars. Just run batteries back and forth across America with trains, and turn gas stations into battery replacement stations.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA574.html

I disagree. Pickens is a man who ignores geologist when it suits even the neutral ones employed by the government at a senate hearing. Pickens wants one thing Government contracts.(his plan he would get the lion's share of them)
I also love his comparisons to the interstate system. I am guessing something on the lines of 400% over budget just like the interstate system. 4.8 trillion dollars. wow first plan advocated that's more then the government normally spends. and with recent banking issues its maybe half of our GDP.

No thank you it absurd to make the government do what private enterprise does.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA574.html

I disagree. Pickens is a man who ignores geologist when it suits even the neutral ones employed by the government at a senate hearing. Pickens wants one thing Government contracts.(his plan he would get the lion's share of them)
I also love his comparisons to the interstate system. I am guessing something on the lines of 400% over budget just like the interstate system. 4.8 trillion dollars. wow first plan advocated that's more then the government normally spends. and with recent banking issues its maybe half of our GDP.

No thank you it absurd to make the government do what private enterprise does.

So we kick T Boone to the curb and build the windmills anyway! If he tries to sue? We send in Condy Rice! Trying to get her to answer a question will send anybody screaming into the hills.
:D

And your point is? Repairs on a windmill? You apply the breaks, you change the blade because a terrorist flew his plane into into it and your up and running again for a couple-few thousand dollars, a short time later. When a terrorist flies into a nuke plant, how long will that take to restore power?. Bzzzzzzzt Trick question. Power is not needed in the fallout zone!



I've been living it. Google "Browns Ferry" and see what you come up with.
Or bad weather hits and all those fancy transmissions lines go down.
Shoot current dependency on transmissions lines left everything within 2 hours of the coast with out power for a week after hurricane Ike. Imagine if we were more dependent on transmission lines. A tornado system spawns in the Midwest and leave California with out power for a month ???? Even more so the cost of an economy grinding to a halt is dangerous.
did you know after IKE many places in the US far removed from the disaster couldn't get gasoline or natural gas. that's because electricity needed to work refineries in Houston was cut off by down transmission lines now imagine being even more dependent on transmission lines. this country really would have a disaster on our hands then.
Also bad weather is more common then reactor issues and terrorist attack.
And a tad less predictable.

Or bad weather hits and all those fancy transmissions lines go down.
Shoot current dependency on transmissions lines left everything within 2 hours of the coast with out power for a week after hurricane Ike. Imagine if we were more dependent on transmission lines. A tornado system spawns in the Midwest and leave California with out power for a month ???? Even more so the cost of an economy grinding to a halt is dangerous.
did you know after IKE many places in the US far removed from the disaster couldn't get gasoline or natural gas. that's because electricity needed to work refineries in Houston was cut off by down transmission lines now imagine being even more dependent on transmission lines. this country really would have a disaster on our hands then.
Also bad weather is more common then reactor issues and terrorist attack.
And a tad less predictable.

Those power lines will be used for nuke power too. Same result.

To drill, or not to drill: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous oil prices,
Or to take arms against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries,
And by opposing end them? To lower the cost of oil;
No more; than a tiny percentage of a dollar and by a tiny percentage say we end
The heart-ache of a thousand human beings

To drill, or not to drill: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous oil prices,
Or to take arms against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries,
And by opposing end them? To lower the cost of oil;
No more; than a tiny percentage of a dollar and by a tiny percentage say we end
The heart-ache of a thousand human beings

I say! Bravo! :D

I say! Bravo! :D

Thanks... I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that though.

Those power lines will be used for nuke power too. Same result.

except nuclear reactors wont require power lines to equal the load out like wind will. remember to keep power from dropping off when area A loses power area be and C send power to it. nuclear power plants on the other hand provide power for their area with current transmission line infrastructure.



The Pickens plan after all calls for wind turbines in the Midwest to generate power for California. Where as nuclear plants would have most of the power in California made in California.
I am beginning to wonder if you have even read the plan you so Advocate.

Not drill.

The desire to have drilling here is almost always based on some vague notion of the US achieving "energy independence", which, at least in the next few decades is impossible. It's also supported by those who feel it represents some sort of old "western" ethic.

Essentially, the two main motivations for drilling here in the US are both very foolish reasons. Drilling for oil only keeps us away from a short-term increase in energy security, and has no long-term effect (unless we find a ton of easily accessible oil that we're willing to drill into). The second should be ignored outright.

Basically, when we promote "drilling in the US", we promote a false delusion, a failing hope, that we can continue our way of life unchanged, in fact, that our way of life is ideal. In reality, if we don't want to be the enslaved by our rabid demand for energy, then we have to turn away from all limited sources of fuels. We have to literally (and metaphorically) look to the stars (or star), we need to harness sunlight. We need to harness wind. We need to harness geothermal heat. We need to harness water. If we wish to continue our high-energy consuming lifestyle, we will inevitably have to switch to such sources of energy. We also need to decentralize the system more, we need to end discrimination against local power generators. The longer we wait, the worse off it is for us in the end. And because oil allows people to continue in their delusion that great change is not necessary, it screws us over.

Of course, that's not to say that continuing high energy consumption is right either. Maybe we should just not be such fucking hoarders and use less shit? That's another argument to be had. But regardless, drilling for oil is at best a distraction from what really needs to be done.

And finally, as for the possible benefits of drilling oil, they are few. It's a costly expenditure (particularly with the decreasing price of oil). It can be very harmful for the environment and the ecological system (which in turn both can harm us in the long run). It promotes a wasteful and ecologically destructive lifestyle (though really any high energy consuming society essentially can be so as well). And, unlike what people like to think, it has absolutely no short-term benefit because we can't access the oil for many years. So I really see little merit in doing so.

By the way, sorry if I'm not eloquent or very repetitive, I'm feeling quite tired.

The Pickens plan after all calls for wind turbines in the Midwest to generate power for California. Where as nuclear plants would have most of the power in California made in California.

Where does This (http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/) say that?

In California, the Tehachapi region of Kern County has the potential to add two or three nuclear plants' worth of wind energy to the California grid.
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-taylor-white19-2008aug19,0,4389955.story)

Not drill.

The desire to have drilling here is almost always based on some vague notion of the US achieving "energy independence", which, at least in the next few decades is impossible. It's also supported by those who feel it represents some sort of old "western" ethic.
most just want to lower the price of Gas a little.
After all energy dependence on Canada and Mexico isn't that bad.


Essentially, the two main motivations for drilling here in the US are both very foolish reasons. Drilling for oil only keeps us away from a short-term increase in energy security, and has no long-term effect (unless we find a ton of easily accessible oil that we're willing to drill into). The second should be ignored outright.

Basically, when we promote "drilling in the US", we promote a false delusion, a failing hope, that we can continue our way of life unchanged, in fact, that our way of life is ideal. In reality, if we don't want to be the enslaved by our rabid demand for energy, then we have to turn away from all limited sources of fuels. We have to literally (and metaphorically) look to the stars (or star), we need to harness sunlight. We need to harness wind. We need to harness geothermal heat.these sources are not ready yet. We need to harness water. this causes too many environmental issues If we wish to continue our high-energy consuming lifestyle, we will inevitably have to switch to such sources of energy. It is illogical to switch when it is not marketable to do so. We will switch when it becomes cheaper to use solar then coal or Gas We also need to decentralize the system more, we need to end discrimination against local power generators. The longer we wait, the worse off it is for us in the end. And because oil allows people to continue in their delusion that great change is not necessary, it screws us over. yes decentralize Allow the states to decied on drilling or not off their coast. allow the city to decide on a cheap coal plant versus a expensive wind farm

Of course, that's not to say that continuing high energy consumption is right either. Maybe we should just not be such fucking hoarders and use less shit? That's another argument to be had. But regardless, drilling for oil is at best a distraction from what really needs to be done. feel free to stop using energy at anytime

And finally, as for the possible benefits of drilling oil, they are few. It's a costly expenditure (particularly with the decreasing price of oil). Last time I checked the government is not drilling there private companies are So that is a net profit for the government as we lease the land to these companies, also the companies are not likely to drill there if profits cant be made further more these profits create jobs and stimulates the economy. To not drill at this juncture would be to starve the working man and denied him a decent job, how Sir can you sleep at night.[/quote] It can be very harmful for the environment and the ecological system (which in turn both can harm us in the long run). It promotes a wasteful and ecologically destructive lifestyle (though really any high energy consuming society essentially can be so as well). And, unlike what people like to think, it has absolutely no short-term benefit because we can't access the oil for many years. So I really see little merit in doing so.

By the way, sorry if I'm not eloquent or very repetitive, I'm feeling quite tired.[/QUOTE]

All the environmental hazards can be mitigated with regulations on drilling.
The effect on price are felt far before any of the oil hits the market, because oil is sold in futures of up to 20 years. so a predicted growth in supply will lower prices now.

Not drill.

The desire to have drilling here is almost always based on some vague notion of the US achieving "energy independence", which, at least in the next few decades is impossible. It's also supported by those who feel it represents some sort of old "western" ethic.

Essentially, the two main motivations for drilling here in the US are both very foolish reasons. Drilling for oil only keeps us away from a short-term increase in energy security, and has no long-term effect (unless we find a ton of easily accessible oil that we're willing to drill into). The second should be ignored outright.

Basically, when we promote "drilling in the US", we promote a false delusion, a failing hope, that we can continue our way of life unchanged, in fact, that our way of life is ideal. In reality, if we don't want to be the enslaved by our rabid demand for energy, then we have to turn away from all limited sources of fuels. We have to literally (and metaphorically) look to the stars (or star), we need to harness sunlight. We need to harness wind. We need to harness geothermal heat. We need to harness water. If we wish to continue our high-energy consuming lifestyle, we will inevitably have to switch to such sources of energy. We also need to decentralize the system more, we need to end discrimination against local power generators. The longer we wait, the worse off it is for us in the end. And because oil allows people to continue in their delusion that great change is not necessary, it screws us over.

Of course, that's not to say that continuing high energy consumption is right either. Maybe we should just not be such fucking hoarders and use less shit? That's another argument to be had. But regardless, drilling for oil is at best a distraction from what really needs to be done.

And finally, as for the possible benefits of drilling oil, they are few. It's a costly expenditure (particularly with the decreasing price of oil). It can be very harmful for the environment and the ecological system (which in turn both can harm us in the long run). It promotes a wasteful and ecologically destructive lifestyle (though really any high energy consuming society essentially can be so as well). And, unlike what people like to think, it has absolutely no short-term benefit because we can't access the oil for many years. So I really see little merit in doing so.

By the way, sorry if I'm not eloquent or very repetitive, I'm feeling quite tired.

Wow. I completely agree.

snip

I'd just like to note that he doesn't necessarily mean damming rivers.

Why not use solar power to create hydrogen? You could then run clean cars, power plants or practically anything with it.

That's an idea. Now how to get it implemented?

The problem with the Pickens Plan:
It's all about the money. According to ZapRoot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70HFEHB6dag), Pickens has been busy buying up the rights to the largest aquifer in the country and wants to use eminent domain to take what land he hasn't convinced people to give up yet so he can construct a pipeline to Dallas so long as the powerlines for his wind turbines run alongside. This means the wind portion of the Pickens Plan is just a smokescreen to divert attention and block criticism, a "greenwash" because people love that color all of a sudden.

While the semi-informed neo-hippies are opposed to it on those grounds I fighting it for the reason that wind isn't as relaible, efficient or compact as the other clean alternative source of electrical power, nuclear.

we do NOT HAVE to drill for oil, nor mine coal nor uranium, AT ALL, nor import them.

in theory of course, we don't even absolutely need electricity nor mechanical transportation. in very hard cold reality, we don't HAVE TO burn anything to provide them.

To drill, or not to drill: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous oil prices,
Or to take arms against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries,
And by opposing end them? To lower the cost of oil;
No more; than a tiny percentage of a dollar and by a tiny percentage say we end
The heart-ache of a thousand human beingshttp://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5026820.ece
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International_Business/How_good_is_a_gas_cartel/articleshow/3644895.cms
Nicely put. *bows*

And your point is? Repairs on a windmill? You apply the breaks, you change the blade because a terrorist flew his plane into into it and your up and running again for a couple-few thousand dollars, a short time later.
No, you partially disassemble the windmill and change the bearings, because the wind last week was stronger than the design limits. If you are lucky not to have it crashed. (http://newsblaze.com/story/20081016142937tsop.nb/topstory.html)

And of course you regularly need to conduct maintenance. Like on a car.
And you need a lot of windmills.
A LOT, because their power is extremely intermittent. (http://windfarms.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/wind_cost_report-pdf.pdf)


Even where nuclear power is not very developed, not only plant construction, but nuclear plant maintenance is also cheaper than for wind farms.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/finlandpowercosts.jpg

In France and US nuclear power is even cheaper.


When a terrorist flies into a nuke plant, how long will that take to restore power? . Bzzzzzzzt Trick question. Power is not needed in the fallout zone!
About a day, while the overhead wires are replaced. It would take a nuclear bomb to breach a reactor's containment building and internal containment vessel. These containment buildings are designed to withstand stronger hits than a plane.

Of course, a smarter terrorist could attack the more vulnerable secondary buildings, to cause a shutdown, since it would take a week to restart.

However, terrorist plane attacks are much less frequent (0.08/yr) than storms.


I've been living it. Google "Browns Ferry" and see what you come up with. Why point out failures? Then I can too select the wind turbines that never worked or crashed.

The fact of the matter is, when working and not buried under red tape, nuclear power and coal are competing for being the cheapest (graph (http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/US_ElectProduction_Costs.jpg)). Other fossil fuels are absolutely out of the competition.

As for total costs, for wind power they range from 7 to 20 cents per kWh, while nuclear is 3.7 to 5.0, coal 4.2 to 5.2.

And if you close the fuel-cycle instead of burying your used rods in a geologically unstable hole in Nevada, your price, and environmental impacts, both decline. (the less Uranium you're mining, really-a breeder recycling fuel isn't a completely closed system, but it drops the need for "New" fuel significantly.) If you build it like the Argonne 6 reactor (instead of, y'know, the Hanford-N type that blew up in the Ukraine) meltdown's pretty much not going to happen WITHOUT active human intervention (instead of relying on active human intervention to prevent it. It's called "Passive Safeties".)

most just want to lower the price of Gas a little.

After all energy dependence on Canada and Mexico isn't that bad.

these sources are not ready yet.

this causes too many environmental issues

It is illogical to switch when it is not marketable to do so. We will switch when it becomes cheaper to use solar then coal or Gas yes decentralize Allow the states to decied on drilling or not off their coast. allow the city to decide on a cheap coal plant versus a expensive wind farm feel free to stop using energy at anytime

Last time I checked the government is not drilling there private companies are So that is a net profit for the government as we lease the land to these companies, also the companies are not likely to drill there if profits cant be made further more these profits create jobs and stimulates the economy. To not drill at this juncture would be to starve the working man and denied him a decent job, how Sir can you sleep at night.

All the environmental hazards can be mitigated with regulations on drilling.
The effect on price are felt far before any of the oil hits the market, because oil is sold in futures of up to 20 years. so a predicted growth in supply will lower prices now.

Right, you want to continue the existence of a destructive and ultimately unsustainable system, you belong in category 1.

It's true, not all the alternatives I listed are perfected, but regardless, it's absolutely necessary that we begin our shift away from fossil fuels ASAP. Should we wait until non-renewable resources have a hyper-inflated price because of lack of supply? The best way to make alternatives viable is to support them, and at the very least reduce discrimination against them (centralized power generation and entrenched methods all benefit from current US law).

I wasn't really referring to dams in particular, there are other forms of hydropower as well (tidal power, wave power, micro/pico hydro, etc.).

I never advocated not using energy, I simply provided an alternative to our continual mass-consumption of energy. I personally don't think it would be bad if as a society, we toned down our energy consumption.

No, oil companies in particular get a ton of help from the government, so there's still massive government involvement. By the way, I wouldn't be starving the working man, because he's already got a job, and drilling won't give him any relief for a decade or so (which means that if he's hungry now, he'll be dead by then). Also drilling wouldn't create that many jobs (especially in comparison to experimenting with and implementing new types of technology).

Perhaps the effects can be mitigated, but oil is still harmful to the environment when we burn it. And like I said before (which you seemed to ignore), there is no short term benefit from drilling now.

And like I said before, drilling is just a sideshow to the necessary course of action, it's not one we can afford to waste our time on. It muddles the real issues here and promotes the continued existence of a doomed lifestyle. So really, we'd be better off not drilling, for now.

Eh why would you want to drill at the moment? You have plenty of Iraqi oil with pre-built infrastructure around it, and stuff like the Bakken Field would just be a very expensive waste of time.

Try making your cars more fuel-efficient, that has to help with costs, no?

Drilling in the U.S. is the solution for our energy problems the same way more heroin is the cure for junkies.

Drilling in the U.S. is the solution for our energy problems the same way more heroin is the cure for junkies.

I think this about says it all.

I'm all for drilling if it would do anything. Seeing as it won't fix the real problem, we have to find different sources of energy.

I'm all for drilling if it would do anything. Seeing as it won't fix the real problem, we have to find different sources of energy.
Such as? Name something that hasn't been shot full of holes and is small and safe enough to run a car and can be replenished quickly. For electricity a phased move toward nuclear as the primary replacement for coal is probably the best answer but unless you can get car companies to agree on a standard set of removable battery packs then not even electric will satisfy the needs of most of the country. And people who live in the northern states where the temps dip well below zero will still have to use some for of chemical fuel and hydrogen isn't going to be it.

Right, you want to continue the existence of a destructive and ultimately unsustainable system, you belong in category 1.

NO. I just see the point in trying to force technology that isn't ready to be put in place. Relax the market handles these switch overs much more smoothly then trying to force it with the government.
Imagine you spend a trillion dollars on wind energy then 2 years later a break through occurs in solar making it cost 1/10th the price per Kw and 1/10th the price to install. Means you've just thrown away 900billion dollars, more over you may no longer have the money to switch over to solar as rapidly delaying the onset of clean energy. These things change over when they become cheaper. [/quote]
It's true, not all the alternatives I listed are perfected, but regardless, it's absolutely necessary that we begin our shift away from fossil fuels ASAP. Should we wait until non-renewable resources have a hyper-inflated price because of lack of supply? The best way to make alternatives viable is to support them, and at the very least reduce discrimination against them (centralized power generation and entrenched methods all benefit from current US law).[/quote] As my Tai Chi master said Apply pressure to the flow and the body dies. In this case energy is the flow and the body it supports is the economy.
You don't have to wait that long just wait until fossil fuels inflate to costing more than the alternatives.
You could also regulate Coal power plant emissions more which would increase cost. But these need to be handled slowly so the market can naturally adjust to the alternative instead of just wake up on morning build a ton of wind power plants and try to bring the super grid online the next.
40 years is a much more reasonable take over.


I wasn't really referring to dams in particular, there are other forms of hydropower as well (tidal power, wave power, micro/pico hydro, etc.).
all of which also have environmental issues. normally trapping sediment and threatening marine life and ambient bacteria counts.


I never advocated not using energy, I simply provided an alternative to our continual mass-consumption of energy. I personally don't think it would be bad if as a society, we toned down our energy consumption.

Feel free to tone down your energy consumption at anytime I am comfortable with my current energy usage.

No, oil companies in particular get a ton of help from the government, so there's still massive government involvement. By the way, I wouldn't be starving the working man, because he's already got a job, and drilling won't give him any relief for a decade or so I didn't realize it would take 10 years for oil drillers to get paid after drilling began (which means that if he's hungry now, he'll be dead by then). Also drilling wouldn't create that many jobs (especially in comparison to experimenting with and implementing new types of technology).

Ive heard about the "subsidies" the oil industry gets. please present numbers. also please avoid property tax reductions or exemptions, and other things businesses often get when they set up shop a ta new location.


Perhaps the effects can be mitigated, but oil is still harmful to the environment when we burn it. And like I said before (which you seemed to ignore), there is no short term benefit from drilling now.
As stated before oils are traded on the futures market. normally in 10 year contracts. the contracts are bought and sold based off of predicted supply and demand in the future. that's why a 2% drop in demand caused a 50% fall in price. Because one small drop just squashed the massive increases predicted in demand 10 years later.


And like I said before, drilling is just a sideshow to the necessary course of action, it's not one we can afford to waste our time on. It muddles the real issues here and promotes the continued existence of a doomed lifestyle. So really, we'd be better off not drilling, for now.
All lifestyles on a biggest scale are doomed. trying to force a change the world and technology are not ready for merely makes us all the more miserable.

NO. I just see the point in trying to force technology that isn't ready to be put in place. Relax the market handles these switch overs much more smoothly then trying to force it with the government.

Imagine you spend a trillion dollars on wind energy then 2 years later a break through occurs in solar making it cost 1/10th the price per Kw and 1/10th the price to install. Means you've just thrown away 900billion dollars, more over you may no longer have the money to switch over to solar as rapidly delaying the onset of clean energy. These things change over when they become cheaper.

As my Tai Chi master said Apply pressure to the flow and the body dies. In this case energy is the flow and the body it supports is the economy.
You don't have to wait that long just wait until fossil fuels inflate to costing more than the alternatives.
You could also regulate Coal power plant emissions more which would increase cost. But these need to be handled slowly so the market can naturally adjust to the alternative instead of just wake up on morning build a ton of wind power plants and try to bring the super grid online the next.
40 years is a much more reasonable take over.

All of which also have environmental issues. normally trapping sediment and threatening marine life and ambient bacteria counts.

Feel free to tone down your energy consumption at anytime I am comfortable with my current energy usage.

I didn't realize it would take 10 years for oil drillers to get paid after drilling began

Ive heard about the "subsidies" the oil industry gets. please present numbers. also please avoid property tax reductions or exemptions, and other things businesses often get when they set up shop a ta new location.
As stated before oils are traded on the futures market. normally in 10 year contracts. the contracts are bought and sold based off of predicted supply and demand in the future. that's why a 2% drop in demand caused a 50% fall in price. Because one small drop just squashed the massive increases predicted in demand 10 years later.

All lifestyles on a biggest scale are doomed. trying to force a change the world and technology are not ready for merely makes us all the more miserable.

That's why research is necessary, so we can have technology to put into place. Should the US hand over our military development and defense to private companies? Both energy and military are matters of national security, so government involvement is justified in both. I mean just think about it, because of the centralized nature of our energy system, a single large natural disaster or several well-coordinated terror strikes could easily take out a large number of people's power and greatly damage the economy. Creating a more modern grid system which makes it easier for people to put the power they generate on the grid would be beneficial to all.

Imagine we sit on our asses for three decades and little improvement occurs, oh sorry, I was describing the last three decades. Your scenario is unreliable and unsupported, and at the very least by investing in research we greatly increase the chances of having such a breakthrough technology.

I don't expect us to have a high-tech modernized energy infrastructure tomorrow, but I think we need to start pushing for it today so we can have it at some point. If you don't put pressure on a cut, you can lose a lot of blood.

How? How do the types of hydro power I listed have a major environmental impact? While the micro/pico generators would likely share some of the problems of major dams, it would be on a very tiny scale, and I would think that for people far away from any sort of civilization, it would be nice to have a reliable source of power (especially if something were to happen to the grid). Besides, the environmental impacts of any of those sources would still be less than that of our current fossil fuel based system, particularly coal which is incredibly destructive to ecological systems because of its poisonous contents (when drilled and processed) which can destroy ecological systems (including aquatic ones). If you want more specifics (on coal), I can find you the Bosselman article (among others).

I'm all for it, as well as increasing our energy efficiency. Again, you don't have to be to picky about something when I was just providing it as an alternate view of an ideal American society.

No, I meant they wouldn't effect oil prices for ten years. Besides, how many of the thousands of impoverished urbanites, locked in the ghettos, will get jobs when we drill a hole in the fucking ocean floor?

Well for one, many facilities are not held up to environmental safety standards because they are considered "too old", so they can pollute a lot (though this is primarily a problem in the coal industry). As well, oil and gas companies face a substantially lower tax rate than other companies (and that's just on paper). The government often assumes the legal risks for exploring/development. Let's not forget we pay billions each year for the security of oil companies, which justified or unjustified, is not a benefit many other companies get. We could go into tons of specifics, but rest assured, oil companies receive billions in subsidies yearly.

We shouldn't wait until the last second to start shifting our lifestyles, shifting immediately (which we will likely be forced to do if things continue as they are now) would be far more unpleasant than a graduated shift that I'm arguing for.

okay, you first.

What, you want to make ME go first? but I don't believe in your dogma.

you do.

What have YOU done to reduce your use of energy? You're on the internet, right? have electric lighting where you're at, maybe central heating? Ride the bus, or public transport? drive a car maybe?

EVERYTHING comes from something, if you're on the Internet, you're burning fossil fuels somewhere along your supply chain. If you live in a city, you're relying on fossil fuels (Food doesn't appear on grocery stores through the magic of pixie-dust and pony-wishes). That bike? guess what-those tyres weren't made out of animal guts or harvested off a tree, the carbon-fibre in your skateboard, rollerblades, high-end sneakers or what have you? Petroleum.

Every wire (and the varnish on the motherboard) is plastic-based, and even if it's rendered from vegetables, that oil was processed with petroleum-based something. Every wire in your house, or apartment, or dorm, or office, the case of your computer, the tyres on the bus or your car, the hoses inside the engine compartment, the PVC piping that brings your water?

Petroleum based.

If you live a post-1860's lifestyle, you're relying on petroleum, folks, from your shoes right on up the length of your body, and everything you own that wasn't made by a rite-auld-amishman is dependent, in one way or another, on petroleum and petroleum chemistry.

Those wind-farms y'all are so keen about? Those solar-farms? Petroleum in the turbine blades and petroleum in the solar cell casings, petroleum lubricants and petroleum plumbing, Petroleum burned to maintain them, petroleum burned to repair them.

The bottled water in your hand or on your desk? the bottle's petroleum based.

you cut back to zero, you can then tell ME to cut back to zero.

Oil isn't just the shit you burn in your car. It clothes you, it surrounds you, you rely on it for every aspect of every day (unless, that is, you're Amish, in which case the question becomes "What in hell are you doing on a computer?") you're depending on it, reliant on it, can't get away from it, and can't do without it.

Oil isn't just the shit you burn in your car. It clothes you, it surrounds you, you rely on it for every aspect of every day
One big reason I think using oil as fuel for transport is irresponsible waste of precious resource.

Doesn't the thread question really depend on who's being drilled? Surely they have a say in the matter?

Doesn't the thread question really depend on who's being drilled? Surely they have a say in the matter?

Apparently not. All those inlanders want to drill my coast, and apparently what I think about such a thing doesn't count.

Apparently not. All those inlanders want to drill my coast, and apparently what I think about such a thing doesn't count.

That's a euphemism I've not heard before ;).

we do NOT HAVE to drill for oil, nor mine coal nor uranium, AT ALL, nor import them.

in theory of course, we don't even absolutely need electricity nor mechanical transportation. in very hard cold reality, we don't HAVE TO burn anything to provide them.

Ah. ANd you are volunteering to be part of the 50% of the populaion that would STARVE TO DEATH if we actually did that?

That's why research is necessary, so we can have technology to put into place. Should the US hand over our military development and defense to private companies? Both energy and military are matters of national security, so government involvement is justified in both.
military research is mostly in private hands. all they do is propose to the government their ideas and see what they might be interested in.
I mean just think about it, because of the centralized nature of our energy system, a single large natural disaster or several well-coordinated terror strikes could easily take out a large number of people's power and greatly damage the economy. it also provides the cheapest Creating a more modern grid system which makes it easier for people to put the power they generate on the grid would be beneficial to all.
then the grid system becomes a target of attack. You either advocate everyone have their own generator of what ever type(making grids unneeded) or you advocate expanding the grids so you can use power sources that fluctuate. not both its too expensive and counterproductive

Imagine we sit on our asses for three decades and little improvement occurs, oh sorry, I was describing the last three decades. Your scenario is unreliable and unsupported, and at the very least by investing in research we greatly increase the chances of having such a breakthrough technology.
where was solar power in the 70's ??? where was wind power ???
in 1904 no one knew what relativity meant in 1905 all the physicist had at least heard of it, and by 1907 they all considered a law from god. The entire history of science is in leaps and bounds. Moreover it is unpredictable to determine where and when such a breakthrough will occur.

I don't expect us to have a high-tech modernized energy infrastructure tomorrow, but I think we need to start pushing for it today so we can have it at some point. If you don't put pressure on a cut, you can lose a lot of blood. the government is not a band aid, it is a nice. It can not create only outlaw and destroy. People create governments abolish.

How? How do the types of hydro power I listed have a major environmental impact? While the micro/pico generators would likely share some of the problems of major dams, it would be on a very tiny scale, and I would think that for people far away from any sort of civilization, it would be nice to have a reliable source of power (especially if something were to happen to the grid). if everyone uses micro and pico generators it ceases to have a tiny impact. Besides, the environmental impacts of any of those sources would still be less than that of our current fossil fuel based system, particularly coal which is incredibly destructive to ecological systems because of its poisonous contents (when drilled and processed) which can destroy ecological systems (including aquatic ones). If you want more specifics (on coal), I can find you the Bosselman article (among others).

I'm all for it, as well as increasing our energy efficiency. Again, you don't have to be to picky about something when I was just providing it as an alternate view of an ideal American society.

No, I meant they wouldn't effect oil prices for ten years. Besides, how many of the thousands of impoverished urbanites, locked in the ghettos, will get jobs when we drill a hole in the fucking ocean floor?
Again oil is traded in futures. the people who buy from the producers buy 10 year contracts. The value of these contracts is influenced by predicted supply and demand. A change in predicted supply or demad affects prices now.
off the top of my head the Alaska pipeline project produced 30,000 jobs directly, counting secondary jobs ice road truckers, steel workers, etc maybe around 100,000 with about 75,000 being unskilled or on the job taught workers. The places that would be opened up for drilling would be several times this due to being over a wider area. SO i would guess between 500,000 and 1,000,000 million jobs. 75% of which being unskilled work.

Well for one, many facilities are not held up to environmental safety standards because they are considered "too old", that's normal see why abestos buildings still exist so they can pollute a lot (though this is primarily a problem in the coal industry). As well, oil and gas companies face a substantially lower tax rate than other companies (and that's just on paper). that is all energy companies not just gas and coal. Solar wind and water generation are also taxed at the 12.4% rate if they are not outright exempt The government often assumes the legal risks for exploring/development. that's a normal renter leaser relationship and only happens on land oil companies lease. Let's not forget we pay billions each year for the security of oil companies, which justified or unjustified, is not a benefit many other companies get. Everyone gets protection by police, the protection energy companies get is similar to hospitals, universities, and other institutions that are absolutely essential. We could go into tons of specifics, but rest assured, oil companies receive billions in subsidies yearly.

We shouldn't wait until the last second to start shifting our lifestyles, shifting immediately (which we will likely be forced to do if things continue as they are now) would be far more unpleasant than a graduated shift that I'm arguing for.

again not the last second when the market prices and technology make it worthwhile to do so.

I wouldn't mind a little more drilling, provided it's done responsibly, but I would much rather automakers get a red-hot fireplace poker up the ass regarding fuel efficiency.

*tosses some coal on the fire to get that poker yellow-hot*

How about targeting the consumers who buy gas-guzzlers instead? Tax 'em more per gallon, the less efficient their vehicle is. Exemption for vehicles that need to be big, like lorries or farm machinery.

How about targeting the consumers who buy gas-guzzlers instead? Tax 'em more per gallon, the less efficient their vehicle is. Exemption for vehicles that need to be big, like lorries or farm machinery.

in the US we already have that its called red diesel

again not the last second when the market prices and technology make it worthwhile to do so.

That line moves, though, depending on how much investment is put in. New processes don't just come out of a research department, they're often discovered in the process of fixing or maintaining infrastructure that is in use.

Optimizing technology is also something that benefits from a working economy in that technology. What a team of designers can achieve in planning is nothing compared with what competing teams can ... and to compete with each other, the products need to actually be made and used.

in the US we already have that its called red diesel

The exemption? It's a no-brainer isn't it.

There would be costs involved in collecting more tax from one driver than another for the same petrol (cars would need to be tested and certified too -- manufacturer's claims of fuel efficiency are widely bogus.) There would be fraud.

I still prefer it to simply regulating manufacturers and importers. Ultimately, over-consumption is the responsibility of the consumers, not the manufacturers.

(In Australia, we have a rebate for diesel fuel. Farmers won that back in the seventies I think ... but long term it hasn't worked, diesel is expensive for no good reason, and the rebate gives wealthy consumers an incentive to buy SUVs which often use diesel.)

When it comes to transportation, fuel-efficiency measures seem to start mostly in the commercial and large-scale transport areas (Regenerative braking, for instance, turbochargers devoted to increasing mileage, Diesel engines, etc. etc.) and filter down to the consumer level. I was visiting with a friend this evening at a bar (pub), and a commercial for that GM "Hybrid" SUV came on the television. My friend made the observation that "If they'd release that as a pick-up, instead of an oversize station wagon, it'd probably sell".

My friend works at a construction outfit, it maintains a 'fleet lease' of pickups for carrying duct-work and moving workers between sites. Their fuel costs are actually a pretty important part of their operating costs, and anything that cuts fuel use they tend to try (including some of the goofier "Trade show" technologies designed to improve spark performance to get more complete burn in the cylinder).

A bit of research shows why GM didn't- it doesn't generate enough useful torque, and the fuel-economy improvements don't make up for the loss... but that's just engineering. Diesel-Electric hybrid drives have been in use on the railways for more than half a century.

The exemption? It's a no-brainer isn't it.

There would be costs involved in collecting more tax from one driver than another for the same petrol (cars would need to be tested and certified too -- manufacturer's claims of fuel efficiency are widely bogus.) There would be fraud.

I still prefer it to simply regulating manufacturers and importers. Ultimately, over-consumption is the responsibility of the consumers, not the manufacturers.

(In Australia, we have a rebate for diesel fuel. Farmers won that back in the seventies I think ... but long term it hasn't worked, diesel is expensive for no good reason, and the rebate gives wealthy consumers an incentive to buy SUVs which often use diesel.)
here it is Tax free if its not for use on public roads.

The bottom line is the electric & hybrid cars are coming on strong.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2066
Instead of drilling (which is oil that the military might need in the future) a nationwide system for battery recharging/replacing needs to be worked out.

The bottom line is the electric & hybrid cars are coming on strong.
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2066
Instead of drilling (which is oil that the military might need in the future) a nationwide system for battery recharging/replacing needs to be worked out.

He directs people to Chris Paine. I can not see this article as anything bu rubbish.

Domestic Oil should be used for important things and not senselessly burnt in someones SUV.

Oil... It can make:
Plastics
Pharamceuticals
Fertiliser
Explosives

And you want to burn it?

Domestic Oil should be used for important things and not senselessly burnt in someones SUV.

Oil... It can make:
Plastics
Pharamceuticals
Fertiliser
Explosives

And you want to burn it?

the interesting thing is it makes all those and fuel at the same time. In fact its the demand for fuel that's keeps those other product affordable.

Imagine we sit on our asses for three decades and little improvement occurs, oh sorry, I was describing the last three decades. Your scenario is unreliable and unsupported, and at the very least by investing in research we greatly increase the chances of having such a breakthrough technology

Actually, quite a bit of progress occurred. Even though wind and solar plants weren't being built, research drastically lowered the cost and upped the efficiency of those plants which has allowed them to expand so rapidly today.

I did a research paper on alternative energy development and government policy last spring for my Econ. 367 class...hopefully I didn't misplace it, because it would be pretty useful right now.

here it is Tax free if its not for use on public roads.

Seems to mainly be for heating or diesel generators.

My feeling is that someone heating their house with diesel fuel should be paying at least as much tax as someone driving with it. Likewise someone burning an oil product to make electricity.

The farmers and miners are trickier. Both our countries have electoral representation, which will always give country people bargaining power. They'll get their pork, whether it's tax rebates or red diesel.

All taxes have a dampening effect, though it's only explicitly acknowledged in the case of punitive taxes (eg tobacco tax.) We should acknowledge that, and try to reduce consumption of oil across the board by taxing ALL products of oil according to their usage of crude oil.

It would be nice to be able to tax the crude oil itself at point of exploitation. Tax revenue resting on that foundation, oil, would have only one distorting effect on the market -- to make alternatives more practical.

Unfortunately, the geographical distribution of oil makes that impossible without a strong world government, so we must resort to a far more complicated system of taxing everything fairly according to the oil used in its manufacture and transportation.

That's a lot of revenue, requiring lots of tax cuts elsewhere. I think a very explicit timetable, over at least a decade, would be advisable to allow businesses to make investment plans and avoid a bubble of snake-oil alternatives.

Here's where I get called a socialist. I want to tax industry, so low down on the industrial pyramid that no accountant can help them avoid the tax. The only way around it is to not use as much oil. I'd like to do the same for coal, but it's too big an ask ... the strategic implications of oil dependency, and the overall consumption effects of cheap transport, add to the emissions issue to make oil the bigger problem.

the interesting thing is it makes all those and fuel at the same time. In fact its the demand for fuel that's keeps those other product affordable.

They're too affordable.

I have no desire to live in a world without plastics, or in fact fertilizers. But we waste large quantities of both. Landfill has a big proportion of plastic which has been used once and thrown away. Farmland is destroyed by growing inappropriate cash crops which would never be practical without petrochemical fertilizer ... not even considering what that does to waterways and oceans.

A good plastic can do things no other product can. It's worth paying for -- if a plastic hinge works better than a steel hinge, what's wrong with paying more for it? And as to fertilizers, third world farmers whose small budgets and weak currency make fertilizer very expensive can get good results from a fraction of the quantity recommended by the manufacturer ... and obviously, harm their soil and waterways less.

Persuant to the point of my preceding post: if government stays focussed on reducing the usage of oil, and taxes oil products consistently, we'd do a lot less harm to the economy than picking prominent targets like SUV drivers or miners, and actually reduce oil consumption more.

military research is mostly in private hands. all they do is propose to the government their ideas and see what they might be interested in.

it also provides the cheapest

then the grid system becomes a target of attack. You either advocate everyone have their own generator of what ever type(making grids unneeded) or you advocate expanding the grids so you can use power sources that fluctuate. not both its too expensive and counterproductive

where was solar power in the 70's ??? where was wind power ???
in 1904 no one knew what relativity meant in 1905 all the physicist had at least heard of it, and by 1907 they all considered a law from god. The entire history of science is in leaps and bounds. Moreover it is unpredictable to determine where and when such a breakthrough will occur.

the government is not a band aid, it is a nice. It can not create only outlaw and destroy. People create governments abolish.

if everyone uses micro and pico generators it ceases to have a tiny impact.

Again oil is traded in futures. the people who buy from the producers buy 10 year contracts. The value of these contracts is influenced by predicted supply and demand. A change in predicted supply or demad affects prices now.
off the top of my head the Alaska pipeline project produced 30,000 jobs directly, counting secondary jobs ice road truckers, steel workers, etc maybe around 100,000 with about 75,000 being unskilled or on the job taught workers. The places that would be opened up for drilling would be several times this due to being over a wider area. SO i would guess between 500,000 and 1,000,000 million jobs. 75% of which being unskilled work.

that's normal see why abestos buildings still exist

that is all energy companies not just gas and coal. Solar wind and water generation are also taxed at the 12.4% rate if they are not outright exempt

that's a normal renter leaser relationship and only happens on land oil companies lease.

Everyone gets protection by police, the protection energy companies get is similar to hospitals, universities, and other institutions that are absolutely essential.

again not the last second when the market prices and technology make it worthwhile to do so.

I was more specifically referring to the military itself, do you want private corporations commanding our soldiers into battle? And furthermore, even when it comes to research, these corporations receive a lot of government funding/grants and such, so in that aspect it's similar to the sort of program I'm advocating.

Not necessarily. The decentralized grid I'm talking about is one that's still hooked up to the central source of power, but one that's more capable of selling energy throughout the grid. For instance, you could still get energy the way we do today, but say you had your own generator and were creating excess energy, it would be much easier for you to sell your electricity, and in situations of crisis it would allow communities to have some source of power. And by the way, if you have a rhizomatic grid system (where you're connected to multiple other stations/houses/etc.), then an "attack" would be literally worthless, it would take out a small knob on the grid, unlike the current system where an attack on a central power source would be immensely destructive.

Well yes, there has been a great deal of progress. And that's why the government shouldn't be afraid to help it along, lots of technology has been developed with government help. Just citing that technology has been developed without government involvement isn't a reason not to have government involvement (whether it be through new departments, grants, subsidies, etc.)

So what about government schools? Where would this country be without universal education? As Horace Mann said over a century ago, universal education is essential in fostering development and creating wealth. You can take whatever damn philosophical position on government you want, but it's naive to think governments can only destroy.

Perhaps, but I never said everyone should start using them. However, for people living in areas extremely far from civilization, energy from sources such as micro hydro can be vital in providing power because the difficulty in building roads, a grid system, and major power plants in sparsely populated areas. In other words, these sources of energy shouldn't be excluded from a vision of the future, but certainly they won't/shouldn't be a universal power source, if even a major one.

We could create far more jobs by updating our grid system, or by developing alternative energy. And again, drilling is used as a distraction from what really needs to be done. I'm not totally opposed to drilling, but we have to have a focus point, and it definitely shouldn't be drilling.

That's not an excuse for having buildings spewing out massive amounts of poison and other types of pollution on a daily basis.

It's not universal (equal taxing of energy) in the US.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I'm not talking about the police, I'm talking about our military bases around the world, the numerous wars we've fought (at least partially for oil), and the military protection that oil companies receive.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, when is the market going to make it feasible? It's likely not going to happen until the price of fossil fuels is very high, and considering demand, when we reach that crunch time the cost of oil will likely shoot up. It would be absolutely devestating to the economy to wait that long for a shift. And when it comes to technology, the government can actively help lower the cost of alternative energy and thus make it economically feasible much more quickly.

You keep saying the same thing over and over, when is the market going to make it feasible? It's likely not going to happen until the price of fossil fuels is very high, and considering demand, when we reach that crunch time the cost of oil will likely shoot up. It would be absolutely devestating to the economy to wait that long for a shift. And when it comes to technology, the government can actively help lower the cost of alternative energy and thus make it economically feasible much more quickly.

Worse than that really. Our governments care so much about the economy, they'll go to war for it.

drill

I'm not opposed to limited drilling, but it's not a long term solution. Go for alternatives, nuclear power, solar, wind etc etc. That's where our future is.

It is not the total solution, it is part of it. By limiting our drilling we condemn our future. Now unless we plan on bringing back hydrogen3 from the moon in 5 years, it is simply prudent to start drilling NOW.

We will have to drill more oil in the US. The thing with McCain is, he wants to sell the gas to grandma so she can get back & forth to bingo. That oil should only be used by the military. (just in case the rest of the world dosn't want to play nice in the future)

Thoughts?
o.o Only used by the military? This has to be an act...

Anyway, I'm kinda glad the US elected a leader who won't drill for oil, though to be honest, it's not just the environmental reasons. While I don't know much about the details, I'd like to think the US might buy some oil from the Hibernia oil field off the Newfoundland island, which would help the NL economy get back on its feet, so that if Ontario's trade with the US causes Toronto to slip into recession, THEY'LL be financially dependant on NL and Margaret Wente will eat her words.

But in a less spiteful sense, I'd also like to see the increasing shortage of oil pressure people to turn to alternatives. I'm hoping this will teach people to develop hydrogen-fueled cars automobiles rather than more gasoline-fueled ones, and have water electrolysis stations next to gas stations. If this adds strain to the power grid, develop more nuclear power plants; it's better than fossil fuels.

o.o Only used by the military? This has to be an act...

Anyway, I'm kinda glad the US elected a leader who won't drill for oil, though to be honest, it's not just the environmental reasons. While I don't know much about the details, I'd like to think the US might buy some oil from the Hibernia oil field off the Newfoundland island, which would help the NL economy get back on its feet, so that if Ontario's trade with the US causes Toronto to slip into recession, THEY'LL be financially dependant on NL and Margaret Wente will eat her words.

But in a less spiteful sense, I'd also like to see the increasing shortage of oil pressure people to turn to alternatives. I'm hoping this will teach people to develop hydrogen-fueled cars automobiles rather than more gasoline-fueled ones, and have water electrolysis stations next to gas stations. If this adds strain to the power grid, develop more nuclear power plants; it's better than fossil fuels.

One way to save energy is to stop powering th NL grid. We could save a bit of oil that way.

One way to save energy is to stop powering th NL grid. We could save a bit of oil that way.
... what? Do you realize that when I say NL I'm referring to the whole province "Newfoundland and Labrador"?

... what? Do you realize that when I say NL I'm referring to the whole province "Newfoundland and Labrador"?

I thinkthat was the point. "Increasing pressure" means you have to prioritize-there's no guarantee that the new priorities are going to break your way. When the vox-populi overcomes common sense, compassion is the first thing that goes when the weather hits and the power's flickering. Newfoundland/Labrador are both sparsely populated provinces, how much influence are they going to have stacked against Ontario, Quebec, etc etc.? When fuel is scarce, who gets it, and who DECIDES who gets it?

True that...However energy needed would come from the solar cells or wind power.

The problem with batteries is that they contain nasty chemicals, recharge rather slowly and are also expensive to manufacture.

In anycase, hydrogen economy - hydrogen as common fuel - would be the logical next step unless someone can come up with a battery that's as usable as a tank o' fuel.

Liquid sodium (energy storage) systems would work for thermal solar.

Capacitors are looking more and more promising and a main electrical energy storage device, especially with the advances in nanotechnology.

I thinkthat was the point. "Increasing pressure" means you have to prioritize-there's no guarantee that the new priorities are going to break your way. When the vox-populi overcomes common sense, compassion is the first thing that goes when the weather hits and the power's flickering. Newfoundland/Labrador are both sparsely populated provinces, how much influence are they going to have stacked against Ontario, Quebec, etc etc.? When fuel is scarce, who gets it, and who DECIDES who gets it?

Quite right. Whenever you force someone or in this case a government to adopt expensive policies, watch out where the axe falls. Have to pay for it by cutting back in other ways. If Canada were to adopt it universally I suppose the only real viable solution is rolling brown outs for the whole country. However we all know that what would really happen is the heavily populated areas would see no real reductions and out in the boondocks, well that's where they will be rather prevalent. It will also depend on who they do not want to piss off. You think your government officials will have a single brown out under the forced plan?

Always the little guy who gets pinched in these situations. Most of the little guys are the ones whining about fossil fuels. People like Al Gore have them in a froth over pseudo science. Gore's house is a virtual fossil fuel pig. All his SUV's etc. He won't suffer in any case, only you.

Maybe I should start selling international 'carbon credit'. Snake oil of the 2000's.

Maybe I should start selling international 'carbon credit'. Snake oil of the 2000's.

Absolutely not. We must reduce our dependance on foreign snake oil, lest the likes of Brazil be allowed to control our guilible citizens through high snake oil prices.

We will have to drill more oil in the US. The thing with McCain is, he wants to sell the gas to grandma so she can get back & forth to bingo. That oil should only be used by the military. (just in case the rest of the world dosn't want to play nice in the future)

Thoughts?

I thought this was a sexual thread... :confused:

I thinkthat was the point. "Increasing pressure" means you have to prioritize-there's no guarantee that the new priorities are going to break your way. When the vox-populi overcomes common sense, compassion is the first thing that goes when the weather hits and the power's flickering. Newfoundland/Labrador are both sparsely populated provinces, how much influence are they going to have stacked against Ontario, Quebec, etc etc.? When fuel is scarce, who gets it, and who DECIDES who gets it?
o.o But if Newfoundland has control of its own oil, doesn't that mean that they get to use it even when oil runs scarce? I don't know much about the specifics of Hibernia but I thought it was a pretty large-scale project.

The point I was making was that if supposedly NL would get enough oil revenues to get back on its feet economically if the money is spent wisely, NL's economy could improve... and I'm guessing Ontario would probably get hit harder by the US recession than we would. I'd like to think that this could lead to a role revesal of sorts wherein Ontario relies on money from Newfoundland, and people like Margaret Wente, who were condescending to Newfoundlanders when Danny Williams was fighting for federal money to invest in Hibernia oil, would eat their words.

It is not the total solution, it is part of it. By limiting our drilling we condemn our future. Now unless we plan on bringing back hydrogen3 from the moon in 5 years, it is simply prudent to start drilling NOW.Wrong.
Work on getting the fuckers to actually develop what they've already got before promoting this bullshit.

I'm not opposed to limited drilling, but it's not a long term solution. Go for alternatives, nuclear power, solar, wind etc etc. That's where our future is.

but if we are switching to alternative should we drill as much as possible now when the oil is worth something. As opposed to in the future once alternatives take over and the oil isn't worth a dime.

o.o But if Newfoundland has control of its own oil, doesn't that mean that they get to use it even when oil runs scarce? I don't know much about the specifics of Hibernia but I thought it was a pretty large-scale project.

The point I was making was that if supposedly NL would get enough oil revenues to get back on its feet economically if the money is spent wisely, NL's economy could improve... and I'm guessing Ontario would probably get hit harder by the US recession than we would. I'd like to think that this could lead to a role revesal of sorts wherein Ontario relies on money from Newfoundland, and people like Margaret Wente, who were condescending to Newfoundlanders when Danny Williams was fighting for federal money to invest in Hibernia oil, would eat their words.


Or, your Canadian Federal government could treat Newfies the way the U.S. would treat Alaska in a similar situation- "Keep that pipeline open even if you're freezing your own people to death, they need it in California!"
(and if you don't believe that, do a price check on Gasoline in Alaska vs. the national average, and remember that Alaska's a major domestic production site.)

Or, your Canadian Federal government could treat Newfies the way the U.S. would treat Alaska in a similar situation- "Keep that pipeline open even if you're freezing your own people to death, they need it in California!"
(and if you don't believe that, do a price check on Gasoline in Alaska vs. the national average, and remember that Alaska's a major domestic production site.)

the Alaskan price gap likely has more to do with once its refined the gasoline has to be delivered on Ice roads to the gas station. Pretty much the same reason everything is more expensive in Alaska.

the Alaskan price gap likely has more to do with once its refined the gasoline has to be delivered on Ice roads to the gas station. Pretty much the same reason everything is more expensive in Alaska.And, of course, the gouging. It's under investigation.

And, of course, the gouging. It's under investigation.

yes just like that polygamist sect in Texas was under investigation for forcing under teen to get married.

Well...here's the thing, though- Let's play a game, let's pretend that the AIP (Alaska Independence Party) actually got into real power, and let's pretend they're really as nuts as they seem from reports down here in the lower forty-eight.

Let's imagine (oh, wild imaginings) that Alaska passes a 10th Amendment resolution similar to that passed by Oklahoma not so long ago.

Now, suppose that, thanks ot limited drilling and continuing non-maintenance of refineries in the U.S., fuel supplies start a down-curve at the same time that demand driven by the failure of a few heavily-financed and very very subsidized "alternatives" combined with the shutdown of previous systems (likely because they're worn out and you can't buy parts off-the-shelf for them anymore-low inventory, you know) all hit at the same time as a "Wild weather year" with a particularly cold winter.

Now, let's consider what would happen if the Alaskans, being told to provide their oil at below market rates by a Federal government, turn off the pipeline, with the intention of using it themselves (much like Hayteria's thought about Newfoundland and their oil supplies).

Remember, this is all make-believe at this point, a Hypothetical situation that is unlikely but not necessarily impossible.

.7 millions of people with around 6% of the U.S. oil production decide to cut that supply off to fill thier own needs.

299.3 million people aren't likely to let that slide, esp. northeasterners heavily dependent on oil-fired power plants. Now, while the slack COULD be taken up by south and central american sources, those sources aren't the Alaska Pipeline.

Here's what would happen: First, demands, then lawsuits, and when those fail to turn the taps back on, the next step is to send the soldiers. This isn't a left-or-right thing, it's a "The Federal Government wants your resource, and they're going to take it." thing.

If Canada were to get in the way...well, it was a nice alliance while it lasted.

Now, going back to Hayteria's idea...

Same situation, bad winter, increased domestic demand, price-controls in place to keep the economy (and the heating oil) flowing south...

Newfoundland/Labrador cuts off the supply so they can use it. The rest of Canada comes north to kick their asses. The other canadians MIGHT invite the U.S. to participate if it looks like they're losing. (This is VANISHINGLY unlikely-Canadian troops are pretty tough bastards.)

Why? because oil isn't just heat, it's also plastic, lubricants, sealants, base chemical feedstocks, and critical for more than just burning in an engine or a boiler. even if you go 100% non-fossil-fuels you're still needing the stuff to make most of the other things your economy runs on-including high-tech items like computers that people don't normally associate with petroleum. Most of the key ingredients we still can't reliably synthesize in a lab in large quantities, and retooling every single industry to 'go green' isn't feasable even if you dumped the GDP PLUS DEBT for the United States into the project and assigned every able-bodied and able-minded adult to carrying it out.

Okay, my view on drilling for Öl (that's "oil" in German): Necessary evil. It pains me to say it, but until we find a new form of enregy, we need all of the oil we can get. Letting the oil just sit there leaves it open to corrput countries who will use the money to fund the new addition to their mansion, rather than to the people. If we drill for oil and become less dependent on outside sources, it will really boost our economy.

Again, I dislike having to do it, but it's completely necessary. This is why I plan on becoming an engineer: to find new ways to create electricity so that we DON'T have to drill for oil.

Or, your Canadian Federal government could treat Newfies the way the U.S. would treat Alaska in a similar situation- "Keep that pipeline open even if you're freezing your own people to death, they need it in California!"
(and if you don't believe that, do a price check on Gasoline in Alaska vs. the national average, and remember that Alaska's a major domestic production site.)
I don't even know much about the oil situation in the US, but I'm just saying that so long as Newfoundland has control of its oil, if we're shipping it elsewhere we'll be the ones to make money off it. We'll hardly freeze to death, we know what sweaters are...

Now, going back to Hayteria's idea...

Same situation, bad winter, increased domestic demand, price-controls in place to keep the economy (and the heating oil) flowing south...
I'm a little confused now, actually, my ideas were more so about shifting to non-fossil-fuels, and until then, the oil money helping to give Newfoundland the ability to improve its economy.


Newfoundland/Labrador cuts off the supply so they can use it. The rest of Canada comes north to kick their asses. The other canadians MIGHT invite the U.S. to participate if it looks like they're losing. (This is VANISHINGLY unlikely-Canadian troops are pretty tough bastards.)
O.o Now I'm even more confused; what do you mean by "comes north to kick their asses"?


Why? because oil isn't just heat, it's also plastic, lubricants, sealants, base chemical feedstocks, and critical for more than just burning in an engine or a boiler. even if you go 100% non-fossil-fuels you're still needing the stuff to make most of the other things your economy runs on-including high-tech items like computers that people don't normally associate with petroleum.
No doubt, but that's all the more reason to try to get away from using oil for heat, power, and transportation... you'll have more of it for other purposes.


Most of the key ingredients we still can't reliably synthesize in a lab in large quantities, and retooling every single industry to 'go green' isn't feasable even if you dumped the GDP PLUS DEBT for the United States into the project and assigned every able-bodied and able-minded adult to carrying it out.
We'll eventually be paying the price for environmental problems one way or another, though. I don't know the specifics, but people really ought to try to think of better ways to do things.

I just hope they can shift enough things to something other than plastic before the world's oil supply runs out... especially the test strips for my glucometer I use to test my blood sugar levels as a diabetic... call me a whiny pathetic Newfie if you will, but I find it a bit scary that my disease would end up being harder to manage because other people would rather drive than either ride bike or take public transit...

I just hope they can shift enough things to something other than plastic before the world's oil supply runs out... especially the test strips for my glucometer I use to test my blood sugar levels as a diabetic... call me a whiny pathetic Newfie if you will, but I find it a bit scary that my disease would end up being harder to manage because other people would rather drive than either ride bike or take public transit...

All plastics consume a grand total of around 4% of world oil consumption. Of that, the vast majority is in things like packaging, so I would have to say you're pretty much in the clear as far as that goes. To put it in perspective, 72% of all oil goes to transportation and of that almost 90% is in light-duty vehicles like personal cars and trucks. Needless to say, it's not a matter of anything else but the economics of alternative sources; technology's rapidly removing the remaining technical barriers, so all that's left is making those advances cost effective enough to put in to place.

The only thing still really inhibiting widespread use of bioplastics is cost; technologically, a lot of them are ready now but it takes time for them to have the kind of economic advantage to encourage their development.

All plastics consume a grand total of around 4% of world oil consumption. Of that, the vast majority is in things like packaging, so I would have to say you're pretty much in the clear as far as that goes. To put it in perspective, 72% of all oil goes to transportation and of that almost 90% is in light-duty vehicles like personal cars and trucks. Needless to say, it's not a matter of anything else but the economics of alternative sources; technology's rapidly removing the remaining technical barriers, so all that's left is making those advances cost effective enough to put in to place.

The only thing still really inhibiting widespread use of bioplastics is cost; technologically, a lot of them are ready now but it takes time for them to have the kind of economic advantage to encourage their development.
See, stuff like this goes to show how ridiculous the notion of letting the free market decide things is... the free market is bad for the environment in this case, and subsidies targeted specifically at pushing for alternatives will end up benefitting the environment...

yes just like that polygamist sect in Texas was under investigation for forcing under teen to get married.
Well, i am serious. This is one of the most corrupt states in the union. Top 5 at least.
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8918988