Originally posted by EladarHas anyone actually done the numbers?
With all the money we are getting from the oil, we can buy our water from Canada.
By the way, the Shell method uses an ice barrier to protect the local water supply.
Regardless of where the water is sourced from an additional resource is being consumed. From what I've read its environmentally unsustainable if done on any economically viable scale. We could end up with a scenario analogous to the bio fuels one where diverting land from food production to energy production use goes some way to solving one problem while if the recent spate of food shortages are anything to go by, goes a long way to creating a long term problem of its own
- Joined
- 16 Aug 08
- Moves
- 35812
1 edit
While it could be that oil shale has the potential to become a useful energy source, it's irrelevant to whether or not the protected areas of Alska should opened up for drilling. Oil shale is not oil, it's a rock that contains significant quantities of kerogen, which can be processed into a synthetic type of crude oil, which can, in turn, be processed into low grade forms of fuel that could be used for things like heating or the generation of electricity in the same way that coal is used, so, as far as my comment about the U.S. having 3% of the world's ol reserves being misleading, it isn't. Oil shale and crude oil is apples and oranges.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87First of all, the main problem is foreign oil. I think we can all agree to that. "W" was simply playing the same game those that came before him which was to guard all the eggs in one basket in the Middle East. He realized that short term he had to do so because no other energy sources had been invested in up until his presidency.
So this current oil crises, why exactly are we going through it again?
Did we listen to two American presidents, from both sides of the political divide no less, on the importance of distancing ourselves from excessive oil consumption?
Given that you don't like history lessons what about the state of Iraq now anyway? Why the big problem? Has a heavy han her fellow citizens down the path of four more years of increasing foreign energy dependence?
Having said that, I do blame "W" for not pushing an energy policy that would one day potentially free us of foreign oil. Fortunately, however, he is not running for President once again. As for SP, her main focus I think is short term independence from fossil fuels which means using our own. Then McCain will being an energy policy which includes investing in nuclear power long term. You see, we need both a viable short term and long term policy which I think they have both addressed. It is unfortunate, however, that Obama has had a history of opposing drilling at home as well as opposing nuclear power. From what I have seen of his energy policy, it consists of us finding ways to use less of foreign oil rather than becoming independent from it.
Originally posted by kmax87I don't care who crushes cars, whether GM or Genetically Engineered or owned by some news outfit, whether electric or otherwise, as long as they are the rightful owners.
It really would have been brilliant if the American government was big and powerful and was not subject to the whims and the favors of powerful lobbies and interest groups. But the biggest neo con is convince all the good freedom loving citizens that big government is bad (because you couldn't trust yourself now could you)that you want as little of it as poss ...[text shortened]... m. And you are one of their unpaid fanboyz
Wajoma was brought to you by GM, GE and News Ltd.
Why so worked up about how GM run their business, are you saying there are no electric cars available in the US, aren't you in Aus, do you want GM to be forced to supply electric cars to Aus.
Originally posted by whodeyI have a lot of sympathy for whoever has to make the final decision. In almost every respect they are likely to get it wrong. The irony is that oil itself is probably the biggest part of the problem. Its sheer portability and transportability coupled with its high energy content plus the relative ease with which it can be mined and processed using fairly crude unsophisticated tools and techniques makes it a very hard energy source to give up.
It is unfortunate, however, that Obama has had a history of opposing drilling at home as well as opposing nuclear power. From what I have seen of his energy policy, it consists of us finding ways to use less of foreign oil rather than becoming independent from it.
Then there's every other aspect of western life that is very dependent and interwoven around the mobilization of goods and services as a result of oils use. How many people lose their jobs if we switch off oil tomorrow? Hundreds of millions? As we start to move away from oil as our primary energy source, what other sources of energy and modes of energy usage can fill the void, and possibly still provide employment for those who have now been retrenched? Its all very well talking tough on oil dependence but what happens worldwide to all the millions of workers in the auto industry and all its affiliated industries, if by dumping oil, and the mode of transport that it fuels goes the way of the dodo?
So if you reject electric vehicles outright because of all the industries that will be made redundant then what other options do you have? Hydrogen power using reciprocating engines so that most of the tooling in place can still be used ( think of the auto spare parts industry alone and the numbers of people worldwide without a job if the reciprocating engine as we know it bites the dust) and much of the filling station logistics can still be used after slight modifications so that instead of pumping fuel you have pressurized gas in your tank.
But where then to go for the energy? Nuclear looks good. Coal cogeneration that releases hydrogen as part of the process looks good. If a hydrogen economy can be implemented then maybe the whole transport industry can be transformed with the least amount of dislocation.
But what about all those oilmen who would rather die than see their industry disappear. If they are not part of the restructuring process by taking an active role in dis-investing from one energy resource and reinvesting into another then the whole thing stalls anyway.
This is the problem without even looking at the politics of it and issues of geopolitical stability and other strategic concerns. The point is that the change that makes the least dislocation and that requires the least restructuring is the one that will win out in the end. When a consensus is reached as to what substance or mode of energy delivery can substitute the work done by oil, and then have that alternate fuel receive all the backing it can get from both government and industry, then the argument of whether we drill a little more here or drill a little more there seems nothing more than shuffling deck-chairs on the Titanic.
The issue of oil independence is also about reducing our our global carbon footprint. And here again nations are playing chicken with each other and seeing who blinks first. The whole why should we do anything about it while China does nothing seems to promote enough inertia about doing anything at all. Yet if any politician stands up and was to propose a radical plan that would signal a dramatic shift away from the way our energy needs are currently satisfied, they would probably find it hard to be elected. So once again the power of democracies to vote in favor of short term self interest instead of long term stability and sustainable gain is another factor that tends to dampen enthusiasm for proposing change at a fundamental level.
As I said at the top of this, I have a lot of sympathy for the people making the decisions right now in terms of oil and its replacement, because hindsight will probably judge them as having gotten it wrong, and this is one issue all politics aside, that we just cant afford to keep getting wrong.
2 edits
Originally posted by DjincYou are right, drilling Alaska will only affect gas prices by very little and much later, but that does not mean don't drill. With the combined efforts of more drilling, lessen consumption, more nuclear power plants and other alternatives it will help this country out greatly. It would be stupid not to consider drilling while shearching for our energy answers. Lets face it America is not exactly what it once was but we are still a leader in cutting technologies, but we do not have the answer yet.
Drilling on protected lands in Alaska will not effect the price of gas at the pump for a decade, and then only by a couple of pennies on the gallon. John McCain himself has publicly conceeded this. More drilling will not make the numbers work any better. If you believe that it will, then you are either unaware of the simple reality that we are using more than 8 t ...[text shortened]... ng around in America. That isn't 'Elitism', that's merely an acknowledgement of the obvious.[/b]
So until we invent the best technologies for energy, it's DRILL DRILL DRILL.
Whats funny is i never hear a fuss on all the damn drilling Saudi Arabia, and all the other countries that are pumping so much more than we are. So do you think they are worried about what the are doing to the enviroment.
If we have only "3%" then wouldn't that mean far less stealing from mother nature.
Besides in a market like America's we will take care of the problem naturally, I have seen 10 times the scooters and motorcycles that I have ever seen on the Highways, also alot of the Smart Cars, and from what I hear is that SUV's are even hard to trade in too the dealerships because they simply aren't moving.
1 edit
Oil shale is not oil, it's a rock that contains significant quantities of kerogen, which can be processed into a synthetic type of crude oil, which can, in turn, be processed into low grade forms of fuel that could be used for things like heating or the generation of electricity in the same way that coal is used
It is the shale itself that can be used to generate electricety in the same way as coal.
The difference between kerogen and crude oil is that kerogen requires more refining, which drives up the cost. That was a major issue back when oil was selling for $20 per barrell, but now that the price of oil has made a dramatic jump and doesn't appear to be going back any time soon, the shale fields are now a viable alternative.
- Joined
- 16 Aug 08
- Moves
- 35812
Originally posted by torch71Yes, it does.🙂 Drilling in the protected areas of Alaska would be nothing more than a placebo to make people feel better about the situation temporarily. It would accomplish absolutely nothing, and would only allow the very real problem of dependence on a vanishing resource to continue getting worse while we sit with our heads in the sand. So, yes, that is exactly what that means. Drilling in the protected areas of Alaska has several drawbacks and no benefits, so don't do it. This isn't rocket science.🙂
You are right, drilling Alaska will only affect gas prices by very little and much later, but that does not mean don't drill.
Originally posted by DjincThink our military should run on solar and wind power?
Yes, it does.🙂 Drilling in the protected areas of Alaska would be nothing more than a placebo to make people feel better about the situation temporarily. It would accomplish absolutely nothing, and would only allow the very real problem of dependence on a vanishing resource to continue getting worse while we sit with our heads in the sand. So, yes, that is ex ...[text shortened]... of Alaska has several drawbacks and no benefits, so don't do it. This isn't rocket science.🙂
GRANNY.
- Joined
- 16 Aug 08
- Moves
- 35812
Originally posted by smw6869I don't really see what that's got to do with drilling in the protected areas of Alaska, but, it would certainly be in the military's, and everyone else's, best interests to start trying to figure out a way to run on something besides petroleum based products.
Think our military should run on solar and wind power?
GRANNY.
Originally posted by DjincI think wind turbines on Abram tanks would do the job and make a fashion statement to boot.
I don't really see what that's got to do with drilling in the protected areas of Alaska, but, it would certainly be in the military's, and everyone else's, best interests to start trying to figure out a way to run on something besides petroleum based products.
GRANNY.