| Author |
Topic:
Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
3/4/07 5:17pm
Subject:
Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Okay, I couldn't find the renewable energy thread so I'm starting a new one. The situation is that a new oil pipeline is being built through Minnesota this summer, and hey! it's meeting opposition. MN just set up a renewable energy initiative to have 25% of the state's ensrgy from renewable sources by 2025. However, they're saying that demand for crude oil will still increase by 1.2% annually over that time, so we need the pipeline.
I am asking whether this proposed pipeline should be denied, as we are trying to become less dependent on oil. Is the research and goal-setting enough? Can we actually say, "No, let's not build the pipeline and make sure that energy demand comes from green sources. Or, we'll have to stop the demand for more and more and more oil."
-----signature-----
'I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.'
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Sauntaero
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
3/4/07 5:26pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
3/4/07 5:29pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Sauntaero
|
A reply I got from one Steven Soderlund:
The fact that our country is working hard and fast to find alternative energies so we can reduce dependancy on crude oil is undeniable, but fact is we have that dependancy now. Just about EVERYTHING in our economy requires the use of oil, and to say that running a oil pipeline into Minnesota is going to ruin the state is a very blinded point of view in my oppinion. Though it is a huge problem that we are so dependant on oil, the benefits our economy and our state can have from new supplies of oil are not something to be so afraid of.
Nobody I know will deny the dangers of being dependant on oil as we are, but as we are researching for new methods of procuring energy, why should we stifle our economy with naturalistic visions of utopia where we can somehow survive without taking advantage of the resources we have been given?
My reply to him was something like this:
Stifle the economy? Are you kidding? Will denying one project that is both harmful to the environment AND to the economy in the long run stifle our economy (which is very strong at the moment)? How many benefits to the economy and the state is this going to give us? Really, that many? Taking advantage of the resources we've been given? We've taken advangtage of oil, and look where it's gotten us. It wasn't given to us, we're paying a pretty penny for it (but not as much as the rest of the world!).
In the end, are new supplies of oil going to do more good than harm? I cannot believe that. I think we need to do all we can to stop our dependency on oil, and increasing the available supply is something like being a drug enabler. It'll only make the problem worse. Research and initiatives are not doing enough, because demand for oil is still rising. Either we cut back on use of oil and replace it with other resources, or we cut our demand for energy.
(I also had this dying itch to tell him to come back and argue once he learned to spell correctly...) 
-----signature-----
'I just hope I'm around to see the day the New Republic catches up with you.
Whether they give you a medal or just shoot you--either way, it'll be a terrific show.'
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
3/4/07 6:56pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
I don't agree with trying to simply cut off oil use like that. There's a difference, I think, between trying to get other alternatives to become better options than oil, and simply trying to cut off the oil need now. We need a stron viable alternative before we can shift away from oil, and esp for cars, I don't think we have that. Nuclear would be a good option in general right now, but that makes people uncomfortable, it seems. Solar has good prospects but we'll have to see on what future developments get made there.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
rpeugh
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
3/4/07 8:02pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
hmmm, Im not sure why you feel so guilty about consuming a resource that is relatively abundant and not consuming a resource that is currently too costly to produce.
-----signature-----
"Do no harm. That's all I ask of a politician." - Dennis Prager Please donate money to The George Obama Compassion Fund - This is the change we seek!!! http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/09/08/help_obamas_half-brother_move_out_of_his_hut
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/9/07 3:12pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
3/9/07 3:13pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Couple of recent NY Times articles.
With Coal Plans Cut Back, Texas Faces Energy Gap
Output Falling in Oil Rich Mexico, Politics Get the Blame
The long and the short of it, is that North America is in a precarious energy situation.
One of the biggest oil fields ever, Cantarell in Mexico, is now in decline. Despite "politics getting the blame" the real culprit is geology. Mexican oil production is past peak, just like U.S. oil production. Nothing will ever bring it back. Mexican output declines from now on, just like U.S. output has declined since 1972.
Ideally, we would get all our oil from Mexico and Canada. But that isn't possible. We will get less and less oil from Mexico every year. It won't be long before declining output and increasing domestic demand choke off Mexican oil exports entirely.
Canada is producing its oil sands in Alberta. It's a gold rush there. A friend of mine was up there on business and says the apartment vacancy rate is negative 4%, whatever that means. It will also end up being Canada's all-time biggest environmental catastrophe. Still, we need the oil. The more production drops from Mexico, the more pressure there is on oil flowing south from Canada.
About Texas - just about the challenges of energy conservation and alternative energy. Texas has more wind turbines than just about anyone in the U.S., yet it's a drop in the bucket and decades of investment would not replace dependence on other sources of electricity. With a population growing, energy demand increases even if per capita use stays the same, so energy demand expands and expands and expands. Any conservation or switch to alternative sources has to make up for population growth before we can even begin to talk about net energy conservation.
The temptation to stampede to coal generation to keep pace with growing demand is nearly overwhelming. That is another environmental catastrophe in the works. The Texas article also mentioned natural gas, supplies of which are extremely tight in North America. Thus all the talk of LNG terminals.
At any rate. Conservation will soon be on the table as the road not necessarily to energy independence but more as a means of avoiding an energy-induced North American economic collapse.
-----signature-----
"There is a country out there where tens of millions
of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their
leader a black man of modest origin, the son
of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it
America - where such a thing happens."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
3/9/07 3:42pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
We need to go nuclear while we develop solar more, imo. Its a source that really is going undeveloped in the U.S. at this point.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Neo-Paladin
Registered:
Dec '04
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 5:10am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
At the same time, we need to find ways to leverage wall-plug power into transportation power.
Unfortunately Hydrogen doesn't make sense. That leaves a novel solution or syn-fuels. I'm a big supporter of Nuclear power, but without all the pieces we haven't got a solution.
-----signature-----
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.
Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 6:47am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Texas's problem of shrinking spare capacity is true for the nation as a whole. Expansion of generation is not keeping pace with population growth. If we're going to expand the grid not only to compensate for another 100 million Americans, but at the same time switch a significant percentage of transportation energy from oil to electricity, it will add dramatically to the new capacity we'll have to build over the next quarter century.
Can we build enough nuclear power plants in 20 years to accomplish the dual goals of maintaining per capita energy supply and switching over transportation to plug in electric? Unlikely. But we can build enough coal-fired plants. It will be us and China burning coal like there's no tomorrow. And then there won't be a tomorrow.
-----signature-----
"There is a country out there where tens of millions
of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their
leader a black man of modest origin, the son
of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it
America - where such a thing happens."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Neo-Paladin
Registered:
Dec '04
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 6:55am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
A friend told me yesterday that the plant he works at plans to have a new reactor putting power on the grid by 2020. If the first few go without serious delay I think we'll see a boom of them.
-----signature-----
Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.
Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 6:58am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
I hope so. We need a nuclear boom. But there isn't an infinite supply of fissionable uranium either. We'll want to start developing commercial breeder reactors.
-----signature-----
"There is a country out there where tens of millions
of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their
leader a black man of modest origin, the son
of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it
America - where such a thing happens."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 7:31am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
this issue had been beaten into the ground on these boards.
I see it as really, really simple
1. all new homes need solar cells
2. Everyone needs to switch over to the energy efficient light bulbs - and sky lights
3. we need to remove restrictions on automotive production so that the little guy can
build his electric car, and, sell it.
4. Build more railways for both transportation and cargo
5. big car companies need to sell the "plug-in hybrid car"
6. someone needs to find a good way to produce ethanol, and biodiesel , (hemp is good i hear)
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 8:08am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
3/10/07 8:25am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Within a year or two, energy is going to be dominating domestic and foreign policy. It's all we're going to be talking about.
All your ideas have merit. And we will need to pursue all of them. But the coming energy crisis is significantly bigger than all of those solutions combined.
I'm not convinced about biofuels, although I wouldn't call it a dead end. The growing world population is going to push back hard against handing over farmland to biofuel. But maybe the oceans can be harnessed to grow feedstock for biofuel. Within a few decades the seas will be empty of fish, so we can pretty much do what we want there.
-----signature-----
"There is a country out there where tens of millions
of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their
leader a black man of modest origin, the son
of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it
America - where such a thing happens."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
HawkNC
Title: FanForce RSA
Oceania
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 10:54pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Master_SweetPea posted:
this issue had been beaten into the ground on these boards.
Mate, you should go read the evolution threads some time.
I'd agree with all of your points except the one about removing automotive restrictions. While I think the automotive industry is near impossible to break into, people building their own cars and selling them would be...disastrous, for want of a better word. I wouldn't touch a car that runs on high voltage if it hasn't gone through strict QC, which most backyard producers don't have the funds for. Once you start selling them, if something goes wrong there'll be lawsuits galore and it'll only hurt the burgeoning EV industry. It's a capital-intensive industry that can be broken into with the right combination of good ideas, good backing and good marketing (see Tesla, ZENN and Phoenix/AltairNano for prime examples of how it can be done), but removing too many restrictions would just put unsafe cars on the road.
The US is in a bit of a pickle regarding energy independence, really - it doesn't take much to demonstrate that US-grown corn ethanol simply can't replace unleaded, and even biodiesel will struggle (much lower energy requirements, but lower yield per acre for most commercial productions, unless you use algae). There's not enough land. Nuclear power, combined with plenty of renewables at the local level (such as the aforementioned solar panels on roofs), is about the only viable option right now - it provides power for plug-in capability, and in the longer term can create viable hydrogen through thermochemical processes that utilise waste reactor heat. Every region's going to need its own strategy to get off oil, though.
-----signature-----
Use dp/dt
--
Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
3/10/07 11:22pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
On a related note in Illinois, Exelon Company was just approved for a "first step" permit which is used for constructing a new nuclear power plant in the state. The company says that a new plant is still years away, but it's the first permit that has been awarded in 30 years. Interesting stuff.
I believe Illinois ranks as the state with the most nuclear reactors generating power.
-----signature-----
When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move-
hostile or otherwise
He has started to think and is therefore dangerous...
-- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_SweetPea
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
3/11/07 9:51am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
hawk when I was taking about removing restrictions I was thinking specifically of the abstract crash rating tests.
Ask yourself this, if stock cars are so safe then why are stock cars not safe enough to race?
The Tango website has more about that, and motorcycles have NO side impact (or any impact) protection for that matter and they
are street legal.
Bottom line.
Remove the restrictions and let the consumer decide on what he wants.
Capitalism is a failure without free enterprise.
-----signature-----
I don't like the donkeys and I don't like the Elephants http://www.lp.org "Some people never have anything except ideas Go Do it! Lucky Numbers 3, 11, 21, 31, 41, 43"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
3/11/07 1:40pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
3/11/07 1:41pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
|
It certainly is poetic to think that capitalism is the solution to every conceivable problem that humans face. But the evidence for that kind of worldview is slim.
-----signature-----
"There is a country out there where tens of millions
of white Christians, voting freely, selected as their
leader a black man of modest origin, the son
of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth - call it
America - where such a thing happens."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
