Energy: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
5. No, we shouldn’t rely solely on the market to dictate the path of energy, because too much of it is implicated in national security. Consumers are not (and should not be) charged with making national security decisions through their consumption preferences, and we don’t want to sit back and live with the results the market has come up with. That doesn’t mean I believe in the nationalization of energy - it just means that, realistically, for this issue, pure market economics may not and too often won’t lead to results we need.[/quote]

Yes. A thousand times yes.

In the UK we’ve had easily available oil and cheap gas for the last 30 years and now stocks are diminishing, we’re having to import gas from Russia and even electricity derived from nuclear energy in France. Energy costs have absolutely rocketed - up 60% in the last 6/7 years. We need a broader ‘portfolio’ to reduce dependence - I don’t want Russia turning the lights on and off!

The government, to its credit, is diversifying energy stocks by ordering new nuclear plants and I can’t understand the opposition to them, considering we’re not near any plate tectonics (agree with Cortes on the Fukushima thing also). Wind farms run at 20% capacity - if you went for a job interivew and said you COULD work monday-friday but would normally work Monday, would that be acceptable? - and you have to have plants in reserve for when the wind doesn’t blow. Solar has potentila but it will take years for it to produce anywhere near what we need.

There is an option of barraging the Severn river, which could produce a massive amount of clean energy. But environmentalist protestors have vetoed it because it could affect some birds. Well, brilliant.[/quote]

This is a local company near me. I recently attended a political function held in their facility. Very interesting and pertinent technology in regards to what you mentioned about wind power.

http://www.zincairinc.com/[/quote]

That looks pretty cool. The problem is in the UK that the wind doesn’t blow in winter when we needed it most. In 2010 we had the coldest winder for 30 years and wind power contribution to the national grid was approximately zero.

[quote]pat wrote:

OR, we can knock out 2 birds with 1 stone and make our kids ride generator bikes to power the house… We’d fix childhood obesity, and electricity issues.[/quote]

I agree a lot with your thoughts about home power generation. At least in my situation, I think I could “easily” do 30-60min on a bike/day if it meant lower power bills (in addition to the health benefits). My wife would probably match it. Never really looked into this though, where is the technology at? How expensive are the batteries/etc. I recall reading about some skyscraper in Hong Kong that had a gym where all the bikes were wired into the electrical grid… heck, why not, right?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Hey GL, long time no talk. Have you already left? [/quote]

Hey Cortes, things have been hard, honestly. Taking stock today (the anniversary) and it’s been a hell of a year. But nothing to complain about really, just keep on keepin’ on.

[quote]It annoys the hell out of me the way the Fukushima event is portrayed both here and overseas, but especially here. By any rational assessment, the Fukushima disaster was a resounding, incomprehensible example of exactly how well made and safe modern nuclear power plants actually are. Remember, the Fukushima plant is RIGHT on the coast and was RIGHT at the front of the main impact area of the tsunami. Remember the pictures of what most of the coastal towns directly hit by the tsunami looked like? There was NOTHING left. Nothing. Not a single standing structure in many places.

There are differing contentions as to just how much radiation was ultimately released, but many reputable sources place the amount at around 10% of that released at Chernobyl. That’s not even the impressive part in my eyes. What I find amazing is that there was ANYTHING left of that reactor and that there was not a complete meltdown and a disaster the likes of which the world has never seen.

It was not good, but it could have been much, much worse.

And now, the opportunists and the doomsayers and the nuclear energy haters come out in force, and there is a STRONG push now to not only stop the production of new reactors (there was one scheduled to be built in my prefecture, which ain’t happening now), but to actually end the use of nuclear power. Problem is, there is nothing, NOTHING that can compare to the efficiency and capacity of nuclear power. So we have all these asshole politicians trying to score points by playing off people’s emotions and fears, and the people are buying it (Japanese people are VERY Earth conscious), and the problem that I see that no one else seems to want to recognize is that power and output is going to have to be replaced with something. And as you mention, GL, even with the nuclear power, Japan is already doing everything it can to keep its consumption at sustainable levels so we don’t end up like California.

Meh, that’s about all I got. It just pisses me off that more people do not recognize what an amazing success the stabilization of that reactor really was. [/quote]

I think you are right that it was a success, but the costs… the costs. The reality is that Japan rests on, what, 3 plates? There WILL always be earthquakes and tsunamis. Yes Japan survived Fukushima and yes things turned out almost as well as could be expected, but I just don’t know how the cost-benfit ratio stacks up. I was living a little north of Tokyo when it hit, and I was scared to death. My wife and I made serious plans on how to evacuate if it was needed. There was little gas and we expected it to run out completely if things got worse. Heck, I was still getting the “phantom aftershocks” and I wasn’t sure how well I could drive. My wife and sister-in-law BOTH had medical procedures scheduled for that time. The stress was overwhelming. THe stress related problems we all faced were humbling, to say the least. And I was FAR FAR away from the main part of it. In short, while I can see what you are saying from an “overhead” view (I think you may be right that they are necessary), having been “closer” to the costs, perhaps I see them a little higher.

But like you said, I think they may simply be unavoidably used in the near to mid term.

How is “energy savings” (setsuden) going in your area? You were in Kansai, right? Is your region prospering or was it hit by the economic aftermath? I was wondering but haven’t had time to look into it. I have family up in Ibaraki a bit closer than we were, and they report things still being difficult (but perhaps better than after the crisis of '08-'09).

Personally, I was AMAZED how my area came together after the ‘quake’: No looting, no violence, long, orderly lines waiting for gas/groceries, scheduled, advertized power outages (although they weren’t able to hold to the schedules all the time), and “power savings” (setsuden) working AMAZINGLY well. I would walk into stores with a hand-made “power savings” sign and half their lights were turned off. The whole area really came together to overcome the crisis. Anyway, perhaps I’m just rambling now. Hopefully it will be excused on the anniversary.

I guess if there is/was a point to the rambling, it was that Japan WAS able to drastically cut back on energy consumption for the good of all. I wonder if Americans (and the world in general) should take a lesson. Supply is limited. Should we all be coming together to reduce demand? I guess I’m leaning that way.

[quote]And one last word for this country’s true heroes. Those men who went into the reactor at the worst of it, with full knowledge that they would be killing themselves in so doing, and doing it anyway, because it needed to be done. There are stories of some of the older men without families, or some whose kids were grown and no longer depended upon them, going in place of the younger guys with wives and kids at home. God bless them all.
[/quote]

There were amazing stories that came from this. Thanks for pointing it out. God bless them.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
My preferred energy answer: all of the above. Great topic, random thoughts:

  1. I love the idea of alternative energies, and we need to invest in them. But fossil fuels aren’t going anywhere, and remain the most economically feasible energy source. So, to suggest that there is an “either-or” is wrong, we need all. We simply need to be realists about fossil fuel.

  2. We are going to consume fossil fuels (a lot) in the near and medium term. It’s going to get pumped out of the ground, and we’ll use it. Why not pump our own, where we can be assured of a better, lighter environmental impact than if we “outsource” to countries that don’t have our environmental sensibilities? The oil will be pumped out of the ground, regardless - better that we do it, for environmental reasons.

  3. Better that we do it, for energy security purposes as well, but the fungibiilty of oil in world markets doesn’t mean that just because we pump it, we consume it, and therefore we are more energy-independent. If we pump it, we’d lower the prices (more supply), but that wouldn’t necessarily translate into dmoestic consumption of domestically-pumped oil and our independence from bad countries. We’d need to address this in ways other than domestic-exploration.

  4. We need alternative energies because of diversification benefits. Like any asset portfolio, there are inherent dangers in overconcentration in one area. We are overconcentrated on fossil fuels, and we need to diversify. That way, even if we have oil “shocks” or bad oil politics from the Middle East, we’re insulated better from their shenanigans.

  5. No, we shouldn’t rely solely on the market to dictate the path of energy, because too much of it is implicated in national security. Consumers are not (and should not be) charged with making national security decisions through their consumption preferences, and we don’t want to sit back and live with the results the market has come up with. That doesn’t mean I believe in the nationalization of energy - it just means that, realistically, for this issue, pure market economics may not and too often won’t lead to results we need.[/quote]

Agreed.

Does anyone think high oil prices will stimulate a boom in electric/hybrid/biofuel/LNG cars?

What do people think about oil prices? Permamently high or a blip?

[quote]Bambi wrote:
OK since people in the GAL thread suggested the quieter posters start up more threads?

Energy. It’s a huge issue, not only with the issue of oil supply but also how we power our electricity network.

Over in the UK we’ve just started building new nuclear power stations that will come online in 2017/18 which I think are essential if we are to reduce emissions while retaining quality of life

Here are some questions I’d like to see chewed over before putting in my 2 penniworth?

  1. What are your views on renewable power, specifically solar, wind, hydro-electric and tidal. Can they be any more than supplementary to energy needs?

  2. Oil supply. Will shale oil and gas provide replacements to middle-eastern oil, or is this proof that we’re running out of the stuff? Is a transition from oil possible? Is Peak Oil anything over than an internet scare story? What about synthetic oil, such as biofuels and oil derived from algae?

  3. Nuclear - what are your views on it. Anti-nuclear sentiment in the UK is still quite strong but has diminished from its height inthe 80s. Do you trust the nuclear industry to not repeat another Fukushima?

  4. The first nuclear fusion plant goes online in southern France in 2019? Is this anything over than a pipe dream?

Thoughts people (anyone)?

  1. Is government funding and diversion of funds to alternate energy possible or is this something the market needs to push forward?[/quote]

I would say for the most part I agree with T-bolt on this issue…

  1. Renewables are great, but not part of the black and white solution that pervades energy discussions. This happens with lifting as well, people think its an all or nothing game, when it should be about comparative advantages with regards to renewables and non renewables. Solar isnt going to do too well in Pittsburgh, however tidal turbines would do pretty well in coastal regions.

Following that, the externalities of each type should be addressed, as there are alot of unforseen costs such as fish populations with tidal turbines, and resource allocation towards building materials in others. Properly determining the best use allocation of the materials utilized is left to the private sector, but other externalities, particularly in the environmental field may not be addressed as well. This often leads to overcompensation by the government entities as a result.

  1. Oil supply is dwindling, at least in terms of readily available fields. The market price, as well as new technology determines how economically feasible it is for companies to work on R and D for less accessible sources of oil such as oil sands, horizontal drilling in old formations, etc.

Natural gas really does need to be addressed in this country in a huge fashion. I have a feeling its mostly lobbyists preventing it at this point, but one cannot ignore the acquisitions that major energy giants have been making of small cap and mid cap nat gas companies for an asset base. Its clean, cars will require minimal retro-fitting, and give the economy a huge boost. I feel the benefits outweigh the environmental cost, or those affects can at least be easily mitigated.

  1. Nuclear is still a good option, however there are global security concerns that come along with it. This is predominately the realm of government involvement as nobody would underwrite the insurance for nuclear plants otherwise. Our nuclear infrastructure is out of date, and could use updating.

4)I cannot comment on the scientific aspects of Fission, but if achieved, it seems like a very viable source related to my answers from 3.

  1. Alternate energy is a pretty vague term. I feel that government involvement is necessary in some aspects such as the aforementioned insuring of nuclear infrastructure, as well as the environmental regulations surrounding hydrocarbon use. I do not feel it should be involved in anything relating to solar, wind, or water power, as those risks can be addressed pretty easily by the private sector. The caveat to government involvement is nepotism and over-regulation.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

OR, we can knock out 2 birds with 1 stone and make our kids ride generator bikes to power the house… We’d fix childhood obesity, and electricity issues.[/quote]

I agree a lot with your thoughts about home power generation. At least in my situation, I think I could “easily” do 30-60min on a bike/day if it meant lower power bills (in addition to the health benefits). My wife would probably match it. Never really looked into this though, where is the technology at? How expensive are the batteries/etc. I recall reading about some skyscraper in Hong Kong that had a gym where all the bikes were wired into the electrical grid… heck, why not, right? [/quote]

I think the whole single source grid is antiquated when people can generate power right at home. With a combination of solar, and natural gas generators we could eliminate the grid. No more wires, no more power loss. I mean the benefits could go on and on.
Of course, power companies would go under and you know the government won’t allow that.

The problem with treamilling your electricity is that you have to be healthy. You can’t afford to be out of electricity just because your sick. Then there is the storage and stuff…

If you are environmentally concerned is that batteries are super toxic, both to make and throw away. There are no free rides, everything has a price. But I would love the gas/ solar per dwelling solution. It’s compact, and it’s always on. I just don’t see the down side.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
Does anyone think high oil prices will stimulate a boom in electric/hybrid/biofuel/LNG cars?

What do people think about oil prices? Permamently high or a blip?[/quote]

Blip. Hybrids suck I hate them with a passion. Electric? The electric motor has hardly changed since Edison first invented it. It’s not that efficient, it produces ozone and electromagnetic fields. Biofuel and alt. fuels are a decent idea, if you can figure out a way to mass produce clean fuels.
Hybrids have been around for decades and they just aren’t that popular.

I saw a study on the treadmill/stationary bikes energy generation. The problem was the amount of energy actually generated from them was not very much at all. Something like one light bulb while you’re walking/running/biking. Not very impressive.

Then, I saw an invention that was made of very large floor mats with sensors under them. Similar to the mats at supermarket entrances. Anyway, they were much much bigger…about the size of about 8 parking spaces. They were going to put those in NY subway/train stations and bus terminals. In areas that get nearly constant crowd traffic. It seemed to me that it would work…but noting ever came of the idea.

I was a principle in a renewable energy company a few years back. We sold solar and solar thermal products to upper class people in the DC area. My partners (against my better judgement) based much of their business model on the availability of gov’t subsidies (solar tax credits, grants, etc…). Well, the state and local governments “ran out of funding” after a few months (surprise surprise, right? LOL). With out the subsidies, the savings “math” went right out the window. The ROI for anyone who was actually trying to save money (as opposed to paying for the privilege of saying "look at meeee! I’m GREEEEEEN!) simply wasn’t there.

The second issue that we started facing after a few months was the data coming back from our customers. The products we were selling simply were NOT performing as well as we were told they would by the manufacturer. Even including factors such as controlling for latitude and season, the projections were WAY off.

So the gov’t tried to push a technology that wasn’t ready and people got screwed… Imagine that.

FTR, I sold my stake in that company to my partners (who were trying to buy me out anyway) for a nice profit and I got out just in time as the company eventually stalled. It was a good experience, though. I learned a lot about renewable energy and even more about how HARD it is going to be to get the American people on board with the idea. Frankly, selling “green” and “savings” was like pulling fucking teeth. People just weren’t ready to put their money where their “lofty ideals” are.

Ironically, I now work in the oil and gas industry. LOL

My perspective on domestic oil supply is optimistic. Companies like Mcmoran and Energy XXI are currently exploring ultra-deep, sub-salt wells that are 30,000+ feet down. That’s WAAAAAAY lower than the current wells that are running out in the shallower sections of the GOM. Here’s a link to some pretty cool projections: http://www.mcmoran.com/pdf/2012/013112.pdf

By coincidence, one of the very first jobs I did when I came down here was work on the Methanol Pump skid for the Davy Jones, serial number 1 - It had to pump methanol at a pressure of something like 25,000psi to get down to the necessary depth. It was pretty cool being involved with something like that. So basically, in the next couple of months, we’ll know if it really is feasible to go after the ultra-deep reserves with our current level of technology. From what I understand, and I’m no geologist, just from what I’m hearing others in the industry whisper about, is that there’s A LOT of good quality stuff down there at the 30,000+ level… So stay tuned to how that could impact things.

As for my opinion on nuclear energy, I’m pretty ignorant on the subject, so I’ll keep my mouth shut. I just know that when things go bad with that, they go VERY BAD.

Oh, and I agree with everything that Thunderbolt said - that’s a smart dude.

To elaborate on my position about energy security, I think that the way politicians are bending down and sucking the environmentalist cock is just shameful. IMHO, our involvement in the Middle East is so that we can “influence” and have a “presence in” countries that affect our oil supply. This, understandably, pisses them off. So now many of them want to kill us (and have succeeded at hitting us at home, causing a chain reaction of war and policies that have forever altered America, but I digress).

We have enough oil and gas reserves to support ourselves, but the environmental greenie weenies wont let us drill because it “MAY” damage the habitat of the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon. I guess PEOPLE dying in war in the Middle East and TSA making us take our shoes off at the airport after waiting three hours and frisking little kids is better than risking a few trees. Here’s a newsflash: Americans WILL NOT stop consuming. That energy HAS to come from somewhere. We have it at home, but lack the testicular fortitude to get it. So we’ll continue to fuck with those crazy muther fucker’s countries, continue to accidentally bomb their pet goats with our drone aircraft, and another generation of them will grow up hating us and trying to blow our asses up. WAY TO THINK IT THROUGH, you environmental greenie weenie FUCKS!!!

Fuck the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon, over time it will either evolve or become extinct anyway. Life is ALWAYS changing like that - you can’t save EVERY single wittle thing in the whole wide world.

That being said, I’m all for fuel efficiency and figuring out smarter ways to deal with emissions, but I think we are on deadly ground with our energy policy and our putting our national security and the lives of Americans in jeopardy to cater to the emotional and oftentimes uninformed whims of liberals.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!!

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

To elaborate on my position about energy security, I think that the way politicians are bending down and sucking the environmentalist cock is just shameful. IMHO, our involvement in the Middle East is so that we can “influence” and have a “presence in” countries that affect our oil supply. This, understandably, pisses them off. So now many of them want to kill us (and have succeeded at hitting us at home, causing a chain reaction of war and policies that have forever altered America, but I digress).

We have enough oil and gas reserves to support ourselves, but the environmental greenie weenies wont let us drill because it “MAY” damage the habitat of the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon. I guess PEOPLE dying in war in the Middle East and TSA making us take our shoes off at the airport after waiting three hours and frisking little kids is better than risking a few trees. [b]Here’s a newsflash: Americans WILL NOT stop consuming. [/b] That energy HAS to come from somewhere. We have it at home, but lack the testicular fortitude to get it. So we’ll continue to fuck with those crazy muther fucker’s countries, continue to accidentally bomb their pet goats with our drone aircraft, and another generation of them will grow up hating us and trying to blow our asses up. WAY TO THINK IT THROUGH, you environmental greenie weenie FUCKS!!!

[/quote]

Overall, I agreed with everything you wrote. One thing I was wondering your opinion on is the consumption of Americans. As I mentioned before, for the Japanese, it took an earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster (all of biblical proportions) to get them to reduce consumption (and from what I understand they are still greatly reducing consumption based on their uses from over a year ago). But that society is a lot more “community oriented” (for lack of a better word). Do you think Americans can or ever will reduce consumption? Will electricity have to be “priced out” in order to do so?

Just some random thoughts and questions. I appreciate your post and opinions. It sounds like you really understand the realities of what we face.

PS apparently, typing before the coffee kicks in leads to a lot of parenthesis.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

To elaborate on my position about energy security, I think that the way politicians are bending down and sucking the environmentalist cock is just shameful. IMHO, our involvement in the Middle East is so that we can “influence” and have a “presence in” countries that affect our oil supply. This, understandably, pisses them off. So now many of them want to kill us (and have succeeded at hitting us at home, causing a chain reaction of war and policies that have forever altered America, but I digress).

We have enough oil and gas reserves to support ourselves, but the environmental greenie weenies wont let us drill because it “MAY” damage the habitat of the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon. I guess PEOPLE dying in war in the Middle East and TSA making us take our shoes off at the airport after waiting three hours and frisking little kids is better than risking a few trees. [b]Here’s a newsflash: Americans WILL NOT stop consuming. [/b] That energy HAS to come from somewhere. We have it at home, but lack the testicular fortitude to get it. So we’ll continue to fuck with those crazy muther fucker’s countries, continue to accidentally bomb their pet goats with our drone aircraft, and another generation of them will grow up hating us and trying to blow our asses up. WAY TO THINK IT THROUGH, you environmental greenie weenie FUCKS!!!

[/quote]

Overall, I agreed with everything you wrote. One thing I was wondering your opinion on is the consumption of Americans. As I mentioned before, for the Japanese, it took an earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster (all of biblical proportions) to get them to reduce consumption (and from what I understand they are still greatly reducing consumption based on their uses from over a year ago). But that society is a lot more “community oriented” (for lack of a better word). Do you think Americans can or ever will reduce consumption? Will electricity have to be “priced out” in order to do so?

Just some random thoughts and questions. I appreciate your post and opinions. It sounds like you really understand the realities of what we face.

PS apparently, typing before the coffee kicks in leads to a lot of parenthesis.

[/quote]

I think that Japanese and American societies are VERY different. When faced with a common problem, the Japanese will unite and will do what is necessary to overcome it. Those less inclined to “pitch in” for altruistic reasons will be shamed into doing so. This “shame” is part of the glue that holds Japanese society together.

Americans on the other hand have no shame. They will unapologetically cater to whatever selfish whim arises - even if it’s bad for the country as a whole. America has lacked the ability to pull together to accomplish anything since WWII. If the same set of circumstances were to present itself now, we would see a far different result. The MEDIA has effectively divided us, captivated us and effectively castrated us. Americans care more about their entertainment then they do about national security, the environment, the value of their currency, or any issue that doesn’t affect them directly (and even then, they will deal with it, so long as they are entertained).

I’m sad to say I think you are “right on” in your assessment. I’d never really considered “meida” to be a cause though, more a symptom, but it is a very interesting hypothesis that I’ll need to think about more.

As it relates to energy, I think we as a nation are in for a lot of pain.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I was a principle in a renewable energy company a few years back. We sold solar and solar thermal products to upper class people in the DC area. My partners (against my better judgement) based much of their business model on the availability of gov’t subsidies (solar tax credits, grants, etc…). Well, the state and local governments “ran out of funding” after a few months (surprise surprise, right? LOL). With out the subsidies, the savings “math” went right out the window. The ROI for anyone who was actually trying to save money (as opposed to paying for the privilege of saying "look at meeee! I’m GREEEEEEN!) simply wasn’t there.

The second issue that we started facing after a few months was the data coming back from our customers. The products we were selling simply were NOT performing as well as we were told they would by the manufacturer. Even including factors such as controlling for latitude and season, the projections were WAY off.

So the gov’t tried to push a technology that wasn’t ready and people got screwed… Imagine that.

FTR, I sold my stake in that company to my partners (who were trying to buy me out anyway) for a nice profit and I got out just in time as the company eventually stalled. It was a good experience, though. I learned a lot about renewable energy and even more about how HARD it is going to be to get the American people on board with the idea. Frankly, selling “green” and “savings” was like pulling fucking teeth. People just weren’t ready to put their money where their “lofty ideals” are.

Ironically, I now work in the oil and gas industry. LOL

My perspective on domestic oil supply is optimistic. Companies like Mcmoran and Energy XXI are currently exploring ultra-deep, sub-salt wells that are 30,000+ feet down. That’s WAAAAAAY lower than the current wells that are running out in the shallower sections of the GOM. Here’s a link to some pretty cool projections: http://www.mcmoran.com/pdf/2012/013112.pdf

By coincidence, one of the very first jobs I did when I came down here was work on the Methanol Pump skid for the Davy Jones, serial number 1 - It had to pump methanol at a pressure of something like 25,000psi to get down to the necessary depth. It was pretty cool being involved with something like that. So basically, in the next couple of months, we’ll know if it really is feasible to go after the ultra-deep reserves with our current level of technology. From what I understand, and I’m no geologist, just from what I’m hearing others in the industry whisper about, is that there’s A LOT of good quality stuff down there at the 30,000+ level… So stay tuned to how that could impact things.

As for my opinion on nuclear energy, I’m pretty ignorant on the subject, so I’ll keep my mouth shut. I just know that when things go bad with that, they go VERY BAD.

Oh, and I agree with everything that Thunderbolt said - that’s a smart dude.

To elaborate on my position about energy security, I think that the way politicians are bending down and sucking the environmentalist cock is just shameful. IMHO, our involvement in the Middle East is so that we can “influence” and have a “presence in” countries that affect our oil supply. This, understandably, pisses them off. So now many of them want to kill us (and have succeeded at hitting us at home, causing a chain reaction of war and policies that have forever altered America, but I digress).

We have enough oil and gas reserves to support ourselves, but the environmental greenie weenies wont let us drill because it “MAY” damage the habitat of the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon. I guess PEOPLE dying in war in the Middle East and TSA making us take our shoes off at the airport after waiting three hours and frisking little kids is better than risking a few trees. Here’s a newsflash: Americans WILL NOT stop consuming. That energy HAS to come from somewhere. We have it at home, but lack the testicular fortitude to get it. So we’ll continue to fuck with those crazy muther fucker’s countries, continue to accidentally bomb their pet goats with our drone aircraft, and another generation of them will grow up hating us and trying to blow our asses up. WAY TO THINK IT THROUGH, you environmental greenie weenie FUCKS!!!

Fuck the yellow spotted rainbow pigeon, over time it will either evolve or become extinct anyway. Life is ALWAYS changing like that - you can’t save EVERY single wittle thing in the whole wide world.

That being said, I’m all for fuel efficiency and figuring out smarter ways to deal with emissions, but I think we are on deadly ground with our energy policy and our putting our national security and the lives of Americans in jeopardy to cater to the emotional and oftentimes uninformed whims of liberals.

DRILL BABY DRILL!!![/quote]

Are you referring to high volume hydrolytic fracking? This type of mining not only hurts the three toed purple poka-dotted tree frog but can have a negative impact on entire communities. Some of the fracking chemicals stay down in the rock which as far as is known doesn’t do much harm since it’s so deep and about 75% comes back up, but that natural gas can contaminate and pollute drinking water. There’s been reports of water facets catching on fire near fracking wells. Not to mention, there hasn’t been a whole lot of research on this type of drilling. And the estimates on how much gas there is in shale are widely variable. It’s because it’s a relatively new technique.

Even in conventional mining, the well casing can become damaged or just not be implemented correctly and contamination at layers closer to the surface that include groundwater used by communities can be contaminated.

I’m not saying the technique should never ever be used, but I do find it reasonable to do more research on the method and then decide where the best places and conditions and ways to mitigate environmental damage will be.

And on an unrelated note, I’m big time pro nuclear. The plant in Japan was based off of 70s technology and the most modern American nuclear plants are more advanced and a lot safer. I don’t remember what exactly went wrong, but when I looked at the info before, I felt there were not enough systems of reduduncy at that plant.

Now people were hurt by that nuclear incident, but think of how many people get hurt my oil and coal. You have the miners who are risk. Not to mention, riskier to large communities are the refineries and chemicals needed for that. More people have been hurt by coal and oil since nuclear energy’s introduction to power grids than by nuclear energy.

A strong example of a country that has taken full advantage of nuclear energy is France. 80% of their grid is run by nuclear.

Keep in mind that wind power has it’s environmental disadvantages. Of coure, you need a lot of wind. It can harm migrating birds. It takes vast tracts of land to add any appreciable energy. Not to say it shouldn’t be used, but the limitations should be kept in mind.

Solar is expensive as it is, but it’s also improving and even now there are good places to use it.

We’ve pretty much done all the major hydroelectric projects that we can do so we can’t do a whole lot more there.

As far as vehicles go. I’m not a fan of hydrogen fuel cells until our grid is based off of cleaner sources. It takes power to get the hydrogen and that power comes from the grid and as long as that grid is mostly from dirty energy, that hydrogen is going to be ‘dirty’ too.

As far as a long time strategy, I think the best we can do is allow more mines and drilling in the mean time to build revenue and energy for development of cleaner energy. I think for now, that we should look at all options and continue to research and implement greener sources of energy.

In the UK we’ve outsourced all our energy to foreign companies. They view the UK as an investment

The government wanted something like 12 nuclear power stations built. Most are being built by EDF, who are french. Some WERE being built by EON who are German but they have pulled out because they do not think it is iprofitable. FFS. Energy is to big a security concern to subject to market forces but that’s what the government here have done and it will stay that way until we go back to rolling blackouts like there were in the 70s

[quote]Bambi wrote:
2. Oil supply. Will shale oil and gas provide replacements to middle-eastern oil, or is this proof that we’re running out of the stuff? Is a transition from oil possible? Is Peak Oil anything over than an internet scare story? What about synthetic oil, such as biofuels and oil derived from algae? [/quote]

The current problem with shale oil and gas (as well as all other unconventional hydrocarbons) is that it is not cost effective for extraction. Oil and gas found in shales and sands is “stuck” there due to poor permeability which means it won’t flow so can’t be drilled. So to retrieve the hydrocarbons you have to separate it from the ‘reservoir’ material. This takes time and is also not very environmentally sound to do. So there is just no comparison when it comes to cheap middle eastern oil or expensive and messy shale oil/gas.

I don’t believe there is also any dedicated exploration for unconventional HC’s, they are just sort of kept note of when discovered whilst looking for oil and gas. However, BP statistical review estimates oil and gas reserves in oil shales at 2.1 trillion barrels. So there is plenty of energy to be extracted from unconventional HC’s. But it just isn’t cost effective at the moment to do on a large scale as there is still quite a bit of the regular stuff to go through yet.

Also to clear up any confusion, oil and gas are derived from kerogen of which there are 4 types. some of which are algal derived.

[quote]Vulpes Vulpes wrote:

[quote]Bambi wrote:
2. Oil supply. Will shale oil and gas provide replacements to middle-eastern oil, or is this proof that we’re running out of the stuff? Is a transition from oil possible? Is Peak Oil anything over than an internet scare story? What about synthetic oil, such as biofuels and oil derived from algae? [/quote]

oil peak.

Sorry if images are small they are lifted from my lectures. (studying Bsc in petroleum geology)

Bare in mind that the vast majority of oil imported into the US comes from Mexico and Canada.

In response to what you said Fletch about the issue with the reactors in Japan. Even with them being outdated, I reckon they stood up to one of the most devastating natural events ever witnessed by man not too badly (as far as nuclear disasters go). I also can’t understand the rationale behind the Japanese putting all those reactors on their Eastern coast. The Japanese understand better than anyone the risk associated with the triple junction plate boundary in which they sit