Energy Scale -- Where Do You Fit?

[Ozz]

Hydro electric dams don't cause pollution. Us them to create
hydrogen. No automobile will ever be totally clean, Even horses
are not environmently clean (We have many Quakers where I live)

Frankly the question is flawed, drilling will occur as long as their
are big dollars to be made. Money is why we still use oil, not lack of science/tech develiopment.

 

[Richard III]

Oh and two more things:

#1, Big hydro dams don't cause pollution ozz, but they do flood land and cause massive amounts of environmental damage. If you're cool with that - as the Chinese clearly are - that's groovy, but do keep that in mind.

#2, Americans often forget that we Canucks have a few gazillion barrels of untapped oil in the Athabasca tar sands that can be extracted economically when the price of oil is in the middling or higher bands. So don't make it out like it's Alaska or bust. Alberta is happy to sell it to you, and you guys pay in REAL dollars .

 

[MrPresident]

I can see that that was written by someone with a strong view

I will freely admit that the person who wrote it has an hidden (well not that well hidden) agenda but don't we all. Also there are an increasingly amount of oil spills which is hardly surprising considering the increase in the amount of oil used. I thought (please correct me if I am wrong) but don't they get the hydrogen from water? Also if I am wrong, could you explain why the production of hydrogen is pollutant. Is hydrogen that dangerous? People used to think that it caused the Hindenburg disaster but it was proved that it didn't (something to do with the what they put on the cloth). I think the loss of jobs from the oil industry is kind of inevitable. And does anyone else feel uneasy about the oil industry being the biggest researchers into hydrogen energy? I know it makes a lot of sense but don't they have an interest in keeping the oil industry going as long as possible (due to the large amount of money they spent on the infrastructure). Shouldn't it be more of a government responsiblity.

 

[Ohwell]

I would like a renewable energy source to power our homes, offices, and cars. But because this will take a long time to develop to the point of efficiency as oil has reached, we should continue oil drilling. I also would like research on Superconductivity, that will allow power plants to be built near the source, limiting pollution to metropolitan areas and such.

Nuclear power is not a factor in my ideas, I don't care about it much. It is a viable power source but the pollution it causes is potentially more severe than oil delivers.

Fuel Cells sound good, but they are too un-efficient. Solar power is very expensive.

The power I would like to see is Fusion power. Once again, it is not efficient enough. Perhaps oil is our best answer after all.

 

[knowltok2]

$3 Million Canadian, that's like $20 US right?

Seriously though, I am against drilling in the ANWR right now. Not for any environmental reasons, but becasue we need to get off of oil, period. And this is one of the few areas where I see government actually having a role. Government can alter the market conditions to disfavor oil and promote cleaner fuels, or at the very least, fuels that don't come from the Middle East. I am tired of knowing that every time I fill my tank, I am at least indirectly putting money into some Sheiks hands, who is likely funnelling it to some organization that doesn't much care for me on general principles. OBL may have inherited his money from construction, but what do you think paid for the construction?

Not drilling the ANWR keeps preasure on us to come up with something else, something better. It also means that it will still be there if we need it. Someday when the world runs out of most oil, the US alone will not have to bow and scrape to the Canadian overlords and their Alberta treasure trove.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Also there are an increasingly amount of oil spills which is hardly surprising considering the increase in the amount of oil used.

Don't think there are increasing numbers of oil spills at all - I think they are in fact less. Maybe they are being reported more though (all releases must now be reported tpo the EA and HSE).

I thought (please correct me if I am wrong) but don't they get the hydrogen from water? Also if I am wrong, could you explain why the production of hydrogen is pollutant.

Yes, you can get hydrogen from water. However, the most common way of doing this is via electrolysis. However, the electrolysis can lead to Ozone and NOx formation, which contributes to smog. Electric cars also produce ozone and NOx, and hence also cause smog.

Is hydrogen that dangerous? People used to think that it caused the Hindenburg disaster but it was proved that it didn't (something to do with the what they put on the cloth).

Yes, I saw that. However, that was just referring to the mechanism that started it off. Hydrogen will burn in air at concentrations of anywhere between 5% and 95% hydrogen. Methane (for example) will only burn between 5% and 15%, and heavier hydrocarbons will only burn ov er even smaller concentration ranges.

I think the loss of jobs from the oil industry is kind of inevitable. And does anyone else feel uneasy about the oil industry being the biggest researchers into hydrogen energy? I know it makes a lot of sense but don't they have an interest in keeping the oil industry going as long as possible (due to the large amount of money they spent on the infrastructure). Shouldn't it be more of a government responsiblity.

Don't think of it as the 'oil' industry, think of it as the "energy" industry. Most multinationals (BP, Exxon, Shell, Conaco etc) have interests in solar, hydro, chemicals, renewables and natural gas as well as oil. Yes, there will be losses of jobs in the oil industry, but (hopefully) there will be new jobs created in the other sectors of the energy industry.

In terms of sunk capital, payback of oil developments are generally only economic if they pay back in a few years - if they don't, the prospect is simply not developed (until technology improves). Hence, sunk capital is not the driver that it may seem to be. There is a lot of drive to improve technology to increase recovery from existing developments though - current ultimate recovery for oil is only around 35% - better technology means more production with limited extra investment.

It is actually in the interests of the energy companys to develop renewable resources. 1.) They are inevitable, so the energy giants want to keep up with the rest of the industry; 2.) A breakthrough technology would make the developer billions. Any energy giant would love to be that developer; 3.) Political and Public pressure (and marketting - BP now advertise themselves as "beyond petroleum".

Why should the Government get involved when there are lots of public companies already investing in this area? Government should only intervene when a monopoly threatens.

 

[VoodooAce]

One of my biggest problems with drilling in ANWR is the misleading campaign promoted by those who stand to gain the most - oil companies.

Who here knows what happens to the oil we suck from the land up there?

Does the US get all of it? No. Will we do as we do with the oil domestically produced ALREADY? Yes. We'll export it to other countries.

This isn't about driving down the prices at the gas pumps by a nickel or so.....it's about increasing profits for the oil industry.

I am one that feels gambling with our ecology to make a few extra bucks for a few already fat cats isn't at all worth it.

 

[ainwood]

And who owns the Oil companies? That would be the shareholders. Quite a few US Shareholders would therefore stand to profit - its not just some faceless corporation. What's the problem with companies making profits anyway?

And if the lack of supply pushes prices up in the US, then the oil companies will take advantage of this, and keep more oil for the domestic market, therefore keeping the prices at a reasonable level.

Can't comment on the actual advertising though - haven't seen it.

 

[MrPresident]

Why should the Government get involved when there are lots of public companies already investing in this area? Government should only intervene when a monopoly threatens.

First of all a government does have to intervene when a monopoly threatens. A government should intervene to correct market failure. For example, merit goods such as education and health which would be underprovided in the market. I think the government should intervene in the energy research market because I fear it being left solely to the oil companies. I know it is in their interests to develop renewable sources of energy eventfully but what stops them from delaying any discoveries for a decade or so. Think about it, they have lots of investment tied up in oil. There still is a lot of oil to be drilled. That means a lot of profits to be made. So what stops them delaying a discovery until they think it will be more profitable?

What's the problem with companies making profits anyway?

It is a sign of a lack of competition.

 

[Juize]

Heavy taxation on everything what consumes energy, few nuclear plants,
research, let's hope the best.

I fail to see any better option.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by MrPresident

First of all a government does have to intervene when a monopoly threatens.

..... Which is exactly what I said.

A government should intervene to correct market failure.

The energy market hasn't failed. Margins are going lower and lower all the time. The only area of concern (for the western world at least) is security of oil supply, hence the drive for renewables.

I think the government should intervene in the energy research market because I fear it being left solely to the oil companies

Why? The market is open to anyone. The Energy Companys' biggest fear would be that (say) a motor company beats them to developing an ultra-efficient renewable energy source, and effectively removes their market overnight.

I know it is in their interests to develop renewable sources of energy eventfully but what stops them from delaying any discoveries for a decade or so. Think about it, they have lots of investment tied up in oil. There still is a lot of oil to be drilled. That means a lot of profits to be made. So what stops them delaying a discovery until they think it will be more profitable?

It is a sign of a lack of competition.

As I said, there is the potential to make more money to be made out of the "big breakthrough" in renewables than there is in oil. And as I also said, they're NOT oil companies anymore. They're energy companies.

 

[Heffalump]

Ainwood is on the right track in my view.

The government should use a combination of subsidies and tax incentives to wean energy companies off of oil and on to hydrogen, or other alternative fuels.

The jobs argument is a red herring. Back in the day there were a lot of people of people working in livery stables too, but hey, life goes on.

ANWR breaks the spirit of the whole idea that we set aside certain areas as refuges for wildlife. Maybe it won't be tooooooo environmentally damaging, but if we were going to quibble the point every time then why bother setting up parks & refuges?? Moreover the oil is too little to be of any real strategic salvation.
Best to dive heavily into finding alternative sources so we can:
a) not kill nice, furry polar bears,
b) reduce global warming,
c) not prostrate ourselves before nasty and very fickle regimes in the middle east

 

[amadeus]

Does global warming even exist? I really don't think it does.

A hundred and fifty years of weather records versus five billion years of existance? You're talking abuot 0.00000003% of the planet's history.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Does global warming even exist? I really don't think it does.

A hundred and fifty years of weather records versus five billion years of existance? You're talking abuot 0.00000003% of the planet's history.

The question isn't whether or not the Earth's climate is changing, because it seems to be. The question is whether or not we are causing the change. I don't think we are. There have been much more dramatic (and equally sudden) climate changes in the past, when WE were not a factor.

 

[Juize]

Back to the old 'Global warming doesn't exist so we haven't to do anything'
-attitude... No wonder you chose GWB to president...

 

[GeneralHotRod]

I didn't really fit in that poll b/c I don't think we should build any more nuke plants, they are money pits and a general pain in the arse. I also think ANWR needs to be opened up for drilling b/c I would love it if we could quit sending money to the MidEast!!!

To all you environmental nuts...modern drilling techniques are very environmentally friendly...just look at the Alaska Pipline, the caribou love it!!

I really think wind power will eventually be the answer in the future. It is the most efficient of the renewable sources, therefore the most viable.

Here's a quick little tidbit...there is more oil in Colorado than in Saudi Arabia. It's stuck in shale so it costs about 70 USD per barrel to extract. It's nice to know that if we did cut off there is a domestic supply.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Switch625


The question isn't whether or not the Earth's climate is changing, because it seems to be. The question is whether or not we are causing the change. I don't think we are. There have been much more dramatic (and equally sudden) climate changes in the past, when WE were not a factor.

I read a very interesting article, showing that the Earth's average temperature fluctuated in a direct (virtually R² = 1) with sunspot activity. This was trying to show that global warming was NOT man-made.

I then saw an updated plot of this, showing a massive departure on the correlation in the last 20 or so years.

Is Man causing global warming? Probably. But is it worth taking the risk? We should be trying to get people to operate in an environmentally responsible manner. On RMSharpes point - 0.00000003% is very small. But compare that to a elected President / Prime Ministers term! Short-termism in policy setting is the real threat here.

 

[MrPresident]

Global warming doesn't exist is really too questions. Is the Earth warming up? and is it man-made? Personally I hope if the world is warming up it was caused by man-made. If it wasn't they we have a really really big problem. If it is man-made then at least we have some idea about how to stop it. Also didn't some top climate sciencists, appointed by George W. to look into the whole global warming idea, say that it does exist and it is man-made.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I work in the energy industry.

I can tell you for a fact, an absolute, unshakeable FACT, that nuclear power is NOT, I repeat for emphasis NOT, a viable power source. Why? Because the cost of waste disposal is subsidised by the federal government. If you add the cost of waste handling and disposal to the cost of nuclear power, it makes every other form of power far more attractive.

So why is is still used? Because the people who subsidize the waste handling do so because they have plutonium breeder reactors that make waste too, and since they are handling the waste anyways...

So thank nuclear weapons for nuclear power. Without nukes, there'd be no profit in nuclear power.

That said, I too am for alternative energy research. I say if it lowers energy prices, slap a turbine on top of Old Faithful. We have abundant geothermal, wind, wave, and solar opportunities, and fuel cell technology is advancing at a breakneck pace. Slap a fat tax on gas and oil, let the price of energy from those sources rise until no one wants them anymore, and the energy companies will offer us the alternatives. (And this is coming from a guy who thinks taxes are worse than Satan!)

I have said this before on a million different topics. The way to eliminate a problem is not by throwing money at it, (and thereby putting profit in the problem) it is by putting the profit in the solution.

When Americans are paying $5.50 a gallon for gas, electric cars will be BOUGHT, and HOWLED for. When their winter fuel oil bills reach $300 per MONTH, they will SCREAM for wind and hydro power, and natural gas. America accounts for a sizeable portion of the world's annual energy bill. You want to change the world's energy usage pattern, you start with America.

 

[Sixchan]

Ooo, $5.50 per gallon. LOADS.

I already pay very close to that, and british people are just howling for lower taxes. Trust me, finding out you have some of the highest prices in europe, but you have it cheapest minus the feul tax doesn't make you want an alternative feul car, it just makes you VERY mad at the government. We need another feul blockade like a year or two ago to show them.

Maybe it'd work in America, but over here, heavily taxing feul means taking it up to $10 per gallon. And I bet we'd still not complain as much as you guys over the pond.