The age of oil dependance

[David A. Andersen]

I just read an article about energy auditors.
An observation in it stated that people don't take responsibility themselves. It's something others should do.

When allotted a limited supply of electricity (depending on your rank in the company), everyone used all their allotment and did not switch to available gas for cooking till the lights went out.....

Workers don't conserve their employers energy by turning off lights or turning off the heat/ac but raise hell at home...

Another poll I read was about if you let your kids jump on a hotel bed.
Most allow their kids to jump on a hotel bed but never on a bed at home.

Careful who you listen to.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by dandersen

Careful who you listen to.

Your point is?

[Steven C. Waskewicz]

Well said Kenton, I can't agree more with the philosophy, that the direction has to move forward toward a cleaner world.
I am also in agreement with Kent, that the world is much bigger than we alone can handle, or be responsible for, when it comes to environmental policing.

We can certainly take a lead, however, and do our part, along with keeping our economy strong, and not destroying industries as we make those changes.
I also believe that a lot of so-called "environmentally conscious " people are deluding themselves into thinking that they are soothing their conscience by "proper recycling"...
why do I say this? A couple weeks ago, I watched a 60-Minutes segment where they followed a container of "Properly recycled US computer parts", all the way from the collection points in somewhere California, across the shipping lanes to the various stops along the way, and ultimately ending up in backwoods China country, where they have a huge industry proceeding to strip parts for gold, and other precious metals, and then openly burning the rest of the junk. Sky's filling with toxic smoke, water heavy with poisonous heavy metals, etc. and all with no protections for the environment...
Cancer rates were sky high for residents living nearby.
It was one of the worst secrets of the Chinese government, and nothing being done (and they couldn't give a damn either) about the environment.

[rbrady]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Exactly. We'd go through all of this trouble to eliminate our emissions just to have China and the rest of the Third World countries continue to smog away. Heck, they'd probably pick up a substantial amount of our share due to manufacturers outscourcing like crazy to their cheap, dirty fuel sweatshops. Talk about futility.

So you are advocating that we copy the Chinese in this matter? Why waste money on sewage treatment and underground drainage when open sewers work just fine there?
We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
I'm sure that there are plenty of countries with lax environmental controls and easy immigration standards if that is what you want.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rbrady

We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.

We already are the example for the rest of the world.

Our prosperity has allowed us to clean up most of the problems we had.
We are now in the area of diminishing returns for the amount needed for additional cleanup. It makes little economic sense to go after the remaining small percentage of our original problems when much of the rest of th world has a long long way to go to match our sucess in the area of environmental clean up.

Maybe they should worry about having them catch up to us before we add ever more restrictive policies here and severly constricting our economy and subsequently the rest of the world's.

[klott]

Originally Posted by mlarson

We already are the example for the rest of the world.

Our prosperity has allowed us to clean up most of the problems we had.
We are now in the area of diminishing returns for the amount needed for additional cleanup. It makes little economic sense to go after the remaining small percentage of our original problems when much of the rest of th world has a long long way to go to match our sucess in the area of environmental clean up.

Maybe they should worry about having them catch up to us before we add ever more restrictive policies here and severly constricting our economy and subsequently the rest of the world's.

I said the above, Michael just typed it for me, thanks Michael!

[klott]

Just wait until we have to clean up after China and Cuba make a mess in the Florida Straights!

[George A. H. Luck]

I see that the new President is going to cancel the legislation that allowed the oil companies to lease and drill on new fields. Fill 'er up now friends. The price of oil is about to rise again!

[klott]

Knew that would happen.

[Stephen W. Stanczyk]

Originally Posted by gluck

I see that the new President is going to cancel the legislation that allowed the oil companies to lease and drill on new fields. Fill 'er up now friends. The price of oil is about to rise again!

Please explain how Obama can "cancel" legislation? This was a bill that was passed and signed. It has become law. The only way to undo it is to pass further legislation. It was not an executive order....

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by rbrady

So you are advocating that we copy the Chinese in this matter? Why waste money on sewage treatment and underground drainage when open sewers work just fine there?
We should be setting an example for the rest of the world.
I'm sure that there are plenty of countries with lax environmental controls and easy immigration standards if that is what you want.

Of course not. I was stating that it would be foolish for us to cease use of coal, natural gas, gasoline, etc. without economically viable alternatives in place. Its incredibly naive to think that we can reliably and economically power the entire electrical grid and transportation fleet with nothing but wind, solar, hydrogen cell and other under-developed "green" technologies.

What makes you think that I disdain the reasonable pollution controls we have in place today? All I pointed to is that if we drove the stake in our economy's heart by mandating use of "green" technologies at unsustainable rates that those nations with virtually non-existent environmental regulations would probably snatch more manufactures from us, manufacturers that currently employ processes that minimize hazardous environmental contamination. Not exactly environmental in my book ...

[hlowe]

Originally Posted by kshepard

We're going to need oil, coal, gas, wind, water, sun, biofuels and nuclear energy sources plus congressional release of funds for energy R&D, along with some behavioral changes form the American public if we're going to start developing energy security.

Especially with the huge economic growth of China and India, world demand for oil is rising. Supply is shrinking. This condition won't change, but will accelerate.

We import 13.5 billion barrels of oil a day. That's 2/3 of our national consumption. The U.S. has less than 2.5% of world known oil reserves. 2/3 of the world's known reserves are in non-democratic countries, some of which are hostile toward us.

Prudent people don't depend on their enemies for survival. Energy security is within our reach at a reasonable cost, but attaining it will take work and will require acting with intention, sustained focus and resolve by the new administration, by the legislature and by the American public. That doesn't happen very often, but it has happened in the past and needs to happen now.

Energy legislation enacted and energy policies implemented 35 years ago made a big difference. Over the last 35 years, materials and energy technology have changed significantly but U.S. energy policies haven't kept pace.

The latest comprehensive energy report by a very creditable group is the ENERGY FUTURE report by the American Physics Society. Their research and editorial groups have top-notch credentials and they make good, detailed recommendations.

Finger-pointing and bad-mouthing isn't going to work as a substitute for taking the time to find out about this problem and to do what you can, if anything, to help move the U.S. away from reliance on foreign energy sources.
Left alone, the energy situation is only going to get worse.
Think energy efficiency.

Statistics and information for this post are from the report mentioned above.

Well said, Kenton. I like your outlook.

[hlowe]

Originally Posted by swaskewicz

Well said Kenton, I can't agree more with the philosophy, that the direction has to move forward toward a cleaner world.
I am also in agreement with Kent, that the world is much bigger than we alone can handle, or be responsible for, when it comes to environmental policing.

We can certainly take a lead, however, and do our part, along with keeping our economy strong, and not destroying industries as we make those changes.
I also believe that a lot of so-called "environmentally conscious " people are deluding themselves into thinking that they are soothing their conscience by "proper recycling"...
why do I say this? A couple weeks ago, I watched a 60-Minutes segment where they followed a container of "Properly recycled US computer parts", all the way from the collection points in somewhere California, across the shipping lanes to the various stops along the way, and ultimately ending up in backwoods China country, where they have a huge industry proceeding to strip parts for gold, and other precious metals, and then openly burning the rest of the junk. Sky's filling with toxic smoke, water heavy with poisonous heavy metals, etc. and all with no protections for the environment...
Cancer rates were sky high for residents living nearby.
It was one of the worst secrets of the Chinese government, and nothing being done (and they couldn't give a damn either) about the environment.

Well spoken, but doesn't someone have to take responsibility ?

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I repeat.

Alberta has enough oil to last 100 years for the entire world at current consumption rates.

Mike, if you're talking about Alberta tar sands (like Colorado tar sands, I wish we could extract them under a reasonable scenario) here's The Oil Drums's article on tar sands. The Oil Drum is dedicated to trying to represent the truth about fossile fuels and does not bad-mouth that industry. A tough business.

Here's the link to Alberta tar sands

Tar sands extraction is partly what Alberta is famous for. That process is famous for creating a sea of toxic fluid so huge that it forms a lake visible from space. The area where they do it is limited to a location far from any commonly-inhabited place because the whole process is so environmentally unacceptable that it would not be tolerated by any local inhabitants.

Now if you're talking about a different type of energy which will last for 100 years without doing a lot of damage to the environment,you should mention what it is so we'll all know.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kshepard

Mike, if you're talking about Alberta tar sands (like Colorado tar sands, I wish we could extract them under a reasonable scenario) here's The Oil Drums's article on tar sands. The Oil Drum is dedicated to trying to represent the truth about fossile fuels and does not bad-mouth that industry. A tough business.

Here's the link to Alberta tar sands

Tar sands extraction is partly what Alberta is famous for. That process is famous for creating a sea of toxic fluid so huge that it forms a lake visible from space. The area where they do it is limited to a location far from any commonly-inhabited place because the whole process is so environmentally unacceptable that it would not be tolerated by any local inhabitants.

Now if you're talking about a different type of energy which will last for 100 years without doing a lot of damage to the environment,you should mention what it is so we'll all know.

Kenton, you act as if there is not already vast waste land.

The point is there is no foreseeable shortage of oil. Every other means of energy production is more expensive and by refusing to use easily available oil we are dooming untold millions to poverty and the inability to advance there society toward the modern age.

Cheap energy in the form of oil has been largely responsible for the industrial age and I think it is foolhearty to deprive the world to satisfy some environmentalist wacos.

Sorry if that sounds harsh but their plans have very real consequences for the entire world and it isn't pretty.

Every wonder why they oppose nuclear energy so loudly?

When you discover that answer you will understand why I have no time for them or the politicians they have on a string.