The age of oil dependance

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

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

I'm talking about a wasteland caused by poor environmental practices. Nope, nope, no "acting" here. I was making a point about the effect the attempt to extract usable oil from tar sands was having on the already bleak environment of northern Alberta.

Originally Posted by mlarson

The point is there is no foreseeable shortage of oil...

Mike... Mike, are you out of your mind? Have you taken my course? I busted my ***** to find out the truth! Give me a break, buddy. Have you ever heard of physics?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kshepard

I'm talking about a wasteland caused by poor environmental practices. Nope, nope, no "acting" here. I was making a point about the effect the attempt to extract usable oil from tar sands was having on the already bleak environment of northern Alberta.


Mike... Mike, are you out of your mind? Have you taken my course? I busted my ***** to find out the truth! Give me a break, buddy. Have you ever heard of physics?

Kenton.

Better find some better info. You've been lead down the path by the greens.

There are multiple hundreds of years of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear available.

Now ask yourself why it is those very sources of energy that are being opposed.

Not to argue but if you only read what the greens approve you will draw the wrong conclusions.

If Alberta is already barren what is los by having a large sludge pit?

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Kenton.

Better find some better info. You've been lead down the path by the greens.

There are multiple hundreds of years of oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear available.

Now ask yourself why it is those very sources of energy that are being opposed.

Not to argue but if you only read what the greens approve you will draw the wrong conclusions.

If Alberta is already barren what is los by having a large sludge pit?

You have to cite your sources, Mike. Otherwise it's obvious that you're giving personal opinion. I don't want second-hand opinions from the "Oprah" audience. I want information from people who've worked hard to make sure it's accurate and who know what they're talking about. Professionals and scientists!
I believe you're getting your information when you check out at the grocery store.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by kshepard

You have to cite your sources, Mike. Otherwise it's obvious that you're giving personal opinion. I don't want second-hand opinions from the "Oprah" audience. I want information from people who've worked hard to make sure it's accurate and who know what they're talking about. Professionals and scientists!
I believe you're getting your information when you check out at the grocery store.

Hey Kenton you're a swell guy don't take it so personal. I really mean that.

I have posted my sources many many many times, just not in this thread.

What I have I shared here that you take serious issue with?

I will gladly post the sources in response to your questions.

BTW-you asked me if I had taken your course. Which one?

Where did the following come from and why was it in your post?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlarson
Did you intend to use the word "records" here somewhere??

[Michael Larson]

I have posted this elsewhere on the MB but it is relevant to this discussion.

Myth: The World is Running Out of Oil

175-315 Billion barrels of oil are recoverable at $15 a barrel in the Oil Sands of Alberta, Canada. With a remaining potential of 1.7-2.5 Trillion barrels using advanced recovery techniques. Who knows what they'll discover tomorrow, but we know today, that in Canada's oil sands alone, the supplies will last over 100 years
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE BOTTOMLESS WELL
The Twilight Of Fuel, The Virtue Of Waste, And Why We Will Never Run Out Of Energy

By Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills

Peter W. Huber is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy, where he specializes in issues related to technology, science and law. His previous books include Hard Green, Liability, Orwell’s Revenge, and Galileo’s Revenge. In addition to being a regular columnist in Forbes magazine, Huber has also published articles in scholarly journals such as the Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, as well as many other publications, including Science, The Wall Street Journal, Reason, Regulation, and National Review. He has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including Face the Nation and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Huber earned his law degree from Harvard University and a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from MIT. He lives in Bethesda, Maryland.

Mark P. Mills is a co-founding partner in Digital Power Capital, and partner in the Digital Power Group, a research firm. Prior to co-founding Digital Power Capital, Mark served as a staff consultant to The White House Science Office (under President Reagan), a number of the Federal Research Laboratories, the (former) Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the U.S. Department of Energy. He has been published in various popular publications, including Forbes magazine, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times Magazine, as well as numerous professional publications. He has also testified before and briefed many state public service commissions, legislative groups, state legislators, and the U.S. Congress. Mark was an experimental physicist and development engineer in the fields of integrated circuits during the early 1970s, the "Jurassic era" of microprocessors. He also worked in fiber optics, defense and solid-state devices, fields in which he holds several patents. Mark holds a degree in physics from Queen's University, Canada, and is a member of numerous professional societies including the American Physical Society and Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers.

[Michael Larson]

Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas.

This is not what President-elect Barack Obama's energy and climate strategists would want to hear. It would be anathema to Al Gore and other assorted luminaries touting renewable energy sources which in one giant swoop will save the world from the “tyranny” of fossil fuels and mitigate global warming.

And as if these were not big enough issues, oilman T. Boone Pickens’ grandiose plan for wind farms from Texas to Canada is supposed to bring about a replacement for the natural gas now used for power generation. That move will then lead to energy independence from foreign oil.

Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse.

Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.
Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies. Such is the economic strain on taxpayer funds being poured into wind power by Europe's early pioneers -- Denmark, Germany and Spain – that all have recently been forced to scale back their investments. more

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies.

Let's not forget that these same envirowackos that promote wind turbines as our saving grace are the same ones that fight developing these fields because the turbines might kill a few dumb birds and/ or "ruin the country scenery" in the areas they are erected.

[klott]

Originally Posted by nwagner

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 ...

Very well said Nick.

[klott]

Originally Posted by kshepard

You have to cite your sources, Mike. Otherwise it's obvious that you're giving personal opinion. I don't want second-hand opinions from the "Oprah" audience. I want information from people who've worked hard to make sure it's accurate and who know what they're talking about. Professionals and scientists!
I believe you're getting your information when you check out at the grocery store.

Kenton, why can't they put the sand back in place after the oil extraction. I agree with you on the toxic lake, it would be worth $30 a barrel, for a better method. There is always a better way to do things, as long as you're willing to pay for it.

[klott]

Originally Posted by nwagner

Let's not forget that these same envirowackos that promote wind turbines as our saving grace are the same ones that fight developing these fields because the turbines might kill a few dumb birds and/ or "ruin the country scenery" in the areas they are erected.

We don't have to worry, I heard that all of the Dodo birds, were already extinct! However, I think we should harness power from wind and solar, every chance we get.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by klott

We don't have to worry, I heard that all of the Dodo birds, were already extinct! However, I think we should harness power from wind and solar, every chance we get.

I'm not against wind and solar as long as we all understand that it is not sufficient for our needs and that it costs several multiples per kilowatt to produce compared to oil, coil, and natural gas and nuclear.

The technology has been promised to us for decades and it just isn't there yet.

Hopefully one day it will be but to use Carbon footprints reduction as the driving force to build solar and wind is just dishonest science.

[klott]

I agree with that too Michael, however, I believe the exorbitant costs are due to greed and milking the government subsidy cows. There is no reason, it should cost more than the ones you mention.

[klott]

If they are truly concerned about reducing Co2, they should plant more trees. Best scrubbers on earth, plus the shade would reduce the amount of heat absorbed, not to mention they are beautiful and the critters love them.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by klott

I agree with that too Michael, however, I believe the exorbitant costs are due to greed and milking the government subsidy cows. There is no reason, it should cost more than the ones you mention.

You'll have to provide some support for the bold statement Ken.

IMHO it's much like Ethanol, with out the subsidies it the industry would not likely exist.

[nwagner]

Originally Posted by klott

We don't have to worry, I heard that all of the Dodo birds, were already extinct! However, I think we should harness power from wind and solar, every chance we get.

I agree. But don't you find it ironic how these "green" Kool Aid drinkers demand that we fill the grid up with wind turbines, yet oppose them for the ecological and asthetic "damage" they will create when corporations actually plan on building them?

Some how it doesn't surprise me that the "greens" are nothing more than Al Gore hypocrites ...