America's Future Oil Source

You don't need oil to generate electricity.You can build Hydro-Electric Dams or use Wind-Power.

Electric supply is just an electro-magnetic coil being spun around & phenomenal speed.
Before we had Cars we had Horses.We still have Horses.
I personally hate the combustion Automobile.
Hydrogen Cars are viable.
The oil won't run out in our lifetimes but finding it will get harder & harder as Oil rigs & drills have to excavate deeper & deeper into the Earth's crust.
It will eventually prove un-economical to extract from the ground & with that turnabout maybe the Ozone Layer can be saved & the depletion of ozone greatly reduced.

 

You're assuming, of course, that there's tons of wind and that you can turn it on at will. You can't light a city with wind power. Likewise, when you dam an area you cause all kinds of ecological devastation.

Thank you, Mr. Wizard. It's how we get the flipping thing to do it at a good clip. Burning coal and oil is how we do it now. Sunlight won't spin a coil.

Yes, and when we relied on horses we needed 70% of the people working in the fields to feed ourselves.

On which planet? HOW DO YOU GET THE GODDAMN HYDROGEN?

You're getting your enviroNazism mixed up CO2 is global warming not the ozone layer.

 

...............

Environmental Impact

Tar sands development has a direct impact on local and planetary ecosystems. In Alberta, this form of oil extraction completely destroys the boreal forest, the bogs, the rivers as well as the natural landscape. The mining industry believes that the boreal forest will eventually colonize the reclaimed lands, yet 30 years after the opening of the first open pit mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta, no land is considered by the Alberta Government as having been "restored."

Furthermore, for every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere and between 3 and 5 barrels of waste water are dumped into tailing ponds. The forecasted growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta also threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent with respect to the reference year (1990). In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24 percent since 1990.
....................


from wikipedia.org

 

What on earth does oil consumption got to do with the depletion of ozone?

 

Nothing, but lets not shift the focus away that oil consumption is bad for the Earth. Oil Consumption=Greenhouse Gasses

 

Why else was oil put here other than to burn it?

 

Thats basically like saying why was the Earth given to us other than to fuck it up completely.

 

Trouble is, unless we wish to live like animals, we're gonna do something.

Forests were consumed for burning down in the medieval period in Europe. Many forests fell to the axe for that reason.

We moved to coal. That turned out to be clean, huh.

Now all we're whining about is CO2, and we put out FAR less than the environment itself does. That's like complaining about a window being open a crack when the front door is missing.

 

My point was, people smoke weed and say "Why else was it put here if it weren't meant to be smoked?" I don't smoke weed, so I'll burn oil.

 

Carbon Monoxide & Carbon Dioxide are the products of burning fossil fuels.Right?.
The Ozone Layer deleption is a direct result of the greenhouse gasses caused by burning fossil fuels..........deforestation........cows fatuating which creates methane gas.......cfc in plastics......old Refridgerators giving off cfc gasses.You name it.......

Who is the world's greatest contributor to greenhouse gasses: The United States Of America.Who is the 2nd greatest: China.

Will China be importing as much Oil as Japan?.China itself has massive untapped Oil reserves.There are still Oil reserves in Mongolia,Siberia etc.

This is one crazy f***ed up World.
We need to gently ease humanity away from oil dependence.
The third world is industrialising at a fast rate.India,China & Latin America will need Oil.

Opec has lost it's grip on world oil markets;-it is now a free for all.

 

actualy we don't "need" to burn oil or coal for anything other then home heating and cooking to not "live like animals". and we could be burning fuels from biomass to do that.

just what the hell do people have against 'animals' and 'caves' anyway? i think that's just a totaly vacuous and gratuitous argument to rationalize emotional attatchment to our comfort zones, sustainable or not.

and that's just the point. the infrastructures, energy in particular, but transportation as well, that inable our comfort zones, DON'T HAVE TO be nonsustainable!

the argument that no single alternative can replace the use of combustion is equaly meaningless. ALL alternatives, feeding togather into the common grid, just as all major energy providers, reguardless of their individual tecnologies, are already doing now anyway, can and will.

(32% wind/solar + 41% hydro =73%, 100-73=27, nukes+geothermal+biomass+conservation+other odds and ends, togather making up that 27%)

gee isn't simple math magical

=^^=
.../\...

 

What would be a better way of doing this? A better basis with which to make decisions?

There's an organization that talks about thinking 7 generations ahead, as opposed to the next few years. 7 isn't even that much, but it's an interesting idea. Imagine if that was a law....

 

Yes but what has this got to do with the next sentence?

That is news to me. Would you be kind enough to give me your source of information ? Did you read it on on the the internet, if so could you post up the URL's? If you read it elsewhere like a book or printed periodical maybe you could scan the page and post it up?

A different topic altogether

What is "fatuating"?

I knew that polystyrene products used to be made with CFC's but I have never heard of plastics being made with CFC's...

Only if the gas escapes.

Reading about other peoples' misaprehensions is great entertainment. I thank you.

 

Bilby, why not stick to the topic instead of picking on ashiya - she's seriously inaccurate but her intentions are good..

Like i said before, lets not shift the focus away from the fact that oil consumption contributes to the greenhouse effect, its bad.

 

Dams and windfarms can only work in areas specially suited, not just anywhere. They aren't going to satisfy the world's energy demands by a longshot.

Yeah, and that's the catch...something needs to generate the rotary motion to generate electricity. That requires...energy!

Yes, horsepower.

That's fine. For me, the buring of hydrocarbons seems to be the way to do it.

Most definitely. It's the hydrogen itself that presents a problem. I don't even see why so much emphasis is placed on it given that it can only be a storage medium. It does nothing to solve the underlying issue, that being the energy source! If all these 'alternative' sources can't make it with any of the other means of storage available to us, why should we think hydrogen can save them?


And while hydrogen has great energy density by weight, by volume it's very poor, even when compressed to the extreme.

 

As I understand it, hydrogen is easily attained as a sort of by-product of nuclear power. So nuclear power and hydrogen cars. Problem solved.

 

Problem persists. Nuclear power isn't economical for anything, including thermal and electrical hydrogen production. We're decades past the days people thought nuclear power was going to be "it." Economics are the main inhibitor, and it's doubtful this will change.

 

While I have no problem with anyone espressing opinions that I disagree with, I consider disinformation to be one of the worst literary crimes around. Look at my sub-title. I am in the process of building a propaganda web site. I am sceptical about the prevailing dogma on oil and the greenhouse effect.

 

first, why assume it's DISinformation? Sounded more like MISinformation to me, she just wasn't well informed.

Second, though I'm concerned about global warming and fossil fuel burning/CO2 emmisions, it' not really the main thing we should be talking about. There are far more direct, tangible effects, economical and environmental (air quality, for example) that we could perhaps better use to argue for change, IF we can successfully describe it as a singlular, unified problem, not several seperate problems (the problem of bad air, the problem of poor health/obesity, etc)

Anyways, most of this just seems like a bunch of stupid people trying to figure out how to live overextravagantly. Why do we need to take random long distance trips all the time? Why do we need to haul our 2 ton vehicle along with us to pick up a 12 ounce DVD at Blockbuster? So much of this could be solved by bicycling or walking more. Humans, for 99.9% of our history, have not had this ability to journey so far so fast. Yes, it's nice, but not necessary. It's so much more about our chosen lifestyle than any real energy crisis (which is real as long as we stick to this sort of lifestyle and economy). It doesn't have to be this way, it's about choice. That's the great thing about this! We don't have to suffer! We don't have to have an "oil crash" that devestates us all, globally! We can change now! Get rid of your car, grow a garden, buy a bike, stop being a compulsive consumer... we hold the power in our hands!

 

Well how about fusion?