https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHD4U2q_p4c What do you guys think about it? THey say that there's enough oil in there to fuel the world for the next 100 years. ATM it's just more cost effective to go for the cheap Middle Eastern stuff, but really to unleash this new source of oil all we basically need is a ton of water. Comments, debates, everything is welcome.
If the governments of the world, including that of the United States, put as much effort into solar, wind, tides, etc. as they do in trying to prop up the dinosaur of petroleum, we'd have been free of that monster years ago.
You think we can possibly fuel today's consumption via those methods? Realistically, I dont think so. How are you going to fly a plane on electric? Sail the seas, etc. I can see those helping out in alternate lifestyles. But with the world's current setup? I highly doubt it.
You're letting your thinking be too limited. The handwriting is on the wall for a petroleum-based energy infrastructure, and has been since the OPEC oil embargo in the early 1970s. If we'd started then to seriously search for better solutions, we'd have them by now. I don't doubt that for a second. Don't limit yourself to thinking of old-time windmills out on the prairie, or simple solar panels on pocket calculators. True progress is never made by limiting yourself to the status quo. There is an unimaginable amount of brainpower in this country. There are thousands and thousands of incredibly bright, creative engineers and thinkers. Turn them loose on the energy problem, just like we turned them loose on the space program, or on medical problems, or on weapon systems. Set up a skunkworks, give them anything they want, and get the hell out of their way. Do you really doubt for a microsecond that they couldn't completely solve our energy situation within a few years? The reason this hasn't been done already is easy enough to see ... the petroleum lobby. There is an entrenched cadre of good ole boys in the "awl bidniss" that don't want to lose their meal ticket, and they have Congress in their back pockets. This state of affairs could easily continue until a gallon of gasoline costs $25 or more. To mix metaphors, the petroleum dinosaur is an albatross around our necks. Instead of nickel and diming a few extra miles per gallon here and there, I say we should work toward getting rid of petroleum altogether. The problems associated with oil are only going to get worse and worse, not better.
how they gonna make hot water?? Thats stupid, Take just as much energy to to get the fuel out the sand as there is in it..
My thoughts on this are as such: Okay so what if there is really 100 years of oil there and it really can fuel the worlds fossil fuel needs for a century. Does that really solve anything? All it does is postpone the inevitable and does not solve anything. Lets face it oil is a finite resource, sure it was really convenient while it lasted, and sure we can use new oil that is discovered to tide us over for a few more years, but it is not an endless supply and some day it will run out. Whether that day is 5 years from now or 500 years from now. I am really sick of the world as a whole being an "eggs all in one basket" kind of place for energy needs, its about time to look elsewhere for energy that is not only clean but also renewable. Also whenever they say its not as easily accessible as the Middle Eastern oil that should also raise flags in your head as to "How much will this cost to refine?" The more and more processing needed to refine oil directly relates to how much said oil will cost to the end user.
Okay, for now I'll steer clear of the global warming racket. Regardless on what you see as the long term effects of oil burning on the environment, because of it our cities are suffocating. There is a constant yellow haze over Los Angeles, and here in Belfast, we have the highest rates of asthma in the UK. In london a bycicle courrier is inhaling the equivalent of 20 cigarettes a day due to the car fumes. We are setting ourselves up for serious problems on a local scale by keeping on increasing production, and keeping on increasing consumption. If you see these effects on a local scale, how can anyone deny that the effects become harmless when they are dispersed into the greater atmosphere? I personally believe all the EVIDENCE that points to global warming being a reality. It is simply too strong for us to ignore now. But even if the globe isnt warming per se, our air is still getting more and more clogged with combustion bi products that nature has no way of filtering in the quantities that they are now produced in. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Oil is a temporary fix. Always has been, always will be. We have drilled in all the easy places in the world. The majority of the easy wells are now dry. We keep having to go for progressively more difficult places to drill. Deeper water, more contaminants to filter, less oil in a well etc etc. The result is that the cost can only go one way, and it will not be a gradual change. Before oil companies start to go for the next eschelon of difficulty, they need to raise the capital to build the necessary infrastructure. Who pays for that? Us. Yep, before they even start on the hard stuff. Wind power. There are vast areas in the world that can facilitate wing deneration. Much of the mid west. Mountain ranges and hills all over the world. Shallow seas. Wave Power. With only about 30% of the world covered by land this creates a hell of a lot of coastline. Where you get waves pushing in from open oceans you get tremendous energy buildup. Imagine having a load of offshore wind turbines, but stringing between each of them wave generators to boot? Solar Power. Not suitable everywhere, as some places get little sun, and not everyone has a south facing roof. In the UK planning authorities can no longer refuse permission for solar panels, except in very localised conservation areas, though so far they've been keeping this very much to themselves. The deserts of the world have the possibilities to build vast solar arrays as seen in spain, and could easily become exporters of vast power for a long time to come. Now that would be an economic boost to many poor nations, and a lifeline for the gulf states after oil is gone. Geothermic. Not practical everywhere, but places like Iceland or Japan there is potentially limitless power to be had. That is just a few of the options that we are investigating, even though the political will is not truly there yet. Imagine when people start complaining more and more about the prices at the pumps. Suddenly the politicians will have to reasess their alliances with oil producers and lobbies. It is a sad view of current policies that the most prevelant producer of wind turbines in the UK has just been put into administration. Sure we can. They have done it now. People build model planes that fly off batteries for a good while. Of course that isnt a good solution for commercial flying, as batteries are heavy and take ages to charge. Now, what we really need is a battery that does not need loads of noxious chemicals to create, stores hundreds of times more energy than current batteries per unit weight, and can be replenished as quickly as conventional oil based fuels. It just so happens that we have that. Hydrogen. Created by electrolysis, and can be stored for a good long time life petroleum. It can then be burned truly cleanly to produce enough electricity to rival batteries on the efficiency in terms of proportion of energy invested that can be extracted. You can deffinately fly your plane on that. The life time of a car is not that long. People tend to replace them after only a few years. With hydrogen vehicles entering the market it need not take long to transfer from gas guzzling air toxifiers to hydrogen burning vehicles whose only exhaust is water. You will be able to see the sky in los angeles, and children can breath easy in Belfast. It is not a matter of if oil is or isnt in immediate risk of running out, it is the fact that it can only get more expensive, and the damage we are doing to ourselves sticking with it is becoming less and less worth it.
So to drill or not to drill? Or if we drill, should we have tighter regulations to help use the new oils to change our infrastructure towards a less oil dependent one? To me batteries promote another major ecological problem. Anything we try to do on this mass consumerist type scale is bound to be bad. Lots of industrial waste and dumb people improperly disposing of batteries. Nuclear powered cars could be the way of the future, yet mass consumerism + dumb people would ruin that too. The only way I could really see it working is by having a benevolent government (high checks and balances, transparency, etc.) work to regulate and direct energy use. Only allowing uses for electricity that basically "benefit all". As in, don't pave roads if basically only the rich are going to be able to afford electric vehicles. Dirt cheap mass transit, commodity transportation trains, etc. I know this is a rough and flawed theory, but it is the only way which I can see realistically maintaining an ecologically sound environment while still providing value to the people.
and just who is it that you think should make the decisions on what benefits all? because if everyone can't have an electric vehicle, nobody should drive on paved roads??? As for the original topic of the Alberta Oil Sands.... as they are called. The cost for getting it out of the ground is not that huge of a deal.... when the price spiked last year, the oil sands were booming, because at 60$ plus a barrel, it is more then worth it (economically speaking) to get it out using CURRENT practices. They are in the process of developing a system that will reduce the cost (in both financial and environmental terms) of extracting the oil to below drilling costs. Beyond all this.... if anyone thinks for a second that we (humans) will stop raping the planet, just because it's not a good thing to do, that person is totally out of touch with reality. We will stop raping the planet, when it is more economically sensible not to do so in the short term, and not one second before. Rant and rally against this stuff all you want. Unless you plan on killing 90% of the population and setting up a world wide dictatorship, nothing will change while there is money to be made.... and with the changes that come along with doing it, you are going to like it even less then the current situation.
Electric energy can be made highly portable by using it to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. High-pressure hydrogen should work well for all modes of transportation smaller than a ship. Ships are in a unique niche, and only consume a tiny fraction of the world's energy production. They may have to rely on fossil fuels to supplement wind power, in the form of fiberglass sails on rotating masts. Once all the cars, trucks, planes, and power plants are out of the fossil fuel equation, we have sufficient reserves to last thousands of years. The way around it is for the government to make sure the worn-out batteries have a large recycle trade-in value, providing subsidies if required. Money has to be the prime motivator in a free society.
Fiberglass sails on ships as heavy as they are nowadays? And using trade winds for transportation??? Hm... And high trade-in value for batteries? They're going to have to tax people out the ass to allow that to happen, and God knows how much people love a new tax. There's a couple theories out there (according to me ^_^). 1.) Heavy fines for improper disposal. 2.) Limiting usage to those deemed "most important" (either by law or economically) 3.) Give incentives for trading in batteries (subsidies) 4.) Hope people do it by themselves. So it all depends on which one you choose, and how you go about it. All could potentially work beneficially. But in the end of the day, I think hydrogen seems a better option. It basically keeps accountability of the most dangerous batteries in the hands of hydrogen plants, while doling out energy in a very ecologically friendly way.
Once again, just who is it that is going to decide who that energy gets doled out to? You keep making suggestions that are based on your life being even more controlled and regulated then it is now by some 'entity'. Are you really so eager to turn into a complete sheep with no free will? Who are these magical beings that are going to come along and do all this for us, and what is it that makes you think that giving control and responsibility to them is going to turn out any better then the current system??
Considering that the average modern containership makes about 16 knots cruising speed, wind power could make a significant contribution, depending on weather conditions. Early steam-powered vessels (~100 years ago) also had sails. Eventually, sails were eliminated because of cheap fuel, rising labor costs, and the desire to go faster than 20 knots. Rotating masts eliminate the need for large crews and dangerous tasks, and airplanes now carry most time-sensitive international cargo. No tax. You add the cost up front. You are probably too young to remember this, but they used to do that here with soda bottles. Every bottle of Coke or Pepsi had an extra 5 cents included in the purchase price that you would get back when you returned the empty bottle. The actual cost of making a glass bottle was much lower than 5 cents. This was back when a Coke cost about 20 cents, so there was a strong incentive to bring the empties in when you bought more drinks. I have no idea why they dropped this program in the late 1960s. It seemed to work very well. Extremely poor people, who are generally prone to litter and be uncooperative with recycling programs, used to walk along the highways looking for bottles to sell. I remember it well.
they cancelled deposits on bottles there??? We still have them, but you are right in that the deposit didn't keep up with the times and lost its attraction to most. Although there are still some people who collect them here to make money, they just don't make anything really worthwhile.
Yeah, a long time ago. You can't make anything on glass here. Aluminum cans are worth a little bit, if you have huge quantities.
well, it's like a lot of the other issues surrounding recycling and being enviromentally sensible. There are solutions in place that are shown to work. Instead of people working so hard to change the system to something new, and tossing about ideas that may or may not ever come to fruition, doesn't it make more sense to use what we already know works.... Seems to me, that is a better starting point.... edited to add... You mean that you can't make any money on returning them and not you can't make things out of glass, right??
*Never thought about up-front costs* I'm only 20, and even though I see that 5c message on bottles, who actually does it? Old wisdom for a new age lol. You got the wrong idea ChronicTom. You think I'm going to give big brother government power over me to do whats best for me. I sense the "social control/ restraint/ corruption / manipulation" undertone that you imply about what I want. Far from the case. Instead of having millions of ecologically unsafe batteries running around, you simply have the batteries at power plants. It allows better accountability for pollution, instead of trying to manage millions of people's battery disposal / recycling. It's slightly less efficient than carrying batteries, but IMO it would be a much better move for society. This is the last thing I would do, and if you've read many of my previous posts on other topics you would know this for sure. I know our government is highly corrupt, secretive, and has many alternate agendas other than what PR tells us. Yet, a tribal leader does his best to lead a tribe in the best direction. A father does the same with his children, and a military general does the same for his army. Im far from a mindless sheep, but I know that wisdom can be used to corrupt or help. I just propose the former rather than the latter. And yes, IT'S POSSIBLE. But from the ground up, not inserting more controls into an already terrible system.
Actually, I have read a lot of your posts, and I will agree that normally, you seem to be against big government... This thread however, you have repeatedly stated that there should be more controls from the top down. I won't bother quoting them as they are there for all to see. It doesnt matter if you rename big government to something else like little brother.... if it is about there being enforcable regulations to control our behaviors, then it IS big government that you are advocating for here...
No its not BIG government that I'm advocating. There's a difference between Communism and a village mayor. And there's a difference between top down from a fascist state and top down from a tribal chief. And you also gotta examine the type of relationship and checks and balances in place between the top, middle, and bottom. Maybe I should of fully explained my theory before even mentioning such a controversial idea, considering nearly every system today which gains momentum from the top down is not one which has the will of the people truly in mind. I guess it is true ENFORCED regulations = big government/federalization of law. So I'll refrain the idea until I can put it out there in a more developed form. My bad. Thx.
