Screw the planet! We need oil NOW!
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
bioman
Well-known member
The truly infuriating thing for is that they've already wasted enough money on fighting over such a mediocre supply of oil that there will likely not even be much profit margin without heavy govt subsidies. So basically we're paying for oil twice just to keep some pipeliners in business.
It will pass then they'll have a precedent to drill any wildlife refuge or national monument they want.
The whole thing stinks..unless I get hired to do some monitoring up there so I can go fishing before the spills start lol.
It will pass then they'll have a precedent to drill any wildlife refuge or national monument they want.
The whole thing stinks..unless I get hired to do some monitoring up there so I can go fishing before the spills start lol.
tattoopierced1
Guest
thats just terrible. its a refuge for a reason, not a place to drill for oil, but with big money in oil, those people could give two rats asses about any wildlife.... just sad when you ask me.
PastorofMuppets
Member
Only solution is nuclear.
Good luck getting the environuts on board.
Good luck getting the environuts on board.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
If they'd take that 8billion dollars and put it towards R&D into alternative fuels, well then that would be a good idea. The technology is there it just needs to be perfected.
But too many of our politicians are in bed with the oil companies - so they make millions while they f*ck over the planet and the future of our country. They've all gotta go.
But too many of our politicians are in bed with the oil companies - so they make millions while they f*ck over the planet and the future of our country. They've all gotta go.
AgnosticFront
New member
What a sad time for the earth.... what is government thinking? fools...
CDB
Registered User
Guys, the planet has survived comet impacts and mass periods of vocanisn, ice ages and warm snaps lasting thousands upon thousands of years. Oil drilling in Alaska or anywhere else for that matter is not a big threat. As for the alternative technologies, yes they're there and they can be developed, but they can't be forced and they will have their own limits just as petroleum does. A government subsidy for oil or hydrogen, either way you're paying for it. It's not just a matter of developing the technology, the entire infrastructure of the world is geared around the transportation and use of gasoline and petroleum. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than 8 billion dollars to switch that around both in direct and indirect costs. That can't be accomplished tomorrow or even in a decade.
As for the wildlife refuge, I hate to break it to you but the Earth is not a static system. It changes constantly. Species arise and go extinct fairly consistently. One could argue the attempt by those who are environmentally inclined to freeze certain portions of the Earth into a kind of stasis is more misguided and costly, especially in lost opportunities, than letting things run their course. For those who are worried about global warming and all that, keep in mind the Earth has gone through cold and warm snaps that far outpace our current warming and there were no SUVs around back then, so it's a little harder than most people think to just up and blame industry for current warming trends which are historically fairly mild. Portions of the Earth that were once oceans or lush green areas over run with life are now deserts. The world didn't explode and life didn't end because of those changes.
So how about a little less hysteria and little more practicality? The world will not end if we drill for oil in Alaska or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sure the oil companies want to protect their political asses and so they'll bother the animals and "the environment" as little as possible. It's time to stop looking at man as something apart from nature and realize we can do our own thing and exist in nature, not at odds with it. And, just as petroleum went from worthless sludge to a world moving commodity, some enterprising business person will figure out an alternative fuel that doesn't disrupt the infrastructure of the world and can work it's way into use in the economy, maybe even become the world mover petroleum now is. It'll happen when it happens, and using the government to force the economy in one direction or another is inherently harmful, so it's best to stop trying and let things run their course.
As for the wildlife refuge, I hate to break it to you but the Earth is not a static system. It changes constantly. Species arise and go extinct fairly consistently. One could argue the attempt by those who are environmentally inclined to freeze certain portions of the Earth into a kind of stasis is more misguided and costly, especially in lost opportunities, than letting things run their course. For those who are worried about global warming and all that, keep in mind the Earth has gone through cold and warm snaps that far outpace our current warming and there were no SUVs around back then, so it's a little harder than most people think to just up and blame industry for current warming trends which are historically fairly mild. Portions of the Earth that were once oceans or lush green areas over run with life are now deserts. The world didn't explode and life didn't end because of those changes.
So how about a little less hysteria and little more practicality? The world will not end if we drill for oil in Alaska or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sure the oil companies want to protect their political asses and so they'll bother the animals and "the environment" as little as possible. It's time to stop looking at man as something apart from nature and realize we can do our own thing and exist in nature, not at odds with it. And, just as petroleum went from worthless sludge to a world moving commodity, some enterprising business person will figure out an alternative fuel that doesn't disrupt the infrastructure of the world and can work it's way into use in the economy, maybe even become the world mover petroleum now is. It'll happen when it happens, and using the government to force the economy in one direction or another is inherently harmful, so it's best to stop trying and let things run their course.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
Practicality would be for our leaders to stop worrying about their bank accounts and start focusing on the future of our country.
I agree with you that drilling in AK wouldnt be the end of the world - but throughout the earth's history I dont think there was a race of beings dumping tens of millions of tons worth of pollution into her ecosystems on a yearly basis either. While I dont think the Earth's going to stop turning because of it, the damage humans do to the planet is more harmful to us as a species in the long run then the planet as a whole. *That's* what we should be considering.
Sure, the earth has gone through periods of destruction and rebirth...but last time I checked no one found any non-biodegradable toxic refuse underneath a volcanic ash layer
I'd rather see my money going toward a program that's aimed at developing an viable alternative energy source than lining some oil company CEO's pockets.
BV
Beowulf
Registered User
I agree 100% that the world will not end if we start drilling in Alaska; it will be just one more step away from a solution. We need to confront the fact that our petroleum dependence is short lived, and we need to start planning for the future. The longer we wait the longer the greater the likelihood of tremendous social and economic upheaval as the inevitable day arrives (not to mention potential environmental impact).CDB said:
I can not in good conscience confide in some stroke of brilliance from some hypothetical businessman to save the day with minimal disruption. And there is no guarantee that man is in any way still living in tune with nature. Did you read the reports from the Indian Ocean Tsunami about the incredibly low death rates among animals. Animals are more in touch with planetary disturbance.
Amazingly, there are still many small islands in the Indian Ocean where "primitive" groups live. Rescue workers arrived on shore expecting to find the decimation of the groups. Instead they were nearly attacked by the groups which were virtually unharmed by the Tsunami. Why? B/C they are more in touch with nature, and most of us are not. So we cannot just assume that we are still living in some newfound symbiosis with nature.
Another example of people not living in unison with nature is Haiti. In September, hurricanes ravaged the island of Hispaniola, which Haiti and the Dominican Republic share. I believe the death tolls were something like 12 in the D.R. and 1500 in Haiti. Why such a drastic change? Many reasons, one of which is that the D.R. has historically had strict environmental policies, while Haiti has not. The majority of Haiti was once vegetation, but thanks to overpopulation and irresponsible practices it is now less than 2% vegetation. Not surprisingly, there are no trees so there are no roots to hold the soil firmly to the hills. It rains, there are mudslides and people are buried alive as if it were cement.
You are 100% correct when you talk about previous dramatic shifts in global temperature. As far as we know, there still is no conclusive explanation of what happened to the dinosaurs, but I believe one theory is that it was a meteor impact, and another was climate shift. Either way, we don't want that to happen to us. Furthermore, the contemporary situation differs from those historical shifts in two key ways (probably many many more):
The Industrial Revolution: Never before in history were humans exerting such a tremendous impact on their environment. This is beginning in approximately 1750 in England. It spread through Europe through the 19th century and didn't reach many parts of the world until the 20th. Our massive factories and powerplants (not to mention automobiles) have only been commonplace for a little over a century, not a lot of time in the 6-7 million year history of human life.
Global Population Growth: When the Industrial Revolution began the population of the Earth was still less than 1 billion people. For thousands and thousands of years the population had hovered around 300,000,000. We hit 1billion in about 1800. It took us about 127 years to hit 2 billion; 33 years to hit 3 billion; 14 years to hit 4 billion; 13 years to hit 5 billion; 12 years to hit 6 billion. Now we are at about 6.5 billion. So historically, humans did not have the sheer numbers to exert any significant impact on the planet. Today we do.
I could go on, but that just decreases the chance that anyone will read this.
In closing, I do think drilling in the Arctic is just one more step away from progress. Obviously, the problem is much greater than simple fossil fuel consumption.
Last edited:
Beowulf
Registered User
I do avoid driving as much as possible, and I drive a MINI, which gets almost 40mpg; but it isn't just about walking or riding a bike; it is about identifying alternative ways to prepare for the future. Volkswagen made a proto car that can drive from NY to Cali to Ny to Cali on one tank of gas. Of course, the cost to buy one is prohibitive right now, but progress in this type of technology would work wonders. I think the current hybrids already have this technology, but simple things like having a system set up that stores the wasted energy from braking for later use.size said:
There are so many possibilities and the human race has produced such staggerring genius, but until the funds and the motivation flow in the direction of the long-term greatest good we will make very little advancement in this area. If this becomes one of the big industries of the future, which it seems that it will have to at some point, this could provide incredible stimulus to our economy. But the U.S. is doing very little about it. Europe and Japan are far ahead of us in this field. We'll be depending on them to our economic disadvantage in the future.
Beowulf
Registered User
Having said all that, I also realize the possiblility that we may not have any significant impact on the environment, global warming could be B.S. and overpopulation will never be a problem. But I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to the future of the only planet that we know of that supports intelligent life.
Justella
Banned
Excellent Post
Wow Beowulf, good posting. I agree 100%.
The "historical balancing" argument for planet Earth is scientifically correct, but it assumes that all phases of Earth's evolution are equally inviting for our species, it neglects aesthetics, and it places no significance on quality of life or innovation. It's kind of like saying, a person can live on Snickers Bars and Mountain Dew. Is this scientifically correct? Yes. Will the body adapt? Yes. Are there better alternatives? Of course.
As long as we're here, living on a lush planet is much more desireable than living in protective bubbles on a charred out planet.
I agree that drilling for yet more oil (which won't reach the 48 states for many years, and will have no impact on gas prices) won't impact our planet on a "destroy the planet" level; but it most certainly will keep technological innovation at bay and further prolong the kind of suffering the oil-based industrial complex induces.
And while I agree that direct government action on economic issues appears instrusive or "big government" prima facie, pretending like economic influence isn't the backbone of virtually every major piece of legislation or government action is short-sighted. Every single subsidy, import/export sanction, anti-trust decision, regulatory action, FDA ruling--even labor law--is a direct intrusion into the economy. To imply that governments shouldn't "get involved" is to misunderstand the very nature of government and the collective power that such bodies wield.
You also have to take into account that certain rhetoric is perpetuated by people and institutions most inent on preserving their power structures. In other words, oil companies have very powerful PR teams who strategically place articles all over the place, and can sway public opinion.
Wow Beowulf, good posting. I agree 100%.
The "historical balancing" argument for planet Earth is scientifically correct, but it assumes that all phases of Earth's evolution are equally inviting for our species, it neglects aesthetics, and it places no significance on quality of life or innovation. It's kind of like saying, a person can live on Snickers Bars and Mountain Dew. Is this scientifically correct? Yes. Will the body adapt? Yes. Are there better alternatives? Of course.
As long as we're here, living on a lush planet is much more desireable than living in protective bubbles on a charred out planet.
I agree that drilling for yet more oil (which won't reach the 48 states for many years, and will have no impact on gas prices) won't impact our planet on a "destroy the planet" level; but it most certainly will keep technological innovation at bay and further prolong the kind of suffering the oil-based industrial complex induces.
And while I agree that direct government action on economic issues appears instrusive or "big government" prima facie, pretending like economic influence isn't the backbone of virtually every major piece of legislation or government action is short-sighted. Every single subsidy, import/export sanction, anti-trust decision, regulatory action, FDA ruling--even labor law--is a direct intrusion into the economy. To imply that governments shouldn't "get involved" is to misunderstand the very nature of government and the collective power that such bodies wield.
You also have to take into account that certain rhetoric is perpetuated by people and institutions most inent on preserving their power structures. In other words, oil companies have very powerful PR teams who strategically place articles all over the place, and can sway public opinion.
tattoopierced1
Guest
i just want the car from Back to the Future that runs off trash..... 
Beowulf
Registered User
:goodpost:
Someone else is gonna say it, so I'll say it for them: as do Environmentalists. The difference is that one side is motivated by profit while the other is motivated by the desire to preserve the planet for our children and our childrens children, etc. Do we really want to take the risk for someone else's profit?Justella said:
AgnosticFront
New member
Wow Beowulf... Your incredibly intelligent AND i agree with just about everything you said. Thats awesome.
PastorofMuppets
Member
Hmmmm, I don't understand the summation that since we would drill in Alaska that somehow we are taking a step backwards.
That is like saying "All alternative fuel research stops while we still use fossil fuel", this is quite obviously not the case. Is it easier to use fossil fuels though, of course.
Lets face facts, the ONLY relatively clean and viable alternative energy source available right now is nuclear power. Sure, home based solar applications help a bit, but not large scale.
Bio Diesel is nice as well.
In the meantime, while alternative fuel research goes on, we must exploit the most economical and viable energy source available, which is of course, oil.
I'm sorry, but not drilling or using oil is not going to magically spawn new tech. It does take time.
In the meantime I do agree with stricter fuel efficiency standards and hybrid tech, it is a step in the right direction.
That is like saying "All alternative fuel research stops while we still use fossil fuel", this is quite obviously not the case. Is it easier to use fossil fuels though, of course.
Lets face facts, the ONLY relatively clean and viable alternative energy source available right now is nuclear power. Sure, home based solar applications help a bit, but not large scale.
Bio Diesel is nice as well.
In the meantime, while alternative fuel research goes on, we must exploit the most economical and viable energy source available, which is of course, oil.
I'm sorry, but not drilling or using oil is not going to magically spawn new tech. It does take time.
In the meantime I do agree with stricter fuel efficiency standards and hybrid tech, it is a step in the right direction.
AgnosticFront
New member
We are taking a step backwards because once again we our choosing our comfort and greed over the well being of the planet not because alternative fuel R&D will stop.....
PastorofMuppets
Member
Comfort and greed?
Now there is a pretty relative and broad based assumption if I've ever heard one.
There are many more factors that you don't take into consideration.
Personally I would be more afraid of a volcanic eruption or meteor strike causing a global environmental catastrophe waaaaay before we humans can make a "charred planet".
Heck, Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly because it was so cold in the summer that year due to a volcanic eruption and she didn't have anything better to do.
Now there is a pretty relative and broad based assumption if I've ever heard one.
There are many more factors that you don't take into consideration.
Personally I would be more afraid of a volcanic eruption or meteor strike causing a global environmental catastrophe waaaaay before we humans can make a "charred planet".
Heck, Frankenstein was written by Mary Shelly because it was so cold in the summer that year due to a volcanic eruption and she didn't have anything better to do.
CDB
Registered User
The problem is no one is competent to plan because no one can predict the future. No one could have predited that petroleum would go from being worthless to the fuel of the world in such a short time, but it did. And it did so because of enterprising businessmen, not by government fiat. If the government forces a decision, say to hydrogen, businesses will generally follow those lines, but they will do so at the expense of possibly better alternatives. That's what happens when the government sets a standard, or when any standard is set for that matter. Set a quota for your sales people and they'll hit it, but few tend to go over it. Set a standard for emissions or certain alternative fuel usage goals and people will aim for it, but they do so at the expense and lost opportunity of going for something better. In all of history our resources have always been delivered to us on an as needed basis through economic pressure. Someone notices a need and looks for a way to satisfy it. It doesn't happen through government legislation, and it actually can't happen that way.Beowulf said:
As for the animals being more in touch with the world, that sounds too much like pseudo spirituality than fact. Animals also live in their own **** and die much more frequently of disease or violent attack. I don't see what it has to do with drilling for oil.
I wouldn't make such an assumption. The point I was trying to make is that the world is not static. Opposing change is opposing nature, and by definition humans are a part of nature as is everything else that exists. Plus, studying still primitive people to learn something about modern industrialized society is a contradiction. Those people who are still living in primitive conditions are by definition distinctly different from our ancestors. Our ancestors evolved, theirs didn't.
True, but you'll find this to be the result of a hell of lot of government corruption. It would seem odd in the least to then go to that self same government to seek a fix for the problem.
This begs the question. You're assuming the Industrial revolution had a massive effect on the environment when that's exactly the point we're arguing. I used to believe as you do, when you hear PHDs of a different stripe question theories about human induced global warming the theory gets very, very shaky. It's also not even a true theory as no one has yet found a way to falsify it. If the weather gets to cold, it's because of humans. If it gets too hot, it's because of humans. If the weather gets mild, it's because of humans. If storm activity goes up in frequency and intensity, it's because of humans. A theory for which everything serves as evidence isn't a theory, it's populist nonsense. Everything is evidence, therefore nothing is evidence. A theory needs to be a hell of a lot more reliable than that. Then you get into rather more specific questions, like how do you judge a climate change when estimates of the planetery temperature even in the recent past are very unreliable? If human industrial activity is having such a massive impact on the environment, why is this current climate change so much more mild that ones we see evidence for in the past? Too many questions to justify throwing some serious monkey wrenches into the world's economy.
These are familiar numbers, and what they ignore is that population growth slows down as countries get more industrialized. Most of that population growth occurred in third world countries. In order to see population growth as a threat you have to assume something which has never happened in human history and which goes against all available evidence, that growth will never stop or stabilize. This was the assumption of Paul Ehrlic when back in the seventies he predicted all kinds of shortages and famines in the eighties and nineties. Needless to say he and his fellow Malthusians were dead wrong.
The Democrats are probably right in that drilling in ANWR probably won't accomplish much, but it also won't hur tthe economy to do it, I think the Carribou will be able to deal, and the Democrat solution is just as bad if not worse than the Republican one. So there's not much to cheer about here either way.
CDB
Registered User
I tend to question the motivations of all people. You don't think all the new money the government will get to rake in to create all new kinds of programs and jobs for their friends and political allies isn't a motivation of theirs? You think a Democrat wanting to subsidize a recycling plant, whether or not it's better for the environment, is different from a Republican wanting to subsidize an oil company? If you honestly think a senator or businessman is doing something out of the goodness of his heart, you've merely bought one line and not the other. I guarantee you someone is getting greased.Beowulf said:
Rogue Drone
Well-known member
Everyone beyond childhood knows that without a profit incentive, there's no real initiative or responsibility. The problem is we are choosing to pursue and subsidize the reliance on petroleum and it's known strategic and enviromental issues , instead of strongly financing the transition to a new and possibly less troublesome alternative power source(s).
We can spend $300 Billion plus on the war on Iraq, and tens of billions on space exploration, why can't we invest more in hydrogen, or fusion, or ???????? R & D? Of course I know why, and it's stupidly shortsighted.
Global Warming appears to me to be far less certain and dangerous a threat than the introduction of new plant and animal species from one ecosystem to another as a result of global trade. For example,I've read that everytime a container ship dumps it's ballast into the ocean, around 5000 new to that area species are introduced , and a unknown number of these will establish themselves as a predatory influence on the existing ocean ecosystem. These are finely tuned balances that took eons to create, and in a few years we have and will continue to mix them up without truly knowing the consequences.
We can spend $300 Billion plus on the war on Iraq, and tens of billions on space exploration, why can't we invest more in hydrogen, or fusion, or ???????? R & D? Of course I know why, and it's stupidly shortsighted.
Global Warming appears to me to be far less certain and dangerous a threat than the introduction of new plant and animal species from one ecosystem to another as a result of global trade. For example,I've read that everytime a container ship dumps it's ballast into the ocean, around 5000 new to that area species are introduced , and a unknown number of these will establish themselves as a predatory influence on the existing ocean ecosystem. These are finely tuned balances that took eons to create, and in a few years we have and will continue to mix them up without truly knowing the consequences.
CDB
Registered User
Because the government by definition can't invest in something. Investment requires people can predict risk and a known price structure to place values on certain research directions. When the government 'invests' the take one of two routes. One, they decide beforehand what the solution is and put all money towards that, money which has to be pulled out of the private sector where it's used far more efficiently and productively. Two, they spend all kinds of money on all kinds of lunacy if it even holds the slightest promise of a return. R&D has a cost that's directly related to how risky it is and how far into the future the return is expected to come. When the government gets involved there is no reliable price associated with the differring R&D directions. It's considered priceless because, hey, everyone wants clean fuel and a clean environment, right? So money is wasted that would be more efficiently used by the private sector.Rogue Drone said:
I would also take issue with the idea that oil company CEOs are somehow different from everyone else. I'm sure they relish the idea of their kids breathing poison. Posts here show a definite bias towards the lefty ideoligcal bent, that anyone involved in a capitalist venture where, Oh My God!, they make a profit, is inherently evil and wants to destroy anything and everything for their own short term gain, and somehow all the people working for the government are saints with no alterior motives. Quite the opposite is true. The private sector because of it's vested interest in the long term value of resources takes a much more long term oriented approach. That's why private forrests look great and produce wood at a consistent rate and forrests that the government owns but leases logging rights out to are a total mess. The policitician's time horizon is the next election cycle. For the loggers leasing the land, it is too. For someone who owns the forrest and wants to log it but also needs to make it last, either for himself or shareholders in his company, he must balance the long term and short term value of the resource and develop repletion methods to make it last as long as possible to preserve its capital value. You see the same thing with private fisheries vs government owned or meddled in fisheries, freedom of the seas being a good example. You see it with government owned mines vs private mines, etc.
That's just the thing, these are not finely tuned balances. They shift all the time, and they usually do so without serious consequences of any kind. Nature is not engineered, it is happenstance. It's a shifting balance of competitions and the animals are no more in tune with it than us. They would happily use every resource they have to its utter destruction and then either adapt or die. Unlike the animals, we have a complex society and on an individual level, a superior brain, which allows us to be much more adaptable. Sometimes ecosystems are in balance, sometimes they're shifting, sometimes they're dying. Suppose the Carribou in ANWR are all wiped out tomorrow, can you tell me, what would be the consequences? All the species there, plant and animal, would simply start competing with each other until a new balance was arrived at, as they would with any other intrusion, man made or otherwise. This is not evil and it's not something that should be stopped. Nor is our consumption of oil evil or something that should be stopped.
If you want real change, instead of urging more government control, perhaps you could urge the government to do what it should do, which is protect property rights. That way if someone pollutes your land, water or air, they don't get off because they're polluting just as much as everyone else or meeting some arbitrary standard set by the government. That way people and companies are allowed to own resources and their interests would then be a lot more long term oriented. You guys speak of the short-term, money-now attitude of the oil companies, it's the damn government that's giving them subsidies that focus on exploration and production now rather than a future oriented approach. It's the government that is stopping ownership of oil fields by sticking to the antiquated doctrine of freedom of the seas, so when an oil company finds a field they have to suck it dry, or risk some other company profiting from their find because they have no legal claim to it. By pulling the government out of the business of petroleum you'd also see a spike in prices reflecting true scarcity and uncertainty, which would provide the necessary economic incentive for conservation, efficiency, and development of alternative fuels. Relative to petroleum those alternatives will start to look better, and the relative rise in cost of petroleum would shorten the time horizon for the return expected on investments/loans for R&D in those areas.
What I don't understand is the government keeps screwing the planet up, they are the #1 polluter you know?, and yet everyone keeps looking to the God damn government for a solution. Seems terribly... short sited. I don't question the motives of any one of you, but I do question your judgement on this, especially since I used to agree with it.
Beowulf
Registered User
I actually agree with you 100% on these statements. That is why I am taken aback any time I see and hear someone deify politicians, whether they be right or left. Regardless of their ideology we must be wary of alterior motives.CDB said:
I was responding to:
I honestly can't comment on the rate at which animals die from disease, and I can't pinpoint where I have heard that the animals are more in touch; my point was not really about animals, but about humans living outside of society. If you send a typical American into the Amazon he will be lucky to survive, yet natives have lived there productively for millenia. I don't mean to suggest that the natives are somehow superior or anything like that; simply that we are not accustomed to such living and thus would have difficulty in such conditions. They would have a hell of a time trying to get around NY. You might be an exception, but how many people never notice simple things like birds chirping. I know I usually don't, but nature has many signals, subtle or otherwise. The key to my statement you were refering to is that many primitiv islanders in the Indian Ocean faired much better than people living within society. Our culture overwhelms us, for good and for bad. It provides us with distractions that draw our attention away from what goes on in nature. That being said, I wouldn't trade this for that ever.
Again, you are absolutely right that this population growth is occurring in third world countries, but its not staying there. Are the Malthusians dead wrong? Ask the people of Rwanda.
The U.S. is far from overpopulated, but guess where the third world is moving to. Right where the plaque on the statue of Liberty told them to go:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The world is so profoundly interconnected that it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the problems of developed and undeveloped nations. Check out this article by Jared Diamond if you get the chance and if you haven't already (as you are obviously a very well-informed individual):
Invalid Link Removed
As for competence in preparing for the future, I don't expect George Bush or John Kerry or any other politicians to do anything about it. But we do have universities teeming with brilliant minds who live to tackle such issues. If the money isn't there the research won't be done. There are a handful within the scientific community who voice opposition to the reality of threats to the environment, yet these few get a fair amount of press. The result is a skewed perspective. Whether this is a major issue or not, we need to fund the research to find out. Let us not forget that about 1.5 years ago the Pentagon released a report stating that climate change is the greatest threat to national security. We put incredible resources into addressing other potential threats. Why not this one?
If government doesn't provide the impetus, who will? When fossil fuels suddenly became valued it was more a matter of serendipitous discovery, but now we are in need of a solution to the problems our fossil fuels caused. And will it be too late by the time they do? I loathe so much of what government does and I would be an enthusiastic libertarian if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe people can be trusted to do the right thing. I don't think history has taught us that. Is government the solution? I don't know how else we'll keep society in some sort of order. If you haven't done so already, travel to a country where the gov't is weak and tell me how you feel.
jmh80
Well-known member
Matt - fusion? Not likely to happen. Didn't work with the big magnetic reactor. The materials we have won't hold it.
What is everyone's deal with the "money grubbing oil companies"? We are publically listed. Name me one company that is publicly listed that is not in it for the profit. You can't. Why aren't people so up in arms about the money grubbing dairy farmers and grocery stores that have raise my skim milk price to over 3 bucks?
CBD - good posts.
I think the constant apparent consternation over the precieved lack of "R&D money" is unfounded. The DOE recently created 10 teams of various car manufacturers and energy companies to create several prototype vehicles of new fuel technology. What was that funded by? Private industry.
What alternative fuels come down to is the cost. Right now they are much, much more expensive. CDB touched on it. We are based on petrochemicals for our transportation fuels. The logistics, car parts, etc. are all based on that. It will cost many billions of dollars for even half of the US to transfer to some other type of fuel. Even natural gas or propane. I agree that hybrids are a great start. Everyone should buy one.
All the R&D money won't change those economics for the current crop of alternative fuels. Also, hydrogen just doesn't contain the fuel (energy) value per pound as crude oil or mogas. Again, R&D won't change that.
What is everyone's deal with the "money grubbing oil companies"? We are publically listed. Name me one company that is publicly listed that is not in it for the profit. You can't. Why aren't people so up in arms about the money grubbing dairy farmers and grocery stores that have raise my skim milk price to over 3 bucks?
CBD - good posts.
I think the constant apparent consternation over the precieved lack of "R&D money" is unfounded. The DOE recently created 10 teams of various car manufacturers and energy companies to create several prototype vehicles of new fuel technology. What was that funded by? Private industry.
What alternative fuels come down to is the cost. Right now they are much, much more expensive. CDB touched on it. We are based on petrochemicals for our transportation fuels. The logistics, car parts, etc. are all based on that. It will cost many billions of dollars for even half of the US to transfer to some other type of fuel. Even natural gas or propane. I agree that hybrids are a great start. Everyone should buy one.
All the R&D money won't change those economics for the current crop of alternative fuels. Also, hydrogen just doesn't contain the fuel (energy) value per pound as crude oil or mogas. Again, R&D won't change that.
CDB
Registered User
Not to say no one's having a shitty decade here or there, but Ehrlic and the Malthusians predicted a worldwide breakdown of the economy and the only solution in their minds was government intervention and mass socialism. They were dead wrong, as government intervention and mass socialism is what almost always accompanies famines and economic breakdowns. In other words they're not the solution, they're the problem. Even if a government doesn't have blatantly socialist policies, where famine and all the other such phenomena strike, you will see a huge government hand in bringing it about. Take Bangladesh for example. In actuality it's not more crowded there than in a typical midwestern US town one a person per square mile basis. Why the miserable conditions? You have a massive government apparatus trying to direct trade rather than letting the economy sort out its own division of labor and specialization issues. They sell jute. No one buys jute. It's like hemp but a shitload less usefull, but it's one of the crops the government has decided to concentrate on so it'll be produced, whether anyone wants it or not be damned. You'll find similar economic and social policy nonsense in every single region where there is famine or rampant disease.Beowulf said:
People who want a clean environment will provide the impetus. For one, I wouldn't trust the universities. They're too politicized, and it's often the case that so is their 'science.' While that article you posted was interesting, the author isn't too up on his economics. The only time environmental "impact outstrips resources" is when the costs of doing so are so low as to be negligible and it doesn't matter, or when some group steps in (the government, a warlord, etc.) and uses force to externalize the costs. In the US today this is done by allowing companies to pollute free from any threat of litigation so long as they meet a certain standard, or so long as they don't pollute more than anyone else does. An example of an external cost in the US that's internal elsewhere is water rights. In some countries, England is one I believe, when you buy land on a river you own that piece of the river, and have the right to set your own standards and/or sue anyone who adversly impacts your property. In American you don't have a similar right. As a result pollution is worse here than over there, and that's regardless of proximity to industrial areas and the like.
He also discusses technology and how we shouldn't rely on it, but this is same line we got from Ehrlic and his ilk in the seventies, and guess what? Technology did come to our rescue. We have massive amounts of food available despite his predictions of famine, and where you do find famine you usually find tons of food with some people using guns to stop other people from getting at it, and the ones with guns are usually the government for that area. This is the problem I was pointing out in my previous post. He's assuming the only answers are those that are proposed today, not realizing that there are a billion answers that haven't even been proposed yet. It's true wind and solar energy may never pan out. To assume there are no other options though is to claim to know the future, the direction of technology, the whole future history of innovation in fact. That's a pretty bold claim.
This quote really says it all: "The final strand is political. Why did the kings and nobles not recognize and solve these problems? A major reason was that their attention was evidently focused on the short-term concerns of enriching themselves, waging wars, erecting monuments, competing with one another, and extracting enough food from the peasants to support all those activities." What he and a lot of people don't realize is that there is no changing this, ever. The state is the state, it's nothing more than a mafia, at most gaining some small legitimization from democracy. Any money the state takes will be used first and foremost for the purposes of enriching itself at the expense of others. This is why it's unwise to trust the state with research, because you get politicians giving friends and allies millions of dollars to study goose **** in Michigan because it can be justified by environmental concerns. Hey, a clean environment is priceless, right? It isn't. It's got a cost, and if we want a clean, stable environment we need to know that cost so we can balance it out against our other goals let it find it's place in the relative value structure of the world. People want it, not everyone can afford it though, mostly because a government official is stepping on their necks, figuratively and often literally.
For articles that illustrate these points I'd reccomend these:
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Mises' theory of interventionism is vital to my thoughts on issues like this. By imposing rules government creates more problems, which demand more rules, which create more problems, etc. And every new rule requires a new funding source for drafting and enforcement. As a result more and more money gets sucked out of the private sector and spent in increasingly inefficient ways. The ultimate goals of the intervention can never be achieved because each new intervention creates a new economic, social or environmental problem which the government steps in to correct once more, and the cycle never ends. What you end up with is an ineffectual apparatus incapable of accomplishing its stated goals, and a private sector so bled dry of capital that people can barely afford to live. That is the cause of the decline of civilizations, not use of resources no matter how rampant.
AgnosticFront
New member
haha... that just makes sense.... and a agree on your theory about changing the nature of government. Government IS government. The more power they have the more opportunities they have to screw up things.
CDB
Registered User
The waste is a problem, but the newer generation of reactors are remarkably safe and well contained. Fusion would be awesome.Matthew D said:
Edit: I also just bought the new Scientific American, and they have an article that I haven't read yet about the possibility of creating small, short lived black holes. Go from there to a possibility of a contained singularity and how's that for a possible source of energy. They've also got an article on some new software regarding genetics which I want to read. See what it is, and if it may be helpful in research.:type:
Beowulf
Registered User
:icon_lol: That's a classic, in the black comedic sense, because it is probably true.
I need to hold off on the urge to respond just yet becasue I need to be wrapping up my culminating project for my Master's and this discussion deserves thoughtful responses, as we have been giving. I need to take some time to read those articles. I agree with a lot of what you are saying and I have been disgusted by government inefficiency for a long time. My biggest issue is putting such a critical amount of faith in the private sector, as the private sector has its share of blood on its hands, though no better than the government.
I'll be back to respond when I finish this damn project.
CDB
Registered User
Good luck on that, the thread will be here when you get back. Food for thought though: you don't have to have faith in the private sector. Both the private and public sectors are made up of individuals, all of whom are generally equal in their desire for self preservation and enrichment, procreation and the continuation of their genetics. It's the rules of each sector, the incentive structures inherent to both that determine outcomes, and what happens when they cross in ways that should not be allowed to occur.Beowulf said:
Beowulf
Registered User
Excellent debate. Debate is key to any sort of advancement, but people need to actually listen to each other. I do believe this is happening, though we can probably be even better about it. I have been struggling with these issues for years and I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I want to know what is right or wrong. For me it isn't about ego.CDB said:
I'll be back to this debate about Thursday of the coming week. 1st draft of the project is due Weds.
Until then: that Bangladesh example seems to fly in the face of everything I've ever heard about the country. It was my understanding, perhaps completely incorrect, that Bangladesh was one of the most densely populated countries in the world.
biggjohn
Banned
I've worked on different types of fuel cells since '95, and the last 6 years on automotive fuel cells. Toyota and possibly Honda will have them out in the show room by 2015-20, and the americans sometime shortly after that. The government needs to buck up and put in the hydrogen infastructure, which they are doing slowly. We've come very far in a short time but we still have a many problems to solve.
Nuclear is one of the most environmental friendly sources of power. A nuclear plant actually emits less radiation than a coal power plant. Fusion is 50 years off according to my freind at Duke power.
In the future I see agriculture as our primary source of energy. Corn/biomass can be converted to hydrogen to fuel our cars, heat and power our houses and business.
Nuclear is one of the most environmental friendly sources of power. A nuclear plant actually emits less radiation than a coal power plant. Fusion is 50 years off according to my freind at Duke power.
In the future I see agriculture as our primary source of energy. Corn/biomass can be converted to hydrogen to fuel our cars, heat and power our houses and business.
bioman
Well-known member
Excellent debate gentlemen.
To touch on my earlier post, my contention is that given the uncertain volume of oil in ANWR, the costs to date over arguing over it, and the costs of building and maintaing environmentally friendly infrastructure to extract this oil..I'm not so sure it's worth it.
We also have to keep in mind that this oil has to piped, which is expensive to set up or shipped..which may see lots of delayed shipments given its one of the most hostile seas in the world.
Just simple, practicle issues that neither side seems to addess very often in a rational way..and it bugs me.
To touch on my earlier post, my contention is that given the uncertain volume of oil in ANWR, the costs to date over arguing over it, and the costs of building and maintaing environmentally friendly infrastructure to extract this oil..I'm not so sure it's worth it.
We also have to keep in mind that this oil has to piped, which is expensive to set up or shipped..which may see lots of delayed shipments given its one of the most hostile seas in the world.
Just simple, practicle issues that neither side seems to addess very often in a rational way..and it bugs me.
jsutter55
New member
Fascinating..
Excellent debate guys!
The alternatives are already here. One of the hypothetical "businessmen" is BMW. Check out this hydrogen powered beauty: (the rest of the site is interesting and informative as well)
Invalid Link Removed
As someone mentioned, the challenge lies in seeding an alternative fuel economy while there is already an immensely profitable fossil fuel infrastructure so firmly entrenched.
I don't think we should minimize man's cumulative effect on his environment, but I don't think drilling in ANWR will be the straw that broke the planet's back. That being said, I also do not believe that the amount of oil we get from drilling there will bring us any real measure of relief from our overwhelming dependence on foreign sources.
Just my .02
Now I will gladly yield the floor. :lol:
The rest of you have much more thought-provoking and interesting things to say. :box:
Cheers! :cheers:
Excellent debate guys!
The alternatives are already here. One of the hypothetical "businessmen" is BMW. Check out this hydrogen powered beauty: (the rest of the site is interesting and informative as well)
Invalid Link Removed
As someone mentioned, the challenge lies in seeding an alternative fuel economy while there is already an immensely profitable fossil fuel infrastructure so firmly entrenched.
I don't think we should minimize man's cumulative effect on his environment, but I don't think drilling in ANWR will be the straw that broke the planet's back. That being said, I also do not believe that the amount of oil we get from drilling there will bring us any real measure of relief from our overwhelming dependence on foreign sources.
Just my .02
Now I will gladly yield the floor. :lol:
The rest of you have much more thought-provoking and interesting things to say. :box:
Cheers! :cheers:
CDB
Registered User
In certain parts, it is. In reality like I said it's no more dense than a typical midwestern town on a person per square mile basis. The problem is the economy is so screwed up by government intervention no one can afford to more than the squalor they currently reside in.Beowulf said:
CDB
Registered User
I remember reading about this option a while ago, how certain organisms could be introduced into huge tanks with prepared biomass and as they digest the stuff they create hydrogen. If I recall right there was also some company working on a pellet version, basically a small dry ball that released hydrogen when water was added. This stuff interests the hell out of me.biggjohn said:
CDB
Registered User
I don't know in ANWR will help or not, but I do know that one of the easiet and most destructive things to do with a resource is to not use it. As for the piping, it's true but that techonology is surprisingly matured. Plus it's already in place. Large scale transportation of explosive gas like hydrogen is possible, but just if not more problematic. If you release it into the environment there's not much of a problem. If there's a spark though, get ready for the worlds biggest flame thrower. Even without a spark, the needed pressurization creates a danger of explosion in and of itself.bioman said:
Until Beowulf gets back, I'll just say I agree there need to be incentives to allow different type of fuel onto the market. Where we disagree is on the environmental impact of humans, and where the incentives should come from. In my view they're already there, the government is mediating them as best it can to protect the status quo. If the price of oil and gas were freed and allowed to truly reflect a market set price, you'd see a hell of a lot more research into alternatives become viable because of the relative price shift.
jmh80
Well-known member
John- you are a ChE. You know that H2 must be either compressed or refrigerated. The refrigeration is not practical, we'd use ethane or ethylene. So, it would take higher pressure. So, we are talking 500 psi or higher. I don't know how safe that is.
IMO, it will take quite a bit of time and money to convert large-scale to something that is not liquid based.
Again, I go back to the fact that H2 does not have the energy value per pound that hydrocarbons do. It would take 3 or 4 times as much H2 to equal one pound of gas, propane, natural gas, whatever. That inherently presents a fueling challenge. You'd have to have a fuel tank that is 4 times as large w/ pressurized H2. Quite a challenge for a car designer.
CDB - quite a few microorganisms are already used like this. At my plant, we use certain "bugs" to digest the hydrocarbon that is sent to wasetwater treatment. They then produce various gaes (think methane from cows). We don't use the gases for anything, just burn them in the flare, but there is the potential. I've seen research on novel ways of synthesizing many chemicals using bugs without having to use dangerous intermediates (like phosgene).
IMO, it will take quite a bit of time and money to convert large-scale to something that is not liquid based.
Again, I go back to the fact that H2 does not have the energy value per pound that hydrocarbons do. It would take 3 or 4 times as much H2 to equal one pound of gas, propane, natural gas, whatever. That inherently presents a fueling challenge. You'd have to have a fuel tank that is 4 times as large w/ pressurized H2. Quite a challenge for a car designer.
CDB - quite a few microorganisms are already used like this. At my plant, we use certain "bugs" to digest the hydrocarbon that is sent to wasetwater treatment. They then produce various gaes (think methane from cows). We don't use the gases for anything, just burn them in the flare, but there is the potential. I've seen research on novel ways of synthesizing many chemicals using bugs without having to use dangerous intermediates (like phosgene).
biggjohn
Banned
This would be a game changing technology. Farmers would be working again (might not need government subsidies since fuel demand is always increasing), we (USA) could meet our own energy needs, and the environment would be alot happier.CDB said:
Electrolysis is also an option. Solar panels in death valley could generate electricity which in turn could be used to generate hydrogen via electrolysis. Our existing natural gas pipelines could be converted to hydrogen.
Short term hydrogen production will be created from natural gas reforming.
The hydrogen economy is coming someday soon. GM is spending 1 billion over the next 4 years and Toyota is spending at least twice that annually. Government just contributed 44 million to GM to start building some fleet vehciles. Daimler Chysler just got some funds too.
biggjohn
Banned
Hydrogen storage is the biggest hurdle to the hydrogen economy.jmh80 said:
Invalid Link Removed=
GM and everybody else (to my knowledge) buys hydrogen tanks from quantum (GM owns quantum). Their tanks are qualified to 10,000 PSI. This still only equates to about 150 miles range (not enough to compete with IC engines yet) for smaller cars (like a chevy cavlier). They are safe and the technology is constantly being improved. GM and Opel (owned by GM) have performed extensive crash testing.
Solid state storage is also under investigation, but it hasn't produced much yet. Stay tuned for more, I'll have more public information in the coming months.
I love talking about this stuff, I've made a career out of it.
Beowulf
Registered User
If you get sick of shaving this is always an option.:lol: j/kbiggjohn said:
Since I have been doing a Master's and busy as hell I haven't kept up on these issues as much in the last 2 years as I did before, but I think I recall hearing that a combination of resources would most likely replace fossil fuels, as opposed to a single solution. If they master hybrid technology, perhaps that could take some of the burden of the space issue with hydrogen automobiles.
I believe it is in Scandinavia that they already have small scale hydrogen infrastructure in place. I'll try to look for info on that soon.
NOw I need to stay the **** away from AM so I can finish up my work...:frustrate :rant:
biggjohn
Banned
Radiolysis, spliting of hydrogen and oxygen created during nuclear power generation will also make up some of the short term demand.jmh80 said:
Biggest problem with electrolysis is capital cost, i.e. solar panels are expensive.
I agree, I was just in Mexico and it'll take them many many years to get away from petrol.
Natural gas reforming is the easiest to perform of the current technologies for the short term, but that will probably change as demand for hydrogen increases.