Reply With Quote
That pretty much sums up this conversation. You only see what you want even though you are clearly wrong and of course make up a lamo excuse as to why.
LOL@ fair!!!!!!! What are you, 10?
You are right to a point. These numbers are based on the plans discussed. The numbers that are invalid that have been put out to scare have been the ones in the $3000+ range.
That pretty much sums up this conversation. You only see what you want even though you are clearly wrong and of course make up a lamo excuse as to why.
LOL@ fair!!!!!!! What are you, 10?
Only you would call a mathmatical proof of concept "propaganda".
It was merely pointing out the irrationality of the assumption that we could keep drilling more and more oil indefinitely by carrying it to its logical conclusion.
Given that we can't, the opposite conclusution, that oil has its definite limits, then becomes the proven assumption, and that gets built into the other arguments made concerning our urgent need to wean ourselves from this rapidly exhausting, finite resource.
At some point, the costs of continuing to use oil will outweigh the benefits.
I think we are rapidly approaching, if not past, that point.
Do you actually disagree with any of my arguments on some basis, or are you just here for a drive-by snarkism?
Why does it not surprise me that you don't consider fairness a mature trait?
You juvenile attempts at mockery/insults simply helps me make my case that people with your ideological bent care more about emotional arguments than logical ones.
Thanks!
This is your only point I disagree with. How do you know this?
You are not using logic. You have no clue how much oil is out there. None. You use emotional arguments. That's why you said we would run out of oil before your grandchild could drive. But lets tax the out of gas. You're a joke.
Thanks!
For a couple of reasons:
Environmental degredation caused by our usage and extraction of fossil fuels is greater than many know or will admit to. Those costs will go up, as the efficiency of those sources falls, forcing us to mine/drill more and more just to break even, energetically.
While I disagree with the more dysotopian claims made by people concerning peak oil, I do know that we are facing some pretty substantial run-ups in oil prices on the downward slope of production. Falling demand as the market adjusts will moderate the worst of the increases for oil, but we still face a shrinking supply curve and increasing demand.
Within the next 20 years that will become apparent.
By the same token, I don't know what the next set of winning lottery numbers are either, but I don't need to know that to estimate my odss of winning.
Do you think we need to know exactly how much oil exists before we realize that we should probably put some effort towards finding some replacement?
"I don't know how far it is to that cliff, but I don't think we should slow down before we get there."
Keep your foot on the gas if you want to, Jack, but don't say you weren't warned.
In the end, you will be forced to admit, that this lib was right, and all your disbelief and middle-school insults won't change that.
Do we just wait for the massive disruptions caused by that switchover, when energy is much more expensive,
or
do we start doing something about it now to be ready?
Which do you prefer?
Well, I guess we'll see, won't we?
Wake me up when we've gone past the cliff and reached the bottom of the pit...
You approach the math from a static perspective, that our consumption will continue to increase by "x" amount. It has no room for supply and demand pricing, which will eventually change how we obtain energy sources.
I think "outside the box." You obviously don't.
I agree with the whole "oil is a finite resource" thing, but I just don't see how anyone knows when all the wells will run dry. IMO, it's equally plausable that there's 500 years of oil left as it is that there's 20 years left. Who really knows?
Well, I have a minor disagreement to that.
We know that "fossil fuel" is not the remains of mammals, plant's, etc. as we once thought. Science has also proven that mother earth is continually creating more oil. Thing is, we very likely do drain it far faster than it is made.
My point is, between that, and supply and demand pricing, we will never run out.
Thanks for the warning, chicken little.
Stop asking the doom and gloom questions, Mr Emotional. You're massive disruptions question is a sick fantasy in your head. Not going to happen. Yes we should know how much oil there is in the world before we start jumping off cliffs. The reason you know the odds of winning the lottery is because you know how many numbers are in the game. You have no clue how much oil is on earth and you don't know what alternative we could be using in 5 years for oil.
Any time the federal government taxes one en y to support another they end up ing it up. Corn Ethanol is a perfect example. Congress just sells out to the highest bidder.
Whoa Whoa Whoa, I believe that this is still a major point of contention. I have even heard that if you locked a group of petroleum scientists, and geologists, etc in a room with guns and said don't come out until you have a definitive answer as to where oil comes from, then you will hear a whole lotta gun shots and no one will come out. LOL Abiotic oil formation is far from a proven concept, I would say it is probably more at the stage where it has just enough credence to cast a little doubt on the accepted "fossil" fuel theory.
Which ever way it is produced, I agree we are probably sucking it out far faster than it is being produced.
Of course it has no room for supply and demand pricing. The intent of the test was to measure one concept and one concept only. If you really had bothered to read much, you might have noticed this bit above, where I readily acknowledge the interactions of supply and demand, and the rest of the thread where I made similar statements.
Your emotional need to tear liberals down to build yourself up limits the effectiveness of your arguments, because you rush into proclomations before reading things through.
I pretty much have stated in several places that these run ups will alter the way we get energy whether we do anything or not. Do I need to copy and paste to demonstrate that, or are you going to man up and admit you misspoke?
Whatever theory of oil formation you use, we are consuming it at a far faster rate than it is being created.
last one. honest.
It is not equally plausible that there is 500 years' worth of oil left as there is only 20 years left.
If there were 500 years worth of oil left, that would mean either:
1) that we have, to date, tapped less than 5% of all the oil that exists, despite extensive world-wide exploration and development. That would mean that it would be extremely easy to go out anywhere and find vast amounts of oil.
OR
2) the process that creates oil is many orders of magnitude faster than what we think it is, and that we could go where oil fields have been depleted in the recent past and pump again at near historic maximiums.
Neither underlying assumption fits any industry report I have seen, making the possibility of 500 years supply at current levels (not considering certain growth in demand that would decrease that markedly). I assumed by your statement that you meant 500 years worth at current flat production. If you meant 500 years worth considering increasing demand, then you have assumed we have exploited less than a tiny fraction of 1%. I can ferret the rough % out in a spreadsheet to get a more exact fraction if you like.
Humanity has spent on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars to find and measure the amount of oil that exists and where that oil is located. We do not ultimately know the exact amount left, or exactly where it all is today, but we can get enough data to predict with reasonable certainty what is left, and where it is likely located.
Care to re-think that opinion?
No more power lines?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/...re-power-linesBuried super-cooled electrical cables may replace towering transmission lines and carry solar and wind energy efficiently over long distances.
Abundant solar and wind power lies across America’s vast plains and deserts, but getting that distant renewable energy to cities without wrecking vistas and raising lawsuits over transmission lines is a sizable hurdle for green-leaning utility companies. Thousands of miles of towering electrical lines will be needed before big alternative-energy projects can take hold. Yet such power lines portend years of legal snarls over the not-in-my-backyard problem.
Into this fray comes Phil Harris and his pioneering plan to use underground superconducting cables that will be both hidden from view and more efficient than traditional lines. Mr. Harris wants to build a virtually invisible network that would create a national renewable-energy hub located in the Southwest.
These superconducting cables contain special materials chilled to superlow temperatures, allowing electricity to flow efficiently, with no resistance. The only lost energy goes toward refrigerating the cables. While Harris’s “hub” would run in a loop, it would demonstrate the potential for superconducting power lines that could travel long distances and eliminate the 7 percent of electricity wasted by ugly, above-ground transmission lines.
Nice science fiction concept.
Any idea how impractical the cost would be?
China's green leap forward
Facing dire pollution and wanting to be in on what may be the next industrial revolution, China positions itself to be a leader in green technology – with major implications for the rest of the world.
Beijing
Behind the notorious clouds of filth and greenhouse gases that China’s industrial behemoth spews into the atmosphere every day, a little-noticed revolution is under way. China is going green. And as the authorities here spur manufacturers of all kinds of alternative energy equipment to make more for less, “China price” and “China speed” are poised to snatch the lion’s share of the next mul rillion-dollar global industry – energy technology.
...
“[China] is installing a one-megawatt wind turbine every hour,” points out Dermot O’Gorman, head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in Beijing. “That is more encouraging than the one coal fired power station a week” that normally dominates foreign headlines.
...
Indeed, China is pushing ahead on renewable technologies with the fervor of a new space race. It wants to be in the forefront of what many believe will be the next industrial revolution. If it succeeds, it will hold far-reaching implications for the planet – affecting everything from Detroit’s compe iveness to global warming to the economic pecking order in the 21st century.
“The rest of the world doesn’t even realize that we are very likely ceding the next generation of energy technology to the Chinese,” says Todd Glass, an energy lawyer with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati in San Francisco
The country’s installed wind power capacity has doubled each of the past four years, and is likely to exceed the 2020 target next year, a decade ahead of schedule. A revised goal, expected to be more than three times higher than the current one, will be announced soon, officials say.
Beijing has deliberately stimulated the wind sector with an array of subsidies and tariffs and a rule obliging power companies to buy renewable energy similar to a law now before the US Congress. So fast have windmills been built that the national grid cannot handle all the energy they generate, and much is wasted.
...
Many energy experts are pinning their hopes on new ways of using an old technology, coal gasification. It cuts SO2 and NOx emissions and separates out CO2 so that it can be captured and then either used in industry, digested by biodiesel-producing algae, or stored permanently underground.
The US was meant to lead the way toward a near zero emissions coal-fired power plant by building one first while other countries, including China, waited for experimental data before constructing their own.
But the US Futuregen project ran into so many cost and political troubles that it was shelved. As a result, the Chinese government decided last year to move ahead with its own project. The Greengen plant, designed to be the most efficient and cleanest coal-fired power station ever built, should begin operations by the end of next year, officials here say.
In the meantime, two Chinese research centers, the East China University of Science and Technology and the Thermal Power Research Ins ute, have developed coal gasification techniques to challenge America’s lead in the field. Both recently licensed their inventions to American firms building power plants in the United States.
“The general thinking in the US is that we are 30 years ahead of China in technology,” says Ming Sung, a Chinese-born American who worked most of his career with S . “We think it’s a one-way transfer. China licensing technology to the United States is still very unusual. But it will become less and less unusual.”
...
“China cannot yet produce things with the credibility and quality behind the ‘Made in Germany’ label,” adds Jennifer Morgan, an analyst with E3G, a London-based environmental think tank. “They are not there yet.”
Still, the country has plenty of reasons to attempt to be the world’s next green-energy power. For one thing, it has few natural energy resources of its own. Plus, its pollution problems are so severe that it has little choice. The country’s outsized reliance on coal is literally a matter of life and death: 750,000 people in China die prematurely each year because of air pollution, a World Bank study in 2007 found (though the Chinese government insisted the bank cut that statistic from its final report). Only 1 percent of the population breathes air that would be considered safe in Europe.
Moreover, Beijing – just like US President Barack Obama – sees renewable energy as an economic boon. Building out a new global energy industry over the next half century will generate more business than any other sector, Chinese officials predict, and they want a hefty chunk of that business. “This gives us an opportunity to develop a new area for a new industry” says Professor Li. “It’s good for our long-term development.”
BUT THE QUESTION LOOMS: What does China’s rise as a green power mean for the rest of the world? Certainly it has its benefits. A China with more solar cells and electric cars will help reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases building up in the Earth’s atmosphere.
It could also reduce the compe ion for, and depletion of, dwindling natural resources – notably oil. If China rises as a green-technology manufacturing hub, it could supply the world with low-cost solar panels and wind turbines as it does now with toys and textiles.
Yet there are worries for the West, too. If green energy is the new industrial revolution, Beijing will be grabbing many of the jobs of tomorrow. That will likely hasten the day when China becomes the world’s No. 1 economic power.
“China sees [green technology] as an enormous market that is not claimed or controlled by any one nation, and there is an opportunity for them to do it,” says Carberry. “The combination of urgency; the enormous needs; a focused, systematic planned government; an army of engineers; and access to capital may define China as the platform for the green- technology industry globally.”
Mr. Westlake of Clearworld Now, echoing the 1980’s song by the American rock band Timbuk3, puts it more pithily: “The future’s so bright, you gotta wear shades.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/...rward/(page)/1
---------------------------------------
As I have said before, we can either do this, or cede compe ive advantages to someone who will.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 07-07-2010 at 12:17 PM.
Some.
A vast amount of electicty is lost through resistance, some 25% of what is generated, if I remember the graphic from a few pages ago.
Even if you used 20% of your generating capacity to power the refridgeration units, you then get a 5% drop in losses, and an instant "bump" in capacity without building a single new power plant.
I think the 7% figure used by the guy in the article there is the net gain from this exchange, although the article wasn't clear.
Regarding the costs of cooling superconductors:
Temeratures have been rising on materials that are capable of superconducting, as more research is done. That will likely continue with more research. Higher temperatures equal lower cooling costs. With research the costs will come down.
A lot of stuff is happening now and a lot of trends are starting to come together, such as "high" temperature superconductors. (high= around the point where nitrogen is a liquid, really really cold to us)
Coal/Gas/Oil depletion will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
