just wondering.
just as I thought.....we are just sheeple.
It's so simplistic a question. Not all available oil is equivelent in terms of how easy (i.e. "cheap") it is to extract. Oil production/extraction will at some point become uneconomical in comparrison to alternatives before we totally "run out" of oil.
there is an infinite supply of oil...
Digging deeper just means our pockets are more empty....but there is an abundance of Shale oil that could last us centuries...the thing is it's a nasty earth polluting process to get the oil out of the ground and make it use-able in a 15-mile per gallon Yukon....
Nope.
There is plenty of oil for those who can afford it.
There is rationing in any system, the only thing that changes is the method of that rationing.
Free-market economies ration that by ability to pay. Medical care is a prime example in the US of this in action.
Not to mention horribly uneconomical, and uncompe ive.
People need to step back and realize that oil is, after all is said and done, simply one out of many sources of energy.
When oil gets more expensive, other forms become more cost compe ive, especially renewables that benefit from economies of scale.
As time goes on, and oil prices get higher, especially relative to other sources of energy, our civilization's mix of energy sources will change, and a greater percentage of that energy will come from renewables like solar and wind, both of which benefit from economies of scale. This will drive the costs per joule (click here to see what a joule is) of these energy sources down at the same time that the cost per joule of oil energy is going up, further accelerating the process.
Essentially, all our power comes from Oil/Coal/Natural
Gas. So called Renewables are not effective, look what
happened in Texas just a couple of weeks ago with
wind power, it shut down, no wind. Sun power is just
too expensive to purchase and install. Ethanol is too
expensive and uses more energy to produce than is
derived. Hydro power from the Northwest and in
some states provides a small fraction of electricity
consumption in the United States. Oil/Coal/Gas will
continue to be the energy of choice for many, many
years to come. It is what made us what we are today.
Without the cheap energy that it provided we would be
a nothing but another country scraping by.
I will say one thing. Nuclear energy is affordable,
especially if the enviorwackos would get out the way.
And it is clean. Disposability will be solved in time, but
for the time being it is being handled by those that
generate the waste.
Tell that to Spain
Wind power breaks records in Spain
1 day ago
MADRID (AFP) — Wind power is breaking new records in Spain, accounting for just over 40 percent of all electricity consumed during a brief period last weekend, the country's wind power association said Tuesday.
As heavy winds lashed Spain on Saturday evening wind parks generated 9,862 megawatts of power which translated to 40.8 percent of total consumption due to low demand during the Easter holiday weekend, AEE said.
Between Friday and Sunday wind power accounted for an average of 28 percent of all electricity demand in Spain, which is a leading world producer of such energy, a statement from the association said.
The record for power generated by Spain's wind parks was set on March 4 at 10,032 megawatts, but as it was a regular working day this accounted for less percentage demand.
Spain's wind power generation equalled that of hydropower for the first time in 2007.
Sorry, but you have not kept up with what is going on, Ray, and you obviously didn't read the bit I put in about economies of scale.
Simple, free-market economics and technology will drive the cost renewables down. Do you agree or disagree?
Name a nuclear power plant that has ever been built without massive government subsidies. (hint: there aren't any)
More nukes = more waste shipments + more fuel shipments
more waste shipments + more fuel shipments = more terrorist targets
more terrorist targets = more security to protect waste and fuel shipments
more security to protect waste and fuel shipments = more cost per unit of energy
more terrorist targets = greater liklihood of successful attack
greater liklihood of successful attack = economic damage
--------------------------------------------
This is simple stuff that nuke proponents can't get around.
The last thing about nukes is that you have to put the waste SOMEWHERE.
NIMBY is a force more powerful than any economics.
I am not against nukes per se, but since they are horribly uneconomical in terms of TOTAL costs per unit of energy, I don't see it as a viable solution.
If nukes were really all that economical to build, you would have more of them. They aren't, so find something else to hang your hat on.
I want solutions that work, and provide the biggest bang for the buck, not what is ideologically attractive.
Oddly enough, just about every energy expert out there agrees that simple conservation would go a LOOONG way and provide that best bang for the buck in terms of solving our coming energy needs.
I believe currently, that would be coal.
And yes, conservation would solve a lot, at least where it's feasible. There's only so much you can do when in places like south Texas you need an air conditioner running or risk heat exhaustion/stroke.
First, you don't understand no wind, no power concept?
It happened in Texas just recently, like two weeks ago.
Spain is in Europe.
Free market MAY drive down cost. But all alternate
power sources, including wind/solar are government
subsidized, just like to ethanol scam being carried
out at as we speak.
I ask you a question, can you afford to wait for the
free market to react to lower cost on experimental
power sources? I don't think so. And can we
expect to have "heavy" winds everyday, all day. I
don't think so. Europe has been getting our weather
the last few weeks.
"would be coal."
coal is an answer? GMAFB
I believe you are correct. But coal is a carbon based
product. Which makes it a bad guy, even though it isn't
really and quite plentiful. And technology exist to make
it a very clean burning product.
The main problem with wind power, if you can get the population to accept the towers, is the variability. But to write it off, the way xz does, as making no contribution is right-wing talking point bull , average for the senile xz.
Last edited by boutons_; 03-27-2008 at 02:30 PM.
boutons, I am not writing it off as you put it. But it is
an unreliable source. It is not a new power source you
know. Wind generators, as they were called years ago,
was used on many rural farms and ranches. But
you know what, when regular electricity became available
to those folks they put away the "wind generators".
Party because they were used in conjunction with
batteries, DC power, so they would have power when
the wind wasn't blowing.
The question was best bang for the buck.
Ignoring environmental problems (which much of coal's environmental problems can be handled well with current technology, except the damage done by mining), the answer is coal.
Even the damage done, as in the past, by mining are
being corrected.
A little different thing, but a branch of our conversation.
Did you all read where the US Air Force is going out
for bids on converting coal to fuel for their aircraft.
Interesting idea. But going to be very expensive.
Here's the story
slippery slope fallacy?
funny, I don't see anyy lines at the gas pumps lately?????
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
