Typical liberal hogwash!And, so typical of modern liberal
"educators." The equivalent of stopping both ears and shouting "la,
la, la" at the top of the Prof's lungs.The academic liberal
arts community must certainly roaring approval to the his callow implication --
students should only major in psychology, English, medieval French poetry, and
other such politically correct liberal endeavor.Yeah, that should
fix higher education.
I suppose you prefer we all freeze to death.
This letter is spot on. Utah can continue trying to desperately squeeze every
last dime out of 19th and 20th century technology, but ultimately the real
winners will be those who have foreseen and shaped the energy economy of the
future. It's foolish to imagine that progress will not happen. Those
holding the future win, not those who master the past. Hopefully, at the very
least, these petroleum engineers are figuring out ways to extract and burn
fossil fuels more cleanly and sustainably, but I doubt it.
@KDave"I suppose you prefer we all freeze to death."Considering today will finish out the warmest month in Salt Lake City history
(narrowly beating July 2007) I'd be fine with slowing the warming trend...
He brings up some good points and if the first two comments wish to be willfully
ignorant of future problems, they can try to justify it to their own
grandchildren who will faced with the problems.
The U. is teaching that?!!! Don't they have any standards there? That is
sacrilege. Shame on them teaching science and job skills. (sarcasm) :)
As a Marxist let me state that the most important consideration is employment.
That which allows support of one's family is of paramount importance.
Other considerations, though they be of some importance, fail in comparison to
the need for workers to provide LABOR.
Maybe, just maybe? This program will emphasize Tar Sands & shale?This program will make a fine addition to the College of Mines & Earth
Sciences.to procuradorfiscalBut, we could always use
more MBA's & lawyers, right!!???
I find it hard to believe that someone who was the dean of a college at the U of
U for 4-5 years would use an adjective such as "fragile" to describe the
Earth. How long has the Earth been around? A pretty long time so evidently
it's not especially fragile. Is humanity fragile? Based on the evidence I
would say humanity is actually pretty stalwart and sturdy. Very odd letter
U. offers Master's in Petroleum EngineeringFunded and paid for
by -- the Petroleum Industry.========And who ever said
the University of Utah was purely a LIBERAL school?
To "Joe Andrade" I don't think you know what we use petroleum for.
It is not just for fuel for our cars. If you were able to eliminate the
petroleum industry, lets see what products you would lose, assuming that
vehicles could be powered by something else:LubricantsTiresMany medicinesFertilizerComposite materials used for constructing
wind turbinesPlastics for everythingShoes with rubber soles and
synthetic fabricsAll synthetic fabrics and clothingAsphaltTeflon coatingsRocket fuel, which means no new satelites for your TV or
GPSFuel for aircraftThere are many things that you would lose
if you killed petroleum. Now, since you were dean at the UofU for so long,
surely you remember that the U also offers a nuclear engineering degree. You
remember nuclear power, a great energy source that is renewable and does not
pollute the environment.
Students will have to decide where to place their educations. Most universities
have eliminated nuclear engineering programs because of the decline of nuclear
power in America (with the exception of Obama stimulus subsidized plants now
being built in Georgia, the nuclear renaissance never came, especially after
Fukushima). Aside from lack of water and fear of nuclear disaster,
nuclear's key obstacle is the lack of young people entering nuclear energy
as a career choice. I read an analysis not long ago that noted that if nuclear
were to expand in America, we'd need to look to China and Europe for
engineers to run the plants.With regard to petroleum, the reality is
we'll be using petroleum for at least another decade or two, perhaps longer
if renewables come onboard to help diversify energy and keep fossil fuel prices
from skyrocketing. Obama wants to eliminate subsidies for fossil
fuels, but the GOP has blocked him (so much for GOP's belief in free market
principles). Subsidies from taxpayers help keep gas prices very low for
Americans, but if gas were to creep above $4 a gallon again (as expected),
natural gas and electric cars will threaten petroleum's future.
Redshirt, then we probably shouldn't be burning it up.
To "Bebyebe" then please name the viable alternative.
RedShirt -- No one has EVER proposed the total annilation of fossil
fuels.But seriously, Why should we burn coal and natural gas
during the daylight hours when God gave us the sun and the wind during that
time?Some vehicles will remain gasoline powered for many years to
come, but please explain precisely why we need vehicles with a 400 mile
range to go 1.5 miles to the grocery store, church, or schools?Selfishness and greed is the only answer I can come up with.
Redshirt, what's the alternative when fossil fuels are all gone?
To "LDS Liberal" did you even read the letter. He said "Petroleum
— and fossil fuel in general — is a 19th century energy source which
must be fully retired if humanity is to survive." If fossil fuel is
retired, that means it is gone, and is no longer in use. There is one example
of somebody proposing "the total annilation of fossil fuels." The 400 mile range means that you only have to fill up once every 133 trips
you make to church, the grocery store, or school. How often would you have to
go to the gas station if you had a vehicle that had to refilled every 20 miles?
That is an inconvienience. Why have a 20 cubic foot refrigerator when you only
have 10 cubic feet of space used 90% of the time? Are you selfish and greedy
wasting all of that electricity on a refrigerator that you don't use to its
full capacity all the time?To "Bebyebe" some alternatives
for fossil fuel, once they are all gone are anti-matter, cold fusion, self
regenerating batteries, nuclear power, Mr. Fusion, and other technologies are
all alternatives when fossil fuels are gone.
We will move onto to something better.Tell me Red, Do you
think God wanted us to keep using whale blubber and beeswax? He gave it to
us - for the use of man...or do you think he gave us something
better, and left it up to us to discover and use it?Same goes
for fossil fuels.It's time to move on.We call it Progress.and it's all part of our eternal Progression.
To "LDS Liberal" can you name the current viable alternative to fossil
fuel?We stopped using whale blubber and beeswax when we had viable
alternatives. So tell us, what do we have right now that is a viable
alternative to fossil fuels?Since we don't have any viable
alternatives to fossil fuels, and you and the Professor want to cut off fossil
fuels now, what do propose we do while waiting for the viable alternate?I am still waiting for you and your ilk to tell us what the viable
alternate is to fossil fuels.If you want to go the gospel route, how
do you know that God did not put sufficient oil in the ground for us to use
until the end of the Millenium? According to D&C 107:17 "For the earth
is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have
given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves." Sounds like
if God wanted us to use fossil fuels, he probably gave us enough plus a bit
anti-matter? Really?Redshirt you have to give up on Star Trek.
To "Bebyebe" you wanted alternatives, I gave you alternatives. Just
because you don't like the answer, you shouldn't complain.
Thanks for your comments Redshirt. We've supposedly been running out of
fossil fuels for decades now. Yet we keep on discovering more and more. Makes it
hard to take the "when we run out" argument seriously.As for
this professor, all I can say is I'm glad he's retired and no longer
the dean. There's no need to hold back progress and innovation in the
petroleum industry (which often includes cleaner ways of doing things) based on
the religion of anthropogenic global warming.
I'm going to go w/ Redshirt on this one.If we get it together
and start now. Hydrogen *could* be a viable alternate.If memory
serves, there is a small nuclear reactor in what was the Merrill Eng Bldg.
To "Wally West" hydrogen could be a viable alternative. The problem is
where to get the hydrogen. Right now there is some research going into
efficiently from water, but the best source for producing hydrogen comes from
crude oil.Hydrogen could be a viable alternative, but it has a lot
of issues right now.
to RS1701That is why I put *could*There is algae, Heavy
water, & the most feasible now.... Natural GasMy concern is the
infrastructure (Fueling stations, storage, etc...)