@vst... no doubt China has a huge problem. But we can't wait until China
does something before we agree to. That is like saying the nation has an
obesity issue... but I am not going loose weight until my neighbor does first.
We don't have to wait for Beijing to fix their problem before
Salt Lake starts working on its air quality problem.Second
item...numbers as a percentage don't mean a whole lot, without the context.
For example from the same source you used... scroll down a little and look at
emissions per capita. Tells a bit different story doesn't it. The issue is China will always have a larger population that us. They will
soon have a larger economy that us. It is unreasonable to expect a country with
4x the population to produce less. We don't need to wait for
others to act before we do the right thing. What others do should not dictate
our own stewardship. China is acting.... we should too.
Gee-en wrote: Can anyone explain why we import oil at the same time we export
oil?In short, we don't. Kind of. We export finished petroleum
goods at various levels of completeness. We import crude also based on
it's properties and how our refineries in various locations are built to
process. Crude oil is not all the same, and requires different processing.
Modifying that refining stream is a fairly long lead time process. We import
finished gas and diesel into the NE sector of country because there is neither
refining capacity to provide it all locally nor delivery mechanisms to get it
from elsewhere in the country economically. Ship delivery is a very cost
effective means. We export diesel and gas to many places without refining
capacity and get excellent trade balance credit for it.
@vst... again.. not sure where your data point is, but in real world terms,
China is outspending the US on alternative energy development by many factors
over our own spend. They are spending on redeveloping their transport
infrastructure as well. If we continue down this path of deferred investment in
our infrastructure, we will quickly loose any lead we inherited from previous
generations. We have become stubbornly consumers and are failing to
reinvest in keeping our lead. 30 years we led the world in aviation.. we were
unchallenged. Today Airbus owns 50+ % of the market. In automotive we led the
world... a title we no longer hold. In technology we still hold the lead, but
for how much longer?We need to lead in energy development. Holding
firmly on to the horse and buggy will not serve us well. Oil and Coal will be
surpassed - that is not the question. It is when and by whom. I hope the US
doesn't get lulled into a false sense of never ending superiority.
@Alex 1 = I am not sure where your math comes from.. but outside my office
window are two solar farms that sit on almost 12 acres. There are 10,276 solar
panels producing more than 3.6 million kilowatt hours annually. Not to far from
us both Google and Apple also have their own solar farms powering their data
centers during peak hours. And all of this are in red neck North Carolina. So
if we can figure out how to make it work... surely bright people in others
regions of the nation can figure it out too.Can solar do it on its
own... no. But it does offset peak demand consumption without the generation of
any CO2 or any other greenhouse gasses. I don't believe even the most
ardent person feels anyone one energy source can do it alone. One of my
customers I work with is BP Window Power. If BP can get it... why can't
other smart people get it. It is about a balanced energy portfolio.
There are sill great risks to depleting our own reserves in the quest for short
term financial gains. That said, the line where he states that Putin may have
done us a favor is key... in fact it is one of those scenarios where Putin may
have tripped up on the unintended consequences of his hasty actions. Putin, reading the rise of nationalistic pride in the Ukraine panicked when
his pro-Russia leader was ousted. He extrapolated that this rush to nationalism
was more anti Russia sentiment than a pure drive for self determination. In
taking Crimea, he has only crystallized certain nations desire to not be
dependent on Russia for their energy. He is confusing patriotism with anti
Russian sentiment.This region is now seeking energy alternative.
Its like Target talking of opening in a Walmart town. Simply putting the option
of another channel to get product\energy will alter Russian behave. Russia had
complete control of these energy markets, but over played their hand, and now
the possibility of new market players is disrupting that market. The US being
one of these options changes the dynamics enormously.There are the
unintended reactions to Putin's actions.
VST said: U.S. efforts alone will not save the environment.Correct,
that is why we should set an example, share technology and show off that
"American Exceptionalism" that conservative tout about. Or we could race
to the bottom and keep digging ourselves deeper, instead we should be planning
for our children's future not just our immediate needs.Conserve.
Mikhail said: Okay, facts… Plants use CO2 and produce oxygen as part of
the system.Define "closed system." The very thin balloon of
atmosphere in which life exists.Awe but at night that reverses and
plants use oxygen and expel CO2...balance.Can you breath CO2?It's true anti-science is creating a devolution of critical thinking in
this country.There are 2 republicans holding up a N Carolina bill
for a state fossil, they want it mentioned that God made them on the 6th day.We don't need another religiously motivated "dark ages"Nor the "God has given us unlimited amounts of the things we
want" so use away.Mikhail said: "since it lacks objectivity
and balance."I agree where's the balance when 98% of
scientist agree and only 2% are correct according to you and "conservative
@Tyler DOkay, facts… Plants use CO2 and produce oxygen as part
of the system.Define "closed system."What
"facts" do you have that man has caused global warming through CO2
production? The answer is "none." Because there is none. The modeling
of the "settled science" is based upon false premises which are
supported by admitted lies,upon which the population of the earth is being
convinced that the "closed system" has scarcity, rather than abundance
and that there is no "plan" to the system. Conservation will always
make sense, but scaring people to cease to advance because of the human bogey
man is and always will be not based upon truth and reality. Your "settled
science" is neither "settled" or "science" since it lacks
objectivity and balance. False premises are incapable of generating true
Bandersen, in order for the earth to, according to conservative estimates,
support 80 billion people, those few that consume the most resources (us) are
going to have to get used to life with a lot less of everything. And that
miracle of modern agriculture of which you speak is entirely dependent on
plentiful, cheap petrochemicals. Entirely.
VST, you are right on.
Bob-it's not suprising the right wing minority threw you out of office in
the caucus's of 2012 with view points like these. Conservatives believe
there is money to be made and cheap, dirty energy is their God given right.
It's unlikely Bob will ever hold office again or continue to be given a
platform to speak out with liberal views like these.
re bandersen"Conservative estimates project that this earth can
sustain a population of 80 billion people!"To paraphrase Jerry
Maguire "show me the math". I think 8 billion is about tops
for any reasonable quality of life.
Re: banderson "Conservative estimates project that this earth can sustain
a population of 80 billion people! We have 'enough and to spare' on
this earth and it is just up to us to go get it done!"But there
is a fly in the ointment as we say, and that is thermodynamics. Burning fossil
fuels converts useful free energy to useless bound energy. The chaos of the
natural world increases. This accelerates the degradation of the world as a fit
place for life.Nicholas Gorgescu-Roegen "Entropy and the
@Mikhail- “I believe that CO2 is good for plants...”“Believe” has nothing to do with it - we should stick to facts
& science when we want to understand anything about the natural world.But yes, CO2 is good for plants… but that’s not the issue.
The issue is; in closed systems everything exists in balance. Too much of
anything will disrupt that balance and change the system. If we look
at the natural carbon cycle, we are putting more CO2 into the environment that
it can process. If we keep doing this the system will change and quite possibly
in negative ways.As a real world example of this, just look at Venus
– not a lot of trees growing there despite an abundance of CO2.
Hydroelectric, solar, wind, and geothermal have their place, but they cannot
replace coal, natural gas and oil neither now, nor any time in the near future.
They are limited in what they can do. Sorry to spoil the fantasy, but it is
just a fact. You cannot put up enough solar panels to provide for our energy
needs, and believing that you can do so when the physics and chemistry tell you
you can't doesn't change that reality. The only way you are going to
be able to reduce emissions at this point is by doing more nuclear.So go ahead, do your research and dream of perpetual motion machines if you
want, but until you actually show you can do it in a sustainable manner, your
pretensions of ecological righteousness mean nothing. At this point, the only
way your paradigm of being completely dependent on renewable energy works
ultimately is if you start killing people.
Re: banderson "We have 'enough and to spare' on this earth and
it is just up to us to go get it done! The environmentalists need a voice at the
table, but not to stop progress in feeding the billions that want food on their
table! I suggest you all watch "Heat" on PBS Frontline. The
costs of CO2 emissions are enormous. Watch the show and see if doesn't
change your perspective at least a little.
I believe that CO2 is good for plants... Plants create Oxygen using the C02
What a cool system we have! It might all work together - just as it was created
Norman Borlaug is said to have saved over a billion people from starvation
because he discovered a way to increase the wheat yield on an acre of ground,
something that revolutionized farming (The Green Revolution). The trouble with
those who don't believe in the free market and humans solving challenges is
that many start with the zero sum game depression point of view! (There is only
so much available and we just need to realize that at some future point it will
all come down to two humans around the last berry bush!) Conservative estimates
project that this earth can sustain a population of 80 billion people! We have
'enough and to spare' on this earth and it is just up to us to go get
it done! The environmentalists need a voice at the table, but not to stop
progress in feeding the billions that want food on their table! It takes faith
to live in the future and that is the danger of those who don't believe in
faith as a motivating force!
Gee, Mike, I'm speechless.One problem with the drill, drill,
drill philosophy of the misnamed "conservatives" (who seem to be against
actually conserving anything) is that, according to some studies, if we burn
even a third of the reserves we know about right now, we will render the earth
uninhabitable. But even if they're wrong, there is only enough oil to fuel
our current economy for, what, maybe 100 or 200 years. And then what? Time to
start looking at replacing the dying carcase of corporate capitalism with a more
sustainable system. It will be easier to do it now than when we are forced to.
Can anyone explain why we import oil at the same time we export oil?Reminds me of an old Brian Regan joke where he asked if anyone had ever seen 2
logging trucks pass each other in opposite directions? Because if they needed
logs over there, and the others needed logs over there...
Rather than providing energy to an 1800's technology, the answer is to
develop new forms of power production, including mobile ones for cars, trains
and airplanes. Leapfrog the Germans and Japanese who make better internal
combustion engines and develop a technology that forever weans the world off the
Iranians, Russians, Venezuelans, etc. Eighty percent of Russia's economy
(aka Putin and Friends private bank account) is oil based.
Esquire,What I propose is that we use those things that God gave us,
to enable us to do the things that we are here on earth to do. If it means
extracting oil from the ground, then I am in favor of extracting oil from the
ground. Don't blame "corporations" when you drive a
car, heat your home, or have electricity. You, as a customer, are the reason
that those evil "corporations" are in business. They serve your needs.
There are some people living in tents just off the main road just
east of Cedar Fort. They are the only people that I know in Utah who can claim
that they use almost no resources (except for the propane in the many propane
bottles stacked near those tents). The rest of us need oil to survive. We can
pay the Middle East to drill in their ground (and play games with oil prices),
or we can drill in our own ground.
We shouldn't get too comfortable yet. The US EIA statistics on proven
reserves show Canada a lot closer to Saudi Arabia than the USA. A lot. In proven
reserves the US isn't in the ballpark. All we've done is find out how
to deplete our existing resources faster using technology. As for the oil shale
deposits we are always hoping to cash in on, I'm all for it. But it's
going to take a sustained high price for oil to make it possible, and extract a
horrendous toll on the environment. I'm good with that, but it's not
going to be a utopian future if that's what we're planning to do.
It is true that oil shale contains vast amounts of energy, but the problem is
that the energy is not very concentrated. Oil shale contains about 1/6th the
energy density of coal, so you have to process a lot of material to get at a
little energy!Shell oil has spent hundreds of millions of dollars
trying to make oil shale profitable, but with little success. My fear is that
the only way to get any usable energy out of oil shale is eliminate all
environmental regs, and legacy costs, and go for the VERY short term profit of a
@ Mike Richards, what you imnply is a massive effort that would utterly destroy
the environment. I suggest you go to West Virginia or Southwestern Pennsylvania
to look at the effects of strip mining. It is disheartening to see the
destruction from which we will never fully recover. To all. I know there are
special interests such as big oil, natural gas, and coal, all who want to
exploit every square inch of possible fossil fuel, but can't we do better?
Are we a great innovative nation or not? I'm afraid that corporate special
interests, in conjunction with conservatives/Republicans have thrown away our
will to be innovative and problem solvers. Making a few bucks in the short term
haqs become the new mantra. I can't believe that those who believe in God
and in wise stewardship can agree with this approach.
“The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that
30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be
recovered,” Mittal told the subcommittee. “At the midpoint of this
estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable.
This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil
reserves.” (from SciForums)"In it’s May 10 report
“Unconventional Oil and Gas Production: Opportunities and Challenges of
Oil Shale Development” that covers testimony provided by Anu K. Mittal,
Director of Natural Resources and Environment to the House Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, the GAO updated a 2010 report, confirming that more than
a trillion barrels of recoverable oil exist in the world’s largest oil
shale deposits on Colorado’s Western Slope." (The Coloradro Observer)
The way I look at it is. we Knew we had a huge amount of oil in the Gulf and in
other places in America. George Bush sir Is very much into oil, thus the
70's price increase. I look what happened when Georg jr was in. I have my
The United States is in no danger of becoming the "next Saudi Arabia",
In 2012 we imported 10.6 million barrels of oil a DAY and exported about 3.2
million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products.We may possibly
edge past our 1970 crude oil product peak, but with the extremely short
production life of fracked wells we are forecast to be on the crude oil decline
again by 2020.I think it is best to ignore the sensational head
lines, and dig a little deeper into our oil situation.
Exporting our fossil fuels would likely result in higher prices here at home.
One of the reasons our natural gas is relatively inexpensive is because there
isn't significant infrastructure for exports, keeping resources
"confined" to limited markets. The one energy source NOT
subject to global political whims, terrorism, or disasters (e.g., Fukushima) is
renewable energy. Wind, solar, and geothermal power, once built, are price
stable and predictable -- and such sources don't require our military to
"protect" them, nor do they create wastes that need government bailouts
to clean up (think Moab uranium tailings or Texas/Mexican Gulf oil spills) or
store (e.g., Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility).Some red states
get it. Iowa now procures 27 percent of it electricity from wind, and its rural
communities are benefiting with jobs, land lease payments, and tax revenues to
benefits schools and public services. Texas gets almost 10 percent of its
electricity from wind, with some West Texas high schools sporting giant NFL-size
football stadiums for their kids from wind tax revenues.And studies
show diversifying electricity with clean, price stable energy helps reduce gas
price swings -- something we'll need under this export plan.
In the long term nothing has changed. Oil wells yield less and less every year
they are operational. Eventually they go dry. We must continue to pursue
renewable energy and energy efficiency. Yellowstone geothermal is a clean almost
limitless source of energy we ought to consider.