- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
Fossil fuels are becoming limited
What do we have to do in this Country, before we realize that the availability of fossil fuels are becoming limited?
I noticed all throughout Western America, there are millions of square miles of rich fertile lands, lands that can be used to grow alternative fuels.
What may I ask, is so wrong with that? It’s renewable, and it doesn’t pollute.
This would put people to work and make farms productive again. Best of all, it would keep our young men out of harms way who are dying, for your SUV’s.
If government scientists can come up with all these high tech. weapons of war, they certainly can come up with a solution to market bio-fuels properly.
So, unless you have money in big oil and don’t want to see America independent of the Middle East, consider this: If the U.S. dropped out of the oil market, the 72 virgin crowd wouldn’t be able to buy a Black Cat firecracker.
This letter has not been edited.
What a drama queen.
Of course fossil fuels are limited. Everything is limited. The question is: are we reaching that limit? The answer: Not even close.
Liberals have been predicting a oil drought for the past 60 years. Yet, somehow, we produce more and more oil. Why is that? Capitalism and technology. The oil industry continually finds new ways to tap into oil reserves.
"I noticed all throughout Western America, there are millions of square miles of rich fertile lands, lands that can be used to grow alternative fuels."
Which alternative fuel are you referring to? Ethanol? You want to cover millions of square miles with - corn crops? That's not very efficient. Do you have any idea how much water would be needed to grow that much corn? Furthermore, since we cannot use pipelines for ethanol, it must be transported by trucks. That means we still must rely on oil to produce and transport ethanol. It takes more oil to produce ethanol oil needed to produce more oil.
Don't worry. Capitalism will develop new sources of energy long before oil runs out.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 02:32 PMJohn - You're so right...we'll never have any energy concerns. Those pesky 1970s must all have been a myth, like Iran's leader claims the Holocaust was.
But back to topic, you are right. By the way, I assume we can enlist you or even better, your kids to go fight in Iraq (and coming soon, Iran), so you can continue your addiction.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 02:44 PM2:44, you don't know squat about the 1970's and the mythical oil shortage. BTW I did my time and so have my kids. Go hide behind a cornstalk you sissy.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:29 PM"Everything is limited. "
Is sunlight lmited? How about wind power?
Geothermal resources? how about tidal power?
Posted by on October 29, 2007 03:41 PMPeople will be singing a different tune when oil hits $100 a barrel. Remember, for the most part, all that easy to access and easy to convert oil is located in lands that are either 1. war-torn, 2. utterly corrupt, 3. ruled by a tyrant or a combination of all three. But hey, Putin, Chavez and the House of Saud would like to thank the unsatable US appetite for oil, which keeps them in power.
Posted by sean on October 29, 2007 03:52 PMoh goodie sean I cant wait for a new tune the one you have been singing for years is really old and wore out.
why do all of you know it alls sit here and say some one else should do it. get off your lazy fat asses and go do it yourself.
oh wait that would require you to be productive and contribute something to this world other than your harmful co2 that algore hates.
3:41 wondered:
"Is sunlight lmited? How about wind power?
Geothermal resources? how about tidal power?"
Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:30 PMsean said:
"People will be singing a different tune when oil hits $100 a barrel. Remember, for the most part, all that easy to access and easy to convert oil is located in lands that are either 1. war-torn, 2. utterly corrupt, 3. ruled by a tyrant or a combination of all three."
Not quite, sean.
If you're worried about an oil shortage, $100 a barrel is a good thing. Why? I'll tell you.
At $100 per barrel, there's a huge profit motive that will cause oil companies to spend more money to bring that oil to the marketplace. They will spend more on research and development. ExxonMobil now has the ability to drill deeper into the earth to tap into oil reserves once deemed impossible to reach. Profit will drive technology which will drive supply.
On the other hand, a high fuel cost will drive many consumers to look for alternatives. More people will buy hybrid cars. Auto manufacturers will spend more on R & D to develop new fuel efficient cars. GM is developing hydrogen-powered cars. It also has a hybrid that will get 100 mpg.
As for where we can find oil, you missed a few places. You forgot North America and Alaska.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:42 PMJOHN II - Thanks for pointing that out. The sun, wide and tides aren't going to last more than a few billion years. So why bother to invest in those limited resources that are bound to fizzle out in less than a few hundred million generations?
Posted by Liam on October 29, 2007 04:53 PMLiam,
The length of time that these resources will be around is not the only thing to consider.
You must compare the demand to the available supply.
Tidal power is great. Can we power all of our cars with tidal power. The wind requires thousands and thousands of acres of windy land. The sun is not available all day.
When you compare our energy needs to the energy output of wind, tidal and sun power, the oil supply looks infinite. A nuclear power plant will supply more power than all wind, tidal, sun and oil combined. And it requires only a fraction of the land.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 05:55 PMThe real question that should be on our minds is whether or not we have reached Hubbert Peak of hydrocarbon fuels yet.
When this happens, our worldwide view of energy production and consumption will be forever changed, because the model, created by geoscientist M. King Hubbert in the mid 1950s, predicts that production of non-renewable energy resources follows a bell-shaped curve. Once you hit the peak, then the decline on the other side of the bell curve is as fast as the growth to the top.
The soft energy alternatives (even wind and solar) are not really self-sustaining yet because petroleum is used to produce the technology that runs these. This true for the biofuels, as well, as these require natural gas for nitrate fertilizer production and petroleum-based fuel. If our biofuels are to be self-sustaining, then the agricultural sector must more than double production to provide fuel for the equipment that does the farming and transport of the biofuel crops.
So, what will happen is basically this. Higher fuel prices will provide incentives for more advanced petroleum and natural gas exploration and extraction methods. Businesses will continue to look for ways to cut cost overhead, which means more conservation and more efficient use of fuel, and more research dollars will go into alternative fuel research.
And, oh yes, those military parts will still be there.
Posted by John Stockwell on October 29, 2007 06:04 PMWait we can't go nuclear. What about the worry of the nuclear facilities blowing up in part or whole? Chernobyl and 3-Mile come to mind. If our cars become nuclear powered as well, some time in the future, then we've got major problems in an accident. Oh the worries!
Cheez people quit the sniveling, wining, and worrying. There is always something wrong with everything. There is not now nor will there ever be a perfect solution for anything. The best we can do is to be environmentally conscientious in our lives and R&D without becoming tree huggers. Then we will have enough resources to last as long as we need them.
Posted by Harry on October 29, 2007 06:22 PMHarry,
Your fears of nuclear are irrational.
Neither Chernobyl nor 3-Mile Island blew up.
The U.S. already has about 120 nuclear reactors producting electricity. No problems with any of them.
Japan gets about 30% of its power from nuclear, and France gets about 80%. They've had no problems with it either.
Posted by Dave on October 29, 2007 10:51 PMDave,
My point exactly. Unfortunately sarcasm is not picked up through the written language well unless one reads the piece in its entirety.
120? Really? WOW! I never knew that.
Posted by Harry on October 30, 2007 12:52 AMJohn II - You're still so right. It makes so much sense to get the majority of our energy from a region that hates the US. You should be running this country.
How the practice for the special olympics coming? You parents will be so proud of you competing!
Posted by on October 30, 2007 07:21 AM4:36 p.m. calls me lazy. Well at least I am able to properly capitalize my letters and sign my name to my comments, to not do so is utterly lazy. And by the way, I am singular; I have only one ass to get off of.
You should look into one of those elementary tutoring programs. After a couple years of that, you might be able to write correctly, which would go a long way in reducing that dumb-ass vibe you give off. Furthermore, you might set the foundations for learning a little about economics, geology, international relations, etc., which might go a long way in reducing that totally ignorant vibe you give off. And if you take a bath once in awhile, it will reduce that totally offensive B.O. that you give off.
Harry,
Oops! I shouldda picked up on the sarcasm. Sorry about that.
Looks like I misspoke about the 120 reactors. That's about the number of reactor orders that have been cancelled. However, there are currently 103 reactors operating in 31 states.
Posted by Harry on October 30, 2007 09:17 AM$93 p/b and on its way to $100!
$5 at the pump and $2,000 per month to heat a home.
"WHAT, ME WORRY?"
Gov. Ritter
Posted by Hank on October 30, 2007 09:40 AMDan,
No worries. All's good. Still 103 is more than I thought.
Posted by Harry on October 30, 2007 09:42 AMMichael & Sean, I just farted in your general direction.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 01:47 PMDave:
Neither Chernobyl nor 3-Mile Island blew up.
Um, Chernobyl did in fact blow up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chernobyl_Disaster.jpg
