Investing in Solar and Wind... or Drilling for Oil?

[MdKnightR]

I'm pretty sure it's because synthetic oil has little or no octane to be refined from it.

 

I'm not suggesting that they try to refine gas from synthetic oil. I'm just wondering why we can "grow" oil in a test tube, but we can't seem to make something that'll go "boom" when sparked and get those pistons moving.

[Ray Jones]

The wind current is simply directed to a single location... it's nothing more than hot air, which is lighter than cooler air. It doesn't make a difference to wind currents. Hot air always rises above cooler air.

You do realise that this is how the weather works? You create an upstream of hot air, which would otherwise not be there in the first place. That again creates a downstream of cold air, which also would otherwise not be there in the first place. The air that gets heated to go up the chimney does not come out of nothing as well, it is sucked towards the chimney from the side, and that will create a more or less constant wind in that direction, which, as you might guess, would not be there in the first place as well.

 

Ergo, you create winds and currents which are not there on a natural base, thus you influence at least the local weather with events that usually cause storms and hurricanes. I do not think this is advisable in any way.

[Q]

^^^

No arguments here, RayRay. Manipulating nature to that extent would not be a good idea at all, even if one ignores the rather questionable feasability of such a scheme.

 

I believe that the best short-term solution for generating power is nuclear energy, and that it has been the best option for quite some time now (~30 years). As the French have more than aptly demonstrated, nuclear energy can be both safe and economical. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to reduce both the net amount of radioactive waste and it's radioactivity.

 

I believe that the best solution for the future is another form of nuclear energy: fusion. Fusion produces no waste, is vastly more efficient and the fuel source is practically limitless. It may take a few decades to perfect the fusion reactor, but we can get by with fission until then.

 

As far as the whole offshore drilling thing is concerned, the harsh reality is that it's going to be a necessary evil for the time being until a practical hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can be produced.

[ForeverNight]

I dunno... maybe because the real stuff is still the most efficient way to get the energy known to man?

 

But, as for my two cents, I don't really have a problem with Oil based products, I guess I've never bought into all this: "The World's Oil Supply Will Be Totally Used Up In X Years!" hype, nor have I fully bought into the "fact" that CO2 emissions from Cars are some of the greatest additions to Global Warming...

 

So, I'm young, stubborn, and set in my ways....... Doesn't sound as funny as it did in my head.

 

Oil Companies and the Government would not make nearly as much profit.

 

@Sala: I can't figure out this, are you saying that that's a bad thing? Or is it just being thrown out there?

 

And, remember, Government doesn't make profit. If it did -at least within the US- it would not be running at a deficit. So, you might want to change the Government part...

 

Oil Companies: I can't say this for absolute fact... mainly because I'm too tired right now to check it out, -so, its pure hearsay- if you look at the percentage of profits that Oil Companies make, it's really low... supposedly.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, the % is lower than in most cases with even companies like Walmart. However, since the price of the product has gotten higher, so has the amount that that % represents in real terms. If you only make 3%, say, on a product that sells @ $10, it won't generate you as much money as if the price of the product goes to $30. Oil is no different. "Big Oil" makes money b/c their end product is heavily used on a global scale. As the price of a barrel of oil has gone up, so have the profits. Nothing screwy about it.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think that the issue of oil being depleted is a good thing for the US. Since we don't have that much oil within our boarders, we must make due with what we have. We simply need to use a universal means of transporting energy. Hydrogen seems like a good idea, but it results in a loss of energy every time it's produced. Not a good idea to require more energy than we already use.

[Darth_Yuthura]

You do realise that this is how the weather works? You create an upstream of hot air, which would otherwise not be there in the first place. That again creates a downstream of cold air, which also would otherwise not be there in the first place. The air that gets heated to go up the chimney does not come out of nothing as well, it is sucked towards the chimney from the side, and that will create a more or less constant wind in that direction, which, as you might guess, would not be there in the first place as well.

 

Ergo, you create winds and currents which are not there on a natural base, thus you influence at least the local weather with events that usually cause storms and hurricanes. I do not think this is advisable in any way.

 

Conventional solar thermal energy would have the same effect... detracting heat that otherwise would have been absorbed or reflected by the ground. There is one other thing: What difference would it make in a desert if wind currents were affected? There is little moisture in the air to cause such effects. And if that isn't done... coal smog would be much much worse. Are you suggesting we stop gathering energy all together? What would you suggest?

[Ray Jones]

Conventional solar thermal energy would have the same effect... detracting heat that otherwise would have been absorbed or reflected by the ground.

That is correct.

 

 

There is one other thing: What difference would it make in a desert if wind currents were affected? There is little moisture in the air to cause such effects.

I don't know the effects it would actually have in a desert or where ever. All I say is it is not as perfect and simple as it may seem. At the end of the day we may merely switch one problem with another.

 

 

And if that isn't done... coal smog would be much much worse. Are you suggesting we stop gathering energy all together? What would you suggest?

Considering that we have no economic enough clean way to mass produce energy, but a huge potential to reduce energy consumption, I'd choose that option first.

[Arátoeldar]

Al Gore recently declared that the US had the means and the resources needed to convert most of our oil demands to use solar and wind power instead. He said the US should spend the next 10 years investing in solar panels and setting up wind turbines.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that Al the WHORE Gore is a lunatic hypocrite. While the arch priest of Global Lunacy is spreading his "gospel". He stand to make big bucks from his carbon credits "business". Yet is fortune is based on the thing that he preaches against. His father "made his fortune" after leaving the U.S. senate "working" for Occidental Petroleum.

[Web Rider]

I'm not suggesting that they try to refine gas from synthetic oil. I'm just wondering why we can "grow" oil in a test tube, but we can't seem to make something that'll go "boom" when sparked and get those pistons moving.

 

I would surmise that we can, it's just inffecient, very polluting, and highly toxic. Imagine if your car got 2 miles to the gallon of formaldehyde. Anything is not better than gas.

[Web Rider]

I personally would be for using alternate sources of energy, but not mostly wind and solar. The US has the largest coal reserves in the world and we should start using it to replace our demand for oil. The reserves would last for hundreds of years, so we would have a reason to switch to a more plentiful fuel supply for a short term solution. As important the environment is, it will take a back seat to economics.

 

lol. The pollution in cities with coal-fired facilities was, in many cases, WORSE than pollution today. I'm sure you've heard about how in London at the time people often needed umbrellas just to walk around? They weren't avoiding rain, they were avoiding coal ash that blanketed the city. The ash was so think, there was a type of white moth with black spots that used to blend in with the trees. The trees became so dark from the ash, a black moth with white spots survived better.

 

Have you heard what coal miners get? it's called blacklung. It shortens their lives upwards for 20 years. Flat out killing some. Not to mention that this happens to anyone exposed to massive amounts of coal or coal ash. Ask the northern Chinese who work in/near/around the coal mines and factories.

 

A short-term fix? sure. if you want to create a thousand more long-term problems. The American population, 300 million+ all running on coal? The country would be so black you'd think there was a volcanic winter.

[Totenkopf]

lol. The pollution in cities with coal-fired facilities was, in many cases, WORSE than pollution today. I'm sure you've heard about how in London at the time people often needed umbrellas just to walk around? They weren't avoiding rain, they were avoiding coal ash that blanketed the city. The ash was so think, there was a type of white moth with black spots that used to blend in with the trees. The trees became so dark from the ash, a black moth with white spots survived better.

 

Have you heard what coal miners get? it's called blacklung. It shortens their lives upwards for 20 years. Flat out killing some. Not to mention that this happens to anyone exposed to massive amounts of coal or coal ash. Ask the northern Chinese who work in/near/around the coal mines and factories.

 

A short-term fix? sure. if you want to create a thousand more long-term problems. The American population, 300 million+ all running on coal? The country would be so black you'd think there was a volcanic winter.

 

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/indocoal.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm

 

It would seem to be that you're implying a few things. First, that all coal has more or less the same property (ie no such thing as "cleaner coal"). Second, that technology hasn't progressed very far over the last century. >50% of the electricity in the US alone is the result of coal, but where are all the blackened cities in America? Probably in the past. Face it, man-made global warming is a sham concocted by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Hinchy and like minded opportunists and their stooges in the scientific community that share their political and social outlooks. There's money in science....look at who controls the money and you can begin to glean what passes for "science" in the current era. I agree that people should strive to be less wasteful in their daily lives. I just wish the scaremongers would stop selling their bilge to a gullible and larely dumbed down public (including learned fools w/uni degrees).

[Darth_Yuthura]

Face it, man-made global warming is a sham concocted by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Hinchy and like minded opportunists and their stooges in the scientific community that share their political and social outlooks. There's money in science....look at who controls the money and you can begin to glean what passes for "science" in the current era.

 

Global warming might be a scam... it might not. It is definitely true that oil is non-renewable, coal is extremely dirty, and renewable sources are riddled with problems that don't make them economic. However, if there is no energy... how well can an economy function? Hard choices have to be made and the more everlasting the fuel, the better.

[Totenkopf]

Man-made is the scam part of it. The earth is probably warming naturally, but all the bs and sturm und drang (sp?) of chicken little like "the earth is melting, the earth is melting" is the problem. I suppose if one truly wanted to green the planet, those people ought to do what the conspiracy nuts claim they want to anyway.....reduce the planet's population by 75-80% via plague and starvation. Then you won't have to worry about whether there's enough alternative energy to replace the current conventional means in place. There'll be dramatically less consumption and theorhetically, at least, less lasting impact on the environment by humanity. All the more so if the new "lords of the universe" go about controlling the breeding habits of their remaining chattel.

 

In all seriousness, though, people have to realize that Al Gore's prognostication of "change your ways, the end is near.....like in 10 years or less, even" is steeped in self serving BS. He wants to be a new high priest of the "green age" and is setting himself up to sell eco-indulgences to the sinners.....always at a price. The only real viable solution is continue the use of "fossil fuels" to avoid major disruptions in the economy while transitioning over the next 20 or so years to more completely diversify the sources of energy available to the US and ultimately the globe at large.

[Web Rider]

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/indocoal.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm

 

It would seem to be that you're implying a few things. First, that all coal has more or less the same property (ie no such thing as "cleaner coal"). Second, that technology hasn't progressed very far over the last century. >50% of the electricity in the US alone is the result of coal, but where are all the blackened cities in America? Probably in the past. Face it, man-made global warming is a sham concocted by charlatans like Al Gore, Maurice Hinchy and like minded opportunists and their stooges in the scientific community that share their political and social outlooks. There's money in science....look at who controls the money and you can begin to glean what passes for "science" in the current era. I agree that people should strive to be less wasteful in their daily lives. I just wish the scaremongers would stop selling their bilge to a gullible and larely dumbed down public (including learned fools w/uni degrees).

 

I wasn't arguing a single thing about global warming. To build up an argument around the idea that I did is rather silly. I was only addressing the idea that coal was good. Additionally, I was not only addressing the power industry, I was also addressing coal for the every day usage, heating your homes with coal instead of gas or oil, running your car on it, and even mining it. Which was one of my strong points were the health issues related to the workers.

 

So thank you for your tirade against global warming, however, global warming was not even part of my consideration. Simply the health impact on the workers and surrounding envionment, not in raising temperatures, but simply in creating more pollution by running from a dirtier source of fuel.

[Rev7]

lol. The pollution in cities with coal-fired facilities was, in many cases, WORSE than pollution today. I'm sure you've heard about how in London at the time people often needed umbrellas just to walk around? They weren't avoiding rain, they were avoiding coal ash that blanketed the city. The ash was so think, there was a type of white moth with black spots that used to blend in with the trees. The trees became so dark from the ash, a black moth with white spots survived better.

That is the Peppered Moth. As for the incident in London, I have yet to find more information on it. I remember reading about this in a science and/or history book. It was during the Industrial Revolution though, so I am sure that it has to do a lot with it.

 

EDIT:

 

Found this while doing some science homework.

 

I think that it should be sooner, but...

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Web, I was addressing two things. The first two questions were vis-a-vis your post. I should have separated the global warming "tirade" into another paragraph. Also, the bit about the mmgw myth isn't predicated merely on your post, which I was only referencing regarding the first two points. Apologies for any confusion. However, much of the push for the alternative fuels biz, and the false urgency tied to a single minded pursuit of "anything but oil/coal" is directly related to the whole mmgw argument and not merely questions of potential depletion of "fossil fuel" sources or even how "dirty" they are.

 

However, your health concerns don't seem to be overly relevant to anything other than essentially 3rd/2nd world nations and miners in general. Coal is responsible for a substantial amount of electricity generation in the US, but where are all the sooty conditions you decry? Technology has left much of that in the past in developed nations, so your examples appear overblown/wrought. I don't doubt that places like the PRC have massive problems in this area, but that's a problem their pols will have to work out and isn't relevant to us. Apples and oranges, basically.

[Web Rider]

However, your health concerns don't seem to be overly relevant to anything other than essentially 3rd/2nd world nations and miners in general. Coal is responsible for a substantial amount of electricity generation in the US, but where are all the sooty conditions you decry? Technology has left much of that in the past in developed nations, so your examples appear overblown/wrought. I don't doubt that places like the PRC have massive problems in this area, but that's a problem their pols will have to work out and isn't relevant to us. Apples and oranges, basically.

 

Coal mine deaths and blacklung are still quite common in the US. Mining conditions are hardly favorable to any sort of good health. QUICK EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_lung_disease there, some info on blacklung. yes it's wiki, if you don't like it, feel free to read it's sources. Their first citation states that those carbon-caused diseases are found in urbanites(ie: city dwellers), because of carbon pollution, so yeah, I think I have good reason to believe that more coal plants will be unhealthy.

 

The lack of pollution has several parts to it:

1: most coal plants are not in the inner city, nor anywhere near cities. We used to have a coal plant near Ventura(it went oil later), it was several miles from any kind of civilization. Power plants are also large, which allows for the addition of many other power generating technologies to burn the excess.

 

2: most factories in the US are not coal-fired. Not as they used to be anyway.

 

3: transportation vehicles do not operate on coal. Trains run on diesel. Have you seen the kind of black smoke an old locomotive produces? It's a wonder you can see the sky near them. From military ships to personal cars, everything is oil based.

 

 

To remove oil from the power situation is a rather minimal step, and has little overall effect on the demand for oil in the country due to the demand largely coming from other sources(heating oil, cars, ships, trains, planes, ect...).

 

Sure, you can switch power plants from oil to coal, but you can't run cars on coal. You can't install boilers in the latest aircraft carriers, and you certainly can't fly a plane across the sea on coal. And if all you're getting rid of is oil power plants, you're really not making much change. You can build solar, wind and nuclear NOW and not need coal OR oil for plant operation. And at the same time, with at least solar and wind, you eliminate a long list of negative enviornmental and health impacts.

[Totenkopf]

As I said, technology has rendered most of the concerns you seem caught up in moot. I wasn't aware anyone was calling for putting a coal operated boiler in a car anyway. As I understand it, most of the use of coal proposed is to be used to run the plants that generate electricity. As you've noted, they can be located a sufficiently safe distance from populated areas to abate many/any health concerns. Nobody is talking about putting coal fired boilers into homes again either. Something I'm sure makes many a fire marshal happy. Fact is, I've already stated that I'm for the diversification of power sources. Unlike you, I don't see solar, wind or nuclear as replacing fossil fuels in the short term in a manner conducive to not wrecking the economy. As to oil, you can't likely remove it (or its distillates--gas and heating oil) from the power equation in the short term either w/o causing major disruptions due to its pervasive nature in modern society.

 

Re things like black lung, it's an occupational hazard in that industry. But I granted that point above already anyway.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Has anyone studied Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It states that there are certain needs or demands that must be met before others take priority. In the case of America's economy, profit is the first thing that must be met. As desirable renewable energies are, they aren't profitable as oil and coal. As supplies of fossil fuels dwindle, the price of the fuels increase.

 

The current issue is that there are still untapped oil reserves. There are two possible solutions to the future of oil in America: either start tapping into our own supplies, or substitute oil for another source of energy. Coal is favored most because it is the most reliable fuel for the distant future, but its price is rising as solar and wind drop. Renewable energy is at a point where its price has made it competitive with fossil fuels, but its reliability is still questionable.

 

As stated earlier, most transportation doesn't operate on coal. What we need is to reform our transportation systems to use electricity. Odds are that we will have to give up cars in favor of electric trains because almost any form of energy could be converted to electricity.

[Q]

Odds are that we will have to give up cars in favor of electric trains because almost any form of energy could be converted to electricity.

Good luck with that.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I've thought about the means by which unreliable energies could capture and store excess energy.

 

Wind turbines are great, but we should use vertical axis generators instead. Because they are vertical axis, the majority of the construction would be done at ground level. By simply having the generator on the ground, repairs and maintainence are easier and cheaper.

 

When there is an excess of energy captured by a windmill, the energy can't be stored. The best solution would be to use the energy for some purpose. Either the energy could desalinate seawater for freshwater, or it could pump water into a valley and be used for hydroelectricity when needed. Hydrogen would also be a better solution to simply wasting excess energy, but it's the most difficult to use on a large scale.

 

It would also be important to build renewable energies where they would be best utilized before tapping unfavorable locations. Although electricity results in a loss the greater it has to travel, but it's more efficient for florida to receive wind energy from North Dakota than it is to build a turbine closer to where electricity is demanded.

 

The US has a large desert that would be perfect for solar power. The land should be used for solar energy to maximize its effectiveness... nowhere else should be considered unless there is not enough desert to go around.

 

The best solution to renewable energy is to determine what makes them unfavorable and correct the deficiencies before using them on a large scale.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Good luck with that.

 

Alright... cars will have to use either hydrogen or electricity, but they'll be much more expensive. Europe uses mass transportation regularly, why not follow their example?

[Web Rider]

As stated earlier, most transportation doesn't operate on coal. What we need is to reform our transportation systems to use electricity. Odds are that we will have to give up cars in favor of electric trains because almost any form of energy could be converted to electricity.

 

Yeah, um, that's not even remotely feasible. You would literally have to replace every road in the country with electric rails and have a train traveling on them every waking moment since there's always somebody who needs to get somewhere and "schedules" and "routes" don't cover it.

 

Alright... cars will have to use either hydrogen or electricity, but they'll be much more expensive. Europe uses mass transportation regularly, why not follow their example?

Because Europe was built around mass transit. the US isn't. You just can't switch from cars to trains like that. Especially electric trains.

 

Wind turbines are great, but we should use vertical axis generators instead. Because they are vertical axis, the majority of the construction would be done at ground level. By simply having the generator on the ground, repairs and maintainence are easier and cheaper.

You mean building them with the blades pointing horizontally? Well, there are several reasons they don't do that. First, because it's really easy to get killed by a giant blade spinning at 30mph, and second, winds get significantly stronger when you get away from the surface of the earth. Not to mention that the device as a whole requires far less space to build it.

 

When there is an excess of energy captured by a windmill, the energy can't be stored. The best solution would be to use the energy for some purpose. Either the energy could desalinate seawater for freshwater, or it could pump water into a valley and be used for hydroelectricity when needed. Hydrogen would also be a better solution to simply wasting excess energy, but it's the most difficult to use on a large scale.

Electricity isn't stored from ANY power plant. I don't know why you're ragging on wind/solar for not storing it's energy when no plants store their energy to begin with.

 

And people keep mentioning "hydrogen" like it's some kind of burnable commodity. Do you mean nuclear fusion?

 

It would also be important to build renewable energies where they would be best utilized before tapping unfavorable locations. Although electricity results in a loss the greater it has to travel, but it's more efficient for florida to receive wind energy from North Dakota than it is to build a turbine closer to where electricity is demanded.

Then you don't know jack about electrical systems. Namely what you're missing is line volatage drop. If you were to set up a wind farm in N Dakota and run a wire to Florida, you could produce massive quantities of power, and nothing would come out on the other end. Power comes from the nearest generator. Even if you're paying for power from a station in N Dakota, what happens is that it's power goes to the next power plant, and the next, and the next, until the closest(or a rather close one) power plant is the one actually supplying you with power.

 

The US has a large desert that would be perfect for solar power. The land should be used for solar energy to maximize its effectiveness... nowhere else should be considered unless there is not enough desert to go around.

again, line voltage drop. If you want solar power, actual power coming from a solar facility in New York, you need a plant, in New York. You simply cannot push electricity from the Mojave Desert(california) to New York City.

 

The country has a lot of sun all over it, we'd do well to replace the shingles on our roofs with solar. You'd cut down the need for power plants of any kind massivly if every home could supply itsself during the day with electricity, and if they weren't using it, it would supply somebody else.

[Darth_Yuthura]

In response to Web Rider...

 

I'm don't actually think that any of this is going to happen. Odds are that we'll keep using fossil fuels and demand for energy will keep rising faster than solar and wind can keep up. The development of renewable energy must yield to the dollar. The only reason we would chose to use unreliable energy is when it's the only one left to use.

 

When oil supplies are depleted, it will be very rapid. When that happens, the transition from one energy to another will be extremely difficult and we will be hit hard by it. All these solutions... could work... but they won't even under favorable conditions. Solutions like this are just too simplistic and disregard many factors on a large scale.