Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-02-2011, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Carver County, MN
1,395 posts, read 2,660,042 times
Reputation: 1265

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
Oil shale is not oil, and it has negative EREOI - it requirer more energy to produce it than you get from the resulting 'oil'. Same goes for tar sands.
In addition to it being much more harsh on the environment to produce. In order to get the "bang for the buck" that we get from the declines in conventional crude, we will have to tear up whole counties and mountain ranges that have shale reserves. Not to mention all or the water and natural gas used to extract oil from shale and the CO2 that is released in the process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-02-2011, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
Oil shale is not oil, and it has negative EREOI - it requirer more energy to produce it than you get from the resulting 'oil'. Same goes for tar sands.
The estimates for oil shale, per barrel cost range from 12 dollars a barrel to 95 dollars a barrel.

The most educated estimates are around 60 dollars a barrel. We pay over 80 now, to countries that want to kill us.

Imagine what keeping an additional 700 billion dollars a year in the US economy would do for us.

Oil shale is oil, its just got to be mined and processed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring View Post
In addition to it being much more harsh on the environment to produce. In order to get the "bang for the buck" that we get from the declines in conventional crude, we will have to tear up whole counties and mountain ranges that have shale reserves. Not to mention all or the water and natural gas used to extract oil from shale and the CO2 that is released in the process.
Ok, here is the thing.

Hazardous to the environment is a problem to be sure, but we've got short term problems now. Global warming is going to happen on whatever oil we are on, and real alternatives are decades away from making a real impact.

So what do we do for the next twenty years while we push for wind/solar/nuclear and other options? Oil Shale. We spend 700 billion dollars a year on foreign oil, imagine what we could do with that money in our economy.

I'm all for saving the environment, but we need a solution now, oil shale could be that solution if the government forced oil companies to use it instead of drilling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Carver County, MN
1,395 posts, read 2,660,042 times
Reputation: 1265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Ok, here is the thing.

Hazardous to the environment is a problem to be sure, but we've got short term problems now. Global warming is going to happen on whatever oil we are on, and real alternatives are decades away from making a real impact.

So what do we do for the next twenty years while we push for wind/solar/nuclear and other options? Oil Shale. We spend 700 billion dollars a year on foreign oil, imagine what we could do with that money in our economy.

I'm all for saving the environment, but we need a solution now, oil shale could be that solution if the government forced oil companies to use it instead of drilling.
I agree, that desperate times call for desperate measures:

Not to sound like a tree-hugging enviromentalist because I am as guilty as almost everyone else, but from a logical standpoint IMO:

I say we drastically change the way we live. Use vehicles only when absolutely necessary. Use vehicles that get at least 30mpg if you need one. Bike-walk the rest of the time. Rearrange our communities so that we are less vehicle dependent (denser neighborhoods, walkable). Pump as much money as possible into (good and efficient) public transit. Re-invest in the railroad. Grow and produce more things locally.

Sadly, most of these changes take money, which many governments (Federal, state, local) dont have the funds to invest in any longer and effort, which many of us lack. We have pissed away our chance to change our lifestyles and greatly reduce our energy dependence. People want their suburban subdivisions, SUVs (there is no denying it, I am guilty as well). We have asked ourselves at what price when gas went up past $4 per gallon a few years ago. I think we will be asking "at what price" again very soon. We don't have the want or the will to change our lifestlyes until its too late and we are forced to do so or destroy our childrens future.

We have been saying for years and years that we need to reduce our dependence on oil. If renewable resources are not at all able to step up to the plate right now, who will step up and change their energy habbits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring View Post
I agree, that desperate times call for desperate measures:

Not to sound like a tree-hugging enviromentalist because I am as guilty as almost everyone else, but from a logical standpoint IMO:

I say we drastically change the way we live. Use vehicles only when absolutely necessary. Use vehicles that get at least 30mpg if you need one. Bike-walk the rest of the time. Rearrange our communities so that we are less vehicle dependent (denser neighborhoods, walkable). Pump as much money as possible into (good and efficient) public transit. Re-invest in the rail road.

Sadly, most of these changes take money, which many governments (Federal, state, local) dont have the funds to invest in any longer. We have pissed away our chance to change our lifestyles and greatly reduce our energy dependence. People want their suburban subdivisions, SUVs. We have asked ourselves at what price when gas went up past $4 per gallon a few years ago. I think we will be asking "at what price" again very soon. We don't have the want or the will to change our lifestlyes until its too late and we are forced to do so or destroy our childrens future.

We have been saying for years and years that we need to reduce our dependence on oil. If renewable resources are not at all able to step up to the plate right now, who will step up and change their energy habbits.
Telling Americans they have to change the way they live is a lesson in futility.

I understand your point, and I personally limit my electrical use, I keep my thermostat below 68 in the winter, and as high as 80 in the summer. I use energy star appliances, low flow toilets, etc.

But telling everyone they have to do what I do just isn't going to work. When we have a cheap source of domestic oil that would last the United States until 2200, I say we use it. We'll always need oil for lots of different things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: SARASOTA, FLORIDA
11,486 posts, read 15,306,908 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
No body posting here, or their grand children will be around when that happens.

By that time, we will have other fuels.

I agree.

We have enough of our own oil to use if the idiots running this country would let us drill to get it.

We have enough to last way into another 2-3 generations right here on our own land and in the ocean.

What we need to do is stop playing around and find alternative fuels now instead of putting it off etc.

Should have been doing this 30+ years ago when it was first brought up as something that needs to be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,511 posts, read 33,312,803 times
Reputation: 7623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Hazardous to the environment is a problem to be sure, but we've got short term problems now. Global warming is going to happen on whatever oil we are on, and real alternatives are decades away from making a real impact.
What global warming? It's now known as climate change, which is a natural phenomenon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
What global warming? It's now known as climate change, which is a natural phenomenon.
I believe we should limit human contributions to the environment, if possible. But I don't think we should destroy our way of life in order to do that.

Humans screw things up, the less we can effect the environment the better. At least until we are on another rock in space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,857 times
Reputation: 6391
True, we have plenty of oil right here in America. The current game plan is to use all the Arabs oil up first. Meanwhile battery technolgy is getting better and better. You have to figure it will take several decades to eliminate most gas burning cars after a good battery car is found. get personal automobiles off of gasoline and we will have enough oil for centuries to come, by then there should be some kind of non lubrication needed mag drive stuff out there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 04:10 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
3,006 posts, read 3,870,831 times
Reputation: 1750
(To memphis 1979 - i can't quote on this phone) I was talking about the energy return ratios, not the financial cost. A modern economy cannot be run on low EREOI fuels (not much less than 1:20) and definately not fuels with negative ratios. Shale (and other 'alternative' oils) cannot replace crude oil as a source of energy.

Last edited by archineer; 01-02-2011 at 04:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top