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.
That which powers our civilization is derived from the sun, or our parental star, whose nova created the heavier elements that compose our planet.
At this time, we're consuming prodigious amounts of a finite, irreplaceable resource made of accretions of solar input, aka fossil fuels. (Coal, Petroleum, Peat, etc).
No matter which economic argument is advanced to justify it, there is no such things as "cheap and plentiful" fossil fuels. Consuming them to the point that they are no longer accessible, is patently short sighted, and irresponsible. Once consumed, from that point onward, future generations will be deprived of them. Is that what we wish to endow our children's children with?
What does it take to persuade people to realize that it is inherently wiser to only use PRESENT solar input (sunlight, wind, water, tidal, etc) for our source of power?
What does it take to persuade people to realize that it is inherently wiser to only use PRESENT solar input (sunlight, wind, water, tidal, etc) for our source of power?
Agree but when it's economical to do it. The coal supply within the U.S. can power this country well beyond a century at current needs. I'm sure in that time someone can figure out how to produce energy cheaper than what coal costs.
One of the primary problems with mandates such as these is you're taking away the incentive to do that. Why bother making something cheap if you don't have too? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone could produce energy cheaper than coal there would be conga line of investors lining up outside their door.
Agree but when it's economical to do it. The coal supply within the U.S. can power this country well beyond a century at current needs. I'm sure in that time someone can figure out how to produce energy cheaper than what coal costs.
One of the primary problems with mandates such as these is you're taking away the incentive to do that. Why bother making something cheap if you don't have too? I've said it before and I'll say it again, if someone could produce energy cheaper than coal there would be conga line of investors lining up outside their door.
ECONOMICAL? Short sighted greed is the reason why 19th century whalers would hunt them to extinction, rather than use long term sustainability. You can't use short term profit (economical) as an excuse to consume EVERYTHING. That's a terrible legacy to give to our children's children.
Sorry, grandad and grandma consumed it all and left you with nothing, because it was ECONOMICAL.
Since long term planning is absent in the halls of academic economists, and politicians, perhaps we need to do it ourselves.
And we definitely cannot subsidize any fossil fuel system - like automobiles - without making the problem much worse.
Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×10^9 m3) of crude oil. This excludes oil shale reserves, as there is no significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States.
1 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption (2007 - last year of "booming" economy)
TOTAL OIL RESERVES = 134 months (11 years)
Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia are the largest in the world, estimated to be 267 billion barrels (42×10^9 m3) including 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone. This is around one-fifth of the world's total conventional oil reserves.
1 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption (2007)
Ergo, if the U.S. bought ALL of that reserve, it would last 267 months (22 years).
2 years to exhaust U.S. reserves, if we do nothing.
11 years to exhaust U.S. domestic supply, by drilling everything.
22 years to exhaust Saudi supply.
BTW - at this time, we import roughly 70% of our petroleum consumption.
Thus to truly end oil imports, we'd need to remove 70% of the automobiles off the road.
And those people will need alternate transportation, that cap and trade will not provide.
Boosting mileage efficiency to 35 MPG over 24 MPG is only a 50% improvement, that would still necessitate removing 35% of the current fleet off the roads, just to stave off early collapse.
The world's oil supply is finite you are correct but one thing people often overlook about peak oil is that there will be a lot left. What the world will run out of is oil that can be used for energy. When an oil well goes unproductive it's because it requires more energy to extract it than you can get out of it. At that point oil from a well like that can be extracted in the future for other uses like the petro chemical industry when renewable energy becomes affordable.
As the saying goes "Necessity is the mother invention", if you look back before the economic crisis as oil prices were sky rocketing people were looking for alternatives driving less.... conserving oil. As oil prices rise which will inevitably happen again you'll create a demand for alternative sources, this will be filled by business eager to profit from that demand.
Like it it or not greed drives innovation for the most part. That demand has to be driven by the market, not by mandates. Mandates get you over priced junk where the people filling the demand have no incentive to make a better product, cheaper product etc.
Don't misunderstand me jetgraphics, renewable energy is the way of the future. It's inevitable, the issue I have with the current state of things mostly boils down to the forcing this onto the U.S. You only have to look as far as the ethanol industry to see where that gets you, that my friend is being short sighted.
FYI coal can be converted to liquid fuel. I believe it needs to be above $40 a barrel before it becomes economically viable. With such a volatile oil market such a plant is a very risky investment hence the reason no one will invest in one. The Air Force I believe has been investigating such measures but that's out of necessity for national security so they can secure an alternative supply within the U.S. borders.
The Air Force I believe has been investigating such measures but that's out of necessity for national security so they can secure an alternative supply within the U.S. borders.
My understanding is that Malmstrom AFB is leading the charge.
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.
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.
I believe it needs to be above $40 a barrel before it becomes economically viable. With such a volatile oil market such a plant is a very risky investment hence the reason no one will invest in one. The Air Force I believe has been investigating such measures but that's out of necessity for national security so they can secure an alternative supply within the U.S. borders.
