Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Okie how is it that you never tire of making a fool out of yourself by making stupid claims that can be obliterated by 5 or 10 minutes of Google? Large scale wind unproven? Laughing

Here in the States we have little more than 100 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 100 GW (gigawatts) of power. The wind you don't seem to believe in, already has a capacity of over 18 GW, right here in the United States. T. Boone Pickens (oil baron), just ordered 2 billion dollars worth of turbines to begin a project that will be the biggest wind farm anywhere (4 GW). This is a man who does things for profit. Make no mistake, Okie, Wind Technology is here now. Wave Technology is right around the corner.

Now, that being said, I agree with the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach for right now. However, since the burning of fossil fuels does do harm (even if hard to quantify monetarily), fossil fuels should be taxed with the proceeds going to subsidize alternative research and development just as heavier trucks pay a heavier tax to help balance the greater damage they're likely to do to roads.

0 Replies

That's a good way to look at it, Bill.

Okie, I think you are over-exaggerating for effect; it isn't that drilling 'does no good;' drilling (and pumping lol) brings more oil. This oil is both a good and a bad thing; good in that we have more oil to burn, bad that we have more oil to burn. We know we need to start transitioning away from oil, and you don't do that by... pumping more oil. You do it by deciding that it is a priority for your people, and spending money on the alternatives.

We don't spend 1/50th as much on renewable energy per year as we spend on the war in Iraq. Now, you can listen to George if you like, who swears that extra spending on renewable power will simply slow it down; I don't agree with that position. I think if we made modest investments in the creation of infrastructure, in further storage research and other technologies, it would pay off big time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

But you are using the words "renewable power" in that cocktail party manner so attractive to gatherings where everybody speaks in abstract concepts that are agreed to be very wonderful things that any sane, compassionate and responsibly caring person would enthusiastically embrace.

Mutual ego stroking one might call it without undue exaggeration.

Those who think otherwise are left off the guest list. An "ignore" function derivative at the group level.

As in "Oh my God- don't invite spendi- he's says the most awful things. Last time he was invited I introduced him to my sister Geraldine and he asked her what she did to make ends meet and when she told him she headed-up a small cleaning firm he said "Oh--you're a shitshifter are you- how nice for you" and stalked off."

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Okie how is it that you never tire of making a fool out of yourself by making stupid claims that can be obliterated by 5 or 10 minutes of Google? Large scale wind unproven?

Here in the States we have little more than 100 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 100 GW (gigawatts) of power. The wind you don't seem to believe in, already has a capacity of over 18 GW, right here in the United States. T. Boone Pickens (oil baron), just ordered 2 billion dollars worth of turbines to begin a project that will be the biggest wind farm anywhere (4 GW). This is a man who does things for profit. Make no mistake, Okie, Wind Technology is here now. Wave Technology is right around the corner.

Now, that being said, I agree with the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach for right now. However, since the burning of fossil fuels does do harm (even if hard to quantify monetarily), fossil fuels should be taxed with the proceeds going to subsidize alternative research and development just as heavier trucks pay a heavier tax to help balance the greater damage they're likely to do to roads.

Bill, you do the googling, and what is the current contribution of renewables, and what are the projected amounts by 2020 or 2030. Don't call me a fool for stating reality. Sure, wind works, but it is not by any shape, matter, or form going to replace other sources anytime soon.

Boone Pickens is a promoter. He wants the government to help him make more money, that is my opinion of his little program. Why doesn't he just make deals with power companies if it is such a great deal to do a crash program. He shouldn't be any more special than anyone else.

Here is a pie chart of the current energy mix. And anyone that believe this will change to a completely different picture overnight is smoking something.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2008/08039tinker/images/fig01.htm

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And anyone that believe this will change to a completely different picture overnight is smoking something.

Certainly not overnight. However, the key is to establish goals in the first place. If you start out with the kind of "it's impossible anyways" attitude that you are trumpeting here, I agree that efforts will likely go nowhere.

For comparison, here's a table that shows the development of renewables in Germany (numbers in TWh):

Quote:

Since 1997, Germany and the other states of the European Union have been working towards a target of 12% renewable energy by 2010. This target was surpassed already in 2007 when the renewable energy share in Germany reached 14%. On April 26, 2007, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced that this target would rise to 27% by 2020. Electricity use is to be cut by 11%, and the number of cogeneration plants is to double.

(source)

And I have no doubt that, if Americans quit whining about how oil and coal are the only viable energy sources and finally made a commitment towards increasing the market share of renewables, we would likely see an even more significant market share of renewables within a shorter timeframe in the United States.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

A good example is the oil debate. Democrats, supposedly very smart and intelligent people, claim drilling would do no good. I think that is ridiculous on its face, and defies simple principles of economics.

My god okie.. Did you forget that the future is the future and today is today?

Drilling in the future does no good today.

Your silly argument is pretty silly when examined in light of your argument about drilling.

0 Replies

[URL=http://]20% wind by 2030 - US DOE[/URL]

0 Replies

parados wrote:

[URL=http://]20% wind by 2030 - US DOE[/URL]

You just proved my point, what I have been saying for the last few posts. 20% by 2030, big deal. And when you factor overall growth of energy demand, not a huge accomplishment. This is exactly what I have been arguing.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
[URL=http://]20% wind by 2030 - US DOE[/URL]

You just proved my point, what I have been saying for the last few posts. 20% by 2030, big deal. And when you factor overall growth of energy demand, not a huge accomplishment. This is exactly what I have been arguing.

20% of US electricity produced by wind power alone - not taking into account any other kind of renewable energy - and you brush it aside as meaningless?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
[URL=http://]20% wind by 2030 - US DOE[/URL]

You just proved my point, what I have been saying for the last few posts. 20% by 2030, big deal. And when you factor overall growth of energy demand, not a huge accomplishment. This is exactly what I have been arguing.

OK.. 20% is nothing.. (20% of the projected usage in 2030. NOT 20% of what we use now.)

You do realize that drilling in ANWR won't come close to providing 20% of our energy needs now let alone in the future. So no need to drill there. Right okie? After all if it is less than 20% it isn't a huge accomplishment.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Okie how is it that you never tire of making a fool out of yourself by making stupid claims that can be obliterated by 5 or 10 minutes of Google? Large scale wind unproven?

Here in the States we have little more than 100 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 100 GW (gigawatts) of power. The wind you don't seem to believe in, already has a capacity of over 18 GW, right here in the United States. T. Boone Pickens (oil baron), just ordered 2 billion dollars worth of turbines to begin a project that will be the biggest wind farm anywhere (4 GW). This is a man who does things for profit. Make no mistake, Okie, Wind Technology is here now. Wave Technology is right around the corner.

Now, that being said, I agree with the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach for right now. However, since the burning of fossil fuels does do harm (even if hard to quantify monetarily), fossil fuels should be taxed with the proceeds going to subsidize alternative research and development just as heavier trucks pay a heavier tax to help balance the greater damage they're likely to do to roads.

Bill, you do the googling, and what is the current contribution of renewables, and what are the projected amounts by 2020 or 2030. Don't call me a fool for stating reality. Sure, wind works, but it is not by any shape, matter, or form going to replace other sources anytime soon.

Boone Pickens is a promoter. He wants the government to help him make more money, that is my opinion of his little program. Why doesn't he just make deals with power companies if it is such a great deal to do a crash program. He shouldn't be any more special than anyone else.

Here is a pie chart of the current energy mix. And anyone that believe this will change to a completely different picture overnight is smoking something.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2008/08039tinker/images/fig01.htm

This is what you said:

Okie idiotically wrote:

I am simply pointing out that the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale, so that utilities can wisely take the risk of investing in these types of plants. There is a learning curve, and we are on the very bottom of the curve.

Now you're going to pretend that 20% of our energy supply isn't significant? News flash for the terminally obtuse: the first Wind Farm in the MW range proved the technology viable on a commercial scale; and only a moron would claim otherwise.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

okie wrote-

Quote:
Some things do in fact have simple principles involved, and when you fail to understand them or acknowledge them, you are therefore trying to make the subject complicated.

I don't know what you mean by that. What are these simple principles? Where have I failed to understand them? And in what way am I trying to make the subject complicated?

Perhaps I misunderstand what your point is, but yes, simple principles are real. You ask for one, how about supply and demand? That is a simple one, but one that some politicians want to pretend to ignore.

Quote:

I should imagine that Dems are going against drilling to get votes from the environmentalists. In power they would drill if need be.

You could be correct, but that makes them hypocrits in my book. Many tree huggers are hypocrits, Al Gore being one obvious example.

Quote:

Convincing the UN to issue the instruction you suggest is an impossibility.

Correct, but I am using sarcasm to illustrate the absurdity of what Democrats claim. They claim drilling does no good here, well, if it does no good here, why not all over the world. Their position is absurd, plain and simple.

Quote:

I certainly don't think that charging other people with lacking knowledge is proof that you have knowledge.

I consider your post okie to be bluster.

My posts point out obvious facts, in a blustery manner, and people don't like it, but the facts are plain to see.

Quote:

Drilling is a very complex matter. There's no black and white positions. I think you are talking about political posturing.

Drilling is done to find oil, to produce oil, pretty simple concept. I am not posturing politically, as my position has always been to seek to produce as much energy domestically as we possibly can. Energy is the fuel of our economy. Drilling is not a complex concept, although the methods are requiring greater skill to accomplish in tough natural and political environments. If you don't drill for new oil, you won't produce new oil. If you have an oil shortage, with higher prices than people like, and it is hurting the economy, then not drilling is a economically suicidal policy.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
parados wrote:
[URL=http://]20% wind by 2030 - US DOE[/URL]

You just proved my point, what I have been saying for the last few posts. 20% by 2030, big deal. And when you factor overall growth of energy demand, not a huge accomplishment. This is exactly what I have been arguing.

20% of US electricity produced by wind power alone - not taking into account any other kind of renewable energy - and you brush it aside as meaningless?

Where did I say it was meaningless? Please read the posts before you answer them, and your posts would be more accurate.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

okie wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Okie how is it that you never tire of making a fool out of yourself by making stupid claims that can be obliterated by 5 or 10 minutes of Google? Large scale wind unproven?

Here in the States we have little more than 100 nuclear power plants with a capacity of about 100 GW (gigawatts) of power. The wind you don't seem to believe in, already has a capacity of over 18 GW, right here in the United States. T. Boone Pickens (oil baron), just ordered 2 billion dollars worth of turbines to begin a project that will be the biggest wind farm anywhere (4 GW). This is a man who does things for profit. Make no mistake, Okie, Wind Technology is here now. Wave Technology is right around the corner.

Now, that being said, I agree with the throw everything at the wall and see what sticks approach for right now. However, since the burning of fossil fuels does do harm (even if hard to quantify monetarily), fossil fuels should be taxed with the proceeds going to subsidize alternative research and development just as heavier trucks pay a heavier tax to help balance the greater damage they're likely to do to roads.

Bill, you do the googling, and what is the current contribution of renewables, and what are the projected amounts by 2020 or 2030. Don't call me a fool for stating reality. Sure, wind works, but it is not by any shape, matter, or form going to replace other sources anytime soon.

Boone Pickens is a promoter. He wants the government to help him make more money, that is my opinion of his little program. Why doesn't he just make deals with power companies if it is such a great deal to do a crash program. He shouldn't be any more special than anyone else.

Here is a pie chart of the current energy mix. And anyone that believe this will change to a completely different picture overnight is smoking something.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2008/08039tinker/images/fig01.htm
This is what you said:

Okie idiotically wrote:
I am simply pointing out that the technology is not perfected on a commercial scale, so that utilities can wisely take the risk of investing in these types of plants. There is a learning curve, and we are on the very bottom of the curve.
Now you're going to pretend that 20% of our energy supply isn't significant? News flash for the terminally obtuse: the first Wind Farm in the MW range proved the technology viable on a commercial scale; and only a moron would claim otherwise.

Read my posts, moron yourself. Where did I ever say wind was not perfected on a commercial scale? Read my posts, Bill. I was talking about energy storage systems, whereby wind and solar could be stored for later usage, and I pointed out until that technology becomes better proven or perfected on a commercial scale, wind and solar cannot be grown over a certain threshold of energy mix contribution. Cyclops pointed out some limited examples of storage systems, but again these are not yet proven so that large scale investments in these systems are being made.

And again, read my posts please. I never claimed 20% is not significant. What I have claimed is that wind and solar are not going to replace oil anytime soon, so we better be drilling for new oil supplies, and anything less than doing that is utter stupidity. Parados posted a link that predicted 20% by 2030, which is still more than 2 decades away, and when you factor in the growth of energy demand, it is very obvious to anyone with common sense that we are not going to eliminate the need for very large supplies of coal, oil, and natural gas, in the year 2030 and beyond, and anyone that thinks that we are is the fool. Call me a fool if you want, but I am simply pointing out reality.

I have been in favor of, I am in favor of, and I will always be in favor of alternative energy. I have stated many times that I like the idea of things like wind and solar, and want to see them compete, but I am not stupid enough to not also favor drilling for future supplies of oil and natural gas.

Bill, you have sure liked to call people bigots and racists at the drop of a hat, and now you love to call people morons. What is your problem? Debate the issue, Bill, and try to win it on evidence for a change. You haven't been doing a very good job of doing that in my opinion, and you skew what somebody else says. Please read my posts more carefully, and that would help you.

0 Replies

Quote:

Cyclops pointed out some limited examples of storage systems, but again these are not yet proven so that large scale investments in these systems are being made.

Limited? The method of pumping water uphill for use in turbines later on is in perfect operation in over 100 sites in the world. I'd say that it has seen wide-spread success.

Quote:

I have been in favor of, I am in favor of, and I will always be in favor of alternative energy. I have stated many times that I like the idea of things like wind and solar, and want to see them compete, but I am not stupid enough to not also favor drilling for future supplies of oil and natural gas.

Unfortunately, if we keep increasing the total available amount of oil and natural gas available, we will not see the necessary change to cleaner forms of energy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Danish Energy

Article Tools Sponsored By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 9, 2008....

Advocate, I have been to Denmark, and I am an admirer of that country, but it is totally different culturally, than here. You see little or no junk cars or trash in Denmark, and you also do not see much extravagance, the life style is simple and frugal. Large vehicles are virtually non-existent, and the culture does not include a collection of adult toys, such as boats and RVs, etc.

Americans are free living and prone to widely traveled people with a wasteful and brash lifestyle, probably a more luxurious lifestyle than Denmark, but that is what has propelled this economy to the largest in the world, so to remake it into something like Denmark cannot be done overnight, without a total change in mindset. We have a press that starts talking about the suffering if people can't pay for a 3,000 square foot house and loses it to the bank, so what do you expect? We have a bunch of whiners and complainers that expect to live a certain way.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Cyclops pointed out some limited examples of storage systems, but again these are not yet proven so that large scale investments in these systems are being made.

Limited? The method of pumping water uphill for use in turbines later on is in perfect operation in over 100 sites in the world. I'd say that it has seen wide-spread success.

I would disagree with you, cyclops. Percentage wise, very insignificant to non-existent. Also, pumping water requires water, and it requires to be done only in certain spots that have the reservoirs or water available. I have not heard of any significant plant anywhere in this country where this is being considered as economically feasible.

Quote:

Quote:

I have been in favor of, I am in favor of, and I will always be in favor of alternative energy. I have stated many times that I like the idea of things like wind and solar, and want to see them compete, but I am not stupid enough to not also favor drilling for future supplies of oil and natural gas.

Unfortunately, if we keep increasing the total available amount of oil and natural gas available, we will not see the necessary change to cleaner forms of energy.

Cycloptichorn

I believe we need to drill for new oil simply to ease the pain of declining supplies domestically. I am not one to believe we can become even close to energy independent with oil, as I do not believe that is realistic. Drilling for new oil will not stop change to other energy forms, but it will ease the pain of the transition, economic pain I am talking about here, and I would think all politicans would favor doing that.

0 Replies

If you are going to force the oil drilled in America to be sold in America, you are essentially talking about nationalizing the oil industry. For to do so, you would cut profits and the Free Market, your Holy God, out of the equation for the oil manufacturers.

There's no other choice; you can either do that, and keep oil which is drilled in America here in America (even though it will fetch a much higher price overseas), or you can add 2-3% to the world market, and accomplish nothing.

Do you have some solution for this problem, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If you are going to force the oil drilled in America to be sold in America, you are essentially talking about nationalizing the oil industry. For to do so, you would cut profits and the Free Market, your Holy God, out of the equation for the oil manufacturers.

Again, quit making stuff up. I have never advocated oil we drill be used here. It makes no difference whether we use it or use the money we got from it to buy oil from somewhere else, unless in time of war, that could change. The free market is not my God, no more than my freedom to say what I want to or worship as I want to is my God. Cyclops, you are totally bankrupt in regard to what freedom is about. I am not rich, nor do I care to be rich, but I do wish to buy from whomever I wish to buy from, maybe you don't? And I don't care if other people are rich, maybe you are jealous, or would like your god, the government to have all the money to make me live like you do?

Quote:

There's no other choice; you can either do that, and keep oil which is drilled in America here in America (even though it will fetch a much higher price overseas), or you can add 2-3% to the world market, and accomplish nothing.

Then shut down all drilling on the planet, cyclops. Put up or shut up, one or the other.

Quote:

Do you have some solution for this problem, Okie?

Cycloptichorn

Yeah, I do have a solution, make the hypocrit tree huggers practice what they preach.

0 Replies

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know