Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The price of oil can be reduced by increasing its supply. One way to increase its supply is to permit oil drilling domestically--start with ANWAR.

The price of oil can be reduced by reducing its demand. One way to reduce its demand is to resort to nuclear power generation of electric power.

Quite a novel theory, icann, supply and demand. Shortages raise prices, ample supply lower it. Where in the world did you learn that? Maybe you need to tell some of our distinguished senators? Their answer is to sue OPEC!!!!!! Wouldn't you know it, exactly what any lawyer thinks of first is to sue somebody.

One of the things we need to do is to investigate Congress, Al Gore, and a few other organizations that have been obstructionists to the free market.

Leaving out the Green/Left everyone seems to like to be nowadays in such organisations - I really wouldn't call them 'doomsters' but hard line conservatives. And most are closely connected to the oil industry and petrol selling businesses. (Easy to be find out via the website.)

Wake up every day and feel grateful to the oil and petrol industry, Walter, for the nice lifestyle enjoyed by most of the world.

To be honest, I'm of Christian faith and don't believe in false gods, be it be called capitalism or more specific oil and petro industry.

I thank God every morning, for every morning. That He gives it to us, even of some try to make an end for our pleasant life on this beautiful earth as soon as possible.

I'm not talking about worshiping something, Walter, just being grateful for something. You don't see a difference?

At least you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. If you don't like petrol, then do without it, its your choice, but criticizing something that helps your life is not real smart is it? I am grateful for penicillin. Do I worship it, no.

To be "grateful to the oil and petrol industry every morning" sounds indeed like worshiping it.

But I'm from a different culture and didn't grow up in a capitalistic environment but was educated as a Christian.

Ughhh. I am grateful for clothes, food, health, medical services, my house, my car ( which runs on petrol), and alot of other things. Do I worship them? No, but I'm mighty glad to have them, and I don't criticize the farmers, doctors, carpenters, and everyone else that helped me have all of these things. Walter, are you feeling okay today, or you just want to be in vogue by criticizing oil companies? That is quite popular you know.

Even worshiping (which Okie is not) the oil industry would be a more just attitude than blaming it for nearly everything (yeh, the oil industry is the mother cause of everything you know : http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm )

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

the answer is simple, just find more oil



you flat earth economists should listen to people like me.

off on my bike (emoticon for megasmug)

Thats cause youve been contaminated by hanging out with spendi.

Whether one buys the "Peak Oil" theories that Steve and others have advocated or not; and whether one accepts the doomsday scenarios of AGW zealots or not, the accumulating facts concerning the current and likely future trends in petroleum pricing, the growing appetite of our transportation system for ever more of it, and our even faster growing dependence on imports to meet that demand; -- all tell us that as a matter of real urgency we need to transform our energy source and supply structures. Moreover we need to do this in a way that will rapidly (i.e. within a decade) reduce our dependence on, and consumption of, petroleum, and that in the long-term will also continue the attendant initial reduction in our use of fossil fuels generally.

U.S. domestic production of petroleum peaked in 1970, and has since declined to about half the peak value. One could argue that we could raise our production back to its former value by exploiting known offshore reserves, those in Alaska, and even the shale formations in the Rockies. However, the fact is the demand of our transportation system has grown so far past our 1970 peak production level that such an action would in no way solve the problem before us (current consumption is more than 5 times our 1970 peak production) . In a perverse way the opposition of environmentalists to these developments can be viewed as a beneficial way for us to hold these assets in reserve for exploitation in later years when they will still be needed for our chemical industry and when they can be developed with less impact on the environment.

While all of the familiar "renewable" energy sources (hydro, geothermal, tidal, wind, and solar) will have their place in an efficient system, only solar power among them offers the long-term potential to become as ubiquitous a source of large-scale power production as the petroleum we need to replace. The problem with it is that, with current technology its cost is prohibitive. Worse, I fear that the government mandates and subsidies now proposed to expand its applicability will both damage our economy and diminish the incentives for investing in and advancing the needed technology. We need an alternative "renewable-like" energy source that we can deploy quickly (within a decade), and use in such a way as to directly or indirectly provide fuels and energy in forms suitable for our transportation system -- the consumer of almost all of our petroleum. With that, we need to use the resulting time and economic benefits to invest in and develop the economically feasible solar technology that will be the long-term solution..

There is a practical solution to this problem available to us, if we have the will and the flexibility to do it. That is the doubling of our present nuclear power generation establishment. That alone would produce the energy equivalent of about half of our current petroleum imports. Moreover it could displace the 16% of our electrical power now produced in gas turbine plants, enabling the direct diversion of this readily available energy source to automobiles, trucks and other vehicles of more or less conventional design. It could also deliver the extra electrical power needed to make plug-in hybrid vehicles a feasible alternative. These two steps plus the various demand reduction measures already being discussed, offer an entirely feasible way for us to displace over three quarters of our current petroleum imports in a relatively short time. Over time, as the solar technology improves, we can replace first coal, and later nuclear, power generating plants with large scale solar plants (something we certainly cannot do today with current technology).

I know of no other way by which we could reliably achieve such a rapid reduction in petroleum imports and fossil fuel consumption and continue it over the long haul. This action would (1) quickly reduce the economic and strategic vulnerability we face in the current world petroleum market; (2) essentially wipe out more than half of our balance of payments problem in world trade; (3) deliver reductions in our GHG emissions far greater than those envisioned at Kyoto, or even proposed by any other nation today; (4) significantly improve our domestic economy through increased local production of essential commodities (5) Actually lower the total cost of energy consumed in the country, and thereby creating the economic margins needed for a large investment in the development of economic technologies for large-scale solar power.

Along the way, there are indeed numerous opportunities for local initiatives with respect to demand reduction, use of renewable fuels, including solar - these in various direct applications where the specific circumstances make them both environmentally and economically beneficial. We need to encourage them, both because of the direct benefits they provide and the continuing stimulus they create for more innovation. However, we also need to let go of the fantasy that they alone can solve the problem before us - at least in time to prevent serious economic and environmental setbacks..

georgeob,
Oil prices have doubled in just one year. That means any matter-of-fact rationale to link it to economics fundamentals is doomed to fail.

I'm not a stock market professionnal but I buy and sell a lot of stocks for years already. So when something ressembles a bubble, I say it's a bubble.

And then when the bubble bursts (it always does and especially when it's made of oil, it's dirty), I hope the talker will stop talking and the doers had not scrambled to do unreasonnable things based on FUD.

george--a good technical assessment of the problem. I see that the econimies of Qatar and kuwait are rapidly switching to investment in a post petroleum economy. Were too busy analyzing whether our globe is being warmed up by our piddling exudates.

Minitax. You put a stop/sell by order on your investmenst and revisit them frequently. Energy funds have gotten waaay too fat in the last three years and now that everyone and their mother is getting in, I suspect that the bubble is near to terminal girth.

george--a good technical assessment of the problem. I see that the econimies of Qatar and kuwait are rapidly switching to investment in a post petroleum economy. Were too busy analyzing whether our globe is being warmed up by our piddling exudates.

Minitax. You put a stop/sell -by order on your investmenst and revisit them frequently. Energy funds have gotten waaay too fat in the last three years and now that everyone and their mother is getting in, I suspect that the bubble is near to terminal girth.

george--a good technical assessment of the problem. I see that the econimies of Qatar and kuwait are rapidly switching to investment in a post petroleum economy. Were too busy analyzing whether our globe is being warmed up by our piddling exudates.

Minitax. You put a stop/sell -by order on your investmenst and revisit them frequently. Energy funds have gotten waaay too fat in the last three years and now that everyone and their mother is getting in, I suspect that the bubble is near to terminal girth.

I agree with you about the likelihood of a bubble in oil prices and expect that we will eventually see some reduction in the price. In this case the bubble is further complicated by the efforts of new players in the world economy (large and small) from China and India to Eastern European nations, Brazil, Malaysia and others to establish economic and strategic arrangements for secure petroleun supplies in the short and long term. In short a bubble that could persist for a while. Despite that I believe we are in for a long-term underlying upward secular trend in the price.

In addition, and more importantly, our imports of expensive petroleum are increasing at a very high rate - they doubled between 1985 and 1995, and added an even larger increment between 1995 and 2005 - each increment larger in energy terms than the total output of our nuclear power establishment or 20% of our total electrical power consumption.

Basically, I believe the strategy I outlined is necessary even with these considerations in mind.

Thank you. It is something I have thought about a great deal.

BTW the various web sites of the U.S. Dept. of Energy provide a very interesting breakdown of U.S. energy production & use by market sector. Unfortunately their tables reflect only the use of domestically produced energy - you have to go to other sites to get equivalent data on imports - which of course are mostly of petroleum and (lately) natural gas (though we do import a good deal of hydroelectrical power from Canada to serve Northeastern markets).

Interestingly domestic production of petroleum is (2005 data) almost exactly equal to the consumption in our chemical and plastics industries, meaning that virtually all of the petroleum used on our highways - effectively every drop - is imported --- a huge and growing drain on our trade balance, and the chief source of increases in our GHG emissions..

if we did stay in a petroleum economy and developed the ntar sands and "oil" shales, wed have to convert to a 90% diesel economy. But the good news is, that without destroying more than about 200 square miles of dry basin, wed have enough diesl for about 400 years (at present rate of yearly increase) What with economies and various electrical conversion means, we could have enough diesel for a millenium.

We can make plastics from elm bark, all we need is to polymerize and wed have it. Industrial plastics like EPDM or HDPE would, of course need to be made by oil feedstocks.



As we begin to explore algae and its fatty acids, we can utilize the sea to to produce our needs in plastics, fuels , and really gross algae smoothies