73
   

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

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:00 pm
High Seas, developing the oil resources in the entire Arctic region is now becoming a hot topic, including who will be doing it. Oil is called "black gold" for a very good reason. And even if $80 per barrel is anywhere close to production cost, which is only conjecture on your part I think, price is nearly double that now.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:04 pm
I don't do "conjecture", Okie, I got the facts. Please read posts before commenting.

I'll be in Tokyo for a while not posting - happy 4th of July to all of you.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:15 pm
There is an article in the AAPG Explorer concerning the Arctic. See Page 48 of the following link:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2008/07jul/07julExplorer08.pdf

Also, there are interesting articles on several of the hot shale plays around the country. In the same issue as linked above. Also this link goes to the same issue:

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:26 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
miniTAX wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am a strong supporter of nuclear as well as other renewable technologies; were I provided with other options for my power generation, I would take them. In fact, though I cannot control the power usage at my place of business, I voluntarily pay a higher rate for my home power usage in order to subsidize the local wind generation facilities.

Appealing to Extremes is a poor form of argumentation.

Cycloptichorn

Saying that burning fossil fuels cause pollution IS a poor form of argumentation. Because demonizing something while not mentionning its benefits is biased reasonning.

Everybody loves to have an energy without pollution. But like free lunch, there is no such thing.
And if it ever existed, the pollution-free integrists would shoot themselves in the foot since an energy without pollution would encourage to waste MORE of it, mostly among the richest who can afford to "voluntarily pay a higher rate" who happens to be also the most wasteful ones (check out the numbers, the richer you are, how "green" you are, the more you consume energy , that's an inconvenient fact).

Eh he, take pause and ponder, something must be wrong in the logic house of cards.


This is so true. And even if the final product produces 'clean' energy, there is no way to get from the idea to that 'clean' energy without some polluting processes in between and also in the delivery system. Also, it seems logical that energy source "A" that is more polluting but highly efficient may be in the long term be more enviromentally economical than energy source "B" that is less polluting but also less efficient.


I would like you to point out which energy source "A" actually exists; certainly you are not maintaining that burning of fossil fuels is highly efficient? For it is not. The internal combustion engine is highly inefficient and only a small fraction of the power inherent within actually makes it to the wheels. Large amounts of pollution are in fact indicative of low efficiencies, not the opposite. The only thing that combustibles have going for them is portability. Better battery technology is going to take care of that soon enough.

If producing energy is 'clean' enough, and there is a large enough source available - say, a sun which never goes out, or tides which never stop moving, or wind which never stops blowing, or radioactive decay which never stops decaying, or geothermal which never stops providing heat - then it doesn't matter if people use more and more of it. In fact, it's encouraged. The amount of energy available to a society is a limiting factor in both their technological and social development. The more, the better. Also, with many renewable technologies such as solar and wind, the localized nature of power generation leads to MUCH less loss of efficiency due to transmission.

We will never be able to cut out all pollution; and nobody is claiming that we will, or that we should even try. But we can reduce it greatly from our current wasteful ways.

Quote:
Eh he, take pause and ponder, something must be wrong in the logic house of cards.


I don't think you could logic your way out of a paper bag. Your posts certainly don't display a deep understanding of the logic behind power generation and the measurements of efficiency and pollution associated with them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:36 pm
You are attributing a post to me that I didn't make Cyclop. That isn't cool.

I will leave it to others to explain how petroleum based fuels are or are not efficient when compared to practical alternate sources of energy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:37 pm
I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that the final quote was written by Minitax. It is included in the text box/quote history above in the post, and just copied and pasted from there.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
You are attributing a post to me that I didn't make Cyclop. That isn't cool.

I will leave it to others to explain how petroleum based fuels are or are not efficient when compared to practical alternate sources of energy.


As for this, other then portability, petroleum based fuels are in fact very inefficient, I think you will find. Whereas electric motors are quite efficient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Highest_20Efficiency_20Electric_20Motor

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:42 pm
okie wrote:
High Seas, developing the oil resources in the entire Arctic region is now becoming a hot topic, including who will be doing it. Oil is called "black gold" for a very good reason. And even if $80 per barrel is anywhere close to production cost, which is only conjecture on your part I think, price is nearly double that now.


I would like to hear more of HighSeas reasoning on ANWR, hopefully in layman's terms, when she returns. I'm getting her drift but not the basis for her reasoning.

But if $80/bbl oil is the deal breaker on what is profitable, $80 looks a far sight better to me than $143/bbl and rising.

I was listening to a commentary yesterday on this and it doesn't matter how long it would take to become more or all self-sufficient re our petroleum needs. It would have a resounding and positive effect for us to just begin the process to do so. This would send a large and loud signal to OPEC and others who are used to a USA that wimpishly accepts whatever others choose to throw at it. They would no longer see us the same way or take us for granted. The informed opinion was that the announcement of a self-sufficiency policy that includes supplying all our own petroleum needs would significantly bring the oil prices down now.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 01:03 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to hear more of HighSeas reasoning on ANWR, hopefully in layman's terms, when she returns. I'm getting her drift but not the basis for her reasoning.

But if $80/bbl oil is the deal breaker on what is profitable, $80 looks a far sight better to me than $143/bbl and rising.

Agreed, and I didn't mean to offend High Seas by stating that $80 per barrel is conjecture. I think we have the technology, and it is improving all the time, to produce oil from some of the most hostile environments on earth, and I don't see why ANWR would be much different than Prudhoe Bay. It will be a job to build the necessary pipelines, and given the environmental regulations sure to govern all of what is done there, I think the cost will be high. However, we now live in a time when tar sands are being produced, so any sizeable conventional oil reservoir no matter how hostile should likely be economic.

There is not much doubt in my mind that ANWR will eventually be drilled and produced, if the oil actually turns out to be there as projected, but price and scarcity may need to get worse than what it is now.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 01:45 pm
I think it obvious now that those opposing the federal government ending its prohibition of oil drilling in ANWR and in many other crude oil rich domestic locations, are seeking to reduce America's total consumption. Their argument against drilling in ANWR is that by itself it won't solve our total energy problem. Their argument is obviously a stupid argument. They employ this stupid argument nonetheless because their true objective is cutting America's per capita consumption of everything to levels equal to that of the rest of the world. They pursue this objective to placate the world's envious rather than aid people who have less emulate those who have more. They pursue their objective either because they are unable to see that achievement of their objective will produce a worldwide, totalitarian tyrannical collective, or because they actually seek a George Orwell style, worldwide, totalitarian tyrannical collective.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 01:57 pm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496500652721955.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

Quote:
City of Houston Gives Wind Power a Turn
By Jeffrey Ball

HOUSTON -- The heart of the U.S. oil patch on Tuesday began using wind-powered electricity for about a fourth of its municipal power needs at a lower price than it is paying for power produced from coal and natural gas, city officials said.

The move shows how renewable energy's prospects are improving at a time of soaring fossil-fuel prices. Long derided as an expensive niche, wind power now is moving closer to the mainstream.


How can this possibly be? You bunch have been asserting for quite some time that wind will never be price competitive with fossil fuels....

I guess it's the Orwellian Houston city government making up lies or something in an attempt to further the Tyrannical Collective.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:01 pm
High Seas wrote:
From the new issue of Foreign Affairs

Quote:
Rapidly rising oil prices have revived the debate over domestic oil production, including the controversial issue of drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In the July/August 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, Amory and L. Hunter Lovins argued that drilling in ANWR was risky, unnecessary, and a distraction from the real energy debate. With gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon, Republican presidential candidate John McCain now favors domestic offshore oil drilling but remains committed to keeping ANWR off limits. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and many Republican legislators have called for opening ANWR. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opposes drilling offshore and in ANWR on the grounds that it would have little impact on gas prices.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/e_newsltr/current.html

I've spent many a miserable day freezing in Fort McMurray, Beaufort Sea, and - most recently - Sakhalin oil installations and I don't see how ANWR would be economical, at a marginal cost of $80/bbl in 2008 prices, even if the wildly optimistic max prob projections in the year 2008 come to be realized. That's even before allowing for flora and fauna involved.
.

You cite a testimony of Amory Lovins, a green guy who has sold for 30 years the idea that renewable will one day become competitive, saying (in 2001 !) ANWR is unecessary. That's crazy ! Why don't ask a vegetarian about the merits of read meat ?

Likewise, keeping claiming ANWR marginal cost would be higher than $80/b, without any sustanciated argument, won't make the claim more true.

The EIA has made geological and economical assessment of ANWR. Its realist scenario for ANWR is exploitation conditions and production price similar to Prudhoe Bay, which is quite plausible considering the proximity of the 2 locations.

It stastes that : "The USGS economic analysis of the ANWR 1002 Area calculates that once oil has been discovered, more than 80 percent of the technically recoverable oil is commercially developable at an oil price of $25 per barrel. " (source : http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/analysisdiscussion.html )


The 80 $/b level is totally unrealistic and unsupported ("malarkey" ?). It can't be true, no way.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:07 pm
And on a related note....
Quote:


Bush urges drilling of wildlife
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496500652721955.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

How can this possibly be? You bunch have been asserting for quite some time that wind will never be price competitive with fossil fuels....

I guess it's the Orwellian Houston city government making up lies or something in an attempt to further the Tyrannical Collective.

Cycloptichorn
In God we trust, all others must show their numbers.
For the moment, you have shown no such thing CH, only wishfull thinking.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:14 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121496500652721955.html?mod=hps_us_editors_picks

How can this possibly be? You bunch have been asserting for quite some time that wind will never be price competitive with fossil fuels....

I guess it's the Orwellian Houston city government making up lies or something in an attempt to further the Tyrannical Collective.

Cycloptichorn
In God we trust, all others must show their numbers.
For the moment, you have shown nothing CH, accept wishfull thinking.


t'were the rest of the article not behind a pay-wall, I would be more then happy to do so. The fact is, however, that the city of Houston IS using the wind power for a significant percentage of their needs.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:15 pm
How reliable are windturbines as a sorce of electric power 24/7/52 (i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year)?
Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478305702714467.html?mod=sphere_ts&mod=sphere_wd

Indian Wind-Turbine Firm Hits Turbulence
By Tom Wright
Word Count: 822 | Companies Featured in This Article: Deere, Vestas, General Electric, Edison International
NEW DELHI -- The grand U.S. ambitions of Indian wind-turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy Ltd. are facing mounting problems.

The Indian company -- the world's fifth-largest wind-turbine maker by sales -- earlier this year acknowledged that 65 giant blades on turbines it had sold in the U.S. Midwest were cracking because of the extreme gusts in the region. The company is reinforcing 1,251 blades, almost the total it has sold in the U.S.

Now, other problems are emerging, in part because the company quickly ramped up U.S. sales to meet burgeoning demand for alternative energy.

How reliable are Houston's windturbines 24/7/52?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:18 pm
ican711nm wrote:
How reliable are windturbines as a sorce of electric power 24/7/52 (i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year)?
Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121478305702714467.html?mod=sphere_ts&mod=sphere_wd

Indian Wind-Turbine Firm Hits Turbulence
By Tom Wright
Word Count: 822 | Companies Featured in This Article: Deere, Vestas, General Electric, Edison International
NEW DELHI -- The grand U.S. ambitions of Indian wind-turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy Ltd. are facing mounting problems.

The Indian company -- the world's fifth-largest wind-turbine maker by sales -- earlier this year acknowledged that 65 giant blades on turbines it had sold in the U.S. Midwest were cracking because of the extreme gusts in the region. The company is reinforcing 1,251 blades, almost the total it has sold in the U.S.

Now, other problems are emerging, in part because the company quickly ramped up U.S. sales to meet burgeoning demand for alternative energy.

How reliable are Houston's windturbines 24/7/52?


Reliable enough that it is powering a major portion of the city's energy needs.

You'll be arguing against this no matter how successful it turns out to be, won't you? The next few years should be pretty fun in this thread, as more and more evidence proves you and other oil fanatics to have been completely wrong about the future of renewable technologies.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:21 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

t'were the rest of the article not behind a pay-wall, I would be more then happy to do so. The fact is, however, that the city of Houston IS using the wind power for a significant percentage of their needs.

Cycloptichorn
Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal. For it to become cheaper than coal, the city of Houston must have made a huge (and secret) innovation either in windmill technlogy, or in public accounting :wink:
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:24 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You'll be arguing against this no matter how successful it turns out to be, won't you? The next few years should be pretty fun in this thread, as more and more evidence proves you and other oil fanatics to have been completely wrong about the future of renewable technologies.

Cycloptichorn
No no, everybody would love to learn wind is cheaper than coal. We just need to see the data.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 02:25 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

t'were the rest of the article not behind a pay-wall, I would be more then happy to do so. The fact is, however, that the city of Houston IS using the wind power for a significant percentage of their needs.

Cycloptichorn
Wind power kWh is 3 to 4 times more expensive than coal. For it to become cheaper than coal, the city of Houston must have made a huge (and secret) innovation either in windmill technlogy, or in public accounting :wink:


Well, let's see. On one hand, we have the city - who did institute the program - making assertions, and on the other, we have YOU making assertions; which one is correct?

Surely you understand that your track record on this thread does not really add weight to your assertions? Whereas the city did, in fact, purchase the wind power to use?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 03:51:12