Ya ever notice ...

[jimpeel]

That these politicians who are against drilling, shale oil, ANWR, etc always use the same old tired argument?

Twelve years ago, they said that ANWR would not produce a single drop of oil for ten years. That means if they hadn't stood in the way at that time ANWR would have been producing for two years already.

Now they claim that shale oil will not produce a drop of oil for seven years. That could as easily be said tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, and the day after, ad nauseum.

However, the day after they start drilling in ANWR they won't be able to claim this. What they can say is that ANWR will not produce a single drop of oil for nine years, 364 days; and the day after nine years, 363 days; and the day after nine years, 362 days; and the day after nine years, 361 days; and the day after nine years, 360 days; and they can keep saying it for the next 3,650 days.

Likewise with shale oil.

Politicians are so enamored of sound bite platitudes like "Any journey starts with but a single step"; "It's a good first step"; It is better to light one candle than curse the darkness", etc. Yet this time they just can't see the forest for the trees.

The great claim against offshore drilling is the threat of oil spills. Yet the largest source of oil spills worldwide is from natural seepage.

Video article on natural seepage

Video article on offshore drilling and natural seepage

 

[spike]

According to this the biggest oil pollution comes from discarded oil.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6D7143EF933A05752C0A966958260

 

[Gonz]

With all that pollution, it's a damn good thing we're using carbon. The CO2 being emitted, feeding millions of healthy plants, will offset the plants that can't photosynthesize

 

[jimpeel]

According to this the biggest oil pollution comes from discarded oil.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6D7143EF933A05752C0A966958260

That would be part of the 32% that is contributed by consumers. Did you view the video and see the pie chart?

Sources of oil in the ocean

Offshore drilling 1%
Transportation 4%
Consumers 32%
Natural seepage = 63%

 

[2minkey]

i've been having some serious issues with natural seepage.

the larger problem here is not whether greenies get upset about drilling around the rare endangered spotted plooking owl. personally i could give two shits where they drill for oil.

the real problem is seeing the forest through the trees of what makes immediate economic sense v long-term economic sense. and that means getting the hell away from oil and not being held economic hostage by third-world creeps, not having to dump a shitload of money patrolling the world, and not making ourselves such an easy target for the outrage of random assholes the world over.

i'm encouraged by mccain's interest in nuke power. i'd rather hear discussions of that than watch obama cuddle up to the greens.

 

[Gonz]

Oil is an absolute. We hear talk about it being 3, 6, 7, 10 years out before drilling in the US will produce results. Those numbers are bogus, made-up scare tactic mathematics. However, since we don't have sufficient R&D into alterntives to oil, what the hell are we supposed to do in the meantime?

Drill, now. Meanwhile, show a consumer audience for alternatives & there will be investments toward that. Until recently, there hasn't been a viable market. It takes an emergency to get people to act. The inventors & the market need to coincide.

 

[spike]

the real problem is seeing the forest through the trees of what makes immediate economic sense v long-term economic sense. and that means getting the hell away from oil and not being held economic hostage by third-world creeps, not having to dump a shitload of money patrolling the world, and not making ourselves such an easy target for the outrage of random assholes the world over.

i'm encouraged by mccain's interest in nuke power. i'd rather hear discussions of that than watch obama cuddle up to the greens.

Nuke plants take decades to build and have their own set of problems. Wind and solar are more efficient.

 

[spike]

Drill, now. Meanwhile, show a consumer audience for alternatives & there will be investments toward that. Until recently, there hasn't been a viable market. It takes an emergency to get people to act. The inventors & the market need to coincide.

It has little to do with the market or consumer. Utility companies need to be pressured to use more renewable energy or cities need to take over control of their energy needs and do it themselves.

 

[jimpeel]

If the cap and trade idiocy comes to being we may see electrical utilities simply shut down for one or two days a week rather than pay the fines and trade costs. If it is cheaper to lose the profit than to lose the profit plus additional funds then I would shut down in a New York minute if I owned one.

It will take extreme measures such as that to wake people up.

 

[2minkey]

It will take extreme measures such as that to wake people up.

and yet we persist in calling ourselves rational.

 

[jimpeel]

A video segment on how the enviros are trying to shut down what offshore resources we do have available.

VIDEO LINK

 

[Gonz]

Wind and solar are more efficient.

How long do they take?

Utility companies need to be pressured to use more renewable energy or cities need to take over control of their energy needs and do it themselves.

Why would a functioning utility change their bread & butter? If you (the collective version) want wind or solar, go doi it yourself. I bet you can use PG&Es coal generated electricity to do it.

Why would you want the government taking over a utility?

 

[Frodo]

Here is my question for Obama. How high do we have to raise taxes (on the oil companies) before gas is cheap?

They say that the oil companies are making obscene profits (although I don't think that 10% is all that much) so congress is going to ride in and tax the hell out of them. Isn't that like pulling a gun on a mugger that just beat the crap out of someone, taking all cash from him, and then saying "you're welcome" as you step over the victim and walk away?

 

[Gonz]

Here is my question for Obama. How high do we have to raise taxes (on the oil companies) before gas is cheap?

Name the last corporation to pay taxes. I'd bet all new taxes imposed upon Shell/Exxon/Mobil......will put them on that same list.

 

[jimpeel]

Here is my question for Obama. How high do we have to raise taxes (on the oil companies) before gas is cheap?

They say that the oil companies are making obscene profits (although I don't think that 10% is all that much) so congress is going to ride in and tax the hell out of them. Isn't that like pulling a gun on a mugger that just beat the crap out of someone, taking all cash from him, and then saying "you're welcome" as you step over the victim and walk away?

Read THIS THREAD and you will know. It ain't only the oil companies they are coming after.

 

[spike]

How long do they take?

Not long at all.

Why would a functioning utility change their bread & butter?

Environmental responsibility.

If you (the collective version) want wind or solar, go doi it yourself. I bet you can use PG&Es coal generated electricity to do it.

Right, more cities should take over their own energy needs.

Why would you want the government taking over a utility?

becuase community choice energy can provide cheaper and more reliable power and allow communities to rapidly move towards renewable energy.

 

[spike]

Here is my question for Obama. How high do we have to raise taxes (on the oil companies) before gas is cheap?

They say that the oil companies are making obscene profits (although I don't think that 10% is all that much) so congress is going to ride in and tax the hell out of them. Isn't that like pulling a gun on a mugger that just beat the crap out of someone, taking all cash from him, and then saying "you're welcome" as you step over the victim and walk away?

Your comparison doesn't work in the least. You realize oil companies are given gigantic subsidies from your tax dollars right now?

 

[Professur]

Wow, classic lies, damn lies and statistics.

Spike, a recent study in the UK shows the inherent problem with wind power. Frequently, there's no wind, or too much. They tried stretching out the computer model using meteorological data from the past decades with ever increasing grid sizes, and you know what they discovered? Contrary to common belief, if the wind is blowing in London, it probably is all over england. If it isn't blowing in London, it likely isn't blowing anywhere in England either. Increasing the grid size actually repeated the pattern. If it wasn't blowing in London, Glasgow wasn't likely to be getting any either. They even tried adding germany to the grid ... same results. They're investing billions of the taxpayers money anyways.

It was in the BBC news and I sadly can't find the article (outside their keep dates), but I'm sure I'm not the only one to read it.

 

[Inkara1]

I think it's somewhere in the 35-mph range that is the limit for a wind power generator, and they have brakes to limit how fast they turn when the wind is blowing faster than that.

 

[Professur]

I think it's somewhere in the 35-mph range that is the limit for a wind power generator, and they have brakes to limit how fast they turn when the wind is blowing faster than that.

Under 10, they're too slow to be used (frequency too low) and above what ever top speed they're rated for (varies) the vanes are turned out to stop it as opposed to dragging brakes. Brakes are only used to lock it down, not to slow it.