Coal to Oil

Gonz said:
Okay you science & money geeks, what's the downfall of this issue (besides the initial costs).
Click to expand...
(same as bio fuels...)...
The oil brokers won't make as much money?:shrug:

From what I see, the oil companies have more money, and whoever has the most
money, squashes the competition.
That's why we don't have cars and stuff that will run on water now. (in mass production)
 
Coal has higher discharge quantities ... including airborn mercury. But the technologies are mostly in place to control those already. Coal is cheaper since there's very little refining to do, but oil extracts and transports easier, recuding final cost some.
 
In fact, as the price of oil goes up you'll see more and more of these alternative production methods being used. Simple economics, use the cheapest method available.

Cat, it's a bit more involved than the oil companies having the most money (you're right though, they do). The global economy is based on oil. Changing the basis for the global economy isn't pretty. Can you say WWI and II? I knew that you could.
 
There's no mention of the environmental impacts of extraction of coal et al, which includes strip-mining, leeching, etc.. The water-table in some of the places mentioned (including Montana) are already messed up because of past mining. Hell, some rivers and aquifers have 2X the salts as in the ocean.
 
When it comes down to actually needing that oil Bish, what do you expect to happen?
 
chcr said:
When it comes down to actually needing that oil Bish, what do you expect to happen?
Click to expand...
I expect that they'll wait until the very last second..claim they didn't have time to find alternative sources, and begin with the strip-mining. :shrug:
Followed a few years later by the citizens living in those areas complaining about the pollution, water supplies, deforestation etc..:hippy:
then a reply by the GVT saying that its up to the mining companies to clean up, :shrug:
then a message from the companies saying that they can't afford to cleanup,:eek5:
then the local GVT being forced to cleanup, refusing to do so because THEY can't afford it either...:shrug:
finally, the GVT will either pay for the cleanup using tax-dollars or they'll sweep it under the rug and hope it goes away. :shrug:

Pretty much the same as has been going on re: mining for over 100 years.*handonhip
 
Bish ... nice retoric ... again. But once again, you've only been listening to the side that says what you want to hear. for the record, coal mining has been cleaning up it's act quite well for the last three decades. Much mining isn't done by strip at all. If the seam is deep, as most new found seams are, strip mining isn't feasable, or economical. The new tech is to use robotic diggers, controlled by tether by a human operative who stays well away from the face. The minimum surrounding damage is done .... simply cos it doesn't save any more money to damage it. And mines are habitually collapsed behind the work, preventing any toxins.

But your point about toxins introduced to the environment is a good one. 'Cept that it's not only coal. Any mine can and does introduce foreign substances to the environment. Iron, nickel, gold, silver, bauxite, copper .... all poison the surroundings to some extent. Take a drive up to the gold mines of Vad d'Or and look at how there's nothing growing on the tallus mounds. Oil drilling does the same. But, at the same time .... drilling a water well also introduces it's own problems. Bacteria gain access to virgin aquifiers. Draining aquafiers causes water to leach faster out of the surrounding ground, increasing the mineral contimination.
 
Professur said:
Bish ... nice retoric ... again. But once again, you've only been listening to the side that says what you want to hear..
Click to expand...
Not really...the cost of clean mining techniques is the point. Its the reason why the oil-sands in Canada haven't been 'mined' as extensively as they could be. The cost of extracting oil from tar-pits, sand etc..would overbalance the costs of buying oil from abroad, regardless of the threat of being 'held hostage by potentially hostile nations'. The money issue would come into play again.
North American consumers could pay the equivalent of $70/barrel for crude from overseas or $100-150/barrel for extracted oil taken locally. Not even counting fringe costs from the cleanup into the equation. The pocketbook wins every time.

A) oil from overseas continues to flow as it is until exhausted
B) North Americans get used to higher prices at the pumps in exchange for a modicum of security - oil from the Middle-East is sold to another buyer (China)
C) Another source of energy can be found, in which case oil-dependance ceases to be an issue - ditto
D) I can't think of another option right now.

It's pretty fucked, but I think that anyone who thinks that this proposal
is viable socially... well :trippy:

I think that option A will be employed until either C or B happens *whichever comes first*

~for the record...Metals mining, especially for gold, is pretty fucking bad..possibly worst than coal mining or tar-sand seeping.
 
It's not jsut cost where the tarsands are concerned. It's tech. It's only been even feasible to extract any volume of oil from them in the last 15 years. Prior to that, it was pretty much "haul and wash sand, skim oil from top of water, recycle water. Today's production is easily 10 times that. But it's still a long way from Drill and Pump volumes.
 
MrBishop said:
Nah... 1,000 years ago, nobody was complaining about or asking for the cleanup of former or actual mines.
Click to expand...

I'm betting the folks who lived nearby complained just as much. Stuff like that doesn't get written down in the history books, Bish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top