Discussion: Alternative Energy

Malice

BMFH
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
12,734
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I know on of the biggest things with this election is Energy Independence.

Here is my two cents...
I see this in two parts

Short Term and Long Term

Short Term
I think the US needed to start drilling in Alaska. This is a short term solution, nothing more. This will help get us from importing 99.9% of our oil for a time.
Also, we need to build new Nuclear, Solar and Wind.

While this is done, we are putting government money into serious projects to research alternative clean renewable power.

Long Term
Simply put this is only achieved when we get a new alternative power will we be able to cut out the oil, nuclear, solar and wind plants for something more all inclusive.
 
I agree. We need to fund Hydro electric Fuel Cells for Cars, and invest in Nuclear.
 
I have always found it funny, that we generally import most of our oil from people we would never invite to our own house for fear they might try to kill us or possibly sit there and talk bad about me.

That to me makes a small point.
 
I'm all for destroying foreign oil dependence, but it's not going to happen. I want nothing more than to see the destruction of the Saud government, especially.
 
I'd rather see the drilling happen quite a ways off shore from Florida where there are HUGE oil deposits just waiting to be pulled up, than I would in Alaska which is one of the very last true pristine wildernesses on the planet, especially of it's particular variety. But Jeb Bush and his brother have gone out of their way to make sure that won't happen, at least in the immediate future.

Long-term, there are some amazing advances being made in hydrogen fuels, wind and solar power, and even water-based fusion technologies (search for "Water Powered Car" on Youtube or Google Videos). The big oil and big auto cabal has worked with their buddies in government to stifle and squelch these technologies in any way they can, including buying them out and burying them or claiming patents they don't really deserve and putting the inventors of those technologies out of business and preventing them from developing things further. It's almost criminal and as long as the big energy companies and auto makers are allowed to call the shots like they have, we will forever be reliant on oil from other countries to survive.

jag
 
I know on of the biggest things with this election is Energy Independence.

Here is my two cents...
I see this in two parts

Short Term and Long Term

Short Term
I think the US needed to start drilling in Alaska. This is a short term solution, nothing more. This will help get us from importing 99.9% of our oil for a time.
Also, we need to build new Nuclear, Solar and Wind.

While this is done, we are putting government money into serious projects to research alternative clean renewable power.

Long Term
Simply put this is only achieved when we get a new alternative power will we be able to cut out the oil, nuclear, solar and wind plants for something more all inclusive.

:up: :yay:
 
I'd rather see the drilling happen quite a ways off shore from Florida where there are HUGE oil deposits just waiting to be pulled up, than I would in Alaska which is one of the very last true pristine wildernesses on the planet, especially of it's particular variety. But Jeb Bush and his brother have gone out of their way to make sure that won't happen, at least in the immediate future.

Long-term, there are some amazing advances being made in hydrogen fuels, wind and solar power, and even water-based fusion technologies (search for "Water Powered Car" on Youtube or Google Videos). The big oil and big auto cabal has worked with their buddies in government to stifle and squelch these technologies in any way they can, including buying them out and burying them or claiming patents they don't really deserve and putting the inventors of those technologies out of business and preventing them from developing things further. It's almost criminal and as long as the big energy companies and auto makers are allowed to call the shots like they have, we will forever be reliant on oil from other countries to survive.

jag

There is oil off the coast of California...they wont allow drilling to...
So for me, its "allows us to drill" or stop complaining about the oil prices
 
There is oil off the coast of California...they wont allow drilling to...
So for me, its "allows us to drill" or stop complaining about the oil prices
Same as Florida. Even though Cuba is letting China Drill for oil 90 miles away from Florida, the Florida Citizens are a against it. DRILL DAMMIT!
 
Absolutely...my comment on drilling in Alaska is not just for Alaska, for the short term, we need to drill everywhere we can get oil....hoping that will help us ...then in the long run, we find a perfect alternative fuel...
 
i've always hoped we could power the United States with John Stamos super powered hair gel.
 
... Or Steven Seagal's super powered methane deposits.




.
.
.
.



On a serious note:

- The use and expansion of Geothermal plants near active volcanic regions... http://www.geo-energy.org/information/plants.asp

- Intensive global, native research on renewable energy sources, coming from biodegradable wastes and garbage disposals to natural materials made of coconut lumber, rubber trees and charcoal briquettes... etc.


The use of oil has always been the only mechanical energy source for the past 110 + years, ever since the first automobile cranked its engines to 10 mph. So this is going to be quite an overhaul - to put it lightly - for the entire economy, and for the daily routine habits of 300 million people. Therefore we must take the first solid step, because we are on a very, very long journey to energy Independence.



Mighty interesting to have the anti-oil renewable energy debate again, resurrected way back from the 1970's. :up:
 
As for california and Florida, im all for it...

aslaska makes no sense. there is not much oil up in alaska to warrant opening up the refuge. i think current estimates are at 10 billion barrels, or 18 months of self suficiency.

honestly i think that pocket should be saved for real threat of war. imagine if the places we went to war with in the future had many of our oil suppliers as allies?? we'd have a problem.


Americans could reduce oil consumption far more than Alaska can produce oil, simply by eliminating the SUV's commercial vehicle exemptions from fuel efficiency standards, and by developing hybrid technologies, and by aggressively raising fuel efficiency requirements.

also... tax breaks for people building underground, and earth bermed homes... Solar planning for new houses, new insulated windows for houses, heating programs, investments in current alternative energies like solar wind and hydro... applying fiber optic solar lighting for public buildings and schools, and on and on and on....

the sad reality is, if we opened alaska up prices wouldnt change much. so the inconsiquential action woud leave us vulnerable, and wouldn't help current energy crisis.

i think the best motivator is price... as the prices keep going up, people will finaly start shutting off their lights, closing there doors and insulating there houses. the first step is getting our fellow Americans to actually think green, instead of thinking green is silly... and the only way to do that is to attack their green.

the second step is to embrace what alternative energies we have now, if you think a windmill is ugly then you are part of the problem.

and the final step is serious investment in future technology.
 
As for california and Florida, im all for it...

aslaska makes no sense. there is not much oil up in alaska to warrant opening up the refuge. i think current estimates are at 10 billion barrels, or 18 months of self suficiency.

honestly i think that pocket should be saved for real threat of war. imagine if the places we went to war with in the future had many of our oil suppliers as allies?? we'd have a problem.


Americans could reduce oil consumption far more than Alaska can produce oil, simply by eliminating the SUV's commercial vehicle exemptions from fuel efficiency standards, and by developing hybrid technologies, and by aggressively raising fuel efficiency requirements.

also... tax breaks for people building underground, and earth bermed homes... Solar planning for new houses, new insulated windows for houses, heating programs, investments in current alternative energies like solar wind and hydro... applying fiber optic solar lighting for public buildings and schools, and on and on and on....

the sad reality is, if we opened alaska up prices wouldnt change much. so the inconsiquential action woud leave us vulnerable, and wouldn't help current energy crisis.

i think the best motivator is price... as the prices keep going up, people will finaly start shutting off their lights, closing there doors and insulating there houses. the first step is getting our fellow Americans to actually think green, instead of thinking green is silly... and the only way to do that is to attack their green.

the second step is to embrace what alternative energies we have now, if you think a windmill is ugly then you are part of the problem.

and the final step is serious investment in future technology.
Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.
 
Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.

The problem is that if we open up Alaska, and prices fall, Americans will completely forget about the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. Then in 50 years, when the well runs dry, we'll be stuck where we are now. As someone posted above, as long as we're feeling it in our wallets, it will be a better motivator for us to demand change.
 
Fuel Cell cars ARE a real possibility. What we need is to build the Fuel Cell stations around the country. If we can establish that infrastructure, its a movement that can really take off.

If we make Hydrogen cars viable, we go a long way into solving our situation.
 
The problem is that if we open up Alaska, and prices fall, Americans will completely forget about the problem. Out of sight, out of mind. Then in 50 years, when the well runs dry, we'll be stuck where we are now. As someone posted above, as long as we're feeling it in our wallets, it will be a better motivator for us to demand change.

Not if the other energy sources and funded and written into law to phase out in time
 
Fuel Cell cars ARE a real possibility. What we need is to build the Fuel Cell stations around the country. If we can establish that infrastructure, its a movement that can really take off.

If we make Hydrogen cars viable, we go a long way into solving our situation.

I like the way you think, sir. :up:

Also, we're seeing some HUGE innovations in cheap solar panels and vertical axis wind turbines that are intended for residential use. They would power people's houses and then pump the excess electricity back into the grid, effectively turning the local power company into a power broker that would be in the business of selling the excess energy off to places that need it but don't have their own way of generating it, for large cities that require a lot of power, or for commercial application. They wouldn't be a utility company anymore; a complete change in business purpose for them, using their current infrastructure. This would get us off of oil for heating and power in homes and businesses. I've even seen ideas of putting these vertical access wind turbines on top of existing power lines since they are so small and innocuous and safe for birds, essentially turning our current power line infrastructure into wind farms without detracting from the current landscape.

jag
 
I like the way you think, sir. :up:

Also, we're seeing some HUGE innovations in cheap solar panels and vertical axis wind turbines that are intended for residential use. They would power people's houses and then pump the excess electricity back into the grid, effectively turning the local power company into a power broker that would be in the business of selling the excess energy off to places that need it but don't have their own way of generating it, for large cities that require a lot of power, or for commercial application. They wouldn't be a utility company anymore; a complete change in business purpose for them, using their current infrastructure. This would get us off of oil for heating and power in homes and businesses. I've even seen ideas of putting these vertical access wind turbines on top of existing power lines since they are so small and innocuous and safe for birds, essentially turning our current power line infrastructure into wind farms without detracting from the current landscape.

jag

Exactly. :up:

Honestly, this should be the ONE issue to unite everyone. Liberals have the motive of the environment. Conservatives have the motive of cutting off dependence on the Middle East. If we could combine the fund-raising teams of both ideologies we could not see change, but see it in the fairly near future. The technology is already hear to make the difference we need.
 
Exactly. :up:

Honestly, this should be the ONE issue to unite everyone. Liberals have the motive of the environment. Conservatives have the motive of cutting off dependence on the Middle East. If we could combine the fund-raising teams of both ideologies we could not see change, but see it in the fairly near future. The technology is already hear to make the difference we need.

And the interesting thing is that the investment required to put up solar panels and wind turbines as well as establish power cell and hydrogen station infrastructure is FAR less that it would be to just go drill for and refine oil. It's just the big business oil and auto industry a-holes getting in everyone's way on this and the politicians that cater to them. :down

jag
 
Not if the other energy sources and funded and written into law to phase out in time

I don't see that happening until all the lobbyists are out of Washington. You're plan is a two part plan. Drill for oil in Alaska WHILE we start phasing out our dependence on oil. Oil lobbyists will lobby hard to keep out laws to phase out our need for oil, and enviromentalists will never go for the idea of opening Alaska for drilling. I hate to sound so cynical. Politics has done that to me.
 
America should have gotten off oil 20 years ago,but big oil companies did not allow that to happen. Now it needs to be taken care of,because other countries want oil and America consumes the most of it. Weather they want to or not,their supply will be cut down.

Common sence is hydro,wind or gas. There is plenty of that and i think those are unlimited supplies. Nuclear is too unstable,sad to say it's there..but i don't think it should be expanded.
 
America should have gotten off oil 20 years ago,but big oil companies did not allow that to happen. Now it needs to be taken care of,because other countries want oil and America consumes the most of it. Weather they want to or not,their supply will be cut down.

Common sence is hydro,wind or gas. There is plenty of that and i think those are unlimited supplies. Nuclear is too unstable,sad to say it's there..but i don't think it should be expanded.

The problem with wind power is that less than .2% of our power comes from wind turbines. So it will take a long time and a huge investment to explore wind power as a viable alternative to coal and oil. Hydro power would be fine, except you either need a water fall or you have to dam up a river, which would create a plethora of new environmental problems. Gas power is just as problematic as coal and oil. It costs a lot to produce, and the environmental effects can be just as bad as the other two.

America needs to reinvest in nuclear power. It isn't as unstable as everyone makes it out to be, and while nuclear power has the potential to be devastating... there's a greater chance you'll be struck by lightning four times in your life than there is a chance that a nuclear reactor will melt down. The problem with nuclear energy is the waste. Most of it is stored on site; but some of it ends up in undesirable locations, which once again creates a nasty effect on the surrounding eco-system. But nuclear power makes the most sense because we've already invested a lot of time into developing strong nuclear plants nationwide. We have a country-wide program in use today. So it only makes sense to explore nuclear power as a true alternative to coal and gas power, if only as a short term solution, while exploring something far more viable and sustainable-- whether that solution involves nuclear fusion or mining helium-3 off the surface of the moon.

As for other solutions... we ought to face the fact that we don't have a real alternative to oil. Ethanol isn't a real solution because it costs more and uses so much more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol, and it leaves the same effect on the environment as oil does. Not to mention we'd be depleting our food supply to produce ethanol en masse. We ought to explore hydrogen fuel cell technology, while figuring out a way to raise the fuel economy on cars to 35-50 miles per gallon. Also, each automaker should be required to have at least one hybrid car available to the public.
 
Estimates show that there is 50 years worth of Oil in Alaska at our current Consumption Rate. If we were to get that oil AND find alternative sources we would be set.

link me please to this source... i have never seen confirmed reports of 50 years of supply.
 
A solution to our dependency on foreign oil may be in our own backyard:

BISMARCK, N.D. - The government estimated Thursday that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil can be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana, using current technology.

The U.S. Geological Survey called it the largest continuous oil accumulation it has ever assessed.

The Bakken Formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota, where the oil is trapped in a thin layer of dense rock nearly two miles beneath the surface. Companies use pressurized fluid and sand to break pores in the rock and prop them open to recover the oil.

North Dakota's entire oil production hit 137,000 barrels a day in January, the latest figures available. Industry officials believe the state's record production of 148,500 barrels a day, set in 1984, will be surpassed this year.

Donald Kessel, vice president of Houston-based Murex Petroleum Corp., said he believes the Geological Survey's assessment of how much oil can be recovered in the Bakken may be high.

"That's a lot of zeros," Kessel said Thursday.

Kessel said his company was the first to get a producing well in the Bakken in North Dakota three years ago. The company now has about 20 producing wells.

The report released Thursday by USGS was done at the request of Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., over the past 18 months.

A 1995 study by the USGS found 151 million barrels of oil could be recovered from the Bakken using technology at that time.

"This is great news," Dorgan said of the new report. "This is 25 times the amount of the previous assessment."

The assessment comes as U.S. crude production has fallen steadily over the past three decades, with rate of decline slowed — or offset — only slightly by production from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. That has led to increased imports. But as oil prices surged over the past few months, calls are mounting for a reduction in import dependence.

"Many of the previous oil discoveries in the U.S. have produced for a long while and are producing at lower levels now," Dorgan said. "This report comes at a time when we are desperately trying to be less dependent on Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries."

Oilmen have known for more than 50 years that the Bakken holds vast oil reserves, Kessel said. But the price has never pushed demand high enough to develop technology to capture the oil, he said.

According to Jim Ehrets, a Denver-based geologist with Headington Oil Co., of Dallas, it costs about $5 million to drill a well tapping the middle Bakken, and companies need crude prices of at least $50 a barrel to make it economical.

Even with crude prices now double that, "there still is a ton of risk," he said.

Oil companies began sharing technology about two years ago on how to recover the oil. The technology involves drilling vertically to about 10,000 feet, then "kicking out" for as many feet horizontally, while fracturing the rock to release the oil trapped in microscopic pores in the area known as the "middle" Bakken.

Initially, companies had kept their technology secret, said Ehrets.

"Everybody was protecting their results while the lease play was still going on," he said. "Once it had been pretty well saturated and not much left to lease, there was cooperation in sharing information.

"I can't remember in my entire career that kind of cooperation," said Ehrets, an oil man for nearly 30 years.

Headington, which is based in Dallas, has about 150 wells working in the Bakken — about 100 of them in Montana — with plans to drill at least 100 more, Ehrets said.

The Geological Survey said about 105 million barrels of oil have been produced from the Bakken through last year. The Elm Coulee oil field in eastern Montana, near the North Dakota border, has produced about 65 million barrels of the total, said Rich Pollastro, a USGS geologist.

The Elm Coulee field was discovered in 2000, he said.

The study released Thursday by USGS does not estimate how much oil may be in the Bakken — only what the agency believes can be recovered using current technology.

Thursday's report did not cover the Canadian portion of the Bakken. Pollastro said a 2000 assessment found only about 15 million barrels of recoverable oil in that area using traditional vertical drilling.

Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, said the number of wells in the Bakken in North Dakota increased from about 300 in 2006 to 457 at the end of last year.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,419
Messages
21,721,968
Members
45,549
Latest member
hasanharis904
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"