 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 25 Oct 01 - 01:03 PM Hybrid cars are probably a loss-leader for such manufacturers as Toyota and Honda. I keep thinking of investing in one. They are affordable but you can do cheaper in an equivalent non-hybrid vehicle. Also remember that a proper energy responsible economy will also make provision for its own waste products. I remember reading that BMW was analyzing all the elements going into its vehicles and how they would be removed/ recycled/ disposed of efficiently in future societies where nothing was produced without an accounting of its ultimate disposal. Hybrid vehicles bring more interesting elements to the mix. One of the more hazardous items of disposal is the common car battery. Imagine a future with much more massive battery disposal, and about a dozen different technologies among 'em, ditto for fuel cells, which will pose even more problems. This is where government should really be involved, developing a common standard to which all manufacturers of vehicles and products must adhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 22 Oct 01 - 05:48 PM Genie, Who would be willing to put those cars out on the road? I think that if there were a coalition of people, or groups, that otherwise pitch their money into the trying to compete with the Big Oil companies could do this. Like I said, if you came up with the figures to show how much it does improve peoples quality of life, then you have a weapon to use. Find out who holds the patents on these things and advertise what holds them back. Let people know and you have a huge backing, complain to a few senators and they don't care. You get their voters behind something, you will get more done. Just a thought. As far as middle income easily being able to afford it.... I must not be middle, I have to be low end then. I know full well I cannot afford it. I have looked into it before, and it is not cheap enough to be viable for me at this time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Genie Date: 21 Oct 01 - 11:58 PM Folks, I am not necessarily advocating govt. subsidies for wind, solar, and other clean, renewable engergies. Neither am I necessarily opposed to "social engineering." Mainly, I decry the hypocrisy of some so-called "conservatives" who fuss about "social engineering" but say nothing about the kinds of subsidies that exist for many big businesses such as ADM and many oil. timber, coal, and mining industries. If alternative, renewable energies would help us break our dependence on the middle east for energy and clean up our environment at the same time, I'm all in favor of government subsidies. But at least lets level the playing field. Yes, we do pay taxes on gas and oil, etc., but the government might make more off those and other industries if it didn't give them tax breaks and subsidize them in other ways like building logging roads.
Nobody, you say "... Instead of spending Millions of dollars on lobbyists, put ten thousand hybrid cars in LA. Have people trade in older gas guzzlers for them..."
Well-heeled but thrify people can and do make investments that pay off in the long run but involve big up front costs. Low income people usually can't afford to -- or at least don't think they can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 17 Oct 01 - 09:10 PM Bearheart: Sounds like a town worth visiting. Do you give tours? Robo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 16 Oct 01 - 03:14 PM Wow, Bearheart, thank you VERY much for such great information. Can we send you to Washington to speak to Congress?!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Bearheart Date: 16 Oct 01 - 11:59 AM I live in a small college town in SE Ohio, where people take ideas like sustainability seriously. It'a a rural area, traditionally mining, forestry and farming have been the main sources of income. In 1804 the first university in the Territory was built here, and it became a major emploer. This area has historically been economically depressed. Due to local activism that is changing. My husband and I just helped organize the first annual Athens Area Sustainability Fest. All exhibitors were local. Included were two companies promoting solar power (the day before, a tour of solar homes in the area was organized).If you realized how much cloud cover we get here annually you'd understand what this means, yet people can still economically utilize solar power here. Wind power and water power are also popular. Another company called Sunpower has developed a very efficient engine-- the Sterling engine,-- and a Sunpower subsidiary, Global Cooling, has just developed an extremely efficient refrigerator which is going into production in Korea. Why Korea? Because they can make it for a price that will be Affordable, though slightly more than standard refrigerators here. These companies do more than develop technology. They court companies--often overseas--who will actually produce the products they design,at a price that ordinary folks can afford. The difficulty --as my cousin and other people out there who are creating the products and technologies we'd all like to have will tell you--- is that most of the patents get bought up by the oil and nuclear industries before the inventors (or the companies they work for) can find someone to produce them. We already have the wherewithall to be independent of Middle Eastern oil. But the greed of the CEOs of these companies is what drives policy, not the well-being of the guy on the street. And our politicians are increasingly at their beck and call. Our little festival promotes other things besides alterantive energy though. (And the three companies I mentioned aren't the only ones here.) We have a food incubator in Athens. This facility--one of 16 in the country-- helps small food-oriented businesses get start=up loans, and then they time-share a production facility that operates 24/7, which has cooking, canning, baking, and packaging facilities. It's highly energy efficient and helps people who would ordinarily be working a minimum-wage job or on welfare start their own food business. Often these are unique, one of a kind, and frequently they highlight locally grown produce. Gourmet dog biscuits, and salsas are just two of the many products available. I could say a whole lot more about the advantages of working toward sustainability. You know where your food comes from, you know where your energy comes from, and it doesn't contribute to war or the degradation of your community. It doesn't lead to the needless harming of innocent people in other parts of the world. It requires a little thought, a little effort, and a willingness to look at the big picture. There are a lot of rewards you'll never see until you try it. Like being part of a community that cares about each other every day, not just when something terrible happens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 16 Oct 01 - 10:34 AM They are at it, again, calling it part of the national security issue. The Wyoming senator claims there are several environmental orgs. who now support it, although he did not name them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 08 Oct 01 - 08:11 PM Genie: Your message is kind of self-contradicting. You start off claiming that the government is subsidizing the oil and gas industry, and then bemoan the fact that it won't do the same thing for solar and wind. Well, in fact the governments, fed. and state, are soaking up a lot of money from oil and gas and coal. My State government is almost totally run off of it (no state income taxes). Wind power does not pay for itself yet which means that oil money is being used to finance wind power in my State. (This should make you happy). It makes me happy, because we SHOULD be expanding our technological capabilities, and why not finance it by taxing oil and encouraging conservation. It's win-win, and the only people who are gonna get upset are the guys who take the pipes out of their Harley mufflers and those fine men and women of NASCAR. The Alaska pipeline was designed to take a bullet and live. It has taken a few already, and this is the first time one penetrated. The Daily News had a cool picture with the camera posed almost in the jet of leaking fluid. It's not enough of an argument to restrict ANWR IMHO. This part of the pipeline runs through inhabited (by our standards) area and there are some nasty people in that area. If this yahoo hadn't been shooting at the pipeline he'd of been shooting at a person, most like. It isn't getting into any water tables or streams. It's spoiling some acreage of tundra, and it will be cleaned up much better than was possible with Prince William Sound. ANWR development will/would consist of shorter, smaller runs of pipeline with only professional oilfield workers and herds of caribou, none of whom wish to mess with the integrity of the pipeline. We can't stop building things because people are gonna shoot at 'em and fly planes into 'em. Courage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 08 Oct 01 - 06:24 PM Genie, So your answer is to have the government subsidize alternative energy so it can compete as a lobby force with big oil..... sounds like creating another monster to defeat one monster created already. I don't consider myself a conservative (or a liberal for that matter), but I am against alot of the subsidies given out. My arguement is not against alternative energy, far from it. But rather than have the government involved why not have these special interest groups work for it themselves. You want to raise awareness of how ecologically sound the hybrid cars are? Instead of speanding Millions of dollars on lobbyists, put ten thousand hybrid cars in LA. Have people trade in older gas guzzlers for them. If you aim at the lower middle class you could easily get that swap made. Hell, I would do it in a heartbeat. I spend on average of $40-60 in gas a week (With a little Honda Civic). Then you can show how the quality of air has gone up and how people are able to spend the money from gas savings on other things. But... it seems that it is far more popular for special interests to hold banquets that cost thousands of dollars to get millions in donations to spend millions in lobbyists. It doesn't make alot of sense. I'm all for the environment, if you can make it work and get the product out there, then you will have a much stronger voice. Otherwise, people will only create another monster to replace the oil beast already created.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Genie Date: 08 Oct 01 - 01:12 PM Nobody, If the government had not been and were not subsidizing the oil, coal, and gas industries, the cost differential between them and clean renewable enegry would be much less. If "corporate welfare" were given to the development of these clean renewables, not only would it benefit us as consumers right now, but it would speed up our becoming independent on the middle east for energy. People who call themselves conservatives often complain about "social engineering" and the intrusion of big government, yet they seldom acknowledge the extent to which the playing field is made uneven by government subsidies to industries such as timber/logging/paper, factory farming, mining, oil drilling and refining, etc. Just about the first thing Ronald Reagan did upon taking office was to have the solar panels, which Carter had had installed, removed from the white house! People complain about start-up costs for solar, and Reagan removed the panels after they were already installed and paid for! Then his administration set about to get rid of subsidies for insulation of homes and commericial buildings, alternative energies, etc. Is it any wonder that you now have to pay more for solar, wind, and power? Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Metchosin Date: 08 Oct 01 - 01:02 PM Roger, there was also a break in a pipeline just north of Ft. St. John in B.C. this week. On a brighter note, B.C. Hydo is undertaking a hydro project on the west coast of Vancouver Island based on ocean wave power generation. Apparently with this technology, the waves act as pistons in the production of electricity. Hmmm, guess I'll have to go out and save the waves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,just a nobody Date: 08 Oct 01 - 12:07 PM Terribly sorry DougR... When will I learn :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 08 Oct 01 - 11:53 AM Just a nobody: Will you STOP posting practical positions on controversial subjects!!! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Just a nobody Date: 08 Oct 01 - 08:23 AM Hmmm.. solar power... wind power... give it to me... No really... give it to me. I can't afford any of these things. Nadda not one. Would I prefer to use them and only have oil as a backup, certainly. But, on what I make, I cannot afford the initial costs of even attempting such an endeavour. Perhaps, people would get more backing if there was more pressure placed to assist people in getting off oil dependence. My power bills range from 100 - 200 dollars every month, trust me, I would love a way to get a break from that. But the initial cost and cost of maintanence makes it way out of my price range. Oil and coal is far cheaper for the average citizen. Find a way or a group that will install and maintain alternative power (Within the price range of a lower-middle income family, Low income when you count the kids in) and I will be all for it. Untill the special intrest groups focus on the voters, and not the polititions, they will only be wasting money. After all, if oil intrests no longer bother me it will not influence my vote. That would mean, the less likely I would be to voting for those pushing for more oil. Just a few rambling thoughts from Just a nobody |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler Date: 08 Oct 01 - 05:42 AM I've just seen a press report of a major spill from the Alaska pipeline caused by a drunk shooting a hole in it with a hunting rifle! If the existing system is that insecure you have to fear for the environment if there is much more drilling. RtS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 01 - 10:45 AM Thanks, Genie, I haadn't heard. Robo, thanks for your comments, too. DougeR...one big snog for you! kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Genie Date: 06 Oct 01 - 03:08 AM Amen, robo, Good thread, Kat. It looks like we've got a temporary reprieve. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 03 Oct 01 - 10:06 PM From my point of view, most of the information is out there and people are simply repeating their stands over and over. I kind of wish the Clinton Administration had gone for it, why not push development when you know the Greenies have the most leverage (in a Demo administration). At this point, Congress may very well go for fast track and then we'll have development with Republican oversight, kind of like having Wiley Coyote look after the Roadrunner's eggs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:31 PM kat: SMAAAAAAACK! :>0 DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Genie Date: 02 Oct 01 - 03:01 AM Yeah, like Kat said, the main point is not to rush the ANWAR drilling thing through, without the due debate, in our zeal to back our President in this time of crisis. ANWAR oil drilling won't do anything to help in the immediate situation or near future. Genie PS, I still think continued focus on new and better oil fields is a bit like trying to develop new and better surreys after the appearance of the automobilee. Autos weren't very practical when they were introduced, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 02 Oct 01 - 12:31 AM Sheesh! You guys are such meanies. Always making fun of a person showing their emotions over something; acting the tough guys with no feelings, eh?**BG** Robomatic, I don't mind at all, esp. when done with such candor and good manners. I will however put in another two cents worth. you said, "I don't see the relevance of when it hits the market if it is useful and necessary, but most of the infrastructure is already built." The relevance, at this moment, is that some are trying to push this through without enough debate, as had been noted, at a time when a blatant appeal to patriotism may cause errors in the handling of such a sensitive environment. While they piggyback this on the defense spending bill, nothing is going to make that oil, however much there is, available anytime soon. So, the urgency is a political machination, rather than real. I really appreciate your perspective, but there are those of us who would have wilderness remain so, regardless. So...I like your solution and would be willing to pay much higher prices, but of course I do not drive an SUV, either.:-) Thanks, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Troll Date: 02 Oct 01 - 12:16 AM Yeah! Good old emotionalism; that's the thing! Stuff like you posted makes me think, gives me a headache. Where the hell is 'Spaw with a Cletus story when you ned him? Lackluster layabout. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 01 - 10:38 PM robomatic: will you not, please, confuse us with facts? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 01 Oct 01 - 06:56 PM Kat, hope you don't mind if I comment freely: >"During the Reagan administration, the Department of >Interior found there was a chance of less than one in >five of ever finding recoverable oil > in the ANWR. If oil companies beat those odds and >strike pay dirt, both the Department of Energy and the >U.S. Geological Survey have said it >would most likely amount to a mere 3.2 million barrels, >which would only last a few months in meeting the needs >of American I don't know what happened during the Reagan administration, but again, no one really knows how much oil is there without exploratory drilling and seismic testing, which will have minimal effect on the environment. They move the rig in winter over ice roads, spud the well, take core samples, and move off while the land is still frozen. If there were 3.2 million barrels recoverable, for instance, at a standard rate of recovery this would take on the order of five years. Most fields on the North Slope are still functioning after twenty years. >It would also take about ten years to even hit the >market. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is >available for oil exploration. Oil companies expect to >step up their production on the North Slope with >forecasted increases of 15-17%, all without opening any >of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I don't see the relevance of when it hits the market if it is useful and necessary, but most of the infrastructure is already built. I believe for the right price it is feasible to hit the market in less than half of that time. There is no way production is increasing at the rate you quote. ARCO was advertising the slogan 'no decline after '99' before they were taken over by Phillips. There are other places to drill, but the oil people seem to be quite positive on the worthwhile-ness (forgive me Scrabble players) of ANWR. It costs them a lot of money to explore, so they must have some good reasons. >"Americans consume 25% of the world's oil. America has, >at the most, reserves of 2-3% of the world's oil. Even >if we sacrificed all of our wilderness areas, parks, >coastlines, etc., we would never be able to become >independent of foreign oil; at our present rate of >consumption, there literally is not enough oil in the >ground for development." I thought the idea was to buy other peoples' oil when it was cheap, exhaust their supply, then fall back on our own. (tongue firmly in cheek). There is a great line in Dickens, David Copperfield I think, going by memory only: "Annual income, 10 pounds, annual expenditure 9 pounds 19 and sixpence, result is domestic tranquility, happiness, peace. Annual income, 10 pounds, annual expenditure 10 pounds and sixpence, result is misery and the debtors' prison." By which I mean to say that the oil in discussioin is not negligible in the economy in which we find ourselves. There is still plenty of oil in the ground, what determines whether it will be developed is the price. Remember, we are not going to suddenly run out of oil. We will eventually see oil prices rise and rise and not come down again. We are at the end of the Age of Cheap Oil. >Consumerism is the bottom line in the battle for saving >our planet. What does it take to get people to give up >their gas-guzzling SUV's etc.? Higher prices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Troll Date: 01 Oct 01 - 03:16 PM Toad. The way to save the shareholders is to make money. The way to make money is to fly. The only way the airlines can fly is if they have the people.That means jobs. The bailout will help until consumer confidence returns and ridership gets back to normal. At least that's MY take on the subject, but I look at it from the viewpoint of someone who has spent most of his life punching a timeclock and working for wages. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 01 Oct 01 - 12:45 PM Dougdarlin', a few months worth of oil, at the expense of pristine wilderness, is not going to free us of our dependence on mid-east oil. To do that, we have to develop a LOT of self-discipline, something I am not confident of our consumerism society ever doing. From my research for my op/ed piece on this, my emphasis: "During the Reagan administration, the Department of Interior found there was a chance of less than one in five of ever finding recoverable oil in the ANWR. If oil companies beat those odds and strike pay dirt, both the Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey have said it would most likely amount to a mere 3.2 million barrels, which would only last a few months in meeting the needs of American consumers. It would also take about ten years to even hit the market. Ninety-five percent of Alaska's North Slope is available for oil exploration. Oil companies expect to step up their production on the North Slope with forecasted increases of 15-17%, all without opening any of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "Americans consume 25% of the world's oil. America has, at the most, reserves of 2-3% of the world's oil. Even if we sacrificed all of our wilderness areas, parks, coastlines, etc., we would never be able to become independent of foreign oil; at our present rate of consumption, there literally is not enough oil in the ground for development." Consumerism is the bottom line in the battle for saving our planet. What does it take to get people to give up their gas-guzzling SUV's etc.? kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 01 - 12:30 PM Genie: No, I would have no objection to what you suggest. Certainly there should be debate. I also think that there should be more investigation into what the quanity of oil might be in the Anwar before serious debate takes place. I don't believe, at the present time, anyone knows how much is there. If only a five month supply is available, I for one would say, forget drilling. That would be pure lunacy, in my opinion. I also believe as serious an effort to develop alternate sources of fuel, such as hydrogen, should be launched as any effort to find more oil. From what I have read, though, we are years away from being able to wean ourselves from oil to another more environmentally friendly source of fuel, and I'm not confident that we have much time left. We must free ourselves from being dependent upon the mideast for our energy, and the sooner the better, in my opinion. If the alternate sources you, kat, and others espouse can be developed in the same time that more oil can be produced, great! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: toadfrog Date: 01 Oct 01 - 01:42 AM Troll, just noticed your comment on the airlines. Misconception here: giving them money will not save any ordinary jobs. If the airlines all sought the protection of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy code tomorrow, , and the arilines would continue to fly the same plains and receive the same fare revenue, so the same number of pilots, crew &c. would be employed. Bankruptcy courts have substantial experience in running airlines. The airlines did not promise to save a single job. The money is not to save jobs, it is to save the shareholders. And note, several airlines have already fired workers in violation of their contractual rights, claiming "force majeure" A bankruptcy judge would not do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 01 Oct 01 - 01:19 AM Thank you, Genie! Here is some interesting info regarding hydrogen fuel cells: overview of fuel cells very "kewl" with graphics and text explanation; interesting links to politics of different countries concerning hydrogen fuel cell energy. In 1996 the US passed a law mandating research and development of fuel cells; current posting with links to info about a company releasing its first consumer level hydrogen fuel cells. Clean power from the looks of it. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Genie Date: 01 Oct 01 - 01:11 AM Troll, I imagine that 100 years from now there will be little use of oil. You are still thinking in terms of today's technology. Do you think in 1901 folks could have imagined where today's technology would be? A lot can be done by making energy use more efficient. I have recently heard scientists talking very convincingly about the relatively near FUTURE of hydrogen fuel cell technology, using wind and solar as primary energy sources. I am not against private vehicles. They have their place. (I rely on one for my livelihood, as I do many small gigs and have to carry equipment and move quickly from one place to another.) However, much automobile use results from poor planning, inadequate public transport, etc. Cars could be made cleaner and much more energy efficient, though. Doug R, What is "knee-jerk" about holding off on legislation until proper debate is had? When emotions are running wild in the face of a crisis, it is not the time to push ahead full bore on something that was, before that crisis, being strongly debated. Once again, ANWAR drilling will have no noticeable effect on our energy supply for years. Can it really do much harm to wait a few months, to look at the situation with cooler heads, before doing something irreparable? (I say "irreparable," because once the big money goes into ANWAR, the chances of saying "Oh, we made a mistake--this isn't worth it," are greatly reduced.) Again, please urge Congress to cool it on this, instead of crowning King George and giving him everything he ever asked for because we are united behind him now. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 01 Oct 01 - 12:50 AM Okie dokie, Genie, but do you agree that urging Congress not to approve drilling at this time might be knee-jerk too, or what? I assume that what you are urging is that Congress not make any decisions without adequate information. But suppose they make the decision, based on what they consider to be good information, to drill, and you don't agree with their decision? What then? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Troll Date: 01 Oct 01 - 12:48 AM While I fully concur that we need to curb our appetite for petroleum products, I wonder if anyone has considered what a "no oil" world would be like. We would have to live within walking distance of work. While it would be feasible to run busses on stored solar power (batteries) and sort of rail would be out of the question. How would you make the railbed on which to lay the tracks? That would require large earth-moving equipment or large gangs of human laborers with shovels. What do you do in areas where there is not enough sunlight OR wind to generate electricity? Pipe it in from elsewhere? No more private vehicles? Bikes maybe but what about tires? And what about those of us who, because of age and/or infirmity, cannot ride a bike? I heard somewhere -don't ask me where. If I could remember I'd tell you- that if you put up enough solar panels to supply the current electrical needs of the US, they would cover an area the size of the Atlantic Ocean. (Skeptic? Help me on this one). So I kinda question whether sun and wind are the answer. Maybe if this was 150 years ago we could do without oil. But not now. Not without a radical change in the world economy. Without an effective means of mass transit, the major cities would starve because they couldn't get enough food once the local growing season ended. The problem is that we live too far from everything; work, schools, shops, and recreation. We are too spread out to be fuel efficient and the only way it will EVER be cured is to either ban private autos altogether, or find a clean, inexhaustable, non poluting fuel source to power everything. Some say Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer but what's the energy debt on manufacture? Never mind profit. Are they practical? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Genie Date: 30 Sep 01 - 10:44 PM Doug R, It's not that there is NO money in wind or solar--just not as much as in oil or coal. There will always be jobs making, distributing, selling, and monitoring the energy produced by those means. But, unlike oil and coal, you can't own the resource itself. Actually, solar and wind are a bit more like nuclear in that respect, aren't they? If people are content to have an industry that creates and perpetuates jobs--without making anyone rich--solar and wind generating equipment are compatible with capitalistic goals. Nobody really gets rich when people conserve energy, either. That doesn't make it a bad idea. To return to the main point of this thread, though LET US NOT RUSH CONTROVERSIAL PROPOSALS THROUGH in our zeal to present a "United Front" in the face of the recent terrorist attacks. Those who were unsure or opposed before need to take a deep breath and allow passions to cool before rushing into this.
Robomatic, Thanks for the detailed analysis. This is the kind of information that needs to be viewed in a careful debate of the issues. Again, the sense of urgency I feel about CONTACTING CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES NOW stems from the awareness that knee-jerk reactions to crisis may preclude informed debate and long-term vision. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 30 Sep 01 - 10:03 PM You have clarified several things that I had wondered about, robomatic, and I appreciate you're posting that message. dougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: robomatic Date: 30 Sep 01 - 07:06 PM I have a biased by somewhat informed take on the matter. I work for an engineering contractor which provides services to the North Slope of Alaska. I do not stand to directly benefit nor suffer from the opening or non-opening of ANWR if it occurs, but I'd like to make the following points from direct experience: 1) We don't really know how much oil is under ANWR right now. Exploratory drilling has to occur, along with seismic testing. The technology these days is a significant improvement over the past, because it enables engineers to form a 3-D 'model' of what is there. They need to bring up oil samples because important factors are: grade, viscosity, wax content, temperature. 60 Minutes did a pretty good show on this issue about 3 months ago with Leslie Stahl. They showed the difference between moving a rig over to a region to be explored in Winter when the tundra is frozen solid, and what it looks like when the exploratory wellhead has been capped and isolated after the work is done. Other than the wellhead area itself, which is roughtly 15' x 15', there is very little trace left on the land. 2)When an oilfield is in production, it requires that 6' depth of gravel be loaded onto a rectangular area about the size of 1 to 3 football fields. This allows a drill rig access to the area. From a dozen to 50 wells can be drilled from this one area due to the advanced nature of directional drilling. These areas are of course highly visible, but they are a small percentage of the total area which comprises the wilderness area. 3)Animal life. The main large mammals in the area are polar bears, grizzly bears, caribou, and musk oxen. It is highly unlikely that exploratory drilling, or production drilling, will affect these animal populations. This is based by observing animal populations in the areas already in production. It is somewhat harder to judge migratory waterfowl, I personally feel the effect would not be very harmful (but I am not an expert in this field, it's just that I've seen snow geese flying and nesting in areas under production). Musk oxen are an introduced species and are also not threatened by this kind of development. 4)The wilderness experience. There is no denying that putting an industrial production area in pristine wilderness is going to change the appearance of that area for the foreseeable future (foreseeable future = 40 years). The North Slope is primarilly flat tundra. There are no trees, no mountains. There are a lot of water drainages. It is a judgement call as to whether this is worth cancelling future development or not. That's why we have environmental interest groups, oil lobbyists, and the right to sound off on these issues. I have yet to hike into the region so I withhold personal judgement. 5)Oil spills. When people quote frequency and number of oil spills, they usually don't bother to explain that on the pipeline and pumpstations and on the North Slope, ANY spill is reportable, including a few drops. When vehicles get refueled, it is common practise to put an absorbent pad under the nozzle to catch any drops. Mistakes are made, spills and leaks do occur. They are usually located within minutes, and a cleanup effort is made. Since these facilities are on tundra at low temperatures, the spilled oil congeals, it's usually not hard to get at it all, and there is no penetration of the water table (Since there is no watertable, everything from a couple of feet down and deeper is permafrost). I can't speak to off-shore work, but ANWR is not an off-shore issue. 6)Pipelines. The Trans-Alaska pipeline was a very successful, expensive project, but the pipeline is not getting any younger. It is being reviewed as regards its permitting and maintenance, but everything has a lifetime. If we are ever going to utilize ANWR oil, it is better we do it while the pipeline is in good shape. The amount of pipelines added by ANWR in order to connect up to the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline would be negligible by comparison. And in fact, it the pipeline while highly visible, does not affect the environment that much. It is the ROAD NEXT to the pipeline that matters, and this already exists. 7)Utilization of the resource. It is true that the oil from ANWR, however great in amount, is only an increment to what the US uses. That doesn't mean it's a negligible increment, or not worth pursuing. If it is worth producing, it will be worth billions of dollars to the economy. The jobs it will create is pretty much a political football, it will create a few thousand jobs directly, but where the unions get off turning that into hundreds of thousands is beyond me, unless they are implying some sort of overall economic stimulus. 8)Technology. The most advanced technology in recovering oil is taking place on the North Slope of Alaska. More oil is being recovered from existing pools than was thought possible back in the 70's. 9)Conservation. I personally feel the US is terribly wasteful of energy. In the age of NASCAR rallies and one-driver SUVs, it's absurd to argue that oil development not be tied to conservation (IMHO). But, we live in a capitalist society, by which I mean the oil price fluctuates freely (for the most part) between supply and demand and the low price of energy tells us that oil is not considered that valuable a product on a per unit basis. When the price of energy goes up, conservation will occur. As long as it is relatively cheap, you can expect to see more SUVs, and more NASCAR rallies, ANWR or no ANWR. Have I been able to spread some 'oil on troubled waters?' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 30 Sep 01 - 06:28 PM Yep, Genie, pretty hard to make money from wind, I suppose. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 30 Sep 01 - 04:56 PM I would urge anyone concerned about this to get the new issue, that's the Nov. one, of Mother Earth News, our own Wyo Woman is Managing Editor, and read the inside the front cover piece, "News from Mother: Let in the Light." To repeat a quote from that page:
"The energy wasted through poorly insulated windows and doors is roughly equal to the energy we get from the Alaskan oil pipeline." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Genie Date: 30 Sep 01 - 01:37 AM Doug, If I heard that analysis (drilling w/ modern technology does little harm) from independent scientists, I'd give it more credence than when it comes from vested interests. What we know of pipelines and oil/gas transport so far suggests otherwise. Oil spills, gas leaks explode. Drilling in pristine areas is a bit like what the medical profession used to call "defloration" of a virgin. The idea was that once it is done, there is little reason not to exploit further. To reiterate, oil from ANWAR will not be available for our use for at least 5 years--it won't help in the immediate situation. We COULD be using solar- and wind-generated power sooner than that. I still see the Bush administration dragging its feet on subsidies for conservation and alternative energy source development. We need to look farther ahead than the end of our noses. I fear that the real reason for the reluctance to fund fuel cell research, solar, and wind, is the fear that it will be harder for companies to reap huge profits from those technologies than from coal, gas,a nd oi. Genie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 29 Sep 01 - 04:34 PM She did, or something similar. I just read it the other day in some other thread. Isn't it great?! Love it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 29 Sep 01 - 02:53 PM Wow! "mammeries pointing to the sky!" Did Jeri write that? That's super! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 29 Sep 01 - 01:36 PM I say drill for we know not what the future will bring. There is no stopping wind power and solar power now..it will be rapidly accelerated by recent events and was on a roll anyway. I do not worry in the least about running out of oil 50 years from now. Of course I will likely be dead. But there will be safe and clean energy by then, probably close to free. And I presume the world's population will have stopped growing and might have reversed in size. But the immediate dangers are obvious to us. Military and economic. Drill in my front yard if you want, even my side yard, which would be the Pacific Ocean. If you want environmental damage, try fighting a war to the finish without enough oil. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,frankie Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:57 PM About 15 odd years ago I visited Mustang Island, a barrier island on the Gulf of Mexico west of Galveston, Texas. It had broad beaches with fine white sand and clear greenish water, very similar to our beaches here in SW FL with a couple of noteworthy exceptions: A prevailng stench of kerosene was everywhere and there were many black globs on the sand running well up the beach. I've always assumed these to be byproducts of the oil rigs that loomed right off shore. frankie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:57 AM Doug, please read through some of the less partisan links I provided. With the oil reserves we already have, coupled with the might of the big oil companies, a complete standstill is really not much of a possibility, now is it? Doubly so, if Americans had to really learn to conserve and also pay a real market price for gasoline as our counterparts do in other countries. I grew up an oilfield brat. The oil shortages we've had in the past were a joke. Everyone who worked in the oilfields in the West, who lost their shirts when the market went mammaries pointing to the sky (thanks for that, Jeri!), KNEW there was plenty of oil. You've almost got it right, though: We must free ourselves from dependence on oil, period. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 29 Sep 01 - 12:38 AM Genie: You may well be right, but don't you feel that a comprehensive analysis of the probable amount of oil available there would be worth looking into? Suppose it's a supply of twenty-five or thirty years? Others have pointed out that drilling using modern technology does very little harm, if any at all, to the environment. The problem I have with kat's point of view, and those that share her view, is I feel they would be willing to see things come to a complete standstill rather than extract more natural resources from our own territories. I don't question their motivation, I just don't believe they are viewing the current situatiion realistically. My opinion only of course. We must free ourselves from dependence for oil from the mid-east. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Argenine Date: 28 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM Folks, we need immediate attention to this, because it is likely to be brought up for congressional action right away, and it is likely to be sort of railroaded through in our fervor to stand behind our President and present a united front. We can debate it here if you like, but if you would like the matter to be given more serious consideration and debate before we do anything drastic, please write and/or call your government representatives now. Arge |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: GUEST,Genie Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:53 AM What Kat just said. DougR, I know the amount of oil in ANWAR is debatable, but the most generous estimates are several years' worth. If new oil-dependent power plants are built, the start-up costs will be high and the developers will feel they have to continue oil use to make their investments pay off. Alternative sources such as wind, solar, and the use of hydrogen (not in combination with diesel fuels, etc.) are not light years away from being usable as our main power sources. It is time for us to look down the road beyond the end of our noses. ANWAR is not a short-term solution, either! As you said, if ANWAR holds only a few months' worth of oil,"There would be no point in drilling at all if that is all that is there." I would say the same thing applies if it holds five years' worth. Throwing money at technologies that will (or should and can) be obsolete within five to ten years is folly, especially when the side effect is environmental contamination.
As you say, "The need is now." Drilling in ANWAR won't help now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: katlaughing Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:38 AM I think the main point right now is this is NOT an issue that should get railroaded through on the back of high patriotic fervor and defense budgets. DougeRdarlin', you are starting to sound like a hack troller.**BG** Here are some links with a broad spectrum of info, from most sides. Keep in mind, when you read about the EIA report, by their own admission it is basic and does not factor in productions costs, etc. Energy Information Administration Good articles and links for all sides of the argument
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 27 Sep 01 - 12:16 AM Whassamatta you folks? Why aren't you replying to this thread? Only 10 or so replies on a subject so dear to the majority of Mudcatter's hearts! And it has been posted since the 25th! Unbelievable! Get with it! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: DougR Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:18 PM Genie: I don't believe any reliable information has been made public about the amount of oil available in the Refuge. Environmental groups have claimed, as you do, that only a few months supply is there. I sincerely doubt that. There would be no point in drilling at all if that is all that is there. Certainly the other forms of energy should be developed, but developing them to the point that they can replace oil , gas, and coal is years away. The need is now. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Defense Bill & Drilling Alaskan Refuge From: Troll Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM Bailing out the airline industry is hardly the same thing as drilling in Alaska. The airline industry provides many thousands of jobs for American workers,some of whom have already been laid off as well as providing vital transportation for people as well as freight. I'll grant you that there might be better ways of helping them than simply giving them the cash but it's certainly the quickest. As for "corporate welfare" tell that to all the men and women who have been laid off. Check in with Big Mick. He's probably been talking to some of them. troll |