Would you be willing to pay 50 per barrel for oil?

[ilovetheusers]

Wow. Looks like we agree on something. Wow.

I am not proposing this as a detailed plan. I am wondering how people would feel about paying more for energy if it would lead to independence?

No. People will aswer afirmative in a poll because it sounds good. When they actually have to pay an extra nickle, dime or dollar they will go for whatever is cheaper.

Yes, you need energy to make hydrogen. So lets put our heads together and come up with some strategy on how to make more energy. You can complain about it or make suggestions.

OK. I'll do that. http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/youngqu1.html

Alternative Energy Sources

Wood/other biomass
Hydropower
Solar energy
Wind energy
Wave energy
Geothermal
Tidal power
Fusion
Ocean thermal energy conversion

[TripleRLtd]

Or we could make agreements with other countries that would gurantee free trade only with other countries that priced oil at 50 a barrel.

Aren't you the one who's always critical of this sort of idea? Like why we deal with China??? You've mentioned being even-handed about this sort of thing, and for all of us to see the bigger picture. Well, how about you?

[Major Kong]

Fusion
and develop Core Tap technology

[paraflyer]

Alternative Energy Sources

Wood/other biomass
Hydropower
Solar energy
Wind energy
Wave energy
Geothermal
Tidal power
Fusion
Ocean thermal energy conversion

OK, so:

1. Cut down forests? Then Greens would love you...
2. Yeah, let's put dams everywhere. Force tons of people to move without asking (I'm referencing the Chinese dam project here).
3. Too inefficient at this time, and how much additional taxes do you want to pay until a breakthrough is found (if it ever is)?
4. "NIMBY" factor.....Ted Kennedy comes to mind, he didn't like the idea of a wind farm in Massachusetts...
5/7. Come up with long-term corrosion prevention; and figure a way to keep Greenpeace activists from ramming the stations
6. Only works where there's geothermal vents; and over time that changes, requiring periodic movement. Reference the Yellowstone geysers, etc.
8. Work's been done on this for years, so far nothing sustainable.

All I'm trying to show here is that there's another side to the coin; not all alternative sources are trouble-free.

[techs]

I am certainly willing to p*ss in the wind if will solve our energy problems. Especially if I get to choose who is downwind from me...
I have read some things that seem to contradict the site about all the energy alternatives. I will try to get some links.
I think this is good stuff, though. An actual idea driven thread..

[techs]

I especially am interested in this part of your link:
Oil Sands/Heavy Oil

This oil exists in huge quantities (trillions of barrels) particularly in Alberta, Canada and Venezuela. This is true oil but in deposits which take special treatment to recover the oil. The oil sands must be mined, and then processed in various ways. Heavy oil deposits can be injected with hot water or steam. Because of these processes, the net energy recovery is considerably less than from conventional drilled wells. At present about 500,000 barrels a day is recovered from the Athabasca oil sands of Alberta

I read that many of the companies doing this stopped because the price of oil went below the cost of extraction. At todays prices they would be expanding hugely however they aren't because they are afraid to put billions into it and have the price of oil drop.
Since it exists in trillions of gallons it might be a way to produce the 5 million barrels a day mentioned in the paper. that would be 25 percent of US daily consumption.

It would be a huge project. and have environmental issues but it is at least something we could do now.

[Ya_know]

I am certainly willing to p*ss in the wind if will solve our energy problems. Especially if I get to choose who is downwind from me...
..

Let me visualize...you pissing into the wind, you are downwind...yeah, that confirms it. You are stupid!


.

[Spork]

Let me visualize...you pissing into the wind, you are downwind...yeah, that confirms it. You are stupid!


.

"When I was little and had no sense, I took a wizz on an electric fence. It hurt so bad when it shocked my balls, it made me take a crap in my overalls."



Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[ilovetheusers]

OK, so:

1. Cut down forests? Then Greens would love you...
2. Yeah, let's put dams everywhere. Force tons of people to move without asking (I'm referencing the Chinese dam project here).
3. Too inefficient at this time, and how much additional taxes do you want to pay until a breakthrough is found (if it ever is)?
4. "NIMBY" factor.....Ted Kennedy comes to mind, he didn't like the idea of a wind farm in Massachusetts...
5/7. Come up with long-term corrosion prevention; and figure a way to keep Greenpeace activists from ramming the stations
6. Only works where there's geothermal vents; and over time that changes, requiring periodic movement. Reference the Yellowstone geysers, etc.
8. Work's been done on this for years, so far nothing sustainable.

All I'm trying to show here is that there's another side to the coin; not all alternative sources are trouble-free.

You're right about at lot of that. However...

Other biomass - Alcohol and oil from plants or distilation thereof.

Solar, if someone threw money into R&D could be taken up in efficiency greatly.

What's up with the green peacers and tidal/wave energy sources? It's killing the otters or somthing? I haven't heard much on that.

Geothermal - right now Iceland is in the process of making the worlds largest geothermal plant and they will sell energy to Europe.


All in all though the main issue is that no one of these sources can power us given our increasing needs for energy. Fusion is the obvious source for the future but as of now we jut don't know how to make it work. Of course, just before WW2 we had no idea how to split an atom then we threw vast sums of $$$ and our brightest minds at it. Given that we do have a limited time to drill for oil and that many of the world problems stem from oil, it might be in our interest to get hellbent on creating this form of energy.

Also, developing superconductor technology and implimenting it could help to decrease energy dependance greatly. I'm all for lending government aid to those developing this tech (as long as the $$$ goes towards developing the tech and not some side project).



As it is, I fail to see why there is almost no support for creating new energy sources despite our overwhelming growing dependance upon it. Without vast amounts of energy we may as well go back to the stone age. We are so very short sighted. We should take steps to assure our energy needs in the future are met.

[jitBob]

If we are talking about stabilizing the cost of oil and it's related products, then the only way to do this is probably the least popular around the world. Total government control. Control of extraction. Control of transportation. Control of processing.

Now we all know this would be like the sword of Damocles and no one wants that. However the point remains that individually we are not strong enough to force a change. Collectively we can find a means to regulate the profits of the entire pipeline.

[NooNoo]

rape

[Ya_know]

rape

Jack the RRRiper?

[jitBob]

Jack the RRRiper?

[Cave_Dweller]

OK, so:

1. Cut down forests? Then Greens would love you...
2. Yeah, let's put dams everywhere. Force tons of people to move without asking (I'm referencing the Chinese dam project here).
3. Too inefficient at this time, and how much additional taxes do you want to pay until a breakthrough is found (if it ever is)?
4. "NIMBY" factor.....Ted Kennedy comes to mind, he didn't like the idea of a wind farm in Massachusetts...
5/7. Come up with long-term corrosion prevention; and figure a way to keep Greenpeace activists from ramming the stations
6. Only works where there's geothermal vents; and over time that changes, requiring periodic movement. Reference the Yellowstone geysers, etc.
8. Work's been done on this for years, so far nothing sustainable.

All I'm trying to show here is that there's another side to the coin; not all alternative sources are trouble-free.

So we just give up because there is no single answer? Replace .5% here and 2% there and before you know it we've replaced a sizeable portion of our current oil imports with domestically produced renewable energy sources. I believe that the solution lies in the combination of a number of partial soultions.

1. Trees are a renewable resource, a crop, just like corn and wheat. The time between planting and harvest is just a bit longer.

2. I'm sure that if we looked hard enough we could find a few uninhabited areas. Again, I'm not talking Hoover, Grand Coolie, or Three Gorges (China) here.

3. So let's give up? We need to invest in research, more of a long term solution.

4. The Liberals can't be allowed to have it both ways. They complain about the pollution caused by fossil fuels and do their best to stop the deployment of wind generation.

5. LOL

6. Again, not a resson to throw our hands up. So, periodically move the turbines.

7. People tried to fly for centuries, didn't deter the Wright Brothers.

[Major Kong]

Just a little clarification here from an Environmental Professional:

The enviros get their drawers all in a bunch over the cutting of old growth forest. The "tree farms" that Continental Can, Weyerhaeuser and others have that they "harvest" the enviros don't give a hoot about. But the "wood" industry has it's own problems (can you say dioxins? and heavy metal discharges + a problem with that pesky chlorine, not to mention it's COx issues).