View Poll Results: Is it time to double down on green energy that has never been more promising?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 50.00%
  • No

    15 44.12%
  • Other (Explain)

    2 5.88%
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 105

Thread: Obama Green double down question

  1. #51
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    the use of oil for other things doesn't make it's use as fuel wasteful or dangerous - again, oil remains cheaper than the alternatives. and the answer is that nobody is even working on answers to those questions, so the notion of the US 'weaning itself off of fossil fuels" is ridiculous.
    Yes, oil is cheap - we all understand that. Also, as you've pointed out, it's China's demand for oil that is now controlling global prices and our price at the pump. So we have two choices:
    - We can continue to increase production in a race to keep up with China's growing demand, which we're eventually going to lose because there are 1200M people over there and counting, and/or
    - We can decrease our demand at a pace to balance China's growing demand, which we could eventually win because as our demand keeps dropping we become less dependent on others and eventually we'll have no dependence at all.
    But the latter never works if we continue wasting the oil we have by moving cars and trucks with it. Over 60% of our oil usage each year, which is more than we import, is going out the tailpipe. If tomorrow we stopped using oil to make gasoline and diesel (not going to happen soon, see below) we wouldn't need any oil imports.

    There are other "fuels" that can also move vehicles, NG and EV. Yes, both need investment to be viable on a large-scale basis - what do you think this thread is about?? We've got as much or more NG as we do oil but if the distribution system isn't built to handle it, it's for naught. NG pipelines will have to be added or upgraded. Local storage will need to be addressed. EVs will have to be phased in slowly. They're our long-term investment to get us free of foreign oil and the global oil market for good. But even if we started switching to EV tomorrow it would still take decades to get everything transferred over. The average age of cars on the road is ~10 years, which means if we stopped selling anything but EVs tomorrow, half the cars on the road in a decade would still need gasoline. Switching "fuel" sources is going to t-a-k-e t-i-m-e, we can't just flick a switch to do it, so we'd better be looking at least 30 maybe 40 years ahead.



    It's also interesting to note that one possible way of storing electricity is to convert it into NG. It's one of the things being tried in Europe and it looks very promising. Just one more good reason to switch to NG instead of oil for transportation.

    The Process of Storing Wind and Solar Power as Synthetic Natural Gas
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 04-22-12 at 06:20 AM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #52
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    For decades now, the green movement has been swearing to us that with some support to start, green energy can take off on its' own.

    Well, now with skyrocketed deficits and a looming fiscal crisis, the time has come;

    time to fly, little bird.
    So you have come to the conclusion that we will only have coal and hydrocarbons for the rest of our time on this planet.
    Then you are wanting us to invest in the ships that will take us to Earth II?

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Here's some red propaganda for you to watch.


  4. #54
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    So you have come to the conclusion that we will only have coal and hydrocarbons for the rest of our time on this planet.
    Then you are wanting us to invest in the ships that will take us to Earth II?
    the only thing better than your obvious strawman fallacy is the hysterical nature of it.

    Thank you - had I attempted to caricature your position to demonstrate the foolishness of those who buy into the Religion of Green, I could not have done a better job than this.

  5. #55
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Ok, if 10% ethanol lowers your mileage by 10%, then 100% ethanol would lower your gas mileage to "0." Meaning if you fill your tank with 100% ethanol you go nowhere. I never knew that. Further meaning putting ethanol in your tank is no different than putting water in your tank, it's useless. I swear I never knew that.
    You are erroneously assuming a linear extrapolation. It doesn't work that way.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  6. #56
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    Good point but I am not for that. Rather I am for some back up from the government to do research and experiment and may be some subsidies (why is it the oil industry can be subsidised and the green energy not?)
    The oil industry is not subsidized. It gets only the same depreciation allowances as all other companies. In fact a few years ago (2007 maybe?) I read that ExxonMobil paid half of all corporate income taxes collected by the IRS that year. Green energy companies, on the other hand, are simply sinkholes for taxpayer money that is used to pay executive bonuses and build fancy headquarters buildings.

    Obama's stimulus put $150k into solar panels for a state fish hatchery at Ennis, Montana. The panels are expected to save $3,000 per year, and will thus pay for themselves in 50 years if you don't count the interest on the loan for the money we borrowed from China. The solar panels have a life expectancy of only 25 years. Does that sound like a worthwhile effort to you?

    On the commercial level, solar panels are useful in heating home swimming pools and that's where they are used. I don't have a home swimming pool, and see no reason to subsidize my wealthier neighbors who may have them.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  7. #57
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    we haven't built a new refinery for 30 years - I agree we'd have to expand that, fortunately, the new oil industry in the Dakota's is sitting next to giant tracts of land that nobody is using.
    I have to take issue with "giant tracts of land that nobody is using." Back in the nineties we had some Ivy League Idiots, a husband and wife team of PhD's from Princeton (where PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper) advocated an idea they called the Buffalo Commons - since people were leaving anyway, why not turn the land back to the bison? The underlying facts are that in 1974 eastern Montana had 11,000 farms working 47 million acres of wheat; in 2002 there were 5500 farms working 49 million acres of wheat. In any other industry this would be evidence of increased productivity, but to the Ivy League Idiots who leap to conclusions it "proved" that the land was being abandoned.

    Moreover, oil and gas development doesn't destroy the land surface; once the wells are drilled and the pipelines are laid, life returns to normal and the land is once again open to the plow and livestock. Back in my days as a surveyor, I visited with a farmer in northwestern North Dakota who had recently built a new house with a picture window that looked out over an oil well in his front yard. That well provided him with $3,000 a month, which was good money back in 1970.

    Agreed that we could use some new refineries, especially since EPA is waging war on the ones we have and requiring uneconomical changes that would force them to shut down. The seemingly arbitrary requirement for boutique fuels is another issue that deserves review - I have heard (but haven't confirmed) that there is exactly one refinery in the entire world which is licensed to produce the blend of gasoline required in the city of Chicago.
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  8. #58
    Guru
    Diogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Seen
    10-11-13 @ 06:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,980

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    So you have come to the conclusion that we will only have coal and hydrocarbons for the rest of our time on this planet.
    Then you are wanting us to invest in the ships that will take us to Earth II?
    There was a delightful cartoon in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago that showed two cavemen looking at a little fire in the cave. One was saying to the other "Of course it's sustainable! Do you think we're going to run out of sticks?!?"
    "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
    - Abraham Lincoln

  9. #59
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    There was a delightful cartoon in the Wall Street Journal a few months ago that showed two cavemen looking at a little fire in the cave. One was saying to the other "Of course it's sustainable! Do you think we're going to run out of sticks?!?"
    Thanks. Yup, funny w/ a message; and, sticks are sustainable. All they had to do was control their population or move on to oil and coal. And oil and coal are sustainable too, but I'm not sure what the creation rate is today. Actually I expect us to move on again. Its just the grace with which it will be done that is in question. Sorry, I'm a retired design engineer married to a retired design engineer and every development project we were ever involved in took way longer than expected, e.g. 777. ( No religion involved, just experience.)
    Last edited by OhIsee.Then; 04-22-12 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Added a bunch.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Obama Green double down question

    Quote Originally Posted by Diogenes View Post
    On the commercial level, solar panels are useful in heating home swimming pools and that's where they are used. I don't have a home swimming pool, and see no reason to subsidize my wealthier neighbors who may have them.
    There is thermal solar panels and photovoltaic panels. The fist ones are not so expensive and pay off in about 3 years. Photovoltaics are a joke, I agree. Yet. If they can increase the efficiency they may be viable.
    I like CHP technologies.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •