And you can mark it down, nature will recycle this oil and the earth will recover quicker than will be predicted. The real tragedy will be the political opportunism employed by these radicals in the White House who know they have a few months left with unchecked power.
Do you not agree this is par for the course for all politicians?
If you have energy on your agenda, could there not be a better time to put that in the spotlight?
Okay, Deacon, I'll mark it down - whatever that means. Are you aware of the turn-around time for the ecology to recover?
I don't get fellow conservatives downplaying the spill. That's your strategy? Give me a break!
More conservative grandstanding and downplaying what is truly a crisis.
No one has said the world is ending, but that sort of ridiculous commentary really does you no good. We have billions of barrels of oil continually leaving into our Gulf Coast and it's a big joke to the conservatives on AFF.
For nearly nine weeks, hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil have been gushing into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico every day. Eleven men and untold numbers of marine wildlife have died. The already suffering people in the Gulf region are looking at an even dimmer immediate future. And an entire summer tourism industry on which hundreds of communities depend has been nearly destroyed. BP is now in a full-on panic, and the Obama administration is increasingly frantic as it scrambles to keep the president’s approval rating from slumping into the oily abyss.
The Christian community, in which many remain skeptical of the environmental movement, appears to have come down with a case of PR schizophrenia, with reactions ranging from complacency to indignation. Most of their responses leave us asking: How should Christians respond?
An overview of those responses so far:
Ignoring it. Perhaps the most confounding reaction coming from some Christians is apathy. Many Christians seem unconcerned with what is going on in the Gulf, or at least preoccupied with “more important” political issues like Arizona’s new immigration law. Searching the web sites of major Christian groups for “oil spill” returns few or no results.
Capitalizing on it. Some Christians, particularly those who have taken a laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation in the past, have seen this tragedy as an opportunity to attack the President. Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition have both lobbed bombs, and Sarah “drill baby, drill” Palin has been clobbering the administration everywhere from Fox News to Facebook. They are hoping to tar this administration with the legacy that Hurricane Katrina left for the Bush administration.
.....
With the precision only a pastor and theologian can achieve, Moore hits the Christian community in the heart. How can we expect people to believe our message of hope and life when people see us responding to devastation with apathy, self-interest, or fanaticism? Should not our callousness be replaced with compassion, our apathy with action?
Now is the time for the Christian community to open up our deep coffers and provide assistance to those in need. We should spend some of our political capital to call politicians to the table to implement safeguards to prevent another catastrophic oil spill. Individuals should pray, churches should send cleanup teams and all of us should reflect on those habits in our lives that have contributed to this mess.
If Christians fail to rise to this occasion, Americans won’t only lose faith in big corporations and the ability of the federal government to manage environmental crises. They’ll lose faith in us.
Interesting takes on the oil spill. The people screaming "political opportunism" have filled up blogs and threads during this crisis to lob premature bombs at Obama. The same people incensed and outrage when liberals did that to Bush.
The money is there. Let's not haggle on that. Just look at the money invested in energy in this country and you'd know that. I'm not sure where the 4 Trillion estimate comes from, but that's not really the problem.
If you read my post, I said I don't see it feasible for oil to be completely replaced. Dependency on it can be much reduced though.
For transportation, technology is definitely there to move us away from gasoline. It's a matter if that's what the country wants.
You act like the oil industry is a frugal cog in the business world. It's expensive apples-to-apples my friend.
That 4 trillion is a number I remember from somewhere.
Here is the problem. The areas where there is high demand for electricity in America are generally speaking long distances from where it can be consistently generated.
In addition to this, the land area needed to build both Wind and Solar plants is massive. A power plant on 100 acres would require more than ten times that much land to generate the same power.
Then we get back to transportation. Because of the distance between power production and power use, you will have to basically build out an entirely new National grid. BUT that grid cannot be the kind we have in use now. AC power is very inefficient. Line loss is a huge problem that compounds with distance. So the new grid would have to be DC based. A DC based power grid, would require entirely new everything spanning tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines and all new plants to transform the DC power back to AC power for consumption.
TRILLIONS will be needed to make that happen.
As for as the technology to move us away from gas? It simply does not exist. There is no technology that allows for hydrogen at a cost that is reasonable. In fact it would come in higher than $10 per gallon if compared to gas. Plus it is less efficient, meaning it takes more of it to travel 1 mile than it does gas.
The only other option is electric. At this point there is no electric power plant that can economically drive a family car more than 100 miles between recharge. Recharge will require more than an hour (and up to 6 hours) to take place. Secondly, these cars are still vastly more expensive than gas powered cars.
Next, there is no such electric technology that can drive large cargo transports. It doesn’t exist and we are generations away from something like that.
There is some discussion about natural gas, but it too is less efficient and it would require a massive build out of an all new infrastructure to install NG at all the gas stations. Also it has the same basic problems that Gas does. It is a fossil fuel. It still emits (all be it less) the same pollutants that gas does.
There is an interesting project in India that might (might) have some potential. It drives a car on air. Now there are issues with pressurized air and again you have some issues with infrastructure but it seems there is real possibility here. The people involved say they can provide an onboard air compressor that runs on gas and gives you somewhere around 1000 miles per gallon of gas equivalent. This is something with some possibility.
The other thing that has real possibility has nothing to do with going away from “gas” per sey but it is getting away from oil pumped from the ground. That is Algae-petroleum. There are a number of efforts that are very close to getting a barrel of Algae-Crude at around $75 per barrel. Such an effort could change everything. You don’t need arable land so you don’t impact food production. You don’t need fresh water so you don’t impact water use.
Since it is chemically identical to the kind of crude pumped from the ground, the current infrastructure would work just fine. If in the next 10 years this can come of age, you could see a complete shutdown of drilling.
I am neither a fan nor an opponent of oil companies. I am a fan of my own pocket book. Until such time as we can get a technology that can deliver transportation at the cost structure of gas, there is no reason to move away from it.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
The Obama team put out a safety plan to be reviewed by a number of industry experts. That safety report was passed by the experts and then published….
But there was one very large problem. The report that was published was different than the one that was reviewed! The reviewers did not see anything about cutting off all deep water drilling for 6 months! BUT the report that was released both included that measure and was purported to have been reviewed!
When the reviewers learned this, they spoke up and said that this 6 month ban will raise not lower danger levels!
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
That 4 trillion is a number I remember from somewhere.
Here is the problem. The areas where there is high demand for electricity in America are generally speaking long distances from where it can be consistently generated.
In addition to this, the land area needed to build both Wind and Solar plants is massive. A power plant on 100 acres would require more than ten times that much land to generate the same power.
Then we get back to transportation. Because of the distance between power production and power use, you will have to basically build out an entirely new National grid. BUT that grid cannot be the kind we have in use now. AC power is very inefficient. Line loss is a huge problem that compounds with distance. So the new grid would have to be DC based. A DC based power grid, would require entirely new everything spanning tens of thousands of miles of transmission lines and all new plants to transform the DC power back to AC power for consumption.
TRILLIONS will be needed to make that happen.
As for as the technology to move us away from gas? It simply does not exist. There is no technology that allows for hydrogen at a cost that is reasonable. In fact it would come in higher than $10 per gallon if compared to gas. Plus it is less efficient, meaning it takes more of it to travel 1 mile than it does gas.
The only other option is electric. At this point there is no electric power plant that can economically drive a family car more than 100 miles between recharge. Recharge will require more than an hour (and up to 6 hours) to take place. Secondly, these cars are still vastly more expensive than gas powered cars.
Next, there is no such electric technology that can drive large cargo transports. It doesn’t exist and we are generations away from something like that.
There is some discussion about natural gas, but it too is less efficient and it would require a massive build out of an all new infrastructure to install NG at all the gas stations. Also it has the same basic problems that Gas does. It is a fossil fuel. It still emits (all be it less) the same pollutants that gas does.
There is an interesting project in India that might (might) have some potential. It drives a car on air. Now there are issues with pressurized air and again you have some issues with infrastructure but it seems there is real possibility here. The people involved say they can provide an onboard air compressor that runs on gas and gives you somewhere around 1000 miles per gallon of gas equivalent. This is something with some possibility.
The other thing that has real possibility has nothing to do with going away from “gas” per sey but it is getting away from oil pumped from the ground. That is Algae-petroleum. There are a number of efforts that are very close to getting a barrel of Algae-Crude at around $75 per barrel. Such an effort could change everything. You don’t need arable land so you don’t impact food production. You don’t need fresh water so you don’t impact water use.
Since it is chemically identical to the kind of crude pumped from the ground, the current infrastructure would work just fine. If in the next 10 years this can come of age, you could see a complete shutdown of drilling.
I am neither a fan nor an opponent of oil companies. I am a fan of my own pocket book. Until such time as we can get a technology that can deliver transportation at the cost structure of gas, there is no reason to move away from it.
Attended an Open Forum on energy not too long ago. It was a bi-partisan event, and the topic was this one. I've heard your objections -- or maybe they are just "here's the current state of situations." But the science shared at this meeting seemed to overcome most all objections. The answer is here. Fleshing it out, making it happen, defining cost, etc is in process. It's a matter of how open we want to be about it.
You seem to be well-versed in energy science/policy, so I'll give you that. I'm not. I've tuned in several times to these forums and have listened, but in no ways am as up on the specifics like you are.
Yes, our pocket books are important. They just aren't MOST important. Energy independency, ecological integrity and innovation must still drive us. I'm not anti-oil or pro-oil either, so I think we are speaking from the same page. I just would like to see people off the defensive for Big Oil (because of the criticism they receive from Al Gore-like wackos) when we are talking innovation. Defensiveness doesn't get us anywhere.
The Obama team put out a safety plan to be reviewed by a number of industry experts. That safety report was passed by the experts and then published….
But there was one very large problem. The report that was published was different than the one that was reviewed! The reviewers did not see anything about cutting off all deep water drilling for 6 months! BUT the report that was released both included that measure and was purported to have been reviewed!
When the reviewers learned this, they spoke up and said that this 6 month ban will raise not lower danger levels!
Do you have a source for this?
Do you know what the 6-month ban is for? The argument for?
Is this to mitigate the potential of simultaneous oil spills?
Do you know what the 6-month ban is for? The argument for?
Is this to mitigate the potential of simultaneous oil spills?
I first saw it on CNN a few days ago. I will try to dig up a link but it has been in the news. I acutally saw one of these expert reviewers.
He made 3 points as to why it is more dangerous to stop drilling.
1. The risk of an oil spill is greater when one is shutting down an oil well that is producing and even greater still for an oil well that is being drilled (Deep Water Horizon was shutting down while drilling when it blew)
2. Shutting down these rigs, will mean they will go to other parts of the world. The first out will be the newest with the best technology. thus when drilling is allowed, older rigs with older safty systems will have to be used.
3. stopping the drilling will mean more ship imports. There is a much greater risk of oil spills from ships than from these rigs.
Attended an Open Forum on energy not too long ago. It was a bi-partisan event, and the topic was this one. I've heard your objections -- or maybe they are just "here's the current state of situations." But the science shared at this meeting seemed to overcome most all objections. The answer is here. Fleshing it out, making it happen, defining cost, etc is in process. It's a matter of how open we want to be about it.
You seem to be well-versed in energy science/policy, so I'll give you that. I'm not. I've tuned in several times to these forums and have listened, but in no ways am as up on the specifics like you are.
Yes, our pocket books are important. They just aren't MOST important. Energy independency, ecological integrity and innovation must still drive us. I'm not anti-oil or pro-oil either, so I think we are speaking from the same page. I just would like to see people off the defensive for Big Oil (because of the criticism they receive from Al Gore-like wackos) when we are talking innovation. Defensiveness doesn't get us anywhere.
I do believe the energy paradigm will shift in the next 20 years even if government does nothing. That will happen because technology is moving at a very fast pace and there are going to be things that change everything.
Because that is going to happen, I see no reason to spend trillions (yes TRILLIONS) to make a shift to something that has not yet proven itself as adequate. Yes there are technologies out there but none of them can generate the power that coal/natural gas and gasoline can at the cost structure we currently have. There are some (some) that can break even with Crude at $75 per barrel. That is expensive. Then again, even though they can compete on a small scale, that does not mean those technologies can be “scaled up”
The total number of acres needed to create a solar farm that can match a coal plant is staggering. Beyond that, the technology to store heat for energy generation from solar at night is still a long way off. Then there is the environmental impact. Environmentalists don’t like the impact to the flora and fauna in the areas where you build these massive plants.
Wind has similar issues. Wind generally blows more at night than day time so it does not really address peak use periods. Energy storage again is a problem. There is some work going on in that area but it has not proven anything yet. Again, you have the environmental impact issue. Giant wind turbines kill birds and bats at an alarming rate. Environmentalists again don’t like this and oppose some areas being considered because of the species impacted.
There are some cool (pardon the pun) with solar getting away from silicone. Right now silicone allows a maximum of 28% efficiency. That means only 28% of the solar heat that hits the panel can turn into electricity. That number has to get larger for Solar to be viable. There are some studies going on that eliminate silicone but the other materials are very rare an very expensive. If this can be done cheaply then Solar becomes a much more attractive option.
I have done a lot of study in this area. It facinates me. And I believe this is going to be the thing that changes the world. much like the internal combustion engine changed the world. I mean it will be at least that big if not bigger! It is exciting and I really believe we will live to see it happen. But it wont happen because the governemnt prematurely legislates it. You cannot legislate the invention of new technology. All government can do is cripple the economoy and force premature versions of the technologies on us.
Spain has done that and they are facing bankuptsy because of it.
Instead of rushing after panacias that are yet unproven, we need to be rewarding those who are working on real technologies.
There are 2 that can have drastic impact. Both have nothing to do with oil or coal or creation of electricty so you don’t hear about them.
First, we need to be working to lower cost for LED lighting. When we went from incandecent to florecent lighting (mandated by congress) all we really did was line the pockets of General Electric and fill our landfills with mercury. Yea that’s right mercrury which will leach into the water table and make us all stupid. For every dollar spent on an incandecent light bulb, a floresent bulb will cost 60 cents but an LED bulb will cost 5 cents for the same wattage! Plus the LED bulb will last for years and years.
Second we need to be pushing foam insulation. Closed Cell Foam insulation is also 2x to 3x more expensive than tradtional insulations but it can cut the cost of heating and cooling by 60% or more.
There are dozens of things like this that really can drop demand for energy that you don’t hear about. These technologies need to be promoted while the market works out the details on what the next power source is going to be.
I still think Algae is going to be the answer but we are 10 ot 20 years away.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Linear Mode
