Canadian's & American's

[the6ofpopes]

The World Wildlife Fund, has a petition up you may be interested in.

It's in regards to the oil drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska, I'm also not a member of the WWF, just trying to do my part to save some of the planet.

 

Canadian

http://wwf.ca/HowYouCanHelp/DoNotDrill/donotdrill.asp

 

US

http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/action...ep=2&item=24456

 

 

[theaveng]

If we don't drill it now, we will drill it in 2050 when the world is literally *starving* for oil. It's jusr a matter of time until the mideast dries up, and desperate people will take desperate measures - including drilling in alaskan preserves.

 

 

So it makes no difference. If we don't use it, our oil-starved grandchildren will. It's inevitable.

 

 

troy

[psheldrake1]

 

I'll have to agree withyou there theaveng. In an ideal world. The government listens to the people. But the will of the people will never persuade the will of the dollar sign.

[theaveng]

That's not quite what I meant. Fast-forward to the year 2050:

 

- the mideast has been drained dry

- oil now costs $500 a barrel, due to extreme rarity

- There's an energy crisis.... people can no longer afford their $1000 a month gasoline bills.

 

 

 

In that situation, "the will of the people" of 2050 will be to drill Alaska, with riots outside of the capital building.

 

troy

[the6ofpopes]

At the rate oil prices are going it'll be at $500 a barrel long before 2050 anyway, without it being a rarity.

 

There's more oil in the Alberta tar sands, somewhere in the area of 300 billion barrels worth, makes that 9.5 billion barrels in Alaska look like a waste of time doesn't it.

 

What we have here is a crisis, a crisis of greed!

 

[psheldrake1]

 

 

More hybrid cars are being built. Using less fuel. The oil boys have to make the money quick.

[Nightopian]

There's more oil in the Alberta tar sands, somewhere in the area of 300 billion barrels worth, makes that 9.5 billion barrels in Alaska look like a waste of time doesn't it.

 

Not especially. According to Wikipedia, The process for extracting oil from the Alberta Tar Sands, requires enormous quantities of hot water to seperate the bitumen from the sand and clay and then the bitumen (which has the consistancy of road tar/ asphalt) has to be diluted with a lighter petroleum (either liquid or gas) or chemically split before it can be transported by pipeline for upgrading into synthetic crude oil.

 

So currently you need a large, easily accessible body of water and the energy to heat it, and preferably a working drill site nearby to supply something to dilute the bitumen.

 

The costs for heating water, drilling, pumping and/or transport of water/oil/gas and the on-site refining process all increase the cost per barrel compared to traditional drilling.

 

Additionally, recovering oil from Tar Sand uses strip mining techniques. Talk about tearing the land up, this type of mining has traditionally been anathema to evironmentalists. For any of them to be offering the Tar Sands up as an alternative to drilling seems more than a bit hypocritical.

 

True, as traditional sources of oil inevitably become exhasted non-traditional sources such as the Tar Sands will look more tempting as the cost ratios even out, but for now, those billions of barrels are too expensive for extensive exploitation.

 

What we have here is a crisis, a crisis of greed!

 

Yes, and your point?

 

Honestly, if you're really put out over the environmental costs of drilling (or strip mining for that matter), there are homebrew solutions whereby you can cut your ties to the oil companies and perhaps even make a buck or three from the power companies.

 

In the US, it's perfectly legal to run a still for the purposes of producing ethanol and rigging an older car to run it isn't too hard. Or, if you check, many modern cars can run on up to 85% ethanol blended with gasoline. (Of course, then you have to deal with the fact that burning ethanol produces higher quantities of methane than gasoline.)

 

Building an energy effcient, or self-sufficient house, while expensive and maintenence intensive, is also possible and depending on your location, can actually feed excess power back into the power grid, which the power companies are obligated to pay you for. So there are plenty of ways to combat the energy companies, but they do require individual investment and promotion. The best way to kill an industry you don't approve of is to make it un profitable by endorsing the use of alternative methods and thus promoting competing technologies/industries.

 

By doing this you, spur more development in those industries, increasing effeciency and lowering the cost for the rest of us, thus making them more tempting etc...

 

It's a slow process, and requires work by those concerned that goes well beyond the simplicity of signing a petition or handing a check over to the Sierra Club, but in the long run, it achieves more I think.

 

Shade and Sweetwater,

NiGHTs

[theaveng]

I was watching a story about King Richard circa 1180. He was sleeping in a NON-heated room, and washed his face with a bucket of partially-frozen water.

 

That's how you cut your energy use - sacrifice.

 

Right now energy is cheap, so we don't need to sacrifice, but by 2050, energy will be so expensive, many of us will be living in un-heated bedrooms. It won't be the end of civilization... just the end of modern conveniences like fully-heated homes. We'll have to take a step back and live more frugally, as our ancestors did in 1900.

 

troy

[carcynsdad]

maybe all this time and energy would be better spent producing hydrogen engines. the funny part is that the oil companies own the technology, so they would still profit from its use. i guess the old farts in charge are afraid of change.

[carcynsdad]

here is an example of what should be happening from here

 

hydrogen technology

[theaveng]

Question -

 

Where do we get the hydrogen come from? It doesn't exist naturally (because it's tied up as water and other compounds), so where do we get the hydrogen to fuel our cars?

 

troy

[Nightopian]

 

Right now energy is cheap, so we don't need to sacrifice, but by 2050, energy will be so expensive, many of us will be living in un-heated bedrooms. It won't be the end of civilization... just the end of modern conveniences like fully-heated homes. We'll have to take a step back and live more frugally, as our ancestors did in 1900.

 

I find this unlikely, barring a worldwide economic collapse. Possible, but unlikely without some unforseen calamity.

 

maybe all this time and energy would be better spent producing hydrogen engines. the funny part is that the oil companies own the technology, so they would still profit from its use. i guess the old farts in charge are afraid of change.

 

As you noted straight Hydrogen engines are coming into use. For now though they are mainly for industrial purposes. This again is more cost related than anything. The fuel tanks for hydrogen engines being larger, considerably heavier and thus significantly more expensive than their gasoline conterparts. Fuel-wise they also have advantages for the companies using them tax-wise. OTOH, given that fueling must be done on-site as almost no gas stations have added hydrogen to their offerings, that's something of a necessity.

 

In anycase as these engines become more prevalient in industrial use, the techniques for making them more affordable will lead to looking at consumer use engines, which will spur the oil companies to spur their franchise holders at the service station level to add hyrdrogen storage tanks and pumps (I'm sure that'll be more expensive than the normal gasoline tanks too. Remember that hydrogen is stored under pressure so there's also a saftey factor. Anyone remember the exploding Pintos from the 70's?). Which will spur etc....

 

Personally, I like Hydrogen engines over Hybrids and I do think they're coming, but price, manufacturing, infrastructure and demand all have to come together and that takes time. As Gasoline prices go up, I believe the other factors will more rapidly come into line.

 

Shade and Sweetwater,

NiGHTs ^_^

 

 

[carcynsdad]

Question -

 

Where do we get the hydrogen come from? It doesn't exist naturally (because it's tied up as water and other compounds), so where do we get the hydrogen to fuel our cars?

 

troy

 

here is a fine example of a simple way to extract hydrogen from water. and some other fine ways to produce clean energy.

 

canadian science

[str82u]

If we don't drill it now, we will drill it in 2050 when the world is literally *starving* for oil. It's jusr a matter of time until the mideast dries up, and desperate people will take desperate measures - including drilling in alaskan preserves.

 

 

So it makes no difference. If we don't use it, our oil-starved grandchildren will. It's inevitable.

 

 

troy

 

Deep but true. It would take a hell of a lot to get us to using electric cars, but we still need fuel to make that.

[theaveng]

We've literally got *mountains* full of coal to provide electricity for our cars. Of course the ideal would be solar, but that will take time to install. For now, we can use coal.

 

 

 

As for hydrogen... I read that link, and it's basically a scam artist (same type of persons who claim they can run engines w/o fuel). Throwing a piece of metal into a bucket of salt water does NOT produce hydrogen. Doesn't exist. (And even if it did, where do we gets the millions of tons of metal????)

 

 

 

Hydrogen can only be made by splitting water. So the question comes - Where do we get the electricity to split the water?!?!? That's the huge flaw with hydrogen. You spend more energy making it, than you get back from burning it.

 

troy

[Foil]

Back to the drilling in Alaska. By 2050, environmental regulations may very well be more strict, technology for drilling and transporting oil safer, cleaner and cheaper, and a need to inject more funds into an area that may no longer have viable lumber and fish resources due to restictions or moritoriums. Preventing drilling now does make a difference. In 2050 the benefits to the community and the environment will be more favorable even if drilling was innevitable.

 

As far as heavy oil is concerned, the technology is available to make it a viable source. The price to make it profitable is somewhere around 40 bucks a barrel and dropping if I remember correctly. Check out the cost of oil today. Last I heard it was hovering well over $60. And I'll take strip mining oil any day over drilling in the ocean floor. The costs of remediating an accident at sea is astronomical and harder to control.

[carcynsdad]

We've literally got *mountains* full of coal to provide electricity for our cars. Of course the ideal would be solar, but that will take time to install. For now, we can use coal.

 

 

 

As for hydrogen... I read that link, and it's basically a scam artist (same type of persons who claim they can run engines w/o fuel). Throwing a piece of metal into a bucket of salt water does NOT produce hydrogen. Doesn't exist. (And even if it did, where do we gets the millions of tons of metal????)

 

 

 

Hydrogen can only be made by splitting water. So the question comes - Where do we get the electricity to split the water?!?!? That's the huge flaw with hydrogen. You spend more energy making it, than you get back from burning it.

 

troy

 

 

more shams

 

movie could be interesting

 

it seems gm know it too

 

bmw knows it too, too much energy to produce. ha

 

someone said that man couldnt break the speed of sound too

 

 

yet another cost effective way to convert fuel

 

as for metal i work for a steel company and metal is cheaper than gasoline. and coal is the dirtiest means of gaining power

[Beawulf]

energy does not have to be produced by burning coal, there are many other alternatives nuclear, solar, solar thermal, wave power, geothermal, hydro, wind. My personal favourite is solar thermal [1]

 

There has been developments in the production of hydrogen that doesnt require power from the electricity grid. it results from the interaction with sunlight, just plain ordinary sunlight. and I'm not talking about using solar panels to produce the energy, this is much more efficient and direct [2]

 

Also the danger of driving around with a tank of hydrogen is no more dangerous than a tank of petrol, either explosion is likely to kill you :P but seriously, it is no longer necesary to store hydrogen in a compressed gas form. It is possible to saturate magnesium with large quantities of hydrogen [3]. And before anyone questions where we will get the energy to obtain the magnesium, see my comments above regarding alternative power production methods.

 

 

So to get back to the issue of drilling for oil in Alaska, I believe it is unnessesary. I also completely disagree that it will have to be done eventually. Such arguments are ignoring that there are plenty of viable alternatives for both the use of oil an burning of coal. These newer technologies could easily be implemented before current oil sources are depleted, and our designs and understanding will only improve over the years to come. We should all be getting onto our governments to start making the changes.

 

 

And before anyone says that it is too expensive to create the infrastructure to support hydrogen cars or whatever it may be, consider...if the price of oil keeps rising, and it will...at some point it will be more economical to make the switch. It would be much better to make the change now, rather than wait till we deplete our resources, damage the environment, cause climate change and have no choice but to switch.

 

 

And just incase there is anyone out there who has been listening to Bush too much "global warmin....it's not happenin!" consider the unusually extreme seasons that are already being experiences around the world [4]

 

 

[1] Solar Tower Project

 

[2] Optimization of a two-compartment photoelectrochemical cell for solar hydrogen production: International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, v 28, n 9, Sept. 2003, p 919-26

 

[3] Hydrogen storage of magnesium-based nanocomposites system: Journal of Materials Science and Technology, v 21, n SUPPL. 1, June, 2005, p 57-60

 

[4] first thing that came up in google about climate change :P

[StitchInTime]

It would be much better to make the change now' date=' rather than wait till we deplete our resources, damage the environment, cause climate change and have no choice but to switch.[/quote']

Ah, but that would be logical, and since when do human beings ever follow logic? :rolleyes:

 

Alas, I fear, we can expect a lot more 'depletion', 'damage', and 'climate change,' before people really smarten up. :(

[GorunNova]

Thermal Depolymerization

Article about it...

... there was an excellent article on it in Scientific American a couple of years back... basically, you feed it fatty waste, and it spits out oil, carbon, and other solid or liquid materials with surprising efficiency. The SciAm article was incredibly impressive, but unfortunately I don't have a copy of it around anymore...

 

Essentially, what it would do is convert agricultural waste (or even garbage, sewage, ground up computers, or recycleables) into it's component materials with an 85% efficiency rate (or so... the SciAm article mentioned 10 BTUs to generate 100 BTU's worth of oil and carbon from turkey guts and other leftovers)