dy156

Another thread that could be titled "More Deep Thoughts by Dy156" Still related, but only very tangentially, to current political events.

High gas prices got me ta' thinkin'-
What are we gonna do about oil runnin' out?

Seriously, whether it's thirty years from now, fifty, or a century away, mankind is using more oil than it's producing. I know the current gas price uptick has nothing to do with an impending shortage, but it's something to think about. I had a long talk with a relative that's a geophysicist about this. Someone with a PhD who's on the tip of the spear in trying to find new oil and more oil in old fields thinks we're running out relatively quickly. There is the argument that some day soon the technology will be available to tap into the stuff in Canada that we can't now, and of course that we won't run out of oil because our technology in finding oil will also improve. He thinks these things might prolong the inevitable, but are not long term solutions. Still others think that by the time this gets to be a real issue, the marketplace will have come up with a solution. (something I'm inclined to think myself) As many have said, we'll never "run out" of oil, it will just get too expensive for consumers to consume it at today's rate.

I know this has been discussed before, but the purpose of this thread is to provide your input on what can be done politically about things that need to be addressed, but cannot fixed in the 4-8 year timespan of a presidency. I'm troubled by the fact that the closest this issue has come to being addressed is whether we should allow drilling in ANWR, and its effects on carribou. Hydrogen cells are not really the answer, as from my understanding, they have to store energy that's produced in typical powerplants run by fossil fuels. The closest thing I can think of to a long term vision that has been addressed is a need for a ballistic missile defense system. Reagan hatched it, Bush has supported it, but twenty years later, it's still not there. I for one am glad it's being worked on, and I wish more long term vision of a better America was being voiced and acted upon by our elected officials. Like it or not, fringe fears like asteroids or antibiotic resistant diseases, or an impending global oil shortage are things that need to be worried about and have a solution attempted. Even libertarians' dislike of government concedes that protecting its citizens is the primary reason for government. I don't see the government attempting to protect us from any of these issues.

My question is this, if you were running for office, or were elected president, what would you do to begin addressing the long term energy policy or anything else that would require a long term solution or fix, bearing in mind that it would likely take decades to come up with an effective solution. How can we change our government so that it is more effective at thinking about and addressing long term problems?

Or if you think I'm crazy for even thinking about these things, and just need to stop worrying about them, let me know that, too. I'd usually be inclined to agree with you, but that's why I talked about deep thoughts, not everyday thoughts.

Superbelt

Hydrogen cells are a part of the answer. We aren't far off from the day when hydrogen can be produced entirely from solar cells.

ANWR is not the answer, It's oil, at the earliest, is 8-10 years away from recovery. And even then it is only an 18 month supply of oil. And that's the second largest untapped supply of domestic crude oil in continental North America.

The technology is largely already there to move us in huge strides towards a true renewable energy culture.
All we need is the money. The first thing a president who is really interested in our energy independence would do is to budget an additional 100 billion dollars per year towards the research of renewable energy sources.
That is our only obstacle, money. The tech is here. For instance. We have solar cells, but we need to continue to minaturize them, and that takes meshing the tech with nanotechs. One day we will be integrating solar cells into our house shingles. And at an efficiency to produce excess energy every day, as long as you get a moderate amount of sun on a weekly basis. And this isn't sci-fi. This tech is not that far off when you take the researchers constraints of money out of the picture.
Nanotech will allow us to actually print solar cells up the same way we print a document on our printer.

Wind turbines today can work in what is now deemed low-wind areas. They just cost a huge amount of money. Drop enough money into that and ways will be found to make the turbines cheap enough for a developer to incorporate them into his developments and make his homes green and self sufficient (when paired with the solar cells on the homes)

The government needs to really push hydrogen power. We need to establish a standard in hydrogen power, which isn't an easy job and will take intense debate on which method is best. We need to fund the infrasturcture to bring the hydrogen power to the masses, nationwide.

It really is all about money. If the government can provide it at the appropriate levels, America can become THE leader in energy technology. It will pay for itself in the long run with the reduced pollution, reduced need for overseas military presence and personal energy freedom for every american.

pan6467

Personally as far-out as it sounds I'd say incinerators and human waste burners could power the power plants. It would take away landfills fast, burn relatively cleaner and with filters the smell wouldn't really be any more noticeable than a water treatment plant or landfill.

As for cars, I'd work on the soybean oil aspect. Or perhaps Methane.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ggadgit

The problem is politicians have no long term vision other than doing what they need to do to get elicited, I wish that the politicians would have to work for a living, and the pay for being a politician was only supplementary, and that congress had to use social security for their retirement. I'm all for term limits, you need to change old diapers and politicians for the same reason.

Arc101

Yeah right the politicians are really going to think 10+ years ahead. They are not going to do anything to piss off the oil industry, after all they get far too much in the way of 'charitable' contributions from them.

tecoyah

A recent Discover Magazine article focused on a small solar generator, which mounts on your roof. Rather than converting sunlight into electricity, it focuses sunlight onto a small steam engine to create heat. At this time it can compete directly with local utilities as far as cost per watt.
Within a year it should be on the market, and may very well compete with oil.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Boo

ANWR may not be the whole answer. It may be the difference in a pinch. Off shore is geting its 15 minutes of fame now also.

BTW. Most Alaskans want it. Our economy could use it. We also want the natural gas pipeline, but lack the leadership needed to make it happen.

The real shortage in America is leadership.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

Superbelt

The alaskan economy could use it because Alaskans can't live without the state welfare. I think the yearly check currently comes out to about 1200 dollars a year, correct? The only reason the Alaskan elected body want to drill there is to get themselves reelected.

ANWR is nowhere near the answer. As the second largest known reserves on american soil ANWR, at full output can be completely offset by increasing the national MPG across the board by, I believe, one mile a [edit] GALLON.
Our present leadership opposes increasing that MPG standard. That's where our problems lie for oil dependency.
ANWR's 18 month supply of oil is really nothing. It will not substantially reduce our dependency. Even if we developed all our oil fields in america and offshore, we will still have a substantial dependence on foreign oil.

The answer is not developing oil at home, it is to reduce our oil consumption.
I would like to at least save that oil for future generations if they need it. As we go on it becomes more and more valuable. A large part of crude is used to make the tar for our roads.

dy156

This thread hasn't taken off like I had hoped, but thought I'd throw some more thoughts out there:
Here's what I think- ANWR and offshore drilling will happen fairly soon, one way or the other, and they'll make some people lots of money, but they won't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things, like was said by someone else above.

We should build more nuclear reactors, or, rather encourage companies to build them. There are many that might say "Not in My Back Yard" but I bet there are alot of rural communities that would jump at the economic opportunity. Sign my town up for a huge construction project and eventually a big chunk of highly skilled, educated and fairly well paid people working there. I hope and suspect that newer nuclear plants would be much safer than the one at three mile island. We should lower environmental standards and encourage use of Coal, of which the U.S. has a whole hell of a lot. We should, yes, throw money at programs like energy from agricultural waste and wind power through tax breaks and alterations of current farm subsidies. It's not really environmentally friendly, it's not really conservative, and there's just enough there to piss off everyone, but it's what I think we should do.

Are those proposals stupid? If not how can we find candidates with the balls to go with something like this that will piss off everyone, but just might be the most prudent thing?

Superbelt

I'm pretty much a "tree hugger" and I see the need to lean on Nuclear power as our freeing energy source.
But Nuclear power needs to be fixed and run by the federal government. No more new private reactors.
We need to do nuclear power like the French do. They keep costs down by having one schematic for their nuke plants at a time and build that over and over. This also allows technicians to be transferred between all different plants.
Also France has a special school where they train all their nuke workers. And it's a long program.
France also uses the secondary nuclear waste and restructures it to be used again as fuel in their secondary reactor system. This cuts down hugely on the amount of nuclear waste that France creates every year. France is energy independent by creating over 75% of its energy through Nuclear plants.
France finally has a high tech waste storage system.

We need all of this to get back on the Nuke plant band wagon.

I am not worried about nuclear waste if we use the proper storage systems because I know we are only one or two generations off from finding new ways to use up the radioactive materials.

So I say start up the machine, but do it regulated hard, like the military. It has to be generic, efficient, and we need to have everything planned out from beginning to end.
And fund research to find a final solution for the radioactive waste.

Boo

Was that an insult to Alaskans? A Troll? I believe you were referring to the welfare of the state. Not referring to Alaskans as a welfare society. That would be a mistake as most Alaskans work hard for a living.

For those REALLY bad at math. $1200 is a little over a weeks pay. I couldn't do without it I should pack up and move out. Yes, its a nice little check, but anyone that relies on it as a source of sustainable income needs a clue. Anyone that believes that it is worth moving to Alaska just for the check needs to go back to school.

The state benefits hugely from oil and its exploration, not just from the permanent fund dividend. It fills the state budget so us welfare recipients don't have to pay state taxes too.

I reside in Alaska after living in 8 different states people are choosy about where they want to scream and rant for the environment.

An example is: No one tells North Carolina to stop its SEVERE polluting of the Neuse River. Millions of gallons of UNTREATED sewage gets flushed from Releigh every hurricane or heavy rain.

Prepare to be disgusted:
http://www.riverlaw.us/pages/7/

Everyone sticks their nose in our business. Maybe they should get their own backyards cleaned up before they tell us how to run ours.

I also believe there to be more oil than stated. Much more. The big boys wouldn't be chomping so hard if there wasn't. Thats bad math and they don't make money from bad math.

I do agree that America needs to severly reduce our oil consumption. We should be commuting in small 3-4 cylinder boxes. Large vehicles should be required to have diesel engines (V-10 what a huge waste). I would personally like to see communities that utilized small 4 cycle/battery powered ATV's/golf carts (like Sun City) for short travel. A very overlooked usage of oil is transporting sports teams around the country.

There should be a tax on Hummers not a tax break (President Bush think a bit longer term next time).

Alaskan politicians are just as corrupt as the rest.

As for ANWR, we need to understand what oil is there no matter what. We need a safe plan to recover it in case of a national emergency. We need to do this with utter sensivity to the environment (this applies to exploration and recovery nationwide, not just in AK).

We will need oil, maybe really badly. I would prefer to do the ground work before it becomes less of an economic benefit and more of an emergency. The environment would be the benefactor from planned and regulated methods instead of an oil rush.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

Superbelt

Yes, to clarify, that was not a troll. I meant 'state welfare' just as it was written. To provide for the people of Alaska. And I think that provision creates problems in Alaska. Your legislature finds it politically expedient to continually push for more oil exploration to feed their own need to get reelected for "providing for Alaskans". "Can't live without [it]" was me making a point about how Alaskans demand that money and get pretty pissed off if their check comes in less than last years. It's probrably your hottest political button. I would not classify a state as a welfare society. If I was making a troll I would have capitalized Welfare to identify it as synonymous with the program. So please don't assume that.

My weeks pay is 400 dollars, I live in PA, I consider myself a middle class professional. the 1200 check would of course represent a month and a half of my pay. Pretty substantial bit of money. Most Alaskans I believe would fall down at least closer to my pay range than what is apparently yours.

My fiancee's cousin moved to Alaska because of the checks and no income tax.
And yes he is a moron.

To your point about being choosey:
I know all about those kinds of fish kills. I don't eat pig anymore because of fish kills and other results of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. The meat I do eat now comes directly from small family farms in my area. I pay more, but it is better as a sustainable form of livestock and is me being a better steward of the nations environment.

I'm not entirely inflexible. I could back ANWR exploration as long as the national energy policy came with improvements in all areas. But it's not. The national policy remains to increase consumption and ANWR is another meal on the plate.

Boo

Actually I live in a moderate neighborhood. My home is below mean. Anchorage has an average of $221148 in 2003 for a home. I make decent money but nothing spectactular.

You would starve to death up here on $400 a week.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.