DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Oil Crisis? What Oil Crisis?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 137, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/22/2008 10:09:30 AM · #1
//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

Message edited by author 2008-06-22 10:09:41.
06/22/2008 10:19:43 AM · #2
"Safe" oil
What oil drilling does.

SO DROP IT ANWR IS CLOSED!!!!!!!!
06/22/2008 10:38:56 AM · #3
Lets destroy the planet so that you can still drive that huge pick up truck.

Oil is not the answer.

What is needed is a new resource that keeps the planet safe, and all humans happy.
06/22/2008 10:47:04 AM · #4
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

Lets destroy the planet so that you can still drive that huge pick up truck.

Oil is not the answer.

What is needed is a new resource that keeps the planet safe, and all humans happy.


Well said!!!
06/22/2008 11:00:31 AM · #5
Keep the oil flowing until new alternative fuels are proven. Any other way would be absurd.
06/22/2008 11:05:55 AM · #6
Yes continue on the track we are on. Maybe in another 4 years we can be paying 8 dollars or more!!!!
06/22/2008 11:21:03 AM · #7
Originally posted by AndyMac24:

Yes continue on the track we are on. Maybe in another 4 years we can be paying 8 dollars or more!!!!


Here is`s already $11 :(

Message edited by author 2008-06-22 11:22:30.
06/22/2008 11:32:56 AM · #8
A world without oil, coal and natural gas as primary energy sources is at least 20-30 years away as step-change technologies need to be proven at-scale and existing infrastructures need complete retooling to accommodate delivery and transmission of new power sources.

No matter how much you dislike paying for high-carbon outputting fossil fuels, they'll be around for the whole of our lives.
06/22/2008 11:45:53 AM · #9
Originally posted by signal2noise:

A world without oil, coal and natural gas as primary energy sources is at least 20-30 years away as step-change technologies need to be proven at-scale and existing infrastructures need complete retooling to accommodate delivery and transmission of new power sources.

No matter how much you dislike paying for high-carbon outputting fossil fuels, they'll be around for the whole of our lives.


True, but it does not mean that we should live to kill the planet.

It does not mean to give in, and give up and rely on a resource that will ultimately harm the human race.


06/22/2008 11:47:34 AM · #10
The oil companies own all the patents to alternate energy sources. Our hands are pretty much tied.
06/22/2008 11:49:21 AM · #11
Originally posted by benjikan:

//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147


Interesting story, if only half of it is true, it is indeed a scary situation.
06/22/2008 11:59:32 AM · #12
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:



True, but it does not mean that we should live to kill the planet.

It does not mean to give in, and give up and rely on a resource that will ultimately harm the human race.


There are many more options than the use/non-use of fossil fuels. Just as alternatives and renewables need great technology advancement to bring them online, technologies for processing and conversion of coal, oil & natural gas are improving to reduce, mitigate and remove carbon and GHG emissions from the process - as well as the ability to not only sequester them, but also for use in recovery and production operations.

Any realistic energy plan will include hydrocarbons as well as alternatives and renewables.
06/22/2008 12:12:12 PM · #13
Originally posted by lunensa:

The oil companies own all the patents to alternate energy sources. Our hands are pretty much tied.


That simply isn't true. Its an old rumor (yes those existed before the internet) that has probably been around before the oil crunch of the 70's. It just like the claims that the oil companies paid millions of dollars to kill the water powered car, or that in 1976 Texaco had an inventor killed because he had developed a device that would quadruple gas mileage.
06/22/2008 12:23:05 PM · #14
Originally posted by signal2noise:

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:



True, but it does not mean that we should live to kill the planet.

It does not mean to give in, and give up and rely on a resource that will ultimately harm the human race.


There are many more options than the use/non-use of fossil fuels. Just as alternatives and renewables need great technology advancement to bring them online, technologies for processing and conversion of coal, oil & natural gas are improving to reduce, mitigate and remove carbon and GHG emissions from the process - as well as the ability to not only sequester them, but also for use in recovery and production operations.

Any realistic energy plan will include hydrocarbons as well as alternatives and renewables.


Again, true, but, while these technologies are being looked into, safer practices to extract from mother Earth are yet put into practice.

Pollution is a second thought to these companies.

Practices to limit pollution that should have a common sense value are only forced upon oil companies only when federal governments are forced to regulate for those common sense, safer extraction policies.

Even these policies are only enacted only when humans are harmed from the pollution these companies release into the environment.

And your response is....?
06/22/2008 12:30:10 PM · #15
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

Lets destroy the planet so that you can still drive that huge pick up truck.

Oil is not the answer.

What is needed is a new resource that keeps the planet safe, and all humans happy.


There is a short run and long run view here. In the short run we should encourage and even demand conservation through tax policy and regulation if necessary. However, I need to heat my house this winter and get to work. World oil demand (as opposed to US demand) is going to continue to rise for quite some time as the 3rd world continues to industrialize - mainly India and China for now. Therefore, the world will need more oil for the foreseeable future.

Except for nuclear power, these other forms of "clean, renewable energy" such as solar, wind etc are not viable solutions in the short or even intermediate term. So while we shouldnt abandon development of these technologies and we should build as many nuclear plants as we can afford, we will have to rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

Thats reality and although its unfortunate, drilling is our only viable short/intermediate strategy.
06/22/2008 12:38:43 PM · #16
Originally posted by photodude:

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

Lets destroy the planet so that you can still drive that huge pick up truck.

Oil is not the answer.

What is needed is a new resource that keeps the planet safe, and all humans happy.


There is a short run and long run view here. In the short run we should encourage and even demand conservation through tax policy and regulation if necessary. However, I need to heat my house this winter and get to work. World oil demand (as opposed to US demand) is going to continue to rise for quite some time as the 3rd world continues to industrialize - mainly India and China for now. Therefore, the world will need more oil for the foreseeable future.

Except for nuclear power, these other forms of "clean, renewable energy" such as solar, wind etc are not viable solutions in the short or even intermediate term. So while we shouldnt abandon development of these technologies and we should build as many nuclear plants as we can afford, we will have to rely on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

Thats reality and although its unfortunate, drilling is our only viable short/intermediate strategy.


Hey Mike,

Do you think I am not unlike you?

3 kids, a mortgage, two cars, and all the things a normal American has I have.

I too have bills, and I too have to get to work. California doesn't have wagon trains anymore.

But, let me ask this....what are your kids, kids going to do when Long Island is under water?

I know my kids, kids will enjoy the shoreline that will be near my house, an hour away from where it currently is today.
06/22/2008 12:50:06 PM · #17
We aren't going to "destroy the Earth" it will be here long after we make it uninhabitable for us to live. As George Carlin said, "Maybe Mother Earth made us to make plastic. Now that she has it, she's done with us."
06/22/2008 12:52:29 PM · #18
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:



Again, true, but, while these technologies are being looked into, safer practices to extract from mother Earth are yet put into practice.

Pollution is a second thought to these companies.

Practices to limit pollution that should have a common sense value are only forced upon oil companies only when federal governments are forced to regulate for those common sense, safer extraction policies.

Even these policies are only enacted only when humans are harmed from the pollution these companies release into the environment.

And your response is....?


Pollution is not a primary thought of ANY business - profit is. Emission regulations and carbon taxes are great motivators to companies to start to think and produce safer, more responsibly and efficiently, as is public opinion.
06/22/2008 01:10:11 PM · #19
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:



Hey Mike,

Do you think I am not unlike you?

3 kids, a mortgage, two cars, and all the things a normal American has I have.

I too have bills, and I too have to get to work. California doesn't have wagon trains anymore.

But, let me ask this....what are your kids, kids going to do when Long Island is under water?

I know my kids, kids will enjoy the shoreline that will be near my house, an hour away from where it currently is today.


I happened to watch An Inconvenient Truth last night for the first time. It is very eye opening. I agree that we need to make an energy policy a priority in the USA, which we will be able to do regardless of who wins the white house beginning next January.

What we can not do is forego oil in the short run. It will take time to develop alternative energy technology and implement them when they become viable. Our only immediate alternative to oil is coal which is much less eco friendly.

Lets look at others:

Nuclear - viable but expensive to build and needs a 10+ year lead time
Wind - not very practical in most areas
Solar - the technology is not there yet for any large generation.
Synfuels - could be produced cheaply relative to oil but plants will only be built by the private sector if they were assured that the oil price would be floored forever by the government at a price above their production cost (I beleive estimated at $60-75/bbl)
Geothermal - good for Iceland, not too helpful here
Hydro - pretty exploited here already and has other eco issues.
06/22/2008 01:23:47 PM · #20
I saw that video, and watched the entire presentation about 6 months ago. If it is only half true, it's still significant stuff.

If inflation and fuel prices keep running up, we can soon build steam powered cars that can burn folding money for fuel, and they will be more economical to operate per mile than the current vehicles.
I was here and working during the fuel crunch in the 1970's. The difference this time is that they are controlling the supply by raising prices instead of keeping prices down and rationing fuel.
If an oil company can make 10 gallons of fuel, and sell it at double the current price, then If it makes and delivers 5 gallons, It will make more money than selling 10 gallons at the current price. It will also have 5 gallons left to sell, and except for the storage and delivery price, the 2nd 5 gal would be all profit. : ) That's my take on the reason for seeing record profits in the oil company businesses. At least, with the current pump price control on the supply, there are no 1/2 mile long lines to get the allotted 10 gallons of gas per car here in the US yet, the way it was in 1972 and no "pump rage" over people butting in line.

Biofuel is not the answer either, as it takes a lot of fertilizer, fuel, and water (80 gal ) to grow the crop and make a gallon of fuel. The run off from all the fertilizer is killing the Gulf of Mexico, Dead Zones, Link. In a world where people are starving, It does not make sense at all. I feel that the biofuel push is just a big "Dollartics" program. There you have my opinion, about that, and my new word for the day. "Dollartics" : P

I feel that solar power is the best option, and that there will be more efficient and more cost effective solar power in the near future. The energy in full sunlight is about 1.4 kW per square meter, but we don't have the tech yet to use it effectively. That's about 4.9 million horse power per square mile, enough to make a lot of toast in a hurry.
Hypert textbook 1998

I also look for more railroad activity, and possibly a return to steam powered locomotives, though perhaps burning solar or nuke made hydrogen instead of other fuels. Rail is the most energy effective way to move large payloads over land, and it just makes sense, though more labor intensive and not as convenient as trucking. Piggy backing highway trailers by rail was popular in the late 60's and early 70's for that reason.

I may just sail off into the sunset with my son and his family on their sail boat, but we will be avoiding the dead zones. I do care. We have cut our power bill at home by about 50% since 2 years ago. Our two private vehicles get 24 and 27 mpg, real miles now. My work truck still gets about 17 but I try to leave it where I am working and commute in my smaller vehicle daily. We will get thru this, and change the way we live and do things. We just all need to plan to live smaller and greener, then do it.

06/22/2008 01:43:00 PM · #21
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:


What is needed is a new resource that keeps the planet safe, and all humans happy.


Exactly what would this new resource be?

Considering that the planet has never been safe, and never will be, and all humans will never be happy. A quick look at the DPC personal forum will verify this.
06/22/2008 01:45:06 PM · #22
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:

...I feel that solar power is the best option, and that there will be more efficient and more cost effective solar power in the near future. The energy in full sunlight is about 1.4 kW per square meter, but we don't have the tech yet to use it effectively. That's about 4.9 million horse power per square mile, enough to make a lot of toast in a hurry.
Hypert textbook 1998


Exactly, the ultimate answer. Eventually, the gigantic nuclear reactor in the sky will provide all of the energy that we will ever need. Actually, it already does. We just need to learn how to collect, convert, and store it for our specific needs better than we do today. Whoever figures this out first will be wealthier than the king of Saudi Arabia ever thought of.
06/22/2008 06:16:18 PM · #23
Ban most environmentalists and we wouldn't have energy crises. And we would probably have a cleaner, better Earth to boot. Most of the environmentalists don't care what damage they do, what long term problems they cause or how un-compromising they are as long as they can fulfill their agenda. You can think the environmentalists for the US not having more refineries to process the oil that is available right now and having additional sources of both non-renewable and renewable fuels and energy available. Paticularly in creating sources of minimal impact sources of energy like wind, solor, hydro, geo-thermal, wave and in finding clean ways to process coal and oil shell (which we have supplies of that will last for generations if not centuries).

I hope if nothing else, the impact we are seeing on the US economy wakes up a bunch of people to the fact that many of the environmentalist groups out there have gone way over board in what they have been able to prevent. There are a few good groups that realize there has to be a balance and compremise. But they are usually shouted down by the fanatical groups.

Mike
06/22/2008 07:41:16 PM · #24
This is in entertaining thread. It is amusing how loudly we Americans whine about the price we are paying for gasoline. I expect we will have no interest in alternatives to a fossil fuel based lifestyle until every last drop of oil has been sucked out of the earth and burned. Out of the ruins something new will grow, as always. As for me, I have no interest in paying more for gasoline than I do to the utility company so I now have a fuel-efficient car, a smaller apartment, & live much closer to work so that if gas-rationing goes into effect, I can walk to work. That is, if I still have my job.
06/22/2008 10:15:32 PM · #25
so interesting post
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/06/2019 04:30:55 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/06/2019 04:30:55 PM EST.