Drill? Or go green? I say do both.

[Oddball]

Drill? Or go green? I say do both.

Define "go green".

If by that you mean windmills, solar panels and the usual environmentalist babe-in-the-woods "solutions", I'd like to remind you that none of those "new" technologies are anywhere as "green" as their proponents hold them up to be.

Takes lots of mining, smelting and refining of metals, and lots of industrial lubricants to build and maintain windmills....Ditto solar panels.

Batteries need cadmium, lithium and other heavy metals that aren't exactly environmentally friendly, to mine, refine and turn into battery plates.

So, let's have it...Just how green is "green"?

Now Oddie, take a look at the table of elements. Do you see where Lithium is?

Let's consider your other dumb ass statements. You mean to tell me it does not take a buttload of mining, smelting, and refining of metals to create coal burning plants and oil refineries? Real stupid statement on your part.

And the coal burning plants, and refineries just continue to put out poisons for the rest of their existance.

Perhaps starting your re-education at about the third grade would bring you up to speed?

So, how do you mine and refine iron ore, copper, cadmium, lithium, etcetera with "green" technology, hmmmmm?

How do you produce coke (an essential ingredient in steel) without burning coal?

C'mon...Dazzle us.

 

[Old Rocks]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

 

[CountofTuscany]

If there is one thing we have learned from the Gulf oil spill, it is this: we have oil. If only we could have found that out another way. The disaster was caused because safety procedures were not followed.

I find it strange that we have two factions on the issue of energy. First we have the "Drill Baby Drill" people that say that drilling for oil is the only answer to our energy needs. Then we have those at the other extreme that say we should stop all drilling today, right now, and go exclusively to solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.

I say both sides are partially wrong. My position is that America needs to use whatever sources it can from inside our borders. That means drill for oil AND use solar, wind, nuclear, and coal. There is no reason it can't be done. This would keep about $800 billion a year in America for American jobs and put a major dent in the wallets of terrorists that hate what this country stands for.

I feel we need to minimize our dependence on foriegn oil at any cost. If that means drilling our own resources until we perfect other alternatives, then we should. Our area, as well as most of the north east, are powered by hyro electric from dams. Wind is making a huge presence right now. Solar is a fantastic alternative but is to costly and incentives are not available in NY.

 

[Spoonman]

The oil is coming out of the ground whether we take it or someone else does. We might just as well take it.

 

[Oddball]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

So what?

There are numerous other mills that use fossil fuels and you still need coke to make steel from iron ore.

I have no objection to mining minerals. My point is that the creation of so-called "green technologies" relies upon a whole heap of old fashioned digging into the ground, and all the attendant usage of traditional fuels that entails. Moreover, there are transportation, assembly and maintenance issues (at least) which also rely upon good ole American trucking and manufacture techniques.

When all is said and done, your venerated "green technology" is an environmental wash, at best, to go along with being an economic loser.

 

[IndependentBear]

My whole point is that I favor any form of energy that will get us off of foreign oil (notice I said foreign). And could someone please enlighten me on where the term "fossil fuel" came from?

 

[MaggieMae]

Green energy is a joke. It ALWAYS costs more than you think it will. I work for a solar panel equipment manufacturer. They can't give the damn product away even after discounting it 30% over the past year. Fossil fuel is what runs the world for the foreseeable future. And all the legislation in the world won't change that. You can't legislate scientific breakthoughs, despite our trip to the moon. Enviro-wackos wish for technology that doesn't currently exist.

Oh really? Did anyone see the 60 Minutes segment on "The Bloom Box" last Sunday? What was surprising to me are the number of BIG corporations already employing this technology which bypasses the electric grid entirely (that being 90% of the problem with other alternative energy sources, like wind).

Alternative Energy: The Bloom Box - 60 Minutes - CBS News

 

[uscitizen]

Just make sure all our drilling rigs are Energy Star compliant.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ever hear of Evergreen Solar? That's not the company I work for but I know a lot of their former employees. State of Massachusetts gave them $78 million in tax breaks/subsidies... THEY STILL COULDN'T MAKE IT. They're sending the work to China now, huge factory closing. Do you not understand nobody wants this crap? Even the solar companies have given up on the idea of putting solar panels on individual homes, now they want huge expansive acres of areas of panels. It's over, get it? Not going to work.

Well since oil exploration in the United States is equally opposed (yes, it IS), what do you suggest we do if there is another oil embargo by OPEC (like in the 70's), or if Iran decides to close off the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic to and from the region, or if (even in this country), more wells (and refineries) start blowing up due to lack of maintenance?

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, you're right. You know all about it. We've had 3 layoffs where I work and I'm expecting a fourth any day now. And that's just in the lousy 2 and half years I've been employed there. Business sucks. That's the fact despite any enviro-wacko propaganda.

Sorry about your personal situation, but things aren't always all about YOU.

 

[MaggieMae]

There's NOT ENOUGH emphasis on drilling in this country. Congress (and the public) goes out of its way to stifle exploration and production, while other countries encourage it. The result- decreased domestic production, loss of jobs, and ever-increasing imports.

The fact is that hydrocarbon energy will be the predominant fuel well into the future. You can not transition to other fuel sources by shooting yourself in the foot in the name of all that is "green".

What a crock. We give the fossil fuel industry far too many subsidies.

Simple fact, we use 25% of the petroleum produces worldwide. We have 3% of the known reserves. And the Hubert Curve is still valid.

Oil shale? Whose water are you going to take? Oil products from coal? How much can the average American pay for oil and fuel, when his income is shrinking? And the price of food is going up because of the effects of AGW?

42% of the new installed electrical production in the US in 2008 was wind. It was probably higher for 2009. And will probably be even higher for 2010. And Solar is starting to come into play as many companies are now producing panels for less than a $1 a watt. Geo-thermal has not become a big player yet, however, the people at MIT seem to think that they can produce power with it far cheaper than dirty coal.

Yes, I recall your example of "subsidies" from another thread. Something about offshore bank accounts or shadily flagged tankers?

The petroleum industry is afforded tax treatments similar to any other industry. Many provisions have been a part of the tax code since the 1920's. Throughout our economy they are meant to foster investment and growth. To single out hydrocarbons for "punishment" is counterproductive.

You've put forth some fascinating developments in solar technology, all of which I think play an important role - and none of which I would label as a "crock". I was promoting the use of solar as far back as the early 80's. But I was also deeply involved in the petroleum industry as I am today.

Can't you let is stand on it's own merit without browbeating a 175 year old industry?

I'd just like an accounting of what they DO with all those subsidies, since Big Oil has shown the highest profits in history in the last couple of years. One would think that if they are reinvesting into their own R&D for alternative energy (which is what the subsidies are for), the Petroleum Lobby wouldn't have an ad up on television admonishing removal of said subsidies (which they call a "tax" on the industry in the ad).

 

[MaggieMae]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

Thanks for a dazzling reply!

 

[MaggieMae]

The oil is coming out of the ground whether we take it or someone else does. We might just as well take it.

It would be fine if there was a 100% assurance that there was indeed oil where the drills are placed. How often have you driven across vast expanses of western territory and seen those bobbing rigs dotting the entire landscape? Are they all pumping oil? No. I don't particularly want them in my back yard in the northeast when the west is finally poked full of holes. Not when there are other viable choices.

 

[Mr. H.]

What a crock. We give the fossil fuel industry far too many subsidies.

Simple fact, we use 25% of the petroleum produces worldwide. We have 3% of the known reserves. And the Hubert Curve is still valid.

Oil shale? Whose water are you going to take? Oil products from coal? How much can the average American pay for oil and fuel, when his income is shrinking? And the price of food is going up because of the effects of AGW?

42% of the new installed electrical production in the US in 2008 was wind. It was probably higher for 2009. And will probably be even higher for 2010. And Solar is starting to come into play as many companies are now producing panels for less than a $1 a watt. Geo-thermal has not become a big player yet, however, the people at MIT seem to think that they can produce power with it far cheaper than dirty coal.

Yes, I recall your example of "subsidies" from another thread. Something about offshore bank accounts or shadily flagged tankers?

The petroleum industry is afforded tax treatments similar to any other industry. Many provisions have been a part of the tax code since the 1920's. Throughout our economy they are meant to foster investment and growth. To single out hydrocarbons for "punishment" is counterproductive.

You've put forth some fascinating developments in solar technology, all of which I think play an important role - and none of which I would label as a "crock". I was promoting the use of solar as far back as the early 80's. But I was also deeply involved in the petroleum industry as I am today.

Can't you let is stand on it's own merit without browbeating a 175 year old industry?

I'd just like an accounting of what they DO with all those subsidies, since Big Oil has shown the highest profits in history in the last couple of years. One would think that if they are reinvesting into their own R&D for alternative energy (which is what the subsidies are for), the Petroleum Lobby wouldn't have an ad up on television admonishing removal of said subsidies (which they call a "tax" on the industry in the ad).

Subsidy is a misnomer. The bottom line is that it results in less taxes on investment. Removal of "subsidies" is the same as raising taxes.

 

[MaggieMae]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

So what?

There are numerous other mills that use fossil fuels and you still need coke to make steel from iron ore.

I have no objection to mining minerals. My point is that the creation of so-called "green technologies" relies upon a whole heap of old fashioned digging into the ground, and all the attendant usage of traditional fuels that entails. Moreover, there are transportation, assembly and maintenance issues (at least) which also rely upon good ole American trucking and manufacture techniques.

When all is said and done, your venerated "green technology" is an environmental wash, at best, to go along with being an economic loser.

Such endeavors would mean JOBS JOBS and more JOBS. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Douger]

Do both.
Smoke "orgainic" cigarettes while you do.

 

[MaggieMae]

The U.S. will no longer lead the way in what will become the biggest global investment opportunity. That will be a first. It's really sad that Americans no longer have the mojo to be the world's leader, as we did with space exploration. Now it's China.

The Breakthrough Institute: China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, I recall your example of "subsidies" from another thread. Something about offshore bank accounts or shadily flagged tankers?

The petroleum industry is afforded tax treatments similar to any other industry. Many provisions have been a part of the tax code since the 1920's. Throughout our economy they are meant to foster investment and growth. To single out hydrocarbons for "punishment" is counterproductive.

You've put forth some fascinating developments in solar technology, all of which I think play an important role - and none of which I would label as a "crock". I was promoting the use of solar as far back as the early 80's. But I was also deeply involved in the petroleum industry as I am today.

Can't you let is stand on it's own merit without browbeating a 175 year old industry?

I'd just like an accounting of what they DO with all those subsidies, since Big Oil has shown the highest profits in history in the last couple of years. One would think that if they are reinvesting into their own R&D for alternative energy (which is what the subsidies are for), the Petroleum Lobby wouldn't have an ad up on television admonishing removal of said subsidies (which they call a "tax" on the industry in the ad).

Subsidy is a misnomer. The bottom line is that it results in less taxes on investment. Removal of "subsidies" is the same as raising taxes.

I thought that was my point. Care to address the rest of what I said?

 

[uscitizen]

China win the clean energy race?
Actually their polloution is so bad it is a matter of survival for them.

China is currently the dreamland for the right. NO stinkin EPA or FDA, EEOC, etc.

 

[Old Rocks]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

So what?

There are numerous other mills that use fossil fuels and you still need coke to make steel from iron ore.

I have no objection to mining minerals. My point is that the creation of so-called "green technologies" relies upon a whole heap of old fashioned digging into the ground, and all the attendant usage of traditional fuels that entails. Moreover, there are transportation, assembly and maintenance issues (at least) which also rely upon good ole American trucking and manufacture techniques.

When all is said and done, your venerated "green technology" is an environmental wash, at best, to go along with being an economic loser.

Well, by the logic that you are using, the automotive industry, and railroads should never have come into being, because we used horses in the early days of both technologies to deliver the supplies to build those technologies.

Economic loser? 42% of the new generation capacity for electrical power in the US in 2008 was wind. Solar has come down so far in price that if you watch the sales, you can get it as an individual for less than a $1 a watt. In fact, one of the solar wholesale houses that sells to individuals had a 4.6 kw kit, panels, inverter, AC and DC disconects, and wiring, for under $8000. Major battery companies are working on batteries, or capacitors that will beat the present density of the lithium batteries by a factor of 3. In other words, the Volt would have a range of 120 miles on battery only with those batteries, the Tesla would have a range of 750 miles. And the zinc-air batteries are far cheaper than the lithium batteries. Both are completely recyclable.

A 5 kw solar installation would give the average homeowner not only power for the home, but also fuel for his vehicle. So you find the idea of the average homeowner having more economic indepence objectionable?