Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments on Green Energy

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:27:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My cousin and I have recently been having several arguments through youtube about the importance of many types of green energy. Certain individuals still consider nuclear energy to be unsafe and believe geothermal, tidal, wind, and solar to be the only viable options. It didn't take me long to prove the ineffectiveness of tidal, wind, and solar [although orbital solar energy can work] the people I have been arguing with refuse to see the issues of using geothermal power [such as how it can be easily depleted if not managed properly, the costs of starting plants, the fact it destabilizes the ground around it, geology does not allow for its use everywhere unless you decide to drill towards the mantle which is still an technical impossibility for us, and many other things]. They only use sensationalist arguments in their arguments [and the occasional scientific one is easily revoked by other scientific developments] I have decided to ask DDO its opinion upon the subject and maybe give me reasons why some people continue to deny the facts.
Please excuse the bad posting for this is in an rush for I am about to go to school now.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 8:03:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 6:27:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
why some people continue to deny the facts.

Because you are not dealing with the ideology that initially supports the advocation of the alternate energy supplies i.e., the wrong target if you want to change minds. Anyway, plenty of YECs here, they should be able to fill you in. >.>

Going into debates with the idea that you'll change minds isn't that great of an idea to begin with. You make your case as best as you can, you can't force people to accept any particular position, no matter how well advocated it may be.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:30:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 6:27:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
My cousin and I have recently been having several arguments through youtube about the importance of many types of green energy. Certain individuals still consider nuclear energy to be unsafe and believe geothermal, tidal, wind, and solar to be the only viable options. It didn't take me long to prove the ineffectiveness of tidal, wind, and solar [although orbital solar energy can work] the people I have been arguing with refuse to see the issues of using geothermal power [such as how it can be easily depleted if not managed properly, the costs of starting plants, the fact it destabilizes the ground around it, geology does not allow for its use everywhere unless you decide to drill towards the mantle which is still an technical impossibility for us, and many other things]. They only use sensationalist arguments in their arguments [and the occasional scientific one is easily revoked by other scientific developments] I have decided to ask DDO its opinion upon the subject and maybe give me reasons why some people continue to deny the facts.
Please excuse the bad posting for this is in an rush for I am about to go to school now.

Green energy is an awesome topic that we don't discuss nearly enough.

The biggest concern in this area is baseload power. Nuclear and coal are able to produce a certain minimum amount of power for an indefinite period of time. Compared to other forms:
Solar - sun is not always out
Wind - wind is not always blowing, in some parts of country never really does
geo - quite limited for reasons already listed
tidal - have to install all types of things in the ocean, not much available power
Biomass - too expensive, and doesn't approach oil as far as how concentrated it is in terms of energy. Fossil fuels are like a bank account that we started with $100 a million years ago and let sit to collect interest that whole time. 100 years ago we started drawing on that account and there's no way to replenish it. Creating biomass does not replicate what we get from oil; it is energy-poor and very expensive. Who knows what the future holds for it, of course, but R&D is a cost in and of itself that we must be willing to spend on.

As far as orbital solar, it's interesting but still sci-fi at this point. We could possibly beam the power down through microwaves, but that is problematic due to weather and environmental concerns. Another idea is to innovate a carbon material that is super light and strong, in order to physically transfer the electricity from orbit. To reach the weight and strength necessary, we'd need some sort of carbon compound that is made up of strands of atoms... it wouldn't resemble anything we've ever seen before.

On the micro scale, geo energy is the way to go. It's the one investment a home-owner can make that will show returns on your investment without you dying first. It's basically the same concept your refrigerator uses except instead of transferring heat energy from the compartment to the air, it is transferring heat energy to and from the ground. In the winter the ground doesn't freeze more than a few feet down so you can use that heat for your house. It's perplexing to me that you can use 40-50 degree ground and keep a house heated to 70 degrees by compressing and expanding gas. In the summer, you just flip the switch and reverse the process. It's effective, cost-effective, and dependable.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:42:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Anyone wants to do a debate on Green energy or Nuclear energy, or even fossil fuel energy (with me as Pro to pretty much any resolution), just shout it out.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 11:40:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 6:27:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
My cousin and I have recently been having several arguments through youtube about the importance of many types of green energy. Certain individuals still consider nuclear energy to be unsafe and believe geothermal, tidal, wind, and solar to be the only viable options. It didn't take me long to prove the ineffectiveness of tidal, wind, and solar [although orbital solar energy can work] the people I have been arguing with refuse to see the issues of using geothermal power [such as how it can be easily depleted if not managed properly, the costs of starting plants, the fact it destabilizes the ground around it, geology does not allow for its use everywhere unless you decide to drill towards the mantle which is still an technical impossibility for us, and many other things]. They only use sensationalist arguments in their arguments [and the occasional scientific one is easily revoked by other scientific developments] I have decided to ask DDO its opinion upon the subject and maybe give me reasons why some people continue to deny the facts.
Please excuse the bad posting for this is in an rush for I am about to go to school now.

It is good to be environmental and care for the environment by recycling and cleaning the bay programs etc. But what I do have a problem with is the so called "man-made global warming" problem. Why do we need these special "green" products whenever everyone already knows (excpet Al Gore) that global warming occurs naturally?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:02:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Fossil fuels are on the decline. Since we cannot be responsible and artificially raise fossil fuel prices by taxation to help spur alternative energy changes now, I hope at the very least, Americans get war weary enough about waging Middle East war for cheap oil to sit out the next major uprising which will likely be in Saudi Arabia. At least then we will have a chance to see $10.00 a gallon gasoline.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:29:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 8:03:46 AM, Puck wrote:
At 4/28/2011 6:27:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
why some people continue to deny the facts.

Because you are not dealing with the ideology that initially supports the advocation of the alternate energy supplies i.e., the wrong target if you want to change minds. Anyway, plenty of YECs here, they should be able to fill you in. >.>

Going into debates with the idea that you'll change minds isn't that great of an idea to begin with. You make your case as best as you can, you can't force people to accept any particular position, no matter how well advocated it may be.

I need to keep that in mind from now on.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:31:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:02:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Fossil fuels are on the decline. Since we cannot be responsible and artificially raise fossil fuel prices by taxation to help spur alternative energy changes now, I hope at the very least, Americans get war weary enough about waging Middle East war for cheap oil to sit out the next major uprising which will likely be in Saudi Arabia. At least then we will have a chance to see $10.00 a gallon gasoline.

We could always force liquor companies to make pure ethanol to decrease prices of fuel. But then again there are many inherent problems with the use of alcohol in this manner.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:43:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 10:31:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Lol at your avatar.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:07:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 10:43:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/28/2011 10:31:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:



Lol at your avatar.

Yeah it's distracting to say the least. I suppose I'd know if Koopin posted without looking at the pic, however...
kfc
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 12:12:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 12:07:34 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/28/2011 10:43:32 PM, phantom wrote:
At 4/28/2011 10:31:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:



Lol at your avatar.

Yeah it's distracting to say the least. I suppose I'd know if Koopin posted without looking at the pic, however...

That's true actually! I thought it was koopin at first because of his pic. But I was even thinking while I was reading it, this didn't sound like koopin.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 8:30:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:02:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Fossil fuels are on the decline. Since we cannot be responsible and artificially raise fossil fuel prices by taxation to help spur alternative energy changes now, I hope at the very least, Americans get war weary enough about waging Middle East war for cheap oil to sit out the next major uprising which will likely be in Saudi Arabia. At least then we will have a chance to see $10.00 a gallon gasoline.

Doesn't sound too free market-ish.
kfc
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 9:15:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In a free market, the government would allow these volatile middle east oil sources to become naturally scarce, as they will be anyway regardless of the band-aid interventions, by getting their militant a$$ out of the Middle East. If we can build an Alaska pipeline as a result of scarcity, we can build green Energy too given similar conditions.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:50:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:15:40 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
In a free market, the government would allow these volatile middle east oil sources to become naturally scarce, as they will be anyway regardless of the band-aid interventions, by getting their militant a$$ out of the Middle East. If we can build an Alaska pipeline as a result of scarcity, we can build green Energy too given similar conditions.

Ah so the only thing keeping down the price of gas is our own intervention in the Middle East. Unfortunately that makes all too much sense and I can see how the interests align all the way through.

"We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
- President Eisenhower's farewell address, January 16th, 1961.

The fact that someone could see this coming seems to make no difference.
kfc
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:20:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Did you get bored of using fake accounts and attempting to blend in as someone else SRW? Welcome back and stop being ridiculous. We ALWAYS knew when it was you.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@tvellalott Are you referring to me? I am not SRW.

@Greyparrot Interesting. It appears that I was wrong.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 11:06:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:01:23 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
@tvellalott Are you referring to me? I am not SRW.

No. SRW is the OP.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 12:03:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 11:01:23 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
@tvellalott Are you referring to me? I am not SRW.

@Greyparrot Interesting. It appears that I was wrong.

I just had to write half a book on Middle East poverty due to an undiversified external oil economy for one of my classes. stupid research paper. I know a crapload about oil.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 9:46:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.

While fat-asses drive their SUVs to work every day raising our consumption rates...
kfc
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 3:40:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/30/2011 9:46:46 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.

While fat-asses drive their SUVs to work every day raising our consumption rates...
Lol I drive one to school
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2011 11:12:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 3:40:27 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/30/2011 9:46:46 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.

While fat-asses drive their SUVs to work every day raising our consumption rates...
Lol I drive one to school

Get a bicycle.
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 11:43:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.

lets stop and look at this for a moment first.

We use about 7 billion barrels a year. But we are already drilling about 3.5 billion barrels a years (as of 2009 accourding to the IPAA), which leaves only 3.5 billion left to accomidate for. Obviously, the entire load wound not be placed on a single oil field.

Increased drilling on Prudhoe Bay (which has an estimated only 13 billion left in it and we are currently drilling out at a rate of 500 million per year).
Bakken field (in 2006, it was thought that only about 4 billion barrels were recoverable, but improved technology, now puts it at about 18 billion, and that will only grow with technology). This could be drilled at a good rate of about 1 billion per year.
Increased production in Spraberry, Kuparuk, and other current oil fields could greatly cut that down.

Plus with increased technology to mine in oil shales is bringing that cost down and bringing the amount that we can mine here in the US way up. Of course, that is really just a temporary fix, to buy time for improvements in other green energy sectors (see what the last 20 years has done for solar to get a good idea of what the next 20 years may bring).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 2:47:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/1/2011 11:12:49 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 5/1/2011 3:40:27 PM, reddj2 wrote:
At 4/30/2011 9:46:46 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:26:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/29/2011 10:13:46 PM, smc_gamer wrote:
I view all presented alternative energies, excluding nuclear, as inviable for future use. Oil from the Middle East has always been unstable, but I'd say they're more dependent on us then we are on them - most of Saudi Arabia's economy is fossil-fuel-based so they can't just pull the plug.

We should drill in Alaska. That's tons of secure, non-foreign oil.

The United States consumed a total of 6.85 billion barrels of oil (refined petroleum products and biofuels) in 2009, and 6.99 billion barrels in 2010.

Prudhoe Bay oil field is a large oil field on Alaska's North Slope. It is the largest oil field in both the United States and in North America, covering 213,543 acres (86,418 ha) and originally containing approximately 25 billion barrels.

Apparently tons of oil means about 4 years worth. That's the shelf life of a president as well apparently.

While fat-asses drive their SUVs to work every day raising our consumption rates...
Lol I drive one to school

Get a bicycle.

Buy me one If you care
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 4:37:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 11:43:59 AM, OreEle wrote:
lets stop and look at this for a moment first.

We use about 7 billion barrels a year. But we are already drilling about 3.5 billion barrels a years (as of 2009 accourding to the IPAA), which leaves only 3.5 billion left to accomidate for. Obviously, the entire load wound not be placed on a single oil field.

Increased drilling on Prudhoe Bay (which has an estimated only 13 billion left in it and we are currently drilling out at a rate of 500 million per year).
Bakken field (in 2006, it was thought that only about 4 billion barrels were recoverable, but improved technology, now puts it at about 18 billion, and that will only grow with technology). This could be drilled at a good rate of about 1 billion per year.
Increased production in Spraberry, Kuparuk, and other current oil fields could greatly cut that down.

Plus with increased technology to mine in oil shales is bringing that cost down and bringing the amount that we can mine here in the US way up. Of course, that is really just a temporary fix, to buy time for improvements in other green energy sectors (see what the last 20 years has done for solar to get a good idea of what the next 20 years may bring).

What is your point? That we will have gasoline as cheap as 5 dollars a gallon in 10 years? I hope not.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 4:48:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 4:37:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/2/2011 11:43:59 AM, OreEle wrote:
lets stop and look at this for a moment first.

We use about 7 billion barrels a year. But we are already drilling about 3.5 billion barrels a years (as of 2009 accourding to the IPAA), which leaves only 3.5 billion left to accomidate for. Obviously, the entire load wound not be placed on a single oil field.

Increased drilling on Prudhoe Bay (which has an estimated only 13 billion left in it and we are currently drilling out at a rate of 500 million per year).
Bakken field (in 2006, it was thought that only about 4 billion barrels were recoverable, but improved technology, now puts it at about 18 billion, and that will only grow with technology). This could be drilled at a good rate of about 1 billion per year.
Increased production in Spraberry, Kuparuk, and other current oil fields could greatly cut that down.

Plus with increased technology to mine in oil shales is bringing that cost down and bringing the amount that we can mine here in the US way up. Of course, that is really just a temporary fix, to buy time for improvements in other green energy sectors (see what the last 20 years has done for solar to get a good idea of what the next 20 years may bring).

What is your point? That we will have gasoline as cheap as 5 dollars a gallon in 10 years? I hope not.

No, that improved technology makes getting that oil cheaper, so that we may not have uber expensive gas in the future.

But, more importantly, it gives us more time to transition into alternative energies, so we are hit with such a strong transition shock with energy prices (the market takes time to adjust).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2011 11:08:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/2/2011 4:48:45 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/2/2011 4:37:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/2/2011 11:43:59 AM, OreEle wrote:
lets stop and look at this for a moment first.

We use about 7 billion barrels a year. But we are already drilling about 3.5 billion barrels a years (as of 2009 accourding to the IPAA), which leaves only 3.5 billion left to accomidate for. Obviously, the entire load wound not be placed on a single oil field.

Increased drilling on Prudhoe Bay (which has an estimated only 13 billion left in it and we are currently drilling out at a rate of 500 million per year).
Bakken field (in 2006, it was thought that only about 4 billion barrels were recoverable, but improved technology, now puts it at about 18 billion, and that will only grow with technology). This could be drilled at a good rate of about 1 billion per year.
Increased production in Spraberry, Kuparuk, and other current oil fields could greatly cut that down.

Plus with increased technology to mine in oil shales is bringing that cost down and bringing the amount that we can mine here in the US way up. Of course, that is really just a temporary fix, to buy time for improvements in other green energy sectors (see what the last 20 years has done for solar to get a good idea of what the next 20 years may bring).

What is your point? That we will have gasoline as cheap as 5 dollars a gallon in 10 years? I hope not.

No, that improved technology makes getting that oil cheaper, so that we may not have uber expensive gas in the future.

But, more importantly, it gives us more time to transition into alternative energies, so we are hit with such a strong transition shock with energy prices (the market takes time to adjust).

It's never been a matter of time. It's 2011. NY had a fleet of electric taxis with the infrastructure to charge them in 1899. What you're saying is equivalent to someone quitting smoking by buying just one more carton. There has never been and still arguably still isn't a big push from automakers to make electric. I've honestly never seen an electric car on the street.
kfc