Fox news doing what it does best

[johnsonma]

Yeah, it's too bad we didn't start increasing production 15 years ago. If we had, we might have an easier time meeting the current demand today and into the future.

The Obama administration claims they are releasing permits for exploration and production. The problem is the land they are issuing permits for don't contain any oil or natural gas.

Add to that, the shutting down of two refineries on the Gulf coast. What do you think that is going to do to the supply?

I too am all for natural gas production. It's cheap, clean, and we have a ton of it. You still need to explore and drill for it though.

There is no way we can move away from oil entirely, even with an advancement in techology. We could park all vehicles that use petrol in any form and we would still need 5-6 million barrels a day to meet our needs for all the products petroleum provides.

Well, I live in Wyoming and we have drill sites popping up like crazy. It could also be due to the fact that there are hardly any people here. Which means a lot more land available to drilling.

I think it will be a long painful process getting away from oil and I am not sure that oil will ever go away entirely, like an old OS. We desperately need to become self sufficient for our energy needs.

 

[johnsonma]

To increase the dependability of wind and solar sources. If we can store the excess energy they produce when the conditions are right, then it will still provide energy even when it is not producing any. Right now, if we are dependent on solar and wind alone, we would experience rolling blackouts whenever the weather conditions were unfavorable. It would just make them more efficient.

 

[dogman_1234]

What if we create hurricane resistant windmills and place them along the Gulf?

 

[riser]

To increase the dependability of wind and solar sources. If we can store the excess energy they produce when the conditions are right, then it will still provide energy even when it is not producing any. Right now, if we are dependent on solar and wind alone, we would experience rolling blackouts whenever the weather conditions were unfavorable. It would just make them more efficient.

I know you have no idea how stupid of an idea that is.

First, if it was feasible it would have been done with the existing nuclear/coal/gas/water plants.
Second, it would increase the amount of energy required to maintain that degrading charge. On top of that the cost would skyrocket. Now you have to maintain a battery which is cost prohibitive. I can't even begin to imagine how large of a battery structure would be needed to store that much energy and the environmental impact of doing such a thing.

Again, solar can only supplement the existing infrastructure. It cannot be a replacement. Current energy production cannot supplement solar. Solar is a niche market. The world is becoming more and more energy intensive; Solar cannot keep up with this. It may be good for powering street lights and niche items; It will not power a factory or 'green' building.

I could see everyone storing a battery in their house to keep that extra energy. They'd get charged for constantly charging a battery because it does require energy consumption to do such a thing. Then the maintenance of the battery, the environmental factor it could cause.. It just isn't feasible.

 

[dogman_1234]

...fusion...?

 

[dogman_1234]

But, gamer...we need the environmentalists to tell us how gas will destroy us all! We need to leave gas alone!

Think of the revolution the wolves will start with us if we tap their blessed land.

 

[riser]

Fusion interestingly enough has yet to be developed, if at all possible. Speculation is that the sun is fusion... but then, why does the sun eventually become a burned out star? Fusion, more energy output that input. That'll be scary if and when it does happen.

200 years worth of natural gas at today's rate. If we conserved energy properly, we would probably have well over 300 years worth... so yeah, our great grand children would benefit, hopefully... But my great grandfather lived across the pond farming potatos. Natural gas and electricity was a farcry from what he knew.. and today, less than 200 years later, we face an energy crisis.

 

[riser]

Yeah.. and I think we should be concerned. I don't doubt the technology will be there, but will the full understanding? The sun is kinda big ya know...

 

[Erik_63]

Hmmmm. I didn't know the President had the power to raise or lower people's taxes. The last time I checked, The President heads the executive branch of government. I may be wrong, but last time I checked, it is Congress or "the people's legislature" that makes tax law/policy.

Just sayin'.

thats right. And how has the majority in the legislative, at least the congress?

 

[johnsonma]

I know you have no idea how stupid of an idea that is.

First, if it was feasible it would have been done with the existing nuclear/coal/gas/water plants.
Second, it would increase the amount of energy required to maintain that degrading charge. On top of that the cost would skyrocket. Now you have to maintain a battery which is cost prohibitive. I can't even begin to imagine how large of a battery structure would be needed to store that much energy and the environmental impact of doing such a thing.

Again, solar can only supplement the existing infrastructure. It cannot be a replacement. Current energy production cannot supplement solar. Solar is a niche market. The world is becoming more and more energy intensive; Solar cannot keep up with this. It may be good for powering street lights and niche items; It will not power a factory or 'green' building.

I could see everyone storing a battery in their house to keep that extra energy. They'd get charged for constantly charging a battery because it does require energy consumption to do such a thing. Then the maintenance of the battery, the environmental factor it could cause.. It just isn't feasible.

I said that we need to develop storage and distribution. They never had to worry about it with nuclear/coal/gas/water since they provided a constant source of power. I didn't say that the technology was already in place, yet for some reason you seem to think I did. Maybe read over the last few comments and then get back to me.

Also, energy consumption in the U.S has been going down the last few years, just FYI.

 

[johnsonma]

Speculation is that the sun is fusion? LMAO

 

[johnsonma]

The technology is definitely not there for the batteries.

That is an actual possibility with each home having their own alternative power source. In fact, if I'm not mistaken you actually get credit towards your power consumption if you pipe your excess energy from a solar/wind device back into the power grid.

 

[riser]

I said that we need to develop storage and distribution. They never had to worry about it with nuclear/coal/gas/water since they provided a constant source of power. I didn't say that the technology was already in place, yet for some reason you seem to think I did. Maybe read over the last few comments and then get back to me.

Also, energy consumption in the U.S has been going down the last few years, just FYI.

Linky that energy consumption is going down.

Second, you'd think that with existing power they'd want to store the energy being produced at night when the least amount of people are using it. What you probably didn't know is that your energy cost at night are lower than during the day.. since they have to continually produce the power even at off-peak times. Building a way to retain that lost production would better serve the current industry than the green industry. But again, not feasible and the cost would far outweigh any potential savings. There is a reason is has not been done. I never stated that you said the technology was in place; I simply provided the reason why it was not.

Wind still happens at night, ocean currents still exist, geo-thermal energy still exists. All that green tech is still there.

Regarding the sun as fusion. Speculation. It really hasn't been completely proven. Considering the size of the sun and the gravitational pull, it would be enough to compress the iron into a white hot energy. Is that fusion? I don't know. It is the same reason why the core of the earth remains solid, surrounded by liquid iron. Gravity. As I stated, which you probably didn't understand why, the sun is very large.

 

[riser]

The technology is definitely not there for the batteries.

That is an actual possibility with each home having their own alternative power source. In fact, if I'm not mistaken you actually get credit towards your power consumption if you pipe your excess energy from a solar/wind device back into the power grid.

To what point and purpose would each individual have to retain a battery in their home and keep servicing it every so many years? What happens if the house burns down? That is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. What happens if that battery starts leaking? Or the homeowner can't afford to maintain it? The environmental impact of creating all those new, larger batteries.

What is the point of green tech again?

 

[riser]

Doubtful.

 

[johnsonma]

To destory the evil oil companies?

The oil companies are one of the main drivers of green tech.

 

[riser]

To update: Regarding the article OMG posted, the idea was to use less energy than created by the laser, referred to as fusion. The sun is also considered to have fusion by gravitational pull which in itself is a force. When thinking of Fusion, I think of less energy used than emitted, very efficient stuff. The sun uses a lot of energy by gravitational pull.. compare that to what it produces.. we already know it isn't an unlimited power source.

 

[johnsonma]

Linky that energy consumption is going down.

Second, you'd think that with existing power they'd want to store the energy being produced at night when the least amount of people are using it. What you probably didn't know is that your energy cost at night are lower than during the day.. since they have to continually produce the power even at off-peak times. Building a way to retain that lost production would better serve the current industry than the green industry. But again, not feasible and the cost would far outweigh any potential savings. There is a reason is has not been done. I never stated that you said the technology was in place; I simply provided the reason why it was not.

Wind still happens at night, ocean currents still exist, geo-thermal energy still exists. All that green tech is still there.

Regarding the sun as fusion. Speculation. It really hasn't been completely proven. Considering the size of the sun and the gravitational pull, it would be enough to compress the iron into a white hot energy. Is that fusion? I don't know. It is the same reason why the core of the earth remains solid, surrounded by liquid iron. Gravity. As I stated, which you probably didn't understand why, the sun is very large.

http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0101

Found another graph that went to 2012 and showed it going down after 2012, but it was from a less reputable source. They would store existing power if the batteries were there, it still hasn't been as big of a priority as it should be.

IF the batteries were improved and thus made the mass storage of power feasible, then the entire power infrastructure of the world would benefit. I said that batteries need to be improved before this is feasible, you gave reasons as to why the current batteries would not be suited. It really is apples and oranges when you approach it like that.

Are you trying to say that the process at the core of the sun if similar to the core of the earth? The sun is nuclear fusion on an epic level, to say anything else is really just ignorance. Melting iron and initiating the process of fusion is two TOTALLY different things, fusion requires an immense amount of heat, something that isn't even close to being realized here on earth. If the sun was not actively creating fusion reactions there is no way that we would be here today. It is the only logical reason that the sun can put out so much energy over a sustain period of time.

 

[johnsonma]

My understanding is that the sun is burning hydrogen to create its version of fusion. When the hyrdogen is all used up it will begin burning helium and that will be the beginning of the end for our lovely burning ball of gas in the sky.

That is pretty much what my understanding is too, it disassembles hydrogen to create helium, then helium to oxygen and oxygen to carbon....that's right, we are made of the elements created in the core of a sun....freaking cool if you ask me. Also if you own any gold, that was created by a star much more massive that ours going supernova.

 

[riser]

I would hardly say energy consumption is going down based on those numbers. Considering the major changes in the last 5 years, I would suspect energy use to go down with the closing of factories and less businesses being opening. Even then, at best the data suggests energy levels are staying flat.

Again, your battery statement is not accurate. The batteries would better serve fossil fuels than solar power or other green tech. How much energy is wasted at night while the coal plants still run and the energy isn't being used? The amount of energy, money, commitment, environmental changes, etc, and whatnot, make going that route not feasible. We are no where near that concept today and further pushing it would only hurt the economy at this point. Technology takes time to develop, we can't throw a ton of money at it at all costs and think it magically happens. There are too many factors involved.

On Fusion. No, I'm saying the earth doesn't have the size of the sun to do such a thing. The earth's center remains liquid (minus the true core) because of the sheer amount of pressure involved. Whereas the Sun is large enough to attract ligher elements, coupled with the gravitational pull, that the energy is strong enough to produce the fusion. Fusion was supposed to create more energy than it takes to start the process. I have not seen definitive proof that the statement is true, therefore it is a theory. A theory is speculation. E=MC2 is a theory.

 

[johnsonma]

I would hardly say energy consumption is going down based on those numbers. Considering the major changes in the last 5 years, I would suspect energy use to go down with the closing of factories and less businesses being opening. Even then, at best the data suggests energy levels are staying flat.

Again, your battery statement is not accurate. The batteries would better serve fossil fuels than solar power or other green tech. How much energy is wasted at night while the coal plants still run and the energy isn't being used? The amount of energy, money, commitment, environmental changes, etc, and whatnot, make going that route not feasible. We are no where near that concept today and further pushing it would only hurt the economy at this point. Technology takes time to develop, we can't throw a ton of money at it at all costs and think it magically happens. There are too many factors involved.

On Fusion. No, I'm saying the earth doesn't have the size of the sun to do such a thing. The earth's center remains liquid (minus the true core) because of the sheer amount of pressure involved. Whereas the Sun is large enough to attract ligher elements, coupled with the gravitational pull, that the energy is strong enough to produce the fusion. Fusion was supposed to create more energy than it takes to start the process. I have not seen definitive proof that the statement is true, therefore it is a theory. A theory is speculation. E=MC2 is a theory.

How is my statement not accurate when i said it would better serve all powers sources, even if fossil fuels benefits more? Your argument here has no foundation, technological innovation has been driving our economy for some time now. Also better batteries are already being researched today, with more time I think this will become a possibility. Your not making any real points with your statements here riser, commitment and money are pretty much there, companies realize that if they have the best batteries they will make a TON of money. Your overstating the amount of energy it would take to implement batteries once they have become feasible and the environmental changes would be minimal.

Um....the sun does not attract lighter elements, it is comprised of them. Gravitational pull helps the initial formation of stars, then the hydrogen and helium become so compacted that in the process of bouncing off each other they create enough heat to start fusion. The amount of energy released is enormous and is the exact reason why we know without a shadow of a doubt that nuclear fusion is happening.

 

[johnsonma]

I do agree that consumption could have many variables involved but considering the previous years its safe to say that it has possibly gone down some and at the very least remained stagnant. The downturn could also be a result of using the current energy we have more efficently.

 

[riser]

Commitment and money is there? From who? The US Gov't?

The cost and environmental impacts alone detract from wanting to make the batteries on a large scale. There is a reason why batteries have not grown larger in wide production. Even with better technology.. it is no where even near feasible unless on a small scale.

Look at the Chevy Volt and that battery. Look at how much went into making that and how problematic it is. There is your answer.. we're a long ways from what you're thinking of. Again, technology takes a long time to develop.

So the amount of energy created by the sun is greater than the amount of gravitational pull?

 

[johnsonma]

This is very true. I know many people that have installed more energy efficient windows/doors, began using CFL bulbs, are car pooling, turning the thermostat up or down a few degress then they would normally, etc.

Mostly due to the rise in energy costs, but it's still a good thing to be as efficient as you can.

I may not be a tree hugger but I do believe in being good stewards of the earth and being efficient as possible.

Imagine in the future if every building/dwelling had it own fusion power source. Think about the implications to the national and local grids. Blackouts would be impossible if this were the case, the elimination of huge over the ground power lines. Trees would no longer knock out power during heavy storms.

Pretty cool if you think about all the possiblities and problems that would be solved.

Have you seen this new office building in Seattle?

http://www.mikeroweworks.com/2012/03/what-a-green-office-building-looks-like/

 

[johnsonma]

Commitment and money is there? From who? The US Gov't?

The cost and environmental impacts alone detract from wanting to make the batteries on a large scale. There is a reason why batteries have not grown larger in wide production. Even with better technology.. it is no where even near feasible unless on a small scale.

Look at the Chevy Volt and that battery. Look at how much went into making that and how problematic it is. There is your answer.. we're a long ways from what you're thinking of. Again, technology takes a long time to develop.

So the amount of energy created by the sun is greater than the amount of gravitational pull?

You underestimate the ingenuity of the human race. Batteries will become feasible for our mass energy storage needs soon enough. I told you the commitment was there from the corporations investing money in it because they saw an opportunity for huge growth. Not to mention that the battery is the leading driver in what is possible in mobile devices.

http://www.futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/technology/futureoftech/battery-tech-improving-demand-soars-120509

Yes, if the sun did not create more energy then the gravitation pull it would implode. When the sun runs out of hydrogen and helium and is left with the heavier metals it implodes because it takes too much energy to create fusion with the heavier elements. Also fusion is not possible with anything heavier than iron unless there is a tremendous amount of force only obtainable by the huge stars when they go supernova.

http://www.sjaa.net/eph/0706/f.html