BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Green Energy
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by john galt:

quote:
ScienceDaily (July 24, 2008) — The area north of the Arctic Circle has an estimated 90 billion barrels of undiscovered , technically recoverable oil, 1,670 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of technically recoverable natural gas liquids in 25 geologically defined areas thought to have potential for petroleum.


Wow, that probably qualifies as a definitive maybe, or not...


USGS: Arctic Circle chock full of oil and gas

quote:
A report by the US Geological Survey found that the region inside the Arctic Circle contains just over one-fifth of the world’s undiscovered, recoverable oil and natural-gas resources.

The report, the largest-ever survey of energy resources north of the Arctic Circle, found that the area holds an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

“Before we can make decisions about our future use of oil and gas and related decisions about protecting endangered species, native communities and the health of our planet, we need to know what’s out there,” said USGS Director Mark Myers in a press release. “With this assessment, we’re providing the same information to everyone in the world so that the global community can make those difficult decisions.”

Several news outlets are all over this story. Here’s what they have to say about what I think are the most important questions:

How much is it, really?

Most news outlets that covered this story say that, at today’s consumption rate of 86 million barrels of oil a day, the oil in the Arctic would meet global demand for three years.


Now here is the funny part. This area contains 1/5 of the worlds oil. It will last 3 years. If that is the case, then there is only enough oil in the world to last 15 years. seems t obe some mis-information here. I'm leaning towards that 3 year number myself.

Butt it gets worse From the National Geographic Arctic Oil Rush Sparks Battles Over Seafloor
quote:
The Arctic Ocean's seabed may hold billions of gallons of oil and natural gas—up to 25 percent of the world's undiscovered reserves, according to U.S. Geological Survey estimates—leading some experts to call the region the next Saudi Arabia.


For even more, do a Google search "Arctic Oil"


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Little more than a propaganda attempt to reduce the speculation in oil that's driving the price up.
This is not new information, and the timing is quite suspect.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Heck, that's nothing. A few weeks ago the topic of drilling in ANWR and off-shore resurfaced. The next day fuel prices started dropping, and they haven't stopped. It's getting cheaper every day. And as one guy in the office put it "I was hoping the price would stay up so Obama Would have a better chance"


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
One more stab at it .
Lets exchange info , rather than let are chains be pulled , & rebut what we are told .
 
Location: St.Paul | Registered: March 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
It wasn't the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, but the National Petroleum Reserve, different part of Alaska.

Lease date set for petroleum reserve

Story last updated at 7/25/2008 - 5:35 pm

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) _ The Bureau of Land Management has announced the date of a planned lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

Oil and gas leases will be sold on September 24th.

The lease sale is scheduled to be held in the Loussac Library in Anchorage.

The sale will offer lands in the northeast and northwest sections of the reserve on Alaska’s oil-rich North Slope.

It’s the fifth sale in the last decade in the reserve.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
quote:
Question is, if it can be produced cheaply...why not then?


Exactly. If your using cheep green energy to whatever excess you want I don't have a problem with it.

I think you've misunderstood the quotes.

The costs of being green arn't obvious at times but they are still burried in there

quote:
Finally, governments subsidize green and black the same.


You haven't got a clue


By the way Danny Boy, I want you to get a clue Roll Eyes (if possible)

New York Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency

It also includes a link to federal incentives.

Again, why aren't the wind and hydro alternatives for energy cheaper than their oil/nuclear cousins? I am talking about buying off the grid, which makes the energy easily and quickly available to most users.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Canadians skeptical of 'green' product claims
John Morrissy, Canwest News Service
Published: Monday, July 28, 2008

OTTAWA - Eighty per cent of Canadians consider the environment when making purchasing decisions, but few believe companies' claims about "green products" are anything more than a marketing ploy, according to a survey released Monday.

The survey, based on interviews with 1,500 Canadians for Toronto advertising agency Bensimon Byrne, found that while cost was the main barrier to adapting more environmentally friendly practices, two-thirds of respondents don't believe it costs any more to produce such products.

"Canadians are eager to make choices that will benefit the environment. But cost, cynicism and confusion about green marketing efforts are prohibiting them from making those choices," said Jack Bensimon, president of Bensimon Byrne.

"The research suggests a significant opportunity for companies who are seen to be legitimate green leaders and can offer conventional pricing of environmentally friendly products."


© Canwest News Service 2008



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I would like to see that survey and how the questions were asked. Most people I know don't consider environmentally friendly as a choice when buying something. They consider how much it cost and what it will do. I know some who do consider the country of manufacture.

Which takes me back to the beginning of this thread. I went to buy "green" electricity off the grid, and it cost more than conventional electricity. Why, if these people(like Al Gore) are so committed to the green movement, is the price not lower than conventional energy. If it cost less to make and is better for the earth then why do people like Al Gore seek to make huge profits off of it. They too are shills for the big oil companies.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Again I will ask you to cite actual numbers that show wind, hydro, solar enregy on the scale of large power plants is cheaper than oil or coal, you can POST all you want about how it is or should be cheaper but without actual hard numbers in cost per kilowatt between green and black power your posts are meaningless.
And I still cant quite get a grip on your mindset, the planet and the security of western civilisation is not worth the slightly higher cost of green energy?
 
Location: West Michigan | Registered: April 26, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have been trying to answer this myself. While searching for the cost of a coal fired plant I came across this article Power prices set to surge - From expensive construction costs to uncertainty over global warming laws, experts say electricity bills are only headed higher.
quote:
But these cleaner technologies also make the plants more expensive. McHenry said the gasification plants cost 20 percent more than a normal plant.

She added that the company plans on using technology to capture the carbon and bury it underground, when that becomes feasible. That technique, known as carbon sequestration, is still in the early stages of development.

Black & Veatch's Oskvig said carbon capture and sequestration can raise the price of a power plant by 40 to 80 percent -- yet another factor that will drive power prices higher.


Carbon sequestration drives up cost to solve a non-problem.

This link shows the actual additional costs for green energy.
GreenUp Providers

This one talks to the cost of the Maple Ridge Wind Farm

http://www.mapleridgewind.com/Events.htm

About 1/2 way down, an article from The New York Times

quote:
The company declined to discuss the actual costs of the project, but typically, each 1.65 megawatt turbine costs $2.3 million to $2.8 million to build. That would put the cost of the completed Maple Ridge project at somewhere between $450 million and $550 million. That sounds like a lot, but once the turbines are built, fuel costs are zero because the wind is free.


Problem I have is comparing the cost per megawatt. Interesting to me is the secretive nature of the cost of the wind farm. Fuel costs are zero, as long as the wind blows. The fail to mention the maintenance cost. There are also the monthly rental cost to put the wind turbines up. I just wish I could find a good comparison between the costs of each form of energy


quote:
And I still cant quite get a grip on your mindset, the planet and the security of western civilisation is not worth the slightly higher cost of green energy?


Assuming this was meant for me. We have ample supplies of coal and oil that can be used. As for the good for the planet argument; that assumes that the release of CO2 is extremely bad for the planet, that has yet to be proven. As for the security; using our existing resources while moving to other alternatives is the best thing we can do. Believe me when I tell you that it is very wasteful to just shutdown a power facility because we don't like it burning coal/oil. Sort of like buying a new car and throwing it away a year later just to burn a different fuel. There are trillions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure which we MUST use. NOT using it or our existing resources is wasteful and damaging to our security.

I saw a little piece on the History channel about dams. The big ones are here to stay. Some of the smaller dams are being dismantled by the enviros. Rather than tap these resources for their power and water saving ability, they want "all natural". I saw one that was taken apart and after the flood waters werew gone the fools were out planting trees along the shores, rather than let nature take it's course. Trust me, you drain a pond or lake and the trees will be abundant naturally within 2 to 3 years. Bottom line is, the environmental movement is resistant to hydro.

Solar as I have said is to costly, to unreliable, and just not a viable option on a large scale.

Which brings us to wind. I think wind power is a great idea. Just don't build your wind farm off-shore, where the wind is nearly constant and the structures would be out of the way. After all, we can't obstruct the views of the rich and famous, the very people who push for green energy. That is the part of the liberal/enviro movement that sickens me. It also shows they aren't really dedicated to the cause, simply finding something to whine about.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have some view points that may partially address the last 2 .
1st is we have a lack of unmanipulated figures , we are getting these numbers from sources that for many reasons are not correct , hard to tell which is the largest cost , maybe the cost of going to war for other countries oil .
As for the cost of alt. energy , listen to the left [ this does not mean I'm on the right ] they are constantly asking / pushing for artificially high energy prices as a way to manipulate , this is just bull .
Just one reason why billed prices are higher .
Theres an implication here , that producing can cost less if the true figures are there and included , I think that what has has not been addressed is ScareCrow talk about billed price , while most [ including myself ] have been talking from the produced end , alt is cheaper with out the corruption [ including all costs , ie. supperfund ect. ] .
I have been around , using , making alt energy for 30 yrs , had over that time have confronted many liberals , when they want to force others through law to pay for forcing tax's for some alt energy plan/scam , the confrontation comes when I ask if they have any thing set up in there homes , with out keeping records it would seem that 97% say no , but they want higher tax's & laws to manipulate energy , this is as 2 faced as it gets .
 
Location: St.Paul | Registered: March 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Serious question because I don't know....Does anyone know if Al Gore has gone off the grid? Residential Solar, Wind mills, Biodiesel generators, etc. I realize his fleet of SUV's and private plane needs dino fuel, but I wonder if he has or plans to be "off the grid" soon.

The reason I ask the question on this thread is that with any product, the more "units" produced, usually the lower the cost/unit. If the very wealthy that are committed to legislate solar and wind energy for the rest of the country, would start themselves and invest in this technology, it would reduce the cost to where it would be affordable for the rest off us to purchase.
 
Location: Somewhere in the swamp... | Registered: April 03, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
I can not tell you about al gore , but a couple of facts are , at Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the white house , but then regan took them off , that is a leader , leading wrongly , if he left them that would be leadership .
About 3+ yrs old stat , over 75% of all solar panels made in us , were shipped over seas , now we have " splash & dash " sending 95% of bio over seas , more of our so called leadership .
Anybody see a theme/trend ???
 
Location: St.Paul | Registered: March 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Do you think they are sending 75% of the panels over-seas where the market is because those that can afford it here, are not buying them? And if they would, the price would become cheaper? I wasn't trying to start a political thread, we are talking about price of green, and it's a fact that technology gets cheaper as the units sold increase. So if those that are the powerful who would like to TELL US what to use through legisltation and stealing (excess taxes to modify behavior) shouldn't they set the example? BTW that's leadership.
 
Location: Somewhere in the swamp... | Registered: April 03, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Make the alt / green energies unavailable , and or keep the price high .
I saw a theme yrs ago , now I am surprise how so few see it now , left & right are a scam , as far as those in control , the higher it goes the less meaning L & R has , its all about power/money .
So in the long run , both the left & right pursue the same goals from different perspectives , raise there profits/tax's on our backs .
It used to be that the business of the R was business & the business of the L was government .
Whats happened the last so many yrs is the right has gotten into the business of government , look who has got the deficit bigger than ever be fore .
We can not separate politics from energy , because it is just one of the tools to manipulate with .
If the panels Carter put in , stayed , then there would be more use / cheaper .
As far as costs of alt. energy goes , its allowed if the cost is kept high , up to a point , beyond that point [ taking away from existing profit steams ] they ship over sea's .
Most overseas markets put more of the true cost into there figures [ figures do not lie , but , lier's can figure ] , and look more to the long term , sustainable , vs the short sighted short term we have here .
 
Location: St.Paul | Registered: March 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
US tax credits for alt energy installations come up for reapproval every 2-4 years. That means there is no dependable payback period longer than 2-4 years. Investors don't put their money into alternative energy installations that don't have reliable payback periods, despite the knowledge that a large PV installation (for one example) will generate energy for 20+ years.

Germany (the world leader in PV installations) guarantees both tax credits and green energy market. Naturally investors are willing to sink money into PV installations when there's a reliable payback.

Generally speaking, the cheapest energy source commercially available is whatever is most heavily subsidized. Coal and petroleum, for example.
 
Location: Moses Lake, WA, USA | Registered: August 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fabricator:
Again I will ask you to cite actual numbers that show wind, hydro, solar enregy on the scale of large power plants is cheaper than oil or coal, you can POST all you want about how it is or should be cheaper but without actual hard numbers in cost per kilowatt between green and black power your posts are meaningless.
And I still cant quite get a grip on your mindset, the planet and the security of western civilisation is not worth the slightly higher cost of green energy?


Just a note, I replied to this. And in the reply was a word that tripped it and sent it to the moderator. I have no idea what word tripped it. However, I am waiting for moderator approval.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
fabricator -
Just a note, I replied to your request to show the price above. And in the reply was a word that tripped it and sent it to the moderator. I have no idea what word tripped it. However, I am waiting for moderator approval.

And a test shows it is something ion the original post that is being quoted.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Think about this. The Hoover Dam is owned and operated by the US Government. There is no cost at all to the power companies. Talk about a subsidy, holy cow!!!

I guess the reason power companies don't pursue more hydro is the fight they would face from the enviros. Legal battles and delays just aren't worth it. Maybe the government needs to make it easier for power companies to build hydro electric facilities.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Maybe the government needs to make it easier for power companies to build hydro electric facilities.

We can substitute any other energy supply for "hydro". Imagine a Hoover-dam size government budget for, say, PV arrays. Once built, the "cost of electricity" will just be the operating expenses.

My county owns 3 hydroelectric dams, paid for by citizens of the county, but on a government loan. It was guaranteed to provide low power rates to the county, which would attract power-hungry businesses. Unfortunately, energy deregulation overthrew the guarantee when Enron tried to buy the PUD. To legally decline the offer, the PUD raised prices enough to satisfy the legal board requirements. We still have pretty low electric rates (3.5cents/KWHr), but that change was enough to push the marginal farmers out of business, proving the law of unintended consequences, once again.

34,000 people in this low electric cost county, and not a single electric car. I hope to change that.
 
Location: Moses Lake, WA, USA | Registered: August 15, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6  
 


© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014