The Shotgun Blog
« Ron Paul's own convention | Main | Communist China, cyberattacks, and Capitol Hill »
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
First, Kill All The Environmentalists…
When you take out your credit card to pay for that next tank of gas, know that you’re being robbed. But understand also that you’re not being robbed by the gas station owner or the oil company. You’re being robbed by lunatic environmentalists and their fellow travelers who, like all of the social and economic engineers in the history of the world, have irrationally convinced themselves that they may amend the laws of man and nature and not pay a price for it.
In the next few months you’re going to hear an awful lot of kooky plans for dealing with higher energy prices. Everything from the nonsense being peddled in the U.S. Senate yesterday in the form of a “windfall profits” tax on energy companies, to moronic calls for regulators to “control” speculators, to silly e-mail messages and Facebook groups which seek to “force” oil companies to sell gas at lower prices through selective boycotts (“everyone don’t shop at Shell on July 14th!”, etc). None of it will do any good. Some of it will do active harm. As for myself, I have a much better plan. It begins by borrowing from the Bard. First, we have to kill all the environmentalists.
Of course, I probably don’t mean that literally. Though some days, looking at the signs in front of gas stations, I pretty much do. After all, without them we could not only have all of the cheap energy that we or our children or our children’s children will ever need if we were to all live to be two hundred and fifty but we could all also make ourselves even richer at the rest of the world’s expense. Like I said – there’s nothing here not to like, unless you’re a nut.
I’ll get back to what I was discussing above. But, before I do that, I need all of you to understand something relatively simple. Why are oil prices so high? In the end, it relates back to the simplest economic problem in the world: the demand for oil exceeds the supply of oil. This is a problem that no tax can solve and no protest can ameliorate. That is because it relates to fundamental factors that are beyond the ability of the energy companies to control.
Broadly speaking, there are three major man-made factors – three socialisms if you will – which are influencing oil prices.
First, we have speculation on a massive scale. Why do we have this? Well, one of the factors is the one that Spengler identified a few months ago as driving the crisis in the housing market: there are vast pools of European and Japanese capital which cannot be invested in those nations because they lack the young people to start businesses, buy homes, and have children to make use of that money. Thus, this great wave of cash is sloshing around the world – driven to seek the highest return. This is one of the first visible elements of the demographic crisis that Mark Steyn and others have been droning on about for years. A disturbance of the natural human order has economic effects. The result has been this recurrent global pattern of bubbles – technology, commodities, housing, energy – driven by speculation on a massive scale. Indeed, this is the one factor which promises relatively short-term relief. The present oil price is in the Pets.com-selling-for-$250 stage of the boom.
Second, in major chunks of the world – particularly in Asia – gas prices are regulated (and therefore subsidized) by the government. The result of this is that we have an artificially manufactured increase in the demand for energy because the price to the consumer is not reflective of the real cost of the commodity. Alas, there’s not really much that we can do about this at the present time and, given that these subsidies are reportedly costing the Chinese government a sum in the hundreds of billions of dollars, we will have to trust that this part of the problem will eventually sort itself out. That’s hardly satisfactory, but this is, I suppose, one of those “change the things we can and accept those that we cannot” sort of things.
Third – and winding back to my original point –we have artificial restrictions upon the supply of oil and gas here in North America. Yes, it’d take years to bring oil in Alaska and offshore online (though, if it were made a real priority, I expect that it could be done faster than the official estimates say – perhaps three or four years instead of six or seven), but even the signal that our governments were serious about ceasing to handicap our own energy production would send the oil price tumbling. Refusing to increase energy production during this sort of crisis – when we plainly have the means available to do so –is, to use a clinical term, totally fucking crazy. But, alas, with environmentalists that’s par for the course.
All of us are used to the idea that fanatical environmentalists care more for animals and plants that no one has ever heard of or has any particular use for than they do for people’s jobs or property. That strange idea has been around for so long that we no longer even bother arguing the point. This crisis, however, has made plain that the antipathy that the environmentalist feels towards man goes deeper than that – they would plainly like to see people (mostly, I need not add, the poor people they claim to hold affection for) freeze in the dark before they would surrender one jot of the fanatical position into which they are entrenched.
For decades, environmentalists have systematically erected barriers to the production and distribution of energy. Laws prevent oil drilling in countless places where oil might be easily and profitably be extracted. Regulatory requirements have frozen the construction of new refineries and power plants. Regulations, taxes, and the threat of more of both freeze the development of useful new technologies.
Step by step they have tightened the noose around our necks. They will continue to do so until they are stopped. They are against Western Civilization – in their hearts environmentalist fanatics would like to see the human race (or at least the rich and Western part of the human race) rendered extinct and replaced by some sort of global version of sub-Saharan Africa, where impoverished and suffering masses live under the benign rule of U.N. and local kleptocrats. I don’t claim that this is the ambition of all environmentalists – most people who would self-identify as such haven’t thought through their position to a degree sufficient to render them that morally depraved.
The truth is that, without troublemaking environmental radicals we could solve this problem pretty much overnight.
We begin with conventional oil. There’s a ton of it in Alaska and offshore – we go and get that. Environmentalists and their fellow travelers argue against this step on the grounds that, even if we legalized such production today the oil won’t begin to flow for years. This is disingenuous for two reasons. First, I expect that production could be brought online – in a crisis with so much money to be made – a lot faster than the official estimates say. But second, and perhaps more importantly, the promise of future supply would be immediately priced into present-day oil trading and would take a lot of the wind out of the speculator’s sails.
In the long-term, however, there are other solutions – the real alternative energy – that we never hear about.
An obvious one is nuclear power. Not only could nuclear power replace the oil which is presently wasted on electricity generation, but it would also have numerous other uses (which I shall get to shortly).
Even more important to our energy security are three true alternatives to conventional oil – tar sands, coal-to-gas conversion, and oil shale. Forget all of the “Peak Oil” nonsense that you might have heard or read. Those three sources can provide enough gasoline for America for a few hundred years if the need should arise.
Tar sands are pretty simple – and already in progress (though, God help the world if the left takes power in Canada anytime soon and tries to shut them down).
Coal-to-gas conversion is possible, practical, and affordable. We know that it can be done – the Nazis used it during the Second World War. The technology is there. The primary obstacle to making gasoline from coal on a large scale is radical environmentalists who will obstruct both the new large-scale mining operations and the construction of necessary conversion plants.
The coal reserves of the United States are the equivalent of 4.7 Trillion barrels of oil. American demand for oil is roughly twenty-one million barrels per day. Obviously, there are other uses for that coal – but there’s enough just in that to fuel the United States for a few hundred years.
Then, there’s oil shale. Basically, oil shale is a kind of rock that can be processed to create oil. The estimated global reserves of oil shale are the equivalent of 1.6 Trillion barrels of oil of which 1.2 Trillion are located in the United States. In other words, the Oil Shale reserves of the United States represent a store of energy sufficient to fuel the entire country at current rates for about one hundred and fifty-six years.
There is one thing which can be said for the “Peak Oil” hypothesis – insofar as it relates to conventional oil, it works very much in our favor. If North America seems to have been slightly shortchanged in terms of conventional oil, we also have – between tar sands, coal, and oil shale – an overwhelming percentage of the world’s future energy supply. The kind of money we’re talking about here is in the trillions and trillions of dollars.
So, why isn’t this so? Ask our environmentalist friends. We absolutely could do it, if only we could find the will. Read this carefully. Do some research. Understand that the reason you’re paying so much at the pump has very little to do with the evil oil companies, or President Bush, or whomever else popular culture wants you to blame. The blame for our woes rests soundly upon the environmentalists who have deliberately restricted our economic growth and grabbed cash out of your wallets in the name of their own illusory greater good.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on June 11, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5536802978834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference First, Kill All The Environmentalists…:
Comments
Searing commentary, completely supported by the facts. On May 15 fourteen Republican Senators in the Senate Appropriations Committee were ready to take action on oil shale. Fifteen lunatics fiddled. There is something that can be done here - vote Republican. Although I voted for Gore and Kerry, these environmental nutjobs must be stopped.
Here's a supporting article:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/news/economy/birger_shale.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008060617
Posted by: Atheism Wins | 2008-06-12 4:42:56 AM
This whole sorry saga merely shows the incredible banality and hypocrisy of the human condition. While times were good people supported environmentalism in order to make themselves feel more evolved and enlightened. They paid no heed whatever to what the eco-freaks actually said; they merely thought that if they raised any objection, they'd be branded as heretics and deniers, or worse, conservatives. So they went along.
Now, however, the prices at the pump compared to last year's far exceed what any but the most radical environmentalists would have dared propose as a carbon tax, the Third World is having food riots because the higher costs of food, prompted in part by diverting of food grains for biofuel projects, and the entire world is furious.
The trouble with eco-freaks is the most vocal of them are anti-everything. You're not allowed to breed, not allowed to eat, not allowed to drive, not allowed to live in the suburbs, not allowed to mine, not allowed to log, not allowed to build, not allowed to work (unless it's planting seedlings). Their utopia, as imagined, is a world without people in it--except for them, of course.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Gore and Co., only short years ago the recipients of honours galore, including a Nobel Prize, having made their fortune playing on fear, stand revealed in the eyes of the world for the useless and shameless charlatans they are. I only hope that the growing backlash does not result in a drop in support for truly worthwhile ecological projects.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-12 7:33:14 AM
Nice job on the article Adam, couldn't have said it better myself. As the "Little Guy" consumer,I have been telling enviro groups that come to my door like Greenpeace, [I actually donated to them once a long time ago], that any exra cash I have will be saved to go into my gas tank.
Posted by: Glenn Schneidmiller | 2008-06-12 8:56:33 AM
Here here! I could not have said it better myself and nice way to describe the enviro-wackos in clinical terms.
Posted by: Kev | 2008-06-12 11:15:42 AM
Good points Adam.
McCain is starting to really push the nuclear power issue. It seems to be his way of defining himself, since most of his energy policies are very similar to Obama's.
Many of the estimates on reserves are probably a bit bloated. The shale reserves have been exaggerated by would-be developers looking for investors. Coal reserves are probably well documented, but don't take into account they're underneath communities, farmland, commercial development, etc. The only feasible method of extraction is strip mining, so it's pretty well off limits for now. Conventional oil reserves are a small part of the reserves, and getting smaller. The oil sands are one bright spot. They're under marginal land with sparse human population, and are probably underestimated.
Another thing that's underestimated is how long it would take to develop these resources. These high prices are a powerful incentive. The conventional reserves already have infrastructure, and plans on the drawing board for exploitation. The oilsands only lack transportation, and upgrader, a pipeline. Five years would be plenty of time to put the project at full speed.
All the environmentalists really want is a piece of the action. As long as they're guaranteed contracts to monitor these projects, they'll play ball. The number of professional environmentalists has increased exponentially in the last few years because of opportunities in the oilpatch. Twenty years ago these people would have been looking at a career with the feds, or working at a university living off grant money. Now they have endless opportunities with environmental companies living off consulting fees from oil companies. They have no intention of killing that golden goose.
Compare it to the farmer who just traded the '85 chevy for a brand new $70000 dodge with the money from his oil leases. He'll still sit in the coffee shop complaining about the oil companies coming in and wrecking his field. But deep down he's got his eye on a 26' fifth wheel, and praying he sees a survey crew pull into his driveway.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 11:27:54 AM
Just an afterthought on environmentalists' quest for dominance.
There have been several reports on the Suzuki Foundation accepting donations from major oil companies. Ask yourself why they'd give him money?, and why he'd accept it?
He's covering all bases. If the political establishment decides to proceed with domestic oil and gas developments, he'll be the designated environmental advisor for every approved project. If alternative energy sources become the flavour of the decade, he'll be the designated advisor for any approved project.
Just remember, those hybrid cars aren't cheap. "Green" housing developments will have high price tags. Environmentalists need healthy incomes to keep up their image.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 12:29:52 PM
Hold onto your hats. James Carville thinks Al Gore would be a great running mate for Obama. He feels Gore would be the perfect guy to steer Obama's environmental policies.
I wonder if I should send a resume to the Suzuki foundation?
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 12:57:32 PM
hey heres a thought...why are we all still so focused on oil when there are renewable resources that could be powering our cars and keeping the lights on in our homes? how about really sticking to the oil barons and finding others products to use... like solar and wind..your local canadian tire can get you started for as little as $500.00. I paid my last payment to Hydro One 2 years ago..let me tell you how good it feels to not give any of those overpaid SOBS any more of my hard earned $ to pay off the debt recovery fund..whos debt recovery certainly not mine!! I know this is about oil... but same Sh*t different pile. There are alternatives, lets start spending our tax dollars on those
Posted by: mlb | 2008-06-12 3:08:08 PM
For $500 at Canadian tire, you must have bought a tent, a sleeping bag, and a Coleman lantern. You can buy an 80 watt solar panel for $500. That will run one lightbulb while the sun is shining. Of course you'll need storage batteries and a converter too. A commercial size windmill costs around 5 million dollars. That might power one residential block, on a cool day. If you live near a river you could always sneak out at night and build a dam.
The Nigerians have this one figured out. They just drill holes in a pipeline and carry oil away in buckets. A few hundred get burned up now and then, but at least they stuck it to the oil barons before they died.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 3:26:55 PM
I did some digging mlb. I found a residential size windmill for under $10000. I suppose installation would be another $5000. It comes with a five year limited warranty. You need at least a full acre to set it up, and it will have to comply with local codes.
I've seen the big ones up close, and I'm concerned the huge stress loads on these things will lead to catastrophic failure in a couple of years. A five year warranty would expire before this unit totally pays for itself.
Not very many people have an acre of land. From an economic standpoint, this isn't going to catch on any time soon.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 4:17:35 PM
i'm way on the opposite side of you, that would go without saying. business as usual is digging our collective grave and clinging to it is only accelerating the problems. refer to the world around you to verify this.
my problem with this argument is that it's just picking out another scapegoat. the whole economy that cheap oil made possible in an intricate network of networks. a single scapegoat theory is just so simplistic, even for an ostensibly articulate man such as yourself.
so sorry, bub, environmentalists may exacerbate problems, but so do political leaders in the pockets of big oil, the agitators setting fire to pipelines, the iraq war )which is the most monumentally stupid misallocation of resources in history), the coincidental cash grab while prices this high.
it's bigger than any scapegoat, my friend. sleep well.
Posted by: fork | 2008-06-12 5:36:47 PM
Yes, yes, I understand now fork. Thank you so much.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 6:04:56 PM
Posted by: dp | 12-Jun-08 6:04:56 PM
Oh don't lie dp.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-12 6:27:44 PM
A few points Adam, I know they won't really get through to you, but maybe to someone else:
"For decades, environmentalists have systematically erected barriers to the production and distribution of energy. Laws prevent oil drilling in countless places where oil might be easily and profitably be extracted. Regulatory requirements have frozen the construction of new refineries and power plants. Regulations, taxes, and the threat of more of both freeze the development of useful new technologies."
And for decades big energy companies haven't invested a lick into alternative energy sources (regardless of what you want to look at), instead it was small companies that did the developement of these kinds of technologies without a lot of help from the Government who meanwhile does not tire to subsidize "conventional" energy companies.
"An obvious one is nuclear power. Not only could nuclear power replace the oil which is presently wasted on electricity generation, but it would also have numerous other uses (which I shall get to shortly)."
How many oil fired powerplants are there in North America? My understanding is that Natural Gas is the preferred "energy carrier" together with coal, hydro and some nuclear power. Please correct me if I am wrong (a quick google only brought up a count of coal powerplants, nothing about oil).
"Even more important to our energy security are three true alternatives to conventional oil – tar sands, coal-to-gas conversion, and oil shale."
These are energy conversion processes, not "net extraction". Unless you have figured out how to overcome basic physics and can get more energy out then you put in you're losing. So where is this energy coming from? As far the tar-sands are concerned this requires huge amounts of heat (currently done by burning natural gas) and water. There are already constraints on the water that flows in the Athabasca river which farmers are also using. What is it for you Adam, food or driving your car?
"So, why isn’t this so? Ask our environmentalist friends. We absolutely could do it, if only we could find the will. "
Why is it that people like you want to keep going down a path that at best is extremely costly (oil may exist in all these places that you mention but it isn't cheap to get out of the ground) instead of trying to find alternatives to the oil dependency?
You write and act like a Junkie Adam, moodswings included when you seem to get into withdrawl.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-12 6:48:08 PM
fork,
Politians are in it for themselves, and don't give a rat's behind who they get it from. In the end they want to get elected so they don't care if it is Bombardier, Farmers, Auto industry, oil, etc.
Profits are better in the hands of big oil than big government, since big government will spend to win favors. Big oil will spend to make more money. That means they hire people, spend money, invest, trade, etc.
Regarding the environment, what do you mean refer to the world around? Some places may be getting warmer, some are getting cooler.
Besides, more lives will be saved if the world warms since more die each year from exposure to cold than heat.
Finally, what makes anyone think an entity that has vowed to end poverty, inequality, illiteracy, etc., and failed at it, can do anything about climate change even if it wanted to?
Posted by: TM | 2008-06-12 6:56:43 PM
Snowrunner wrote: “And for decades big energy companies haven't invested a lick into alternative energy sources…”
So? New ideas have to start small; it has always been that way. Edison worked at a drugstore. Most of his inventions were not subsidized in the least. A hydro company is not ethically, morally, or legally required to research alternate forms of energy.
Snowrunner wrote: “How many oil fired powerplants are there in North America?...”
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-03-10.asp
Snowrunner wrote: “These are energy conversion processes, not "net extraction…”
Petroleum is used because it is an extremely energy-dense fuel that makes modern transportation possible. Even if you put in more energy than you get out, this is considered an acceptable loss because the input energy comes from sources that lack petroleum’s portability and energy density.
Snowrunner wrote: “Why is it that people like you want to keep going down a path that at best is extremely costly…instead of trying to find alternatives to the oil dependency?”
Why is it you assume that just because no economical process currently exists that none can be developed? Thirty years ago they said that about the tar sands and look at them now; Alberta’s another Arabia.
Snowrunner wrote: “You write and act like a Junkie Adam, moodswings included when you seem to get into withdrawl.”
Said the self-righteous little pusbag who screwed up twice in the very sentence he used to hammer another’s writing. Pathetic.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-12 7:05:54 PM
"So? New ideas have to start small; it has always been that way. Edison worked at a drugstore. Most of his inventions were not subsidized in the least. A hydro company is not ethically, morally, or legally required to research alternate forms of energy."
No, they aren't, but why blame the shortage then on another group? If Adam wants a scapegoat why he now has to pay more money to fill up his car he choses the environmentalists, because in his mind those are the bad boys. Never mind that all the oil companies have handily increased their net profit during the same period.
"http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-03-10.asp"
That link has no numbers in it. It just mentions "oil fired" but omits any numbers, much less any numbers in relation to Natural Gas or coal plants. In other words: that link doesn't answer my question.
"Petroleum is used because it is an extremely energy-dense fuel that makes modern transportation possible. Even if you put in more energy than you get out, this is considered an acceptable loss because the input energy comes from sources that lack petroleum’s portability and energy density."
You're missing my point. The other energy isn't free either and can (and most likely is in the case of Natural Gas) used in other places. What Adam is proposing is to take money out from one Credit Card to pay off the other one. Think that's smart?
"Why is it you assume that just because no economical process currently exists that none can be developed? Thirty years ago they said that about the tar sands and look at them now; Alberta’s another Arabia."
Because of the high prices that Adam is bemoaning so much. Not to say that there are alternatives that could have been pushed ahead a long time ago to diverse at least the need of energy.
An idea: A citywide "plugin" power grid for people who drive to work every day. The source for the electricity can come from a variety of sources. Is it perfect? No, but it would get rid of a hug epart of the oil dependencies as the majority of people are using their cars daily for commuting.
And as I pointed out earlier there are limits on the oil sands development that go beyond environmentalists.
"Said the self-righteous little pusbag who screwed up twice in the very sentence he used to hammer another’s writing. Pathetic."
Oh Shane Shane Shane, as usual when the "conservatives" on here have no argument they stoop down to personal attacks.
It's always a sign that you have nothing factual to say when you lash out against the other person personally.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-12 7:24:52 PM
Besides, more lives will be saved if the world warms since more die each year from exposure to cold than heat.
Posted by: TM | 12-Jun-08 6:56:43 PM
How many die every year due to the exposure to deseases transmitted by insects? How many starve to death due to pests that survive because there is no harsh winter that takes them out?
I think the amount of people who directly die from cold exposure is a lot lower,
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-12 7:26:32 PM
Snowy
"Oh Shane Shane Shane, as usual when the "conservatives" on here have no argument they stoop down to personal attacks. "
I just wanted to say hi!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-12 7:38:11 PM
We're doomed. Doomed.
The world end at 11 tonight, 11:30 in Newfoundland.
I'm sure I can see the sky falling right now.
Hang on, that's the Lakers balls falling in the hoop.
The Celtics are doomed. Doomed, I tell ya.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-06-12 8:10:33 PM
Snowrunner wrote: “No, they aren't, but why blame the shortage then on another group?...”
Ah, yes, the distinctly Canadian clarion call that profit is evil and big is bad. The fact is that environmentalists try to hamper almost every new form of development that comes down the pike. Every new subdivision, highway expansion, power plant, or mining project is besieged by Leftish types. They even chase sealers onto ice floes. The oil companies aren’t clean in this, but they at least provide a) product and b) jobs. Environmentalists provide neither.
Snowrunner wrote: “That link has no numbers in it. It just mentions "oil fired" but omits any numbers, much less any numbers in relation to Natural Gas or coal plants. In other words: that link doesn't answer my question.”
Oil-fired plants are significant enough in number to be mentioned alongside coal-fired. Otherwise it would have said “coal-fired and solar.” Don’t be dense.
Snowrunner wrote: “You're missing my point. The other energy isn't free either and can (and most likely is in the case of Natural Gas) used in other places. What Adam is proposing is to take money out from one Credit Card to pay off the other one. Think that's smart?”
No, you’re missing mine. The other energy isn’t free but it’s useless for transportation because it can’t be poured into a cheap plastic tank and get you a hundred kilometers for six litres. Coal is much more plentiful than oil, but coal is not suitable for an internal combustion engine. Ditto hydro, nuclear, and to a lesser extent natural gas.
Snowrunner wrote: “Because of the high prices that Adam is bemoaning so much. Not to say that there are alternatives that could have been pushed ahead a long time ago to diverse at least the need of energy.”
So environmentalists have been promising for decades. But in spite of the enormous amount of money the eco-industry rakes in each year, you don’t see THEM rushing to bring any of these new technologies to market. It’s much more profitable to shake down guilt-ridden urbanites for their loose change.
Snowrunner wrote: “An idea: A citywide "plugin" power grid for people who drive to work every day...”
And how would a separate power grid existing in parallel, requiring its own energy sources, power lines, and access points, be better and cheaper than just adding capacity to the existing grid?
Snowrunner wrote: “And as I pointed out earlier there are limits on the oil sands development that go beyond environmentalists.”
There are limits on everything. That’s a poor argument; in fact it’s not an argument at all.
Snowrunner wrote: “Oh Shane Shane Shane, as usual when the "conservatives" on here have no argument they stoop down to personal attacks. It's always a sign that you have nothing factual to say when you lash out against the other person personally.”
And what do you call “You write and act like a Junkie Adam, moodswings [sic] included when you seem to get into withdrawl [sic]”? Why is it okay for you to cast the first clump of mud, and yet somehow remain clean compared to those who sling it back at you? Hypocrisy, Snowrunner, will turn your tongue into a carrot stick.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-12 8:42:11 PM
"Ah, yes, the distinctly Canadian clarion call that profit is evil and big is bad. The fact is that environmentalists try to hamper almost every new form of development that comes down the pike. Every new subdivision, highway expansion, power plant, or mining project is besieged by Leftish types. They even chase sealers onto ice floes. The oil companies aren’t clean in this, but they at least provide a) product and b) jobs. Environmentalists provide neither."
Where did I say that profit is evil? But it's interesting to note that the oil companies don't seem to really suffer in this "tight market".
And how do you think the planet works? Whatever humans do has no impact? Or could it be that maybe those people do have at least some point? Or would admitting this be too much to the left for you?
We can do a lot of things, the question really is if we should do it.
"Oil-fired plants are significant enough in number to be mentioned alongside coal-fired. Otherwise it would have said “coal-fired and solar.” Don’t be dense."
Sorry, that's something you seem to read between the lines, but it doesn't answer the question how many are in the country.
The only number in there was this:
"Forty-six of the top 50 air polluters in North America were coal or oil-fired power plants - the sector as a whole produced 45 percent of the 755,502 tons of toxic air releases in 2001."
So, how many of these 46 are oil? It doesn't say, neither does the article say anything else. All we know by this article is that the top 50 polluters in 2004 were either coal or oil plants, at what "mix" isn't said. It could just be 45 coal plants and one oil plant.
"No, you’re missing mine. The other energy isn’t free but it’s useless for transportation because it can’t be poured into a cheap plastic tank and get you a hundred kilometers for six litres. Coal is much more plentiful than oil, but coal is not suitable for an internal combustion engine. Ditto hydro, nuclear, and to a lesser extent natural gas."
There are other ways to "drive a car" a "steam engine" would be one possiblity which has the neat little side effect that it does not rely on any particular fuel source.
And, just as an FYI, yes you can actually use Natural Gas (LPG) to drive a normal combustion engine, Google it.
But back to my original point. You are still taking things like NG away from other uses (e.g. Power Generation) to drive your car. So once again: What's more important to you, to drive a car (and what are you driving that you get 6l on a 100K while driving in the city?) or being able to heat and light your house? Oilsands (in the current incarnation) are a dead end.
"So environmentalists have been promising for decades. But in spite of the enormous amount of money the eco-industry rakes in each year, you don’t see THEM rushing to bring any of these new technologies to market. It’s much more profitable to shake down guilt-ridden urbanites for their loose change."
Funny. One could argue that the amount of money spent on alternative energies in North America in contrast to the amount of money spent by the established industries on their own technology (not to mention advertising / lobbying) trying to keep the status quo going is a joke.
No, that doesn't make companies evil, they have one role and one role only: Make money, and lots of it.
They do not care about anything outside of it and of course they want to keep on making more money as long as they can.
It's typical for this site to look for the enemy on the "other side" without even one moment to pause and think if maybe the whole situation is a lot more complex.
But then again, this is about Adam as usual declaring his hatred for people he doesn't like or understand.
"And how would a separate power grid existing in parallel, requiring its own energy sources, power lines, and access points, be better and cheaper than just adding capacity to the existing grid?"
I phrased that badly. I was refering to "plugin stations" fed through the conventional power grid, which could receive added generating capacity by alternative means. It clearly doesn't make any sense to build an entire new power grid.
"There are limits on everything. That’s a poor argument; in fact it’s not an argument at all."
Actually it is a core argument, because if you read Adams "article" again he clearly claims there is no shortage of oil, as such it's all the environmentalists fault who prevent him to get Gas cheap.
"And what do you call “You write and act like a Junkie Adam, moodswings [sic] included when you seem to get into withdrawl [sic]”? Why is it okay for you to cast the first clump of mud, and yet somehow remain clean compared to those who sling it back at you? Hypocrisy, Snowrunner, will turn your tongue into a carrot stick."
Oh Shane, now you are hurting me. I summarized, yes, I didn't make any such remarks on any of the "points" he brought up, just a general impression I had at the end. You on the other hand tried to use this as an argumentative point.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-06-12 9:41:27 PM
Snowrunner wrote "How many die every year due to the exposure to deseases transmitted by insects? How many starve to death due to pests that survive because there is no harsh winter that takes them out?
I think the amount of people who directly die from cold exposure is a lot lower"
Well, if you look at the concentration of populations, it looks like there are fewer the closer you get to the poles.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point was that there are many factors that we simply cannot know. Some people will be better off. Yet this is never brought up.
Posted by: TM | 2008-06-12 10:05:37 PM
Snowrunner wrote: “Where did I say that profit is evil? But it's interesting to note that the oil companies don't seem to really suffer in this "tight market". And how do you think the planet works? Whatever humans do has no impact?...
Why is it interesting? Even in the worst of times someone turns a profit. Hail capitalism. And there is no such thing as a zero-impact organism, even in the wild. Man’s problems stem not so much from his activities as his numbers.
Snowrunner wrote: “We can do a lot of things, the question really is if we should do it.”
The question is if we should AND if we can. We can do lots, depending on how much damage to the economy and our existence you’re willing to tolerate. Fortunately for enviros, the definition of “can” is fungible.
Snowrunner wrote: “Sorry, that's something you seem to read between the lines, but it doesn't answer the question how many are in the country…So, how many of these 46 are oil?”
You’re being dense.
Snowrunner wrote: “There are other ways to "drive a car" a "steam engine" would be one possiblity which has the neat little side effect that it does not rely on any particular fuel source.”
I agree, the external-combustion engine offers a lot of flexibility. Until recently, though, they wasted far more energy than ICEs, which is why they passed from use. Modern steam is much more efficient, but it would be extremely difficult to create the infrastructure necessary to fuel and service such vehicles. Biodiesel is a better bet in the short term.
Snowrunner wrote: “And, just as an FYI, yes you can actually use Natural Gas (LPG) to drive a normal combustion engine, Google it.”
That’s why I said TO A LESSER EXTENT. Liquefied natural gas is still not as practical as diesel, and anyway, natural gas is a finite resource unless you start composting biomass.
Snowrunner wrote: “But back to my original point. You are still taking things like NG away from other uses (e.g. Power Generation) to drive your car…”
Or we could use hydro to power the process, which is renewable. For that matter, so are solar and wind—exploitable on a large scale but impractical for a personal vehicle.
Snowrunner wrote: “Funny. One could argue that the amount of money spent on alternative energies in North America in contrast to the amount of money spent by the established industries on their own technology…”
One could, but one would be a fool to do so. Continuous improvement of one’s product line is only natural in a competitive marketplace. The industries at least put their money where their mouths are.
Snowrunner wrote: “No, that doesn't make companies evil, they have one role and one role only: Make money, and lots of it...”
Sounds a lot like enviros to me! And unlike enviros, at least they produce a product.
Snowrunner wrote: “It's typical for this site to look for the enemy on the "other side" without even one moment to pause and think if maybe the whole situation is a lot more complex.”
And yet you continuously harp on the car and oil companies for not doing enough.
Snowrunner wrote: “I phrased that badly. I was refering to "plugin stations" fed through the conventional power grid…
Only the highways would need such stations. Such stations already exist in the city; they’re called carports and garages. Electric car technology also has to improve before it’s viable. A state-of-the-art electric car today gets only 25% greater range than a 1912 Detroit Electric.
Snowrunner wrote: “Actually it is a core argument...”
Of course there’s a limit on oil. But we’re still a ways off from peaking, despite what the enviros have been shrieking for forty years.
Snowrunner wrote: “Oh Shane, now you are hurting me. I summarized, yes…”
Don’t try to rationalize. You cast the first stone. Now live with the result.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-06-12 10:15:43 PM
One thing I'd like to mention snow. There are no farmers taking water out of the Athabasca River downstream of the oilsands. It's pretty well next stop, Arctic Ocean. There are water issues, but competition with agriculture isn't one of them.
The "net extraction" you speak of applies to any commodity. Drilling rigs burn a lot of diesel, tank trucks burn fuel, etc. Turning coal directly into electricity is probably the most efficient form of energy. Check out the station at Sheerness some day. No trucking, no railway, no pipelines. Just dig it up and put it onto a conveyor belt. The smoke stack is amazingly clean, unless you're all upset over CO2.
Ralph Klein's non-nuclear policy was a mistake. A small reactor at Ft. McMurray is the answer to wasting natural gas on upgrading. It's a tradeoff, but the environmental effect of a reactor would be no worse than what's there already.
Peter Lougheed stated the obvious when he said natural gas is too valuable to waste on power generation, and oilsand extraction.
Posted by: dp | 2008-06-12 10:27:47 PM
I agree that a nuclear reactor to power tar sands extraction is a good alternative. You might look into pebble bed reactors. The arguments against their use are based on old technology. Snowy is on the right track with his plug-ins for recharging. In a very few years the technology for building nanotube batteries will be sophisticated enough to make it possible to replace most vehicles with electric drives that can go at least 200 miles on a charge. Even though it is expensive, the Tesla Roadster can go a long distance on its lithium ion battery and can recharge in three hours. That nanotube battery will recharge in thirty minutes and will not need to be replaced. There will even be alternatives to our present jet fuels. Google what is going on at MIT and the U of A.
As to investments by big companies- the investments are huge and risky given government's penchant for getting in the way and changing the rules.
Do I begrudge business its profits? Nope, most of the shareholders are average investors just like me.
Posted by: DML | 2008-06-12 11:19:22 PM
Snowy opined
"It's typical for this site to look for the enemy on the "other side" without even one moment to pause and think if maybe the whole situation is a lot more complex."
I agree. One example would be the following comment:
"...as usual when the "conservatives" on here have no argument they stoop down to personal attacks. "
Conservatives playing the role of enemy on the other side. I'm sure the situation is more complex than that. Right?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-06-13 5:31:01 AM
>"In a very few years the technology for building nanotube batteries will be sophisticated enough to make it possible to replace most vehicles with electric drives that can go at least 200 miles on a charge. Even though it is expensive, the Tesla Roadster can go a long distance on its lithium ion battery and can recharge in three hours.
DML | 12-Jun-08 11:19:22 PM
Three hours to recharge is a long time compared to the time it takes to refuel.
One could almost drive 200 miles in three hours.
I took a drive up the Alaskan highway once to spend a week at Fort Nelson. It was pedal-to-the-metal for hours and hours with not another car passing either way or place to refuel.
I think 200 miles on a charge is too short for range capability.
Nanotube technology was a hobby horse of a poster here in 2006. I think his name was John Crittendon or something. He had heavily invested in a company that was going to make an imminent historic announcement in a month or two.
That was in 2006.
The technology involved putting a nanotube coating on siding and roofing for houses that would allow homes to generate so much of their own electricity that it would not only fill all of their home energy needs but they would be able to recharge their electric cars and have enough electricity left over to SELL back to the grid at night time.
It was very exciting stuff. I wished him luck.
That was back in 2006.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-13 7:25:24 AM
Actually, now that I've though harder about it, it was the Fall of 2005.
I did some web search on that subject.
It turns out that such announcements of imminent breakthroughs in nanotech have been made for over a decade now.
Big Oil must be suppressing the technology./
8oD
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-13 7:29:48 AM
Turning coal directly into electricity is probably the most efficient form of energy.
Posted by: dp | 12-Jun-08 10:27:47 PM
I would have thought that hydro was the most efficient way to produce electricity, provided that you had a river that could be dammed.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 7:56:36 AM
We had a nice dam project in the 1980s ready to go to supplement the power grid here in Alberta and to supply water to irrigate the southern part of the province where it's so dry.
It was called the Old man river dam project.
Environmentalists killed it, so coal fired plants were built in it's stead and water is sometimes still a problem in Southern Alberta.
Now the environmentalists want to kill the coal fired plants.
Killing environmentalism is an interesting idea.
I've always liked the concept of conservation better than environmentalism because it means taking care of the land and using it for the good of the people too.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-06-13 8:40:41 AM
Speller, are you talking about the 'killed' dam that's currently putting 32 megawatts into the grid?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=oldman+river+dam,+alberta&ie=UTF8&ll=49.59914,-113.888741&spn=0.102136,0.242729&t=h&z=12&iwloc=C
Besides which, the conservationists fighting the design of the dam (vs. the dam itself) were arguing against the disruption to fisheries–an economic issue.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-06-13 9:01:41 AM
Besides which, the conservationists fighting the design of the dam (vs. the dam itself) were arguing against the disruption to fisheries–an economic issue.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 13-Jun-08 9:01:41 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldman_River
The Oldman River contains fish species such as rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, bull trout, brown trout, hybrid trout species (rainbow and cutthroat cross), mountain whitefish, pike, walleye, sturgeon, suckers, goldeye, and minnows.
Are trout a vital component of the Alberta economy? Just wondering.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 9:47:03 AM
Trout aren't a vital part of the collective Alberta economy, but since we're not practicing collectivism here (or are we?)
But here's a question back. What do you mean by vital? Is 32 MW a vital part of Alberta's 12,072 MW generating capacity? 0.3%? Just wondering, because if so, the $350 million Alberta recreational fishing industry or the $5 million commercial fishing (0.23% of GDP) business are, by the 32:12072 measure of vital, make trout vital component of the collective economy, to sastisfy the collectivists in the room.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-06-13 10:29:53 AM
"Set You Free" be careful what you state online,{we're doomed], if big oil reads your blog they will raise prices even higher.
Posted by: Glenn | 2008-06-13 11:20:19 AM
Is 32 MW a vital part of Alberta's 12,072 MW generating capacity?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 13-Jun-08 10:29:53 AM
Considering that Alberta uses coal and gas to produce 87% of its electricity, and electricity produced by the Oldman River dam is a clean, renewable energy source I would say that it's vital.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 11:21:01 AM
Stig, what do you think of the Kearl oil sands mine that just got the green light?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 2008-06-13 11:42:19 AM
Stig, what do you think of the Kearl oil sands mine that just got the green light?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 13-Jun-08 11:42:19 AM
I think it's fantasmic!
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-06-13 11:50:01 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.