The Dream of a World Without Oil

[red states rule]

Libs continue to live in this fantasy world and the NY Times wasted space on an article pushing the fantasy




The New York Times devoted most of the front page of its Sunday Review section to a story (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/sunday-review/life-after-oil-and-gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) promoting the green dream of "Life After Oil and Gas." The story cites an article (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf) by Stanford engineers published in the journal Energy Policy, titled "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power." According to the lead author, Mark Z. Jacobsen, "It's absolutely not true that we need natural gas, coal or oil -- we think it's a myth." The authors "suggest producing all new energy with WWS [wind, water and solar] by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic."

Jacobsen provides a shopping list that details what will be required to move to a post-carbon future:

• 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines. After decades of subsidies for wind power, the worldwide total of wind turbines stands at 200,000. The goal of 3.8 million is astoundingly unrealistic, and 5 MW is a big daddy of a wind turbine; GE makes three sizes: 1.5 MW, 2.5 MW and 4.1 MW. I was fortunate enough to visit Aruba recently and drove past the wind farm in Arikok National Park. The turbine blades were 45 meters long and produced 3 MW. A second small wind farm on Aruba has met with fierce local resistance. Already these monstrosities have blighted the landscapes of Spain, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, the U.S. and elsewhere. Adding millions of turbines will have a devastating effect on our rural landscapes, and the industrial-scale slaughter of birds and bats might lead to a real silent spring.
• 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants (CSP). According to Wikipedia:
CSP is being widely commercialized and the CSP market has seen about 740 MW of generating capacity added between 2007 and the end of 2010. More than half of this (about 478 MW) was installed during 2010, bringing the global total to 1095 MW. Spain added 400 MW in 2010, taking the global lead with a total of 632 MW.
A global total of 1095 MW and Jacobsen is calling for 14.7 million MW? And good luck building transmission lines from sunny places through the backyards of environmentalists.
• 40,000 300 MW solar PV power plants. Wikipedia lists 82 solar PV plants worldwide larger than 30 MW. The largest is 250 MW and all but ten are less than 100 MW. Several larger plants -- as in two or three -- are under construction. 40,000 new plants?
• 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems. Solar PV panels are getting cheaper, down to $6/watt in 2011, according to a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study, or $18,000 for 3 kW. Northern Tool is selling 920 watt panels for $3500, or $11,400 for 3000 watts. At this price, 1.7 billion PV systems would cost $19.4 trillion. I wonder if we can get free shipping with Amazon Prime?
• 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants. The worldwide geothermal capacity in 2010 was 10,700 MW. We therefore need to multiply by a factor of 50 to reach this goal.
• 270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants. Wikipedia lists 26 dams under construction that will come on line in the next decade, totaling 110,671 MW, compared the 351,000 MW needed. Hydroelectric therefore could feasibly play a major role in the future. Of the 26 projects, however, 15 are in China and 4 in Brazil. In the U.S.? Zero. Because of protests by environmentalists, we tear down dams here rather than build them.
• 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices. According to Jacobsen, current power delivered by wave energy converters as electricity is 0.000002terawatts. This technology may be promising but it is still being developed and has encountered numerous technical difficulties. Most of the current wave energy converters are in the .150 to .250 MW (150 to 250 watt) range and most wave farms have a capacity in the neighborhood of 20 MW. The 540,000 MW needed here, like everything on the list, is a massive undertaking compared to existing capacity. But if it saves us from carbon pollution, it's worth it!
• 490,000 1 MW tidal turbines. You'd think with all the world's tidal currents flowing by, we would have figured out this technology by now, but it remains largely undeveloped. FDR proposed damming up Passamaquoddy Bay near his summer home on Campobello to harness the tides, and a study was commissioned in 1924, and again in 1961. The world's first tidal stream power station opened in 2007, in Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland. It has a capacity of 1.2 MW. Only 489,998.8 MW to go! A close friend who's a marine biologist on the Bay of Fundy and a card-carrying environmentalist hates the idea, believing it will disrupt marine life. Of course that doesn't stop the Sierra Club from supporting wind turbines -- "bat-chomping bird-slicing Eco-crucifixes," as James Delingpole calls them.

Jacobsen's article provides a thorough assessment of the future of WWS. Unfortunately, rather than buttress his argument, his figures undermine the conclusion that we don't need fossil fuels.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_dream_of_a_world_without_oil.html#ixzz2ObGSDBS L
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker) | AmericanThinker on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dlia0Qbjyr4BNDacwqm_6l&u=AmericanThinker)

[fj1200]

Are Fast-Breeder Reactors
A Nuclear Power Panacea? (http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/)
Proponents of this nuclear technology argue that it can eliminate large stockpiles of nuclear waste and generate huge amounts of low-carbon electricity. But as the battle over a major fast-breeder reactor in the UK intensifies, skeptics warn that fast-breeders are neither safe nor cost-effective....
Proponents of fast reactors see them as the nuclear application of one of the totems of environmentalism: recycling.

[KarlMarx]

I can dream of a world without fossil fuels, it has wooly mammoths, with men carrying big spears and dressing in hides.

To these people drilling for oil is not the answer, nuclear power is not the answer, and clean coal is not the answer. Living like the Amish and driving around in wind up toys, that's the answer for these people.

I say, if they want to live that way, let them, it's a free country. Just please, oh please, go away and let the rest of us live in peace

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How about considering this???

http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/index.php/component/content/article/417-harvesting-helium-3-on-the-moon-by-2025


<tbody>
Fri, January 25, 2013



<tbody>
State of the PlanetHARVESTING HELIUM-3 ON THE MOON BY 2025<address>By Patrick Cusick</address>
Philosophically China believes that if humans are to survive then the species must find a ways to live away from the planet.
But survival isn’t the reason why China’s astronauts last year flew over the lunar landscape.
The reason why China’s moon mission requires the country's first lunar landing - scheduled for 2017 – is to assess the moon's stockpile of Helium-3.
Helium-3 is the rare isotope of the lighter-than-air gas that is mooted as the fuel of the future to enable nuclear fusion as an electric power source.
The natural abundance of Helium-3 on the Moon is far greater than on Earth, and there are thousands of millions of tonnes on the lunar surface waiting to be mined.
China’s Lunar Exploration Program is working on a plan “to bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world,” which will require 4 million tons of lunar regolith being mined.
The Chinese manned moon landing in 2017 will employ a special spacecraft that will feature a robotic moon rover carried to the lunar surface by an unmanned lunar lander.
The first objective will be to survey the lunar surface and “provide the most reliable report on helium-3 to mankind.”
But for China to succeed in its Moon ambitions to mine Helium-3 it will have to compete with America primarily because there's enough Helium-3 on the moon to power the world for thousands of years.
Russia is also eyeing the Moon after claiming a vast portion of the Arctic sea floor, accelerating an international race for the natural resources as global warming opens polar access.
As China prepares to map the surface of the Moon, Russia has announced that it estimates there is in total only 15 tons of helium-3 on Earth, while on the Moon, the total amount of Helium-3 is more than five million tons.
Helium-3 is considered as a long-term, stable, safe, clean and cheap material for humans to access nuclear energy through controllable nuclear fusion plants, and it’s estimated that about 100 tons of helium-3 will be needed to power the entire planet every year.
Scientists calculate there is about one million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. One space shuttle load of 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year.


</tbody>


</tbody>

I posted a thread on this many months ago and some ridiculed it. Think China is spending billions on a fantasy??? -Think Russia is in on the quest for thrills?
Think THAT obama attempts to limit or destroy NASA FOR NO REASON?--Tyr

[cadet]

I want all of you guys to know that the reason we use fossil fuels is because it's the easiest to get ahold of and flamable.

When we run out of fossil fuels, there's a shitload of ways to get energy from all sorts of things. First off, anything flamable will work in your car. (It might corrode a little, or get gummy, but that's an easy engineering fix to the motor, just need a new design or material)

There is nothing to stop us from using... corn surup, or animal fat, or... really anything. And then if we decide to go into something that's not flamable, the possibilities are endless. (ex, solar, wind, hydro, and it just keeps going but those are the main ones you know of) It's just that fuel would be harder to produce, and engineers are lazy. It's easier to build off of things we already have then it is to create brand new ideas and mass produce it.

So yes, we can run cars off of corn... But it's hard to find a station that fills up your car with it. (So there's no point in making said car that's more durable for said product)

Just think about how expensive it would be to convert all gas stations to a different type of fuel. Until we run out, it's more cost effiecient to use what we have.

Technically, water would be a fantastic fuel. If you run the right radio waves through it at a high enough frequency it just turns into hydrogen and oxegen (highly flamable) and it's 100% safe for the environment. The only issue is that to create a car that uses it... It'd be more expensive then the average joe would want to pay for. (Not really due to the technology, but more for the fact that noone would be making any money off of gas, so less money gained by the company in the long run, and they're gonna want to stay in business)

If we seriously said "F___ IT!" to coal and oil, it might take a few years (close to 10 or 20) to design, produce, and get everyone in new cars and all power stations switched over, but we could do it.

But like I said, we're lazy, and most businesses aren't to keen at looking into the next 10 or 20 years of investment. They're happy sticking with what we know works and keeping profit up.

[tailfins]

I can dream of a world without fossil fuels, it has wooly mammoths, with men carrying big spears and dressing in hides.

To these people drilling for oil is not the answer, nuclear power is not the answer, and clean coal is not the answer. Living like the Amish and driving around in wind up toys, that's the answer for these people.

I say, if they want to live that way, let them, it's a free country. Just please, oh please, go away and let the rest of us live in peace


The Amish have gas refrigerators, gas lights, etc. Their motivation for not using electricity is not being connected to a shared utility. Even the Amish use fossil fuels.

[cadet]

The Amish have gas refrigerators, gas lights, etc. Their motivation for not using electricity is not being connected to a shared utility. Even the Amish use fossil fuels.

They'll use electricity so long as they can make it themselves. Don't let them fool you. They'll use anything so long as they're not depending on electric lines or the outside world's technology.

[revelarts]

people couldn't dream of a world without whale blubber and steam engines or horses,
fossil fuels are not so sacrasant they they'll live as long as mankind uses technology.

It provincial to think so seems to me.
Oil, gas and coal companies would love that but c'mon.

Nukeman has mentioned a clean nuke power that's sitting on the shelf.
I've mentioned energy from burning salt water,
others have mentioned diesel DOES run on vegetable oils, has for 100 years!
and hemp is 1 cheap way to get it in megatons.
if the gov't was serious about energy independence and BANNED Non diesel engines in the US. and said all cars must run on veggie oils. would that be impossible?

solar, is getting better, solar paints are in the lab now.
wind is getting better slooowly and geothemal is just sitting there waiting.

i don't think theres a one size fits all solution, but the tech is there IMO to get us away from all foriegn energies IF that what we really want. and eventually away from most more harmful forms of energy. there no such thing free energy .... yet. but it's not impossible... one day it seems to me.

looking at real numbers has to happen but just poopooing the direction just as a matter of partisanship doesn't really get anyone anywhere.

[cadet]

people couldn't dream of a world without whale blubber and steam engines or horses,
fossil fuels are not so sacrasant they they'll live as long as mankind uses technology.

It provincial to think so seems to me.
Oil, gas and coal companies would love that but c'mon.

Nukeman has mentioned a clean nuke power that's sitting on the shelf.
I've mentioned energy from burning salt water,
others have mentioned diesel DOES run on vegetable oils, has for 100 years!
and hemp is 1 cheap way to get it in megatons.
ithe gov't was serious about energy independence and BANNED Non diesel engines in the US. and said all cars must run on veggie oils. would that be impossible?

solar, is getting better, solar paints are in the lab now.
wind is getting better slooowly and geothemal is just sitting there waiting.

i don't think theres a one size fits all solution, but the tech is there IMO to get us away from all foriegn energies IF that what we really want. and eventually away from most more harmful forms of energy. there no such thing free energy .... yet. but it's not impossible... one day it seems to me.

looking at real numbers has to happen but just poopoopong the direction jut as a matter of partisanship doesn't really get anyone anyway.

And it can't be the GOV'T that makes us give up on oil. It'd have to be businesses deciding that they wanted to get into clean energy.
It's not the Gov'ts job, they have no say in what we do with our money and technology. This is one thing that we the PEOPLE have to do for ourselves.

[DragonStryk72]

Libs continue to live in this fantasy world and the NY Times wasted space on an article pushing the fantasy

Eh, we'll move off of fossil fuels eventually, just as we didn't always use fossil fuels to begin with. Technology for Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and even Geo-Thermal power is coming along, we're just not there yet. Just as vehicles are moving to higher and higher fuel efficiency as time goes on, not simply because of cafe standard, or the free market, but because every R&D guy I've ever known simply, because of human nature, wants to improve on what came before them.

The problem is that liberals want an unrealistic version of this, done on an unrealistic timeline. I think VT has handled this better than most, by putting in tax breaks for businesses that can provide at least 25% of their own power. It helps to offset the cost of putting in horizontal wind turbines, but they're not required to or anything, and generally their costs actually do go down for having that capacity. It's also had the secondary benefit that many businesses and such retain power for a while when inclement weather knocks out the power grid. All while putting less strain on the state's power grid, and letting them save money that way.

Of course, that said, CA and NY are going to come up with the stupidest possible version of that now, and scream about how people aren't going along with them on it.

[Robert A Whit]

I want all of you guys to know that the reason we use fossil fuels is because it's the easiest to get ahold of and flamable.

When we run out of fossil fuels, there's a shitload of ways to get energy from all sorts of things. First off, anything flamable will work in your car. (It might corrode a little, or get gummy, but that's an easy engineering fix to the motor, just need a new design or material)

There is nothing to stop us from using... corn surup, or animal fat, or... really anything. And then if we decide to go into something that's not flamable, the possibilities are endless. (ex, solar, wind, hydro, and it just keeps going but those are the main ones you know of) It's just that fuel would be harder to produce, and engineers are lazy. It's easier to build off of things we already have then it is to create brand new ideas and mass produce it.

So yes, we can run cars off of corn... But it's hard to find a station that fills up your car with it. (So there's no point in making said car that's more durable for said product)

Just think about how expensive it would be to convert all gas stations to a different type of fuel. Until we run out, it's more cost effiecient to use what we have.

Technically, water would be a fantastic fuel. If you run the right radio waves through it at a high enough frequency it just turns into hydrogen and oxegen (highly flamable) and it's 100% safe for the environment. The only issue is that to create a car that uses it... It'd be more expensive then the average joe would want to pay for. (Not really due to the technology, but more for the fact that noone would be making any money off of gas, so less money gained by the company in the long run, and they're gonna want to stay in business)

If we seriously said "F___ IT!" to coal and oil, it might take a few years (close to 10 or 20) to design, produce, and get everyone in new cars and all power stations switched over, but we could do it.

But like I said, we're lazy, and most businesses aren't to keen at looking into the next 10 or 20 years of investment. They're happy sticking with what we know works and keeping profit up.

I forget just how the Nazis did it but they produced their own fuels that worked just like gasoline or perhaps diesel. This can be looked up on the WWW.

[Robert A Whit]

I invite you to study this link. It shows what a lightweight auto can get. The danger is in using just one years figures. As you look this site over, pay attention to the way it differs year by year and that even many years back, before all the high tech stuff came about, some of those beetles got superior fuel economy. So while we pat our selves on our backs that things are very different, go study to see that while there are improvements, it is shocking how little we actually did advance.

Keep in mind that prior to around 1975, when the first primitive computers were used in cars, and fuel injection managed by computers came into being, things were not as bad as one might think they had been.

We will still use autos for eons.

http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/beetle

[aboutime]

There will NEVER be a World without Oil. As long as this Earth exists, and nature continues as it has since the very first Day.

Something deep below our feet, below the mountains, below the land, and below the oceans will compress and create OIL.

Anyone care to dispute that?

IT'S A FACT....JACK.

[revelarts]

I forget just how the Nazis did it but they produced their own fuels that worked just like gasoline or perhaps diesel. This can be looked up on the WWW.

ibelieve they used coal and got a 'synthetic' oil from it. Had to to it because they had no access to oil.
the process wasn't cheap but it was doable back in the 1930's. hard to believe that no advancemnts have been made on that front since then.

1 conspiracy theory on that front is that IG Farbin/orsomenazicorp and the oil companies had a deal after the war of some kind i can't remember the details.

the 1970's film "the formula' with George C Scott and Marlen Brando played around with the idea. it picked it up from a book. that is based at least loosly on some facts of the Germany program.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=626637#post626637)

I forget just how the Nazis did it but they produced their own fuels that worked just like gasoline or perhaps diesel. This can be looked up on the WWW.




ibelieve they used coal and got a 'synthetic' oil from it. Had to to it because they had no access to oil.
the process wasn't cheap but it was doable back in the 1930's. hard to believe that no advancemnts have been made on that front since then.

1 conspiracy theory on that front is that IG Farbin/orsomenazicorp and the oil companies had a deal after the war of some kind i can't remember the details.

the 1970's film "the formula' with George C Scott and Marlen Brando played around with the idea. it picked it up from a book. that is based at least loosly on some facts of the Germany program.

It could be as you say. Coal does have components that I presume can be used to create liquid fuels. And there is still a lot of coal.

Gasoline is not the only fuel that works in autos but it still is the best fuel.

I believe that most of the emissions comes from coal.

[Voted4Reagan]

World w/o Oil = ANARCHY

[cadet]

World w/o Oil = ANARCHY

World w/o oil = people (engineers) getting off their asses and designing something to take a different type of fuel.

It's used because it's easiest to get, and it burns great.

[aboutime]

World w/o oil = people (engineers) getting off their asses and designing something to take a different type of fuel.

It's used because it's easiest to get, and it burns great.


cadet. Don't get me wrong here. I am not defending oil. But, take a tour of your own home, your car, or truck, and where you work. Make a list of how many items you see...just happen to have been manufactured in some way with oil.
And, after you do that...tell yourself how many of those things you took stock of...would even be possible to manufacture without oil.

[gabosaurus]

I would rather live in a world without coal. It would be cleaner and fewer people would die of related diseases and accidents.

[Voted4Reagan]

I would rather live in a world without coal. It would be cleaner and fewer people would die of related diseases and accidents.

Take away Coal and you'd have to close most of the Power plants in this country.

What will you replace them with?

Oil,Gas or Nuclear?

Pick one of the three

You really know nothing about energy production... do you?

[aboutime]

I would rather live in a world without coal. It would be cleaner and fewer people would die of related diseases and accidents.


Gabby. You could never survive without COAL. Christmas just wouldn't be the same for you without that Annual LUMP under your aluminum tree.

[cadet]

cadet. Don't get me wrong here. I am not defending oil. But, take a tour of your own home, your car, or truck, and where you work. Make a list of how many items you see...just happen to have been manufactured in some way with oil.
And, after you do that...tell yourself how many of those things you took stock of...would even be possible to manufacture without oil.

I'd like you to then take an inventory of everything that can be used as fuel, or energy. (REPLACEMENTS)

give you a hint; Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, veg, fat, radio waves through water, any flammable chemical, geothermal, there's even chemical reactions that generate electricity! (lithium batteries), man power, animal, burning wood.

I'm saying even though we're completely dependent upon fossil fuels, it's only because that's plentiful and easy to use.
It's not impossible to switch over. (yes it would take quite a few years) But the gov't wouldn't have anything to do with it. This one's up to us people.

[jimnyc]

Gabby. You could never survive without COAL. Christmas just wouldn't be the same for you without that Annual LUMP under your aluminum tree.

I think you secretly like Gabby a little! :lol:

[Robert A Whit]

I would rather live in a world without coal. It would be cleaner and fewer people would die of related diseases and accidents.

Have you ever used coal in your fireplace? What coal have you used thus far?

[aboutime]

I think you secretly like Gabby a little! :lol:


jimnyc: Very observant of you. You are right of course. I have always liked the outcome of people who intentionally step on that banana peel with one foot, while the other is over the deep, bottomless hole of stupidity.

[logroller]

World w/o oil = people (engineers) getting off their asses and designing something to take a different type of fuel.

It's used because it's easiest to get, and it burns great.
Ethanol blends are usable in a handful of cars. Not exactly new technology either; ford did it with model t's. unfortunately ethanol must be made from grain or sugar, which must be grown. Not as easy as petrol, but as the price of extracting oil increases, ethanol becomes a more economically feasible substitute. Regardless, the internal combustion engine (petrol cars) has inherent inefficiency issues, only ~30% of the energy released is usable. Compare that to solar ~15%, a gas fired combined cycle steam turbine to electricity, ~60%, or a fuel cell, ~60%.
Fuel cells are probably the most promising, but materials are very costly. Last time I checked the average car's fuel cell power plant alone would cost upwards of $60k.

[red states rule]

Does the name T Boone Pickens mean anything to anyone? I remember how the liberal media gushed over him when he sunk $2 billion into wind farms.

I do not think the investment paid off for him very well

But it was his money and not taxpayer money which is the way it should be. Of course you have not seen or heard about him in the liberal media since. just as they not talk about all of Obama's losing investments with taxpayer money

[MtnBiker]

I would rather live in a world without the low information voter that work for a living rather than vote for a living.

[Robert A Whit]

Does the name T Boone Pickens mean anything to anyone? I remember how the liberal media gushed over him when he sunk $2 billion into wind farms.

I do not think the investment paid off for him very well

But it was his money and not taxpayer money which is the way it should be. Of course you have not seen or heard about him in the liberal media since. just as they not talk about all of Obama's losing investments with taxpayer money

And he promoted natural gas drilling and that worked out.