Chris,

Wind accounts for 2.14% of California domestic power production, and for a mere 1.67% of power consumed by California (and California imports 21.96% of the electricity it consumes, all figures ca 2006).

A two percent solution is no solution at all.

Chris,

The wind farms at Sunol and Tehachapi have been in place (and growing) for nearly 30 years, and yet the 2006 figures I listed above (and which you firmly ignored) indicate that wind power is a trivial adjunct to electrical power generation in California.

You should also note that since such things have been tracked, there has not been a ten year period in which the proven reserves of recoverable oil have NOT increased.

Obviously it’s not the magic bullet, but neither is relying solely on the remaining oil deposits; it would only buy us time. Renewable energy is the permenant long term solution

What’s wrong with as you say ‘buying us time’? Increasing our oil production would have an immediate effect on our dependance for foreign oil and what’s not to like about that. Besides no one can say when your renewable energy ‘magic bullet’ what ever that is, will be available.

Given that the global demand for oil now is greater than the what Middle East can shovel out, imagine how much the demand will increase 10 years from now. That’s how long it would take for us to see a drop of oil from any of the sites you mentioned above. To be honest, we’re at the point where, instead of stealing profits from OPEC, we would be only helping the global supply keep up with global demand, which I’m not wholy opposed to. The only real sustainable solution would be to develop alternative energy. Here’s a glimer of hope: by 2010, a new car will be available for sale that runs on air:

http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/alternative_vehicles/hydrogen_cars/smart_minicat_air_car.html

And this is only the beginning of the aircar family, not to mention, hopefully, of a who new line of virtually non oil-burning cars.

The 10 year lie thrown out one more once. Next chrissie will tell us that oil will run out in 20 years.

ellinas,

Ask, nicely, and ye shall receive:

Saudi oil production capacity could grow from its current 11 million b/d to over 23 million b/d to meet world demand according to Saudi Aramco’s President and Chief Executive Officer Abdallah S. Jumah, confounding sceptics who believe that the Kingdom may be approaching, or even past, peak production.
In a speech delivered at Rice University in Houston Mr Jumah said that the Kingdom is uniquely positioned to step up and deliver, because of its reserves and resources, to consider raising its production by such a margin.

The company is currently expanding its production, processing and transport infrastructure to allow for a 12 million b/d capacity which includes a commitment to maintain 1.5 million to 2 million b/d of spare production capacity.

There is no doubt that the Saudis could double their daily production, but whether they choose to do so or not is another matter. After all, its their oil. They own the wells.

chris – You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal would work.

It’s certainly working as a government program. Beyond that, it’s not.

Again, domestic oil isn’t a solution either; it would only buy us some time.

Well no shit, Sherlock. Everything in life is only buying us more time until the next solution.

What can we do today to help our energy situation? You’re busy denying the solutions available today.

There’s no “today” solution, not even if you started drilling for domestic oil. Even then, how many cents do you think it would really shed off the current price in 5-10 years?

However, here are some alternative designs that are already out in production by major and small companies, or will be in a few years:

-The electric car:

http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

http://www.zapworld.com/

-The hydrogen car:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322668,00.html

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0705/gallery.honda_fcx/index.html

-The air car:

http://zeropollutionmotors.us/?page_id=36

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html

Here’s a good two point plan for energy independence.

1. To meet our current demands, drill in America.

2. So that we our ready when oil runs out, direct 100 percent of taxpayer funded financial aid at Math, Science, and Engineering majors.

Let’s face it, the solution to our energy problems aren’t going to come from the minds of Political Science and Women’s Studies majors.

No right minded person–or nation–would go out of its way to hamper the production of a relatively cheap source of energy that may or may not be damaging the climate to a small degree before it had new technology in hand that was equal or better in terms of cost and performance. Yet, that is precisely what the Democrats and thier likeminded cohorts in Europe are proposing.

Are they obtuse or corrupt–or a little of both? It really doesn’t matter, they are willfully destroying this country’s economy. A great argument for term limits.

We may differ on climate change, but you can’t deny that it’s a poison that gets into our atmosphere and water. The mere extraction of oil from shale and coal (retorting) emits nasty carcenogens and other stuff, and the problem is compounded when the stuff is location in places where the ecology is very fragile.

Well, it looks like we agree on the many problems involved with oil:
-Price and production is supseptible to geopolitical instability.
-The profits funnel to volatile countries and individuals.
-it’s non-renewable and running out.
-Wars are created to gain control over reserves.
-Envoronmental problems.

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

We have to keep developing ways to use renewable resource that won’t get depleted.

Nobody is denying this. We just aren’t willing to tank the economy and subsequently R&D into alternative energy, in order to do it.

Wrong. The Saudis recently said that they could pump twice as much as they’re pumping now, and that’s just one producer.
robert108 on June 9, 2008 at 06:07 pm

When did they say they could pump twice as much as they’re pumping now? Are you making things up, or are you mistaken.
You say they could but will they?

You’re the same guy that called us nuts for thinking that Ethonal [sic] would work.

Chris,

It doesn’t work! Mandated corn-derived ethanol has been a huge disaster, for both the transportation energy market and the food market as well.

That said, I’m curious what sort of “renewable energy” you see as the “permanent long term solution” to our transportation needs? What such energy source do you envision carrying me to the Gulf coast for a week at the beach, or trainloads of American coal to a port to be shipped to a country not too politically correct to convert it into a clean burning liquid fuel to power their cars and trains?

How much of these problems would continue if we were to use renewable energy?

Looking past the bad grammar, this is a very interesting question.
In fact, renewable energy still requires capitalization(maybe even more than oil), and so requires massive amounts of assets. War is fought over assets, when you come right down to it, so that won’t change. You still have to make cost/benefit decisions; wind farms tie up land and chop up birds, so there is always a cost involved. Cropland can’t be used for housing or other purposes, so there will always be competition for resources. Energy is really “energy conversion”, and there is no guarantee that one method of energy conversion will be any less polluting or damaging than any other. What does it take to make solar panels and windmills? What raw materials and processing is required, and how “clean” is it?
I await your answers, chris.

Again, domestic oil isn’t a solution either; it would only buy us some time.

you’re right about ethanol, but technically cars run on it. Now, air wouldn’t have the same side effects because it’s not a food nor does it require a lot of petroleum to be transported. The same would go for hygrogen and solar panel. In a few years I expect the market to be opened up to these new technologies like you’ve never seen before, and then they’ll be the standard, especially considering the price of gas nowadays.

And don’t even mention hydroelectric or nuclear!

Wow, what a pile of leftarded stupidity. Do you have all this crap written down on postits hanging around your cubicle? If you feel so strongly about eliminating the human race, then, by all means, show us the way. Take the razor and slice deep, 3 lines from base of hand to elbow. You’ll bleed out in under 8 minutes. THAT would show us how much you care about sacrificing for Gaea.

And to address all your pie in the sky idiocy, it all requires massive amounts of ELECTRICITY.

The windmills require only wind, as proven in California. The aircar requires a little more than air, as what’s being done in India and Europe. Again, your ability to simplify a bunch of complicated technologies has intelligence written all over it.

Just a few years ago, wind power was a liberal,
tree-hugging fantasy, and now you can see hundreds of square miles of it in California.

They’re only there because of subsidies. They are not a practical source of power.

Gents,

What would you venture to guess that AlGoreoids like the concept of raising the cost of fuel so much so that the Great Unwashed Masses can’t use much of it, if at all, thereby helping to save the Whales from Global Warming until a magical sustainable, renewable energy solution replaces fossil fuels? Forget about the pain that happens between now and then.

And by the way, there are too many of us anyhow, since ZPG only worked for North America, Europe and Japan, while the Third World keeps pumping babies out. So if famine and other lack-of-energy caused die-offs occur, it’ll be better for Earth-Mother Gaia.

After all — it’s Earth that’s in the Balance.

And to address all your pie in the sky idiocy, it all requires massive amounts of ELECTRICITY. That means thousands of nuclear electric generation plants, thousands of hydroelectric generation plants, thousands of coalfired electric generation plants. Wind ain’t going to do it. Photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it.

Again, without MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY you can do none of the things you list. More nuclear, more hydro, more coal. Continue on with your fantasy of magical energy production, wind ain’t going to do it, photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it.

Geothermal, on a massive scale, is a help. Natural gas fired plants are a step in the right direction.

All the other blahblah you keep linking is just that, blahblah.

Oh, and whilst we are on the subject, what are you going to replace petroleum with?

We’re talking about energy right now, not plastics and other products. But now that you bring it up, it would be nice if we could depend on oil only for those things, because 2/3 of all oil is used for transportation:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm

However, when the oil runs out, we’d better hope that technology has something to replace it with. Given the increasing technology, I’m sure we’ll use replacements lot sooner than that.

If you’re talking about economics, then wind and solar may become cheeper than coal depending on the technological improvements. Solar energy is already cheeper than coal with the new nanotechnology

Wrong again; if any of that fantasy stuff was cost-effective, it would be on the market without any subsidies.

BTW, unless you’re talking about birdies, it’s cheaper.

Well it looks like I’ve stirred up a bee hive here, getting attacked right and left. I expected as much. I’ll try to respond to most of them.

No matter that there are more polar bears than at anytime since we have been keeping track of their numbers

I guess you’re referring to the book “Cool It” by Bjorn Lumborg. The polar bear population had indeed increased in the 70s due to the International Agreement on Polar Bears, which limited hunting and over harvesting. Also, it appears that the population of polar bears had increased recently, but it’s mostly because they’re moving away from the melting ice and more inland to where there are more humans. Here’s a good link that debunks the argument that polar bears in general are doing better today:

http://climateprogress.org/2007/09/10/will-polar-bears-go-extinct-by-2030-part-i/

It concludes: “Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things.”

we come to his real agenda. People are destroying the world and no technology that does not meet with his approval is evil and must be abandoned.

Why would you need my approval? It’s the same thing as replacing aerosol that destroys the ozone with a chemical that doesn’t (which we have done apparently without much fuss from you guys). Wouldn’t you prefer a fuel that doesn’t poison the air we breath and the water we drink?

(alternative energy) doesn’t exist, so it would be very foolish, indeed.

So you’re telling me that all the links I provided have been lying to us? From Chevrolet who is selling electric cars to Fox News who reported on hydrogen fuel cells? Interesting…

(wind power in California are) only there because of subsidies. They are not a practical source of power.

Just remember we’re only at the beginning of an era of alternative energy, so these technologies will start as government programs and be available to companies in limited supply, just like with the birth modern Information Technologies like the Internet. But the use and availability will increase at an exponential rate. That’s the way it always works.

Price and production (of oil) are affected by liberal policy that has made us dependent on foreign oil.

Actually, alternative energy will stir us away from foreign oil, not towards it.

The (oil) profits and where they go are not the concern.

Actually, the oil profits going to terrorists and rogue countries has been the central concern since 2001, don’t you think?

It is not non-renewable and is not running out.

Oil is indeed non-renewable, and by the very definition it will run out. IF YOU DON’T KNOW THAT BY NOW, THEN GO BACK TO SCHOOL. I CAN’T ARGUE WITH IGNORANCE.

Which nasty carcenogens? The same as tobacco smoke and other substances smoked? What other stuff? Oxygen? Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen?

It contains hundreds of toxic chemicals like acids, metals, and oxides. Here’s a good link on what exactly it contains:

http://www.energyindependencenow.org/pdf/fs/EIN-WhatToxicAirPollutants.pdf

Petrol-based smog has a direct link to human diseases. The Carbon Dioxide and Nitrogen alone can kill you in high doses; try locking yourself in a garage and keep the car engine running for a few hours. Here’s a good link on heath and smog:

http://www.lungnet.com.au/content/view/92/146/

I’m not even going into the dangers of extracting oil from shale and coal right in our backyards.

energy still requires capitalization(maybe even more than oil), and so requires massive amounts of assets.

This last comment is the best one yet. There’s always a downside of everything, just like with Ethanol. However, you have to honestly weigh good stuff with the bad. It’s true that alternative technologies have their negative impact on the environment also and are in less abundance as compared to petroleum. However, you wouldn’t downplay the potential of a child just because he can’t read yet, right? The technology has room to grow and improve. An electricity-generating windmill does take up space and can be dangerous to animals, but through technological improvements they’re destined to become more efficient and have built-in protections. Plus the ecological effects of windmills should still be less than the toxins emitted from, say, extracting coal to oil.

Continue on with your fantasy of magical energy production, wind ain’t going to do it, photo voltaic solar ain’t going to do it.

You’re like a guy in the 70s who would never have believed that we would have computers at the palm of our hands or video conferencing with people half-way around the world. Too futuristic. Access to any song ever sung and any book ever written in minutes? It’s a pipe dream.

The “ain’t going to do it” crowd usually end up on the wrong side.

And the cluelessness expands. Google is going into wind energy investment as a tax write off.

Riddle me this, why are “environmentalists” the number one opponents of wind farms?

He (Chris) seems to have fallen silent…

I think we should dub him 2h;ris from here on out…

OK if you don’t believe the government, let’s do the private sector: Google is investing hundreds of millions in wind power:

http://earth2tech.com/2007/11/27/google-to-produce-clean-energy-cheaper-than-coal/

If they get their way, our Google searches will be powered by wind! lol

My Gawd! It actually thinks that DeptEnergy knows anything about economics.

Numbnuts, believing that oil is”running out” is so 1970s. What, are you getting all your info from NPR?

And the cluelessness expands. Google is going into wind energy investment as a tax write off.

Well I don’t doubt it since corporations only see the bottom line, but thier contributions should help out the cause significantly. Many companies will take advantage of the tax credits, and they will help develop get the ball rolling faster.

why are “environmentalists” the number one opponents of wind farms?

Wind turbines are, admittedly, appropriate in only certain locations. Bad planning would make them destructive to the ecology. However in some locations, the impact would be minimal. This is why they need to be used in conjunction with other technologies, depending on locations and conditions. geothermal energy would be perfect in the “ring of fire” area while solar energy would be perfect in the desert.