Global Warming is over.

[cale]

That's the angriest "I don't know either" I've ever heard.

Feel free to research it yourself, there is no set figure hence my dancing around the answer.

You misread my lack of catering to your condescension as anger, I apologize for your shortcoming.

[mrsleeve]

Fair enough, I haven't heard it referred in use with oil, and don't think that's what gwb was mentioning.


So do you think there is a limitless supply of oil and will always find enough to support our way of life? Does it make sense to base much of our economy, livelihood, and our competitiveness on fossil fuel ? And even with some domestic supply (and Canadian), we are still subject to global demand (and supply control of OPEC). The potential for our system to crumple due to dinosaur juice price spike is frightening.

What do you think they are doing in ND and all the other tight rock oil plays around the world????


Come on heeter you know my position well enough to know I understand world market forces and the very nature of how energy plays on the world stage.

Peak oil discounted 2 things when it was 1st published in 56, and was mostly true until the 80's and why it correctly predicted a US production peak. It discounts new, better and cheaper tech for getting once thought unrecoverable resource (al la fracking once 20 mil a hole is now less than 10 mill for 6 holes on a pad) directional drilling, and so on. The other is Economics, no one thought until recently that 100 a barrel was even conceivable, this makes that new tech and developing better new tech to go after those once though unrecoverable deposits viable.


I do agree that an alternative will be needed in the future, but our grand kind might see the day when dino juice will not be a primary fuel source, and I think they will be old as dirt when that happens as well. I really think its something that should be in the works bu we should not step on our dick in the mean time to try and force their development, since when has govt intervention in the free market ever made anything better..........

[rwh11385]

What do you think they are doing in ND and all the other tight rock oil plays around the world????


Come on heeter you know my position well enough to know I understand world market forces and the very nature of how energy plays on the world stage.

Peak oil discounted 2 things when it was 1st published in 56, and was mostly true until the 80's and why it correctly predicted a US production peak. It discounts new, better and cheaper tech for getting once thought unrecoverable resource (al la fracking once 20 mil a hole is now less than 10 mill for 6 holes on a pad) directional drilling, and so on. The other is Economics, no one thought until recently that 100 a barrel was even conceivable, this makes that new tech and developing better new tech to go after those once though unrecoverable deposits viable.


I do agree that an alternative will be needed in the future, but our grand kind might see the day when dino juice will not be a primary fuel source, and I think they will be old as dirt when that happens as well. I really think its something that should be in the works bu we should not step on our dick in the mean time to try and force their development, since when has govt intervention in the free market ever mad anything better..........

I've had friends in ND on rigs and working in environmental consulting for fracking, but that term was never mentioned in regards to oil. Sorry. But thank you.

Indeed man. Although I thought you were talking about the general concept that mankind will reach a point that production will peak and then decline instead of simply the specific book. Even some of the Saudis know that their resource is fleeting and won't last forever (stone age quote).

Yes, discounting tech is foolish. We (as humans) have generally been able to accomplish a lot through it - but strictly dedicating efforts to a fixed quantity of resource instead of investing in alternatives because the renewable technology isn't mature yet is foolish as well. Yep - economics is important. No one gave much of a care for fuel efficiency when gas was cheaper, but more expensive gas has made companies pour funding into research and created some cool and awesome tech in the progress as well.

Good - at least some people are reasonable. Yes, it will be a long time until renewables will be the primary source. But that doesn't mean early adoption and implementation and experimentation and research shouldn't be taking place now. Warehouses and other buildings where capital for solar arrays is more feasible than your average homeowner are increasing installations which helps. Not too long down the timeline, solar installed will be more economical and more popular, as well PHEVs or BEVs. It will take a LONG time for that adoption to take place, especially since the average car is 10 years old and they represent only a small % of new sales. But, efficiency and sustainable business practices will increase, which hopefully will reduce energy inputs - and other raw materials, so even if the replacement by renewables isn't substantial soon, we'll need less. Market prices have been great to encourage companies to be smarter about things - like carmakers going zero landfill (and saving money in the process by recycling), but some of things that made the country great took investment, including that from the government. A ton of important technology has come from NASA and DARPA, so I am hoping that ARPA-E similarly benefits the national interest. (Last I checked, both candidates supported it)

[gwb72tii]

Because one region's definition of whether to seek to utilize more of it or not changes if the water cycle provides work in the system that adds potential energy to the water. You should know the difference between politics and science... but then again you don't believe in science.

you sure do pull a lot of stuff out of your ass when you reply. commenting without knowing what you're talking about.

to the tune of 5+ a day since '03

[u3b3rg33k]

since when has govt intervention in the free market ever made anything better..........

Well there was the heavy press program; the free market had no interest in that, yet the presses are still in use...

Feel free to research it yourself, there is no set figure hence my dancing around the answer.

You misread my lack of catering to your condescension as anger, I apologize for your shortcoming.

Dunno man, it's pretty easy to feed the people living under the bridge...

[rwh11385]

you sure do pull a lot of stuff out of your ass when you reply. commenting without knowing what you're talking about.

to the tune of 5+ a day since '03

Right. Whatever you say crazy tinfoil hat man who thinks he knows everything although proven daily that you're hopeless.

The point is that politicians arguing about what "counts" for quotas doesn't change the science of renewables. "You need more renewable energy in your portfolio, or you'll be fined, but some new hydro generation might not count even if small scale would and efficiency upgrades to hydro-electric do count"

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2012/sep/05/state-says-rocky-reach-dam-upgrades-count-as/

http://cms.oregon.gov/energy/RENEW/docs/sb0838.a.pdf

(3) The Legislative Assembly finds that hydroelectric energy is an important renewable energy source and electricity from hydroelectric generators may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard as provided in sections 1 to 24 of this 2007 Act.

SECTION 3. Qualifying electricity; age of generating facility. (1) Except as provided in this section, electricity may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard only if [2]A-Eng. SB 838 the electricity is generated by a facility that becomes operational on or after January 1, 1995.
(2) Electricity from a generating facility, other than a hydroelectric facility, that became operational before January 1, 1995, may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard if the electricity is attributable to capacity or efficiency upgrades made on or after January 1, 1995.
(3) Electricity from a hydroelectric facility that became operational before January 1, 1995, may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard if the electricity is attributable to efficiency upgrades made on or after January 1, 1995. If an efficiency upgrade is made to a Bonneville Power Administration facility, only that portion of the electricity generation attributable to Oregon′s share of the electricity may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard.
(4) Subject to the limit imposed by section 4 (5) of this 2007 Act, electricity from a hydroelectric facility that is owned by an electric utility and that became operational before January 1, 1995, may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard if the facility is certified as a low-impact hydroelectric facility on or after January 1, 1995, by a national certification organization recognized by the State Department of Energy by rule.

(4) Electricity generated by a hydroelectric facility may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard only if:
(a) The facility is located outside any protected area designated by the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council as of July 23, 1999, or any area protected [3]A-Eng. SB 838 under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542, or the Oregon Scenic Waterways Act, ORS 390.805 to 390.925; or
(b) The electricity is attributable to efficiency upgrades made to the facility on or after January 1, 1995.
(5) Up to 50 average megawatts of electricity per year generated by an electric utility from certified low-impact hydroelectric facilities described in section 3 (4) of this 2007 Act may be used to comply with a renewable portfolio standard, without regard to the number of certified facilities operated by the electric utility or the generating capacity of those facilities.

Did you simply read that hydro wasn't renewable by some extreme right-wing blog somewhere without considering if some GOVERNMENTAL policy over whether or not it counted - based on size, date made, or if it was efficiency improvements. Why the hell would you say hydro is not renewable just because some politicians said that new big ones aren't gonna count???

[gwb72tii]

because my dense poster that the government has ruled hydro is not a renewable energy resourse. it is the government interfering in the markets and picking winners at the expense of logic and common sense, something politicians are adept at.
there is no shortage of water in the PNW, yet we will be forced into politician wet dreams of windmills and solar, one of which kills birds and the other doesn't work very well for 8 months/yr. both of which are considerably more expensive.
yet somehow you cannot connect the dots? or you approve? in which case you favor big government and its intrusions into our lives?

[rwh11385]

because my dense poster that the government has ruled hydro is not a renewable energy resourse. it is the government interfering in the markets and picking winners at the expense of logic and common sense, something politicians are adept at.
there is no shortage of water in the PNW, yet we will be forced into politician wet dreams of windmills and solar, one of which kills birds and the other doesn't work very well for 8 months/yr. both of which are considerably more expensive.
yet somehow you cannot connect the dots? or you approve? in which case you favor big government and its intrusions into our lives?

Just because the government in your bird-brained region doesn't count big new hydro-generation plants as "renewable energy", does that mean it isn't renewable in reality??


I favor you stop being a moron. I obviously think it is stupid to count old, improved, or small hydro as renewable, yet not new big ones, because some politicians think so. Why the hell would you expect a governmental policy for one region and certain circumstances define an entire form of power generation as one thing or another in actuality? Your stupidity is much greater than all of that.

Q5, did u know hydroelectric is not a renewable power source?

As I said before:

Because one region's definition of whether to seek to utilize more of it or not changes if the water cycle provides work in the system that adds potential energy to the water. You should know the difference between politics and science... but then again you don't believe in science.

[rwh11385]

Just people politicians make a bill to define pi as 3.2, that doesn't make it true...

http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Second%20Level%20pages/indiana_pi_bill.htm

Section 1
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: It has been found that a circular area is to the square on a line equal to the quadrant of the circumference, as the area of an equilateral rectangle is to the square on one side. The diameter employed as the linear unit according to the present rule in computing the circle's area is entirely wrong, as it represents the circle's area one and one-fifth times the area of a square whose perimeter is equal to the circumference of the circle. This is because one fifth of the diameter fails to be represented four times in the circle's circumference. For example: if we multiply the perimeter of a square by one-fourth of any line one-fifth greater than one side, we can in like manner make the square's area to appear one-fifth greater than the fact, as is done by taking the diameter for the linear unit instead of the quadrant of the circle's circumference.

Section 2
It is impossible to compute the area of a circle on the diameter as the linear unit without trespassing upon the area outside of the circle to the extent of including one-fifth more area than is contained within the circle's circumference, because the square on the diameter produces the side of a square which equals nine when the arc of ninety degrees equals eight. By taking the quadrant of the circle's circumference for the linear unit, we fulfill the requirements of both quadrature and rectification of the circle's circumference. Furthermore, it has revealed the ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees, which is as seven to eight, and also the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square which is as ten to seven, disclosing the fourth important fact, that the ratio of the diameter and circumference is as five-fourths to four; and because of these facts and the further fact that the rule in present use fails to work both ways mathematically, it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in its practical applications.

[herbivor]

At this point, I think many scientists are looking at geo-engineering solutions for climate change because of knowing the inevitability of exhausting every bit of fossil fuel that we can.

[Q5Quint]

Originally Posted by gwb72tii
Q5, did u know hydroelectric is not a renewable power source?

Nope. I just listen to the power company.

http://www.tva.com/power/hydro.htm

Hydroelectric Power
TVA hydroelectric facilities
Hydropower is America’s leading renewable energy resource. Of all the renewable power sources, it’s the most reliable, efficient and economical. TVA maintains 29 conventional hydroelectric dams throughout the Tennessee River power system.

Technically speaking I am against all large-scale utility types of energy since they do nothing but maintain the addiction the average consumer has to cheap energy. This has all kinds of odd-societal fallouts of dependency and complacency and, quite literally, power over business/people.

You probably agree with me that federally funding energy companies is a stupid idea. Hydro is great when you have it but it also has its costs and issues.... kids are damming up the amazon river not because they want to charge their i-phones or because they want to watch tv.... kids are damming it up because they want to make money. In a case of 'choose the lesser evil' hydro is great because it runs 24/7, wind and solar are good but are more intermittent and actually work better on a larger grid. Either way the pawer stays in the hands of a few who charge the rest of us out the ass after we already are paying for it with our taxes. Duke energy could literally hold my entire state for ransom since they control ALL of our energy. That is not a good deal and seems like way too many eggs in one basket.

National security wise it is a lot harder to blow up 102380912321 solar panels and 193123921 wind turbines than it is to blow up one powerplant. Technically nuclear is renewable too since you can re-enrich fuel several times......but it has its drawbacks as well. But incase you need any nuclear fuel here you go:

[gwb72tii]

hydro has all kinds of issues. politically i don't think we'd vote in any new hydro up here.
but my point was politics has declared hydro is no a renewable up here, even when in fact it is! the political leaders might as well just declare we need more windmills (with all their drawbacks) or solar (up here? really?) and let electricity rates rise as a result. but then they'd be voted out of office.

side note, just read that solar is down to 84 cents a watt, from $30 a watt 10yrs ago.

[nando]

solar actually works fine in WA. if the prices drop in half again, it'd actually be pretty viable even with our cloudy cold sucky weather.

a guy here just converted his house, he figures the payback is about 10 years (used a 5 year loan to pay for the installation). if that dropped to 5 years, I'd do it.

[Q5Quint]

...
a guy here just converted his house, he figures the payback is about 10 years (used a 5 year loan to pay for the installation). if that dropped to 5 years, I'd do it.

Whats the payback on your e30 ;-)

Also- global warming is real and is actually caused by e30s.

Cars older than 1996 models account for about one-fourth of miles driven but contribute more than two-thirds of total auto air pollution

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...missions_N.htm

[nando]

1996 was when OBDII started. Coincidence? nope. OBD1 cars like E30s have crummy diagnostics abilities, so finding and fixing problems is harder for the average person. But E30s are actually pretty clean burning if maintained properly, they also have really high quality catalytic convertors especially compared to domestics of the same era. There were domestics that still used mechanical distributors and throttle body injection into the mid 90s.

also, older than 1996 is a LOT of cars. think anything built 1975-1985, the transition phase from mechanical to electronic. that article is pretty crummy anyway, it assumes anything older than 1996 is a "junker".

the payback on my E30 is approximately negative 25 years. :p