Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Chief Grey Bear]

Ever see what's happening to the environment in the Canadian Oil Sands area? It looks like a moonscape up there, once beautiful, pristine north-woods wilderness now completely barren. Think that's the answer to our energy crisis??? I sure don't. Same story with gas fracking, except the impacts of that are not quite as obvious yet.

Right on OTF!!! It is not the answer!

[Al Agnew]

If the GOAL is to keep using oil and other fossil fuels as long as possible, then yes, we have plenty of fossil fuels. But we've long ago gotten all the "easy" oil from North America. The oil that's available now is expensive to extract. New extraction technologies helped make it economically viable, but the other thing that made it profitable to extract is the price of oil. You won't see oil companies being eager to get oil from tar sands, oil shales, deep offshore wells, or the Arctic if oil drops below about $75 a barrel. And the thing most people don't think about is that oil is sold on the open, international market, and the oil companies have multiple sources for oil all over the world. They can extract "cheap" oil from the Middle East, South America, parts of Africa, and make such a profit on it that they can afford to offset it with expensive oil from North America...as long as that price stays up there around $100 a barrel.

And that price per barrel doesn't include the uncounted costs. The costs in environmental degradation, human health, military costs to protect oil fields in unstable parts of the world, etc. If even some of them were factored in...by requiring the oil extractors and refiners to use the very best available technology to reduce pollution and environmental impact, which would then add directly to that price per barrel, oil would be expensive indeed. Instead, those costs fall to the people who live around refineries and oil fields and depend upon the resources that are being harmed by oil extraction, transportation, and refining.

The oil companies are really good at developing the technology to get oil out of the ground profitably. They are a lot less good at the technology to do so with minimal environmental impact, because they aren't forced to do so.

I don't expect things to change much. Those of us who value wild country, clean rivers, and abundant wildlife are probably a dying breed. Our kids are busy indoors playing electronic games and social networking. Our politicians and the vast number of their constituents whose only interest in the outdoors is whether they need to take an umbrella to work, but who care very deeply about whether they have affordable gas to put in their SUVs, will always put some wild place in some other part of the country WAY down on their list of priorities. Heck yeah, get that Canadian tar sands oil out! Heck yeah, let's tear up a lot of Wyoming countryside to get to the oil shale--it ain't worth anything anyway except to a few sage grouse. Who cares about some river in Montana that gets ruined because of a pipeline failure? There are plenty of other places besides the Louisiana Gulf Coast to get seafood, right?

Funny how nobody ever said, when looking at a wild and beautiful piece of countryside, "See this? It all used to be an oil field." Only the opposite ever happens.

[jeb]

Green energy is already working in other countries. It is even being exported to other countries.

Please be specific. Where exactly and what energy source exactly are you referring to?

I have yet to figure out why "big oil" in this country does not take the lead since we all know oil will not last forever.

Easy. Money. It makes no sense to be in the lead on an energy source the public won't buy becuase other energy sources are cheaper. And that's the way it should be. Market driven. If the govt forced us to use energy that was more expensive than our competition, it would drive more and more of our jobs overseas.

I just roll my eyes and shake my head every time I hear we a long ways off in green development. The US use to be the leader that all countries looked to for technology. As soon as we quit being led by the green and start leading the green, we will again be leaders.

Again, until it makes economic sense, it just won't fly. It doesn't pay to be leaders in something that just doesn't sell. Take the subsidys away from all energy production, and I wish they would, and almost all those "green" sources would collapse overnight. Maybe someday they'll make sense if the price of oil continues to rise and there are dramatic break throughs in technology. But that is just not the case now.

[jeb]

Ever see what's happening to the environment in the Canadian Oil Sands area? It looks like a moonscape up there, once beautiful, pristine north-woods wilderness now completely barren. Think that's the answer to our energy crisis??? I sure don't. Same story with gas fracking, except the impacts of that are not quite as obvious yet.

I didn't know we were in an energy crisis? But anyway, it is what it is. It's like the supporting the Arab's arguement. Nobody likes where oil comes from in some cases, but there are no better VIABLE alternatives at this point. And most of still need to put gas in our cars.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Please be specific. Where exactly and what energy source exactly are you referring to?

Easy. Money. It makes no sense to be in the lead on an energy source the public won't buy becuase other energy sources are cheaper. And that's the way it should be. Market driven. If the govt forced us to use energy that was more expensive than our competition, it would drive more and more of our jobs overseas.

Again, until it makes economic sense, it just won't fly. It doesn't pay to be leaders in something that just doesn't sell. Take the subsidys away from all energy production, and I wish they would, and almost all those "green" sources would collapse overnight. Maybe someday they'll make sense if the price of oil continues to rise and there are dramatic break throughs in technology. But that is just not the case now.

Uh well, it is very well documented that Brazil invested early on in ethanol. They are now virtually energy independent. Something that some would like you to believe can happen in the US with oil. But it won't.

Just becuase it is not happening in the US does not mean it is not happening anywhere or "we" are not ready for it.

Here are a couple of articles that explain what we could be doing.

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hof/HofFeb09.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn

[Al Agnew]

Please be specific. Where exactly and what energy source exactly are you referring to?

Easy. Money. It makes no sense to be in the lead on an energy source the public won't buy becuase other energy sources are cheaper. And that's the way it should be. Market driven. If the govt forced us to use energy that was more expensive than our competition, it would drive more and more of our jobs overseas.

Again, until it makes economic sense, it just won't fly. It doesn't pay to be leaders in something that just doesn't sell. Take the subsidys away from all energy production, and I wish they would, and almost all those "green" sources would collapse overnight. Maybe someday they'll make sense if the price of oil continues to rise and there are dramatic break throughs in technology. But that is just not the case now.

Not much of anything is entirely "market driven". And in this case, I don't think it SHOULD be. We all know the many problems with fossil fuels, from possible climate change to air and water pollution to national security. I would suggest that it's in the national interest to do everything we can to get away from oil and other fossil fuels and become the leader in alternative energy sources. The market won't do that, because you're right, as long as oil is supposedly cheaper (again, disregarding the hidden costs that don't show up at the pump but are paid by the people who live close to fields and refineries, and all of us in taxes to feed the military machine) the market will insure we keep using oil. It is not a question of the government mandating what kind of energy we use, it's a matter of the government putting in the resources to seek those "dramatic" new technological developments that will make alternative energy sources viable. It's an investment in our future.

[Quillback]

Investing in our future is tough to do when we're 15 trillion in debt, and adding a trillion to that debt every year. I alos believe economics play a huge role in the energy debate, if you want people out of gasoline fueled cars then you have to present folks with clear cost saving reasons to do so.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Brazil isn't exactly the answer. Brazil gets of its ethanol from waste, something we don't have. If they don't have enough waste and turn to specific crops then one must assume the rainforest will give up the extra land.

The most viable answer would seem to be using natural gas to bridge the gap to a viable renewable source. If technology could harness the emissions from diesel engines the future would be close to secure.

Breaking the back of oil would in and of itself serve mankind beyond belief. If you add in wars, pollution, the hit of high prices on the economy, and oil by products dumped in landfills it is probably more expensive than we know.

[ozark trout fisher]

I see what you're saying...But natural gas only sounds like a good solution until someone decides that the watershed of your favorite river is a good place for hydrofracking. And you can bet that if natural gas becomes our primary source of energy, there will be hydrofracking, right here in the Ozarks. They are already looking at this area for an expansion of that industry. The effects would be devastating, everything from dewatering of the streams where we all love to fish to the possibility of poisoning drinking water...I don't want that here. Do you?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Brazil isn't exactly the answer. Brazil gets of its ethanol from waste, something we don't have. If they don't have enough waste and turn to specific crops then one must assume the rainforest will give up the extra land.

I don't believe you read the links I provided.