frflyer

Comment Stream » CVX

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Oil Will Only Fall So Far
    I want to add that these are good starting points for moving in the right direction. Just removing the political obstacles to these new industries and renewing the tax credits for renewables will jump start them so they can get up to scale building wind farms, solar power plants etc.
    According to estimates by setamericafree.org, oil and gas companies receive over $80 billion annually in tax credits and subsidies. Now McCain wants to give them more $billions. But Repuplicans won't give $6 billion for solar wind and geothermal and other renewables combined. Their estimate for total annual hidden costs of oil is over $800 billion a year. And then there is the $700 billion a year that oil adds to our trade deficit.
    Then they criticize Pelosi for not bringing congress back in session to vote for offshore drilling. What a joke!




    Aug 14 01:32 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Oil Will Only Fall So Far
    Alan von Altendorf
    Estimated oil off California's coast is about 10 billion barrels. At U.S. consumption of 7.5 billion barrels a year, that's enough oil for 1 year and 4 months. To think that that is worth risking the ecosystem of California's seacoast is shortsighted. We can't drill our way out of this problem, as Boone Pickens likes to say.

    As far as energy plans, there are three that make a lot of sense, that I know of. Picken's plan has much merit, as does the proposal published by Scientific American, ("A Solar Grand Plan"). And setamericafree.org has a plan called "A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security". While none of these is probably the absolute best plan, they all have very good ideas, and show what we can really do with renewable energy.
    The Sci Am and Set American Free plans are available online.



    Aug 14 01:19 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
    A few comments about "Greenies" who many see as idealistic dreamers. Who do you think has been trying to get the rest of you to develop alternative energy and reduce our dependence on oil for well over 30 years? More like 40 years actually. Yes, there has been opposition to offshore drilling and ANWAR drilling, for well over 30 years, while no one else seemed to "get it".
    Don't blame us if no one has been listening for all those decades. Environmentalists have been labeled as kooks for all of those years and now that the chickens have come home to roost, some of you want to blame the messengers. We woke up decades ago. Where were you?

    Fitzman is right on that point. We , as a nation, have taken too long to become aware of the problem. If more had woken up earlier, we wouldn't be in such a mess now.
    Oh well.

    It's the oil industry, that lobbies to prevent alternatives from getting a head start. Yes, many oil companies now are pursuing alternatives, but it was their lobbying efforts that prevented the Dec 07 energy bill from taking 1/4 of their subsidies or $20 billion, which would have been used to extend tax credits for aternatives like solar and wind for eight more years. It was 40 Republican senators who stripped those provisions from the bill as well as blocking meaningful CAFE standards for cars. Of coure Dubbya would have vetoed it anyway.

    More solutions:

    Change much of our long distance freight hauling from trucks to trains. Trains are about 3 times as efficient.

    Sail assist for ships. Parasails that will save 10-30% of a ships fuel cost are available. They work and are cheap. A ship can be retrofitted for $250,000. That's about 2 days lease rate on a large bulk carrier. They provide 6800 horse power and work on any point of sail that a sailboat uses.

    Kiteship and Skysails are the two companies currently providing this technology.

    www.skysails.info/inde...

    www.kiteship.com/

    Some cities have found that free mass transit pays off in the long run. Many hidden costs are eliminated or reduced, making up for the loss of revenue. Ridership increases.

    Biomass to methane, from manure, sewage treatment and landfills. Kill two birds with one stone, preventing methane from becoming a greenhouse gas, and getting power out of it.

    "Wild Rose Dairy in Webster Township, WI is home to an innovative renewable energy facility powered by cow manure and other organic waste. The farm is home to 900 dairy cows, and an on-site anaerobic digester creates methane-rich biogas from their waste, which is used to generate 750 kilowatts of electricity per hour—enough to power 600 local homes 24/7."

    "Environmental Power’s Huckabay Ridge is the largest renewable natural gas plant in North America, if not the world. Huckabay Ridge generates methane-rich biogas from manure and other agricultural waste, conditions it to natural gas standards and distributes it through a commercial pipeline. The purified biogas, called RNG®, is generated by Environmental Power’s subsidiary, Microgy, and is a branded, renewable, pipeline quality methane product."
    Enviromental Power press releases.

    Wind is great, where conditions are right, like the great plains, great lakes area and parts of Texas. Wind will provide 180,000 miles of transportaton power per acre, but solar can produce 2 million miles of power per acre.

    "In the US, the American Wind Energy Association forecasts that installed capacity could grow from 11,603 MW today to around 100,000 MW by 2020. In Canada, Emerging Energy Research predicts that installed wind capacity will expand from around 1,500 MW today to around 14,000 MW by 2015."
    {from an article at altenergystocks.com by Charles Morand}

    What would also help a lot would be to wean ourselve from our consumerism economy. Watch the video called "The Story of Stuff" to see how wasteful it is.

    www.storyofstuff.com/

    For more on plug in hybrids go here.

    www.pluginpartners.org/

    www.logicalscience.com.../ - a list of promising energy technologies

    Bioplastics which are fairly new, could help solve the energy problem as well as a huge pollution problem. We use about 5-10% of our oil to make plastics. Then we throw most of them away and thus create massive polluton, with the oceans being particularly vulnerable. Check out what Metabolix is doing. They are the cutting edge in this new field.
    They can actually grow switchgrass with the plastic already in the leaves and stems, WITHOUT genetically engineering the plants. What is genetically engineered is the bacteria, which digests the corn starch and sugars to make PHA biloplastic.
    They can replace over half of existing plastics with bioplastics that are 100% compostable. In some cases the plastics have better properties than what they replace.

    To see what plastics are doing to the sea go here.
    www.algalita.org/resea...
    www.algalita.org/pelag...

    May 31 19:23 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
    If you want to see a sensible energy policy, go to
    www.setamericafree.org...
    A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

    And your worried about taxing the profits of oil companies?
    Why? We are already giving oil companies $80 billion a year in tax credits and subsidies, making the oil industry just about the lowest taxed industry in the country at about 8%.
    And then there are the other hidden costs of oil, largely paid for by tax dollars. we are talking hundreds of billions annually.
    All told, about $800 billion annually including the subsidies.
    What isn't paid for in taxes, is paid in the private sector, one way or another. And there's the over $300 billion that oil adds to the trade deficit, and you can see that oil already is ruining our economy.
    www.setamericafree.org...

    By comparison, congress is offering $6 billion for next year for solar, wind, geothermal etc combined.

    And take a look at this proposal to achieve 69% solar powered electric grid, by 2050, spending less in public money than was spent on the high speed information highway, over about the same time period.

    Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
    www.sciam.com/article....

    I would emphasize solar thermal plants more than the concentrating PV that this proposal does, but it shows what solar can do.

    Solar thermal plants can store heat to generate power at night. Molten salt seems like the best storage medium, it holds 99% of it's heat for 24 hours.

    Here's what one company says about their solar thermal power plants.

    "Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

    "All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

    To see what's already happening with solar thermal, go to Green Wombat, where there are several articles.

    blogs.business2.com/gr.../

    Transportation- plug in hybrids. The average American driver would get 100 mpg overall, doing most of their commuting on battery power, and recharging for $1 at night. Energy experts say the grid can already handle the nighttime charging.

    www.pluginpartners.org/

    Nuclear may be appropriate in some locals, for lack of anything better, but overall, nuclear is a really bad idea.

    It's dangerous

    The Argonne National Lab says that an airplance crashing into a reactor could cause a complete meltdown, even if the containment building isn't compromised. Remember the twin towers?

    Nuclear plants can cost $500 million each to dismantle when they're worn out.

    "Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."

    Transporting waste from all over the country to Yucca Mtn. Nevada is not only potentially dangerous, but expensive.

    "Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund." That's just one state

    Nuclear power has no accountability for safety.

    "The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

    Nuclear plants are not only slow to get up and running, but are expensive to build.

    "Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

    Nuclear doesn't make us energy independent. We import 65% of our oil and 90% of our uranium.

    www.cleanwisconsin.org...

    "The United States and Russia signed a deal that will boost Russian uranium imports to supply the U.S. nuclear industry, the Commerce Department said Friday…."

    "The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free.
    So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia.
    I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." " gristmill.grist.org/st...

    Solar and wind are quicker to get up and running than both nuclear and coal.

    And solar PV at the cutting edge is already cheaper than coal.

    "Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.
    With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.
    According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."
    from www.grinzo.com/energy/.../

    Americans are being fed a bunch of dis-information about the supposed limitations of solar and wind. Large industrial interests, who want nuclear, coal, more oil, etc are distorting the conversation.

    We are told that solar and wind are too intermittent. That hasn't been a problem for Denmark, which has 20% wind power.

    "There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind. From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet. Why? Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency. If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there. If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time. That can be your electricity `battery.'"

    gristmill.grist.org/st...

    And it isn't stopping Abu Dubai.

    "Abu Dhabi is not content to just sell you the oil that fuels your SUV; now its going to sell you sunshine to keep your lights on and power your electric car when the internal combustion engine goes the way of the buggy whip. Masdar, the oil-rich emirate’s $15 billion renewable energy venture, and Spanish technology company Sener on Wednesday announced a joint venture called Torresol Energy to build large-scale solar power plants in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States."

    They are eying the same American southwest, where the proposal in the SciAm article recommends that we Americans build solar power plants.

    "The irony is too rich to leave unsaid: A leading oil producer invests billions in carbon-free energy while a leading consumer of fossil fuels - the United States - continues to subsidize Big Oil while offering only tepid support for green technology. It is inevitable that climate change will foster the rise of renewable energy - the only question is which countries and companies will profit from the new energy economics. It is entirely possible that the U.S. will trade energy dependence of one kind - on Middle East oil - for another - on Middle East and European solar technology - in the era of global warming. It’s no coincidence that most of the solar energy companies with contracts to build utility-scale power plants in California and the Southwest have overseas roots - Ausra hails from Australia, BrightSource was founded by American-Israeli pioneer Arnold Goldman, Solel is based in Israel and Abengoa is headquartered in Spain." from Green Wombat

    "The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"
    from the SciAm article above.
    May 09 23:17 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Global Warming Up to a Hydrogen Economy
    panseyed Your idea that global warming is just a natural phenomenon is a skeptic argument that has been debunked repeatedly. Your opinion is at odds with the tens of thousands of climate scientists from all over the world, and at odds with the third assessment by the IPCC, which has been called the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in the history of science. If you don't think that is evidence enough, what do you think would be
    Apr 14 12:54 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

frflyer's Comments Stream Stats

  • 141 Comments, 35 , 42
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = -7