Conservation, not exploration, key to solving energy crisis
Sacrificing our coasts will not reduce energy prices. Drilling our coasts will not solve the problem of high natural gas and oil prices. It simply takes too long to develop a natural gas or oil field to impact prices in the short term. Further, the estimated long-term drop in natural gas and oil prices from drilling new sites is so small that the average American would likely not notice it once it finally occurs. The honest answer to our oil problem is to use less of it, and that means better fuel economy, faster, and a shift toward renewable energy. Instead of the failed policies of the past, it’s time to break our addiction to fossil fuels by shifting our priorities — and our policies — toward creating a cleanenergy economy. Instead of offering real solutions on energy, global warming and transportation, we are being given false solutions and empty promises. Congress should continue to raise the fuel economy of our cars, encourage the use of renewable energy like wind and solar power, and adopt other, existing energy-saving technologies that cut pollution, curb global warming and create good jobs. These solutions do not require us to put our beaches and favorite vacation spots on the chopping block. And they will work toward reducing the causes of global warming, which threatens us all. BETTY J. VAN WICKLEN Watervliet
Another brainwashed tree hugger. I have a question for all the tree huggers in the world. A professor from Columbia University is developing a carbon scrubber that will remove 1 ton of carbon from the air every day. This scrubber would clean the air of all the carbon that the USA produces in a year in 18 days so why aren't the people who say that they want to protect the environment supporting this development?
She has a point....I am by no means a tree hugger, but we are a society of pigs. The energy crisis needs to be attacked as a blanket approach not just one side or the other. We need to consume less but we need to explore within our own country limits. I also don't think it is the job of Congress to make US use less.
Wallace Broecker, of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, first warned in the 1970s that the earth would warm because of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released by burning fossil fuels. In his new book, Fixing Climate (co-authored by Robert Kunzig), Broecker, 76, argues that we must not only reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) but also remove it from the atmosphere on a massive scale to avert environmental ruin. He is an unpaid adviser to Global Research Technologies, a Tucson firm developing devices to capture CO2 from the air.
By the 1970s, you already believed that CO2 from emissions was causing global warming. Looking at the earth's past climate told me that the earth is very sensitive to changes. It concerned me that as we warmed the planet we were heading into unknown territory. I've convinced myself that it is going to be absolutely necessary to capture and bury CO2. The best way to do that is to take it directly out of the atmosphere.
How do you "fix" climate? We need something that can be manufactured, like air conditioners or cars, by the millions. Each day, a unit would take about a ton of CO2 out of the atmosphere, liquefy it and send it out through pipes to wherever it's going to be stored. The developers are now envisioning a device about 6 to 10 feet in diameter, 50 feet high. It would be like a little silo, in that shape so the wind could blow through it from any direction.
CO2 emissions are going up faster than the highest scenarios. Developing nations are going gangbusters using fossil fuels, so they are eclipsing any savings that the rich nations are making. At some point we are going to have to get tough about it. There is going to be a demand to bring the CO2 level back down again because of the environmental damage it's doing. The only way to do that would be with this sort of device.
How many devices would be needed? Each of us in America is responsible for generating about 20 tons of CO2 a year. So I suppose roughly 17 million scrubbers would take care of the United States. Worldwide, we'd need a lot more. On a long time scale the rich nations can do more than just stop or neutralize their own emissions. They can also neutralize some of what was done in the past.
The scrubbers don't have to be near the source of pollution? No. They can be put anywhere. The units would operate best at low humidity and would be best deployed in deserts.
What happens to all the CO2 the scrubbers take out of the air? There are many places to store it. The most obvious is the saline aquifers that are under every continent. Ultimately, I think we'll want to put CO2 into the deep sea. We at Columbia are exploring with Icelanders the possibility of injecting CO2 dissolved in water into basaltic terrains that make up the earth's mantle, to combine the CO2 with magnesium and convert it into a mineral. One has to figure out a clever way to do this without using a lot of energy.
Of course, this whole thing has been a race against time. We have done relatively little since 1975, when I first became really concerned about climate change. People say Kyoto was a great accomplishment. It trimmed production of CO2 a bit, but it's just one percent of the solution. We've got a huge distance to go.
Is this safe? We're going to have to prove that. People aren't going to want CO2 underneath their houses unless they can be assured that it's not going to come back in any violent way. I think it would be easier to convince people that putting it in the deep sea is safe.
We have to do something. Otherwise we're going to have a very hot planet and the environmental damage is going to be huge. Any solution is going to have its own environmental consequences. We have to make sure those are very small compared to the consequences of doing nothing.
What about alternative energy sources? I don't think anybody believes that alternatives will supply the energy we'll need. The long-term solution is solar electricity. But it is far too expensive—there have to be breakthroughs. If they were to occur in the next 10 or 20 years, great, we could put the whole CO2-capture idea on the shelf. But we have to develop that technology, because it looks right now like solar energy is not going to become affordable in that time scale. We are going to need some way to bail ourselves out.
We have enough coal to run the planet for several hundred years. We could make gasoline out of coal for the equivalent of $50 a barrel. People are not going to use solar energy if it costs 10 times more than energy derived from coal. We are not putting enough resources into developing the technology to capture and store carbon. Everybody is worried about carbon footprints as if that is a solution. It's not. It is important, I'm not putting that down, but conservation in itself can't do it. The world has to run on energy.
Rene I agree that we should also conserve our resources but to do what the tree huggers want we'll have to go back and live like the cavemen did. The environmentalists don't want us to use any fossil fuels and that's not a practical approach to the problem.
Another brainwashed tree hugger. I have a question for all the tree huggers in the world. A professor from Columbia University is developing a carbon scrubber that will remove 1 ton of carbon from the air every day. This scrubber would clean the air of all the carbon that the USA produces in a year in 18 days so why aren't the people who say that they want to protect the environment supporting this development?
Tree hugger ? Here is what this " tree hugger " thinks-
-The United States has enough oil offshore and in Alaska to be oil independent for decades-
SO WHAT ?
What makes everyone think its ok to keep using a 3000 pound machine to haul their 200 pound a$$ around ?
The sound of people slurping down that gas is making me sick- Like fat people in an all you can eat buffet going back for a second piece of pie-
if we pay for it ourselves, what business of it is yours to tell me. Will you next say 'Sal, you eat too much cavatelli, cut back on the riggota since I dont like it, and here is a new law.' People conserve the engery they want to because it has a benefit and that is to save the money for themselves, others want the big car and want to be safe on the roads because the same people who think its ok to to tell me to have the small car, want to let crazy foreigners from mexico run wild on the roads and get the licenses here no questions asked, even when they dont have the drivers training indeed that we have. Makes no sense, my friends. I chose tthe big car and pay for extra gas but dont drive much so what business is yours to tell me what to drive. If you want to ride the bicycle so your get your brains smashed out by a mexican on the side of the road, turning those brains to crow-food on the sidewalk, go and be my guest, dont bother me about it. I have the long wheelbase and the sturdy car, thanks.
if we pay for it ourselves, what business of it is yours to tell me. Will you next say 'Sal, you eat too much cavatelli, cut back on the riggota since I dont like it, and here is a new law.' People conserve the engery they want to because it has a benefit and that is to save the money for themselves, others want the big car and want to be safe on the roads because the same people who think its ok to to tell me to have the small car, want to let crazy foreigners from mexico run wild on the roads and get the licenses here no questions asked, even when they dont have the drivers training indeed that we have. Makes no sense, my friends. I chose tthe big car and pay for extra gas but dont drive much so what business is yours to tell me what to drive. If you want to ride the bicycle so your get your brains smashed out by a mexican on the side of the road, turning those brains to crow-food on the sidewalk, go and be my guest, dont bother me about it. I have the long wheelbase and the sturdy car, thanks.
I dont really care what you eat or if gas goes up to $ 10 a gallon ( I am already noticing less morning traffic is some cities )
BTW there is a new law- and a fat law at that - Schwarzenegger signs trans fat ban By Jim Sanders - jsanders@sacbee.com Last Updated 12:10 pm PDT Friday, July 25, 2008
California will be the first state to ban trans fats in restaurants and bakeries under legislation signed today by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
And you think there will be drilling off the west coast ? your dreaming-
The left coast can do what ever it wants and the rest of the states can decide if they want to drill for oil off their coast. The left coast whines about their high cost of electricity but won't let any new power plants be built. I love my 4 X 4 full size pickup and I'll pay for the gas I use and not complain. I can't speak for the rest of the board but as far as I'm concerned I'm sick and tired of the far left trying to force their beliefs down my throat.
In 2000 we bought our first SUV. I could not believe how safe I felt the first time I drove it. I also travel certain winter roads I would have not traveled when we had our car. And unless the government bans us from owning and driving SUV's, I can't ever see me with anything else. And I guess that weighing 115lbs saves on gas!
The left coast can do what ever it wants and the rest of the states can decide if they want to drill for oil off their coast. The left coast whines about their high cost of electricity but won't let any new power plants be built. I love my 4 X 4 full size pickup and I'll pay for the gas I use and not complain. I can't speak for the rest of the board but as far as I'm concerned I'm sick and tired of the far left trying to force their beliefs down my throat.
If you take a look at ALL of your post- you seem to be the one trying to force your will on those reluctant to drill for more oil- It is you doing all of the whinning. Please look at yourself - you are the one attempting to force your beliefs-- down ? ( Im not sure whos throat )
Drive whatever you like- The inventor of the Segway flies a helecopter to work also has a hummer-
Like I said before- the fact of the matter is our refineries are working at MAXIMUM capacity and could not refine any more aditional oil even if we had it-
I just post in opposition of the far left who wants us to stop using all fossil fuels immediately and go to solar and wind power which is not practical or possible at this time but they try to force the rest us us to do what they want. You follow Al Gore if you like and I'll follow common sense because all the experts in the field of energy are saying it will take the same length of time to develop alternative energy as it will to get oil flowing and nuclear power plants on line.
All I know is that this is the 70's all over again. I lived through this same energy crisis back then. Gas was rationed. Small foreign cars were popular due to the better gas milage. I remember keeping our thermostat turned down in the winter and adding extra layers of clothes on my kids to make sure they were warm in our cold house. Green Peace was the main driving force for the times. We were also told how to conserve water back then too. There were water efficient toilets and water saver shower heads. People were putting bricks in their toilet tanks so not to use as much water when flushing. It was suggested that when we took a shower, we should get wet, turn it off, lather up, turn it back on to rinse off.
My point is that this is nothing new. 40 years later and nothing has changed.
I agree Joann and nothing is going to change for a very long time because it's going to take a lot of time no matter what we do. We don't need another ethanol debacle because we rushed to judgement about what to do.
I just post in opposition of the far left who wants us to stop using all fossil fuels immediately and go to solar and wind power which is not practical or possible at this time but they try to force the rest us us to do what they want. You follow Al Gore if you like and I'll follow common sense because all the experts in the field of energy are saying it will take the same length of time to develop alternative energy as it will to get oil flowing and nuclear power plants on line.
I am by no means far left. You know more about Gore than I. I can swear I have never listened to him more that 5 min at any given time - and not more that 2 hours total in the last 10 years-
Global warming may well be a scientific hoax at the center of a radical political agenda of environmental extreamists-
But unlike you I have no political agenda- so you - Coulter just seem too far out-
I only refer to myself as a liberal because of the way I dress- my musical taste and my hair-
Logged
