Hi,
Somehow I tend to believe that even today, there is technology available to switch away from oil dependency, but that technology is not being widespread because of political reasons.
I believe that an electric car that would meet my everyday requirement could be made today (and it maybe is) and doesn't need to be as expensive as it is .
Some may argue that in this case we will need more electricity, and that it needs to be produced by using nuclear power or so. But even then, it is possible to do it differently. Just as an example: Thorium Reactor
Just continuing to burn oil, even if it was free, is just plain wrong:BBC News - World's oceans in 'shocking' decline
"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.
If we burn oil, shale or not, we are never going to achieve that.
Somehow I tend to believe that even today, there is technology available to switch away from oil dependency, but that technology is not being widespread because of political reasons.
I believe that an electric car that would meet my everyday requirement could be made today (and it maybe is) and doesn't need to be as expensive as it is .
Some may argue that in this case we will need more electricity, and that it needs to be produced by using nuclear power or so. But even then, it is possible to do it differently. Just as an example: Thorium Reactor
Just continuing to burn oil, even if it was free, is just plain wrong:BBC News - World's oceans in 'shocking' decline
"We have to bring down CO2 emissions to zero within about 20 years," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told BBC News.
If we burn oil, shale or not, we are never going to achieve that.
Why Environmentalists Perpetrate Frauds, and Propose Killing People
Table of Contents: Readings from THE AMERICAN ALMANAC
Table of Contents: Readings from THE AMERICAN ALMANAC
Which might be nice if you are a tree.
I wonder - is 7n7is heavily invested in the oil and coal industry?
That global climate change is a reality - just check what is happening in the arctic regions.
BTW - whatever happens - the biosphere will survive, and has survived worse. The question simply is - will we, with economies that start to stutter when the GDP goes down 2 -3%.
What do you think will happen when major parts of the Greenland glacier and the ones in Antarctica melt raise the sea level? The NYSE in swimsuits?
Before things start going sideways. Climate change is a given.
What is not at all clear is whether man-made climate change is any way real, globally. A decent, not necessarily 100% case, or even 50%, or even 10%, or even 5% contribution of man to global climate change has not been made.
Under these circumstances it's understandable some folk are not willing to agree to all sorts of measures which supposedly might ameliorate a process that has not been established with any rigor.
What is not at all clear is whether man-made climate change is any way real, globally. A decent, not necessarily 100% case, or even 50%, or even 10%, or even 5% contribution of man to global climate change has not been made.
Under these circumstances it's understandable some folk are not willing to agree to all sorts of measures which supposedly might ameliorate a process that has not been established with any rigor.
Just a thought: does anybody really think that pumping CO2 in the air for the last 200 years from fossil deposits that had captured that molecule over millions and tens of millions of years has no effect at all? When it has been established that the C02 levels had been rising from roughly 280ppm to over 350ppm, going strongly to 400ppm?
The majority, and I really mean the vast majority of climate researchers are agreed that this human introduced CO2 will have an effect. The devil is in the detail. How much, how fast.
The denialism of human caused climate change in spite of evidence is most often propagated by those who also oppose scientific theories like the theory of evolution. There is a pattern.
I.e. change. Period. As was predicted by ancient people who knew astronomy better than the majority of modern scientists who cry about global warming.
Graham Hancock in his Fingerprints of the Gods book presented many facts, besides his apocalyptic theory.
Graham Hancock Presenting at the 2012 Conference - YouTube
That climate changes is a given.
Ever wonder why Maimonides, Averoes and Aquinas all happened at the same time (give or take a century) -- the weather warmed up.
In the interim, I have laid in stock 2 cases of 100W incandescent lightbulbs.
Climate change has been happening for a few billion years, homo sapiens haven't had much to do with it. It is very unclear than homo sapiens have little if anything to do with the changes we see in the climate at this time. Humans MAY contribute .1C if we keep using hydrocarbons as fuel.
Since the Little Ice age we are still below the average global temps dueing the current Interglacial period.
I put my trust into the 95% who see a strong correlation between CO2 released by humans and the change in global climate.
How do you then explain an increase in CO2 ppm of 35% since the onset of industrialization?
Where do you get this figure from?
We are after all not only talking about CO2 from release by combusting hydrocarbons and coal (which is not a hydrocarbon but a major contributor in CO2 production, we are talking about major deforestations happening in the tropics and subtropics that lead to decreased carbon sequestration and increases in total CO2 load as those forest are burned. TRENDS Online - Carbon Flux to the Atmosphere from Land-Use Change
As to the total load of carbon - here some more realistic data than the out of my **** figure by kevinh:
Recent Climate Change - Atmosphere Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA
Trends in Carbon Dioxide
I guess the EPA is all part of a big conspiracy....
lying about data as kevinHh has done has nothing to do with skepticism - it is just lying about data.
that might be true, however this climatic period was stable enough - likely due to the lower temperatures preventing major weather incidents - to permit an increase of global population due to relative stable crop production. This might radically change with higher average oceanic temperatures and those over land.
This years weather events with increased higher precipitation (especially in Canada and some areas in the US) and higher incidence of tornadoes could be the beginning of a period of increase weather instability due to increase ocean mean temperatures.
Climate is a long term phenomenon http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html and the trend is upwards.
Last edited:
So lets talk about shale oil. Oil shales are found on every continent. The largest known deposits are in the US.
The white dots on the map show oil shale deposits around the world.
URL for above: Related Oil Shale links, read more - Oil Shale Information Centre
What the map doesn't indicate is the immense amounts of oil and gas presented in the these deposits.
For example, oil shales in Israel covering a very small area possibly hold the equivalent of all the conventional oil deposits in Saudi Arabia!
At the present price of oil, oil shale extraction can be profitable. Modern methods of extraction look to be environmentally "safe" (although we should understand that all extractive industry has risk attached so 'safe' is a relative term). In situ heating processes such as developed by Shell seem to be those which present the least environmental risk.
An ethical and moral diversion:
An aspect of oil and gas development, indeed all economic development, which is not appreciated enough, I think, is it's relatively benign affect on the environment. Before the modern era the only common fuel was wood. With the development of modern public health practices starting in the 19th century, population exploded and the deforestation of Europe and N America was only avoided by the advent of coal and oil use.
As a result, it's very likely that forest cover in N America and Europe is greater today than it was in 1900.
In undeveloped parts ofthe world which have benefited from modern medicine but not modern economic development, deforestation by cutting for fuel and by subsistence farming has become a real danger with its negative effect on local climates.
There is no turning back to higher rates of infant and child mortality in these areas. But if these economically undeveloped but resource rich places are to prosper, and their environments protected, then affordable energy sources for cooking, heating and farming are essential. Such affordable energy is not going to be available to these people without modern economic development.
At this point, of course, the discussion becomes "political" because the impediments to modern development are all political. An example of that in the news lately would be Southern Sudan.
Impediments to modern development of poor parts of the world other than local political situations, are developed world subsidies to its own agriculture and industry (thus keeping world prices of these fungible products too low to make it worthwhile for poor country growers and manufacturers to produce), and its tariffs and its non-tariff blockage of trade from undeveloped places. That's ALL political stuff.
more about shale oil later. bedtime
The white dots on the map show oil shale deposits around the world.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
URL for above: Related Oil Shale links, read more - Oil Shale Information Centre
What the map doesn't indicate is the immense amounts of oil and gas presented in the these deposits.
For example, oil shales in Israel covering a very small area possibly hold the equivalent of all the conventional oil deposits in Saudi Arabia!
At the present price of oil, oil shale extraction can be profitable. Modern methods of extraction look to be environmentally "safe" (although we should understand that all extractive industry has risk attached so 'safe' is a relative term). In situ heating processes such as developed by Shell seem to be those which present the least environmental risk.
An ethical and moral diversion:
An aspect of oil and gas development, indeed all economic development, which is not appreciated enough, I think, is it's relatively benign affect on the environment. Before the modern era the only common fuel was wood. With the development of modern public health practices starting in the 19th century, population exploded and the deforestation of Europe and N America was only avoided by the advent of coal and oil use.
As a result, it's very likely that forest cover in N America and Europe is greater today than it was in 1900.
In undeveloped parts ofthe world which have benefited from modern medicine but not modern economic development, deforestation by cutting for fuel and by subsistence farming has become a real danger with its negative effect on local climates.
There is no turning back to higher rates of infant and child mortality in these areas. But if these economically undeveloped but resource rich places are to prosper, and their environments protected, then affordable energy sources for cooking, heating and farming are essential. Such affordable energy is not going to be available to these people without modern economic development.
At this point, of course, the discussion becomes "political" because the impediments to modern development are all political. An example of that in the news lately would be Southern Sudan.
Impediments to modern development of poor parts of the world other than local political situations, are developed world subsidies to its own agriculture and industry (thus keeping world prices of these fungible products too low to make it worthwhile for poor country growers and manufacturers to produce), and its tariffs and its non-tariff blockage of trade from undeveloped places. That's ALL political stuff.
more about shale oil later. bedtime
The tar-sands of greater Canada are the number one source of imported oil now in the United States. Shale-oil will be following very shortly.....what hasn't been addressed here is the energy costs of the extraction process. At the turn of the century or so, one could drill down perhaps five-hundred feet, take two days drilling....& the oil comes up under pressure.........No great consumption of energy to OBTAIN energy......a few hundred gallons of diesel, a simple rig & a crew.... to get tens of thousands plus of barrels worth....a ratio of energy expended to energy obtained. With todays multi-million dollar offshore rigs.......the ratio has changed so far as to make it barely......worth it. The much bally-hooed Brazilian oil-field find off-shore........is this such razor thin margin.........the oil is down two miles underwater, another mile below the sea floor.........I see lots of dollars expended just to get it up & out.
__________________________________________________________Rick.......
__________________________________________________________Rick.......
Yes, the costs of shale oil can be less than that of oil sands. Some of the shale oil extraction processes such as the in situ heating processes may have self sustaining energy budget once they're running because the off gassing can be captured and used for on site power. And the drilling depths aren't great at all.
Don't forget the price of oil is what drives the exploration and development. When oil is $5 bbl, then what may be developed is a lot different than when it is $70 bbl.
A "downside" to some of these processes such as the Shell process is that they may take as long as five years to come on stream. Actually, I don't see this as a problem: the type of financial analysis for an oil shale development starts to look more like that for a hydro project. The resource is confined to a small area and the extraction may take place over many years.
The point being that a major component of 'economic activity' is energy- remove oil from the picture, and by how much does the amount of work a person can do in a day reduce? 90%? 99%?
When the monetary price of oil goes up it means that the results of more economic activity are demanded in exchange for it. So more oil must be burned in exchange for... a barrel of oil. Fine if the stuff is just bubbling up out of the ground, but impossible if it takes 9/10 of a barrel to get one whole barrel. It explains the existence of multi-million dollar rigs for squeezing the last drops out of the stone but it doesn't mean they're going to save us.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.