Drill ANWR

I reread your original comment and I may have been too glib in my response, I still feel conservation can have a major impact both in short and long term. In the past couple years I have made relatively painless changes to my own lifestyle and figure I save on average $400 a year, so if I make the assumption that everyone in America can do 1/4th that, $100 a year that is about 30 billion in energy costs saved. These savings last as long as you practice the necessary conservation and only increase with increased energy costs. It also requires no additional infrastructure, it can start today. So over the next 15 years that is 45 billion saved, not 2 1/2 trillion I agree, but not chump change either.

I think we maybe just fundamentally disagree about the place wind, solar etc. has in our energy plan, maybe it's not the answer now, but if the infrastructure is not started today, we are in the same place we are now or worse in 15 years. So I would put forth another proposal that has only briefly been mentioned. Nuclear power. This technology has moved ahead greatly despite public mistrust after Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island. It is definitely possible to build a nuclear power plant with the same power output as a coal plant and current technology can use previously created reactor waste as fuel and the byproducts of newer reactors have much shorter half-lives so waste disposal is not as great an issue as it once was.

I also agree that currently there is not the infrastructure necessary for alternative fuel use, but imagine if we were starting from scratch with our current technology, no oil refineries, no coal mines etc. would we still choose to invest everything in fossil fuels?

As for the devalued dollar mentioned in other posts, I agree, that is a huge problem, I remember traveling in Europe in 2002 and it was .86 US to the Euro, now it is 1 US = 1.56 Euro I have not done as much research on this, but it is my understanding that building renewable infrastructure could also help our economy by creating jobs and a new export. The rest of the world is also looking for cheap energy, I would rather the US export solar panels and wind turbines than add to the trade deficit by importing them. If this is equal to the savings of getting more domestic oil, I don't know. Obviously this is a complex subject with many heated opinions. I guess I'll just agree to disagree and continue doing what I'm doing, trying to lessen my own impact and need for energy. Thanks to all for a good discussion. I feel like the responses have become more thoughtful and less knee jerk as the discussion has progressed. Isn't the internet great?!

It was well over 20 years ago, 1956 in fact, that one of the greatest minds in geophysics, Dr. M. King Hubbert, a consultant with Shell Oil, wrote his famous paper predicting the decline of oil production in the U.S.. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/Hubbert/

Even as far back as 1949, Dr. Hubbert was one of the first scientists to effectively apply principles of geology, physics and mathemmatics to the future of oil production from the U.S. reserve base and predicted that the fossil fuel era would be of short duration. He also predicted that shortly after 1995, would be the deadline for development of alternative forms of energy to replace the sharp drop off in U.S. petroluem production.

"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."
M. King Hubbert

Regarding conservation: I wholeheartedly agree that a penny saved is a penny earned, but my point remains that increasing demand will overtake any conservation gains, and you'll wind up needed to find more oil anyway.

And yes, we'll just have to disagree about wind. I think the towers are an inexcusable eyesore, and I don't believe the economics will EVER be there. And I still believe that no environmentalist would stand for such towers if they were for any other purpose than an environmentalist pet idea.

I'd willingly put solar panels on my roof if it was cost-effective; but they've been working on bringing the price of that technology down for a long time without much success.

I wish I had an electric or hydrogen car *now*. One of the more interesting things I've seen is a natural-gas-fed unit that produces hydrogen for a hydrogen vehicle and also produces electricity for your home, all in a unit that sits in your garage. This is a slick idea, though I'd personally prefer a practical all-electric vehicle.

Heck, I wasn't even going to *mention* nuclear power, for fear of stirring up hordes of no-nuke nuts. But a technology that produces huge amounts of electricity at the cost of a relatively small amount of buriable byproduct is absolutely the way to go.

Something that nobody seems to think about is the fact that that waste will, in all probability, NEVER have to sit in the ground for millions of years -- long before that, technology will have advanced to the point where it will either become useful for something or there will be an effective way of disposing of it. I'd be willing to bet that it won't be in the ground for anything like even 1,000 years. (Of course, we can't *count* on that, so we still have to design the million-year solution.)

It still makes no sense not to drill our own oil. Even if we could find a way to get along without it, we can sell it to China for several trillion dollars.

Terry (astrotrf)

Did you actually read what the man said?

Richard Wright said:
Because it isn't enough to bother with. ANWR has only a 50% probability of containing 2.6 billion barrels of oil.

Have you got a reputable source for this figure? This isn't even close to what the USGS says at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels.

In other words, there's a 95% probability of an amount that's over twice as much as your "50% probability" figure.

At current prices, offshore and ANWR amount to *several trillion dollars* of oil. We can use it ourselves, saving us from sending all of that money to OPEC, or sell it to others if we can find effective alternatives, pumping up our own economy.

That amount of oil is simply nothing to scoff at.

Terry (astrotrf)

Well, one thing this should have taught you is that Americans are not going to stop driving their cars, and not going to stop buying vehicles they like, until and unless it becomes economically infeasible to do so. The fact that it was predictable makes the current situation all the more lamentable.

But it happened, and is happening. The real question is "What are we going to *do* about it?" Wringing your hands and saying it shouldn't have happened is not going to contribute to a solution. Deciding "I refuse to even consider drilling our own oil" isn't going to contribute to a solution.

Where is the logic in "OMG, gas is expensive! Don't drill, don't drill, don't drill!"?

The fact is that the United States has access to several trillion dollars of oil at current prices. Even if alternatives to gasoline were available and economically practical, deliberately rejecting the infusion of multiple trillions of dollars is sheer foolishness.

Environmentalism is a nice ideal, as long as it's pursued with some sanity and a willingness to reasonably compromise for the common good. But it's also important to realize that other countries drill offshore and in environmentally sensitive areas with minimal environmental impact -- there's no reason the U. S. cannot do so as well.

Terry (astrotrf)

Thank you again for another cogent, knowledgeable post. The idea that the USA can drill its way to anything close to energy independence is a fantasy which needs to be dispelled as soon as possible.

The logic lies in the fact that all that drilling would have only a minor, temporary impact on gas prices. Furthermore, it would have zero impact for years, even if development started now. Of course, this development could have been done years ago, in which case those reserves would already be gone or close to it, and the only difference would be that the changes we need to make to move past petroleum (whatever they are) would be even further delayed. The proposed drilling is not really doing anything about the oil crisis. It's only an attempt to delay doing anything.

We can at least conceive of energy sources other than fossil fuels, and even implement them. It's harder to imagine a substitute for plastics. Look at your possessions and ask yourself what would be a good substitute material for all the plastics there. If the world's last oil reserves must someday be sponged up, it seems to me that burning it is the most foolish use of it we can make.

As for environmentalism, I consider it more than an ideal, it's a necessity if you want to maintain a habitable planet. The only people who resist the reality of global warming are certain politicians, pundits, and their eager followers who cling so fiercely to old ways of doing things. It certainly isn't the vast majority of actual climate scientists. Insisting on injecting every last possible CO2 molecule into the air just because that's all we know doesn't seem like a defense of the common good to me.

I don't like this situation either. I like to travel. I value my freedom of movement as much as anyone. It is now seriously curtailed, and I wonder if it will ever improve. But evidently we need to experience this pain, to force us to move forward, or at least to adjust. And frankly, we deserve it, for being so foolish and short-sighted during all those precious years when preparations could have been made.

Finally, can you offer a few examples of offshore drilling and drilling in environmentally sensitive areas with "minimal impact"? Anything comparable to ANWR there?

Richard Wright said:

You need to multiply by 0.35 to convert the "Recoverable reserve" number to what will actually show up on the surface with current technology.

My Dad works at Exxon, so we have spent some time talking about this.

Terry (astrotrf)

[/quote]
It's nice to hear from someone that actually knows what they're talking about. I'll be curious to see what the response to your post is this time.

General Motors is developing a plug-in electric car called the Volt (imagine that, GM trying to do something innovative and useful. Truly a seismic shift). It's actually a hybrid, though it adopts a different strategy than something like the Prius. The Volt is driven by electric power only, with electric motors on all wheels. They hope to achieve a 40 mile range on the lithium ion battery. The car also has a small gasoline engine, which starts only when the battery is depleted, and then only to charge the battery, not drive the wheels directly. They hope to get about 50MPH in this mode, but many drivers would never need to burn a drop of gas as the battery range would be plenty to manage their commutes. When you get home, recharge overnight from any outlet.

I too would prefer an all-electric car, which could obviously be simpler and cheaper than a hybrid. A 40 mile range would be enough for almost all my needs.

I wish GM success with their project.