" target="_blank">Comedy Central Video ” target=”_blank”>media.mtvnservices.com…]
Advertisement
141 comments
Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
we are doomed to live with oil for decades at least, even longer...the American people have not been hurt yet, but it's coming...the big one is in our near future
I heard an interview with Ray Kurzweil (who is far smarter than any TV pundit) claim that a solar farm of 100 square miles in the desert could provide enough electricity to provide power to all moving vehicles in the US today.
The obvious problems are building it and reforming the power grid for it - an undertaking of about 10 years.
I heard an interview with Ray Kurzweil (who is far smarter than any TV pundit) claim that a solar farm of 100 square miles in the desert could provide enough electricity to provide power to all moving vehicles in the US today.
The obvious problems are building it and reforming the power grid for it - an undertaking of about 10 years.
The only time most people care about ending dependence on foreign oil is when prices get too high, like in 2006 when Bush was talking about ethanol in his SOTU (BTW, Stewart, it had nothing to do with the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq). Anytime someone tries to organize a workable plan, the price of oil falls and we all say "oil alternatives are too expensive, never mind".
We could follow Brazil's example and move to ethanol-burning cars. The Brazilians actually had a plan and stuck to it. US cars could mostly be replaced in a generation (about 10 years), but replacing large transportation vehicles would take longer. Trying to produce and transport such a huge amount of ethanol at a reasonable price would also be a major challenge.
Robert Zubrin's "Energy Victory" details a plan that could work. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it sounds pretty workable.
What are the "two simultaneous wars" Stewart is attributing to oil dependence?
I caught that too. I suspect he thinks that Afghanistan was an oil related war because the majority of the hijackers were Saudis. It's a bit of a stretch.
I've been smitten with wind energy thanks to some TED talks and greenman3610. Other countries have already done it, and they did it in a big way. A huge investment it will take, but a pipedream it is not.
I caught that too. I suspect he thinks that Afghanistan was an oil related war because the majority of the hijackers were Saudis. It's a bit of a stretch.
It's more than a stretch, its outright baloney. Even to attribute Iraq to oil interests misses the mark. Stewart is simply in error on that point.
A reduction in oil dependence can be obtained with the current electricity infrastructure. That will take some time however as car manufacturers design and develop newer electric vehicles and costs lower which become more an attractant for consumers. At the same time higher fuel efficiency will also reduce oil use as does car pooling and mass transit use in metropolitan areas. Consumers will be the diving force as they were when we made the transition from the horse and carriage to the gasoline powered automobile.
Solar, wind, nuclear power or even coal will not reduce oil consumption unless it occurs alongside the development and consumer appeal towards non-petroleum fueled vehicles.
It's a good reason to implement the smart power grids that Ludwig advocates. Those might prevent a disastrous power failure to begin with.
The problem ith an EMP is not just from the power failure,it would fry every circuit in everything from your light to your digital watch,your car to your vacuum cleaner,
The problem ith an EMP is not just from the power failure,it would fry every circuit in everything from your light to your digital watch,your car to your vacuum cleaner,
It's more than a stretch, its outright baloney. Even to attribute Iraq to oil interests misses the mark. Stewart is simply in error on that point.
If you go with the straight interpretation that they're "wars for oil," yeah, I'd agree. But when you consider the military commitment we've got going in both wars, in terms of airpower, naval forces, and mobile infantry and armor, these wars have contributed to our growing oil consumption. Not to mention the oil needed to manufacture more ammunition and weapons, more food and necessities, and transport is all from the factory to the soldier.
The problem ith an EMP is not just from the power failure,it would fry every circuit in everything from your light to your digital watch,your car to your vacuum cleaner,
Yep, anything more advanced than a vacuum tube, assuming it's not hardened to EMP, will be scrap. We'd be knocked back to the 1800s overnight.
If you go with the straight interpretation that they're "wars for oil," yeah, I'd agree. But when you consider the military commitment we've got going in both wars, in terms of airpower, naval forces, and mobile infantry and armor, these wars have contributed to our growing oil consumption.
Yep, anything more advanced than a vacuum tube, assuming it's not hardened to EMP, will be scrap. We'd be knocked back to the 1800s overnight.
Then what is needed is a hardened infrastructure reserve that can be put to use in the event of an EMP attack. This would also include a prepared nuclear retaliation force to be used in the event of such an attack.
Then what is needed is a hardened infrastructure reserve that can be put to use in the event of an EMP attack. This would also include a prepared nuclear retaliation force to be used in the event of such an attack.
We have only a decade or two to make really serious progress with our energy problems. Why just 1 or 2? Because about 2/3 of the world's supply of oil will be pumped out of the earth and consumed within a period of about 70 years or so --one human lifetime.
We have only a decade or two to make really serious progress with our energy problems. Why just 1 or 2? Because about 2/3 of the world's supply of oil will be pumped out of the earth and consumed within a period of about 70 years or so --one human lifetime.
there is plenty of oil we no nothing about yet...we'll find it and I think it's presumptuous to believe we know how much oil there is on this planet...I call bullshit
It's more than a stretch, its outright baloney. Even to attribute Iraq to oil interests misses the mark. Stewart is simply in error on that point.
Although our whole involvement in the region started when Iraq invaded Kuwait because of . . . oil. We sent troops to Saudi because Saudi has . . . oil. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops in Saudi. We invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden attacked us.
Although our whole involvement in the region started when Iraq invaded Kuwait because of . . . oil. We sent troops to Saudi because Saudi has . . . oil. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops in Saudi. We invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden attacked us.
Yeah, pretending that oil is not a very very large part of the equation is stupid. We get enough off the juice to be self-sufficient, we stop having to pay Israel's enemies at the same time that we support Israel.
there is plenty of oil we no nothing about yet...we'll find it and I think it's presumptuous to believe we know how much oil there is on this planet...I call bullshit
Let the total quantity of oil that will ever be produced be designated by Q. If it should turn out that we've underestimated Q by a factor of 2, do you think we'll be sitting pretty for another couple centuries? No. The 50-percentile mark in the pattern of production would shift into the future by only about 20 years, give or take a year or two. I'm assuming a gaussian model.
Although our whole involvement in the region started when Iraq invaded Kuwait because of . . . oil. We sent troops to Saudi because Saudi has . . . oil. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops in Saudi. We invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden attacked us.
Point made, though I should point out that if Bin Laden had not used our troops in Saudi Arabia as his causus belli he would have found a different one.
I always wonder what gonna happen to the Saudis when the oil dries up.
Awwwkward. Maybe the sheiks should stop eating/marrying multiple wives/vacationing in Europe long enough to actually invest in the education and general development of their countries. Might come in handy someday.
Outstanding clip, excellent commentary by Stewart. God how I wish that the "news anchors" for the major networks were at least half as intelligent or insightful, or perhaps did even a quarter of the research on the issues.
Although our whole involvement in the region started when Iraq invaded Kuwait because of . . . oil. We sent troops to Saudi because Saudi has . . . oil. Bin Laden attacked us because we had troops in Saudi. We invaded Afghanistan because Bin Laden attacked us.
I always wonder what gonna happen to the Saudis when the oil dries up.
Awwwkward. Maybe the sheiks should stop eating/marrying multiple wives/vacationing in Europe long enough to actually invest in the education and general development of their countries. Might come in handy someday.
And oh, Hi everyone!
They have invested in property throughout Europe and America, both European and American corporations, African and Canadian mining companies, high speed rail projects, theme parks, newspapers, magazines, media channels, and a host of other concerns. The Saudi's will be ok even once the oil dries I think.
Outstanding clip, excellent commentary by Stewart. God how I wish that the "news anchors" for the major networks were at least half as intelligent or insightful, or perhaps did even a quarter of the research on the issues.
Basically, there's Rachel Maddow doing good work, and then there's everyone else in the news ranging from merely boring and dull to outright insanity.
Anyone else noticing that the actual Fox News is looking more and more like the Fox News in Idiocracy? They just keep troweling more and more freaky Barbie Doll makeup on their female hosts, and the male hosts are looking like bronzed androids
Let the total quantity of oil that will ever be produced be designated by Q. If it should turn out that we've underestimated Q by a factor of 2, do you think we'll be sitting pretty for another couple centuries? No. The 50-percentile mark in the pattern of production would shift into the future by only about 20 years, give or take a year or two. I'm assuming a gaussian model.
there may be oceans of oil down there...why not a thousand times more than we have burned to date?
For environmentalist Jesse Ausubel, going green means land conservation and energy efficiency—and forgetting “boutique” renewables like windmills and biofuels
But although environmentalists may disagree with him, they can’t simply write him off. In addition to his role at Rockefeller, Ausubel is vice president of programs for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, where he oversees the Census of Marine Life, a 10-year, 80-plus-nation effort to catalog the biodiversity of the world’s oceans. As a fellow at the National Academy of Sciences in the late 1970s, he was, he says, “one of the first half dozen or so people to be paid full time to work on global warming.” He was also one of the organizers of the first U.N. World Climate Conference in 1979. The man has earned the right to have opinions.
Ausubel has spent most of his career modeling a future that assumes a population of about 10 billion—what many experts believe the world will bear over the next century—and reasoning backward from there to explain how such a world could be powered and fed, and how much land could be spared for nature.
TRANSPORTATION: It’s all fuel-cell cars and planes (using hydrogen from the nuclear plants) and maglev trains. “Take the problem of airport congestion,” Ausubel says. “Having planes take off every 20 or 30 seconds is hard. But you could subtract all those shuttle flights from high-flux routes like New York–Boston by connecting them with maglevs. Put those shuttle routes underground with the maglevs, and save the runway slots for the routes where you can’t justify building expensive tunnels.”
And why tunnels? “I want to leave the surface alone. Disturb it as little as possible.” In fact, he has even proposed dual-use tunnels that would put both the maglevs and the superconducting lines of a future energy grid underground.
Train tunnels, of course, are older than the New York subway. China’s commercial maglev train can zip passengers along at 300 miles an hour, and the U.S. Department of Energy is pouring millions of dollars of economic-stimulus funds into superconductor research.
It all comes back to Ausubel’s core concepts: The best way to save nature is to stop extending into it. The best way to limit human encroachment on nature is through hyper-efficient land use. And the best route to maximum efficiency is through technology. “A lot of other people who come from strictly biological or ecological backgrounds just don’t like machines,” he says. “I do.”
Remember all those months I cried about more snow falling? Winter sucks in Indiana..
I don't think I could make it. I thought about taking a job in Maine once. Beautiful country but I just couldn't make it through more than one or two winters.
I don't think I could make it. I thought about taking a job in Maine once. Beautiful country but I just couldn't make it through more than one or two winters.
I hear ya KT...No more Winters in Indiana.. Thank goodness...
I think I got a sunburn today..But I don't care...
I don't think I could make it. I thought about taking a job in Maine once. Beautiful country but I just couldn't make it through more than one or two winters.
you should be living in Arkansas...you just don't know it yet
That was fantastic! Obama shouldn't let this crisis go to waste.
NOW is the opportunity to embrace a Manhattan Project style initiative toward energy independence and renewables. His leadership could make A Better Place a reality in our country. There should be no fear that the 30% Federal Tax Grant for renewables will expire at the end of this year, so that we continue to see solar panels on the roofs of buildings (Van Jones wasn't wrong about the Green Economy).
New York to Boston is about 200 miles. Putting in a maglev to compete with airline shuttle flights would not be cost effective or sustainable because the maglev trip would be more expensive then an airline shuttle. This could be accomplished with high speed heavy rail with a speed of 200 mph and remain competitive to attract airline commuters.
Tunneling is a rather expensive and labor intensive proposition. It would have to combine tunneling with above elevated track. Elevated track would be the most cost effective. Tunneling requires crossing underground utilities which would have to be realigned and that includes electric, gas, water, telecom, etc. Tunneling also undercuts existing structural foundations which means you would have to add in the cost of retrofitting those existing building foundations.
The only time most people care about ending dependence on foreign oil is when prices get too high, like in 2006 when Bush was talking about ethanol in his SOTU (BTW, Stewart, it had nothing to do with the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq). Anytime someone tries to organize a workable plan, the price of oil falls and we all say "oil alternatives are too expensive, never mind".
We could follow Brazil's example and move to ethanol-burning cars. The Brazilians actually had a plan and stuck to it. US cars could mostly be replaced in a generation (about 10 years), but replacing large transportation vehicles would take longer. Trying to produce and transport such a huge amount of ethanol at a reasonable price would also be a major challenge.
Robert Zubrin's "Energy Victory" details a plan that could work. I'm not an expert on the subject, but it sounds pretty workable.
Unfortunately, Brazil's "success" with ethanol is illusory. Distillation requires large amounts of energy, which in Brazil comes from burning the bagasse - the dried, fibrous remains of the sugar cane - in large, open-air facilities little more sophisticated than a charcoal pit. The pollution generated is enormous - not a problem in Brazil, which doesn't have any meaningful environmental regulations, but a non-starter elsewhere.
And that's before to unsustainable slash-and-burn destruction of rain forest that yields land suitable for cane production - for just a few years, until all nutrients in the soil are depleted and the high iron content bakes into something remarkably similar to concrete in the tropical heat. The only way to move forward and maintain production at that point is to pour fertilizer on the soil - and fertilizer production requires, once again, vast quantities of energy to produce.
In the end, ethanol is not a wise choice. It isn't even a break-even proposition. It simply shifts energy uses around, out of traditional pathways, and in the end results in a net gain in energy use.
The great thing about solar is that it produces power at the point where it is consumed. There is little need to upgrade the grid - an enormous investment - unlike wind power which is generally produced in remote areas and requires a new grid just to get to the grid.
Solar, and the new generation of nukes (that reprocesses spent fuel) such as what France uses to generate the majority of their electricity, are our country's future and the free world's security from the Islamists.
Combine that with the Better Place electric vehicle model, and we can dramatically reduce our dependence on the oil ticks.
The greatest nuke song of all time
___
Let's drop the big one
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono babe
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now
New York to Boston is about 200 miles. Putting in a maglev to compete with airline shuttle flights would not be cost effective or sustainable because the maglev trip would be more expensive then an airline shuttle. This could be accomplished with high speed heavy rail with a speed of 200 mph and remain competitive to attract airline commuters.
Tunneling is a rather expensive and labor intensive proposition. It would have to combine tunneling with above elevated track. Elevated track would be the most cost effective. Tunneling requires crossing underground utilities which would have to be realigned and that includes electric, gas, water, telecom, etc. Tunneling also undercuts existing structural foundations which means you would have to add in the cost of retrofitting those existing building foundations.
if one were to bore a tunnel, certainly they would bore underneath utilities...I'm thinking a tunnel 100ft deep
New York to Boston is about 200 miles. Putting in a maglev to compete with airline shuttle flights would not be cost effective or sustainable because the maglev trip would be more expensive then an airline shuttle. This could be accomplished with high speed heavy rail with a speed of 200 mph and remain competitive to attract airline commuters.
Tunneling is a rather expensive and labor intensive proposition. It would have to combine tunneling with above elevated track. Elevated track would be the most cost effective. Tunneling requires crossing underground utilities which would have to be realigned and that includes electric, gas, water, telecom, etc. Tunneling also undercuts existing structural foundations which means you would have to add in the cost of retrofitting those existing building foundations.
I like the idea of tunnels. Yes it is expensive but they last a long time. 10 Billion people is an awful lot of mouths to feed.
New York to Boston is about 200 miles. Putting in a maglev to compete with airline shuttle flights would not be cost effective or sustainable because the maglev trip would be more expensive then an airline shuttle. This could be accomplished with high speed heavy rail with a speed of 200 mph and remain competitive to attract airline commuters.
Tunneling is a rather expensive and labor intensive proposition. It would have to combine tunneling with above elevated track. Elevated track would be the most cost effective. Tunneling requires crossing underground utilities which would have to be realigned and that includes electric, gas, water, telecom, etc. Tunneling also undercuts existing structural foundations which means you would have to add in the cost of retrofitting those existing building foundations.
Any construction along the eastern seaboard faces another huge obstacle - lots of people who already own the land that would be required for right of way.
As you've pointed out, that's just one of the many costs. Look at the astronomical cost overruns, failures and schedule slips that have plagued the Big Dig, then multiply that by a few orders of magnitude.
if one were to bore a tunnel, certainly they would bore underneath utilities...I'm thinking a tunnel 100ft deep
Then you might be looking at bedrock. 100 feet deep and we're now talking about greater ventilation and emergency exit requirements. Additionally, once we reach those depths we're also confronted with underground aquifers.
BP spokesman Mark Proegler disputed Joye's suggestion that the Gulf's deep waters contain large amounts of methane, noting that water samples taken by BP and federal agencies have shown minimal underwater oil outside the spill's vicinity.
"The gas that escapes, what we don't flare, goes up to the surface and is gone," he said.
(from the first link.) (like that's better.) (in nature nothing goes away.)
The great thing about solar is that it produces power at the point where it is consumed. There is little need to upgrade the grid - an enormous investment - unlike wind power which is generally produced in remote areas and requires a new grid just to get to the grid.
Solar, and the new generation of nukes (that reprocesses spent fuel) such as what France uses to generate the majority of their electricity, are our country's future and the free world's security from the Islamists.
Combine that with the Better Place electric vehicle model, and we can dramatically reduce our dependence on the oil ticks.
Absolutely!
My proposal would make it MANDATORY for all new construction to incorporate solar panels into the roof and LEDs for lighting. This alone will drive the costs down for everyone. Retrofitting will be much more cost effective.
Then you might be looking at bedrock. 100 feet deep and we're now talking about greater ventilation and emergency exit requirements. Additionally, once we reach those depths we're also confronted with underground aquifers.
good points...tunneling is a future consideration, and who knows what kind of tech is out there...it's just something to think about
I like the idea of tunnels. Yes it is expensive but they last a long time. 10 Billion people is an awful lot of mouths to feed.
It may work in the distant future but as an investment that would mean a multi-billion dollar project that would be unproven to sustain itself in the free-market. I see it as first having to prove itself with elevated track with some tunneling since that can't be avoided. Once it proves competitive then they can consider other options. First you build an airline, then you build the fancy airport.
you should be living in Arkansas...you just don't know it yet
I could do that. We don't celebrate out rural regions as much as we should. Arkansas may not be Burgundy, Tuscany or even Dorset but that's only because we haven't really appreciated it yet. People in Arkansas probably don't even fully appreciate Arkansas.
New York to Boston is about 200 miles. Putting in a maglev to compete with airline shuttle flights would not be cost effective or sustainable because the maglev trip would be more expensive then an airline shuttle. This could be accomplished with high speed heavy rail with a speed of 200 mph and remain competitive to attract airline commuters.
Tunneling is a rather expensive and labor intensive proposition. It would have to combine tunneling with above elevated track. Elevated track would be the most cost effective. Tunneling requires crossing underground utilities which would have to be realigned and that includes electric, gas, water, telecom, etc. Tunneling also undercuts existing structural foundations which means you would have to add in the cost of retrofitting those existing building foundations.
I live in NY & got to Boston frequently for both business and personal reasons I can go by scary Chinese bus co for around 25 bucks, or Amtrack for about 150 (it is worth it) please keep your theories out of my life style OK ?
I live in NY & got to Boston frequently for both business and personal reasons I can go by scary Chinese bus co for around 25 bucks, or Amtrack for about 150 (it is worth it) please keep your theories out of my life style OK ?
My proposal would make it MANDATORY for all new construction to incorporate solar panels into the roof and LEDs for lighting. This alone will drive the costs down for everyone. Retrofitting will be much more cost effective.
Induction lighting has an even better ROI than LED lighting and costs less too. All of this is headed in the right direction.
Part of what alarms his critics is how un-alarmist his conclusions have turned out to be. For example, instead of using policy to change how people will behave in the future, Ausubel prefers exploring technological responses to what he believes people are going to do regardless.
His favorite defense of this laissez-faire approach is to explain that, absent any policy dictating that it should happen, energy consumption over the past 100 years has steadily “decarbonized.” That is, humankind has moved to fuel sources with progressively better ratios of carbon atoms to hydrogen atoms—wood at 10:1, coal at 2:1, oil at 1:2, natural gas at 1:4 and, eventually (in the future Ausubel envisions) 100 percent hydrogen.
He thinks technology inevitably improves things. “That’s not to say I don’t worry about the downsides of technology,” he says. “A lot of my work is about that. But my general interest is new and high-tech ways of dealing with problems.”
I could do that. We don't celebrate out rural regions as much as we should. Arkansas may not be Burgundy, Tuscany or even Dorset but that's only because we haven't really appreciated it yet. People in Arkansas probably don't even fully appreciate Arkansas.
it's a gorgeous state with four seasons but mild winters and you can grow anything there, from the eastern lowlands into the hills north and west...there is no town like Portland there tho...you have to adjust but an excellent place to try and be self sufficient
There are California building regulations coming down the pike that call for net zero energy homes by 2020. It will happen, mostly because it has to.
It will happen also because it makes good economic sense. In states with strong SREC markets, solar energy pays itself off in about 5 years. After that you're getting free electricity and still selling the SRECs.
It is not just altruistic or feel good. It actually pays to to install solar.
To say nothing about the jobs it provides or the environmental benefits.
Holy fucking shit. Tiger's twenty yards behind a tree on the 18th, 220 yards from the green, ocean to his left. He fuckin' hooks it out over the water and hits the green, stopping about 15 feet from the cup. Will be putting for eagle.
That could put him three shots back of the lead going into Sunday.
It may work in the distant future but as an investment that would mean a multi-billion dollar project that would be unproven to sustain itself in the free-market. I see it as first having to prove itself with elevated track with some tunneling since that can't be avoided. Once it proves competitive then they can consider other options. First you build an airline, then you build the fancy airport.
The cost would be astronomical,why not go up?
Its raining soup in space and we haven't even invented spoons yet.
One small asteroid could supply all Earth metals for a hundred years,processing would be cheap,free solar energy,non polluting,transportation of finished product would be as easy as dropping it into the proper reentry trajectory.
Interesting. I had heard about that but not aware of how economically feasible it is. Technology is a wonderful thing!
read today from Larry Kudlow that American companies are sitting on a trillion and a half in cash but are reluctant to invest it because of the cloudy atmosphere regarding regs and taxation...the feds simply must open up the economy and let it loose...the nature of BO seems to be otherwise...makes you wonder
Holy fucking shit. Tiger's twenty yards behind a tree on the 18th, 220 yards from the green, ocean to his left. He fuckin' hooks it out over the water and hits the green, stopping about 15 feet from the cup. Will be putting for eagle.
That could put him three shots back of the lead going into Sunday.
effen Tiger!
I'm here to mock him for eternity...
There will be no mercy. ever...He used to be a hero...
Never More
Never More
Its raining soup in space and we haven't even invented spoons yet.
One small asteroid could supply all Earth metals for a hundred years,processing would be cheap,free solar energy,non polluting,transportation of finished product would be as easy as dropping it into the proper reentry trajectory.
I caught that too. I suspect he thinks that Afghanistan was an oil related war because the majority of the hijackers were Saudis. It's a bit of a stretch.
Wait for it. We'll be told shortly that the war in Afghanistan is a war for lithium. Lithium is needed for lightweight batteries, which are needed for electric cars. And electric cars are Ersatz oil. So in the final analysis, we'll be told, the war in Afghanistan amounts to a war for oil.
Wait for it. We'll be told shortly that the war in Afghanistan is a war for lithium. Lithium is needed for lightweight batteries, which are needed for electric cars. And electric cars are Ersatz oil. So in the final analysis, we'll be told, the war in Afghanistan amounts to a war for oil.
When Morgan birdied the third hole of the third round, he reached 10-under par, the first person in U.S. Open history to get to 10-under. Morgan made it to 12-under - and a 7-stroke lead - before crashing back to earth. From that point until the end of the tournament, Morgan was 17-over par. He finished the third round still leading, but at 4-under. Then he shot 81 in the final round, finishing tied for 13th.
Wait for it. We'll be told shortly that the war in Afghanistan is a war for lithium. Lithium is needed for lightweight batteries, which are needed for electric cars. And electric cars are Ersatz oil. So in the final analysis, we'll be told, the war in Afghanistan amounts to a war for oil.
Didn't they just discover the mineral deposits within the last few months?
effen Tiger!
I'm here to mock him for eternity...
There will be no mercy. ever...He used to be a hero...
Never More
Never More
Aw geez. Credit where credit is due. Tiger's accumulated some sports injuries and it seems unlikely he'll be able to play consistently at his old level ever again. But amazing shots are still amazing shots. Isn't that why we love games in the final analysis? Not so much because somebody wins and somebody loses, but because once in a while we get to see humans do, for real and in real time, the seemingly impossible?
It's not like he's an ax murderer. And even then, didn't the Birdman of Alcatraz earn some grudging respect?
More than with any other blog I know, the truth counts here. And truth is, that's an amazing shot.
effen Tiger!
I'm here to mock him for eternity...
There will be no mercy. ever...He used to be a hero...
Never More
Never More
Kekama or whoever you are..You downdinged this post..And that is your absolute right too..
Now..You wanna talk to me about Tiger?
Really..Talk to me about Tiger...I think we can discuss him without getting into a flame war...He was a hero of mine..So even though I'm really bitter..I won't take it out on you...He really disappointed me
The great thing about solar is that it produces power at the point where it is consumed. There is little need to upgrade the grid - an enormous investment - unlike wind power which is generally produced in remote areas and requires a new grid just to get to the grid.
Solar, and the new generation of nukes (that reprocesses spent fuel) such as what France uses to generate the majority of their electricity, are our country's future and the free world's security from the Islamists.
Combine that with the Better Place electric vehicle model, and we can dramatically reduce our dependence on the oil ticks.
Solar photovoltaic has a steep cost differential going against it. It's just not economical without subsidies, except in places where stringing a landline would be expensive too.
Solar thermal we know, right now, how to do. But a large scale installation won't pay for itself unless it's sited where the sun shines regularly. In a rational world, California would be first off the mark. But they seem destined to flinch from paving over a major piece of desert with collectors and then stringing wire to LA. Las Vegas would make sense too, but the city has been hammered financially. So I expect El Paso, TX will be the first US city with a big solar farm generating a good fraction of its electricity needs.
Kekama or whoever you are..You downdinged this post..And that is your absolute right too..
Now..You wanna talk to me about Tiger?
Really..Talk to me about Tiger...I think we can discuss him without getting into a flame war...He was a hero of mine..So even though I'm really bitter..I won't take it out on you...He really disappointed me
Lighten up Hoops. Michael Jordan cheated on his wife too.
Solar photovoltaic has a steep cost differential going against it. It's just not economical without subsidies, except in places where stringing a landline would be expensive too.
Solar thermal we know, right now, how to do. But a large scale installation won't pay for itself unless it's sited where the sun shines regularly. In a rational world, California would be first off the mark. But they seem destined to flinch from paving over a major piece of desert with collectors and then stringing wire to LA. Las Vegas would make sense too, but the city has been hammered financially. So I expect El Paso, TX will be the first US city with a big solar farm generating a good fraction of its electricity needs.
Albuquerque,N.M. lot of solar research going on in that area already
there may be oceans of oil down there...why not a thousand times more than we have burned to date?
Suppose we ask When will the oil run out, if we could (somehow) continue our historical pattern of about 7 percent more oil production (and consumption) each year, until it's all gone? This is a question asked a few decades ago by M. King Hubbert, in Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, published in the American Journal of Physics.
Seven percent more per year corresponds to about one doubling per decade. By *that* simple (but unrealistic) model, if it turned out that Q had been underestimated by a whopping factor of two, it was crystal clear that the endpoint would be pushed into the future by just ten years.
As for your specific speculative question, instead of assuming Q was underestimated by 1000, let's assume 1024, to keep the math simpler. By the simple exponential growth model that Hubbert discussed in that article, a factor of 1024 is 2 raised to the 10th power. At one doubling per decade, a 1024-fold increase in supply would mean that oil would last for 10 additional doublings, or 10 decades. One century.
Taking the entire volume of our spherical Earth as an absolute upper bound, his simple calculations showed that oil could then last something like 330 more years. Of course, that model --inexorable exponential growth until it's all gone --is unrealistic. (Of course, global warming would do us in before that.)
A gaussian model is more realistic, but the math is little harder. The exponential model has one tail; a gaussian has two. For the gaussian model, the pattern of decline will tend to mirror the pattern of growth.
The point is, we don't need very precise estimates of how much oil remains, in order to make reasonably accurate quantitative guestimates about our future.
"Solar" has more forms than photovoltaic cells to make electricity.
One of the most cost effective is the passive solar heating of buildings; basically the same trick as a car that heats up in the sun, but done in such a way that the temperatures are comfortable and sustained.
The extra cost is negligible; it is all in how you arrange the parts that the building will have anyway; there is a bit of extra "thermal mass" but that is cheap.
You have to have a good solar exposure.
And you have to design for "passive solar" from the start, it is not really retro-fitable.
I always wonder what gonna happen to the Saudis when the oil dries up.
Awwwkward. Maybe the sheiks should stop eating/marrying multiple wives/vacationing in Europe long enough to actually invest in the education and general development of their countries. Might come in handy someday.
And oh, Hi everyone!
Education will also require major cultural shifts. U.S. Army trainers have written of their difficulties with Saudi officer trainees. [And similarly with neighboring countries that sit on great and recent wealth.] You can't put them on the spot because inevitably, as with all students, there will be times when the trainee doesn't know everything the instructor has been trying to impart, or doesn't understand what he superficially knows. The Saudi's pride cannot take this. In his home, a man is never wrong, is never on the spot, and is never humiliated before his peers.
Without some honest give and take it becomes impossible to get the actual point of the lessons across and see that it has sunk in. As a result, our guys are forced to report that our own military equipment is unsuitable to the needs of our friends the Saudis. Unsuitable how? They don't specify, but what it comes down to is that learning how to use the stuff is far from a no-brainer. There is no royal road to proficiency, and royal roads are the only ones their trainees are accustomed to.
"Solar" has more forms than photovoltaic cells to make electricity.
One of the most cost effective is the passive solar heating of buildings; basically the same trick as a car that heats up in the sun, but done in such a way that the temperatures are comfortable and sustained.
The extra cost is negligible; it is all in how you arrange the parts that the building will have anyway; there is a bit of extra "thermal mass" but that is cheap.
You have to have a good solar exposure.
And you have to design for "passive solar" from the start, it is not really retro-fitable.
— Ojoe, architect.
Good point. Passive solar is the low-hanging fruit of alternative energy. On its own, it's not enough to run an industrial civilization, so I've tended to talk about electricity from solar. But every bit helps and it's far from a trivial savings. Best of all, it's cost effective right now assuming we use a realistic discount rate for future savings. The economy does not in fact double every ten years, so 7% is an unrealistic discount rate. Two percent would make more sense. That way, a building whose cost savings pay for the extra expense in 25 years is a winner, not a loser.
MORE than 40 police officers and a helicopter have been called in to the search for a missing tiger and two camels in eastern Canada.
It is expected the private zoo that owns the exotic trio, which is a major supplier of trained animals for the entertainment industry, will offer a reward for their safe return, the Ottawa Citizen reported.
The animals - Jonas, a 350lb (158kg), three-year-old Bengal tiger and Shawn and Todd, two five-year-old dromedary camels - were on their way home to Bowmanville Zoo, east of Toronto, when their trainer stopped for the night at a motel in the Montreal area.
He checked on them at 6:30am Friday, but after a quick shower found his truck and the attached trailer carrying the trio had been stolen.
Michael Hackenberger, the zoo's director, praised the police efforts to find the missing animals, and said with a heat wave in the area he was very concerned for their well-being.
He said police have told him they are worried about the threat the large, but well-trained, performing animals can still pose to the public if they are set free in a populated area and police are also concerned for the health of the animals.
AND - This One WAS Great. Also, when one reads Nixon's writings, you find out quickly that he was what I call a "WalMart" Liberal in domestic matters.
As in "Do It - But Don't Spend Too Much."
For the cognocenti - remember that back in 1972, when "My Guy" McGovern wanted a guaranteed National Income of about $4,000 - Nixon didn't say NO, he said "more like $3,200." -S-
Best Jon Stewart ever.
The obvious replacement for foreign oil is..
.. Domestic oil!
And then there is coal...(combustion is combustion, don't believe the anti-hype. All burning produces carbon dioxide)
Hydro is carbon free... and you get a lake!
Solar is viable in many areas... There is a lot of room for development and improvement.
Nuclear is a proven technology. It is the only form of energy production that has pollution that can be gathered, shipped, processed or moved.
Natural gas has room for expansion.
And then there is life-style. Doing things that improve your life. You can get enough sleep to have the time to bike to work. You can garden. The fluorescent bulbs are now cheap enough, and bright enough, that not buying them constitutes bad business practice, and they are no longer a compromise. If it is convenient to recycle, you are getting a rebate on your consumption.( but if there is no payback in at least some area, it is a sop to the public)
I have gathered and cut enough wood for two winters. I have been insulating my house. My well is back online, so I can garden. I have been biking to work about three days a week. These actions are not the result of environmental guilt. They are cost effective and life enjoying. They are the environmental equivalent of making Christmas decorations with your family. Yeah, you could buy some, and some you will buy, but you will keep the ones you made with your family, because they were fun.
My solar-enhanced, fishnet, bio-cellulose supported, rest-relaxation, and/or sombulator awaits.
Hammock between two trees
Solar photovoltaic has a steep cost differential going against it. It's just not economical without subsidies, except in places where stringing a landline would be expensive too.
Solar thermal we know, right now, how to do. But a large scale installation won't pay for itself unless it's sited where the sun shines regularly. In a rational world, California would be first off the mark. But they seem destined to flinch from paving over a major piece of desert with collectors and then stringing wire to LA. Las Vegas would make sense too, but the city has been hammered financially. So I expect El Paso, TX will be the first US city with a big solar farm generating a good fraction of its electricity needs.
You don't think big oil requires subsidies? Low (no) cost leases of public property are just the pointy tip of the turd.
Think the cost of the 6th Fleet protecting Exxon's tankers.
And the cost of humiliating ourselves by not calling the Saudis (and the rest of the oil ticks) the enemies of western civilization that they are. We pay for their defense too. And Arabize our State Department to defend the indefensible.
Solar is a bargain in comparison.
The Geo-political bounty of bankrupting our enemies - not just the Arabs; the Russians are the biggest energy producers - by jump starting the renewable energy industry would be incalculable. The politics of the whole world would change!
And we can start one house, one building, at a time. Without waiting for our government to do anything. We have the power to dramatically improve our country's security and benefit ourselves financially at the same time.
Kekama or whoever you are..You downdinged this post..And that is your absolute right too..
Now..You wanna talk to me about Tiger?
Really..Talk to me about Tiger...I think we can discuss him without getting into a flame war...He was a hero of mine..So even though I'm really bitter..I won't take it out on you...He really disappointed me
If he was a hero of yours for playing golf, why should you care where he sticks his putter?
That President Nixon was a solid Republican and accomplished what he did goes to show how far right the country has gone in general. Stewart barely touched on his accomplishments, most of which would send TEA party attendees into cardiac arrest. Here are the main ones:
1) Philadelphia Plan, the first affirmative action program in the US requiring Federal contractors to hire a specified number of minorities to integrate the labor unions.
2) Pension Reform Act, obligating companies to escrow retirement funds instead of merely promising them, people today retiring with fat pensions owe them to President Nixon.
3) Environmental Protection Act, set up the EPA
4) Banned offshore drilling for seventeen years by executive order, following Santa Barbara oil spill
5) Marine Mammal Protection Act
6) Endangered Species Act
7) Occupational Safety and Health Act
8) Removed us from the gold standard by executive order
in addition to those remarkable accomplishments he tried to set up National Health Insurance and Guaranteed Annual Income. One cannot imagine a President running on such a platform now, or putting these programs in place, all in six years!
Thank you Ojoe. I started posting here again just to promote this topic. It would great for Charles and the LGF community embrace it.
If we think about it, renewable energy has so much for the left and the right to get together on. Nothing is more libertarian than independence, and producing your own energy is about as independent as you can get.
The right should love the idea of bankrupting our enemies. The Islamists would have to eat sand and Russians go back to their Soviet bread lines if it were not for the enormous riches they have the good fortune to be sitting on. If we make the BetterPlace electric vehicle plan a reality, the whole world balance of power shifts in favor of the good guys.
And the left should love the environmental benefits. Producing electricity through renewables and nuclear power - and shifting to BetterPlace electric vehicle technology will remove the vast majority of greenhouse gases, particulates, and improve pulmonary health.
Capitalists should love the green jobs provided by solar and nuclear power. From laborers and carpeters to nuclear engineers, there is an enormous benefit to American jobs to be had.
We need the will to get it done. Our politicians clearly are not up to the task. We have to seize the opportunity as individuals, first by installing renewables ourselves, and voting for those who will put the system in place to make it a national initiative and priority.
Correction: Forgotten Fundamentals of the Energy Crisis, was authored by A. A. Bartlett, not M. King Hubbert. Hubbert was mentioned throughout the article however, published in Am. Journal of Physics, 1978.
I'd said that if the quantity Q of world oil (ever to be produced) turned out to have been underestimated by a factor of 2, this would shift the peak into the future by only about 20 years. I'd said this based on some gaussian modeling of oil data I'd done on my own about 1978 (unpublished), after reading Bartlett's article.
Figure 8. The world oil production data are shown, along with three best-fit secondary Gaussians corresponding to values of the EUR of 2.0 x 10^12 bbl, 3.0 x 10^12 bbl, and 4.0 x l0^12 bbl, with respective dates of peak production of 2004, 2019, and 2030.
Where EUR = Estimated Ultimate Recovery is what I'd called Q. The modelled peak-oil year clearly depends on Q, but not as strongly as one might imagine. According to Bartlett, revising Q by a factor of 2 shifts the modelled peak by about 26 years (2004 vs 2030), whereas my calculations had indicated a little more than 20.
Frank says: