Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, March 23, 2007
Ed Feulner :: Townhall.com Columnist
Ethanol isn't worth getting pumped up about, but oil shale might be
by Ed Feulner
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Winter is barely behind us, and gasoline prices are already rising. Worse, experts predict more price increases are right down the road.

This poses two problems. First, higher energy prices mean families have less to spend on other necessities. Second, most of the money we spend for fuel ends up overseas, often supporting countries that don't wish us well.

To solve the first problem, we need to solve the second. More than 63 percent of the oil we burn comes from abroad. We must develop new domestic sources and reduce our dependency on foreign oil if we want to get a handle on prices.

There are no easy answers, but we can develop new sources of power. First, though, we need to move past one attempted solution that simply isn't working: ethanol.

Because ethanol comes from homegrown corn (much of it from right here in Illinois) politicians love to pretend that adding ethanol will reduce the need for foreign oil. That's why President Bush recently called for quadrupling the amount of ethanol we use. But ethanol can't solve our energy problems.

For one thing, it's expensive to refine ethanol, and it's difficult to add it to the existing fuel supply. That all costs money, which was reflected in last year's higher prices at the pump.

Also, scientists have shown that burning ethanol actually wastes money. Cornell University professor David Pimentel found that processing corn into ethanol requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel it produces. Others disagree on the exact percentage, but there's no doubt it takes a significant amount of energy to produce ethanol. "There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," Pimentel says.

And, of course, ethanol costs drivers, too. The federal government says that cars burning gasoline mixed with ethanol get fewer miles per gallon. That means more fill-ups, more often.

Fortunately, there's another possibility. If scientists can overcome some technological challenges (as well as environmental objections), oil shale has the potential to provide more than a trillion barrels of domestic oil.

Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT recently reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered so far in Colorado alone. That's enough to power the U.S. economy through 2030. In fact, he says, if we begin full-scale production within five years, we could completely end our dependence on OPEC by 2020. Instead of supporting thugs such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, we could leave them high and dry.

Of course, there's a reason the U.S. economy doesn't already run on oil shale: It's difficult to collect and refine. But technology is changing that.

Fine points out that Shell Oil has developed a technique that uses underground heaters to transform crude oil shale into burnable petroleum before it's even brought to the surface. This allows it to be extracted with far less above-ground pollution. Meanwhile, Chevron came up with technology that uses significantly less water to cool the refining machinery. That means processing oil shale is becoming environmentally safer and less expensive.

And speaking of the environment: These methods of harvesting oil shale force excess carbon back into the ground, so even Al Gore should support them. Plus, they're becoming more cost-effective every year. Fine estimates we eventually could produce a barrel of oil for $25. And, he says, the Defense Department has found that shale actually produces jet fuel that is far better than average.

These days, as the tortilla shortage in Mexico proves, there's already a demand for more corn than our farms can produce. Farmers no longer need (if they ever did) the federal government to mandate the use of ethanol. And drivers no longer can afford ethanol subsidies, either.

Imported oil is a dead end, and an expensive one at that. It's time to try a different route.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ed Feulner's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
too little, too late
The god of environmentalism has already weighed in on this one. There are two very simple, very immeadiate things this country can do, and for whatever reason, they get shoved out of any debate or discussion as if the instigator had never mentioned them in the first place.

1.) This nation has not built a new oil/gas refinery since 1975. More oil is not going to help if it can not be converted into a useable form.

2.) There's a little patch of land in Alaska, deep in the bowels of the 95% of the country that is utterly unihabited, that could virtually eliminate our dependence on the middle east.

You want a solution? Drill ANWAR. You want a solutiont to the middle east crisis? Drill ANWAR. Stop pumping money overseas and see how quickly they all either start getting along or destroy one another.

$
And build a few wind farms around the Kennedy Compound to catch all of that hot air coming out of his mouth as well as RINO Arnold.

Oil shale is old news
There were huge technological barriers 30 years ago along with serveral DOE backed research projects on that oil shale in Colorado. The projects were all abandoned due it not being cost effective back then.

All of that said, it is still worth a shot. Still appears that there are some technology issues to overcome. The cost effectiveness of it is less of an issue now.

The sound barrier is old news
There were huge technological barriers 60 years ago...

ZZx375
Oil Shale mining technology has progressed quite a bit since the 70s. Instead of open mining the shale, Shell Oil has developed a technique to liquify the oil shale in the ground and then pump it out like regular oil. If Saudi Arabia is the oil capital of the world, the US is the oil shale capital of the world.

The main issue is the cost involved with mining the oil shale. With oil prices going higher and higher, the cost difference between oil and oil shale is getting much smaller. That is truly the bottom line.

Although I am sure every screwball environmental-nut will be up in arms about all the oil shale mining. Just like with Anwar.

the truth on shale oil
the majority of costs encountered in the 70's was thru projected litigation costs by the greens of the day, the technology has been present for recovery in the early 70's) at less than 20 dollars a barrel. No sooner had shell unveiled its method of "preheating" the shale to pump out of the ground instead of conventional mining techniques last year than the enviro- nazis start screaming about "polluting the groundwater". The proven reserves for the shale in the western usnited states could supply the nations entire POL requirements for the next 150 years ( by 70's estomates, better recovery, improved usage has most certainly increased this) This requires NO new pipelines, no real technological break throughs, and would eliminate the need for offshore drilling, tanker spills, not to mention the untold billions of dollars being given every year to people who want nothing better than to see Us dead or praying to mecca 5 times a day.
Just as the enemy in the 70's, the opposition to rational use of OUR own resources, were enviromental nuts opposed to ANY FORM of mining ( the poor feral burros and horses in the area may stumble into the open pits)so do these same folk push for the pie in the sky "moonshine " solution.
Keep in mind that thus far every practical use of natural resources for clean, economical energy production has been drug thru the court systems ( hydro-electric dams, geothermal generation of electrical power, not to mention nuclear power plants) picketed or "celebritied" to death.
This leaves the rational mind only one possible conclusion, the enviros just want people to "go away" ( yes I know there are groups calling for "suicide for the enviroment" but just like the mullahs crying for jihad, they arent the ones putting the guns in their mouths, sort of like reverend al and his church of "global warming" live like I say not as I do" and I will sell you "carbon offsets" from the handy dandy brother al's carpon offset medicine show wagon, pocketing the money as he goes.
wake up folks

Ethonal was for POLLUTION!
The purpose behind Ethanol (before W went over to the other side) was to produce oxygen in the burning of the fuel so that it wouldn't pollute somehow. It was to reduce the unburnt hydrocarbons, a problem created by the need to have a cold combustion chamber (to avoid Nitrogen Oxides) while still having it rich enough to keep the cat working.

Ethanol was GREAT compared to MBTE that was truly becoming a nightmare with it into all kinds of drinking (well) water. And this was a real issue.

Now the thing that no one has really said is that ethanol combines with water -- it is the same stuff as the alcohol you drink (and mix with water). It can't be sent through pipelines because it will absorb water, has to be sent via either tanker truck or railroad tank car.

So why won't it absorb ambient moisture when in your partly filled gas tank (particuarly in the spring/fall when there is rapid temperature changes which cause changes in humidity)?

This all reminds me of the wood-fired electric plants. We are clearcutting forests to burn tree-length logs in these plants and then worry about saving trees via recycling paper.

Gotta love the logic....

colorfulbeach...
great post; informative and to the point. I can't stand being at the mercy of the backward middle east because they have exactly one product to sell.

DIG IT UP!
I don't care if it costs more per barrel than A-rab oil. Let's dig it up, keep the $$$ here, and tell the camel floggers to take a hike! They'll be back to living in tents and eating cockroaches within ten years.

Gasoline powered engines is old news
There were huge technological barriers more than 100 years ago...

Might work in the short run...
But even if there IS a a trillion barrel supply of oil shale and even IF Congress will allow extraction, that would still only extend the global supply of fossil fuels by about 20 years (after accounting for global oil demand increases). Yes, I know 20 years is probably enough time to really get hydrogen and air fueled cars into the mainstream, but seeing as advances in this area are moving at a snail's pace at the present, I can't help but be a little pessimistic that we won't be facing another peak oil crisis and when it hits, there won't be any new resource to fall back upon to buy us more time.

I do agree that ethanol is a pointless endeavor and is mainly aimed at wooing voters in the plains States.

I guess what I'd like to see happen (not that I'm holding my breath) is for the Democrats to broken a deal with the Republicans that in exchange for their consent to dive into oil shale, the auto industry has to raise CAFE standards by 10% in five years, and another 25% five years after that. (Very modest goals when you consider that if even half the people switched to hybrids, they'd make the 10% goal with existing technology). The 25% in ten years is quite reasonable as well, since we're SUPPOSED to have viable electric, hydrogen and more efficient hybrids well before then.

Like I said though, I'm not holding my breath, and am preparing for $4.00/gal gas this summer $5/gal next year, and so on and so forth.

Great column and posts
For once, at least to this point, we're all on the same page.

BTW, Brog, I've read of new oil deposits located that are virtually limitless. I can't remember the details, but there's oil to last for a long, long time. Plus, as $ wrote, if the pressure mounts high enough, we can get a lot of that wonderful black gooey stuff from ANWR.


Too many movies
Seriously, people, just because you wish upon a star doesn't mean you get what you want.

First, "oil shale" isn't oil. It's an oil precursor. It takes a lot of energy to convert it into usable liquid fuel.

Second, even if it was a "trillion" barrels that would last anout 20 years, so what? We'd just, um, urinate it all away like we did with our conventional crude (U.S. conventional oil production peaked in 1970).

Third, neither this article nor any posters here seem to be able to rise to the question of whether we should reevaluate our living arrangements. What I mean by that is this. Oil is a finite resource. I know some, including at least one here, wants to believe that there is some magical oil field out there that never depletes, but like the fountain of youth, you aren't going to find it. Given that geological reality, is it wise to structure our economy and society around the assumption that oil will be forever cheap and reliable? I mean, think about it. Really think about it.

Fourth, oil is just about the most energy packed substance there is (putting aside nuclear fission, which doesn't really convert well to automobiles and, in any event, is also dervied from a finite resource). A gallon of gasoline contains MORE hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen. When we run out, we're not going to have anything better (i.e. as economical). Again, why are Hummers allowed on the road? Is that what a smart race of beings would allow?

Fifth, oil shale is never going to produce enough to compensate for natural declines in existing oil fields. Ever year, it's the fuel of the future. And the future never arrives. Partly, that's because of the energy required to distill it. Whenever the cost of energy rises, so does the price of oil shale. Its economical break point constantly moves higher.

Sixth, ANWR will not lead to energy independence. There will be no energy independence. Ever. Unless we go back to an agricultural society. ANWR is too small. Anyway, if we were smart, which we probably aren't, we would save ANWR to be used for valuable petrochemicals like medicine and materials. That would be better than wasting it in inefficient automobiles.

Seventh, getting to all that oil shale would pretty much destroy the involved geography. Is that what we want? If so, when does it stop? Do we just grow economically and in population until every last bit of beauty has been paved over? Is that a "liberal" concern?

I could go on and on. The point is that we need to stop pretending that there is an easy fix, that we can forever transport salads across the country, or keychains from China. Technology is not energy. The laws of thermodynamics do not disappear just because God loves you.

These are cold hard facts of life. But they are non-negotiable. Dick Cheney doesn't want to negotiate this, either, but reality has all the cards.

Oil is not the problem...
...politics is.All our "energy" problems originate in Washington.The politicians dictate where oil will be drilled, and how, and how much it will cost.I trust the energy companys and their profit motive much more than I do a politician and his re-election motive.

Capitalism - the best energy available
What this boils down to is this - are we going to allow free market capitalism to work or are we not? Environmental groups are not in the business of energy management but only in the business of dictating to other people what they can and cannot do with their own resources. Energy is the driver of every economy in the world. The environmentalists don't really care a wit about the environment - only controlling the economy. So, under the guise of "caring about the environment" and "caring for the poorest among us" they have managed to weasel their way into governmental bodies around the world and pollute the minds of citizens with all manner of disinformation.

Remember Ralph Nadar and his pseudo-science that he used to destroy a perfectly good automobile? Remember the spotted owl and how it was falsely used to nearly destroy an entire industry in the Pacific Northwest as well as quadruple the price of building new homes? Remember the angst about the Alaska oil pipeline and how it was going to destroy the caribou while in actuality is has increased their numbers? Remember the false science about DDT and note how many millions of people in Africa have died because of its ban? The environmental groups of the world have cut a wide swath of death and destruction. We should put the environmentalists on permanent ignore and go about living our lives. If ethanol is the answer, the free market will figure it out. If higher fuel efficiency is the answer, the free market will figure it out. If oil shale is the answer the free market will figure it out. If the government is involved, we will figure very little out. If the environmentalists are involved, we will go backwards at the speed of light.

irony
We can start with a little self-discipline. I was a bit shocked by recent comments bragging about driving SUVs and pickups and burning fuel. I get passed on the road by SUV drivers pulling trailers, SUVs and pickups with a single occupant or maybe a couple. We all need to slow down and quick driving SUVs when we are the only passenger. Some of you were making fun of liberals who actually abide by their priniciples and drive small cars, conserving energy and the environment. Makes you wonder who is the true conservative. I can see picking on liberals when they are being hypocrites like Al Gore, but lets give them credit when they live by their principles. The irony is that these liberals are doing more to send the Saudis less money to support the spread of the Wahabbi sect of Islam and these liberals probably don't support the war on terror while the supposed conservatives are burning up more gas and sending more money to the Saudis.

As usual, people miss larger issues.
For background, I hold a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering and have approximately 20 years experience in the petrochemical industries. In the interests of complete disclosure, I currently work for a company that supplies equipment to the ethanol fuel industry - specifically the purification systems. It also is important to understand that I am not a "tree hugger" by any stretch of the imagination. I place global warming on the same plane as cold fusion - junk science.

In short, I believe that the thesis - that the costs associated with fuel ethanol - has been colored by only one side of the story.

Regardless of the use for the corn - whether food or fuel - the acreage must be farmed making the costs of growing and harvesting cancel (these are sunk costs and only do not accrue if you cut back the number of acres farmed). However, with the rise of biodiesel, it may be practical for the farmers to employ biofuels as a readily available source of energy for the farming phase of the process.

The article discusses in passing the costs of refining ethanol and seem to ignore the costs of refining oil shale. This topic need some serious discussion.

Aside from the farming, the greatest use of energy in all refining operations is in the purification steps. In the petrochemical and refining industries, this is accomplished through the use of steam, and most steam is generated using natural gas or fuel oil.

Since the facilities for fuel ethanol are specifically purpose built (i.e., thay are only used to ferment and purify ethanol), they are much simpler and smaller in scale than a standard refinery. Therefore, it is quite possible that the energy used to generate the steam can come from wind power - a source that is renewable and clean. One wind trubine is cabable of generating sufficient power to generate the steam needed to run an ethanol facility. Excess power from a wind farm can also be sold to the local power grid (but that's another issue).

The company I work for has a patent for reducing the energy of our purification package by approximately $1 million per year. This is accomplished not through wind power, but instead through energy integration, requiring significantly less steam than conventional facilities.

In addition, fermentation and ethanol refining is one of mankind's oldest technologies. Beer brewing and spirit refining are in reality the basis of Chemical Engineering as a profession.

In contrast, the technologies for the extraction and refining of oil shales have never progressed beyond experimental, pilot or demonstration scale in the US. Add to the lack of developmental activities (until very recently), the fact that there has not been a new refinery slated for construction in the US since the 1970's due to environmental red tape, and it will be decades before we can effectively utilize oil shales.

Please note that this is not to suggest that we should not aggressively develop oil shale technology - quite the opposite. Most people look at "energy independence" very simplistically - they only consider the uses of oil to drive, heat, and generate electricity. These activities are all economically necessary to keep our economy moving along.

However, most people neglect to consider that petrochemicals are also vitally necessary to maintain the standard of living we enjoy in the US. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, adhesives and a variety of products could not be made if it weren't for oil. Ethanol production does nothing to provide for the other portions of the economy that rely on petrochemicals.

Therefore, it is an economic reality that both tehnologies be developed. I submit that it is not an either-or choice. Call it a value proposition - divert some of the oil that is used in fuels to the higher end, value added products (such as plastics and pharmaceuticals) and replace that by ethanol.

Mr. Right
One thing you say is slightly misleading. Yes, it's true that leftists care about the poor, but once they put on their environmental caps, they stop caring. Environmentalism trumps egalitarianism.

I can't think of much of anything environmentalists have done that didn't impose more costs on the poor than on the wealthy. Their policies are in effect a regressive tax.

Monty
People have been talking about the end of oil for a century. Why look like an idiot by continuing in that tradition?

Also, aside from banning Hummers from the road, what SPECIFIC proposals do you have in mind? Too often, we hear vague statements about cutting down, with no details. Do you want more mass transit, or do you want us all to use bicycles? Keep in mind that mass transit works well in dense urban areas, but doesn't work so well elsewhere. As for bikes, they aren't much fun in cold weather, nor are they good for hauling things (like my elderly mother).

Maybe you want us to go back to the horse-and-buggy era. Keep in mind that whereas once nearly everyone knew about horses, that isn't true today. I once saw an Amish kid get a horse to back up his buggy to get it out of the way of a car. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to do that.

I have a feeling many of us, due to our lack of knowledge of horses, are going to end up as serfs on the great estates of people like Gore.

Dollar value is tied oil
Canada is using a lot of new technology with their "oil sands" that can be used in "oil shale," though the bonding of the oil is different.

There is, according to studies Senator Hatch refers to, 1.5 to 3 trillion barrels of oil in Utah and 70% of Utah is government land and most could be leased creating huge revenue sources for the government.

This is more than just getting off foreign oil. The value of the dollar is based on the sale of oil in dollars. Foreign nations are starting to shun the dollar and that loss of value could cause "our price" for in dollars to double from even here. It wouldn't cost the other nations more, only nations whose currency is dropping in value.

We have to get off foreign oil. By the way, that 1.5 trillion would at 21 million barrels a day which the U.S. consumes, would last 200 yrs. What the rest of the world uses would come from "foreign oil sources." ANWR may be just a tip of the iceberg. There may be more fields in that area or even more oil that could be recovered from ANWR with slant drilling. Even if not, anything that can be developed, needs to be, due to the dollar's value being tied to oil

When we went off the Bretton Woods policy in 1971 and relied on oil sales in dollars to keep the value up, we also struck a deal with the "devil,' OPEC and agreed to protect OPEC nations that would sell oil in dollars. Remember, we didn't resume the war with Iraq until Saddam started selling oil in euros causing the dollar to drop 24% to the euro by the time we got in and returned Iraq's oil sales to dollars (Nov 2000 to Jun 2004). And it was Iraq's invasion of a nation selling oil in dollars, (Kuwait) that got all that started in the first place.

Now Iran is switching to the euro as is Venezuela and you know what we have been saying about both of them.

There are Canadian firms that are familiar with oil recovery of the nature we need. There is land but, as pointed out, environmentalists will fight this. Yes, we need other fuels and I like the "bio diesel for tractors and regular fuel for cars, somebody suggested as we work on other sources to power our vehicles. Food prices are going to rise if we don't.

Farmers are moving more to corn to get in on the high corn prices which means less planting of soybeans, wheat and other crops driving the prices of them up due to shortages eventually, of supply. As somebody remarked, let market forces drive this and we will be better off in the long run.

Energy solutions
How interesting to read so many viewer responses!

Nobody has added to the list of constructive solutions (let high tech oil shale be developed with protection from OPEC manipulations of value); let Alaskan ANWAR happen carefully; let ethanol try to compete with declining subsidy; let fuel-cell and alternative energy happen; and take the page from the French on nuclear reactors, and do it!

Then, recognize that women in Africa are being murdered by conscription into armies and dying before multipling. When saving them, be sure to alter their reproductive capacities so as to avoid more population related problems; and,

promote lesbians with control of their birthing rate to avoid population expansion; and then

surrender to the bin Laden camp to lock up women in the U.S. until the Iranian leaders ask us to start buying oil from them again...err, this part may not work??

Dollar value is tied oil
Canada is using a lot of new technology with their "oil sands" that can be used in "oil shale," though the bonding of the oil is different.

There is, according to studies Senator Hatch refers to, 1.5 to 3 trillion barrels of oil in Utah and 70% of Utah is government land and most could be leased creating huge revenue sources for the government.

This is more than just getting off foreign oil. The value of the dollar is based on the sale of oil in dollars. Foreign nations are starting to shun the dollar and that loss of value could cause "our price" for in dollars to double from even here. It wouldn't cost the other nations more, only nations whose currency is dropping in value.

We have to get off foreign oil. By the way, that 1.5 trillion would at 21 million barrels a day which the U.S. consumes, would last 200 yrs. What the rest of the world uses would come from "foreign oil sources." ANWR may be just a tip of the iceberg. There may be more fields in that area or even more oil that could be recovered from ANWR with slant drilling. Even if not, anything that can be developed, needs to be, due to the dollar's value being tied to oil

When we went off the Bretton Woods policy in 1971 and relied on oil sales in dollars to keep the value up, we also struck a deal with the "devil,' OPEC and agreed to protect OPEC nations that would sell oil in dollars. Remember, we didn't resume the war with Iraq until Saddam started selling oil in euros causing the dollar to drop 24% to the euro by the time we got in and returned Iraq's oil sales to dollars (Nov 2000 to Jun 2004). And it was Iraq's invasion of a nation selling oil in dollars, (Kuwait) that got all that started in the first place.

Now Iran is switching to the euro as is Venezuela and you know what we have been saying about both of them.

There are Canadian firms that are familiar with oil recovery of the nature we need. There is land but, as pointed out, environmentalists will fight this. Yes, we need other fuels and I like the "bio diesel for tractors and regular fuel for cars, somebody suggested as we work on other sources to power our vehicles. Food prices are going to rise if we don't.

Farmers are moving more to corn to get in on the high corn prices which means less planting of soybeans, wheat and other crops driving the prices of them up due to shortages eventually, of supply. As somebody remarked, let market forces drive this and we will be better off in the long run.

Dollar value is tied oil
Canada is using a lot of new technology with their "oil sands" that can be used in "oil shale," though the bonding of the oil is different.

There is, according to studies Senator Hatch refers to, 1.5 to 3 trillion barrels of oil in Utah and 70% of Utah is government land and most could be leased creating huge revenue sources for the government.

This is more than just getting off foreign oil. The value of the dollar is based on the sale of oil in dollars. Foreign nations are starting to shun the dollar and that loss of value could cause "our price" for in dollars to double from even here. It wouldn't cost the other nations more, only nations whose currency is dropping in value.

We have to get off foreign oil. By the way, that 1.5 trillion would at 21 million barrels a day which the U.S. consumes, would last 200 yrs. What the rest of the world uses would come from "foreign oil sources." ANWR may be just a tip of the iceberg. There may be more fields in that area or even more oil that could be recovered from ANWR with slant drilling. Even if not, anything that can be developed, needs to be, due to the dollar's value being tied to oil

When we went off the Bretton Woods policy in 1971 and relied on oil sales in dollars to keep the value up, we also struck a deal with the "devil,' OPEC and agreed to protect OPEC nations that would sell oil in dollars. Remember, we didn't resume the war with Iraq until Saddam started selling oil in euros causing the dollar to drop 24% to the euro by the time we got in and returned Iraq's oil sales to dollars (Nov 2000 to Jun 2004). And it was Iraq's invasion of a nation selling oil in dollars, (Kuwait) that got all that started in the first place.

Now Iran is switching to the euro as is Venezuela and you know what we have been saying about both of them.

There are Canadian firms that are familiar with oil recovery of the nature we need. There is land but, as pointed out, environmentalists will fight this. Yes, we need other fuels and I like the "bio diesel for tractors and regular fuel for cars, somebody suggested as we work on other sources to power our vehicles. Food prices are going to rise if we don't.

Farmers are moving more to corn to get in on the high corn prices which means less planting of soybeans, wheat and other crops driving the prices of them up due to shortages eventually, of supply. As somebody remarked, let market forces drive this and we will be better off in the long run.

Ethanol is CORROSIVE!!!
That's why it has to be trucked and not pushed down a pipeline, the cheapest, most efficient method of supply.

That's also why it wears out internal combustion engines faster and gets less mpg.

Besides that, it's return on investment SUCKS! - $3 to $1 compared to petroleum's $9 to $1.

This push for a phony, feel good energy solution is nothing but a scam! A HUGE BOONDOGGLE for pandering presidential wannabes, corn state politicians and corporate farming interests. A total waste of our tax dollars in another vote buying scheme which forces touchy/feely, greenie liberal nonsense down our throats.

Does anyone remember the research a few years back which proved that crude oil IS NOT decaying dinosaurs and plant matter, but the by-product of bacterial action deep underground. Seems to me, this would qualify as a renewable resource if scientists would concentrate on duplicating this natural process.

Currently, I drive a truck that averages 10 mpg, even with the reduced cetane of current diesel fuel and oppressive diesel emission standards. Granted, my old truck was bigger and hauled heavier payloads, but I tweaked and tuned it to the point where it averaged around 6.7 mpg, which is pretty remarkable considering 20 years ago, if you could squeeze 4.5 mpg out of a big truck, you were doing great!

By the way, I sold that Pete at 1,137,000 miles and as far as I know, it's still running strong. Alcohol burning vehicles will send us back to the days when engines barely lasted for 80-100,000 miles.

I once hauled an electric powered truck (for use in smog bound airports, like LA) to a show in Vegas and had a very interesting conversation with the inventor/developer about hy-brid trucks. He was all set to use my truck as a test bed, but I needed it to make a living more.

Some of the obstacles to be overcome include the extra weight of the electric components: motor, battery, stators in the wheels (for braking and generating), the hazard of huge lead acid batteries rolling around the highways and other concerns. But this man was burning with the capitilistic spirit and looking for solutions without a subsidy from the government.

Greenies who despise the oil industry need to drive through a modern oil field and see how much things have improved from the 50's and 60's when my Dad worked in the "patch." Gone are the days when "sumps" were burned into the atmosphere, sour gas flared, and spills and messes were accepted as a natural part of production. They are the best stewards of the environment as they can possibly be, under the ominous threat of endless, mindless lawsuits from wackos.

You can't replace something with nothing, and ethanol is a big nothing.

Green Communism

....Feulner ....Everyone knows (or should) that Ethanol is a boondoggle that is a boon for farmers and chemical companies and a good screwing for consumers ...Bush knows this so he is lying through his teeth ...

.....Shell developed a process years ago that extracts sulphur free oil from shale that makes it economical with World oil prices at $35 dollars a barrel (Oil is presently at $60 a barrel) ...the hold-up has been environmental groups (the Green Communists) who do not want any oil production inside the Continental United States ...

.....Now why would environmentalists want to do this? ....Because they are in phase with the Evolution of Socialism ...just follow the bouncing ball ...

.....Wealth is bad ...
.....Technology is bad ...
.....Humans are destroying the Earth ...
.....Global warming ...

.....see how it follows? ...ORDO AB CHAO (Order out of chaos) ...It is the old Communist tactic of ...1. Create a problem ...2. Wait for the reaction ...3. Propose a solution that will give you your original objective ...
.....Orwell called it ...REALITY CONTROL ...

Green Communism

....Feulner ....Everyone knows (or should) that Ethanol is a boondoggle that is a boon for farmers and chemical companies and a good screwing for consumers ...Bush knows this so he is lying through his teeth ...

.....Shell developed a process years ago that extracts sulphur free oil from shale that makes it economical with World oil prices at $35 dollars a barrel (Oil is presently at $60 a barrel) ...the hold-up has been environmental groups (the Green Communists) who do not want any oil production inside the Continental United States ...

.....Now why would environmentalists want to do this? ....Because they are in phase with the Evolution of Socialism ...just follow the bouncing ball ...

.....Wealth is bad ...
.....Technology is bad ...
.....Humans are destroying the Earth ...
.....Global warming ...

.....see how it follows? ...ORDO AB CHAO (Order out of chaos) ...It is the old Communist tactic of ...1. Create a problem ...2. Wait for the reaction ...3. Propose a solution that will give you your original objective ...
.....Orwell called it ...REALITY CONTROL ...

To spirit of 76: LOL
Well, I live by my principles, too, which include the free-market economy. As long as I can afford the gas -- and I can -- I'm quite happy to tool around in my gas-guzzling, 260 HP, 4WD, air conditioned SUV.

I guess I'm one of theose folks you're squawking about.

The big difference is, I'm not hypocritically telling other people that THEY have to drive a Prius, and I'm not using some BS dodge like "carbon offset credits", like someone else I could name, a big whale of a gasbag. Gore, if you didn't get it.

Im speed on the freeays, too, which means I'm not even getting the best mileage.

Ooops! My bad!


Shale oil and technology
The oil companies have been talking about shale oil for 20-30 years. Saying they have technology to extract it is one thing. Doing it is another.

E-85 is here today. I assume most of us do not have flex fuel vehicles to take advantage of it although I understand GM now produces an entire line of flex fuel cars.

If Brazil can achieve energy independence with E-85 so can we.

The big losers in all of this would be the oil companies. What would it do to any industry to lose 85% of its' market? So the question is will they allow E-85 to go nationwide and in massive production.

I, for one, would much rather pay an American farmer outrageous prices than an Irani,Iraqi, Saudi, or Venezuelan.

Shale oil and technology
The oil companies have been talking about shale oil for 20-30 years. Saying they have technology to extract it is one thing. Doing it is another.

E-85 is here today. I assume most of us do not have flex fuel vehicles to take advantage of it although I understand GM now produces an entire line of flex fuel cars.

If Brazil can achieve energy independence with E-85 so can we.

The big losers in all of this would be the oil companies. What would it do to any industry to lose 85% of its' market? So the question is will they allow E-85 to go nationwide and in massive production.

I, for one, would much rather pay an American farmer outrageous prices than an Irani,Iraqi, Saudi, or Venezuelan.

Shale oil and technology
The oil companies have been talking about shale oil for 20-30 years. Saying they have technology to extract it is one thing. Doing it is another.

E-85 is here today. I assume most of us do not have flex fuel vehicles to take advantage of it although I understand GM now produces an entire line of flex fuel cars.

If Brazil can achieve energy independence with E-85 so can we.

The big losers in all of this would be the oil companies. What would it do to any industry to lose 85% of its' market? So the question is will they allow E-85 to go nationwide and in massive production.

I, for one, would much rather pay an American farmer outrageous prices than an Irani,Iraqi, Saudi, or Venezuelan.

Shale oil and technology
The oil companies have been talking about shale oil for 20-30 years. Saying they have technology to extract it is one thing. Doing it is another.

E-85 is here today. I assume most of us do not have flex fuel vehicles to take advantage of it although I understand GM now produces an entire line of flex fuel cars.

If Brazil can achieve energy independence with E-85 so can we.

The big losers in all of this would be the oil companies. What would it do to any industry to lose 85% of its' market? So the question is will they allow E-85 to go nationwide and in massive production.

I, for one, would much rather pay an American farmer outrageous prices than an Irani,Iraqi, Saudi, or Venezuelan.

Green Communist Alert!!!

.....TH posters ....Monty has given himself away ...he writes ..."Technology is not the answer" ...well I guess it's back to the loin cloths and caves for us folks .....COLOSSUS

Ethanol is a boondoggle
As several other posters have pointed out. And it's already driving up the price of everything from livestock feed to Mexican tortillas.

As a farmer, something I've always found prescient was a letter to the editor in Doane's Agricultural newsletter from the 1920's. In it, the writer noted that he had gotten rid of his last team because the economics simply couldn't support farming with horses anymore. He admitted that he had succumbed to the arguments that the hay and grain the horses ate could be fed to cattle to be sold or to produce more milk or he could sell the surplus crops for cash. But he wondered where this would lead. Would it be possible that redirecting the feed the horses would have eaten could lead to ruinous surplusses of milk? Could there be a surplus of grain for market that would bankrupt farmers with low prices? He even wondered if someday a farmer might be forced to sell cheap corn to some processor who would convert it into expensive fuel for the tractor the farmer now relied on.

There were other observations in his letter but these were positively prescient. Review the USDA commodity programs and look at the enormous buyouts and price supports. Then, even with the current rising corn price, look at how much the farmer sells the corn for vs. how much he pays for the energy. Not to mention the enormous inputs he buys in the forms of fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides (all petroleum based and all requiring significant energy inputs to produce). The sooner the government gets completely out of business and agriculture, the better. Note I didn't say the government should go out of business but that appears, at times, an attractive option.

Green Communist Alert!!!

.....Attention TH posters ...we have been infiltrated by a Green Communist ...Monty writes ..."Technology is not the answer" ...well I guess it's back to loin cloths and caves folks .....COLOSSUS

Green Communist Alert!!!

.....Attention TH posters ...we have been infiltrated by a Green Communist ...Monty writes ..."Technology is not the answer" ...well I guess it's back to loin cloths and caves folks .....COLOSSUS

Ethanol
Ethanol is not worth it the way it is done now but it has been known since the seventies that you can take poor land not good for anything else and grow Jerusalem Artichokes on it and produce ethanol that way instead of wasting good farm land. There are probably other plants that could be grown on poor soil and used to produce ethanol. And ehtanol by itself is not the answer but a concerted effort to change are means of producing energy on all fronts using all viable means to wean us from oil could work.

Green Communist Alert!!!

.....Attention TH posters ...we have been infiltrated by a Green Communist ...Monty writes ..."Technology is not the answer" ...well I guess it's back to loin cloths and caves folks .....COLOSSUS

JFP
"People have been talking about the end of oil for a century. Why look like an idiot by continuing in that tradition?"

I didn't say oil was about to disappear. I said (or implied) that it is going to soon be much less available. That's what happens when demand outpaces supply. You think we would be talking about destroying a beautiful mountain range for a dribble of production if conventonal crude would be forever cheap. Many conservatives like to dismiss geological reality by referring back to past predictions of oil running out. Well, at peak production, the world will have more oil available than ever before. It's just that the next year, and ever year after, we will have less and less. You tell me what the conservative response is to that. Oh wait, I know, "unleash" the free market a la Larry Kudlow. Because if we cut taxes enough, someone will invent a car that runs on the smoke we blow up our you-know-whats.

"Also, aside from banning Hummers from the road, what SPECIFIC proposals do you have in mind?"

Well, yes, use a bike if you can. Walk. Don't drive an ineffcient vehicle. Turn off your lights when you leave a room. You know the drill. Yes, we should rebuild rail. Yes, we need to stop suburban sprawl (have fun living in the outer ring of Atlanta if gas is $5 per gallon or more). We probably should try to stop further population growth. We need to preserve farmland. We need to reevaluate our beliefs about what the future will hold. Globalization is probably at its zenith right now. We need to start getting ready for when life is more local, as it is for the vast majority of the world population that hasn't had easy access to fossil fuels for the past fifty years.

"Maybe you want us to go back to the horse-and-buggy era."

It has nothing to do with what I want. I like having the ability to drive up to the mountains for backpacking trips. I couldn't do that on any horse. No, the question is not what I or you want, it's "what is likely to happen?" What is likely to happen is that within a few years, oil will become very expensive and/or unreliable (i.e. the availability will be unreliable). Given the sprawled out society we have managed to build in the last 10-15 years, under the influence of cheap, easy oil, I'd say it's time to be concerned.

If you or anyone else has some scientific basis for concluding that oil will continue to be cheap, or that some oil substitute will allow us to continue as we have been, I'd love to hear it.

"I have a feeling many of us, due to our lack of knowledge of horses, are going to end up as serfs on the great estates of people like Gore."

That's probably right in the long term, although by then you (or your kids) will know a lot about horses. It's just that, in a low-energy society, most people will probably be serfs.

Shale Oil
In this country, we have a product much more abundant than oil; natural gas, trillions of cubic feet of proven reserves. CNG (compressed natural gas) is an excellent motor fuel, used by Puget Sound Energy to power their company cars and light trucks, used by Pierce County Transit and Metro Transit to power buses. In some European countries, CNG is sold at service stations as a self-service product. So why is CNG not being promoted as auto fuel? It is available, requires no new technology and would, literally overnight, end our dependence on foreign oil.

baseballdoc (i.e. bold liar)
You can't even lie intelligently. You claim that I said "technology is not the answer." Unless I am missing it, I said "technology is not energy."

And that's true. Technology is not energy. Technology uses energy. In doing so, it may also harvest available energy (in the way, for example, that a photovoltaic panel, which requires energy to make, can then harvest energy from the sun).

But technology is not energy. If you think differently, maybe you should try to convince your car to run without gasoline.

Monty
Well, after reading your last lengthy post, I have to agree with baseballdoc's characterization, gotta tell you.

Here's the part I REALLY liked:

Quote from another poster: "I have a feeling many of us, due to our lack of knowledge of horses, are going to end up as serfs on the great estates of people like Gore."

You: "That's probably right in the long term, although by then you (or your kids) will know a lot about horses. It's just that, in a low-energy society, most people will probably be serfs."


Oh, man, that is too rich!

I don't think so, dude. We already had one revolution, which also inspired the French to get some good use out of the guillotine in dealing with their OWN aristocracy.




Ethanol Is a Boondoggle
It seems to me that everyone is ignoring the one resource which we have in abundance, which requires no new technology, which we own; natural gas. In this country, there are trillions of cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. CNG (compressed natural gas) is a clean, environment-friendly fuel that is used, in my area, by Puget Sound Energy to power their light trucks and cars, by Pierce County Transit and by Metro Transit to power buses. The technology is available, every car and light truck can easily be made dual-fuel, gasoline/CNG. If you want to see the bottom drop out of the oil market overnight, mandate CNG as an alternative fuel.

BrianR
This from the guy who thinks that there are "new" and "virtually limitless" oil deposits? Ha hah.

Some of you need to go back to Jesus Camp. Maybe God will also reassure you that the Earth is 4000 years old.

Maybe you should also crack a history book. Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means.

Dream all you want. You just further discredit the conservative cause by reinforcing the idea that conservatives are hostile to science and objective reality (in this case, the reality that our cheap and easy oil supply is likely entering a new phase of relative scarcity).

BrianR
This from the guy who thinks that there are "new" and "virtually limitless" oil deposits? Ha hah.

Some of you need to go back to Jesus Camp. Maybe God will also reassure you that the Earth is 4000 years old.

Maybe you should also crack a history book. Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means.

Dream all you want. You just further discredit the conservative cause by reinforcing the idea that conservatives are hostile to science and objective reality (in this case, the reality that our cheap and easy oil supply is likely entering a new phase of relative scarcity).

BrianR
This from the guy who thinks that there are "new" and "virtually limitless" oil deposits? Ha hah.

Some of you need to go back to Jesus Camp. Maybe God will also reassure you that the Earth is 4000 years old.

Maybe you should also crack a history book. Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means.

Dream all you want. You just further discredit the conservative cause by reinforcing the idea that conservatives are hostile to science and objective reality (in this case, the reality that our cheap and easy oil supply is likely entering a new phase of relative scarcity).

Monty
ROTFLMAO

At least what I wrote is true and based in reality.

You, on the other hand, seem to have read "The Handmaiden's Tale" a few too many times.

Failure of Imagination
"What I mean by that is this. Oil is a finite resource."

There are petrochemical seas on Titan. Who knows what products could be produced from them?

If it is short-sighted to think that we will have 'alternative' solutions to our energy needs in the 20 years (150 years is the figure used in the article), it is doubly short-sighted to assume mankind won't continue expanding his territory.

I now carry a cellular phone that is a more powerful computer than any you could buy for any price 20 years ago (1987). At 400mhz, 32-bit, it is 16 times the clockspeed of then-current computers, and twice the bus width. And cellular technology, let alone tied in with computing power, was unheard of in 1987. With my phone, almost anywhere, any time, I can access the greatest accumulation of human knowledge (and BS) in the history of mankind; the internet, something that, 20 years ago, was just a DoD and university tool, deployed primarily on multi-user mainframes.

We decided to go to the moon in a decade; the incentive for conservatives was national pride, achievement, and money. For liberals it was to m@sturbate over their demi-god's "dream" of getting to the moon in a decade. We did it. (Then, of course, the liberals rolled over and smoked a cigarette and let NASA go to hell).

Shale oil, ANWAR, nuclear, ocean thermal, and technologies we haven't even imagined yet are out there waiting to benefit us all. There's only one obstacle standing in our way.

To paraphrase astronaut Frank Borman, we suffer from a failure of imagination.


"God is unwilling to do everything, and thereby take from us our free will, and that share of glory which belongs to us." - Niccolo Machiavelli 'The Prince'.

Failure of Imagination
"What I mean by that is this. Oil is a finite resource."

There are petrochemical seas on Titan. Who knows what products could be produced from them?

If it is short-sighted to think that we will have 'alternative' solutions to our energy needs in the 20 years (150 years is the figure used in the article), it is doubly short-sighted to assume mankind won't continue expanding his territory.

I now carry a cellular phone that is a more powerful computer than any you could buy for any price 20 years ago (1987). At 400mhz, 32-bit, it is 16 times the clockspeed of then-current computers, and twice the bus width. And cellular technology, let alone tied in with computing power, was unheard of in 1987. With my phone, almost anywhere, any time, I can access the greatest accumulation of human knowledge (and BS) in the history of mankind; the internet, something that, 20 years ago, was just a DoD and university tool, deployed primarily on multi-user mainframes.

We decided to go to the moon in a decade; the incentive for conservatives was national pride, achievement, and money. For liberals it was to m@sturbate over their demi-god's "dream" of getting to the moon in a decade. We did it. (Then, of course, the liberals rolled over and smoked a cigarette and let NASA go to hell).

Shale oil, ANWAR, nuclear, ocean thermal, and technologies we haven't even imagined yet are out there waiting to benefit us all. There's only one obstacle standing in our way.

To paraphrase astronaut Frank Borman, we suffer from a failure of imagination.


"God is unwilling to do everything, and thereby take from us our free will, and that share of glory which belongs to us." - Niccolo Machiavelli 'The Prince'.

Load of crap, Monty
"Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means. "

A *serf* doesn't OWN the land he works. Any American after the War of Independence could go find a plot of land to call his own.

After the American Revolution failed, many in the Confederacy lost land that had been in their families since long before the War of Independence, and their lineage had not been "serfs" nor plantation owners.

(The War of Independence was not a "revolution" since the goal was never to unseat the standing gov't but to separate from it. While the same is true of the beginning of the Confederate War, "revolution" more aptly applies to it.)

Good points, jdw
Another point to consider regarding the cost of fuel, is its real price in the economy.

When I was in college in the late '60s, gas was uner 25 cents/gal at the pump. At the same time, milk was about 12 cents/qt, bread was a dime, a small house cost $8k, a big one $25k.

Now gas is ten times as much, and you know what? So are all those other things (with the exception Cal real estate, which is MUCH higher), some even more.

Hmmmm.....

Maybe that's called long-term inflation?




Load of crap, Monty
"Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means. "

A *serf* doesn't OWN the land he works. Any American after the War of Independence could go find a plot of land to call his own.

After the American Revolution failed, many in the Confederacy lost land that had been in their families since long before the War of Independence, and their lineage had not been "serfs" nor plantation owners.

(The War of Independence was not a "revolution" since the goal was never to unseat the standing gov't but to separate from it. While the same is true of the beginning of the Confederate War, "revolution" more aptly applies to it.)

Load of crap, Monty
"Even after the American Revolution, most Americans were essentially serfs, i.e. agricultural workers of extremely limited means. "

A *serf* doesn't OWN the land he works. Any American after the War of Independence could go find a plot of land to call his own.

After the American Revolution failed, many in the Confederacy lost land that had been in their families since long before the War of Independence, and their lineage had not been "serfs" nor plantation owners.

(The War of Independence was not a "revolution" since the goal was never to unseat the standing gov't but to separate from it. While the same is true of the beginning of the Confederate War, "revolution" more aptly applies to it.)

apologies
dunno why my message double-posted. Sorry for the spammage.

I'm against Ethanol
Because I won't be able to fill up my tank on Sunday!

Corrosive you say? Learn some chemistry
E85 and less (85% ethanol and the 10% stuff we use in the northeast is not corrosive. NOBODY uses straight 100% ethanol to power their cars because it will suck moisture out of the air.

In the plants we build, we use stainless when the composition is 92% ethanol or less; pure ethanol is piped in plain old carbon steel piping.

Just ask yourself, if it is so bad, how has Brazil managed E85 for at least 20 years?

sigh
That's why I said "essentially" serfs, and added a qualifying explanation. I know what a serf is.

Go back to your garage and work on your spaceship to Titan.

And BrianR, maybe I could take you seriously if you actually explained any of your conclusory statements.

Monty
Amazingly enough, I don't really care whether or not members of the tinfoil hat brigade takes me seriously.

BrianR
Well, it will be interesting to hear your reaction when things really do get choppy for the U.S. $20 says you blame it on liberals or muslims.

And again, it's funny that you just throw out another conclusory statement. Oooo. I'm a member of the tin-foil hat brigade! I suppose the Dept. of Energy is too? Oh wait, that's right, they're just a bunch of America hating bureaucrats.

I don't know where this phenomenon came from, that if you raise a question that is at all introspective of the United States, you're automatically branded a loon or a traitor. Like, what are we supposed to do, not question anything?

by the way
not that you care or agree, but this (willful ignorance) is partly why Americans increasingly think the Republicans are retarded. I mean, America plain disagrees. Unless Republicans are planning to cheat their way to the top, they had better get used to being in the minority.

Monty, dude, let me 'splain for you!
Riding horses? Serfdom?

Yep, that's tinfoil hat time.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Monty: This time you're right.
I don't care or agree.

Shale oil, Funny!
Alternative energy holds almost no potential for graft and the massive campaign donations given by big oil and it's thousands of offshoots. Not to mention the power given to the US, the worlds largest oil consumer over oil-rich and people-poor third world countries. When every gallon of crude has been pumped and used to grease every political hacks outstretched palm, then perhaps we might see a real effort to make meaningful energy reform. Maybe. If the enviro-socialists haven't already stranded us back in the 'dark' ages. (Will we become a daylight-only people and hide all a-shivering in our unheated peasant-like shacks after ole' man sun goes down?)
We here in America can't even get nuclear energy plants built. Imagine the self-righteous uproar over the potential pollution of producing shale oil.
Remember, it's not the facts that matter to the greenies, it's that terrific Kum-by-yaa feeling, whaaa.. hanky wring...snivel!

BrianR
Final question then: Why are you even here? Just to have an ideological circle-****?

Monty: Why I'm here?
At the moment, to have a great laugh at some particularly imaginative and ludicrous posts.

Unfortunately, yours took the cake.

Reply to Monty about Science
Monty said, "You just further discredit the conservative cause by reinforcing the idea that conservatives are hostile to science and objective reality (in this case, the reality that our cheap and easy oil supply is likely entering a new phase of relative scarcity)."

Where to start?

Conservatives are hostile to science? Please refresh my memory - Which political group is pushing Global Warming and saying that it is beyond discussion and that there is a scientific consensus that GW is fact? Answer - the Left. You do realize that any scientific theory or law is never beyond discussion and that trying to block scientific discourse on a scientific subject is actually being "hostile to science".

Reality about oil - Oil supplies are always diminishing as their is a finite supply. But as has been previously posted, there is enough oil shale to supply the US for 150-200 years, if not longer. The problem isn't with supply, it is with having the ability to get to that supply. Currently, a very small group of Enviro-Nazi's are keeping the US from getting to the supply of oil. That doesn't make oil a "relative scarcity", it just makes it difficult to get to due to a bunch of idiots!

You also show you hand by your obvious anti-religious statements. Just because a person believe in God doesn't make them less of a steward of our planet. I would argue that most Conservative Christians are much more likely to enjoy the outdoors and the wilderness in our country than city-folk liberals. So who do you think has a better understanding of "reality" regarding the environment?

Btw, I just owned your arguments to the Nth degree. You would be smart to shut-up and leave, but if you want to continue to prove to everybody just how ignorant you are, please keep posting.

Btw Monty...
Based on scientific facts, Global Warming caused by humans is total bunk. Don't believe me? Watch the following documentary and they try to argue otherwise:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&hl=en

Keep in mind that even if you could prove that carbon emissions caused Global Warming, humans are responsible for less than 10% of the emissions. Most are naturally occurring!

Communism's Useful Idiots

.....Monty ...you are right ...Technology is not energy ...but it develops sources of energy ...

.....A few salient points ...

1. ...the serfs you think we will all turn into were a part of the feudal system that existed in Europe before the Industrial Revolution ...The Industrial Revolution freed the serfs from their bondage ...and what made the Industrial Revolution possible? ...why it was technology ...

2. ...the idea that oil is finite and that we are running out is disputed by some scientists ...read Thomas Gold's "The Deep Hot Biosphere ...in the '70s when Jimmy Carter was telling us to turn down the thermostat ...the scientific community believed that all the existing oil reserves in the world had already been discovered ...today we have three times that amount ...

3. ...The Oil Shale extraction method developed by Shell is non-intrusive and non-polluting ...it is not necessary to destroy your beautiful pristine mountains to recover it ...do some research before pontificating on subjects about which you know nothing ...

4. ...If you had any class you would have pointed out that my statement was not accurate but instead you called me a liar ...I am not offended because I know that postmodern Liberals such as yourself have no class or concept of ethics ...everything is relative ...right dude? ...

.....I am afraid that you are too dense to even understand the source of the ideology you blindly follow ...you are one of Communism's "Useful Idiots" .....COLOSSUS

Hey Jander
Bwahahahaha!

"Btw, I just owned your arguments to the Nth degree. You would be smart to shut-up and leave, but if you want to continue to prove to everybody just how ignorant you are, please keep posting."

Bwaahahahaha! (Again.)

You say:

"Conservatives are hostile to science? Please refresh my memory - Which political group is pushing Global Warming and saying that it is beyond discussion and that there is a scientific consensus that GW is fact? Answer - the Left. You do realize that any scientific theory or law is never beyond discussion and that trying to block scientific discourse on a scientific subject is actually being "hostile to science"."

Unfortunately, I'm not talking about global warming (this also responds to your follow up post). Regardless, I'm not trying to block scientific discourse. It's just that few here actually seek to engage in anything related to discourse or science. Saying things about limitless oil fields or generous petrochemicals on Titan doesn't really engage the issue of imminent conventional crude oil supply disruptions. Please, if you want to talk science, lets. Which brings me to:

"But as has been previously posted, there is enough oil shale to supply the US for 150-200 years, if not longer."

There is absolutely no foundation for this statement. First, what is the demand growth assumption? What is the rate of production? Just because there may be some total amount doesn't mean that it can be produced at a rate that will satisfy demand of 25-30 million barrels per day.

"The problem isn't with supply, it is with having the ability to get to that supply. Currently, a very small group of Enviro-Nazi's are keeping the US from getting to the supply of oil."

You also have no foundation for this. Sure, some environmentalists are opposed. But it's more problematic than that. It takes so much energy and resources to produce any oil from the oil shale that it doesn't appear that it will every be produced in an economical way. Sure, it can be produced, but at what cost. You think most Americans can afford $100 or $200 a barrel? Nobody has been able to demonstrate large scale of production at low cost. I'm not saying it's not there...I'm saying it doesn't replace cheap and easy crude that we've come to depend on. Suburban Atlanta or Houston can't readily live on $5 per gallon (or more) gasoline. But we could have that tomorrow if Saudi Arabia collapsed or we attacked Iran. That's not the mark of a wise people.

You also say:

"You also show you hand by your obvious anti-religious statements. Just because a person believe in God doesn't make them less of a steward of our planet. I would argue that most Conservative Christians are much more likely to enjoy the outdoors and the wilderness in our country than city-folk liberals. So who do you think has a better understanding of "reality" regarding the environment?"

Based on the conservative Christians who get any press, I'd have to say that my goldfish can understand reality better.


Jander, Monty has spoken
So go find a good horse, and someone to whom you wouldn't mind being a serf, and get ready for the collapse of civilization.

So What Can Anyone/Group Do About This
Nuclear, Oil Shale, Wind Power, Increased use of known available sources like the Alaskan Oil Fields, off-shore drilling, etc.---everyone of these sounds feasible if we get Government and the environmentalists off the private sector's back and let free enterprise do the job. Wake up American citizenry, tell Hollywood, Gore, and the ludicrous Democrat and Republican liberals to shut up before we collapse economically and become a third-world nation because the majority of our citizens can't afford to drive, heat their homes, or afford the standard of living their parents had---not to mention the threat of the Jihadists and minions that are bleeding the pocketbooks of the average American. I fear we are mighty late in the game to be waking up to what the liberals have done to us AND are still doing to us. Oil controls nations and food controls people. The cost of both are rising exponentially. Who is to blame? We must stop it! But where do we start? Is there any politician who dares stand up to the Oil Industry, to the liberal press, to the horrendous situation we now face? Perhaps Mitt Romney who seemed to have a knack for solving overwhelming problems and turning them around? I don't know if its possible but I kow this, unless something is done by a LARGE number of people combined in a sensible manner, our nation is in for serious trouble.

Hydrogen
Hydrogen is the real answer to the problem, however in my opion not the "holy grail" fuel cell option but buring hydrogen like propane or gasoline .AHH the cost of producing hydrogen is too high....hmm perhaps a few nuclear powerplants by the ocean to pull it from the sea. Safety hmmm hydrogen is lighter than air so if a tank was to rupture it would go up, as opposed to gasoline which is also inflammable, when a tank of gas rupures it pours onto the ground under and around the passenger compartment. We also have coal probably a 250 year supply of it here in the US,because of advancements in coal gasification it to could be used as an alternative for oil.
The green socialist do not want alternative energy they want a return to medieval lifestyles as evidenced by Montys serf arguement. Ww as anation do need to ween ourselves off of oil but not only for the sake of the enviroment but to send those who profit from our dependence and hate us back to the dark ages of a caliphate or pre columbian tribal society in the case of Venezula.but I digress

Re oil shale
As I understand the process, it requires a large amount of water to refine oil shale. Since the oil shale is located in the arid west, that presents a problem.

My first exposure to oil shale came in the early 50s when my mother, an attorney, was working with the majors to lease shale bearing land in Western Colorado. It was supposed to be a bonanza, but it never got off the ground.

your whole premise is in error
1. It does not cost more energy to produce ethanol than it makes. It is just not very efficent. On the micro scale it is more effecient than on the macro levels.
2. Most people are looking to supplement oil not replace it.
3. Corn is not currently a very good source because it is starchy and enzymes have difficult time breaking it down. There are other sources of sugar besides corn.
4. In the argument you talk about oil shale as being practical. Your reason is technology has and can improve. I wonder if you think that can happen with ethanol. Maybe develop better enzymes? It allways bothers me when when people write columns about things they know nothing about. It seems a extreemly worth while invesment to research and deveop rich sugar producing crops, ezymes capable of breaking down complex starches, yeast tollerant to high concentrations of alcohol, and methods to improve yeild.

Oil isn't the problem
The 150-200 years of oil in oil shale is just what is in Utah and 70% of the state is government owned land and should be mostly available for lease. However, as pointed out, the "greenies" have a fit when we talk about becoming independent of foreign oil because our deficit spending is helping lead us further into "one world government" and socialism on a world wide basis.

Canada is harvesting millions of barrels of oil from their oil sands (little different bonding than in oil shales). We have the ability but not the will.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.