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
Monday, July 28, 2008
Phil Harris :: Townhall.com Columnist
Alternative Energy, Alternative Doomsday
by Phil Harris
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?


If you live under the false premise that doomsday will never come, some basic laws of nature (concerning energy) may be appropriate for you to note. Roughly speaking, since I am no physicist and neither are most of you, Entropy is the tendency of a system to move from a higher state of potential energy to a lower state. It measures the "unavailability" of a system's energy to do work. Anything (energy-wise) that is useful must move to a higher state of Entropy, or it is useless to us.

My high school physics teacher used the example of an object placed on a desk. Potential energy was stored, because it was raised up in resistance to gravity. Gravity wants to return the object to the ground, and if the object is allowed to fall, the object's Entropy has increased. On the ground, it has a high level of Entropy, because the availability of the object's energy to do work no longer exists.

Conservation of Energy, not to be confused with blind draconian howls for energy conservation, is the idea that energy is not created nor is it destroyed. Instead, energy always flows from one system to the other.

The driving force in the Universe is that energy is always seeking the highest level of Entropy, or the state in which energy has the least potential to do work. If the Universe or closer to home, our planet ever were to reach that final highest level of Entropy, then that is the end. The Universe and the Earth will be dark, cold, and utterly dead.

When we consume fossil fuels, stored potential energy does work for us in useful ways. That work drives pistons in our engines. It also boils water to steam that spins turbines, which then drive electrical generators.

There are always consequences to "consuming" energy. When energy does work, things change and what existed before now exists in different forms. Remember, when we consume potential energy, that energy is moved to a higher state of Entropy. Things are always on the move… downhill.

Alternative energy sources are not without consequences either. Just apply some of this basic understanding of energy, and how it is that energy is useful to us, and you can begin to suspect that within the panacea, there may be dangers that are not apparent.

Solar energy panels are used to collect the sun's energy, converting it directly to electricity. That sounds terrific, but there are some things to consider. These panels are dark surfaces, which will capture the heat of the sunlight. Much of that light would have been reflected back into space, but now it has been converted to heat and will remain a part of our planet. Did you know that the photovoltaic panels are not sliced from silicon trees?

No, although silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust, it must be refined like anything else before it is useful. Silicon is extracted by heating sand along with coke (same as steel) in electric furnaces, which of course requires a lot of energy.

Wind turbines are good ideas, but no one wants to live in a world where you cannot see the forest, because a thicket of giant wind turbines surround us. Just ask John Kerrey and Ted Kennedy about this point. No doubt, they will have little objection as long as lower-classes of people, like you and me, are left to deal with it.

What will be the effect of interfering with the winds that naturally sweep across the landscape? Of course, there are those unfortunate birds and bats, whacked out of the sky by the whirling blades. Is that a concern?

Geothermal energy seems like a good idea, but I suspect there will be a piper to pay if this technology spread across the globe. Remember, how energy is always on the move, from stored potential energy to a higher state of Entropy. We enjoy life on this planet in large part due to the Earth's magnetic field. This magnetic field is generated because the Earth has iron in a liquid or semi-liquid core.

The mushy insides of our planet circulate due to this non-solid state, and that liquidity depends on stored energy (heat) that exists under the surface. If we tap that heat on a planet-wide scale, there will be a transfer of heat to the surface and ultimately away from the core. Mars is said to have cooled, and no longer has a liquid core. Mars does not have the magnetic fields as we do, that protect the surface from the ravages of solar radiation.

Mankind cannot and simply will not exist without converting potential energy one way or the other, and doing so inevitably leads the world to a higher level of Entropy, and ultimately to our doom. I dare say that the planet cannot help but change, mostly due to the tendency of all systems to reach a higher state of Entropy.

Man is a part of the equation, and due to the laws of nature, the end result will be the same no matter what we do. In terms of alternative energy, just as the grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence, once we leap over the fence we may find that it isn't necessarily so.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Phil Harris is a software engineer, author of Cry for the Shadows and blogs at Citizen Phil.

Be the first to read Phil Harris' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Conventional methods energy shut off
All new discoveries of conventional production of energy (oil, nuclear) is being shut off by the United States congress and president.

The next crisis to come is the restriction of food since the Americans are reducing their production as the "Bread Basket" country of the world. The trade deals such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are to engineer less production and to make Americans dependent on the imporation of manufactured and foold products from the world.

The globalist want to use food as a "WEAPON" on the United States citizens by using alternate energy methods such as sugar, corn, and turn it into ethonal. This reduced food supply and is part of an incremental plan to cut off food supply to the United States. More blueprints are being engineered by the global leaders that want to consolidte natural resources/energy for their own benefit and leave Americans desperate and starving into a modern global feudal system.

....


A partially right analysis
Phil,

you are right to point out that all forms of energy ultimately come from entropy and that any form of energy has its particular issues. You are right that solar has, at least in the past, had such a huge extraction and manufacturing "footprint" that it was not the advance we would like it to be. That may be changing. Wind does kill some birds and obscure some views, but in many other ways it makes a great deal of sense. Nuclear makes quite a bit of sense even though it does have the disposal issue. There are forms of biofuels that make a lot of sense.

The real question is which forms of energy have more acceptable outcomes and issues than others. In addition to the environmental side, Oil has some international politics and economics issues that are truly problematic.

Interestingly, it was a Saudi oil minister once said, "they didn't end the stone age because they ran out of stones." The same will be true of the "oil age."

You are right to say that there are no perfect solutions. That does not mean we shouldn't be looking.

More importantly

The idea that we shouldn't be using the current mode energy resources while we seek out methods of improvement -- either through new technologies, alternate sources, or new efficiencies -- simply doesn't make any sense.

The idea that we should stop drilling for oil while we look for these improvements is nonsensical.

A medical analogy: Your doctor tells you that you have a cancer, and the only treatment available right now is chemotherapy.

You tell the doctor that you don't like the side effects, so you've decided to wait for a new cure to be discovered.

The end result: one dead patient.

All that by the Author
Bravo! Philosphically.
However, indubitably, on the contrary, not so.
The laws of Physics and Thermodynamics will always prevail.
Nick Panchev

New, MUCH cheaper and better solar
The company Nanosolar is just now starting to mass-produce solar panels made of materials other than silicon. Their manufacturing cost is probably less than a tenth the cost of other solar panels. The energy required to produce the panels is repaid with 3 months of the panels' production.

Sure, they are black and so absorb more heat in the daytime. But they also will radiate more heat back to space at night, and their wide use will mean there is less CO2 to block that cooling radiation at night.

Watch for solar energy to become a major source of electricity within five years. Worldwide production will be $30 billion in panel sales this year, and it's nearly doubling every year. Nanosolar's entry to the market will mean it doubles even faster than that.

We have five billion years before we have to worry that the sun's entropy is too high to support us, so maybe we should worry abbout more pressing issues.

entropy
"Anything (energy-wise) that is useful must move to a higher state of Entropy, or it is useless to us. "

Not true. Consider a ton of water above Niagara falls. Indeed if it falls over the precipice into the basin below its gravitational potential energy is converted into heat, and its entropy increases and it has done no useful work. On the other hand let it fall through a well built hydraulic turbine generating power for home and industry, and its entropy only increases slightly since the turbines are not quite 100% efficient.

entropy
"Anything (energy-wise) that is useful must move to a higher state of Entropy, or it is useless to us. "

Not true. Consider a ton of water above Niagara falls. Indeed if it falls over the precipice into the basin below its gravitational potential energy is converted into heat, and its entropy increases and it has done no useful work. On the other hand let it fall through a well built hydraulic turbine generating power for home and industry, and its entropy only increases slightly since the turbines are not quite 100% efficient.

bird and bat bloodbath
This is just about the dumbest article on the subject I have ever seen. It almost comes across as satire. I laughed out loud at the dear little birds and bats "whacked out of the sky" by those terrible whirling blades. I mean, here I am forking over $100.00 for a tank of gas and Mr. Harris expects me to shed a tear for bats?!?!

what you are not makes a difference
if you feel that you must apologize in your first paragraph for not having the knowledge to write the reat of the column why do youfeel you have to waste our time and yours by pretending that you either are what you say you are not ( a physisit) or that you will pretend to know as much as they do. im reminded of these threads and the columns written in the days immediatedly following the announcement that the polar bear was being considerd as a protected species. every right wing nut columnist and the threaders that followed them felt compelled to write about their expertise on polar bears and surprisingly enough their lack of scientific knowledge diid not in any way prevent them from spewing their illiterate nonsense. please be quiet and let those who know what they are talking about use the space and time you are wasting. because some editor gave you his permission to use part of his alloted space in some publication does not make anybody anything, not even a very good columnist or a threader.

I am a trained physicist,
apparently unlike the collumnist here so I can give a professional opinion: This article is complete and total unadulterated nonsense. Here is the real situation in a nutshell: Basically as our technology grows so does our ability to alter our environment to better suit our needs. We are not unique in the animal kingdom in this respect. Sometimes doing this has unintended consequences: we damage things around us and create garbage, which when it is in liquid or gasseous form is also known as pollution. We can use our technology to try to fix the things we damaged and control the polluting, but success in this venture is not total. There are tradeoffs in everything, but, and here is where the collumn here becomes total nonsense, some human activity is more destructive than others. There are ways to still warp the environment to suit our needs without destroying as much of it but they cost time and resources (a.k.a. money) . Is it worth it? Well that is an open question that we are all entitled to our opinion on, but we are not entitled to our own facts. The environlental effects mentioned by the author concerning wind and solar and geothermal power, with the exception of danger to migrating birds by wind, that I concede is real, are completely negligible. The effect of use of fossil fuels is not. This is a fact that we can not escape from.

tahssard
RE: "This article is complete and total unadulterated nonsense."

My gut told me he was wrong. Thanks for confirming it.

energy
You're right. You are definitely not a physicist

Population Growth and Energy Needs
Mankind's steadfast refusal to address the problem of overpopulation will have increasingly dreadful consequences.

Like it or not, as humankind approaches Soylent Green it will become unavoidably necessary to depend on nuclear fission to meet human energy needs.

Google: population clocks

tgsam

Birds and Bats
Chris, it is those same environmentalists who have created the artificial energy shortages that will only increase, regardless of how many windmills are built.

These same environmentalists previously shed tears over the proven fact that windmills slaughter huge numbers of flying creatures. But they have to be against something else, so they are against the production of oil (but only if it in the US), coal produced electricity but only if they are built in the US (China and India are each putting on line a coal fired power facility every week), nuclear generating plants even though they are very old and well-proven designs and even though they are being built all over the world (except in the US).

No one has yet answered the problems of solar energy in that it cannot be stored. What do you do when it's 20 degrees below zero at night, and the wind is calm? Why, you fire up the fossil fuel plants. Only one problem--it takes nearly a day to bring their boilers up to a temperature where they can efficiently produce electricity.

No problem. Just close down the manufacturing plants and office buildings when there is no wind! But then, who is to pay for the loss in productivity? Make a law requiring companies to pay employees when energy shortages prevent them from working.

Then complain like crazy when jobs flee to China and India.

By the way, T. Boone Pickens isn't for wind turbines because they work. He is for them because he expects to make big money off them, since he can't economically drill for oil anymore. He is paying $58 million to convince you his plan will work (for him, at least) He could care less about birds and bats.

Plastic
With all our talk about alternative energies has anyone ever stopped to think about the other effects? For instance, Oil and Natural Gas are the major raw materials used in the manufacture of plastics. Try doing without plastic these days.

Oil is a vital necessity for transportation. Wind farms, geothermal sources will not move a vehicle. Solar panels may if designed to a much more efficient scale, but that's many years in the future.

Our energy needs require ALL sources,

tahssard 7:15 AM EST
'The effect of use of fossil fuels is not. This is a fact that we can not escape from.'

What effect are you talking about? The emission of CO2? CO2 is the currency of living things like plants and animals. We must have it to live.

Mercury and Sulfur in coal can be captured in clean coal systems.

It is more cost effective to use coal to generate electricity than to use photovoltaic arrays that have a 10-15% efficiency of conversion.

Wind generators cost a lot of money and it sounds like, without governmental monetary support, many if not most would not be built. Plus, when wind turbines are proposed in a given area they demand consideration from the local tax authority.

For the near future, 30 years, we need to use coal and oil to power our homes and businesses. During that time we should pursue advanced applications of physics that change the way we think of generating energy and how efficiently we use our energy. There is reason to believe that the energy we need is available if we set aside the current paradigm of energy. Follow this link for more information. http://www.cheniere.org/

I am waiting....
... for my wind or solar powered hybrid to be released. 0 to 15 mph in 36 minutes.

The topic brought back memories of the
tongue-in-cheek discussion from thermodynamics classes when I was in college 40 years ago. "The world is filling up with entropy!"

The point is, and I think well made, that ALL forms of energy generation have side effects and consequenses. Right now we see the bad consequences of fossil energy only, but in time as we develop the alternative sources, their disadvantages and unintended consequences will become more and more obvious and significant. Whether these will be more benign or worse than fossil's impact is not yet clear.

We had a little taste of that with the ethanol/corn shortage- price increase situation. More are yet to come.


THAT DOES IT

.....We are all doomed ...Mother Earth is going to be swallowed by our Sun in about 4 billion years ...

.....I'm not going to wait ...I have placed my order for a cup of hemlock with the doomsday society .....COLOSSUS

FROM GOOD TO BAD TO WORSE

.....The bottom line is this ...Oil, Natural Gas and Coal, of which we have plenty, deliver the most efficient energy ...yet our government, through law, regulation and fiat are trying to force us to convert to more expensive and inefficient forms of fuel to satisfy an ideological agenda of Green Eco-Nuts ...

.....China and Russia must be laughing themselves silly at those crazy Americans who are self-destructing and starving themselves to death while in the lap of luxury .....COLOSSUS

ENTROPY OF THE BRAIN

.....MR. HARRIS ....

.....I fear you have become afflicted with the same malady that many of our politicians seem to have ...maximum entropy of the brain .....COLOSSUS

DEFY!!!
Defy the congressturds. The US cannot stop china (and/or whoever) from drilling outside our territorial limits. So....neither can they stop Exxon, Shell et al from drilling either. Drill anywhere you want outside our limits. Also, DEFY Pukelosi and deadman Reid and start building a pipeline towards ANWR. LIBERAL are defying us....its our turn. The HE!! with them.just start DOING what is right.

Hybrid fire.
Saw a newscast this morning. A Hybrid vehicle started burning when plugged in for recharging and burned the house down where it was plugged in. Yea I know regular vehicles start fires also. But, this is an example of how we have a ways to go with these alternatives.

What's Up Baseball Doc?
Why all the hate on the author? He seems to support your view doesn't he? He isn't saying that Oil or Coal are bad... just that nothing is going to be perfect and without consequences. He is saying nothing about stopping our use of oil, and he really isn't saying that we should not use alternative energy as well. Just that whatever we do, comes with the good and the bad.

Tahssard's &:15 am comments.
These are encouraging, and, it seems to me, illustrate a point. In Proverbs 28: 2b, it is written: "By a man (or men) of understanding and knowledge shall the state be prolonged." Throughout history, we note the rise and fall of many nations, empires, kingdoms, etc. One can look at these and trace their demises to the foolishnesses of their leadership. Nevertheless, the admonition of the Scripture remains:"...all the paths of wisdom are peace" (Prov.3:17b).That this scripture has long been ignored is one of the fundamental reasons that history is littered with strife. Our challenge today is to ignore the blatherings of those who worship the creation, rather than The Creator; and, instead take heed to genuinely wise counsel. We cannot allow The Economically Stupid (read: the Left) to carry the day in our decision making. Look what they did to Russia, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, etc. I believe it was GK Chesterton who said once, "If people don't believe in God, they'll believe anything." And the Left is notorious for this.Thus we see the abject stupidity of the Democratic Party's congressional leadership,who would rather have the people suffer extraordinary high energy prices, rather than allow conventional energy sources to help meet our needs while we search for the proper mix of other sources.I believe it is high time that we simply call for their resignations. Why? Because fundamentally, they have made themselves stupid, and they are trying to drag us down with them.

Here we go again, MastersOfAllWeSurvey!
Forget the science.
Forget the energy source.
What makes anyone think that humanity can have such dramatic impacts on nature? This whole CO2 thing is bogus (OK, VASTLY EXAGGERATED)--and now we wail over what other sources of energy could do? ...down to and including cooling the earth's core?

Give me a break.

Humanity needs energy--all forms. Just go get it.

We have plenty?
>The bottom line is this ...Oil, Natural Gas and Coal, of which we have plenty, deliver the most efficient energy ...<

We have plenty of oil? That must be why we have to go to the remote parts of the Arctic and drill miles off shore to produce what remains of a rapidly disappearing resource. And these sources are extremely expensive to drill and get product to market. The age of easy oil is over.
While natural gas and coal are more accesible and less expensive to extract, these too are finite resources, something that must be considered given that the earth's population has doubled in my lifetime and projects to do the same in my childrens'. Given that 100 years ago the Wright Brothers had barely flown a few hundred feet and the automobile was in its infancy, it's time to consider the world 100 years from now instead of lying that there's plenty of oil.


Let's Try Capitalism...

Let Capitalists Capitalize. Let oil companies find oil, auto companies find a better power-train, solar panel makers find a cheaper way, etc.

Example: http://www.freewatt.com/

Or, we can can follow the North Korean (Democrat) system and have electricity 2 hours a day to cook the leaves we scavenged.


NO HATE!

.....YELLOW GUY ...

.....No hate! ...just poking a little fun at the author for belaboring the obvious ...

.....Of course there are consequences with everything we do ...we have to weigh the good against the bad ...it just seems that our government has sold us out to the Left Wing and Eco-Nut Radicals without considering the unintended consequences that are harmful to a majority of the country while benefitting small elite groups ...

.....For instance the Ethanol Boondoggle ...I wrote articles several years ago pointing out all the negative aspects associated with this scam ...but to no avail ...our heroic politicians in Washington stood up against the public interest and sold us out to Agri-business and the farm voting bloc .....COLOSSUS

EVERYTHING IS FINITE

.....PANCHO ...

.....I don't think I am lying when I say we have plenty of oil reserves ...at least relative to the rest of the World ...

.....Sure it is a finite resource ...life is finite...so is planet Earth ...we has enough fossil fuel reserves to supply our needs for the next 300 years ...while we are using what is available to us, new technologies will be developed that will eventually replace fossil fuel as a prime source ...

.....The Earth will be swallowed up by our Sun in about 4 billion years ...am I supposed to worry about that now? ...we will run out of fossil fuels in about 300 years ...am I supposed to stop using them now? .....COLOSSUS

Says who?
>...we has enough fossil fuel reserves to supply our needs for the next 300 years ...<

That prediction is totally false and irresponsible. Nobody is asking you to stop using fossil fuels now, but your theory of 300 year supply of fossil fuels only promotes a continued philosophy of gluttonous consumption.

New technologies are being developed and should be embraced now, especially by conservatives who should be leading the way in this endeavor.


OK, not lying
>.....I don't think I am lying when I say we have plenty of oil reserves ...at least relative to the rest of the World ...<

Just misinformed. You are confusing reserves with resources for one thing. And resources are wildly exxagerated in this day and age. For instance, some claim there are 1.5-2 trillion barrels of oil in shale in the Green River formation, a claim that is repeated over and over by the "there's plenty of oil" crowd.

Misinformed ModMark
ModMark wrote: "The Jack-2 oil find was one of those "we have plenty of oil" stories when discovered.

Yep, could have 3 billion barrels deep in the Gulf. But at what cost? Just for the well it may cost $400 million.

The folks at Shell are moving slowly on this project."

As usual, what comes out of ModMark is utter crap. Major oil companies ROUTINELY pay that sort of money to develop wells, and more, and the numbers tell us why. At a mere $60/bbl (that's half the current price), 3 billion barrels grosses $180 BILLION dollars in revenue. Yes, there are costs along the way, risks, salaries, shipping; and yes, it takes 20-40 years to realize that revenue; but can you name a company that has that kind of money that would not invest $400 million to gross $180 BILLION? I can't. And neither can ModMark.

Chevron, at this very moment, has more than 30 drilling projects underway that each are costing the company in excess of $1 BILLION to develop -- and they're doing it gladly. That's what they're spending those "obscene profits" on, folks -- finding more oil.

ModMark just a shill for the anti-capitalist Left. They only tell the truth when it's convenient. I guess today it wasn't convenient.

Another Luddite Leftist
Pancho writes defamatory nonsense:

"That prediction is totally false and irresponsible. Nobody is asking you to stop using fossil fuels now, but your theory of 300 year supply of fossil fuels only promotes a continued philosophy of gluttonous consumption.

New technologies are being developed and should be embraced now, especially by conservatives who should be leading the way in this endeavor."

1) The claim is not false, it's true. There's LOTS of fossil fuel resources on the planet. We're not within centuries of running out.

2) The motive for continuing to use those fossil fuels is not "gluttony," it's "common sense." We use the sources that are most plentiful, most readily available, provide the most effective yield per dollar, per ton, and per unit of labor.

3) Alternatives ARE being developed, and WILL be embraced -- as soon as they've developed to the point where they make economic sense. They've not been embraced yet because they don't make economic sense yet -- and the proof of this is the wholehearted effort by the left to make the price of fossil fuels artificially high in order to FORCE consumers to make other choices. They have to do it because, even today, fossil fuels are cheaper than the alternatives.

This is all about political control, folks. Pancho and his buddies want it, so they'll frighten you if they can into giving it to them. That's why they won't allow you to consider the economic facts sensibly.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Click on my nickname and follow the links on my townhall blog. Thanks.)

Not really
>That's what they're spending those "obscene profits" on, folks -- finding more oil.<

The huge majority of profits are retuned to the stockholders via dividends, which isn't a bad thing, and certainly better than the government getting more.


Pancho the Liar
Pancho is joining the ranks of the utterly disingenuous here. He wrote:

"We have plenty of oil? That must be why we have to go to the remote parts of the Arctic and drill miles off shore to produce what remains of a rapidly disappearing resource..."

No, you lying sack, we have to go to the remote parts of the arctic because that's where the oil is located, not because it's "rapidly disappearing." Do you even have a CLUE how much of the earth's surface has never been explored for oil?

Guys like Pancho think Economics is that class in high school where the girls learned to cook. Economics tell us that when the price of oil exceeds that of the alternatives, then people will start using the alternatives all on their own. They won't need Pancho to tell them the right time to switch; they're actually smart enough to know.

But that's not good enough for the Panchos of the world, no. They can't stand a world in which people can do the right thing without All-Knowing Pancho to tell them when to change. So, he lies like a carpet in the hopes that all the foolish people, whom He knows are not nearly as intelligent as He, will give Him political power to make their lives work right. All Hail the Omniscient Pancho!

The US has plenty of oil, and everybody knows it. That's why the price of oil dropped $20 just because President Bush said he was going to release offshore leases for drilling in the US -- because oilmen all over the world know how much oil there is here. The shortage is artificial, created by the most devious, most cynical, and most dishonest oil speculators in history: the Democrats in the US Congress.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Click on my nickname and follow the links on my townhall blog. Thanks.)

Fossil fuels
) The claim is not false, it's true. There's LOTS of fossil fuel resources on the planet. We're not within centuries of running out.

The subject is crude oil. I don't know if you're using other forms(natural gas, coal - not a fossil fuel) in your equations, but your claims are unsupportable, especially in lieu of the fact that there is no way to predict what type of growth will drive demand. Did the fact that the world's population doubled in my lifetime escape you, or is it something you just decided to ignore. As for my buddies, I speak only for myself, but nice to see you abandon the conservative principle of rugged individidualism. How many other conservative principles do you so readily abandon?


Kool aid
>and the proof of this is the wholehearted effort by the left to make the price of fossil fuels artificially high in order to FORCE consumers to make other choices<

Complete and utter nonsense

More ModMark Crap
"Yep, the field could initially bring in 6,000 barrels/day. It is Chevron decision to move slowly on this project, not the lefties.."

And if they HAVE made that decision, it's because in a comparison between that project and some others, they've decided the return on the others is better, with less risk or less trouble. This is not, in any way, an indication that oil is vanishing as a resource -- which is the (utterly false) point you were trying to make.

You're a liar. Wiggle any way you like, you're on here to mislead people into thinking oil is scarce. It isn't. You know it. You're a liar.

State your sources
>This is not, in any way, an indication that oil is vanishing as a resource -- which is the (utterly false) point you were trying to make.<

Please list all the major sources of oil discovered within the past couple decades.

The only new discoveries are hard to get to and hard to get to market. So, put your money where your mouth is.

Pancho the Liar
What a moral sewer this guy is!!

He wants to trade statistics over fossil fuel reserves, completely ignoring the central point -- which is that simple rules of supply and demand will tell us when the oil on the planet is scarce enough to make alternative fuel sources viable. And of course, he's minimizing the efforts that have been underway for DECADES to produce alternatives -- some of them by oil companies, who, contrary to the left's jaundiced conspiracy theories, are not blind, and have no motive to lock anyone into resources that are increasingly scarce.

The switch to alternatives will take place smoothly, without government forcing, as soon as it makes economic sense. However, the Panchos are after political control, so they can't let that happen; so they insist we need government force, which gives them more power. Convenient.

Then he demonstrates how irrational he is with a mindless Straw Man, asserting that somehow, my associating him with the leftist loons he sounds like constitutes a denial of some imagined conservative principle. Pancho, me lad, you wouldn't know a principle if one bit your weiner off, so you should refrain from your concern over my principles and stick to the argument.

Environmentalists are Church Ladies dressed in green, and make no sense at all.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Click on my nickname and follow the links on my townhall blog. Thanks.)

ModMark resorts to taunting like a bully
Wow, the intellectual power of these "greens" is just overwhelming this afternoon.

ModMark is trying to make the point here that oil is scarce. He's been trying all morning.

I called him on it, pointing out that the costs he claims are outlandish are actually routine for drilling projects, and that oil companies' sensible economic choices don't in any way prove that oil is short.

How does he defend himself? by calling me infantile names, and saying "My my, did you morning talk with Jesus go badly today?"

He can't even admit what he was trying to do , and he can't defend it. All he can do is revert to the infantile bully that he, like all leftists, truly is on the inside.

You've lost, ModMark. You don't get to mislead anybody today. Go home and lick your wounds.

You're the liar
>However, the Panchos are after political control, so they can't let that happen; so they insist we need government force, which gives them more power.<

You're the one making this political. I'm concerned with facts, not your obsessive spewing of ideology.
Nowhere did I even suggest the government become involved in any way, or even bring up the subject. You're completely nuts.

Non sequitur fallacy
Pancho scrabbles to reverse the burden of proof with a clear non sequitur:

">This is not, in any way, an indication that oil is vanishing as a resource -- which is the (utterly false) point you were trying to make.<

Please list all the major sources of oil discovered within the past couple decades."

I could, but I won't. Pancho here, along with Modmark, was attempting to prove that oil is short. I simply explained why his reasoning was faulty. So, since he can't defend his faulty argument, he pretends like it's ME who's made an assertion that can't be supported.

Sorry, Pancho, me lad. You and ModMark asserted that oil supplies are dwindling. He who asserts, must prove. Your arguments to prove it are the stuff of mindless loons and ill-prepared high school debaters.

When the shortage of oil is bad enough to justify switching, the price of oil will tell us so -- without any help from Congress. Refute it, or go home and lick your wounds.

Hey Tinsley
Population Clock. Old Story!
First in 1960 we had Population Explosion, then in the 70's we had Global Cooling, then in the 80's we had the ozone depletion, now we have Global Warming.

Shouldn't we all be dead by now?

At some point, don't you think the credibility of Science, Scientist and the news media should come under better scrutiny.
All of these are Eco-Socialist frauds. All have been proven false. Much of the developed world is depopulating.

1. Population Explosion - Fraud
2. Global Cooling - Fraud
3. Ozone Depletion - Fraud
4. Anthropogenic Global Warming - Fraud

Science and Social Policy do not mix.

Who is John Galt?

Don't even try, you lying hound
Leftists routinely deny what they intend. Pancho's trying to pretend he's completely a free market guy -- even while denying the efficacy of the free market to act.

Pancho now: "Nowhere did I even suggest the government become involved in any way, or even bring up the subject. You're completely nuts. "

Pancho before I called him on his unthinking crap: "There are alternatives, and we should embrace them."

Who's "we" in that sentence, Pancho? You're going to tell me government activism isn't implied in "we?"

Dishonest to the core of your being, like every leftist. You're contemptible. And, you're wrong.

The sound of defeat
>I could, but I won't<

You won't because you've backed yourself into a corner and have no ammo.

You're rather pathetic.

My idea of a debate
ModMark asks:

"Is this your idea of a debate, using term such as "What a moral sewer this guy is!!""

Yes, actually, when A) he IS a moral sewer, and B) I follow that comment with a correct argument.

Got a problem with that? Go find some Down's Syndrome kid to argue with, so you can always win.

No physicist

For someone that isn't a physicist, that was an excellent description, not to mention an excellent analysis of the potential dangers of some of these alternate forms of energy. Nothing comes without a price !!

inkling revival
"Environmentalists are Church Ladies dressed in green, and make no sense at all."


True. But much more dangerous than the church ladies. Envirofascists are neurotic. They live in a fantasy world where they are the only ones worthy of existence on this beautiful planet. Read John Muir. This crackpot disliked people. Not himself just other people who might spoil his own personal panorama. Wackos I am telling you.

re: ModMark
You're quite correct the goal should be to get off fossil fuels. The problem is that there isn't a decent alternative quite yet. Hydrogen fuel cell technology looks interesting and viable. I'm interested in the test going on with the Honda right now in LA, CA. I'm also looking at the strides we've made in the past couple of years with respect to batteries.

This issue with both of these things is that governmental intervention won't help us one bit other than to fund research. Mandating discovery is like ordering the tides back both are futile and make the person look foolish. The market will dive the coast of energy up to the point where it'll be in somebody's best interest to develop and market such a product.

If you look at
the windmills in these wind farms, you will see that they are going very slowly. If that bird cannot avoid that blade, it is probably about to die from natural causes anyway.

Desert Lizard, et al: CO2 is not pollution. We exhale it so plants can inhale it, followed by the exhaling of oxygen by plants, so we can inhale that oxygen.

Pickens says that his wind farm produces 800 megawatts (the amount of 2-1/2 nuclear plants).
I used to design nuclear power plants, and they produced 840 MW to 1000 MW each. They took up maybe 4 acres of space for that 1000 MW of power. Pickens's windmills take up an acre for each to produce a lot less power. How much area will a solar energy farm take up to produce 1000 MW?

I also worked on the Kilngas Coal Gas Gasification Plant, where coal was turned into a gas and the sulfur removed and used.

Deacon #17: If government had not taken half the operating capitol of every business and industry every year since WWII, we would have all these things in operation, without any governmental interference.


long term supply
The publicly traded company that I work for has to file annual statements of reserves. We do not list anything as a reserve unless we have clear license to mine, confidence in the long-term price, a sufficient density of drilling to prove (to the licensing body, sufficiently for how complex the geology is in the local area) that our interpretation of the geology must be correct. If the use of land isn't there (ANWR, offshore) then it is not a reserve, it is a theoretical resource. Long term prices would be less than 1/2 of the current levels: we don't expect the gravy train to go on forever.

Within the resource classification there are different terms that can be used (measured, inferred) based upon how certain the drill information is, and how much more drilling is needed to prove it up. The material must be economically recoverable for the long-term prices.

Our tonnage in Resources recently went up because we've adjusted the long range price up. Our reserves haven't changed because the length of time it takes to get our permits changed to use the current (high) prices is longer than we expect those prices to be around. Make areas available for resource extraction and the available reserves and resources will grow.

Government and Energy
The number one defining quality of government is taxation. How it is defined is left to the individual. To Democrats the defining quality is to raise and spend them. To Republicans, it is to raise and spend them.

Therefore, keep in mind that energy is taxed. But the rate varies depending upon how it is used. Government has specified that government agencies are not taxed. Therefore cities, counties, and states do not pay fuel tax. Only citizens do. Gasoline is taxed at a greater rate than home fuel oil.

At the moment, due to the nature of use, gasoline and diesel are heavily taxed when compared with other types of energy. It is easy to tax as well. It is done when you buy it at filling stations.

But if electricity, natural gas, propane, and other such things were taxed at the same rate, we would have, not a revolt, but a hanging party. Congress cannot heavily tax something like that when it is needed for living without putting themselves at risk physically as well as politically. But if any of these are used as energy for transportation, how would you tax it? It would be far too easy to fill up at your house rather than a station that can determine taxes.

Therefore, you will not see the government get too interested or involved in any alternate means of transportation energy unless they can determine a way to tax it. So do not expect to see any of the normal alternate energies used for transportation. Instead they will fund such things as hydrogen cell technology since it can be taxed. So don't get too excited about electrical cars.

tab ssard
you are right. and i feel like robbing the bank on the corner, to hell with the law. lets do it. well need the money to finance our armys trip to the arctic. just do whay you please. sure answers to all our problems not
. e least of which is nuts running round loosewriting threads that make such moral sense.

CO2 Problem?
Why is everyone getting excited about CO2 in the atmosphere? It arrives there by a number of ways but the biggest one, probably, is due to us breathing. If you want to reduce CO2, wipe out have the race of humans.

However, plants use CO2. They remove the carbon (C) and release the oxygen (O2). It makes them grow faster. Several places around the world have enough plants to handle all the CO2 by themselves, such as the Amazon Basin. We have many such places. We also grow a lot of other plants such as crops that require CO2.

Why is this a "problem"? Because some people hope to get rich off it. Not because we (or the Earth) is in any real danger.

who's we?
>Who's "we" in that sentence, Pancho? You're going to tell me government activism isn't implied in "we?"<

We, as in you and me and the guy next door.
The dishonesty here is apparent, and it's all yours.

Oh I Get It
Save the bats, save the birds, save the lava!

Alternative energy......................
Wind powered generators, you know the propeller that goes nowhere but whoooosh whoooosh. They have them now, so that a single wind powered generator can produce 20Kw of power, 240 VAC or DC on 2-6 mph wind speed. See Alibaba.com about wind Generators. If you powered your home with one, any excess would be bought by the local power company. It is getting the local authority to allow you to erect one up 40 or more feet above your home.

Energy Storage Problem?
Propaganda, repeated often enough and long enough, become accepted truth. Birds and bats killed? Show me the bodies. People who live out where the turbines turn know that the blades are moving so slowly that the kill number is infinitesimal. Whatever lies you want to utter will take wing among the imaginative masses who visualize the poor little animals. That's where PETA gets it power. As they say on Mythbusters, "Busted!"

Use wind power to split water into hydrogen for storage and oxygen. Now take your hydrogen to somewhere where cars need it. Presto, clean power available. it's a storage problem, not an intermittent power problem.

There is no energy shortage
We can get all the energy we want from nuclear, geothermal and renewable sources. The problem is energy on which you can run an airplane, over the road trucking and private automobiles.

While there are methods available right now to "grow" oil suitable for these purposes, it is not quite yet commercial. Meanwhile, the logical solution is to drill and use natural gas and coal liquification.

While they are not endless, we do have very abundant deposits of oil, coal and gas. The secret is not to be complacent and "spend" it like a credit card (you can live very well on a credit card until you reach your limit, payback is a b1tch).

Meanwhile, there is a lot we can do to make automobiles a lot more efficient. Only about 30% of the energy in the gas you buy is converted to kinetic energy; the rest is dissipated as heat.

The major problem right now is not just the cost of oil, but where the money is going, namely out of the country. We are at the mercy of the big oil producers and we are devaluing the dollar and crashing the economy. Just look where the stock market has gone since the run-up in fuel prices.

Why not put that money into American jobs and innovation?

The answer is obvious, credits and other enticements for innovation. Turn the energy companies loose on drilling and oil-shale development and hold on to your hat!

In case you hadn't noticed, FREE ENTERPRISE WORKS and it works far better than programs controlled by our do-nothing Congress.

Reply to Higene - wasted sunlight??
My understanding of the point that Phil Harris is making is that the earth currently has a "nearly perfect" balance of wind, sun, geo, etc. This combination is like a recipe for the world the way we know it. The Liberals are quick to tell us what a huge impact a small rise in the levels of CO2 will have on our planet....well, what about ANY other man made changes to nature. What if the earth needs this "wasted" sunlight? What effect will a major change in absorbed sunlight or change in wind have on this planet? I don't think anyone knows. The Liberals are also big on computer climate models.........Has anyone bothered to do models that factor in the alteration of earth's sunlight and weather??

Reality check
These are some inconvenient truths:

Nuclear: The only known physically feasible long-term source of enough energy to power an industrialized country. Held back by environmental and safety compliance legislation that makes plant set-up economically unfeasible.

Natural gas: Not enough energy. Is only a feasible supplemental source of energy.

Hydrogen: Not a net energy producer. It takes more energy to split water than it does to recombine the elements. Hydrogen fuel cells may soon make an excellent energy "currency" in automobiles and homes, but it still requires an energy source to make it.

Wind: Not enough energy to sustain an industrial civilization.

Solar: Not enough energy to sustain an industrial civilization.

Biofuels: Low energy or not a net energy producer.

There are too many parasites out there trying to take advantage of this energy crisis. T. Boone Pickens, who is trying to con the government into subsidizing his wind and natural gas projects so that he can feel like a hero before he dies, says on his web site that even his solution can only provide 30% of the energy our nation will need, which probably means that his plan would end up powering less than 10% of our nation's needs, at great cost to the taxpayer. He has the gall to expect us all to drive around in little Euro-weeny natural gas cars and make other time, money, and convenience sacrifices in service to his grandiose delusion of saving humanity.

We need to get real about energy.

And the winner is...
Earlier I noted that this was the dumbest article I had seen. Yet some of the comments are giving Mr. Harris a real run for his money.

SANDROB weighs in with a spectacular denial of the overwhelming, scientific consensus on several critical climate and population issues. The primary evidence for this view appears to be that he is ticked off.

INKLING gets bonus, style points for adding "you lying sack" to his meandering diatribe. While most authorities on the subject more or less concur as to amounts and locations of the world's oil reserves, INKLING seems to be convinced, perhaps by telepathy, that additional reserves are everywhere. He contends that the U.S. "has plenty of oil". Most of us have been fooled by credentialed geologists into believing that the U.S. has less than 2% of the world's proven oil reserves, but not him. Bravo!

2CENTSWORTH works the religious angle, by harnessing the Christian bible to his dislike of liberals. Summarized, his contention is that God doesn't care for 4 dollar a gallon gas any more than he does, and like him, blames liberals for it.

UNCLEB steps up to the plate with what is referred to in sales as "the assumed close". That is, he assumes the reader has transcended the droll consideration of facts and would rather buy on the basis of irrational dogma.

BENGAL seems to think that wind and solar energy advocates are proposing we can only have electricity when the sun shines or the wind blows, thus reducing a complicated argument to the efficacy of a nursery rhyme.

Kudos to all!

oVERWHELMING sCIENTIFIC cONSENSUS
Chris weren't you from Oklahoma last week? Are you a General Electric employee, I mean propagandist? I'm sorry if that isn't a real word, it fits my story. My unscientific opinion of T. Boone's offer to save the world is that it will make him and GE rich.

Reply to Chris - Known oil reserves
If you can't explore, you don't know!! If exploration is off-limits in most of the U.S., talking about the "known reserves" is like talking about known Osama Bin Laden sightings.........you just don't know!!

Off Limits
>If you can't explore, you don't know!! If exploration is off-limits in most of the U.S.<

Exploration is not off limits in most of the US. In the continental US, most traditional oil resources were in decline by 1970. Currently, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico produce millions of barrels annually. California, Texas and Oklahoma still produce somewhat on shore, but Texas, along with Louisiana and Alabama, are exploring and producing mostly offshore in the Gulf of Mexico.

The offshore moratorium does not extend to all parts of Alaska, where exploration is aggressive.

The offshore moratorium is largely concerned with California and Florida, although there is a good idea as to what size reserves can be expected in those areas based on pre-moratorium estimates and non-invasive techniques.

A question of magnitude....
I've seen a lot of dingbat opinions about how we can generate all the energy we need from solar and wind, and while it may be technically true, people get lost in the magnitude of what we'd have to do to make it possible. You have to build, erect, and wire up one whole hell of a lot of wind turbines to power this country. Same goes for solar panels.

Likewise, attributing the propensity of "dark" solar panels to warm the environment is ridiculous. We've built a hell of a lot more surface area of "dark" asphalt roads and parking lots than we will ever build of solar panels.

Equally as ridiculous is the idea that we could cool the Earth's core enough to solidify it with geothermal plants.

In the grand scheme of things, we are tiny compared to the planet. It's pure hubris to imagine that we could completely destroy it so easily. The planet is 4 billion years old, our entire existence is a blink of an eye in that time span.

Chris says...
"SANDROB weighs in with a spectacular denial of the overwhelming, scientific consensus on several critical climate and population issues."

And just what would those overwhelming "scientific consensus" be Chris, global warming caused by CO2?

Well, I guess its a consensus if you disregard a few thousand scientists who disagree, or are you just trying to be funny?

You are a joke.

Idiotic comments
Harris has finally wrote a column on a favorite topic of mine that has simply been ignored since the global warming debate began and alternative energy was the panacea to cure it.

The second law of thermodynamics (entropy)is not just the second cool idea of thermodynamics or the second theory of thermodymanics it is a physical law that works everywhere in the universe.

In every statement he makes, the truth of this law is demonstrated.

The further we get from the most compact form of energy the more energy it takes to make it useable. Thus dooming all sources of alternative energy to need more energy input that they produce in energy output.

Its physics kids, not wishful thinking.

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Modmark
It takes 25 times as much electical energy to obtain 1 unit of energy from hydrogen. When you burn hydrogen you create water vapour.

Water vapor is 25 times as bad a greenhouse gas as CO2 is.

You think hydrogen is the answer?

Yeesh!

Cheers,

Bloefeld

Wendy, WA state is sitting on enough...
geothermal energy to supply its entire energy requirement for the next thousand years. Or were you not aware that each of those big volcanic mountains, St Helens, Ranier and etc. are sitting on top of vast, deep calderas; each of which contains more energy than you can even imagine?

While we're at it
If we're going to consider Mt Ranier, a national park, for geothermal energy, why not Old Faithful in Yellowstone? Then we can mine El Capitan in Yosemite for granite counter tops.

Wendy:
Exactly right. Nice to see someone with some sense!

News from Lompoc
I always get a chuckle out of today's breed of global warming deniers. They seem to me like a sick man who, having been told by nine experienced doctors that he needs a crucial operation to save his life, forgoes the operation on the advice of one, inexperienced quack. All the academies of science of every major industrialized country on the planet agree as to the existence and causes of global warming, not to mention a host of related scientific organizations across the world. No organization of similar standing, anywhere, has dissented from these conclusions. These days it seems you can't open a magazine without seeing Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich hand in hand, urging us as a nation to confront global warming. My goodness, even Pat Robertson announced on the 700 Club that he has joined the march. Yet, there is no consensus because the Lompoc Fraternal Order of Squirrels is in dissent.

Clean Energy and Clean Transportation
Having known about the Sundance Generator and Hummingbird Motor and seen both work perfectly . Self contained and @ 1/2 power setting puts out 30 KWH of Clean Green Electricity. 3ft by 3ft footprint. And the PICC will make any Engine on any fuel get 400% to 1,000% increase in efficiancy and have No Pollution at all! Turning fussel fuels into green power for all vehicles
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.