OK, I get it. Obama wants to play into the hands of the environmentalist lobby by rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline; arguing that there is no strategic or economic advantage to allowing the project to go forward. Apparently, the environmentalists seem to think that if the pipeline isn't approved, Canada will just stop producing its tar sands oil that would have to be carried by that pipeline, and the world will be saved from global warming.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Canada isn't going to walk away from billions of dollars in revenue per year and all the jobs that would provide. The reality is that they will just keep extracting the oil and will continue to do what they have already been doing over the last 7 years while Keystone was in limbo. That means that their oil will increasingly transverse our country by rail. A fact that resulted in record train oil spills in 2014; causing millions to be spent for cleanup; assuming it can actually be cleaned up.
Additionally, Canada already has plans to sell its oil internationally, since the U.S. has been dragging its feet on Keystone. Despite what environmentalists seem to think, that oil will be used to provide fuel for an ever-increasing number of the world's gasoline-powered automobiles.
So, essentially our own environment may suffer from increased rail oil spills, and the atmosphere will probably suffer from less effective refining in other countries.
Lastly, the argument that Canada's tar sands oil is extremely dirty is another lie that was used to kill Keystone. The U.S. actually extracts and refines even dirtier oils in places such as California and Alaska.
Between oil spills and less effective refining, the U.S. and world environments are actually at greater risk than they would be with the Keystone pipeline.
References:
Obama’s Keystone Rejection Strengthens His Hand at Climate Talks: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/oil-train-spills-hit-record-level-2014-n293186
Oil Train Spills Hit Record Level in 2014: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/oil-train-spills-hit-record-level-2014-n293186
Canadian tar sands crude heads to Bay Area refineries: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23366257/canadian-tar-sands-crude-heads-bay-area-refineries
Exclusive Map: The Tar Sands Pipeline Boom: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120430/exclusive-map-tar-sands-pipeline-boom
How clean is our ‘dirty’ oil? You’d be surprised: http://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-clean-is-our-dirty-oil-youd-be-surprised/
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Friday, November 13, 2015
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Europe and Japan's Leg-Up on Gasoline Consumption
While, in this country, we constantly flap our jaws about being "green" and talk about renewable energy resources and the conservation of gasoline, Europe and Japan have, for years, been involved with "mass transit" systems that are more environmentally responsible.We are truly "pigs" when it comes to ground travel and air travel. We are a country of one-person-per-car and we prefer cars over public transportation. What's worse, our preferred means of regional transportation (movement between major cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco or Detroit and Chicago) is usually by automobile and by gas-guzzling short-range jets and not by train. Further, we move most of our freight by truck when short-haul freight trains would be more efficient.
When we hear our politicians talking about saving the planet or reducing our dependence on foreign oil, no one talks about mass transportation as a means, available right now, of reducing emissions and oil/gasoline consumption. They would prefer to talk about "pie-in-the-sky" things like hydrogen fuel cells that may be a two decades or more away from full implementation.
The trick to getting America off its love of the automobile is to make public transportation extremely affordable and more convenient. First, we need to subsidize mass transit so its cost is attractive. Second, we need to be smart about where we apply mass transit. There are natural "high volume" routes that could easily get cars off the road. (I live in Las Vegas and there are thousands of cars that almost commute daily/weekly from Los Angeles to Las Vegas; and vice versa) Third, it should be fast; certainly faster than by car or airplane. This means the application of high-speed "bullet-type trains" and the use of limited-stop express trains that ride separate spurs. Fourth, there needs to be convenient end-point modes of "fan-out" transportation such as compact rental cars, buses, and short-haul commuter trains.
The Federal government needs to take the lead. The reason we have so little regional transportation in this country is because too many government agencies are involved. In order to make something happen, local and state authorities have to work with other local and state authorities; and, mass transportation isn't their priority. But, as a nation, it should be!
Image by AndreasNygaard on Flickr with Creative Commons Licensing.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Being Green: Not a Poor Man's Sport
If you're a middle-to-upper class tree-hugging liberal-elite, you are probably pushing hard for immediate action on Global Warming. Sitting in your garage is, I am quite sure, a brand new or relatively new hybrid vehicle that cost you $5,000 or more than any pure-gasoline equivalent. You may have already taken yourself off the electrical grid because you were able to "pop" for the $27,000+ to install solar panels and batteries; and, your home is large enough to support them all. The fact that it may take 15 years or more in energy savings in order to offset their costs doesn't bother you in the least. Every light in your house is a compact fluorescent bulb; each costing more than, say, 7 to 8 times the cost of a conventional light bulb. Your food costs have gone up 25-50 percent in the last two years because of the increased usage of ethanol; but, you don't care because you're liberal, you're green, and you're saving the planet and you're frustrated and can't believe that the rest of the world isn't as caring. Finally, while gasoline prices are going through the roof, you can sleep at night thinking that you and the others of your ilk have fought and won the war to restrict any more drilling of oil wells in the world! Hallelujah!The sad thing about all of this is that the poor, not just the poor in this country, but around the world as well, are literally dying because of all these so-called actions being taken to reverse Global Warming. The poor generally live the farthest from where they have to work. Therefore, high oil and gasoline prices are taking a disproportionate amount of money away from them for the food and clothing for their families. Similarly, the high feed prices that are a result of diverted feed stock (like corn) into ethanol production are costing them 25 percent or more for their family's food. On the world scene, rice, a main staple in many countries, is at record shortages as people hoard it against any future price increases and against any future shortage. Unfortunately, the hoarding is a self-fulfilling prophecy because it is actually causing shortages. And, the world's poor aren't the only ones being hurt. The lower and middle income classes, too, are feeling much of the pain.
For sure, being a "green, Global Warming warrior" is a rich man's sport. There is nothing cheap about it. It took nearly two centuries to get to a point where we can even recognize that there is Global Warming; assuming mankind is even at fault. Yet, we are now hell-bent to stop it by 2025; a mere 18 years from now. In the meantime, society as we know it, may just collapse; starting from the poor up. There are already outbreaks of violence in Haiti over food shortages (See Full Story). The shortage of food has always been a primary reason for wars and for crime in the world. We need to stop...think... and get out of this panic mode to fight something that may or may not be caused by mankind. Let's put Al Gore on the shelf (for at least a little while) before its too late! Think people!
Please Note: A recently convened International Forum on Energy has recommended that the world slow down on the use of biofuels (ie. corn in the United States) because of the impact on the world's food supplies (See Full Story).
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Energy & Carbon Reductions on the Cheap
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a tree-hugger by any stretch of the imagination. However, I do believe that we, as a country, waste tons of energy; and, consequently, tons of money. That's obvious from the fact that 25% of the entire world's oil production fuels our needs.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed billions of dollars for green-collar jobs. But, these are massive pie-in-sky programs that may or may not pan out. Much of their "stump speech ideas" involve technologies like wind and solar that have an upward battle in terms of high cost and efficiency; and, in in terms of court battles with the environmentalists.
To me, a simpler solution is already at hand. It involves the lowly, incandescent light bulb. There are over 300 million people in this country of ours. And, every night, most of us have two or more incandescent lights bulbs turned on in our homes, our businesses, and in hotel/motel rooms to satisfy our needs. Often, we have lights on in rooms we aren't even occupying. And, more often than not, those light bulbs are the traditional, energy wasting incandescent light bulb.
An alternative is the Compact Fluorescent Light bulb or CFL. It uses one-fifth to one-sixth of the energy of a standard incandescent light bulb while putting out the same amount of light. However, the downside is the cost of a CFL. One CFL bulb will cost more than 5 times the cost of a standard light bulb. That is what prevents it from widespread use, especially for the low income families in America. Even the middle class avoid them because of the up-front cost; although the long term cost savings would be significant.
For less than a billion dollars a year, our Federal government could implement a coupon program whereby every family in the United States could obtain, free of charge, two CFL bulbs per year. Businesses could also be afforded these coupons. At the end of 10 years, such a program will have replaced most of the high usage incandescent bulbs in this country. In doing so, it would break down the cost barrier that has prevented the CFL's widespread use to date. The energy reduction would be significant and we would still have spent less than any of the programs proposed by the current Presidential candidates. Just my opinion.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed billions of dollars for green-collar jobs. But, these are massive pie-in-sky programs that may or may not pan out. Much of their "stump speech ideas" involve technologies like wind and solar that have an upward battle in terms of high cost and efficiency; and, in in terms of court battles with the environmentalists.
To me, a simpler solution is already at hand. It involves the lowly, incandescent light bulb. There are over 300 million people in this country of ours. And, every night, most of us have two or more incandescent lights bulbs turned on in our homes, our businesses, and in hotel/motel rooms to satisfy our needs. Often, we have lights on in rooms we aren't even occupying. And, more often than not, those light bulbs are the traditional, energy wasting incandescent light bulb.
An alternative is the Compact Fluorescent Light bulb or CFL. It uses one-fifth to one-sixth of the energy of a standard incandescent light bulb while putting out the same amount of light. However, the downside is the cost of a CFL. One CFL bulb will cost more than 5 times the cost of a standard light bulb. That is what prevents it from widespread use, especially for the low income families in America. Even the middle class avoid them because of the up-front cost; although the long term cost savings would be significant.
For less than a billion dollars a year, our Federal government could implement a coupon program whereby every family in the United States could obtain, free of charge, two CFL bulbs per year. Businesses could also be afforded these coupons. At the end of 10 years, such a program will have replaced most of the high usage incandescent bulbs in this country. In doing so, it would break down the cost barrier that has prevented the CFL's widespread use to date. The energy reduction would be significant and we would still have spent less than any of the programs proposed by the current Presidential candidates. Just my opinion.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Fool's Gold
FACT: Exxon Mobil only controls 5% of the World's Oil reserves. It has a gross profit margin that is 1/2 that of the average companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 U.S. Stock list.
FACT: High Oil Prices are a world-wide problem. For example, gasoline is around 9 U.S. dollars/gallon in Great Britain.
FACT: Most of the oil in the world is controlled by government-run oil companies and the top known oil reserves in the world are as follows (in billions of barrels): Saudi Arabia - 265.3, Iraq - 115, Kuwait - 98.8, Iran - 96.4, United Arab Emirates - 62.8, Russia - 54.3, Venezuela - 47.6, China - 30.6, Libya - 30, Mexico - 26.9, Nigeria - 24.1, United States - 22, Algeria -12.7, Norway - 10.1, Indonesia - 9.7, Angola - 9, Brazil - 8.5, Oman - 5.8, Canada -5.6, and Qatar - 5.6.
FACT: At 22 billion gallons of oil reserves, the United States oil reserves are down nearly 1/2 from 1970 when the oil reserves were 39 billion gallons. We are losing oil reserves everyday while increasing imports and our dependency from terror-supporting countries and enemies of the United States.
FACT: The United States, alone, uses nearly 25% of the world's oil production. But, China and India are rapidly growing and are expected (combined) to overtake the United States fuel usage in the next 10 years.
FACT: United States Oil Companies are making record profits ($128 billion in 2007) because oil prices are high. The fact is, "all" oil companies are making high profits. But worse yet, all the Middle East countries and Venezuela and Russia are making trillions of dollars in oil income at our expense.
FACT: U.S. Oil Companies are getting $18 Billion in Tax Credits. That's $18 Billion in Tax Credits over "10 YEARS" and not $18 billion in tax credits this year as some members of Congress would deceptively make you think.
FACT: A single Deep Water Oil Drilling Platform in the Gulf of Mexico can cost 1/2 billion dollars. There are approximately 820 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to support our energy needs. Those oil rigs cost approximately $160 billion to build and have a substantial ongoing cost. And, because we have to drill deeper to access any new oil fields, the cost of those rigs continually goes up. We could see billion dollar rigs within the next 5 years.
FACT: There are 136 million automobiles in the United States with an average age of a little over 9 years. Therefore it will take over 18 years due to normal attrition to replace every one of those automobiles with any new technology or fuel efficiency standard.
FACT: Americans consume approximately 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year from 7.5 billion barrels of oil. An additional 6 billion gallons of ethanol, 3.7% of fuel, is consumed by Americans.
FACT: The Federal Government charges a 18.4-cent per gallon tax on all gasoline sales for, supposedly, transportation infrastructure building and maintenance; ie. roads, bridges etc... The average American family pays approximately $375 a year in this Federal Tax.
Yesterday, the primarily Democratic Congress, once again, beat up on our U.S. oil companies for the high price of oil and, subsequently, the high cost of gasoline in this country. At the heart of the anger against these companies are their high profits and the tax breaks they get for exploring for new oil. In the mind of the bleeding-heart liberal, this cannot be. In their minds, no corporation should not "profit" and still get "tax breaks" while the American consumer is in such pain at the pump. However, the high cost of oil is a world-wide problem because of supply and demand and because of OPEC which can turn up and turn down the spigot to control supply and, subsequently, affect pricing.
Yesterday's equivalent of a "show trial" was intended, as always, to give the far Left of this country the impression that our Congress is doing something about the high cost of gasoline. The fact is that our Congress, and not the oil companies, have put us in the bag we are now in with extremely high gasoline prices. Only two factors will actually reduce the high cost of oil and gasoline: (1) increased production and refinement or (2) reduced consumption.
Now, it is true that the Congress, late last year, passed an "Oil bill" which will increase fuel efficiency by 50% in automobiles. But, not until 2020! There are over 136 million automobiles in this country and their average age is 9 years old. It will take at least 18 years past 2020 to get all those "old" cars off the road so the that the new standards are fully implemented. That means the true savings in consumption of the latest "Oil Bill" won't have it's full effect until the year 2038 when all the old fuel economy automobiles are replaced with the new. In the meantime, we will continue to increase our fuel usage by at least 2 percent a year as a result of our population growth. At best, the "Oil" legislation of 2007 won't even keep up with our own population growth. By 2038, we will be using more oil than we are using today. Similarly, even if the United States was able to introduce a new kind of car that didn't use oil and was competitively priced, it would take that same 18 years to get all those gas-guzzlers off the road.
It is also true that the same "Oil" legislation mandated an increase in ethanol usage. Under that law, we would increase our ethanol consumption from 6 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. As a country, we need another 47 billion gallons of fuel per year by 2022 based on 2% growth, compounded, per year. An additional 30 billion gallons of ethanol won't hardly keep even with a 47 billion gallon increase in fuel by 2022. Further, the additional ethanol is already killing Americans in the pocketbook for food. Corn, the primary source of ethanol in this country, has already tripled in cost since 2006 and since the higher use of ethanol was mandated by Congress. This has seriously affected all food prices because corn is an essential feed for cattle and poultry. Corn and corn by-products (ie. corn starch and corn syrup) is used in many of the foods we eat. For example, the average cost of a dozen eggs is up 25% in a year because of the higher cost of corn and oil.
Sure, the Congress can take the $1.8 billion dollars in tax credits away from the oil companies and divert those credits to new energy technologies like wind and solar. However, wind and solar isn't going to make a dent in those millions of gasoline powered automobiles (and trucks) that are on the road and in production, every day, by the automobile companies. And, in doing so, we hobble the oil companies in this country because they will have less money to find new home-grown sources of oil. This means that we will just become increasingly more dependent on foreign oil sources as our need for fuel increases while our existing oil reserves in this country die off due to exhausted resources. But, for the Democrats and our Democratically-controlled Congress, punishing the oil companies will certainly make the "tree-huggers" (a main contributer to the Democrats) very happy while the rest of the Americans suffer; especially the poor who are suffering under high gasoline and high food costs.
Congress needs to stop the "green" politics and come to the realization that we have a short term and long term plan to our energy needs. Wind, solar, hydrogen and all this other pie-in-the-sky stuff is long term. And, unless we find new sources of oil to supply our current inventory of millions of automobiles, the price of oil and food will just go up. A legitimate and not political plan needs to include (1) new drilling and refinery (2) conservation and (3) new technology (both interim and long term). Just trying to conserve is foolish and fool's gold.
FACT: High Oil Prices are a world-wide problem. For example, gasoline is around 9 U.S. dollars/gallon in Great Britain.
FACT: Most of the oil in the world is controlled by government-run oil companies and the top known oil reserves in the world are as follows (in billions of barrels): Saudi Arabia - 265.3, Iraq - 115, Kuwait - 98.8, Iran - 96.4, United Arab Emirates - 62.8, Russia - 54.3, Venezuela - 47.6, China - 30.6, Libya - 30, Mexico - 26.9, Nigeria - 24.1, United States - 22, Algeria -12.7, Norway - 10.1, Indonesia - 9.7, Angola - 9, Brazil - 8.5, Oman - 5.8, Canada -5.6, and Qatar - 5.6.
FACT: At 22 billion gallons of oil reserves, the United States oil reserves are down nearly 1/2 from 1970 when the oil reserves were 39 billion gallons. We are losing oil reserves everyday while increasing imports and our dependency from terror-supporting countries and enemies of the United States.
FACT: The United States, alone, uses nearly 25% of the world's oil production. But, China and India are rapidly growing and are expected (combined) to overtake the United States fuel usage in the next 10 years.
FACT: United States Oil Companies are making record profits ($128 billion in 2007) because oil prices are high. The fact is, "all" oil companies are making high profits. But worse yet, all the Middle East countries and Venezuela and Russia are making trillions of dollars in oil income at our expense.
FACT: U.S. Oil Companies are getting $18 Billion in Tax Credits. That's $18 Billion in Tax Credits over "10 YEARS" and not $18 billion in tax credits this year as some members of Congress would deceptively make you think.
FACT: A single Deep Water Oil Drilling Platform in the Gulf of Mexico can cost 1/2 billion dollars. There are approximately 820 rigs in the Gulf of Mexico to support our energy needs. Those oil rigs cost approximately $160 billion to build and have a substantial ongoing cost. And, because we have to drill deeper to access any new oil fields, the cost of those rigs continually goes up. We could see billion dollar rigs within the next 5 years.
FACT: There are 136 million automobiles in the United States with an average age of a little over 9 years. Therefore it will take over 18 years due to normal attrition to replace every one of those automobiles with any new technology or fuel efficiency standard.
FACT: Americans consume approximately 150 billion gallons of gasoline per year from 7.5 billion barrels of oil. An additional 6 billion gallons of ethanol, 3.7% of fuel, is consumed by Americans.
FACT: The Federal Government charges a 18.4-cent per gallon tax on all gasoline sales for, supposedly, transportation infrastructure building and maintenance; ie. roads, bridges etc... The average American family pays approximately $375 a year in this Federal Tax.
*******
Yesterday, the primarily Democratic Congress, once again, beat up on our U.S. oil companies for the high price of oil and, subsequently, the high cost of gasoline in this country. At the heart of the anger against these companies are their high profits and the tax breaks they get for exploring for new oil. In the mind of the bleeding-heart liberal, this cannot be. In their minds, no corporation should not "profit" and still get "tax breaks" while the American consumer is in such pain at the pump. However, the high cost of oil is a world-wide problem because of supply and demand and because of OPEC which can turn up and turn down the spigot to control supply and, subsequently, affect pricing.
Yesterday's equivalent of a "show trial" was intended, as always, to give the far Left of this country the impression that our Congress is doing something about the high cost of gasoline. The fact is that our Congress, and not the oil companies, have put us in the bag we are now in with extremely high gasoline prices. Only two factors will actually reduce the high cost of oil and gasoline: (1) increased production and refinement or (2) reduced consumption.
Now, it is true that the Congress, late last year, passed an "Oil bill" which will increase fuel efficiency by 50% in automobiles. But, not until 2020! There are over 136 million automobiles in this country and their average age is 9 years old. It will take at least 18 years past 2020 to get all those "old" cars off the road so the that the new standards are fully implemented. That means the true savings in consumption of the latest "Oil Bill" won't have it's full effect until the year 2038 when all the old fuel economy automobiles are replaced with the new. In the meantime, we will continue to increase our fuel usage by at least 2 percent a year as a result of our population growth. At best, the "Oil" legislation of 2007 won't even keep up with our own population growth. By 2038, we will be using more oil than we are using today. Similarly, even if the United States was able to introduce a new kind of car that didn't use oil and was competitively priced, it would take that same 18 years to get all those gas-guzzlers off the road.
It is also true that the same "Oil" legislation mandated an increase in ethanol usage. Under that law, we would increase our ethanol consumption from 6 billion gallons this year to 36 billion gallons by 2022. As a country, we need another 47 billion gallons of fuel per year by 2022 based on 2% growth, compounded, per year. An additional 30 billion gallons of ethanol won't hardly keep even with a 47 billion gallon increase in fuel by 2022. Further, the additional ethanol is already killing Americans in the pocketbook for food. Corn, the primary source of ethanol in this country, has already tripled in cost since 2006 and since the higher use of ethanol was mandated by Congress. This has seriously affected all food prices because corn is an essential feed for cattle and poultry. Corn and corn by-products (ie. corn starch and corn syrup) is used in many of the foods we eat. For example, the average cost of a dozen eggs is up 25% in a year because of the higher cost of corn and oil.
Sure, the Congress can take the $1.8 billion dollars in tax credits away from the oil companies and divert those credits to new energy technologies like wind and solar. However, wind and solar isn't going to make a dent in those millions of gasoline powered automobiles (and trucks) that are on the road and in production, every day, by the automobile companies. And, in doing so, we hobble the oil companies in this country because they will have less money to find new home-grown sources of oil. This means that we will just become increasingly more dependent on foreign oil sources as our need for fuel increases while our existing oil reserves in this country die off due to exhausted resources. But, for the Democrats and our Democratically-controlled Congress, punishing the oil companies will certainly make the "tree-huggers" (a main contributer to the Democrats) very happy while the rest of the Americans suffer; especially the poor who are suffering under high gasoline and high food costs.
Congress needs to stop the "green" politics and come to the realization that we have a short term and long term plan to our energy needs. Wind, solar, hydrogen and all this other pie-in-the-sky stuff is long term. And, unless we find new sources of oil to supply our current inventory of millions of automobiles, the price of oil and food will just go up. A legitimate and not political plan needs to include (1) new drilling and refinery (2) conservation and (3) new technology (both interim and long term). Just trying to conserve is foolish and fool's gold.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Ugliness of Going Green on Energy
If you talk to the environmentally active, those tree-huggers, they will point to the ugliness of burning fossil fuels to create energy for the world we all live in. They look at the ugliness of strip-mining for coal. They point to the toxic and carbon dioxide (CO2) spewing power plants that use coal, natural gas, or oil. They point to oil spills. Then, there are those ugly oil rigs on both the land and offshore. And, all those cars, trucks, and, especially, those SUV's.
But, what most of the novice "greenies" don't seem to understand is how ugly the alternatives are to fossil fuels. That is because the actual creation of the renewable fuel has to be moved from god-created and below-ground sources to the "above-ground" man-made sources that will infringe on the landscape of America. Right now, whether it is oil, natural gas, or coal, these forms of energy resources are well "out-of-sight" and far below ground. Billions of acres of these fuels are "hidden" below the surface of the earth.
Believe me, the true greenies don't really want renewable resources like wind, solar, and biofuels. That is why, for example, they, along with RFK, Jr. and Ted Kennedy, fought the establishment of a wind turbine farm off the coast of Hyannis Port, Mass. Wind turbines, in order to be effective, stand about 100 feet or more in height and are almost as equally wide. Hundreds of them must be "peppered" over hundreds acres of land in order to have any substantial dent in the offsetting of power generated by fossil fuel power sources. They are ugly. They are loud and noisy. And, they endanger birds and other wild life. So, that is why, when someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton says they want to create "green collar" jobs to install green technologies like wind, solar, and biofuels, they just aren't dealing with reality. You can seriously count on Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club to fight tooth-and-nail (in court) to stop the advancement of "green" technologies. And, don't forget the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) effect. Everyone wants clean and renewable sources of fuel; but, not near their house or neighborhood or community!
And, it isn't just wind turbines. Solar panels are just as ugly. And, like turbines, they will need to be "plastered" all over the landscape of America to make any significant dent in fossil fuel usage. Can you imagine a third of this country totally covered with black panels to retrieve the power from the sun.
The same is true with biofuels. Right now, we produce ethanol from corn. It takes millions of acres of land to produce the mere 6 billion gallons of ethanol that we produce today. And, those acres of corn are only "harvested" but once a year. Americans require nearly 156 billion gallons of fuel per year to run their autos, buses, and trucks; mostly in the form of gasoline. Best case, you can get about 250 gallons of ethanol from each acre of corn. In order to supply our current demands, you would need 624 million acres of farm land to produce enough ethanol to satisfy our current needs. Unfortunately, this country only has about 350 million acres of land for farming and only half of that is "quality" farm land. We lose 100,000 acres of land each year to soil erosion and human expansion. So, to satisfy our gasoline needs, we would need "at least" twice as much land for corn as we have now for all of our farming activity. (click for farm land statistics). For sure, it takes a lot of "above ground" land area to create biofuels. Do you think the "greens" are going to let America expand into Federally reserved lands and National Park lands in order to get enough land to satisfy our energy needs? I don't think so!
Even hydrogen, the fuel of the future, needs to be "derived" from something. With the current technologies, the only real way to "economically" produce hydrogen is to produce if from fossil fuels. So, hear we are again, stuck with coal, oil and natural gas. It is almost unavoidable to ignore the these natural commodities as the source for our energy.
Like it or not, we are "not" going to "green" ourselves out of the energy quagmire that we now find ourselves in. The ugliness of doing so and the lack of land for all these "green" technologies makes that impossible. Despite all the "elect-me" rhetoric of the Democrats running for office, the reality of a non-oil dependent and fossil-fuel-free America is almost impossible; given our current technologies. We had better find ways to drill for more oil in this country. We need to expand a cleaner use of coal power. And, we need to seriously invest in atomic energy or the money we need for food will be used up in buy foreign oil.
But, what most of the novice "greenies" don't seem to understand is how ugly the alternatives are to fossil fuels. That is because the actual creation of the renewable fuel has to be moved from god-created and below-ground sources to the "above-ground" man-made sources that will infringe on the landscape of America. Right now, whether it is oil, natural gas, or coal, these forms of energy resources are well "out-of-sight" and far below ground. Billions of acres of these fuels are "hidden" below the surface of the earth.
Believe me, the true greenies don't really want renewable resources like wind, solar, and biofuels. That is why, for example, they, along with RFK, Jr. and Ted Kennedy, fought the establishment of a wind turbine farm off the coast of Hyannis Port, Mass. Wind turbines, in order to be effective, stand about 100 feet or more in height and are almost as equally wide. Hundreds of them must be "peppered" over hundreds acres of land in order to have any substantial dent in the offsetting of power generated by fossil fuel power sources. They are ugly. They are loud and noisy. And, they endanger birds and other wild life. So, that is why, when someone like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton says they want to create "green collar" jobs to install green technologies like wind, solar, and biofuels, they just aren't dealing with reality. You can seriously count on Greenpeace, World Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club to fight tooth-and-nail (in court) to stop the advancement of "green" technologies. And, don't forget the NIMBY (Not in my backyard) effect. Everyone wants clean and renewable sources of fuel; but, not near their house or neighborhood or community!
And, it isn't just wind turbines. Solar panels are just as ugly. And, like turbines, they will need to be "plastered" all over the landscape of America to make any significant dent in fossil fuel usage. Can you imagine a third of this country totally covered with black panels to retrieve the power from the sun.
The same is true with biofuels. Right now, we produce ethanol from corn. It takes millions of acres of land to produce the mere 6 billion gallons of ethanol that we produce today. And, those acres of corn are only "harvested" but once a year. Americans require nearly 156 billion gallons of fuel per year to run their autos, buses, and trucks; mostly in the form of gasoline. Best case, you can get about 250 gallons of ethanol from each acre of corn. In order to supply our current demands, you would need 624 million acres of farm land to produce enough ethanol to satisfy our current needs. Unfortunately, this country only has about 350 million acres of land for farming and only half of that is "quality" farm land. We lose 100,000 acres of land each year to soil erosion and human expansion. So, to satisfy our gasoline needs, we would need "at least" twice as much land for corn as we have now for all of our farming activity. (click for farm land statistics). For sure, it takes a lot of "above ground" land area to create biofuels. Do you think the "greens" are going to let America expand into Federally reserved lands and National Park lands in order to get enough land to satisfy our energy needs? I don't think so!
Even hydrogen, the fuel of the future, needs to be "derived" from something. With the current technologies, the only real way to "economically" produce hydrogen is to produce if from fossil fuels. So, hear we are again, stuck with coal, oil and natural gas. It is almost unavoidable to ignore the these natural commodities as the source for our energy.
Like it or not, we are "not" going to "green" ourselves out of the energy quagmire that we now find ourselves in. The ugliness of doing so and the lack of land for all these "green" technologies makes that impossible. Despite all the "elect-me" rhetoric of the Democrats running for office, the reality of a non-oil dependent and fossil-fuel-free America is almost impossible; given our current technologies. We had better find ways to drill for more oil in this country. We need to expand a cleaner use of coal power. And, we need to seriously invest in atomic energy or the money we need for food will be used up in buy foreign oil.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Rain Forests and Deserts
The hot topic of the news over the last few years has certainly been "Global Warming". Often, the loss of rain forests is noted as one of the reasons, among many, that we have "Global Warming". After all, these densely foliated areas of the world are extreme carbon dioxide (CO2) eating machines. And, if you subscribe to the theory that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of "Global Warming" (through the "greenhouse" effect), then it makes sense that the loss of rain forests will result in an increase of carbon dioxide.
However, I live in the desert Southwest of the United States. No one ever mentions how the "greening" of deserts around the world has offset the loss of the rain forests. The fact is that from Northern Africa to the Middle East to the desert Southwest of the United States, there are millions of acres of vegetation that are now flourishing in what had previously been, at the very best, dried scrub or just plain old desert sand.
Of course, the "Global Warmists" tend to point to all the negatives in support of their viewpoint. They choose to ignore the positives and the how the greening of the deserts are a definite positive and a very human activity that is helping to stifle the greenhouse effect. (Please note: a downside of inhabited deserts is the loss of fresh water supplies in the world.)
I am not sure but, my guess is that the rain forests are being destroyed at a lesser rate than the "green" expansion of Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. I could be wrong....
However, I live in the desert Southwest of the United States. No one ever mentions how the "greening" of deserts around the world has offset the loss of the rain forests. The fact is that from Northern Africa to the Middle East to the desert Southwest of the United States, there are millions of acres of vegetation that are now flourishing in what had previously been, at the very best, dried scrub or just plain old desert sand.
Of course, the "Global Warmists" tend to point to all the negatives in support of their viewpoint. They choose to ignore the positives and the how the greening of the deserts are a definite positive and a very human activity that is helping to stifle the greenhouse effect. (Please note: a downside of inhabited deserts is the loss of fresh water supplies in the world.)
I am not sure but, my guess is that the rain forests are being destroyed at a lesser rate than the "green" expansion of Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada. I could be wrong....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
