We burn 2.7 million gallons a minute, so why's oil so cheap?

January 14, 2015 byJonathan Fahey
In this Friday, May 1, 2009 file photo, operator Steve Pratt looks at a sample from offshore oil drilling platform "Gail," operated by Venoco, Inc., off the coast of California near Santa Barbara. Global consumption has never been higher _ and it is rising. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has fallen by more than half over the past six months because the world, experts say, is awash in oil. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

The world burns enough oil-derived fuels to drain an Olympic-sized swimming pool four times every minute. Global consumption has never been higher—and is rising.

Yet the price of a barrel of oil has fallen by more than half over the past six months because the globe, experts say, is awash in oil.

So, where did all this oil come from?

The Earth has been accumulating oil and natural for about a billion years or so. Humans have been drilling and burning crude and gas in significant amounts for only the last 156 years, since the 1859 birth of the oil industry in Pennsylvania.

So, even when spiked earlier this decade amid worries that oil supplies would soon run low, scientists and oil companies knew there was plenty available. It wasn't so much a question of how much oil and gas was left in the earth's crust, but whether we could figure out how to squeeze it out and make money doing so.

"How much oil we have is an economic and technical question, not a geologic one," says Doug Duncan of the U.S. Geological Survey. "There's far more than we can extract economically using today's technology."

More than enough, for now at least, to sustain record high consumption of 91.4 million barrels per day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, so that's 3.8 billion gallons per day. Looked at another way, it's as if every human on the planet went through a gallon of oil every two days.

In this Friday, May 1, 2009 file photo, operator Steve Pratt looks at a sample from offshore oil drilling platform "Gail," operated by Venoco, Inc., off the coast of California near Santa Barbara. Global oil consumption has never been higher _ and it is rising. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has fallen by more than half over the past six months because the world, experts say, is awash in oil. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

Since 1980, the world has burned nearly 40 trillion gallons. That's a bit more liquid than held by Lake Tahoe, the 11th deepest lake in the world. It's enough to cover the state of California in oil to a depth of 14 inches.

While that may sound like a lot, remember that Lake Tahoe, on a map of the globe, is a pretty small dot. There is sedimentary rock that holds old organic matter under huge swaths of the earth's crust. Some of the rock is 20,000 to 30,000 feet thick, says Scott Tinker, a geologist at the University of Texas's Jackson School of Geosciences. Only a small portion holds oil and gas, but the scale of the possible resource is enormous.

That's part of what worries climate scientists so much. Burning the oil and gas that we've already found—never mind what we haven't yet—will lead to dangerous and possibly catastrophic changes in the earth's climate, they say.

And we're finding more oil and gas than we are using. For example, since 1980, even while we were consuming all that oil, the amount we've found, but haven't yet produced, has more than doubled. The world's proven reserves are now 1.7 trillion barrels, up from 683 billion barrels in 1980, according to a closely watched statistical energy review published by BP.

Technology advances come in fits and starts, and are usually spurred by high prices. The price of oil began rising alarmingly in the early and mid-2000s, inspiring to take risks to apply to find harder-to-reach oil.

In 2007 and 2008, they hadn't yet cracked the code, and consumption was rising fast, so oil spiked to nearly $150 a barrel.

In this July 17, 2009 file photo, an Iraqi worker operates valves at the Nahran Omar oil refinery near the city of Basra 550 kilometers (340 miles) southeast of Baghdad. Global oil consumption has never been higher _ and it is rising. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has fallen by more than half over the past six months because the world, experts say, is awash in oil. (AP Photo/Nabil al-Jourani, File)

They've now not only caught up to the growth in demand, but surpassed it. The big technological breakthrough this time was the means to tap so-called unconventional resources, especially layers of shale and other oil-and-gas rich rock.

In the past, drillers had to look for pools of oil and gas that had collected over millennia, forced by gravity and pressure from source rock into what are known as "traps." Now they can access the layers of source rock directly, bringing billions of barrels of this unconventional oil suddenly within reach.

Rising production from these and other sources, including Canadian oil sands, oil found under mile-thick layers of salt in Brazil's deep waters, and Iraq's enormous fields has for now outpaced rising demand.

In this Oct. 14, 2014 file photo, an oil pump works at sunset in the desert oil fields of Sakhir, Bahrain. Global oil consumption has never been higher _ and it is rising. Yet the price of a barrel of oil has fallen by more than half over the past six months because the world, experts say, is awash in oil. (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali, File)

That has sent the price of oil under $50 a barrel—it closed Wednesday at $48.48—after spending most of the last four years near $100. That's less than what it costs to produce oil in many cases, which means production is likely to fall slowly until demand can catch up.

That could cause prices to shoot back up, and we might again wonder where the next barrel of oil will come from.

"A lot of people thought we were on a downward supply curve with more and more expensive and gas," Duncan says. "New technology changed that equation. We don't know if the equation will be changed again."

Explore further: TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

Related Stories

TransCanada seeks approvals for pipeline to Atlantic

October 30, 2014

TransCanada on Thursday filed for regulatory approval of a proposed Can$12 billion (US$10.7 billion) pipeline to carry western Canadian oil to Atlantic coast refineries and terminals, for shipping overseas.

A complete solution for oil-spill cleanup

October 3, 2012

Scientists are describing what may be a "complete solution" to cleaning up oil spills—a superabsorbent material that sops up 40 times its own weight in oil and then can be shipped to an oil refinery and processed to recover ...

New contaminants found in oil and gas wastewater

January 14, 2015

Duke University scientists have discovered high levels of two potentially hazardous contaminants, ammonium and iodide, in wastewater being discharged or spilled into streams and rivers from oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania ...

The complexities of oil prices

November 10, 2014

With holiday shopping right around the corner, U.S. consumers could have a little extra money in their pockets, thanks to lower gas prices. Saudi Arabia, the planet's top producer and exporter of crude oil, lowered its prices ...

Recommended for you

New findings on carbon cycle feed climate research

January 23, 2017

A Florida State University researcher is taking a deep dive into the carbon cycle and investigating how carbon moves from the ocean surface to greater depths and then remains there for hundreds of years.

Arctic melt ponds form when meltwater clogs ice pores

January 23, 2017

When spring comes to the Arctic, the breakup of the cold winter ice sheets starts at the surface with the formation of melt ponds. These pools of melted snow and ice darken the surface of the ice, increasing the amount of ...

Study finds parrotfish are critical to coral reef health

January 23, 2017

An analysis of fossilized parrotfish teeth and sea urchin spines by researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego showed that when there are more algae-eating fish on a reef, ...

130 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Water_Prophet
3 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2015
Aren't we clever, digging up garbage and burning it is our life's blood.

We can't think of anything better?

Wind always exists above 40 ft. Massive solar farms. Little solar cells for lights.

I don't suppose those have anything to with the price of oil dropping?
gculpex
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2015
emerging tech was being powered by the high prices but now its a game of politics and market share and money.
24volts
5 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2015
A little yea, but at the moment is that the US and Canada is producing enough of our own we don't have to be held for ransom anymore at the oil pumps. Currently mainly the Saudi's are dropping the prices in an attempt at driving the shale oil industry out of business and possibly a few of their own enemies over in that area of the world. It's also having the effect of causing economic problems in a lot of the other oil producing nations in the world too though like Russia. This could get interesting before long.....

We will eventually get switched over to solar, wind and other alternate energy sources. It takes time and a lot of money. I give it about 50 years before most of our energy comes from sources other than oil products. You just can't change the whole worlds energy infrastructure in a short time period unless EVERYBODY is on board with doing it and that simply hasn't happened yet and in all likelihood probably won't. It will be a slow bumpy process.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2015
the Saudi's are dropping the prices in an attempt at driving the shale oil industry out of business


Correct... [by not slowing production]. And also the alternative investment market.
someone11235813
1 / 5 (1) Jan 14, 2015
edit.
zaxxon451
5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2015
A little yea, but at the moment is that the US and Canada is producing enough of our own we don't have to be held for ransom anymore at the oil pumps. Currently mainly the Saudi's are dropping the prices in an attempt at driving the shale oil industry out of business and possibly a few of their own enemies over in that area of the world. It's also having the effect of causing economic problems in a lot of the other oil producing nations in the world too though like Russia. This could get interesting before long.....


Consumers will use what the energy corporations sell us, nothing else. Energy independence for individuals is a pipe dream. Some state and local laws are already banning solar panels on homes.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2015
Aren't we clever, digging up garbage and burning it is our life's blood.

We can't think of anything better?

Wind always exists above 40 ft. Massive solar farms. Little solar cells for lights.

I don't suppose those have anything to with the price of oil dropping?


Wind and solar is for electricity, oil is for transportation and as a chemical resource. Renewables wont help us with oil independence.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015


Wind and solar is for electricity, oil is for transportation and as a chemical resource. Renewables wont help us with oil independence.


Haven't you heard of the electric car?
It will be just a matter of time before electric cars, buses etc will become cost effective.
And all the electricity generated to recharge them would eventually come from renewables so renewables will help us with oil independence.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Aren't we clever, digging up garbage and burning it is our life's blood.
We can't think of anything better?
Why can't U who claimed to have graduated as a Physical Chemist address the FACT CO2 has specific thermal properties which interfere with Earth's thermal balance by way of absorbance of long wave infra red radiation to Space ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Wind always exists above 40 ft. Massive solar farms. Little solar cells for lights
Not entirely true, depending upon location (obviously) there are sizable resources just above ground even at 3m !

Water_Prophet dipping his fetal toe
I don't suppose those have anything to with the price of oil dropping?
Since you have shown difficulty with physics as pre-requisite for your claimed degree in Physical Chemistry, what makes you think you have any understanding of patterns affecting politics & comparative ownership of worlds resources & rights to distribution ?

Monster group WP !
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
Oil is cheap because so much is used.
It's called supply and demand.

Sperm whale oil was used for lighting as it burned cleanly spawning a world-wide whaling industry and creating much wealth in New England.
As the price of sperm whale oil increased, coal oil and eventually crude oil was efficiently used to create clean burning, cheap kerosene saving the sperm whales, spawning a new oil industry, created new billionaires and launched the socialist take over in the US.
Protoplasmix
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
@Jonathan Fahey – Hi, I see you're a reporter for AP in NY who covers energy. You "spent the 2007-2008 academic year at as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT." What's your reason for not covering MIT Cold Fusion IAP 2014? Why have none of your colleagues covered it? Pretty unbelievable – because functional devices are currently being produced, not just at MIT, but also at NASA, and the US Navy, and elsewhere. As a journalist covering energy, where's the integrity?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
ryggesogn2 with his usual one dimensional rubbish
Oil is cheap because so much is used.
It's called supply and demand
No.
Oil is cheap NOW, because OPEC & other oil produces are not restricting supply & effectively dumping !

Can't U see the distinction ?

How would U be thinking ryggesogn2 as a major oil producer Eg at Opec if shale oil & fracking become really competitive ?

Its basic commercial logic, not nice but, means traditional oil suppliers are concerned at immense loss of market share & above all the paranoia over solar/wind taking hold is also unsettling when Uhave become complacent on decades of supplying oil.

We are in for a wild ride, sadly higher CO2 will be the short term result as those less inspired to protect the planet take advantage of low oil prices ?

Where's your claimed degree in Physics ryggesogn2, what does it tell you about CO2 & its proven irrefutable thermal properties adding thermal resistivity of long wave IR to space ?
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2015
There is no such thing as "clean burning" fossil fuel, Ryg. And educate yourself if you can on Rockefeller – most definitely not a socialist. You may be able to convince a few idiots that black is white, but fewer and fewer as time goes by...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
There is no such thing as "clean burning" fossil fuel, Ryg. And educate yourself if you can on http://www.reform...ler.html – most definitely not a socialist. You may be able to convince a few idiots that black is white, but fewer and fewer as time goes by...


Rockefeller standardized cleaner burning, low cost kerosene that replaced less clean coal oil and expensive sperm whale oil.
Rockefeller was NOT a socialist, but the 'progressive' US govt that created the Taft-Hartley Act is socialist.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
Protoplasmix offered with a fair question
Why have none of your colleagues covered it? Pretty unbelievable – because functional devices are currently being produced, not just at MIT, but also at NASA, and the US Navy, and elsewhere. As a journalist covering energy, where's the integrity?
Journo's who are ostensibly mandated to cover energy per se damn well should, so one could conclude they don't consider it timely, not aware of it or dismiss it.

I've had an interest in this field for a while & even traded Palladium futures but, these days I am rather well occupied and a 2hr video & I might add ratehr slow moving talk doesnt have me enthused so far.

So Protoplasmix, your suggestion there are functional devices produced garners my interest, is it NOW or some time soon. The metallurgical issues with Pd, currents, power density return etc all seem a bit difficult to accept as devices NOW...

Not averse to fabricating my own but, where are there tangible plans ?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2015
ryggesogn2 muttered
Rockefeller standardized cleaner burning, low cost kerosene that replaced less clean coal oil and expensive sperm whale oil
Wasn't this 19th century, why are you so stooped in the tired old dirty past - because at that time electric cars where on the road but greedy groups sidestepped them with no imagination !

Any chance you can lift your game at least 100+ years ?

As a claimed graduate in Physics ryggesogn2, what have you been doing except arguing and throwing one liners across phys.org for a commercial agenda, do u have ANY integrity left ?

What are u developing ?

What hypothesis are you promoting ?

What environmental media & change are you championing ?

Anything useful ryggesogn2 - to anyone ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
While Taft Hartley is socialistic it had nothing to do with anti-trust.
That was the Sherman Act and it, to, is socialistic in nature and intent.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2015
your suggestion there are functional devices produced garners my interest, is it NOW or some time soon. The metallurgical issues with Pd, currents, power density return etc all seem a bit difficult to accept as devices NOW...

Mike, that link was to just the first day of a 5-day long Independent Activities Project course, so there are 4 more videos with average length of ~3 hours each. If you're truly interested, I'd say the course is a prerequisite for doing further work and/or study. There are actually a variety of different devices covered in the course. Positive results have been achieved using Pd, but also using Ni. Some cells use heavy water, some use ordinary water, and some use light water. Swartz's "nanor" is actually solid and resembles a resistor. Please take the time to attend the course...
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
We burn 2.7 million gallons a minute, so why's oil so cheap?

Because there are endless supplies of the gooey stuff, and an extensive production and supply chain to get it to the eager public and business/gov't communities.
kochevnik
4.4 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
@shotgun Wind and solar is for electricity, oil is for transportation and as a chemical resource. Renewables wont help us with oil independence.
Actually first automobiles were steam and electric. Burning building material and fertilizer for energy is completely stupid. You are actually stealing food from future populations
A little yea, but at the moment is that the US and Canada is producing enough of our own we don't have to be held for ransom anymore at the oil pumps.
Were producing enough of your own. With falling oil prices your shale oil extraction is untenable. Workers are already being fired in North Dakota. The junk bonds used to finance shale are $2trillion and will default in months. The mortgage crisis which precipitated the 2008 recession was much smaller
SteveS
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2015
Here is an interesting article on the effects of low oil prices on shale oil production in America

http://www.econom...oom-bind

Not a collapse but a bounce.
Protoplasmix
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2015
While Taft Hartley is socialistic it had nothing to do with anti-trust.
That was the Sherman Act and it, to, is socialistic in nature and intent.

It's amazing the history you're aware of – how is it you keep advocating repetition of the same mistakes? It was the SCOTUS who ordered the break-up of Standard Oil, per the Sherman Antitrust Act, because the monopoly was a menace to the Republic: "For the safety of the Republic we [US Supreme Court] now decree that the dangerous conspiracy must be ended by Nov. 15, 1911" (John D. A Portrait in Oils, p. 154).

As for "socialism", Ryg, you must be having an awfully tough time with, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
SCOTUS also approved of slavery and approves of the murder of babies.
Protoplasmix
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
Not a collapse but a bounce.

Not to worry—the Republicans have already fixed it so the US taxpayers will pay for it, yet again... see Russian Roulette: Taxpayers Could Be on the Hook for Trillions in Oil Derivatives
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
Ryg, I think Mike nailed it:
Any chance you can lift your game at least 100+ years ?

As a claimed graduate in Physics ryggesogn2, what have you been doing except arguing and throwing one liners across phys.org for a commercial agenda, do u have ANY integrity left ?

What are u developing ?

What hypothesis are you promoting ?

What environmental media & change are you championing ?

Anything useful ryggesogn2 - to anyone ?
kochevnik
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 15, 2015
Protoplasmix, ryggie uses the word "socialist" to denote anything he doesn't like in the current moment. In the current sentence. In the next sentence he may love the very thing he despised in the prior sentence and it is now "freedom", "John Galt" or whatever. I think he is collecting our confused shrugs to build an atlas of shrugs and become some libertarian superhero
Water_Prophet
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
Oil is too expensive to burn.

Alan Dean Foster noticed this a while ago. Eventually, we will need the plastics for their storage and building properties.

Electricity with high speed trains could easily replace planes. (Oh the terror!) Faster cheaper, and it has been done in much higher population areas over shorter differences effectively and safely. Just not in the US for some reason.

I am all for evacuated super-sonic trains. Think about how much faster, cheaper and more comfortably we could travel, especially if we didn't have to wait 1-2 hours to get on a plane.

Just saying.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2015
Why can't U who graduated as a Physical Chemist address the FACT CO2 has specific thermal properties which interfere with Earth's thermal balance by way of absorbance of long wave infra red radiation to Space ?
........and why can't you figure out that CO2 being only 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere does not have the minimum density that is required to create all this thermal imbalance.

Water_Prophet dipping his fetal toe........Since you have shown difficulty with physics as pre-requisite for your claimed degree in Physical Chemistry, what makes you think you have any understanding of patterns affecting politics & comparative ownership of worlds resources & rights to distribution?


So Mr Retired meterologist, what are your best bragging rights to the same? Do you know how to solve a "rate of reaction equation"? Thermodynamics? If you could, you just might be able to figure out why CO2 being a mere 0.04% of the total atmosphere doesn't have the thermal capacity.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
I have no problem with the US Constitution.
Socialists do, however.
President Wilson despised the US Constitution as did FDR and all other 'liberals' up to Obama.
Friedman from the NYT, and many politicians envy the power of Chinese communists.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
So Mr Retired meterologist, what are your best bragging rights to the same? Do you know how to solve a "rate of reaction equation"? Thermodynamics? If you could, you just might be able to figure out why CO2 being a mere 0.04% of the total atmosphere doesn't have the thermal capacity.
It remains amazing (and annoying) to me how little you actually know while still claiming to be an engineer.

Here's an article that explains it. http://www.scient...makes-u/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
""I firmly believe that the most important decision taken anywhere in the 20th century was where to locate the Princeton graduate college," Will declared.

The university's president, Woodrow Wilson, then a high-minded political scientist who'd yet to run for public office, insisted that the new residential college be integrated into the main campus. But after a lengthy and bitter academic feud, in 1910 the university's trustees and donors sided with the graduate school dean, who chose a more secluded location adjoining a golf course.

"When Wilson lost," Will told the black-tie crowd, "he had one of his characteristic tantrums, went into politics and ruined the 20th century."
" Wilson wrote in his scholarly tome Constitutional Government in the United States (1908). He deplored the way the branches of government checkmated each other to stall progress - See more at: http://www.histor...g85.dpuf
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2015
@Benni, is my little ankle biter still snapping air?
Couldn't have said it better myself-thank you: Only this to add:
Not only is CO2 too anemic to generate a significant effect, but water vapour, which is about 45x more powerful GHG, and grossly underestimating 10x more common, does not have that relevant effect.

But this article is about oil not its side effects, surely everyone agrees that oil is pretty stupid. Really, digging up junk to burn it so we have a VISIBLE economic product?

I'd be happy if they taxed wind and solar for the same money(s). We could create OTHER jobs with it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
surely everyone agrees that oil is pretty stupid


What is your cheaper alternative?

VISIBLE economic product?


What INVISIBLE economic products do you want?

I'd be happy if they taxed wind and solar


You are free to DONATE your money to whomever you chose. Why do you prefer to have your money taken from you?
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2015
Ah @ rygge: I think you miss the point.
Wind power just takes a motor to generate, 1920's technology, and the wind is always blowing somewhere, and usually above 40 feet.

But once you invested the little bit in the generator, it'd be basically free. No way to generate revenue off it, and I don't mean a huge generator, I mean chair-sized.

Can you see, even if you don't agree, that we're being choke-chained by a concept?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 15, 2015
@Benni, is my little ankle biter still snapping air?
Couldn't have said it better myself-thank you: Only this to add:
Not only is CO2 too anemic to generate a significant effect, but water vapour, which is about 45x more powerful GHG, and grossly underestimating 10x more common, does not have that relevant effect.


Yeah, I know where you're coming from about the water vapor issue, I intended to mention that but I was at the posting limit.

The weatherman (MM), and others here, know so little chemistry & thermodynamics that the bigger picture escapes them. They fail to understand that a gas isolated in high concentration in a flask in a lab doesn't have the same properties as when it is in a dispersed state.

If the above weatherman wants to do a realistic test, he should measure the thermal properties of a 100% concentration of CO2 in a flask & then reduce that same flask to 0.04% CO2 mixed with the other atmospheric gases & compare the differences.
Protoplasmix
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 15, 2015
What is your cheaper alternative?

You really need to include the cost to the planet. They destroy ecosystems and habitats to get the stuff and leave behind a toxic dump for us AND our posterity to pay for. Now we have earthquakes in Conneticut, tremblers in Kansas, an earthquake swarm in Texas, 400 small earthquakes in Ohio, earthquakes in Colorado, and the largest so far (M 5.7) in Prague, Oklahoma, caused by fracking injection wells. And you have the unmitigated gall to ask about cheaper alternatives?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2015
Benni-Oddly enough I have tried to explain that to them: It is rare to encounter someone who understands the phenomenon. Did you encounter it theoretical or experimentally? I stumbled over it studying dilute solutions of ZnCl2.
Then, being a nerd, I had to figure out why theoretically. But it is hardly textbook.

I offer a simple test anyone can do (also mocked): Of just setting your thermostat equal to outdoor temperature. CO2 is sooo much higher indoors, maybe 12000 ppm, that you should notice something... then open the door, and let humidity increase a little, and notice how it feels warmer, despite CO2 going down to ~400ppm.

QED, right there in your home.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 15, 2015
What is your cheaper alternative?

You really need to include the cost to the planet. They destroy ecosystems and habitats to get the stuff and leave behind a toxic dump for us AND our posterity to pay for. Now we have earthquakes in Conneticut, tremblers in Kansas, an earthquake swarm in Texas, 400 small earthquakes in Ohio, earthquakes in Colorado, and the largest so far (M 5.7) in Prague, Oklahoma, caused by fracking injection wells. And you have the unmitigated gall to ask about cheaper alternatives?


.......then you need to start by setting an example. Have you stopped driving a car yet? Ceased from wearing most winter outerware? how about those shoes you wear? That computer keyboard on which you type your posts?......... I could go on, but I would have to say that by the time you get done chucking all the things made from oil that you need to sustain life these days, I'm afraid you'll just end up complaining about how cold everything has suddenly become.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 15, 2015
Benni-Oddly enough I have tried to explain that to them: It is rare to encounter someone who understands the phenomenon. Did you encounter it theoretical or experimentally?

Actually by both methods, I'm a design engineer who also spends a lot of time in our gamma ray spectroscopy lab at work. I had three semesters of chemistry in college.

I stumbled over it studying dilute solutions of ZnCl2.
Interesting

I offer a simple test anyone can do (also mocked): Of just setting your thermostat equal to outdoor temperature. CO2 is sooo much higher indoors, maybe 12000 ppm, that you should notice something... then open the door, and let humidity increase a little, and notice how it feels warmer, despite CO2 going down to ~400ppm.
Yep, a change in humidity creates big thermal property changes in any environment.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 15, 2015
That's great, the pretend engineer and the crying quitter are in agreement.

"The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that's also a hypocrite!" - Tennessee Williams

ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2015
Haven't you heard of the electric car?
It will be just a matter of time before electric cars, buses etc will become cost effective.
And all the electricity generated to recharge them would eventually come from renewables so renewables will help us with oil independence.


Then it is not renewables, but electric cars that will help us become independent of oil. Renewables alone do not help with oil independence. The electricity could come from any source, thats the easy part, it is the transportation part that is the hardest.

Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2015
Benni, who claims to solve DE's at the drop of a hat asked
....and why can't you figure out that CO2 being only 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere does not have the minimum density that is required to create all this thermal imbalance
You should know, density is not necessarily the only factor. I don't claim to be Physical Chemist (PC) ie Water_Prophet, it's something PC's r trained in ie Properties of materials eg gases !

Benni, please get input from Water_Prophet, he CLAIMS to be a PC, why don't U ask him, I don't claim to be a PC but, appreciate it & have discussed PCs they understand the issue fully, yet U; Benni & Water_Prophet have no idea !

Benni/Water_Prophet, look at Mars re Earth comparison
- Less than 1% atmospheric pressure
- 95+% CO2
- Farther away

YET, can achieve 20-35 deg C in SHADE, HOW can this be possible with CO2 ?

Benni ask Water_Prophet to offer the absorbance index DE's he claims to be able to do ?

What could be simpler to resolve it ?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2015
Benni claimed
So Mr Retired meterologist, what are your best bragging rights to the same?
No, U r confused again. I'm in Western Australia.

Benni asked
Do you know how to solve a "rate of reaction equation"?
Sure but, U should know not appropriate, U SHOULD do absorbancy/re-radiation rates & re path length as runrig has offered U superior input to mine but, U fail dismally !

Benni claimed
If you could,
U chose WRONG approach - r u ill/disabled or what ?

Benni, get it right !

Benni claimed
.. you just might be able to figure out why CO2 being a mere 0.04% of the total atmosphere doesn't have the thermal capacity
As mentioned density is NOT issue.

Reminder; atmosphere is bulk N2 & O2 - NOT long wave IR absorbers/emitters ?

Obviously U MUST look at H2O's relationship with CO2, OBVIOUS arithmetic ie Additive ie.
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Now integrate (area under curve) vs relative absorbancy energy & U might Wakeup !

cont
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2015
Water_Prophet mumbled
Oil is too expensive to burn....Just saying.
How about answering the simple question I have posed which U are trying to evade & SHOULD be able to answer as a claimed Physical Chemist ?

Water_Prophet, look its very simple:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Look at it, U will notice CO2 has an absorbancy at a high energy level 500-1000cm^-1 whilst H2O is only at ~1500cm^-1

See it ?

Your problem Water_Prophet is encompassed re your phrase "Just saying" & I add "Just claiming".

This goes to prove U are NOT a graduate in Physical Chemistry !

If U & or Benni have integrity AND knowledge U easily CAN show why CO2 is a "red herring" or "trivial" or "anaemic" - but can U focus on the detail of CO2's interesting thermal properties ?

Instead of idly dismissing it as an uneducated redneck does when faced with some maths ?

Area under curve Benni. Water_Prophet - its that dead simple, print it out & colour it in FFS !
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2015
Water_Prophet proves he CANNOT have graduated as Physical Chemist with this qualitative scenario
I offer a simple test anyone can do (also mocked): Of just setting your thermostat equal to outdoor temperature. CO2 is sooo much higher indoors, maybe 12000 ppm, that you should notice something... then open the door, and let humidity increase a little, and notice how it feels warmer, despite CO2 going down to ~400ppm. QED, right there in your home.
Water_Prophet U completely MISS path length & IR spectra !!!!

Even a person who did ONE year physics would notice, which just goes to show re Benni, he either didn't notice or didn't want to embarrass U !

Water_Prophet & Benni, why can't either of u do a simple area under curve re comparative assessment of H2O vs CO2 at the respective wavelengths/energy re this spectra, Clue: Click on the molecule icons & their labels on graph to observe the vibrational states too !

http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2015
I'm a design engineer who also spends a lot of time


What happened Cher? Did they demote you from being the nuclear engineer because they read something on the physorg and found out you tell the lie about your schooling?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2015
It would be nice if AARP had a set aside site for ROCs like MM, Ira, Ghosty, Maggie, etc, who think anything they have to say about science & math has any meaningful relevance to their existence. If AARP had such a site, these ROCs would have someplace to go for "grief counseling" so their poor tortured souls could find some modicum of relief, then they could look forward to the next day of their lives & not feel so badly about being irrelevant.
humy
3.3 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2015


Then it is not renewables,


what isn't "renewables"?

but electric cars that will help us become independent of oil. Renewables alone do not help with oil independence.


you mean not without electric cars? Nobody is CLAIMING that just merely have renewable sources of energy alone would solve ALL the energy problems without combining it with other measures.

Your assertion about energy distribution is also totally irrelevant for the same reason -I mean DIRR, of course we need energy distribution as well as energy production! Nobody is CLAIMING we don't. We also need energy distribution for fossil fuels -you don't deny they need transporting, right? and electric from burning oil also needs to be distributed thus, again, it is irrelevant.

Also, what about biofuels? Although I am not personally a big fan of biofuels, the fact remains they can be made to be both renewable and can feul cars that are not all-electric car
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2015
Benni proves unequivocally he has NO science training at all
It would be nice if AARP had a set aside site for ROCs like MM, Ira, Ghosty, Maggie, etc, who think anything they have to say about science & math has any meaningful relevance to their existence...
I offer u a simple paradigms to clarify re physics of CO2 & even with a link to examine & u CANNOT offer ANYTHING to refute eg re CO2 ! Why is that, too hard Benni ?

Those uni trained & otherwise on Science see your blurts r barely qualitative at best & that's being sympathetic to your uneducated plight but, show u up so very frequently, u are almost like Water_Prophet, so far from reality u can't see the distance or how irrelevant u are, so very sad !

Benni claimed
..I'm a design engineer who also spends a lot of time in our gamma ray spectroscopy lab at work
Then you SHOULD know re EM spectra & how to read off energies from relative absorbance:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Y can't U ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
You really need to include the cost to the planet.

'The planet' doesn't care about costs. It's not alive.

If the govt only did the job it is supposed to do, protect private property, those who do care would be able to be compensated for the damage to their property.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2015
humy offered
Also, what about biofuels? Although I am not personally a big fan of biofuels, the fact remains they can be made to be both renewable and can feul cars that are not all-electric car
ooops sry humy, mouse slip on new laptop meant to give a 5 :-(

Agree with U significantly. Fortunately I don't need to commute but, not far from major arterial route to Perth - Roe Hwy. Lots of heavy traffic & appreciate the immense amount of power needed to transport 2 & 3 trailer loads on prime movers. Not easy thing to accomplish with batteries so it seems for foreseeable future some form of high energy liquid fuel has benefits, if at least, re existing liquid infrastructure. From many perspectives electric is unlikely to make major inroads in that, short term.

With the widespread roll-out of home solar systems & improved perception, some have taken it further for full energy self-sufficiency albeit subsidised but, critics may not see that comparative values.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
But once you invested the little bit in the generator, it'd be basically free.

'The little bit'?
Really?
Wind power is not free. Generators are massive, required a significant infrastructure for fabrication, wear out and require batteries to store power then the wind doesn't blow.
If it was just a 'little bit', why does GE and other need to be subsidized with plundered wealth?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 16, 2015
ryggesogn2 with his normal one dimensional rants
If the govt only did the job it is supposed to do, protect private property
Is that all ? How about:-
- infrastructure, power, roads, sewers, medicine ?
- communications
- national education & standards
- national security

Why ryggesogn2, r u always ranting with such a simpleton banal nature ?

ryggesogn2 claimed[q/].. those who do care would be able to be compensated for the damage to their property. How will someone tell if someone does "care", tell me how this can be administered ?

Where is your Science ryggesogn2, you claimed long ago you have a degree in Physics yet have never written like anyone who has been to uni - just like Water_Prophet & it appears Benni as well.

All you guys are so very thin on any actual Science & why is that pray tell ?

Did U guys not realise this IS a Science site ?

ryggesogn2 please see if your brain can appreciate this:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 16, 2015
ryggesogn2 claimed
If it was just a 'little bit', why does GE and other need to be subsidized with plundered wealth?
vs the plundered wealth to subsidise nuclear & coal ?

Which would U prefer ryggesogn2 ?

Both coal & nuclear demonstrate they increase background radiation, whereas renewables do not, are you only thinking for yourself again ?

Asked U this before a couple of times but you bailed, what excuse this time ?

You have shown ryggesogn2 in many previous posts for years, U don't care a dime about others, should we follow your lead or have U summarily dismissed as being irrelevant yet again ?

ryggesogn2 U have been here since 2010, why the heck didn't U get qualifications in that time to at least, refresh your claimed degree in Physics - hasn't helped U one bit has it ?

Why do dicks make claims they can't follow through with ANY evidence ever:-

Water_Prophet
Benni
ryggesogn2

to start with !
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 16, 2015
It would also be nicer if AARP-Skippys had a site that only let couyons in so Bennie-Skippy could let the little-Bennie-Skippys come to read without running into peoples pointing out has silly their papa is.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
Haven't you heard of the electric car?
It will be just a matter of time before electric cars, buses etc will become cost effective.
And all the electricity generated to recharge them would eventually come from renewables so renewables will help us with oil independence.


Then it is not renewables, but electric cars that will help us become independent of oil. Renewables alone do not help with oil independence. The electricity could come from any source, thats the easy part, it is the transportation part that is the hardest.



Electric cars are only a part of the overall solution. There is no one correct path to oil independence.

Cars are a smaller part of the issue, electrical generation is far and away the biggest problem. Gas and coal fired power plants are where the big gains in CO2 reduction have to be made. You have things backwards.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
We are talking about oil. Transportation accounts for over 90% of oil usage, with chemical feedstock accounting for most of the rest. We do not burn oil for electricity. Converting transportation from oil to electric (or some other alternative) is by far the biggest problem for oil independence, and harder to do than building some renewable power plants. Electricity generation is a minor issue in comparison. You have things completely backwards, not me. Renewables may help us to produce clean electricity but they wont do much for oil independence.

Even if we magically got 100% of our electricity from renewables by tomorrow, we would not be any more oil independent.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
"why's oil so cheap?"

-The question is, why has it been so expensive? The artificial rise and fall of oil prices corresponds to wars which have been Planned and Staged in the middle east.

Petrodollars have been used to fund these Designer wars, specifically to support participating regimes and to stockpile weapons for arming all the hapless angry starving young insurgents slated to die in them.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, oil was recognized as an extremely dangerous commodity, capable of fueling vast armies in remote corners of the world beyond the influence of the west.

The obvious Solution was to consume this material to the point where the remainder could only be recovered using expensive western technology. A vast oil-based economic structure was thus created which could burn enormous quantities quickly.

Obviously the health of the planet was secondary to the disposal of oil, for the very existence of Order and Stability was at stake.
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
Darn @Ghost, great point!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2015
Darn @Ghost, great point!
The People who Run this planet arent stupid you know. Thank god.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2015
Well, there we disagree. Folks that run the world have similar characteristics:

Slightly below average intelligence.
Compensating for something.

Still a good point.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2015
Well, there we disagree. Folks that run the world have similar characteristics:

Slightly below average intelligence.
Compensating for something.

Still a good point.

Almost everybody who has founded & run their own businesses are smarter than most of the politicians they painfully find themselves saddled with having to vote for, there a few exceptions.
humy
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2015


Electric cars are only a part of the overall solution. There is no one correct path to oil independence.

How many times have I got to repeat myself?
Nobody, and that includes I, is CLAIMING this. Thus that fact is IRRELEVANT.
The fact remains that renewables are part of the overall solution.
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2015


Electric cars are only a part of the overall solution. There is no one correct path to oil independence.

How many times have I got to repeat myself?
Nobody, and that includes I, is CLAIMING this. Thus that fact is IRRELEVANT.
The fact remains that renewables are part of the overall solution.


You might want to read this thread over again. I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to oneshotmaslo. If you read through the comments carefully, you'll notice that I was agreeing with you.

ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2015
You really need to include the cost to the planet.

'The planet' doesn't care about costs. It's not alive.

If the govt only did the job it is supposed to do, protect private property, those who do care would be able to be compensated for the damage to their property.

The planet might not care about the cost, but I certainly do. Consumed hydrocarbons being released into the atmosphere "socializes" the cost of oil. A person should be responsible for the products they purchase, including disposal of waste produced by these products. Having CO2 levels rise, due to improper disposal, is a violation of my "property rights". Government should do it's job and ensure either proper disposal, through carbon capture, or compensation provided from those responsible.
p1ll
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 18, 2015
We owe everything we have today to oil. You guys sound like a bunch of whiners.

The reason oil prices are so low is partly due to OPEC engaging in a price war to put fracking companies out of business. They are trying to price fracking out of business.

We will be using some new advanced fuel technology in the future, but it's not going to happen faster by making electricity more expensive. Slow growth will mean slower innovation.

No one is buying the doomsday nonsense. Scaring little kids that the world is going to end is abhorrent. Calling those who disagree with you "deniers" breeds resentment, Dr. Smarty-Pants.

There will never be the day you get to say, "See? We told you so!! We were right! You should have listened and now it's too late!" There's no "I told you so" moment heading your way.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2015
We owe everything we have today to oil. You guys sound like a bunch of whiners.

The reason oil prices are so low is partly due to OPEC engaging in a price war to put fracking companies out of business. They are trying to price fracking out of business.

We will be using some new advanced fuel technology in the future, but it's not going to happen faster by making electricity more expensive. Slow growth will mean slower innovation.

No one is buying the doomsday nonsense. Scaring little kids that the world is going to end is abhorrent. Calling those who disagree with you "deniers" breeds resentment, Dr. Smarty-Pants.

There will never be the day you get to say, "See? We told you so!! We were right! You should have listened and now it's too late!" There's no "I told you so" moment heading your way.


Preferable to sound like whiners than to sound like a total idiot like you I suppose.

Got any proof to back up your fantastic claims?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2015
p1ll: It's a good point, we do owe alot to oil. But how much of it really only serves oil? That's also a good question. Do people really need to drive everyday to push paper around? I know that's the extreme, but looking at the in-between, between farmers and tractors, and people who get paid to do meaningless work, well, there is a trade off.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
Do people really need to drive everyday to push paper around?

Why do people have to 'push paper around'?

people who get paid to do meaningless work,

Depends upon who is paying. If it is the state, then it is likely meaningless work.

Does 'pushing paper' include creating engineering drawings, writing software, writing user manuals, creating engineering change documents, creating requirements documents, ....?

Does 'knowledge work' add value?
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet with even more rubbish avoiding the issue
p1ll: It's a good point, we do owe alot to oil. But how much of it really only serves oil? That's also a good question. Do people really need to drive everyday to push paper around? I know that's the extreme, but looking at the in-between, between farmers and tractors, and people who get paid to do meaningless work, well, there is a trade off.
Why CAN'T U write as a graduate in Physical Chemistry you claim to be ?

Have you been caught out again ?

Show us evidence of your graduation AND evidence that CO2 is "trivial", "a red herring", "aneamic" etc ?

Can U, know how to do it from Physical Chemistry studies & Physics pre-requisites ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2015
ryggy-wrong track. If things are designed to burn oil and energy, for example, te light on your TV never being off, fuel in-efficient cars, keeping lights on in unused offices and parking lots, etc..
If we are paying people just to burn oil so we can justify an economy, that's silly, and we do it alot. But there are also valid uses. I am just saying that we should check the trade-offs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
If we are paying people just to burn oil so we can justify an economy,


What business that attempts to earn profit would do this?
They are in a better position to evaluate the trade-offs than 'we'.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2015
Mike_, I write in plain English, not academic speak. I try to make the complex into the intuitive. That's my MO.

Explaining global change with a brass bowl, the Sun, some ice and a candle, generating predictive results with that trivial model. No CO2 required.

Is it THAT I do this that makes you so insecure? That I explain something easily, making it intuitive, robs you of being superior? Sorry, bub. That's life, you've got to grow up sometimes.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet with more PROOF he cannot have be a graduate in Physical Chemistry
Mike_, I write in plain English, not academic speak
You have NEVER answered my question whether with messy lay-speak NEVER quantitative, re your claim:-

Show us evidence that CO2 is "trivial", "a red herring", "anemic" etc ?

Water_Prophet claimed
I try to make the complex into the intuitive. That's my MO
CO2 long wave absorbancy of IR to space is NOT complex, you have NEVER addressed it !

Water_Prophet claimed
Explaining global change with a brass bowl, the Sun, some ice and a candle, generating predictive results with that trivial model. No CO2 required
It doesnt qualify your claim:-

Show us evidence that CO2 is "trivial", "a red herring", "anemic" etc ?

Why do you attempt distraction, why can't you focus on the Science ?

Evidence ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
Ryygy, well it really begs the question. And this is what I am driving at:

Basically we are digging up garbage and burning it, and this is an economy driver. We van do this cheaply and effectively by other means. We could make commuter cars that are essentially recumbent bikes with airfoils that sip gas, for very little. But we don't. We create jobs to make things so we can burn gas.

I am not saying it is all bad, I am saying, examine the tradespace.

@Mike_, I can't even understand your rambling.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
@Mike_, I can't even understand your rambling.
You can't understand this, are you ill or disabled:-

Show us evidence that CO2 is "trivial", "a red herring", "anemic" etc ?
=======================================================

You can get the magnitude of the comparative absorbance bands of H2O vs CO2 from this,
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

you as a claimed Physical Chemist SHOULD know how to do this, do you want to be walked through it by a mere electronic engineer & food scientist who dabbles in having to deal with errant liars who claim non-existent qualifications & never write like graduates ?

Look at the width & placement of the CO2 bands ?

Do you need to be shown how to use the links buttons & vibrational states to augment the earth's emission spectra ?

Claiming u can't understand the underlined sentence above shows u have a problem with cognition & comprehension, if so imagine what its asking U ?

Can U ?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2015
Not only is CO2 too anemic to generate a significant effect, but water vapour
@ALCHE/h20Crybaby-TROLL and the idiot BenniTROLL too
you have obviously ignored the study that i linked that explained all of the properties of CO2 with regard to the feedback and cycle with WV

So...and i ask again, where is the scientific refute using the scientific method and giving equivalent evidence that refuted said study which would support your conclusions and undermine the study i linked while turning global climate science on it's head?

It is such a simple request
I gave you links to studies that supported my conclusions regarding CO2 and WV along with the feedback and cycle

Where is your studies that refute said mechanism that explains how CO2 is the global temp control knob?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2015
we are digging up garbage and burning it, and this is an economy driver


Energetic 'garbage' created by the sun and gravity.

We could make commuter cars that are essentially recumbent bikes with airfoils that sip gas, for very little


Who will drive one at -20F and snowing?

We van do this cheaply and effectively by other means.


Who is 'we'? If true, why don't YOU do it?

We create jobs to make things so we can burn gas.


We have gas to burn so we can create jobs and live where we want to live.

Ask the question why nuclear power is not more prevalent? There is more energy released in nuclear fission than breaking chemical bonds yet the 'watermelons' despise nuclear energy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
Ryggy, peace for once, I understand what you're saying, and have agreement with it, now will you try to see what I'm saying?
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2015
Ask the question why nuclear power is not more prevalent? There is more energy released in nuclear fission than breaking chemical bonds yet the 'watermelons' despise nuclear energy.

The cost of disposal, and storage, of the waste produced is not "socialized" as it is with hydrocarbons. If the true cost hydrocarbons was factored in, their cost would be much higher.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2015
Ryggy, peace for once, I understand what you're saying, and have agreement with it, now will you try to see what I'm saying?


Then make sense.

The cost of disposal, and storage, of the waste produced is not "socialized" as it is with hydrocarbons.

What costs? In the US, spent rods are stored on site in pools.

The law required a storage facility be opened in NV. 'Liberals' refuse to follow the law. No surprise.
What 'true costs' of hydro-carbons?
ekim
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2015
Imagine if nuclear power, instead of charging higher electricity prices for storage of waste, simply packaged the waste into small bundles and sent them to every person on the planet to store. Each month, regardless of your electricity usage, you receive another bundle to store. The industry tells you that because each bundle is small, and the radiation released is only a small fraction of the natural dose, you don't have to worry. You don't receive any payment, but those with electricity are doing well, and isn't that enough? That in a package is the hydrocarbon industry as it currently stands.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2015
hat in a package is the hydrocarbon industry as it currently stands.

BS.

Coal plants ARE charging more.
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2015
hat in a package is the hydrocarbon industry as it currently stands.

BS.

Coal plants ARE charging more.

And what part of that increased price pays for the storage of CO2 on my property? Until the industry finds a way to remove the excess CO2, or pay me for storage, my rights are being violated by a socialist system where the greater good of society overrides my property rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
Until the industry finds a way to remove the excess CO2,

Why?
How much excess CO2 is on your property?
There are chemicals that absorb CO2.
Sue to have the power company buy you those chemicals to keep on your property.But just enough to compensate for their CO2.
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
Until the industry finds a way to remove the excess CO2,

Why?
How much excess CO2 is on your property?
There are chemicals that absorb CO2.
Sue to have the power company buy you those chemicals to keep on your property.But just enough to compensate for their CO2.

When I purchased my property, CO2 was at a certain level. Now that does fluctuate over the course of a year due to growing crops, trees, and other bio-matter which ends up being consumed and then regenerates. However, the net effect is that the carbon I purchased remains consistent. My neighbors, on the other hand, are burning 2.7 million gallons of oil per minute, converting it to CO2, some of which leaves their property and some makes it onto my property. My CO2 levels, and carbon levels, on my property have increased past the original levels at the time of purchase due to my neighbors actions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
carbon levels, on my property have increased past the original levels at the time of purchase due to my neighbors actions.


How do you measure the CO2 levels on your property?
ekim
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2015
carbon levels, on my property have increased past the original levels at the time of purchase due to my neighbors actions.


How do you measure the CO2 levels on your property?

Actually I would need to account for all the carbon, not just that in CO2, due to absorption of plants.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
How did you measure the carbon and CO2 on your property when you purchased it?
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
How did you measure the carbon and CO2 on your property when you purchased it?

Any properly done property assessment should provide this information. Property size, buildings, forested area etc.... It can all be calculated. Just as the amount of carbon contained in 2.7 million gallons of oil can be calculated.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
How did you measure the carbon and CO2 on your property when you purchased it?

Any properly done property assessment should provide this information. Property size, buildings, forested area etc.... It can all be calculated. Just as the amount of carbon contained in 2.7 million gallons of oil can be calculated.


So you did NOT measure the carbon on your property.

How do you calibrate the 'carbon'? How far down into the soil do you measure?

Now you don't care about CO2 on your property?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
Ryggy-Sorry about your trouble with English. But I am sorry, I am not going to write down at the 1st grade level for you.
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2015
How did you measure the carbon and CO2 on your property when you purchased it?

Any properly done property assessment should provide this information. Property size, buildings, forested area etc.... It can all be calculated. Just as the amount of carbon contained in 2.7 million gallons of oil can be calculated.


So you did NOT measure the carbon on your property.

How do you calibrate the 'carbon'? How far down into the soil do you measure?

Now you don't care about CO2 on your property?

Are you insinuating that I am unaware of the property that I own and therefore violating my rights is somehow justified. Typical socialist.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2015
Are you insinuating that I am unaware of the property that I own and therefore violating my rights is somehow justified. Typical socialist.


Haha, best answer so far!!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2015
I am unaware of the property that I own

You can't, or won't, state how you measured the C or CO2 on your property when you purchased it.
If you are going to sue for carbon 'pollution' you will have to demonstrate that 'pollution' on your property starting with the baseline.
Won't you have demonstrate your property has MORE carbon and that extra carbon was NOT introduced by YOU?
Since carbon occurs naturally, have fun demonstrating that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2015
Ryggy-Sorry about your trouble with English. But I am sorry, I am not going to write down at the 1st grade level for you.

Saying coal and oil is 'garbage' is, at best, imprecise.
The only energy sources in the near future that have sufficient power density require oxidation.
Coal and oil are quite dense with energy.
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
Since carbon occurs naturally, have fun demonstrating that.

Radiation occurs naturally. Are you saying that when there is an accident, such as Chernobyl, property owners couldn't prove that they were harmed, because the can't prove where the radiation comes from? Perhaps they didn't measure the baseline radiation present on their property before hand, which wouldn't be surprising. The burden of proof shouldn't be placed on the victim in such circumstances. Can you account for where the carbon goes when 2.7 million gallons are pumped out of the ground and combusted? Just as the radiation from Chernobyl went somewhere, the carbon goes somewhere. Another example of how socialists don't care about property rights.
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
The only energy sources in the near future that have sufficient power density require oxidation.
Coal and oil are quite dense with energy.

So you don't see any other option than to violate property rights of others? That makes you a socialist.
I would suggest checking out the work being preformed by General Fusion, a Canadian company. Their reactor design is much simpler and cheaper than every other concept so far. Also, the are on track to test their full sized prototype in the next several months.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
You can't, or won't, state how you measured the C or CO2 on your property when you purchased it
@el Stupido-Rygtard
in the US, most people investing money in such a long term investment or venture that usually only grows in value like land or houses can easily get the USGS to sample soil or even check with local USGS or Conservation office for past soil samples and use history

there is a minimal charge for the service and you may even get ADEQ to do it for free if the area has had a history of contamination

you would think someone with your history and knowledge and education would know this... especially considering the posts you've made about your education etc already

and if you are a home owner and STILL don't know?
you are far more uneducated and stupid than you've claimed
this is BASIC stuff for purchasing land or a house, ya dip!
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
Ryggy-Sorry about your trouble with English. But I am sorry, I am not going to write down at the 1st grade level for you.

Saying coal and oil is 'garbage' is, at best, imprecise.
The only energy sources in the near future that have sufficient power density require oxidation.
Coal and oil are quite dense with energy.


Well... you are the expert on density.

No one is as dense as Ryggysoggypants.

Except perhaps JVK.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
It's quite easy to track particle radiation leaks with few sources of radioactive Cs.

How do you track CO2 sources that are ubiquitous, and the fact CO2 is plant food?
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
It's quite easy to track particle radiation leaks with few sources of radioactive Cs.

How do you track CO2 sources that are ubiquitous, and the fact CO2 is plant food?

The same way the bank tracks your money. You might not know this, but there isn't a bag of your dollars in the bank with your name on it. The dollars you deposit are not the same that you withdraw.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
If you don't want CO2 on your property, since it is a natural substance, you would be incumbent to build your own bio-dome to control your atmosphere.
If you don't want your neighbors smoke from his grill blowing on to your property, I believe you should sue to stop it.
If Chernobyl radiation blows over your property, you should sue the USSR.
If radiation from Japan washes up on your property, sue Japan.

While this may sound like a tedious and difficult process, it avoids the socialist Regulatory State and enables the state to sanction pollution.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
The dollars you deposit are not the same that you withdraw.


The dollar belongs to the state and its value is controlled by the state.
The dollar I withdraw is worth less than the dollar I deposited due to state inflation.
ekim
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2015
If you don't want CO2 on your property, since it is a natural substance, you would be incumbent to build your own bio-dome to control your atmosphere.
If you don't want your neighbors smoke from his grill blowing on to your property, I believe you should sue to stop it.
If Chernobyl radiation blows over your property, you should sue the USSR.
If radiation from Japan washes up on your property, sue Japan.

While this may sound like a tedious and difficult process, it avoids the socialist Regulatory State and enables the state to sanction pollution.

CO2 is natural.
Smoke is natural.
Radiation is natural.
Oil is natural.
Water is natural.
Just because something is found in nature, doesn't mean that you have the right to dump it onto my property.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2015
ight to dump it onto my property.


ALL is natural.

Back to my original question. How do you prove CO2 is being 'dumped' your property and where did it come from?
Because there is a natural background level of CO2, and you have CO2 on your property, how will you differentiate YOUR CO2 from that being dumped on your property?
How will you contain the CO2 on your property so you don't get sued for dumping CO2 on someone else's property?

If you lived in the US west where land is open range, you are required to build a fence to keep open range cattle off our property.

ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
The socialists in China built the Three Gorges Dam and displaced some 1.3 million people. Can those people prove that the water flooding their property was not naturally occurring water and not a result of the actions of socialists? Isn't it their fault because they didn't build domes to protect themselves from the water? Maybe they could build a fence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2015
Can those people prove that the water flooding their property

It's not their property. Socialism is state control/ownership of all property.

Maybe they could build a fence.

Maybe they should oppose socialism.
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2015
Can those people prove that the water flooding their property

It's not their property. Socialism is state control/ownership of all property.

Maybe they could build a fence.

Maybe they should oppose socialism.

And what good would that have done them if their property can still be flooded with a natural substance by their neighbors?
ekim
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2015
Opposing socialism means opposing socialist ideals, such as the lack of respect for property rights.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2015
their property


It was the STATE'S property to flood.

The US govt did the same thing when it built dams on the Colorado river.

And, most of the western US is owned by the US govt.

Why won't the govt sell it off?

Opposing socialism means opposing socialist ideals, such as the lack of respect for property rights.


I agree.
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2015
their property


It was the STATE'S property to flood.

The US govt did the same thing when it built dams on the Colorado river.

And, most of the western US is owned by the US govt.

Why won't the govt sell it off?

Opposing socialism means opposing socialist ideals, such as the lack of respect for property rights.


I agree.

So, you agree that flooding of private property is wrong, even by a natural substance such as water. The property owner needs to be properly reimbursed for the troubles befallen upon them by the actions of others. To do otherwise, makes us no different in policy than the Chinese government.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2015
flooding of private property is wrong


That depends upon the cause of the flood.

The property owner needs to be properly reimbursed for the troubles befallen upon them by the actions of others.


The goal of the state is to protect private property.
The definitions of 'properly' and 'troubles' need to be determined in the govt property court.

Most govts around the world are not much different than China regarding property rights.
ekim
3 / 5 (2) Jan 22, 2015
Most govts around the world are not much different than China regarding property rights.

Socialism is convenient. It is easy to adopt policies that violate peoples rights, and many who oppose government intervention only do so when it doesn't conflict with their own interests.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2015
Socialism is convenient


Only for the tyrants.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2015
Socialism is convenient


Only for the tyrants.


...and tyrant wannabes and those who want to be kept.
matrixx
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2015
A tree is made of co2 from the air. Why not just plant more tress? Plant millions of fast growing trees. Or would you rather just snuff out evil dirty oil, so the government can tax our soda bubbles? People would be more open to that idea instead of the chicken little drama and government regulating the methane in my dogs farts.
matrixx
1 / 5 (4) Jan 25, 2015
Funny how the admin changed my nickname to "nubbz" because he doesn't like my comments. That said, A tree is made of co2 from the air. Why not just plant more trees? Plant millions of fast growing trees. You would rather just snuff out evil dirty oil, so the government can tax our soda bubbles. People would be more open to planting trees instead of falling for the chicken little drama.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 25, 2015
"Greenpeace Activist Calls for Climate Change 'Deniers' to be Beheaded"
http://www.breitb...eheaded/

'Liberals' == AGWites == Islamists

Like petulant, spoiled children, when they don't get their way, they demand violence.
matrixx
1 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2015
I love how the same guy goes through every comment hr doesn't like and dutifully rates it a 1. He also rates the comments he likes as 5. Always the same douche bag pissing on his territory, marginalizing points of view he doesn't agree with. Sad little man! Sucks that no one is falling for the chicken little doomsday drama other than his fellow lefty control freaks who salivate at the thought of taxing carbon, the ultimate mother load to fund their vision of utopia :)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Jan 26, 2015
I love how the same guy goes through every comment hr doesn't like and dutifully rates it a 1. He also rates the comments he likes as 5. Always the same douche bag pissing on his territory, marginalizing points of view he doesn't agree with. Sad little man! Sucks that no one is falling for the chicken little doomsday drama other than his fellow lefty control freaks who salivate at the thought of taxing carbon, the ultimate mother load to fund their vision of utopia :)


Well, I think its funny that some low-browed rhetoric spouting denialist scumbag would come to a science site to spout his politically motivated beliefs in order to denigrate the work of poorly paid students and researchers in some lame attempt to foist his poorly considered and hate-filled political views on people who can actually consider the facts presented based on their merit and not on what some slimy conspiracist ranting blogger says we should think.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2015
denigrate the work of poorly paid students and researchers

Do believe everyone should earn a trophy for playing?

It's the AGWites who keep promoting and rewarding shoddy work.
ekim
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2015
I love how the same guy goes through every comment hr doesn't like and dutifully rates it a 1. He also rates the comments he likes as 5.

Isn't that the point of a rating system?

Sucks that no one is falling for the chicken little doomsday drama other than his fellow lefty control freaks who salivate at the thought of taxing carbon, the ultimate mother load to fund their vision of utopia :)

Actually, socialism is the purchase of hydrocarbons and distributing the waste produced among others. Planting trees costs money and takes time and should not be forced upon others. People should be held responsible for the products they purchase and the waste they produce. However the tyrants don't respect the property rights of others and continue to force their waste upon others in the name of their progress.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2015
However the tyrants

Tyrannies like the Regulatory State that enables the socialization of pollution?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2015
"the Obama administration has been keen on focusing on the public health benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Near the end of 2009, the EPA found that greenhouse gases posed a threat to public health because they cause global warming. But greenhouse gases don't directly impact public health, so the EPA relied on other ways to connect the dots."
"EPA said rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants would result in fewer asthma attacks, especially in children. But these alleged public health benefits come from reducing smog and other air pollutants, not carbon dioxide."
http://dailycalle...worries/
rockwolf1000
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 26, 2015
I love how the same guy goes through every comment hr doesn't like and dutifully rates it a 1. He also rates the comments he likes as 5. Always the same douche bag pissing on his territory, marginalizing points of view he doesn't agree with. Sad little man! Sucks that no one is falling for the chicken little doomsday drama other than his fellow lefty control freaks who salivate at the thought of taxing carbon, the ultimate mother load to fund their vision of utopia :)


Something stinks. Could it be antigoracle?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2015
"With oil prices plunging as a result of a fracking-induced oil glut in the United States, experts say the links between Russian oil interests, secretive foreign political donors, and high-profile American environmentalists suggest Russia may be backing anti-fracking efforts in the United States."
http://freebeacon...company/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2015
I love how the same guy goes through every comment hr doesn't like and dutifully rates it a 1. He also rates the comments he likes as 5. Always the same douche bag pissing on his territory, marginalizing points of view he doesn't agree with. Sad little man! Sucks that no one is falling for the chicken little doomsday drama other than his fellow lefty control freaks who salivate at the thought of taxing carbon, the ultimate mother load to fund their vision of utopia :)

It's OK, "1" is the new "5."

@Nubbz, as a newbie, you don't know how pathetic. I am pretty sure there is 1 person here masquerading with at least three usernames. Either one pathetic cyberbully, or three slightly less pathetic people.

You can tell because as rotten as they are, they never argue with each other. That should give you a hint.
matrixx
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2015
Hillarius to read the comments by the warmists.

Here's some simple science you can't deny:

There is no fuel in existsance that can match the energy contained in a gallon of gas.

The reason for the explosion in innovation was that for the first time the price and energy density of fuel allowed it to happen. Before fossil fuels there was nothing that could power such a transformation of society. NOTHING. NOTHING REMOTELY CLOSE. If I am wrongmabout this I would appreciate a correction.

Energy density is key. Solar power is virtually free but its a trickle. You need to burn energy to fuel innovation. What global warming fetishists would like us to do is slam the brakes on human advancement, innovation, technology, and commerce. If you take oil and gas out of the picture, explain to me mathematically what are you going to substitute the required fuel with? Wind power? Is starving developing countries of fuel that they need to advance your vision of social justice? Such fools
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2015
matrixx;
lighting these days only requires a trickle. Wind can generate at least 50% what is required for any given home, from a small windmill, not a mamoth commercial one designed to keep power companies in business.

Electric cars are possible.

So, although you are right, for immediate powerful power, nothing beats fossil fuels. That doesn't mean we can't supplement them with cheap alternatives. It's not a perfect world, and it is if full of partial solutions.

For your consideration.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.