The Great Energy Debate

[Mister Jack]

So in regards to the global energy concern, there seem to be five main schools of thought. Which one do you subscribe to? If you believe something that the poll happens to overlook, post about it.

[Little Pirate]

That's kind of a rough decision to vote on. As far as America goes, since we rely so much on these resources I can see it being a pretty big issue. I'm not so sure what alternative resources will do just based on the fact so much of our technology relies on gas and oil. We probably won't completely collapse if we have to use alternative resources, but I can see it causing a major, major economic depression. Worse than what we're already in. I guess so much of it depends on what decisions are made and how many resources we really do have to rely on here.

Edited January 2, 2011 by LittlePirate

[Mister Jack]

I usually throw out the best and worst option automatically in debates like this and try to think somewhere in between. I am of the belief that tech is always improving (not enough to completely replace oil right now, mind you) and that when the price of oil goes up, people are going to do less driving and flying. I know that isn't the only way oil is used but it's a huge percentage. Industrial first-world nations are extremely wasteful with the stuff, and eventually they'll have to either stop wasting it or go broke, and nobody likes being broke. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Basically, I think conservation will be kind of a pain in the ass to work with but we will be able to keep up our current standards of living, more or less.

[TheForgetfulBrain]

I still remember one of my favorite professors, who I'd had three previous courses from, flying into a rage one day about how the next war won't be over oil or land, it will be over water, and that, basically, everything was quickly spinning down the shitter.

 

That was a depressing class, that day.

[Mister Jack]

What exactly was this guy a professor of?

[Mudkip3DS]

Nuclear energy. All the way. But it would be wise to put more research into thorium-based sources of energy, to reduce the chance of any darned terrorists jacking our weapon-grade uranium and using it on us. Plus, it would play well into the START agreement signed into law recently.

 

Also, this might be a crazy thing to say, but I think we need to find cleaner ways to use coal, instead of getting rid of it altogether. I mean, from an economic viewpoint, we have so much coal available that it's crazy not to use it. Then again, look at how much the coal companies rape the mountains of Appalachia with their strip mining and all...

[Bouchart]

There's plenty of energy to go around for a while, but monetary inflation is driving up the cost of oil and gasoline worldwide since it is dollar denominated.

[Mister Jack]

There's plenty of energy to go around for a while, but monetary inflation is driving up the cost of oil and gasoline worldwide since it is dollar denominated.

 

Is that your professional opinion?

 

I'm not being sarcastic, I just know that tracking the economy is kinda your job so I am just wondering if you picked that up in your research.

[Bouchart]

I don't actually work in finance or in economic forecasting but I follow this kind of thing on a regular basis.

 

The cost of a number of commodities has grown considerably over the past year- precious metals, oil, rare earth metals and foodstuffs. I think it's just run of the mill inflation at work here, not actual demand.

[Shadowstep]

Nuclear energy all the way. Coal and oil don't burn clean and there are still huge risks involved with getting them, as we saw with BP in the Gulf of Mexico and the mine in Chile (I don't think it was a coal mine, but the point is that mining is still dangerous). Wind turbines are giant fucking blades that spin, and when those break you'll see a giant fucking blade go flying off into the distance.

 

Nuclear? There haven't been any deaths in the U.S. or Germany as a result of accidents. It's much safer (as far as mortality rates are concerned), and any new plants would benefit from three decades worth of research and investigation.

[TheForgetfulBrain]

What exactly was this guy a professor of?

 

Woman, professor of, uh, playwriting.

 

[Mister Jack]

Well now, I can't imagine what THAT has to do with playwriting...

[Battra92]

I don't actually work in finance or in economic forecasting but I follow this kind of thing on a regular basis.

 

The cost of a number of commodities has grown considerably over the past year- precious metals, oil, rare earth metals and foodstuffs. I think it's just run of the mill inflation at work here, not actual demand.

 

It's more related to the fall in the value of currency as America and most of Europe has gone bankrupt.

 

As the recent find in Israel shows, we're fine as far as supply. Al Gore can take his Happy Feet and other global warming fairy tales and stick them where the sun doesn't shine.

 

Also, nuclear power. We need more nuclear power.

[Mr. GOH!]

The world's supply of oil is not infinite. I'm not a geologist or energy specialist, but I do know that it will run out one day and I fear that the transition to whatever replaces fossil fuels will be, well, less than smooth. I advocate exploration of all rational alternative sources (not corn-based ethanol) and support increased usage of nuclear energy.

 

 

Also, those who deny global climate change can go ahead and stick their anti-science fairy tales and stick them where the sun don't shine.

[CorgiShinobi]

I'm not confident in the third option because it's asking for lifestyle change. Some will be able to make the transition, but on a national or global scale, I think that's almost like the cultural equivalent of crust displacement: rough and sudden.

 

Perhaps our technology may not be enough, but I would say it's acting as a fine padding till we do fine sustainable alternatives. Nuclear fusion may be the answer, but from my understanding, the fusion process is requiring a lot of energy to even experiment upon.

[staySICK]

I think we seriously need to be exploring options beyond fossil fuels, and think there needs to be some serious legislation on the oil companies as well. Somethings wrong when gas "needs" to approaching $5/gal by 2012, yet big oil sees profit gains in the double digits.

 

Big business is putting us over the barrel (pun intended) and giving it to us hard.

 

I also don't agree with corn based ethanol either, from environmental perspective its just as damaging, and said damage is a lot more immediate. I have heard of the idea of genetically manufactured algae and bacteria with the goal of producing (I think ethanol) fuel, from a guest on Colbert a few years ago. I support exploring that option to see how viable it is.

[Mudkip3DS]

Algae biofuel >>> Sugarcane ethanol >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Corn ethanol

 

We are only using corn ethanol because there is so much corn here. And guess why we have so much corn? That's right! Our good ol' friend, the corn subsidy! Putting sugarcane farmers out of business since 1977.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Mudkip

[staySICK]

And the corn ethanol push has also created a corn boom, and the pesticides from the corn crops are creating a large dead zone in the Gulf.

 

America's fuel solutions always seem to involve fucking over the Gulf.

[Mal]

It is obvious that one alternative won't replace fossil fuels, it just can't. It will take a Swiss Army knife of alternatives to replace fossil fuels. Currently we are seeing something of that sorts with motor transportation, especially from what I can tell, on the West Coast of the US. Not sure about elsewhere. On the side of the energy grid, not too sure. I know solar energy is making an advance down in So Cal but not sure about elsewhere or about the others like wind, hydro and nuclear.

 

I just support efforts on all fronts to advance the use of alternatives to fossil fuels since it will run out and it will get much more expensive long before it is all gone. Besides, relying on one system, one thing is pretty foolish. Everything will at one point or another will fail or fade. If the one thing that fails or fades is what your rely on for live as you know it... you are screwed. If it is only one part of a whole array of stuff, it will hurt but it won't hurt nearly as much.

 

Bring it back to our present world... Holy shit! We are relying on fossil fuel for both transportation and energy. A double whammy. If an alternative system for each transportation and energy are made, they would be far more independent from each other than they are now...

[Mister Jack]

Regarding the lifestyle thing, I think that with the right incentive, people would make the adjustment. If enough people did something as simple as turning off lights when they're leaving the room it would have a very noticeable effect. Just a random example off the top of my head: maybe the government could offer tax breaks to power companies who give discounts to people whose power usage falls below a certain threshold, kinda like how car insurance companies can give discounts for being accident-free.

 

[Battra92]

The world's supply of oil is not infinite. I'm not a geologist or energy specialist, but I do know that it will run out one day and I fear that the transition to whatever replaces fossil fuels will be, well, less than smooth. I advocate exploration of all rational alternative sources (not corn-based ethanol) and support increased usage of nuclear energy.

 

If we ran out of oil today we'd have enough coal in the world to last us something like 100 years. I forget the exact timeline, though.

 

Also, those who deny global climate change can go ahead and stick their anti-science fairy tales and stick them where the sun don't shine.

 

Notice how its Climate Change and not global warming because *gasp* the earth hasn't been getting warmer since the 90s. Antarctic ice Besides, I work for an energy company and while we put that global warming nonsense on our papers and pamphlets to get people to feel guilty about using other energy, we all know that it's a load of hooey phooey but when you're in a state regulated industry you have to do what the ignorant politicians tell you to do.

 

That said, my objections to the premise, I'd rather not be beholden to people who don't like America very much. So I see in the future a greater dependence on Natural Gas (not LP which is petroleum based) and we're going to have to go more nuclear with our power. Wind and solar are fine in limited uses but honestly, the turbines and solar cells are incredibly expensive and energy intensive to create.

 

Kind of OT but I think it's a shame that Europe has great Diesel burning cars that don't make it to the US. Come on Ford! Port your 65mpg Diesels here in the States! I don't want a worthless hybrid with its super expensive batteries!