Not a member? Register Now. * Required
Need for increased action
posted by Michael_O on 6/11/2009 - This comment was recommended 3 times
I believe that action on climate is urgent and technology offers substantial promise for addressing long term energy needs and meeting carbon reduction goals. I also think that we must be willing to share the cost of investing now in order to avoid costlier climate impacts later. At the same time, I question the feasibility of quickly achieving the scale that is needed to replace our existing energy infrastructure. Given this, I believe we can and must do much more now with “low hanging fruit” such as energy efficiency while we work out the strategies for broader energy transition.
view all 5 replies respond to this comment
Increased energy efficiency
posted by Sid on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I am not sure that increasing all matters of energy efficiency can be considered "low hanging fruit", but the neat thing about increasing energy efficiency is it can be done now. By doing this energy can be reduced. Reduced energy means it has a payback for the investment and reduced energy consumption also means reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy will be great to look forward towards happening, but the cost of infastructure and the time to get it all into place will take more than a bit of time. Energy efficiency is mostly related towards electricity. A lot of these items are considered low hanging fruit items. I would like you to also consider increasing Natural Gas energy efficiency. This is not quite a low hanging fruit, but almost 50% of all natural gas consumed is wasted into the atmosphere as HOT energy. This is a lot of unnecessary waste. This hot energy can be recovered and utilized. Then all that would be vented into the atmosphere is cool exhaust. Again, increased energy efficiency will reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions vented into the atmosphere. Natural gas is even used to produce a lot of our electricity. Natural gas is used to provide to you almost everything you eat, drink, wear, travel in, and to keep warm and cool.
http://www.sidelsystems.com
respond to this comment
"Low Hanging Fruit" AKA 2005 *Chevron* STudy of Wax Based Lubes
posted by WA3ZGT on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree that we must do all we can to stretch our existing fossil fuel supplies to buy us time to transition to sustainable, less polluting energy sources. As an example of how to do this, simply Google Chevron's *own* lubetek@chevron.com ! A 2005 study found that slippery wax based car engine lubricants would save drivers as much as 20 % in costs of gasoline. The study also used recycled plastic water bottles, literally killing two environmental problems at one time. I Called Lube Tek, and they confirmed the study's findings. Of couse, would Chevon ever cut their own profits by 20 % ?? Of course not !! The real question, then, is how to get the big oil companies to do what is right long term, and ignore the short term impact. I think it is Chevron's turn to respond to their own WEB Site and tell us how to do this !
Thank you from Chevron
posted by Olivia on 6/17/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Thanks for your comment. We want to keep the discussion on willyoujoinus focused on the energy issues. For information about Chevron, please visit www.Chevron.com. You can also email COMMENT@Chevron.com. Thank you, Olivia The willyoujoinus Team
http://www.chevron.com
Residential Efficiency
posted by Chris from Virginia on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I wholeheartedly agree with Michael_O that conservation is the easiest and quickest way we can make a substantial difference in the use of fossil fuels and reduction of greenhouse gasses. Since the built environment is now acknowledged to be responsible for 48% of all emissions, and since existing housing is by far the leakiest culprit, it has been my experience that immediately providing all existing homeowners with $50 worth of caulk would create a significant change!
posted by max1mos111 on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
"Given this, I believe we can and must do much more now with “low hanging fruit” such as energy efficiency while we work out the strategies for broader energy transition. " I saw this statement and am commenting in here. Several scientists have successfully used biomass as fuel sources allready. http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/biomass.html I have looked over personally the graph and power report for the US provided in the 2009 US budget to Obama. My thoughts are that the geothermal industry has been untapped to it's full potential. Coal and Nuclear energy are slowly being cycled out by US Gov auditors. I feel this could be another way past solar and wind to create higher return levels of energy. We have to make sure that who we put there in these plants are responsible. As i have grown to understand terrorism risks involved in the energy sectors, I do understand we need to have safety features in place if we mine to create artificial geothermal port holes or more dangerously submit plants at geothermal vents in tectonic plates. Another area of research could be on methane gas seeping naturally into the earths atmosphere raising the earths methane levels .00001 a year roughly. This contributing factor to global warming is a problem that needs to be vented underwater in bulle physics into a newer method of sea mining of natural gas as the eventual product beyond geothermal vents in seabeds. They kind of go hand in hand in certain spots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy
Need For Climate Change Action
posted by LtDan on 6/12/2009 - This comment was recommended 3 times
I disagree that we need to move quickly on efforts to stop climate change by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The entire clmate change brouhaha is being rapidly exposed as a tempest in a teapot at the very least, and very probably an attempt to bring about, by fake "science," a rapid --- indeed headlong --- conversion of America's electrcity generating industry from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. In essence, the Climate Change Emperor has no clothes, and we would be most foolish if we continued to follow him, in all his gothic nudity, down the road to economic disaster.
view 1 reply respond to this comment
Climate change etc.
posted by greentechrocks on 6/12/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
There are two major consumers of petroleum, industry, in production of plastics and hard goods, and aviation, which burns prodigious amounts of fuel every single day their planes are in the sky. Motorists add to this, as do heating oil users. Now, on petroleum, and other 'burning' issues, are we being told the truth, are we being told all that there is to know? Doubtful, and the reason for that is the sheer amount of money wrapped up in the whole thing. Oil was reported to have closed at $74/bbl, which means it's halfway to its' peak price of $144/bbl in previous years, when the retail cost of a gallon of gasoline topped out on the high side of $4. This price cycle pretty much sucked the life out of the economy, which points out even more the need for alternative fuels, if for no other reason than to help prevent total economic collaps in the event of another price speculata-thon, or some crisis or political movement in an oil-bearing foreign country There are several nations in the world that have oil deposits within their borders, that could also roughly be described as either failed or failing states, or outright dictatorships, some of which are openly hostile to the United States and its' interests overseas. So, being reliant on them for our energy future is Very Bad. Approaching the oil/energy issue exclusively from a poltiical standpoint for a moment, and disregarding climate change and other environmental concerns for a moment, analyze just how fragile the economy truly is, and what a new price spike to $5/gal would represent in terms of economic damage nationwide. For the short term, we have to have more petroleum. In my view, this should come from domestic drilling, both onshore, and offshore. I think refinery and petroleum reserve capacities should both be increased, with a side emphasis on biofuels for even more domestic energy production. Further, from the environmental standpoint, the more fuel that is burned, the more exhaust and unwanted combustion byproducts are generated, including CO2. No one talks about carbon MONoxide anymore, although it is still a component of auto exhaust, but monoxide, dioxide, whatever, it contributes to air pollution, and in the case of additives like MTBE, also contributes to groundwater pollution, as does highway runoff and fuel tank leaks, and and and.
CIVILIZATION REQUIRES ENERGY
posted by CocoonerGin on 6/12/2009 - This comment was recommended 2 times
What matters most? HOW civilizations get energy matters less than THAT civilizations have a reliable, uninterrupted, economically negligible (or almost negligible) supply of energy adequate to propel all creative human activity. Without it, civilizations collapse (or move to more economically congenial locations). Value is in the mind of the beholder. What good is a pristine planet reduced to subsistence agriculture, hunting and gathering, and pre-industrial technology? Unshackled by parasitic authoritarian regulation, free markets solve every authentic problem and will again. Ponder the paradox that Japan and North America pollute less than China and India. Let's consider pollution as a function of value-added output worldwide. Let a thousand technological flowers bloom, including hydrocarbons.
view all 2 replies respond to this comment
North America pollutes less than China and India, WRONG
posted by your_kids_too on 7/21/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Firstly, CocoonerGin is incorrect in claiming that North America pollutes less. Per capita CO2 from the USA is much more (A) than any developing or industrialising nation, and particular figures for China (B) and India (C) are given below in the footnote. Secondly, CocoonerGin is incorrect to indicate that authority and central planning is parasitic whilst free markets solve every authentic problem. Penicillin, anyone? That was a top down order 'just do it'. Tuberculosis; a lucrative respite homes industry was shut down by a central order to vaccinate. Getting a man into orbit, we all know who won that race. And as for the man on the moon, that only got done at all because one bold Kennedy ignored the bids and free markets and said to you guys just do it. I'm saying that the best and brightest need to be ordered out of commercial muckspreading and into more useful work. In Chevron's energy planning discussion, I say that commercial optimisation for profit should play no part in a nations' decision of how to provide the best and most useful supply of energy to meet the reasonable needs of citizens. That is because for twenty years after the thermometer stats became obvious to stats people, those commercial misers have wilfully been wrecking the climate even more and risk getting America nuked or worse in retribution for that within a generation. The right optimisation, that of maximum expected benefit, the only optimum which can set you guys up for a long future, just does not happen with decisions made according to free markets. The old Harvard optimisation for maximum short term rate of return on investment might get flowers. I want trees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita, for the year 2004, metric tons of CO2 only (not all of CO2e) according to US dept. Energy figures. A) USA, 20.4 tons B) China, 3.9 tons C) India, 1.2 tons
What Matters Most
posted by MarkLeavenworth on 8/5/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I don't know if anything is firstly in order, but to propel all creative human activity is a lost cause, really. We don't create, we destroy. That's just a fact of being human. There is nothing marketable that is not the result of a destruction of the natural state.
Lifestyle
posted by GSmiley on 9/27/2009 - This comment was recommended 2 times
By the time you finish reading my comment, God knows how many more babies will be born. Our population is increasing. Our cities are getting bigger. As humankind, we produce more, we consume more and we exploit every single source of energy which is granted generously by our nature. However, unless you can replace the sources used up during your cause, it means your situation is not sustainable. It means at the end of the day you will end up in a world where all sources are diminished and the lifestyle we have right now cannot be carried out anymore. Everybody would like to go everywhere by their own car, and consume as much as they like. But it can't last forever. Whatever new technology is brought about, how more new generation cars produce less emission, the fact that we have to change our lifestyles stays solid. We have to consume less, we have to use mass transit, at least we have to drive "golf/carts with canopy" instead of huge and massive trucks. If we don't start changing by ourselves, the nature will change us by force.
Drill here, drill now....drill in America
posted by rorbeck on 9/8/2009 - This comment was recommended 2 times
I believe New Gingrich got this going but it bares repeating. Why in the world we are not drilling in our own country is beyond thinking. The oil, as has been reported, is seeping up from the sands in Santa Barbara CA and we are being irresponsible by not going after this God/given resource. Someone, somewhere has to be more vocal and more adamant about this resource and what it would do to benefit the state of CA and the rest of the country. It is ludacrous to ignore this. Some one with charisma needs to over/power the environmentalist and make them sit down. The USA has unlimited coal...mine it! The USA has more natural gas than we are able to handle...handle it! And...when you hear about electric cars...someone please inform the public that it takes energy to plug in a car to re-power it. ENERGY!! Where is IT coming from? I for one do not want to see my country littered with wind mills and solar panel when we have the resource that we KNOW works. And..finally. In my lifetime and in yours...that is if you are 73 or 2...Americans are not going to give up their automobiles. And...we are not going to drive golf/carts with canopy's as they do in Europe...so ...... start drilling....start building refineries and start employing Americans in the process to bring forth our own energy that is just waiting for us . . Cap and Trade never produced a gallon of oil. This is not to say that all other sources should be ignored...BUT do it without subsidizing and see if it works...If it does, by all means include IT
view all 4 replies respond to this comment
irresponsible
posted by louisenviro on 10/2/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
hi ide like to expose some of the myths your comment is based apon although it is true that there is plentiful coal on american soil the economical section of this coal is soon to be depleateded easily within the next 40 years to extract the rest would need heavy substady also the amount of carbon realesed would destroy the lives of many people in the 3rd world due to climate change although there is much natral gas in america there is no nearly as much as you seem to suggest also electric cars are 30 times more effient than petrol cars and taking into acount battrey raplacement and disposal are still 3 times better also i have never seen i golf/cart drive down my street i live in euorpe all ive seen are sensible cars that do more than 18 miles to the gallon. it seems to me that american policy makers are living in a dream world of unlimited fuel and resorces if the money they invested in there wastful ethonal programs was invested in renewables and/or effiency mesures we might start getting somewear.
Irresponcible
posted by bill f. on 10/24/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I came back after a long resbit doing other kinds of writing and am disappointed to see folks still holding on to the myths that we are all destroying the planet. A couple years ago I wrote that" it is not what goes into the fuel tank; it is what comes out the exhaust pipe. Someone was listening as Mazda and some European manufacturers have come up with a liquid similar to urine that is injected right after the catalytic converter. THE END RESULT: NOTHING COMES OUT BUT NITROGEN AND OXYGEN. If you have ever taken chemistry, you already know that when you combine elements the end product is something else. The trick is to get the end results you want. They say" THE MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE", what else do you call doing nothing to eliminate a preceived problem? NOt drilling for all it is worth is like stepping over a pile of money because you are in a hurry to get nowhere! There is over 300 years of coal left and every time the earth's plates shift more oil becomes available. In Texas we are only going 1.5 miles down for gas and in the USSR they go over 40,000 feet or 8 miles for oil but that is not the record. They come in and look where we said there was no oil but THEY find it! I love electric cars too and want to build one some day. The truth is that the technology is not yet reached the point where they are as convenient as what we now have. Some day it will be much better.
you do relise
posted by louisenviro on 11/5/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
for every barrel of oil we find we consume 3 and tectonic activity has very little effect on the oil we find its far to slow it matters what we put in are car and what comes out the end
maybe...
posted by MizzBettyBoop on 11/16/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Maybe we're not drilling in America because we know it may mess up our already needy enviorments. If we drill here, think of the little kids who can't go to the beach on the hottest day of summer because there is a massive oil spil. What if we don't have anymore seafood because all the fish are dead from oil pollution. I understand what you're saying. We have great resources here that we can use. All I'm saying is that if we use them, it may not be the best thing to do if we want to save our world.
Powering the cities of today
posted by GDIKnight2009 on 9/16/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Cities have the ultimate in power generation. They are not utilized to take advantage of its many features. First, they have a huge window area for thin solar films that can filter out sunlight and generate electricity. The hottest days of the year are turned into energy generating solar capacity to compensate for the demand of building air conditioners. Second, their height allows for the capture of wind energy and rainwater. Wind is especially plentiful on top of the dizzing heights of skyscrapers as well as internally during elevator usage. Third, elevators can be equipped with magnetic coils so that each time an elevator is used, electrical power is generated.
Renewable Energy
posted by Shoja Anvari on 6/12/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
As a nation we have to do what's right; Dependence on fossil fuel is not practical, and it is not advisable on a long term; There are so many other matterials that we can get from fossil fuel, that burning it to move cars is really a waste of a precious resource, that future generations should have ample supplies when really needed and there are no other alternatives; To move ourselves from one point to another should be done by electricity, whether it is on a car or bus or train; Second should be Hyrogen fuel, and if needed natural gas.Electric engines and ultimately electric cars have great future for us and the planet earth; We can harness the wind and solar energy anywhere in the country, and convert it to electricy to be used by cars; I believe wind and solar and also hydro turbines can give us energy forever, without us having to worry about energy again; Even if our investment is high now, and might take a long time, it will serves the future generation and our planet well; We should move in renewable energy direction, that is not only clean, but abundant, safe and will be cost worthy as we get more efficient; So, lets do the right thing and move away from fossil fuels as much as possible, and leave a gift of energy for our children all over the beautiful world that we have inheritted, and hopefully someday, we be able to colonize other planets if we get very efficient with solar energy, which also can helps us to find a way to produce oxygen for survival; Electric is the way of the future, whether it is drived from wind, sun, or any other source.
Increased efforts for Alternative Energy
posted by Jawed Ahmed Mangi on 6/13/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
There was a time that during the Famine, the United Nations Organizations offered loans to the several countires of the world to grow Rice to tackle with food shortage problem,as One Kg. rice is enough to feed 5-6 people at a time and during that period the research in the Agriculture sector increased several rice seeds were created which exist up till now and have contributed a lot as a tool to face food issues. The current issues of todays time are Energy and economic. Regarding the Energy problems I shall again request that on the forum of UNO, all the member countries, specially the developed countries should come forward to help and suggest in strengthening the Agriculture sector to provide funds to grow the Sugar cane to produce ethanol just like Brazil to face with the Energy issues. The vast Areas of lands of the states, of the countries of world are lying Barren for cultivation and through Research and development enable these barren areas to give as much output of sugarcane as required. The world is a global village and we the habitants of this village only speak and talk about this, in other words we render the lip service merely but in actual the practical application is required, by this the economic problem could also be solved, and also a great threat of terrorism in this village could be combated, when people shall have economy and earning in mind the frustration will go away and creativity will occupy the space. I think this is one of the best ways to face with energy shortage.
Energy
posted by jim on 6/13/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
yes sugar cane is much better than corn for ethanol and palm oil is even better. But we also have to use it in very efficient vehicles like the prius full hybrid. It makes any fuel go much farther and burn cleaner, even gasoline . It's not all about making more, it's using less and being more efficient when we use it.
Alternative Energy Solution
posted by Dennis Huber on 6/14/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
While some forms of alternative energy may prove to be cost effective some day, we need to use the energy sources we have today to make the energy we need to grow our economy. We have been conserving energy since the 70s. We are not going to save energy to get of the the global situation we are in. We need more sources of power, in particular new nuclear power plants. We can reprocess the nuclear fuel and destroy the long lived isotopes in a burner reactor. The French are doing this safely - so can we. Clean coal is years away. Smart grid is a catchy name but will not save energy unless we completely rebuild our transmission and distribution networks. That will cost more moeny than we have. Nuclear power will produce electricity without any CO2 emmissions, and it can produce hydrogen to allow us to move to a clean source of power for our automobiles. As old fossil plants are decomissioned and as new demand for electric power is identified, we can meet both of these needs with clean nuclear power.
posted by robo on 6/15/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Nukes will never be viable, they're too massive and take too long to deploy. It'd take 15 years or more to get permits, front money for construction, and putting the manpower in place and then the time to actually build them. Most of the demand is coming from the 'baby boom' generation and most of them will be dead in 15-20 years. The new nukes use lithium which competes with the global consumer demand for portable electric power using lithium ion and the newer lithium polymer batteries, and the electric automobile market using lithium ion batteries. According to reports almost half of the world's supply of the highest grade lithium has already been used. What would we do if we built all these nuke dinos and didn't have the lithium to fire them? The nuke industry has taken $50 billion + out of the public's pocket for each of the last 30 + years trying to develop 'cheap, non polluting' electric power and still can't deliver a fusion containment. If each of the world's governments would allocate just 10% of their budget they have for developing fusion and INSTEAD put the money into 'multi-wavelength' photovoltaic’s we'd have massive amounts of cheap, renewable, short time to market, and INDIVIDUAL electric power. Even though Einstein is known for developing nukes and E=MC*C, he saw the 'light' and got his Nobel Prize for inventing the photoelectric effect E=hv. He saw that solar is the obvious choice. The fact is that those that control the oil market won't be able to control the solar market because with solar there is NO NEED to deliver the power, it's generated right at your own home! These oil giants are purposely holding the public away from having the best alternative because they can't control it!
Nuclear Power
posted by treefarm on 6/22/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I agree with Dennis that nuclear power is at present the most cost effective way to decrease the unhealthy emissions that our current electrical producers are adding to our environment. Clean coal if even possible is likely going to be very costly. Wind and solar in the right places will be cost effective but building huge windmill farms in the ocean seems unrealistic mainly from a maintenance issue. Using wave power on the other hand does appear to have good potential. I question all the concern about CO2 that is produced by humans and a great deal of the other climate warming theories. Another several years of high sun spot activity and we will be trying to figure out how to warm things up.
posted by shelly on 6/23/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
I think this have to be good but I am concern about radition (sp?)
posted by treefarm on 6/25/2009 - Be the first to recommend this
Yes I think everyone is concerned about the long term effects of storing radioactive waste, but the amount of waste is relatively small and much cheaper to bury then continuing to rely on oil and other fossil fuels. If your concern is a repeat of 3-mile Island, that is always a possibility but we have come along way technology wise since then.
Enabling New Energy Technologies
posted by Dr.Walia on 7/3/2009 - This comment was recommended 1 time
Since first oil embargo of 1973, many new and old technogies have been developed, promoted and several energy bills have been passed in the USA, so why none of these have been coomercially been implemented ? It is because true cost of 70% of oil production especially in Middle East, Russia, and South America is less than $5 per barrel. This was confirmed by the recent Saudi Oil Minister in his 60 minutes interview and again being reported for the Iraqi oil deals currently being put together. However since 1973 there have been almost 7 price spikes between 2-600 % of oil prices due to decisions by few. So many technologies became uneconomical as the prices declined as is happening today with ethanol. Technologies are needed which can not only compete with oil prices when they go down but today create solution for carbon and many other needs.