UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

You beachfront yet?

(no message)

I saw a documentary once, I watch a lot of docs, so I can't remember where this came from, but here's the gist:

In the mid 1800s we were burning whale oil in our lamps and because we were killing whales for whale oil faster than whales could replenish themselves, a market emerged to find an alternative to whale oil. An inventor was able to create a substance from coal which burned much better in the lamps than the whale oil, he called it kerosene. Later another inventor was trying to figure out what to do with this tar-like substance that existed on the surface in places like Pennsylvania and discovered the process for converting oil into kerosene. When making kerosene from oil there was a by-product that originally they just threw in a hole and tossed a match to. This substance was basically what we now call gasoline.

Fast forward to the invention of the internal combustion engine. Originally ICEs were designed to run on ethanol, but due to the limited amount of ethanol available and the excess of this gasoline substance they were re-designed to use gasoline and what was originally a byproduct of the primary use, kerosene, became the primary use for oil.

So you see, the market created the oil companies, not the other way around.

As far as politics go, the fact that we will outgrow the use of fossil fuels is indisputable. So the question becomes should we let the market create alternatives, the conservative approach or create alternatives through taxes and subsidies, the liberal approach? I am somewhere in the middle. As we continue to shutdown coal plants in the US, it makes coal cheaper for China that is putting up more and more coal plants. Doesn't really solve the problem of emissions that our myopic environmentalists think they are. The atmosphere doesn't care whether the air pollutants from burning coal came from a power plant in China or one in the US. But on the flip side, we should continue to fund research into alternative forms of energy. Not because we hate oil companies, but because we will run out of oil.

Thankfully it will be at least 100 years if even until we “run out of oil”.

Safe nuclear would be a good alternative for helping generate electricity. Unfortunately, if you try to replace all the stuff made from fossil fuels with wood and hemp you will have a very difficult time. But good luck.

Go on.

Both of which thrive on subsidies and protections and tax breaks.

(no message)

(no message)

If we're going to subsidize energy research and production, I think a shift from oil would be wise.

(no message)

Duly noted.

Is someone suggest we cease all oil use today?

(no message)

fossil fuels. Take away the higher costs and required government subsidies clean energy can’t replace fossil fuel energy on the electrical grid that would be required to power electric cars. For one simple reason. We can’t store green energy in abundance or for an extended length of time. The technology doesn’t exist and the physics that is required is similar to the development of cold fusion.

Solar panels work when the sun is shinning but once the sun goes down it can’t store that energy and within hours the power grid would fail. And there are many places in the country where the sun doesn’t shine for days or weeks.

Same with wind. Climate patterns make consistent wind speeds unlikely and then once again it can’t store the energy for any length of time.

So imagine the US current power grid requirement that must be maintained 24/7. Green technology has no idea how to make that happen. Now add millions of charging stations across the US drawing even more power. Particularly at night.

And by the way this will cost trillions of dollars if it can ever be accomplished.

Sorry but those are the facts to date. So having 40-50% of electrical power and electrical cars supplied by green energy in the next 30-40 years is nearly impossible. And remember oil prices are cheap.

So while the environmental wackos talk about green energies just around the corner, it will surely grow. But most of our grandchildren will be dead long before fossil fuel usage globally is under 50% of total energy.

"The green movement is being hyped as a solution within the next 50 years in replacing fossil fuels."

I certainly do not know who is doing the hyping of the "green movement" That's the weird thing about passive voice.

(no message)

When it runs out, then what?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Yes, we use petroleum for many things, plastic, etc., and we certainly use it in our cars. Cars the auto and oil industries made sure gobbled up fossil fuels. Do we use these fuels Mr. Oil Man, yes, because for years large corporations and families that own fossil fuel producers and Detroit did all they could to block alternatives, cried they could not make cars that got better gas mileage until the Japanese showed the bullshitters in Detroit it could be done. Electric cars are coming, in fits and starts yes, but they'll be here and as the tipping point comes Detroit is seeing the light and venturing into electric. The oil companies have been complicit in our need for oil so Mr. Oil Man when you want to play the reasonable one, take your own advice and STFU.

(no message)

(no message)

Pretty sure everyone likes energy.

Some forms are cleaner than others. Maybe you think we’ll still be burning fossil fuels in 50 years. And maybe we will.

But I bet we’ll be burning a helluva lot less.

You read PB's startling revelation about climate change and you can still post.