Slashdot Mirror
Drilling Under the Sea
prof_peabody writes "The IODP (Intergrated Ocean Drilling Program) is about to get rolling in a couple of days. If you live in one of these countries then your tax dollars have contributed to the construction of the giant drillship Chikyu, which was launched a little while back (project timeline). The American contigent website is loaded with info and obligatory acronyms. The first leg of the IODP will investigate how water flows through rock formations beneath the seafloor during an eight-week expedition this summer to the eastern flank of the Juan de Fuca Ridge off the coast of British Columbia. Some of you geeks with beards may remember the DSDP (Deep Sea Drilling Project) or the recently completed ODP (Ocean Drilling Program). The real advance in the new program that will cost well over a billion dollars is the IODP riser drill ship that 'will provide a way to drill into continental margins where oil and gas deposits can cause drilling safety concerns and into regions with thick sediment sections, fault zones, and unstable formations.' A good overview of the IODP can be found here, and the necessary references to Megalodon and none other than The Core."
Is it completely necessary to reference The Core? It makes me remember it all over again. My poor, feeble mind will implode if I even try to comprehend the physics behind that film, let alone the acting. Oh god, the acting...
What if there really are big diamonds like in The Core? It would be odd seeing a forklift wheeling out the back room of the jeweler's bearing a single engagement ring.
42
Under the sea
Under the sea
There'll be no accusations
Just friendly crustaceans
Under the sea!
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It seems like fossil fuels are not the only answer. We can control nuclear energy but we can't make a non-fossil fuel car??? How is this possible? I may not know a lot about this subject but it seems like if we spent 1/10 the amount of money into research of this field as we do into looking for more oil, a non-fossils fuel alternative would have been found.
But check out 'Hack the planet!'
:-)
Possibly the worst (or best?) casting as the pants sniffing dog-loving guy out of road trip as a hacker who hacks the planet.
I am just suprised that they didn't send a virus to the center of the earth to fix everything
A guy has a laser that can cut through rock, in a blast of dust, but without causing huge flames.
When they hit the molten rock, how did they not just fall through it? gravity man, or do they float in molten rock?
aaaah whatever.
Why isn't a robotic drilling submarine used ? It could operate in any depths and the drilling operation wouldn't depend on local weather condition.
To quote my latest blog entry, "three of the top five importers are on the American continents." Poorly worded, in retrospect, since it should say "sources of imported oil" rather than "importers" but it's the data -- which you seem "less than familiar with" -- that is of interest.
No Laughing Allowed!
How many calories a day would a Megalodon have needed, and where would it have obtained them? A predator that size seems hugely inefficient
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/odinfo/sdsrepor t.html
-----------------------------
If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
There is already an infrastructure to deliver oil to the customers. this infrastructure didn't pop up over night, it was developed over 50+ years. spending money in finding new ways to find oil and gas is cheaper then spending money to find a new alternative source of power and deliver it to the customer.
finding a new source of energy and creating the infrastructure to support the use of the energy should be a long term goal. for the short term we should spend money on deep drilling projects like this, government money, one.
my hermione shrine
here Curious, /. keeps putting a space between the r and t in report.. i.e. repor t.html
Get paid to search..It's geniune and
As a canadian i like to watch canadian TV. in the canadian TV they talk a lot about kyoto protocol. Alberta the biggest producer of oil in the country is 100% against kyoto because it will hurt their industry. problem is that a lot of people from the two bigger provinces, ontario and quebec, want to support kyto. if kyto pass federal government will make oil in canada not as competive as oil from other parts in the world.
:(.
anyways, if you didn't remember, i did, 2002 gas prices were so damn expensive that i couldn't afford to drive to work. i had to ride my bike
opec, Saudi Arabia, that year decided to decrease output of oil and thanks to them i lost 50 pounds.
more data
you should check that out. it says the top oil producer was for 2003 saudia arabia at 9.95 million barrels a day.
i also got a blog and i did some research about some of the reasons why america would want to go to war with iraq [blog]
I think it's great that we do all this drilling and practicing with submarines. After all if we're drilling up even more oil, we'd better get used to the under sea life.
Me being a Dutchman 2, I can honoustly say you're giving 'us' too much credit. Pretty much the only thing the dutch have an unique knowledge of is the battle vs. the sea. Most parts of Holland are about 16 metres under sea level, which can cause a mighty flood (like the one in 1953) if the country is not protected well enough.
The 'stormvloedkering' (dutch name of huge project to protect holland from the water) is still considered to be any incredible piece of technology/engineering even tody, even though it was build in the late 50's.
Tunnels & bridges however are more scrares in the Netherlands and I cannot imagine that we have a big advantage over countries like Norway, Canada and maybe the US that have build huge structures of that kind.
One of the most inspiring phrases from the time Holland struggled with the sea is: 'Luctor et Emergo' (Ik worstel en kom boven / I struggle and emerge)
You confuse fuel with energy source. The problem with alternative fuels is that you need energy to generate the most promising of those, ie hydrogen. So we would need solar, nuclear, wind or whatever power to get us the hydrogen. Fusion is not here yet. Non-fossil fuel is not trivial. Vegetable or other biomass fuels will also generate hydrocarbons. And I agree with you that as long as we keep looking for oil and keep getting it there will be little incentive for the big players (oil companies...) to go into renewable energy sources. So for the time being, unfortunately, we'll keep our dependence upon the middle east. By the way - oil is not only fuel. Plastics and so on are also made from it. That may even be the worst dependence. Imagine a world without plastics. If only for that reason we'll keep using oil for at least a couple of decades.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
The problem with electric cars, if that's what you have in mind, is: batteries. Think of your laptop. You may well, have Moore's Law in full swing for the CPU, but that hasn't applied to batteries too. They're big, they're bulky and they can store only so much juice.
That's the problem. We may control nuclear energy, and we may already build very good electric engines, but _storing_ that energy for the car to use is the weakest link. By far. As energy-per-lbs goes, nothing comes even _near_ chemical stuff that burns. Gasoline packs more joules per kg than any battery. (And gunpowder packs even more, which is why soldiers still use that, instead of railguns with a battery pack.)
However, it's still not all lost. If you have another energy supply, you can make enough stuff that will burn in a car's conventional engine.
E.g., a real no-brainer is using the electricity generated by a nuclear plant to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen can be then burned in a relatively conventional internal combustion engine, taking the oxygen back from the atmosphere and giving water vapour back.
Other ways exist to combine that hydrogen with carbon from coal (of which there are far more reserves than oil), creating synthetic liquid fuel. You don't even need a nuclear plant for that.
(A lot of the panzer warfare in WW2 happened on synthetic fuel. It wasn't that cheap, but it kept the panzers rolling.)
Or in some limited cases you can just replace the fossil fuel use with electricity. E.g., see how we replaced the coal and diesel train engines with electric ones. Electric busses and trams exist already, and could eventually replace the diesel ones if the economics are right. Also, if the investment were justified, one could build a power grid along highways to support at least electric trucks.
Ultimately, though, everything boils down to economics. As long as it's cheaper to bring in oil from the middle east, than to brew local synthetic fuels, people will bring oil from the middle east. As long as it's cheaper to fill up your tank with gas coming from the middle east, than to get an expensive hydrogen powered car and hydrogen, people will continue importing oil from the middle east. And as long as electric cars will continue to be expensive _and_ have a 50 mile range, after which they need several hours to recharge (as opposed to minutes to fill a fuel tank), people will buy conventional cars.
When the economics will be right, however, expect to see someone coming with such replacements. The whole civilization collapsing into anarchy and famine as soon as we pumped the last barrel of oil out, makes a good Hollywood scenario, but ain't gonna happen in RL. More realistically we'll then start producing synthetic fuel in the short run, and pumping billions into R&D for better solutions, and life will go on. It won't be as cheap as it is today, but it ain't gonna be Armageddon either.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The US does do plenty of offshore drilling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico and, to a lesser extent, off of California. However, most of the oil doesn't go into government stockpiles or the military, but does go into general oil use: mostly gasoline, but also chemicals, heating oil, and plasticis).
Here in Nigeria (!) we are developing deep space mining ships and your money will help us continue our secret space mining program...
The "stormvloedkering" you mentioned, isn't it like a massive gate in the ocean? I think I have heard of it...
Please flee in terror in an orderly manner.
Finally, a ship they can use to seek out and disturb R'lyeh...
There's simply not enough space to store the necessary equipment on board, esp. when you consider the need for bentonite coolant circulation etc. Assembling the drill string either through or outside the hull would be an interesting problem, as would the bouyancy/stability control as you dump a few hundred tons of payload overboard.
So a nice idea, but much more economical done from a big surface ship - even when it means waiting on the weather.
The "stormvloedkering" you mentioned, isn't it like a massive gate in the ocean?
That's right. It's also a big tourist attraction. I live in the south of Holland and for a project that I did for my company for 3 months I passed by there everyday, it's always a wonderful and impressive sight.
"Homer, your answer to everything is under the sea!"
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Chikyu (should be Chikyuu actually) is Japanese for Earth, as in the planet we live on.
Just in case anyone is curious.
Some people are like slinkies--basically useless but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
Ultimately, though, everything boils down to economics.
Which is why it is important that what people pay for their energy should reflect the real costs of that energy. Pollution should be cleaned up, and the costs should be part of the cost of the fuel. I don't care whether that happens by some government program or by private companies, but the problem now is that everything does boil down to economics, but the consumers don't pay the whole cost of what they consume.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Is that newspeak for "I can't use a dictionary"?
Your Kung-fu is not strong!
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
in--tuhh--grai--tehd.
What this means is that if you can replace all gas inside your body with liquid then you would have no problems. If you could somehow replace all that and assuming you have already purged dissolved gases from your blood (you have been breathing helium), then you would have no problems. OTOH, like you say, it would be difficult to get rid of all gases.
See my journal, I write things there
That doesn't seem to be the case. This article on Slate argues that we are unlikely to achieve "energy independence" from the Middle East, and even if we do, OPEC will have plenty of new custom from China and other emerging economies.
Spending money in finding new ways to find oil and gas is cheaper then spending money to find a new alternative source of power and deliver it to the customer.
I think the problem is more of resistance from established industries to adopt new technology because they don't want to lose their source of revenue. Fuel cells have been around for a while, and I can recall some story about a (Japanese?) company coming up with a special tank for safely storing hydrogen for use with hydrogen-powered cars. I think it had something to do with aluminum somehow rendering the hydrogen non-volatile while in storage. I also saw a story on the news ages ago about a Japanese inventor who created an ultrasound washing machine that didn't need detergent, then read a rumor that he was bought out by chemical companies who saw this as a threat to their products. I know this is all conspiracy theory stuff, but it's not impossible.
It doesn't boil down to economics. It boils down to selfishness. By definition, it cannot be more efficient to invest in destroying non-renewable resources than to invest in techniques for harnessing renewable ones. The difference is that people get a 'quick fix' or an 'emergency loan' of sorts from fossil fuels, for which they don't have to pay, since they'll be dead, and it'll be someone else's problem.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/2 8/0046201&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=141&tid= 188
Fnord.
"And gunpowder packs even more, which is why soldiers still use that"
I thought it was all cordite nowadays.
Don't do yourselves down. The "cloggies" seem to have a very large interest in salvage of large marine structures. When some major ship goes down, it is more often than not that a Dutch company is called to go fishing.
See my journal, I write things there
So far most of the posts here have been referring to oil. While oil is commonly drilled for, it is not the only reason one would explore the sediment and rock under the seafloor.
most notably, paleoclimate and paleocirculation studies use various proxies found the sediments of the seafloor. The oceans provide a much more continuous record than one can find on land. these proxies can be correlated with other methods and other locations. From these records everything from sea surface temperature to icecap volumes can be modeled.
While I agree with your main point, I must mention the fact that biomass fuels do not generate hydrocarbons. The growth of biomass removes carbon from the atmosphere, and burning biomass releases that carbon. Biomass is a zero sum fuel; it does not release sequestered carbon (unless you are fertilizing it with fossil fuel).
The Russian sub they built the Explorer to salvage wasn't a particularly interesting design -- it was a "Golf" class, nothing new -- and we could have gotten basically all the worthwhile intelligence from the wreck by going in through the hull and retrieving the cipher equipment. Instead the CIA built a massive white elephant of a drilling ship, with a cover story about oil drilling, to pull up the entire sub. (It didn't work -- the sub broke on the way up.)
The popular book "Blind Man's Bluff" derides this as one of the CIA's most colossal sinkholes for money. It quotes a handful of deep sea salvage experts to the effect that there wasn't any point in even trying to perform the full salvage. (Not the best-edited book, but it's a pretty good telling of Cold War-era sub espionage.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It's not impossible, but it's kind of unlikely.
The problem isn't that we can't get other kinds of energy to run a car, it's that the market demand isn't there. It really has nothing to do with the oil industry stopping us from using something different: I could, right now, use 100% vegetable oil-driven "diesel", and so on.
The fact is, getting millions of people to change their desires is the biggest hurdle.
In the meantime, the oil industry tries to keep up with the demand of the populace. If this undersea drilling rig can open up a new frontier, who knows what might be discovered alongside it.
It occurs to me that Shell and the gang all employ many environmental scientists, etc, to research all kinds of good stuff. This might provide one more avenue for research; always a good thing.
Every night, electrical demand goes down, but the plants keep running. That electricty is just wasted. It is a HUGE number of megawatts. Some places will even give you a rate decrease if you buy your juice only at night, yet very few homeowners or businesses take advantage of the fact. One factory I worked at had their new building built with a thermal storage scheme for heating that used pipes embedded in the concrete floors. An antifreeze liquid was circulated while it was heated with the cheaper electric at night, it heated the concrete, which radiated heat evenly up through the floor during the day. This was up in massacussetts with cold winters, and it worked great.
Electrical cars would be cheaper if they were only/mostly recharged at night, and you had a smart meter or a separate meter for the charging. We could also have battery storage in more homes and businesses, like the alternative energy rigs use now, for use during the day. Just by using thisa wasted night time juice we could eliminate the need for a lot of the new plants proposed, and by switchiung to electric cars more, eliminate the need for getting additional petroleum products.
The government could also offer tax breaks to corporations and individuals for running a third shift at night as a standard instead of a normal first shift, just to take advantage of the wasted energy. Combined with the cheaper energy they could get then, it would be quite a deal in a lot of ways. If it was significant enough taxc breaks combined with cheaper utility costs, then a lot of businesses would switch, and it would become commonplace to have the third shift as normal.
And for longer range trips with electric cars, say on the weekends you want to go asomeplace camping whatever, or on vacation, etc, the solution is simple, you have small trailers that attach to the cars that contain a normal fuel tank and a generator. The trailers could be 1/2 normal cargo, 1/2 generator and fuel tank. The range of electrics now is fine for getting to work and back for millions of people, there's just not a lot of electrics to be had. The GM EV1 cars (more 100 miles range not 50) were a hit, the owners loved them, but GM only leased them and is destroying them now, despite thousands of owners begging to purchase them. By all accounts, what I have read and heard people say, they were roomy enough, fast enough, both from a stop and on the highway, could carry enough stuff, and were a no brainer maintenance-wise. They were cheap to run, and night time reduced rate charging would have cut those expenses in half, which were good to begin with. Heck, I live out in the country and an electric car with a 100 mile range would be good enough for our purposes, we only go to town once a week, and 100 miles is more than enough to get there and back, plus some. The battery tech is good enough now, I think that's a strawman argument. It's not a solution for every single application you use a vehicle for, but for millions and millions of people it could be, just with two pieces of legislation passed,mandated cheaper electric bought only at night-not a local electrico option but they are mandated to do so, and the tax breaks for night time business in general to help reduce peak daytime demand loads. And one other piece of legilsation would be very useful to save another untold billions a year in energy costs, no new construction that didn't adhere to R-50 or better insulation standards.
We don't have near as much an energy problem as most people think, we have a problem with how we use what we already have, and how much gets totally wasted. I've worked on superinsulated residential structures and seen the difference-absolutely no comparison with normal construction. Literally drops the homes major heating and cooling bills to like a fifth what they would be normally. And really, solar and wind are here now and work, they just aren't being pushed much. I've used it enough to know it's practical for a lot of people, generally speaking.
There isn't one single magic bullet, but enough solutions exist today to mitigate a lot of our energy needs using what is available NOW, not have to develop vast new infrastructure with totally new devices and processes.
WRONG!
If Americans want greater freedom, we need to start looking at alternative fuel sources. We don't need to hurt the environment any more than we already have. If we develop alternative fuel sources, we can then stay out of the middle east.
Why?! Why?! Why?!
Why must we deplete more of the Earth's precious resources like this? Look, we know we're going to run out of oil sooner or later. That's a certainty. Why don't we just accept that now and get working on the alternatives, so we're actually ready for the day when the oil does run out?
The first phase should be to develop a "drop-in" replacement for petroleum fuels, manufactured from plants and waste products, and usable in existing engines with little to no alteration. The priority would be for public transport and emergency vehicles first, then private delivery vehicles, then private cars. Once such fuels are produced in sufficient quantities, petroleum exploration can be discontinued altogether, and we can add a statement to our foreign policy that we will not lend our support to any attempt on the part of a petroleum-consuming nation to wage war, if it is believed that the primary object of that war is to secure further supplies of petroleum.
The next phase will be to develop, in synergy, a range of fuels and engines which sacrifice backward-compatibility for greater efficiency. We then stop making the petroleum-compatible engines, and just produce enough "old skool" fuels to run all remaining petroleum-compatible engines into the ground.
All this can best be done under the framework of a nationalised industry (therefore no petty bickering, IP disputes, anti-competitive practices &c. as are so common in the private sector. All publicly-funded research would be licenced on a non-discriminatory basis so that private companies could enter a competitive market when the technology became established). We should pay for the replacement of petroleum by means of a tax on the use of petroleum -- and non-fossil fuels must be conspicuously exempt from such tax.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is just another indicator that oil production is beginning to decline. To keep up with the growing market demand from increased population, developing countries, etc., oil companies are looking into new and dangerous ways to get the remaining oil on earth. For more information, Google "peak oil."
Work with me...I've got the Mondays...
LFS. Have you built your system today?
"I think the problem is more of resistance from established industries to adopt new technology because they don't want to lose their source of revenue."
The difference is, oil companies _know_ their source of revenue is going to run out. There is simply _not_ an infinite amount of oil under the ground. Therefore, it is entirely rational, and eminently sensible, for "big oil" to start branching out into other fuels.
In other words, protecting your revenue stream doesn't always mean crushing the competition - it also involves hedging your bets. And, obviously, hedging against oil running out is a VERY intelligent idea if you're an oil company.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
...let's go ahead and f***-up the oceans, BEFORE we understand them....just like the way we did the rest of our Earth.
so good I live in Europe where we have Euro and not dollars, so I don't have to spend my tax dollars for that.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
yeah, and the libertarians are one of the top three political parties in America.
Everything is better down where it's wetter. Under the Sea!
Did you even RTFA? No. The IODP is not for oil exploration. I'll let you do your own fsking research and figure it out for yourself. As a matter of fact, these research vessels take great precautions to AVOID hydrocarbons because of their lack of blow out prevention devices. Finding oil and gas is a hazard to these vessels. Your post seems interesting enough, but its offtopic and not even remotely related to the scientific research being carried out by IODP.
NMG
IODP does not search for oil - it is collecting scientific data. Don't bother bringing up any conspiracy theories - the oil companies have much better proprietary data in the areas that IODP is drilling than the open-source (i.e. IODP) ocean science community will EVEER have.
IODPs previous ships (or rather, ODP, its predecessor oceandrilling.org ) were not able to drill in areas of the continental margin that might have contained oil deposists. It is actually pretty dangerous - if you hit a gas deposit, the density of the water can be reduced to the point that the ship loses bouyancy and sinks - almost instantly.
As a result of safety concerns related to this, IODP was unable to drill in some very enticing (i.e. data rich) environments. This new vessel will allow them to drill pretty much anywhere, which should greatly increase the available database. IODP research is focussed largely on earth dynamics, paleontology, paleoclimate/climate change, and stratigraphy. Oil is near the bottom of the list - as previously mentioned, the oil companies already have better data. Researchers interested in oil are typically working elsewhere.
90% Professional Slacker
Nope, wrong - more energy per Kg in gas than gunpowder - didn't bother reading the rest, since you couldn't get a basic fact right.
See this page for sample values: http://192.211.16.13/curricular/nbba/wrkshp1.htm
note that lima beans have more energy per Kg than gunpowder..
This is why I will ask you to VOTE GREEN TODAY.
This kind of immense subsidy of the destructive Oil-based economy must end.
The Green Party proposes a (modest IMHO) $0.10 per L (phased-in over 3yrs(again, very modest) to help ease canada away from an Oil-based economy to something more sustainable. Wind. Solar. Other(?) --- OR --- keep paying to subsidise the oil industry in THIS and MANY other ways... for instance, Hibernia and TerraNova were financed by the feds, how much do we spend a year on roads, hospitals treating road injuries, insurance, insurance litigation, air pollutin, sprawl, obesity, mining etc etc etc the auto industry and its partner oil industry require that we spend billions of dollars a year (in canada alon) of public money -- not to mention what you, the citizen spends on this behaviour -- for what? ultra convenient personal transport? un-f-ing real.
The Oil/Auto Industries running our culture to make irresponsible/unsustainable/expensive/stupid decisions must end.
The first step: Making people recognize the unbelievable REAL costs of these two industries. Support the Greens, vote to RAISE gas prices.
The oil industry has very little to do with IODP. They already have better proprietary data - IODP is the academic communities attempt to catch up with the oil companies.
"fact is, getting millions of people to change their desires is the biggest hurdle."
Don't forget the infrastructure. Our (USA) entire society is dependent on automobiles, gas stations, and pipelines. You can't just rekey and retool - it takes money, commitment, and time.
90% Professional Slacker
...but the IODP is not about the exploration for hydrocarbons. Its about planetary research. One of the bonuses of this new vessel is that it can better withstand the elements of ACCIDENTALLY drilling into gas reservoirs making it better suited for exploration drilling on ocean slopes. This is definitely NOT about oil and gas. You mods should RTFA before marking up completely off topic comments about US energy consumption and oil as interesting and insightful.
NMG
In case some of you didn't RTFAs, I'd like to point out that these scientific drilling programs have almost nothing to do with finding oil (the marine scientists leave that to the oil companies for the most part). Instead they are about understanding geologic processes that take place on the ocean floor.
On land, you can usually find a natural outcrop or a quarry or a mine to walk up to and examine the history of the Earth's crust in that area. Sometimes you even get hints to what's going on deeper in the mantle. On the seafloor, deep sea drilling is one of the key ways to get at the same kinds of information. What are the different layers in the crust, and how would they look on a seismic profile? Where do the sediments come from? What can they tell us about past climate change? Did higher temperatures or different atmospheric chemistries get recorded in the shells of oceanic micro-critters? How does fluid move through the crust, and how does that affect the hydrothermal vent communities that live on mid-ocean ridges in extreme conditions (300 degrees C, wierd water chemistries)?
Scientific drilling has very very little to do with extracting fossil fuels and a lot to do with figuring out how the Earth works.
I lived with solar power and battery banks for a number of years. It's just not that hard and it can be costed out better. I've posted on it before several times here, like for instance, instead of buying the expensive batteries with SOLARPOWER labels slapped on them that most of the dealers sell, just go to the local forklift dealer and get a forklift battery pack. MUCH cheaper amp hours per dollar then..there's other tips and tricks, too, it's doable from a grand on up to any size you feel like.
Sorry about the inefficient design of your night time electrical purchase, it does sound like a bummer, but that's a design flaw particular to your instance, it doesn't negate the concept, and many places ARE suing the concept now, just not enough. Perhaps just an OFF switch might have worked in that design. It certainly sounds screwy though.
To get back to the nightime electric angle, the basic reality is true, at night all over the world power plants have excess juice,they don't just start up and shutdown plants on demand, that takes weeks to do that with new huge plants, they just fire em up and let em go basically, only shut them down for maintenance. Think of them more like servers, when at night they are just serving to dev/null instead of out to legit requests and it makes more sense. And we all PAY for that excess capapcity, because of our useage deamnds, which are totally skewed to peaks during the day. And in a lot of cases it's just pure wasted, because we have no widely installed ways to store that electricity to use during the day. I've mentioned several times here that it's a GREAT way to have a practical UPS system for the average homeowner, something that will run a lot of your normal stuff even besides your computers, and also give you a decent backup of power stored in case of temporary outtages from storms, etc. Just get a charge controller/inverter rig, tie it in with a battery bank, then see if you can get cut a deal from your local electrico to charge it at night, for a reduced rate. The controllers/chargers/inverters I have used have easily programmable settings, when to charge, how much, etc. And it's scalable, once you have a "smart" way to get and use your juice,instead of the normal "dumb" way like most people have, you can start adding on your own production, with wind or solar. Most alternative energy guys in the US use both, that's called a hybrid system, because in the winter you get more wind, in the summer more light, and using both of them gives you a nice spread over the year. And you still have the normal grid supplied, the first way, if you want it, that's 3 sources total. You can even add in a fuel generator to that mix if you want, so you have 4 sources of input. That's CHOICE, rather than remaining tied only to bigco/government monopoly and the dumb way of using it.
My bottom line is, we can complain, or do something about it. I choose to do something. I done did it. I don't own a plasma screen TV or a brand new game machine though. Choices.
As to the trailer idea, I haven't seen it, it might exist but I don't know, just seemed a completely obvious idea to me, but gas/electric hybrid cars are common now, I live out in the stix in southern bubba land, even here I see them now, dude down the street just got a prius I notice, it's sitting in his driveway. You can't wait for this "they" guy to do it, to actually gwet the stuff, "anyone YOU" got to do it before WE all do it and it's comon and we have helpoed solve the problems. It's just like early computers, if all of us waited for the other guy to get one, where would we be now? Wait for ther government version of the peecee, or just lease one from bigco? Nope, took actual humans just deciding that computing for the masses was a good idea, that they wanted to own and control their own computer. To me, "energy for the masses" is a good idea, and it's a good idea to help break up the monopoly, to introduce better ways of using the monopoly grid juice as it is now, and for having millions more points of prod
Mods coundn't spot a humourous comment if it leapt from the screen and bit them on the nose!
Twats!
They're going to drain the sea by drilling holes through the bottom. Christ...this website is getting worse with FUD every day.
I shave my beard you insensitive clod!
The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
Important thing to remember is what possible means in this context. Could a non-fossil fuel car be made? At any price, sure. At a price to compete with oil? Maybe not. So the answer is probably no.
This is like when companies say there's no one in America to fill a job so they have to go abroad and get someone or have the job there. Obviously that's false, unless what they really mean is there's no one who will do it at the price they're willing to pay.
We can control nuclear energy but we can't make a non-fossil fuel car??? How is this possible?
Of course we can, e.g. by making use of fuel cells and efficient electric engines. These cars have a lot of potential. Note that the comment about the toppling demand for electrical cars is misleading because the author is speaking about battery-powered cars. Fuel cell cars have a bright future, we "only" need the alternative energy sources to produce hydrogen rsp. methanol. Added benefits of (hydrogen) fuel cell cars are that they are very silent, can be made efficient even when the driver performs lots of quick accelerations and braking maneuvers (ideal for cities) and that they are zero-emission, so you they do not cause any smog problems in large cities.
I love C++
"skrewyu"?
Huh?
We aren't going to run out. Yes, it will become more rare. And prices will go higher and higher. But we won't run out. The reason for this is that we can get oil from various places, but it is too expensive to be worth it now. Kind of like offshore rigs used to be too expensive but are now common. When oil prices go up you can expect oil to be drilled in very expensive places and for lots of alternatives to be developed (synthetic lubricants and things like biodiesel).
I really don't think that readers from Japan, Germany, the UK, or indeed most of the other countries on that list have had their "tax dollars" used to pay for this ship.
Their tax yen, euros, and pounds, perhaps...
I assume you're implying either that the Libertarian Party is not one of the top three parties, or that it's irrelevant -- either way, it's just an off-topic bit of flamebait if I ever saw one (hints to those with moderation points). But, I'll respond to this troll because I have some time (and karma) to kill:
Yes, by any meaningful measurement in a system that is vastly dominated by two parties (e.g., number of candidates run per election, number of people in office, etc.), the Libertarian Party is the third party in the US, and the other alternative parties are much smaller. And, in Washington State, there are three political parties that have achieved "major party" status, and yes, the Libertarian Party is the 3rd.
This doesn't mean that the LP is a "big" party, but even the Democrats and (especially) the Republicans are recognizing the impact on elections caused by the LP. In heavily-read, well-respected publications written for Republicans, political pundits are pushing for a more libertarian approach for Republican candidates, to try to plug the drain of votes. That alone is a victory for libertarian ideals, and proves that even a comparatively tiny party can have a national impact, especially once it reaches the level that the LP has reached over the past few decades.
No Laughing Allowed!
hey,troll,YO, we use ALL of the above, or maybe you never been here to see it. We use nukes, coal, oil, natgas, hydro, wind, solar, and some others like methane cogeneration, etc. We got it all here, I'd just like to see more of the advanced designs and techniques become more widespread, in all aspects of how we use energy, and to have more points of production, because of several reasons, number one being it's better for national security, and it's better for the consumer to have more control and more choices. And we have a thriving and growing private alternate energy market as well. I got solar, you? What are YOU doing personally to help yourself and help your nation? Playing video games? Going to bars? Huh?
Just even reducing consumption (if that's all you do) doesn't go near as far as reducing consumtion AND adding to the overall energy pool. So what are you doing about it? Just sitting back with a thumb in your mouth and letting nanny government and daddy big company run your life, tell you what to do?
I'm the first one to cast a stone on some topics,including strange weird political happs in my nation and it's business and political leaders and processes, because I live here and that's part of civic duty and stuff, but I walk the talk, too, BEFORE I cast the stone, and I at least offer some alternatives to what I think needs to be changed for the better.
The USA is WAY to big to just think we are all "the same" here.
Perhaps we should make fission cars. They have no CO2 emmissions, only dangerous radioactive waste coming from the tailpipe.
"Its thrillin' when we are Drillin'"
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Where are they when you need them?
Parent poster has no clue what he's talking about.
1 19
Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline- silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules. With energy paybacks of 1-4 years and assumed life expectancies of 30 years, 87% to 97% of the energy that PV systems generate will be free of pollution, greenhouse gases, and depletion of resources.
check it out:
http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleID=1
So you can imagine that when I had heard about Project Mohole (c 1960) to dig a really deep hole, I thought it had to be the neatest thing. Thing is, Brown and Root burned through all of the money and Congress pulled the plug. But I heard the Russians are into digging really deep holes.
Hope they have better luck this time.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fthagn n'gaa gl'abbwrng uglw. Gh-a lugmw'wu nchl'a-a elrg, naphlagg-wa gnpug'lna.
In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming o squid of negotiable affection. Suddenly he wakes up with a huge fucking metal rod up his tendril.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
he is sick, he advocates trying to fuck minors.
Read the damn blog before you moderate !
You're right, of course. I wasn't really aware of the IODP before now, thanks.
:))
I think, concerning your last sentence, things are slowly changing already, as is to be expected. Wind farms, solar panels popping up all over the place, hybrids... some people are just in a hurry. (and then, of course, once the oil companies are "gone", they'll complain about whatever takes their place
Recent studies of forest materials in Alaska and the release of CO2 as a result of naturally-occurring forest fires have shown that a tremendous amount of C is locked up in this material, and released during these fires. This included 'peat' fires, which can burn large areas underground for years. Much of this carbon was locked up long before the dawn of the industrial age. Where did it come from?
As a geologist, I can tell you that there have been times in the history of the Earth when the composition of the atmosphere (and the climate) was very different than it is today. The Earth is dynamic, and the rule is Adapt or Perish.
And here's a company that is exploring oil alternatives: Green Fuel Project, quoted in relevant part: "Alaska's Beluga coal-field about 60 miles southwest of Anchorage, is believed to be the world's largest low sulfur coal-field located on year-round open tidewater with over 2 billion tons of proven reserves, which is ideal for Silverado's commercial scale demonstration plant. The application of Hydrothermal treatment to coal from Alaska's Beluga coal-field has already been demonstrated at a pilot plant scale showing that this coal can be converted into premium, stable liquid fuel with energy levels of over 7,000 Btu/lb on a cost-effective basis."
-cp-
Why do most of you focuss on the economic benefits of such an operation, instead of on the scientific aspect of it? The first deep sea drilling program was the trigger for the wide acceptance of the sea spreading and thus also the plate tectonics theory, which, at first sight, don't have economic value. But it meant a huge step for geological research and all kinds of prospection.