Slashdot Mirror
US Officials Cut Estimate of Recoverable Monterey Shale Oil By 96%
First time accepted submitter steam_cannon (1881500) writes "The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA.gov) is planning to release a major 96% reserve downgrade to the amount of oil and gas recoverable from the Monterey Shale formation, one of the largest oil/gas reserves in the United States. After several years of intensified exploration the Monterey oil shale play seems to have much less recoverable oil and gas then previously hoped. This is due to multiple factors such as the more complex rippled geology of the shale and over-hyped recovery estimates by investors. By official estimates the Monterey Shale formation makes up 2/3 of the shale reserves in the US and by some estimates 1/3 of all crude reserves in the US. Not a drop in the bucket. Next Month the EIA.gov will be announcing cutting it's estimates for Monterey by 96%. That's a huge blow to the US energy portfolio, trillions of dollars, oil and gas the US might have used for itself or exported. Presently the White House is evaluating making changes to US oil export restrictions so this downgrade may result in changes to US energy policy. As well as have a significant impact on US economy and the economy of California."
Maybe we'll have to start paying the actual, non-subsidized price for petroleum.
I wonder if this might change the Obama administration's calculus and their continued delays on the proposed pipeline.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Do your job and edit!
Proofread this horrendous summary? Have a little chat with yourself.
The slave labor jobs with poor conditions and pay will not appear. So what. Only losers are big gov, and the executive parasites that would oversee the exploration. Irrelevant people, irrelevant news. It's not like America wouldn't be off bombing other countries for their oil regardless. All irrelevant.
"I have more oil than you if I take your oil."
"I have more money than you if I take your money."
Irrelevant parasites that will leave an easily forgotten footnote in history.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dBEm...
I predict that before a week has passed, someone will be claiming Obama personally rigged the study as part of a deliberate attempt to sabotage the oil industry.
96% reduction... seems to have less impact on public than "value is divided by 25".
Moreover, if the computation is rounding the error, a change from 96% to 99% would look like only a 3% change, whereas it would change the final value to be divided by 100 instead of 25.
Do not panic.
One more incentive to the US to turn towards renewable energy sources. The USA are lagging way behind western and northern European countries in that respect. Last week e.g. the Dutch railways announced that from next year on, 100% of their operations will run on electric power from renewable sources, mainly wind, bought from a total of 5 north west European countries ( DE, DK, BE, NO, NL ).
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Does this mean that we will need to find some other means of energy rather than burning dead dinosaurs? God forbid.
While this may impact the future economic situation to some degree and CA, it is not like the oil had been extracted and then taken away. The money was never there, it was only the assumption of future money.
I would also point out that the vast majority CA residents are strongly opposed to shale extraction off the coast of CA.
Virtually none of the shale oil and gas exploration and production is being done in CA. This account is just a tad exaggerated... To the point of stupidity. And the hard shale issues in CA are already very well known. The size of the shale layer may sound cool, but it iis irrelevant... Its just a geologic formation, and those tend to run huge anyhow. It doesn't mean the the formation is somehow magically able to be exploited.
First, I will say I have worked for a major oil company.
Second, I will say I have read "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew Simmons, was an ardent follower of The Oil Drum petroleum web site - was more active there than I am here.. That site was full of petroleum engineers and field guys - and I trusted their insight far more than I trust words from any investment advisor sitting behind desk whose job it is to influence my decisions of how to allocate my retirement savings.
And Third, I will say I swallowed the "Peak Oil" paradigm hook line and sinker. Apparently messed up my retirement savings big time by investing in the energy sector as I believed with all my heart that we were in serious decline.
Suddenly fracking made the scene and all the investment buyers saw energy as plentiful again. And the price dropped, And many of the smaller guys sold out.
I cannot help but wonder if all this panic talk is them yet rounding up another round of panicky people and investors to make a poor investment.
I can't help but remember all this talk about how dire our energy situation was coming from our leaders. Then there is no energy crisis, Then there is.
Almost sounds like Donovan singing about petroleum. First there is a crisis, then there is no crisis, then there is.
We pay countless taxes into our government, and countless well-paid bureaucrats are supposed to be leading us, but does anyone up there really know what's going on?
So far, they seem to rank about as reliable as an ouija board.
How in the hell can anyone make rational decisions when no-one seems to take this stuff seriously? It seems lately all our government has wanted to so is snoop. 96% is a helluva big number.
I believe special interest tie guys have the government release all these "facts" in order to manipulate the market.
When I saw fracking, I was and still am concerned that was equivalent to "blowing the gas cap" on a dying oil well as once we relieved the subterranean pressure that was helping to push what was left of the liquid oil to the surface, we were draining the last "fart" from the earth before there was no longer enough energy recoverable from the lift effort than we were able to recover from the oil lifted. It meant the show was over.
I remain very concerned this whole fracking "happy days are here again" thing has been nothing more than a ploy to get control of the remaining oil reserves at a bargain basement price.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
I'm not a native speaker and I still often make mistakes in English, but I cannot understand how people can mix those up : then/than, your/you're, its/it's, there/their/they're.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/m...
The next featured article: Professors: US "In Denial" Over Poor Maths Standards
Time to go free some more oil rich countries.
I guess they'll just have to liberate Venezuela now...
It's funny because they promised to export lots of this in Europe and encouraged European countries to worsen relationships with Russia based on this promise.
Lets liberate an oil rich nation and win their hearts and minds.
The desire to consume energy will not go away, even if the petroleum does.
Coal will be the inescapable American solution, air pollution be damned.
Nothing motivates sales of electric vehicles quite like the promise of expensive gasoline. Time to invest in Tesla stock, mark my words.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
The potential ecological disasters created by such a massive shale extraction operation just ain't worth it. Monterey is surrounded by one of the most beautiful and ecologically diverse coastlines in the world, and they want to jeopardise it to get some short-term, supporting an industry wihich is basicallty like America's crack dealer, and every year seems to report record profits. Wat?
It's the 21st century and we're still having these sorts of conversations about oil? Christ almighty, find another source of energy already, or consider slgihtly changing your behavior. If for nothing else, do it for the children.
Some of the most beautiful coastline on earth stretches from Santa Cruz to San Luis Obispo County. The waters are a National Marine Sanctuary. The Monterey Peninsula, Carmel, Pebble Beach, Big Sur are some of the most appealing destinations in California. The Los Padres National Forest extends into miles and miles of virgin wilderness from Ventana through the Santa Lucia and Coastal Range. The collision of the Pacific and Continental plates creates solid granite mountains rising up out of the pounding surf. East of the spectacular coastline is Steinbeck Country - the Salinas Valley, the salad bowl of America some of the most prosperous farmland on planet earth. It finds its water from the Salinas River which is the longest underground river on earth, as spring water percolates up from the range.
The idea of fracking here just makes me wanna stop driving. I can't believe this project has been moving forward all of this time with FALSE DATA from the lying scumbag pigs that want money from resources no matter what the long term cost to the planet. This terrain is the result of tectonics for billions of years, and all some folks can appreciate is that the fault line makes it easier to dig, and the bay makes it easier to transport. In a thousand years there will be nothing worth remembering about this era except for the beauty that was spared from human destruction. Every one of us will be dead in a century, why is that momentary presence so arrogant as to exploit everything possible just because we can.
Life will go on without sucking the Monterey Shale out of the ground so that some people get rich selling old technology to the "free" market. Somehow, I'm sure they can just move along to some renewable energy to sell when the fast easy bucks dry up. Good thing we found out it is already dry here, before they poisoned the golden goose.
Maybe I'm confused, but there seem to be a couple of problems in the article, regarding distance and location. One paragraph says, "The problem lies with the geology of the Monterey Shale, a 1,750-mile formation running down the center of California roughly from Sacramento to the Los Angeles basin and including some coastal regions."
In the article's map, the northernmost formation point is south of San Francisco, way south of Sacramento. And even if the Monterey Shale went all the way up to Sacramento, it's still way less than 1,750 miles from Sacramento to LA.
Also, according to http://oilshalegas.com/montereyshale.html, Monterey Shale is just that one large section that's about 1/4 the length of California. Monterey Shale doesn't include the smaller costal regions.
I'm not trying to be critical, but if the article has mistakes regarding distance and location, I wonder if it might also have a mistake regarding volume of oil.
Perhaps this is a sign that the rumoured Shale bubble is beginning to burst.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Peak US oil production begat a rampant speculative market, which in turn sends our oil and gas prices soaring and crashing on a yearly basis. This is always quietly dismissed as seasonal demand so as to coddle speculators and assuage the fears of our politicians. Sustained high crude prices and a rapidly diminishing prospect of respectable foreign policy with regard to the oil market during the Bush administration led many oil and gas producers and their lobbyists to declare a diamond in the rough. This shale oil and gas to be captured through fractionation came at a time when to deem it suspect was nihilistic and we all tacitly agreed it must be true for sake of our own collective future. As our war machine contracted and our focus returned somewhat toward domestic policies and act of sustainability it of course became increasingly difficult to ignore what during the past 8 years was a boon of blank checks and exemptions from the federal government to be applied toward the shale moneytrain. Halliburton certainly wouldnt be the first to fess up, and nor should they as theyd worked hard to secure by hook and by crook some of the most lucrative and reprehensible federal exemptions and contracts in recent history. Shale is good, shale is great.
No. Like an alcoholic stumbling from a hot malt liquor hangover into the nearest gas station we scrambled to find anything to take the hurt away. That we like the rest of the world would have to firm up our collective constitutions and make seriously warranted changes was simply too much. We crawled back into shale oils warm cockle and clutched our crossover SUV for one more year. We looked to the tar sands and their beleaguered machination of destruction and waste as no more than a fine bourbon whiskey we partook of on occasion. Science, like a distant cousin with the bail money for the last bender, is shuffling us along into the rather unpleasant sunlight once again with heavy heart and a morose sigh. We either change or we die, because at this point Science will have existed as much with us as it has without us.
Good people go to bed earlier.
the wookie behind the curtain. I smell bullshit.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Wonder how much more of a tax break the oil companies will get because of this. My understanding is that they get a write-off as they deplete a reserve. It is sort of like a capital depreciation. I wonder if the reserve estimate will change that calculation resulting in larger tax breaks since they will have a depleted their asset at a faster rate than previously expected.
Liberian oils don't want even 1 drop of it removed from the ground.
I come here for the love
"play seems to have much less recoverable oil and gas then previously hoped."
Seriously... then... than... same fucking word.
Dear Oil Company, I have a bunch of batteries. And sunshine. And a thing that makes a light bulb go on. Piss off .
Last week e.g. the Dutch railways announced that from next year on, 100% of their operations will run on electric power from renewable sources, mainly wind, bought from a total of 5 north west European countries
Which is a load of nonsense. They might be paying for that amount of power from those sources but the stuff that actually powers their trains is co-mingled with all the other sources of power including fossil fuels and nuclear. Unless you run dedicated lines from the power supply to the end user there is no way that their trains are only powered by electricity from a specific source.
From this administration, there's certainly no ulterior motive for saying that there's less oil than there really is...............yeah, right. They hate fossil fuels and will do anything and everything that they can to downplay and denigrate it.
The goal is not to make money for a few, but to produce wealth for the people. That requires energy, which fossil fuels will be incapable of providing in the future no matter the cost. There is no intrinsic value in money, and markets/legislation do not produce energy.
There is an unfortunate disconnect between business/economics and reality which desperately needs to be bridged. Only sane energy policy based in reality can rescue us from a truly dismal future. (Sane is recognizing that wind and solar are only capable of serving a small niche, and reality dictates that the bulk of energy must come from nuclear. Those fighting nuclear are only serving the interests of coal, which is the only practical alternative.)
By official estimates the Monterey Shale formation makes up 2/3 of the shale reserves in the US and by some estimates 1/3 of all crude reserves in the US
What about the Green River shale formation which is estimated to have 3 TRILLION barrels of oil? I don't get how that 13.7 billion barrels originally estimated in the Monterey formation comprised 2/3rds of the shale reserves, when we have a 3 TRILLION barrel reserve. By my count, it's around 1/3rd of 1 percent.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Should have had a look at the production curves, tight, shale and fracked sources have very rapid decline. It's pretty much the definition of unsustainable.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node...
Does anyone expect this "news" to be believed considering the political hacks in charge? What's even funnier is the obana sick duckers on slashdot who get paid to amen this crap in the name of leftist moonbat science.
(P)The problem here is that a government organization is making all of these pronouncements and then the White House is making policy. Private industry does a much better job in determining what is really there and if it can be profitably gotten out. Even if private industry entices people in with high estimates, they won't continue drilling for long if they are losing the money they have gotten. The government, on the other hand, when they make a mistake, are not punished with lower profits. They just keep taxing.
I'm not saying their estimates are right or wrong. I'm saying they don't have the proper motivation or expertise to be put in charge. People in private industry are always more cutting edge with expertise than government. And when I say they don't have "proper motivation", I'm referring to either insufficient motivation (since they don't directly profit from their decision being right) and/or I'm suggesting that their motivation is "tainted" by politics. For example:
1) Suppose the re-evaluation is wrong and the shale really does have most of the original gas estimates. By publicly announcing that it doesn't, the administration has placed doubt on investments made on shale oil. The stock value of the companies goes down. The value of the land goes down. If an administration had political friends who wanted to buy the land cheap, this would be one way to do it. 2) By making such an announcement, the door is opened to a polically biased energy decision. They could simply block off potentially profitable oil shale areas from use. After all, once they are officially "unprofitable", there is no need to even try drilling here. They should, {sarcasm on} "Thank the government for its help and shut up" {sarcasm off}. 3) A bit of both.
To summarize, the government should NOT be making such anouncements or decisions about energy policy and then force changes on individuals and companies. Why? Government agencies have a history of being biased and political in their decisions. They are often poor in their use of taxpayer money. Remember the solar companies supported with $billions by the feds that went "belly-up"? The EPA and BLM have also been criticized for decisions that seem to provide an advantage to political allies (not just this administration or party, either). Like it or not, private companies will do a better job of getting the gas out economically and doing it in a manner safe for the environment, especially if the feds keep their noses out. Just let the local people and government call the shots. After all, if a company knows it has to have local support, they will do all they can to make sure they make a profit while pleasing their new neighbors. A bureaucrat a thousand miles away in Washington could care less if a local neighbor has a rightful dispute if the company is a friend of "you know who" (not Voldemort, but someone politically favoured).
Am I too suspicious? There's so much money involved in things like this. If this thing goes through, follow up and see whether someone else starts buying up the land or rights to use. Investigate, investigate, investigate. Then bring it up for all to see, even if the news doesn't.
The keystone xl pipeline from Canada is often brought up by the fact it heads to houston should raise alarm, this means shale oil could be shipped overseas and would do little to improve the market price for oil in the US. The oil companies do not want to lower oil prices in the US which is why they want Keystone XL, they want to charge a higher price on the international market so they need to get it out of the US. The current pipelines terminate in the midwest refineries which keeps the oil in the US which is what we want. We also have Canada boxed in here. To the west of Alberta lies hundreds of miles of jagged mountains. It would be expensive, maybe impossible for Canada to build an oil pipeline over the mountains. So we would want the oil to go to midwest refineries, and the pipeline to end at those refineries, and serve the US, this is what we would do if we are smart, we do not want Keystone XL which goes to Houston.
While oil may not run out in the immediate future, small declines in production would have devastating impacts, you dont need oil or fossil fuel depletion to get bad effects, the bad effects start when you hit peak and production declines, and this may not be very far away, long, long before we will ever get to depletion.
If we were smart, we would encourage cities around a "cell" based design with good housing designed for workers and their families located near the employment areas, or design things so that public transportation runs between housing and the employment center, and save as much remaining fossil fuel for agricultural production.
Ending immigration in order to avoid over-exertion of the natural resources would also be of great benefit. As has been discussed, immigration into the US is stressing already finite resources which should be entirely reserved for the existing population. As well, they result in tech jobs being stolen from American citizens, because there is actually no shortage of tech workers, and retail, construction, housekeeping, and low skilled jobs being stolen from college students and non-college educated populations. The democratic party actually wants to swell the welfare rolls by helping illegals steal jobs from Americans. This shows the traitorous nature of the party which in my opinion is vastly worse than the GOP, who at least are nationalists and actually seem to care a bit more about Americans rather than do everything they can to help illegals steal the country from Americans.
For a solution we need a strong nationalist who will seal the borders for good and be very strict with enforcing border laws, including mass deportation of illegals, but will also do quite a lot to help local governments develop transportation planning that minimises the use of cars, encourages better public transit systems, including by moving corporate offices to where workers are rather than expecting workers to drive massive distances into downtowns.
California will not need to deal with expanded fracking and Obama can use it as an excuse to further hobble US energy policy. Why not let the free market decide whether there is recoverable oil and gas? Oil companies are not dewy-eyed ideologues and, if there is no commercial potential, will not hesitate to say so.
It's interesting to read the back and forth arguments anytime fossil fuels are discussed.
For some reason people, especially those benefitting from the carbon extraction industry, often take a very black and white view of the situation. Their view is usually that renewables are a waste of time, and that only our carbon based energy paradigm is practicable.
The reality is that the rest of the "First World" is moving ahead rapidly with renewable energy.
Whether it is China, Germany or Brazil the leadership in these other countries are taking the steps necessary to insulate themselves from the dependence on carbon based energy(fossil fuels). They are doing what is known in investing as "diversifying".
Right... I know you've heard this before...
Sure, we still need oil and gas. Of course we do. Oil should be used for plastics, etc. Gas for heating, energy, transportation, etc; But it seems to me this whole fracking boom that is going on is just another way to slow the adoption of renewable energy.
But what the US should be doing is throwing itself fully into renewable energy.
What are we waiting for, a "Sign from God"?
That sign from God may not be a pleasant one.
Forget Solar, forget Wind. There is vast Geothermal energy potential in the western US. Now, go ahead and remember Solar, because there is vast solar potential in the southewestern US, via Solar Thermal. Why aren't we moving full speed ahead on this? Wind energy? Sure, the plains, all the way from Montana to Texas have loads of potential?
The US could be a leader in renewable energy.
Obama said as much during his 2008 campaign, yet I haven't seen this switch to renewables.
America, it's time to wake the F up.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I'm with you on fusion.
please educate yourself about Thorium. Very safe. Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This may actually mean that a little less of our nation will be shredded, ripped asunder and poisoned.
Nah. Investment expenditures are at all time highs. Besides, they'll just pass that subsidy-expiration on to the consumer.
http://econbrowser.com/wp-cont...
I've pointed this out before, and I will probably point this out again: If you are true environmentalist, you _support_ both the nuclear power and renewable energy. If you are just a "pretend" environmentalist (the ones with the mental problems), you only believe in "green" energy.
- Coal fired power plants: China is bringing one on-line EVERY few days. Anyone seen pictures of Shanghai lately?
- Every single curie of radioactive waste or contamination created by man is cumulatively LESS than that created by the worlds coal fired power plants EVERY 6 years. Yes, people, flyash is radioactive. And nuclear energy does not release carbon dioxide.
-Three Mile Island's radiation release was the same as living downwind of a single megawatt class coal-fired power plant for 6 months.
- If the greenies had stuck to "Nuclear Disarmament" (yes, that is what the "peace" symbol means) instead of going all anti-anything-nuke, we might, just might, never had experienced the oil crisis of the 1970's. Oil probably would not be the "strategic" resource it is today.
End of rant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://mazamascience.com/OilEx...
'Oil production on Alaska's North Slope, which has been declining since 1988 when average annual production peaked at 2.0 million barrels per day, is transported to market through the TransAlaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Because TAPS needs to maintain throughput above a minimum threshold level to remain operational'
http://www.eia.gov/todayinener...
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
the first rule of owning Natural Resources, is to tell everybody how scarce it is so you can charge them more money.
This is slashdot
kilo barrels
Mega barrels
Giga barrels
Tera barrels
Please!
; )
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Oil alternatives are fine, however; oil still produces products such as plastics and certain types of medicine accessories.
What degree. What is the job? Does his degree relate to the job? How much per hour is he paid. His is job a union job? His he pulling in the money because he is working overtime?
What the hell is unrecoverable? They'll make it recoverable, and they'll get that oil. The only question is whether a knuckle-head President is going to be a stick in the mud.
Do you expect anyone to be believe a report from the Obama administration? Their stated goal is higher oil prices, not lower. They don't like the new oil discoveries because they throw cold water on their propaganda. Meanwhile, America must take the bullet of higher energy prices, and other countries will prosper by fully utilizing their natural resources.
To have the marketplace function efficiently, you need to end all subsidies and tax exemptions for coal, oil, and natural gas.
This includes cheap land and sea leases.
Fix that and stop exporting fossil fuels to China.
There: fixed.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
a couple of collapsing bridges that weren't apparently in very good shape.
Do you drive a CAR or a CAT? If one letter confuses you, then let me help you out here... YOU DON'T DRIVE YOUR FUCKING CAT TO WORK ASSHOLE...
"Than" is used for comparison. "Then" is not used for comparison.
Saying "then" and "than" are the same thing speaks to your low intelligence level because you obviously cannot comprehend the simple difference. Go back to school.
Just seeing the misapplication of these words is annoying enough, let alone some loser who tries to make a non-point. STFU.
there is enough oil in north america but they "choose" not to extract it? fossil fuels are trending down. yesterday's russia/china deal told the west something very important: "when the oil reserves in the ME dry up, you better have found an alternative"
I would like to know why you classify a backer of the KeystoneXL pipeline as someone who hates the oil industry. Perhaps he hates some part of it, that wouldn't be a surprise, but to claim that he hates it in general while being a crucial supporter of the Keystone pipeline I find difficult to understand.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Amazing so many slashdotters ignore it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
"Deutsche Bank says, that in January 2014 already more than 19 countries are under grid parity for solar power and sees starting a second gold rush for solar power..."
Of course, had we been paying the true cost of fossil fuels up front (pollution costs, health costs, defense costs, democratic costs of centralized wealth, other risks) as well as for nuclear (no insurance company will touch it), then renewables and energy efficiency (including passive solar) would have crowded out everything else in the market in the 1980s. Instead we got the Reagan years.
President Carter was wrong about a lot of things regarding energy policy. He should have focused more on appropriately pricing fossil fuel and nuclear externalities into the market, with any related taxes distributed generally as a basic income. Hard for him to do that with nukes as a previous nuclear engineer perhaps. But he was right when he said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americ...
"We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to true freedom for our nation and ourselves. We can take the first steps down that path as we begin to solve our energy problem.
Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny."
We took the wrong path to fragmentation and self-interest under Reagan and have gone down that road in the USA for about thirty years. So many have suffered, including in the most recent financial crisis. It is a long hard walk back to community and public interest but we have to do it.
Pope Francis has been writing about this like in his book "The Joy of the Gospel: Evangelii Gaudium" which I just got to see what he had to say on the topic of economics and social justice as informed by ethics.
Fortunately, many people have worked at solutions anyway despite this thirty years of widespread pervasive market failure to account for externalities or distribute purchasing power equitably. Thanks to the hard work of engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs along with consumers who purchased expensive products anyway for environmental and practical reasons, now renewables and efficiency are cheaper than fossil fuels in many situation despite the unaccounted for externalities. This is a huge tremendous success but you would not know it reading most of the slashdot comments on this story. Part of the issue is that until grid parity is reached, people still deny it will happen and most do nothing. After grid parity is reached and surpassed, then it is foolish economically to use anything but renewables. Just like humanity did not leave the stone age because we ran out of rocks (but we still use rock for building sometimes), and humanity did not stop using whale oil because we ran out of it, so too we will not stop using fossil fuels because we run out of them (not will we likely stop using liquid chemical carriers for energy, but they may be made by renewables and likely someday fusion).
Granted, we in theory know how to make much safer nuclear plants too. In theory, somehtign like Thorium-based power run by respo
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Well done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
See also my related comment about how to us the free market to deal with Global Warming (GW) issues and also Fracking:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
CAISO utility electricity generation web page. Daily load, generation, and fractional contributions by renewables.
Refer to the middle and bottom graphs.
http://www.caiso.com/outlook/S...
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
Planes that guzzle fuel like it cost $.25 a gallon, and are so incredibly loud that every airport they go to has to pretty much ignore all noise pollution regulations, aren't practical anymore.
Plus, the market for them - business travellers who need to be there a few hours sooner - has dried up, because if it's that important, they'll just use the Internet.
Damn you scholars! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I would like to know why you classify a backer of the KeystoneXL pipeline as someone who hates the oil industry.
Obama sure is a funny backer, refusing to allow it to proceed an odd expression of support.
Unless he mentioned at some point he supports it? Yes, he talks a lot but it means nothing; pay attention to what is done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"its".
The science was in
I don't know that he's ever actually *said* that he backs it, but he refused to allow it to be killed when it was possible. (I will grant that he's a pretty funny backer, but that's true about most of his programs.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.