Should We Drill Alaska?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

That's easy Chrisfan. Whenever budget cuts happen, they almost always cut social services and never the military because the military comprimises a huge chunk of our income since we are a part of the military industrial complex. I wasn't actually debating the validity of the war (well yes and no.....it's two-pronged for me) but making a point that paying for the war now would most certainly bankrupt us. There comes a time, I think, that you have to know when to fold em, like that Kenny Rogers song.

[chrisfan]

I would agree with you thatyou have to know when to fold 'em. I would also argue that if you decide to fold 'em, it is tragically irresponsible to do so at a time that would mean tremendous disaster to those left in the game.

[poseidon]

Should we drill Alaska? No.

Will we drill Alaska? Yes.

[poseidon]

I say no we should not drill mainly for habitat and environmental reasons. Many species of animal will inevitably suffer the consequences of drilling. Breeding grounds will be displaced, certain species will dwindle in size, more gas for the gas-house effect in the atmosphere.

I say we will drill because the U.S. is an energy hungry nation that needs to learn to conserve. That and what is left under known oil and gas formations is rapidly dwindling so much, that I have read the U.S. will run out of oil in the next 1 to 2 centuries.

Opening up Alaska to drill for oil and gas is like putting a bandaid on a wound the size of the grand canyon. Who knows, we might get another centuries worth of oil and gas from it.

The U.S. and other oil gobbling countries need to seriously start thinking of alternatives to oil. Electric cars anyone?

[Kensterberg]

poseidon said:

The U.S. and other oil gobbling countries need to seriously start thinking of alternatives to oil. Electric cars anyone?

And where is this electricity going to come from? I'm a solid environmentalist, but I'm also a realist when it comes to personal transportation. There's no better way to power individual mobility units (i.e. cars) than the internal combustion engine. Now, if we were all driving diesels, we'd be using a lot less fuel, which would stretch our supply out as far as possible.

[poseidon]

What powers a golf-cart? It would be the same with electric cars. Bigger batteries.

[poseidon]

A friend of mine has a golf-cart at his 5 acre home to ride around the property on. All he does to recharge it is plug it in every now and again. The charge lasts forever. The need for speed is what drives the owner of the engine-machine auto.

[Kensterberg]

But these batteries are built in factories, which are powered by fossil fuels. And a good battery is able to take about 75% of the energy used to produce it and deliver that as usable power. Which is actually considerably less than the percentage of energy recovered from processed gasoline (or diesel fuel). And since we in the US have (not entirely foolishly) decided that we aren't willing to take the chances with nuclear power, there isn't a viable replacement for our fossil fuel powered generators at this point.

[poseidon]

Instead of gas stations there would be recharging stations. Pay by the wat, or wattage IYP.

[Kensterberg]

Also, electric cars are hobbled by some other problems. Batteries are heavy, and batteries necessary to power a car that weighs 2800+ pounds (which is what even a typical small car with modern safety equipment weighs) are heavy as shit -- in other words, that "small car" winds up weighing even more, and having even lower performance, than its gas-powered cousin. Also, these big-ass batteries don't hold their charges for long distances. Even the most sophisticated electric powered cars are extremely limited in range, typically well under one hundred miles in the real world. This is why the pure electric car has been pretty much abandoned by the world's automakers. They just aren't practical, particularly in North America. Instead, R&D work now focuses on hybrids, diesels (which make up more than half the market in Europe), and such exotic technology as hydrogen fuel cells (no ready source for hydrogen, storage and fueling problems, really bad PR from that whole Hindenberg disaster) and natural gas (same sourcing issues as conventional gasolene).

Electric cars are an idea whose time, well, just isn't. And without a dramatic revolution in technology, it won't be any time soon.

[Kensterberg]

poseidon said:

Instead of gas stations there would be recharging stations. Pay by the wat, or wattage IYP.

Once a battery is depleted, it takes a considerable stretch of time to recharge it. And the amount of charging time is generally proportional to the power of the battery. Electric cars require being charged for 8-12 hours in order to be usable again. You want to stay over-night at the filling station?

This is part of the appeal of hybrids. They use the energy produced by the car's brakes to charge the batteries, and also take power from the gas engine for the same purpose. Even so, under repeated hard acceleration (say, going up a series of hills or a mountain), the batteries quickly lose their charge. Once this happens, the poor little engine is stuck trying to drag around 3,000+ pounds of automobile, without adequate horsepower to do so. Also, b/c the hybrid powertrain is not optimized for American driving habits, they don't deliver real world mileage numbers equal to their EPA ratings.

[kmc]

This of course is not to say that there aren't alternatives. As noted in the latest Fortune magazine, over half of Brazil's cars run on ethanol produced from sugarcane. It can cenrtainly be done. Whether or not we are willing to do it is obviously another thing entirely.

[Dr. Drum]

[Dr. Drum]

Apropos:

Are global oil supplies about to peak? Are they, in other words, about to reach their maximum and then go into decline? There is a simple answer to this question: no one has the faintest idea.

www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/09/27/crying-sheep/

[Thorngrub]