http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?emc=na
QuoteThe Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Wasn't this one of the big McCain/Palin talking points during the election?
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 05:00:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?emc=na
QuoteThe Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling for the first time, officials said Tuesday.
The proposal — a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations — would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.
Wasn't this one of the big McCain/Palin talking points during the election?
Hope for Change baby!
What the fucking christ?
On the other side... Oil from the Gulf of Mexico is probably going to be less expensive than oil from the Gulf of Arabia.
And, until we have existing alternative infrastructure, oil is a necessity. So if he does this in conjunction with moving towards new infrastructure options, it may be a reasonable decision.
Hey, at least we'll have plenty of American Made petroleum jelly for when we bend over.
Obama is the master of compromise. On NPR this morning, they suggested this move is a diplomatic one - aimed at getting Big Oil comfortable with him and his new energy bill.
it's not even that much oil.
It might be sleight of hand, it might be...what it looks like. I'm sure we can all look up his campaign so-called-promises and find where he said NO MO' DRILLIN'...
EITHER WAY: TEH SMILER STRIKES AGAIN.
Quote from: Cramulus on March 31, 2010, 05:08:00 PM
Obama is the master of compromise. On NPR this morning, they suggested this move is a diplomatic one - aimed at getting Big Oil comfortable with him and his new energy bill.
it's not even that much oil.
troof.
Most of the remaining oil in the world is in Utah and Wyoming, the oil companies are just cheap bastards who don't want to pay for the gear they need to drill in shale.
Quote from: Jenne on March 31, 2010, 05:17:26 PM
It might be sleight of hand, it might be...what it looks like. I'm sure we can all look up his campaign so-called-promises and find where he said NO MO' DRILLIN'...
EITHER WAY: TEH SMILER STRIKES AGAIN.
I'll check politifact.
I'll wager, however, that he only remarks on developing green energy, and doesn't address the drilling issue at all; he probably let Aristotle wave his magic wand, and let people assume that "if McCain=Drill, then Obama=No Drill."
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 05:23:49 PM
he probably let Aristotle wave his magic wand, and let people assume that "if McCain=Drill, then Obama=No Drill."
:lol: so very well said!
So, here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/energy/) are the promises relating to "energy".
As expected, none of them say, "No Offshore Drilling". In fact, #440 says "I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East."
Which, if you think like a weasel trained in Chicago politics, completely allows for domestic offshore drilling.
In his favor, he is not allowing drilling in ANWAR nor in any other highly sensitive ecosystems. Just the moderately sensitive ones.
I just find this sort of thing amusing. I wonder if next Obama will create a global League of Democracies (and Uzbekistan)? It still wont get Republicans to like him.
Politically sound maneuver or not, this displeases me. I may be moderately less displeased if he actually passes strong energy reform. I tend to doubt he can succeed, based on how much resistance his weak healthcare bill had.
This could be amusing, actually... There is such a knee-jerk reaction to Obama, that the Teapartiers and Conservatives might fight him on this.
OUR KENYAN MUSLIM FASCIST SO-CALLED "LEADER" WANTS TO STEAL OUR OIL AND CAUSE GIANT SPILLS, DESTROYING AMURRICA! HELL NO!
\
:mullet:
What the world needs is a Tea Party faction that insists, nay demands, that Obama forego breakfast links in favor of bacon.
It would prove he isn't a Muslim. Sell it on that premise, and you'll have your faction.
BUT IF HE'S HASSASIN, THEN HE IS ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING TO CONVINCE US OF HIS COVER.
AAAAAH! OBAMA IS GOING TO ASSASSINATE US ALL!
\
:omg:
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 06:14:22 PM
It would prove he isn't a Muslim. Sell it on that premise, and you'll have your faction.
I was going to say that drinking beer should have convinced them that he wasn't Muslim, but LMNO summed it up better than I could have.
Quote from: LMNO on March 31, 2010, 06:17:01 PM
BUT IF HE'S HASSASIN, THEN HE IS ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING TO CONVINCE US OF HIS COVER.
AAAAAH! OBAMA IS GOING TO ASSASSINATE US ALL!
\
:omg:
Rotten.com came up with a conspiracy theory that Al-Qaeda are a modern off-shoot of the Assassin sect based on the fact that the 9/11 hijackers drank, ate pork and frequented strip bars before carrying out the attack. And something about Cairo University, which I forgot. Anyway.
:musak:
It's starting to look a lot like SOCIALISM
\
(http://maxfreund.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/ezio_full_shot_11.jpg)
Quote from: Cain on March 31, 2010, 06:14:22 PM
It would prove he isn't a Muslim. Sell it on that premise, and you'll have your faction.
Aw, but unfortunately, they might be savvy enough to find that there's such a thing as Halal beef bacon. :(
I've had that before. It's kind of bland, y'know, to be called bacon.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 31, 2010, 06:46:18 PM
I've had that before. It's kind of bland, y'know, to be called bacon.
:lol: PURIST
Compared to some of the pork fans here, I am the Episcopalian version of Bacon Catholicism.
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 31, 2010, 07:11:23 PM
Compared to some of the pork fans here, I am the Episcopalian version of Bacon Catholicism.
I will admit that I prefer pork RINDS to fucking turkey bacon. But the beef version is not that bad if it's from a butcher. That nasty prepacked shit you sometimes find is not good for much, I'll agree.
True.
/re-jack
Quote from: Sigmatic on March 31, 2010, 05:46:16 PM
Politically sound maneuver or not, this displeases me. I may be moderately less displeased if he actually passes strong energy reform. I tend to doubt he can succeed, based on how much resistance his weak healthcare bill had.
And, politifact just weighed in. (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/31/barack-obama/once-wobbly-obama-not-inconsistent-latest-oil-dril/)
QuoteSo, has Obama gone from a Half Flip to a Full Flop on the issue of offshore drilling? Not if you're basing the ruling on his position on election day.
Back in August 2008, he did clearly change his stance on the issue. This time, according to all the environmental advocates and experts we spoke with, his latest announcement isn't much of a departure from his rhetoric during the last part of the campaign and during his first year in the White House. As a result, we say there's been No Flip in Obama's latest stance on offshore drilling.
Now tell those states they can choose between oil rigs or wind turbines...
He never came out and said that he was opposed to offshore drilling, he did however say it wouldn't effect our energy independence, wouldn't effect gas prices, and gas gotten from these sources wouldn't be available for years. All these things are true, but I guess they don't matter. I guess Obama said to himself, if this can get me some votes on my energy bill, then the oceans, fish, and fishermen can go and fuck themselves. This doesn't surprise me, Obama is no friend of the environment, he is just slightly less destructive to it than Bush II. I have a feeling this energy bill will be to energy independence like the Obamacare bill is to actual health care reform. It will promote energy independence in name only, do lots of damage and little good, and mostly consist of handouts to the energy sector.
I think he's trying to snag a moderate Republican or two for his future endeavours on energy.
In related news, he was in Maine today.
He had some great soundbites in that speech!
QuoteTHE PRESIDENT:Now, over the last year, there's been a lot of misinformation spread about health reform. There's been a lot of fear-mongering, a lot of overheated rhetoric. You turned on the news, you'd see that those same folks who were hollering about it before it passed, they're still hollering, about how the world will end because we passed this bill. (Laughter.) This is not an exaggeration. John Boehner called the passage of this bill --
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: -- no need to -- we don't need to boo, I just want to give the facts -- called this passage of this bill "Armageddon." You had others who said this is the end of freedom as we know it.
So after I signed the bill, I looked around. (Laughter and applause.) I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. (Laughter.) I looked at the ground to see if cracks had opened up in the earth. You know what, it turned out it was a pretty nice day. (Laughter and applause.) Birds were still chirping. Folks were strolling down the street. Nobody had lost their doctor. Nobody had pulled the plug on Granny. (Laughter.) Nobody was being dragged away to be forced into some government-run health care plan.
Quotedemocracy is a messy business. It is the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried.
Well, until we have a feasible option, I dunno what we can do except drill. According to one study in 2009 found that 88% of Americans say that hybrids are important, but
Quote...only 23 percent [ZOMG23!!!] of Americans are willing to pay extra for hybrids. 35 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs the same as a comparable non-hybrid. Another 33 percent will only buy a hybrid if it costs less than a comparable non-hybrid.
And thats people buying new cars... the majority of Americans appear more likely to buy used cars, often cars 5 years old or older. So for hybrids to reach a point that it impacts our oil dependence, we either force cars off the road, like with leaded engines, or we drill for Oil.
I don't like it, but I don't see any current alternatives... "Fund new tech" is a good thing to do alongside drilling, but it doesn't replace it.
:sad:
I talked about liking the CONCEPT of hybrids to a couple of engineers out here and they laughed their asses off at me. Saying instead that hybrids don't actually do much of anything for the environment if you do any sort of freeway driving, because it causes the same emissions that "normal" cars do. The fuel efficiency of the gas-guzzling part of a hybrid can be made in any version of car, they've had the technology just not the ambition (coughgov'tkickbackscough) yet, but hybrids are not "the" answer to the problem, apparently.
Or maybe those guys were just being dicks.
My husband's looking at getting us the Nissan Leaf since for CAns it's only about $20K at the end of the year because of the subsidies for buying one. We'll see if he bites the bullet and gets one.
Obviously the best answer would be cars free of oil and petrol products... but the delivery mechanism, the existing vehicle footprint and the stranglehold that big Oil has on our politicians will make that a loooong time in coming.
I'd think it was funny if we had an spare planet to move to... :horrormirth:
Barack Obama is Iron Man:
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/04/01/jon-stewart-obama-is-iron-man/ (http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/04/01/jon-stewart-obama-is-iron-man/)
Look. I know people think it's important to drill our own oil but do they have any idea how damn sensitive the friggin gulf is?
Keep your fucking rigs out of my damn gulf. Also the Atlantic.
This state sucks bad enough! I don't want that shit muckin up my view of the end of the Earth.
GET OFF MAH FUCKIN LAAAAAAAAWN!
Why do Republicans bitch so much? Isn't Obama one of them?
Quote from: lemurdue on April 03, 2010, 05:06:19 AM
Why do Republicans bitch so much? Isn't Obama one of them?
I can't get an accurate reading on my sarcasm meter here. Your previous post history doesn't look promising, though.
I think lemurdue is referencing the "Obama is Bush's third term" meme, one which is fairly accurate when it comes to civil rights, executive privileges, secrecy and foreign wars.
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
I think lemurdue is referencing the "Obama is Bush's third term" meme, one which is fairly accurate when it comes to civil rights, executive privileges, secrecy and foreign wars.
Ah, okay. I suspected as much, but I didn't know him well enough to judge sarcasm.
Quote from: Remington on April 04, 2010, 05:13:45 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
I think lemurdue is referencing the "Obama is Bush's third term" meme, one which is fairly accurate when it comes to civil rights, executive privileges, secrecy and foreign wars.
Ah, okay. I suspected as much, but I didn't know him well enough to judge sarcasm.
WELL,
well
The drilling is going to be a waste of time in the long run. I just heard estimate yesterday that at most all the new offshore drilling will yield 1-2 million barrels a day. And we USE 20+ million a day, 4% of the world's population using the majority of oil. This isn't sustainable.
On a long enough timeline everything is unsustainable, but I take your point.
There was some take, as I recall, during the worst parts of the recession, where they were talking about a stimulus for "green" jobs. I would've presumed that included things like renewable energy. So far though, I've seen nothing around here except that the plans to put up wind turbines (which date back about...12 years) are still going ahead. Maybe it's happening closer to London, but I look at the job openings there fairly frequently and I don't see anything along those lines.
I'm guessing things are probably pretty similar over there.
1. The US government just put through a deal to buy several thousand hybrid cars for federal use.
2. The Chevy Volt comes out in about a year, hopefully Plug-In Hybrids catch on.
3. Solar energy is getting cost-competitive fast (see Nanosolar), and some say it would be competitive already if it had the subsidies fossils fuels do
4. A new auto emissions law just passed for Canada and the US, mandating an average (or minimum, I forget) gas milage od 35 mpg by 2017.
There's progress, but nothing drastic.
The 35 mpg bit is fleet efficiency, so the average for the car models a company makes.
Note that if 90% of the cars they sell are SUVs, thats fine as long as they keep a couple sub compacts on the lot.
Also, exactly what are electric cars supposed to accomplish? Unless you live in a part of the country that doesn't use fossil fuels to get electricity, the extra electricity beyond what stable (solar, hydroelectric, nuclear etc) plants provide all comes from coal or oil, and electric is *less* efficient at using those fossil fuels.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 04, 2010, 11:24:59 PM
The 35 mpg bit is fleet efficiency, so the average for the car models a company makes.
Note that if 90% of the cars they sell are SUVs, thats fine as long as they keep a couple sub compacts on the lot.
Point.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 04, 2010, 11:24:59 PM
Also, exactly what are electric cars supposed to accomplish? Unless you live in a part of the country that doesn't use fossil fuels to get electricity, the extra electricity beyond what stable (solar, hydroelectric, nuclear etc) plants provide all comes from coal or oil, and electric is *less* efficient at using those fossil fuels.
IIRC, using electricity derived from coal generators emits less GHGs per mile than standard internal combustion engines.
Also, electric cars, alternative energy development, and the smart grid kind of go hand in hand. Energy development feeds more raw power into the grid, electric cars create a demand for that power, and the smart grid minimizes transmission loss and compensates for the naturally fluctuating power output levels of most renewable energy sources.
You are correct about big plants being more efficient, higher operating temp means a peak theoretical efficiency of 40% instead of 25% that a ca can get if I remember my thermodynamics class right.
Transmission losses aren't exactly huge in the united states (6 or 7%), what you have to consider are the battery charge/discharge losses.
You may be right about coal, I'm not sure about that, I *know* that diesel is better than gasoline (once you get rid of the nasty impurities in the diesel) but congress has blocked introducing coal-to-diesel tech that might cut into the profits of big oil.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on April 05, 2010, 10:59:17 AM
You are correct about big plants being more efficient, higher operating temp means a peak theoretical efficiency of 40% instead of 25% that a ca can get if I remember my thermodynamics class right.
Transmission losses aren't exactly huge in the united states (6 or 7%), what you have to consider are the battery charge/discharge losses.
You may be right about coal, I'm not sure about that, I *know* that diesel is better than gasoline (once you get rid of the nasty impurities in the diesel) but congress has blocked introducing coal-to-diesel tech that might cut into the profits of big oil.
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Yeah. I confess I don't know much about industrial-scale production of the stuff, although it seems like a cool project for local sustainability.
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Yeah. I confess I don't know much about industrial-scale production of the stuff, although it seems like a cool project for local sustainability.
Yeah, but it's not a replacement for oil on a large scale, unless you want food prices to jack through the roof, and lots of bad water. Not to mention that you're going to be trashing your arable land, because to generate enough biomass, you'll need to pretty much use every acre, all the time.
It's better to go electric. There's plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity that don't involve internal combustion.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Yeah. I confess I don't know much about industrial-scale production of the stuff, although it seems like a cool project for local sustainability.
Yeah, but it's not a replacement for oil on a large scale, unless you want food prices to jack through the roof, and lots of bad water. Not to mention that you're going to be trashing your arable land, because to generate enough biomass, you'll need to pretty much use every acre, all the time.
It's better to go electric. There's plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity that don't involve internal combustion.
I've been thinking lately about generator designs, specifically about one designed to run off of the power of human folly.
It would essentially be a gigantic hamster wheel, and for every 15 minutes a person ran on it they got a free lottery ticket.
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Yeah. I confess I don't know much about industrial-scale production of the stuff, although it seems like a cool project for local sustainability.
Yeah, but it's not a replacement for oil on a large scale, unless you want food prices to jack through the roof, and lots of bad water. Not to mention that you're going to be trashing your arable land, because to generate enough biomass, you'll need to pretty much use every acre, all the time.
It's better to go electric. There's plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity that don't involve internal combustion.
I've been thinking lately about generator designs, specifically about one designed to run off of the power of human folly.
It would essentially be a gigantic hamster wheel, and for every 15 minutes a person ran on it they got a free lottery ticket.
Da Earf would asplode.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 09:53:21 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:59:04 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 05, 2010, 08:36:50 PM
Quote from: Remington on April 05, 2010, 08:19:18 PM
Biodiesel is also looking like a nice alternative, at least on a small-scale salvage-from-restaurants level. Not so sure about industrial production.
It does having the advantage of having a closed carbon cycle, though. Carbon released by burning it is reabsorbed by growing the next year's supply of fuel crops...
Yeah, but you get gobs and gobs of high-alkaline water as waste from the process, if you're making it in bulk.
Yeah. I confess I don't know much about industrial-scale production of the stuff, although it seems like a cool project for local sustainability.
Yeah, but it's not a replacement for oil on a large scale, unless you want food prices to jack through the roof, and lots of bad water. Not to mention that you're going to be trashing your arable land, because to generate enough biomass, you'll need to pretty much use every acre, all the time.
It's better to go electric. There's plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity that don't involve internal combustion.
I've been thinking lately about generator designs, specifically about one designed to run off of the power of human folly.
It would essentially be a gigantic hamster wheel, and for every 15 minutes a person ran on it they got a free lottery ticket.
Da Earf would asplode.
I figure the Bible Belt would be able to power the US all by itself, if you found a more efficient stupidity ----> Electricity process. Perhaps blind faith could be used as a catalyst?
Dude. That can't be mad science, it makes too much sense.
:lulz:
I figure we can power all of North America if we find GodLikeProduction's webserver and throw it in the converter.
...Wait. If this was invented...
4Chan would be a global energy superpower :horrormirth:
:horrormirth: