Why not move or build the refining facilities in the northwest instead of 1700m of pipeline ?
Because any new refinery built will have to meet the new EPA standards…And oil companies don’t want that expense. That’s why they keep band-aiding their existing refineries.
You would think that accidents like Exxon Valdez and the latest Gulf spill were the end of the world and our environment would be damaged forever, but Mother Nature cleans these things up fairly quickly.
WHAT…You’re kidding right…You can still find oil from the Exxon Valdez TODAY…some 20+ years later. Sorry but the FACTS don’t support your statement.
There will be more spills, but we need energy !
Yes…we need energy…but do we need OIL…There are alternatives TODAY that could completely replace the need for oil. They have have to be exploited.
Besides Solar (which is growing every year) and Wind…there’s even new “Safe Nuclear” on the horizon that unfortunately only China and India is exploring… http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
And don’t you thing these high energy cost have a lot to do with oil spill clean ups. At one point we led in Solar and wind technology but politics and the refusal to subsidize businesses in those areas has not helped. They take really long term investments that don’t show immediate profit and are usually the first cut. China holds the purse strings and the advantage when it comes to subsidies.
Keep voting with the tea party crowd and we will fall farther behind in not only these areas but medical research and education in general. We will get bible studies approved in more public schools and attempts at balancing every ones budget to off set this technological ignorance though. I’m sure many think that is a welcome trade off. The truth is, it takes investments in these areas and education to promote growth and balance budgets. It has nothing to do with cutting expenditures on good investments and domestic programs, they all have a growth effect. It happened in the seventies with the aid of the tech boon here.
At one point we led in Solar and wind technology but politics and the refusal to subsidize businesses in those areas has not helped.
I was in upstate NY a month ago visiting family … Tthere were 3 new wind farms built on my drive to my cousins that wasn’t there the last time I visited 3 years earlier. Each farm had about 20 windmills … the real big ones with those 40’ blades.
The point is…not where the turbines and solar cells are used alone but who builds them. China leads the world in the manufacturing of solar cells and is putting a big push in the direction of wind energy (and other renewable resources as well). Yes…there are a few examples of wind farms throughout the country. But, with the US importing more solar cells from China then it makes and hardware made in China for wind farms, the money continues to migrate there along with job loss…regardless of how your landscape has changed.
The lines grow long at the unemployment line whose lighting is supplied by Chinese made technology while paying out money borrowed from them for unemployment compensation. The average college grad has less then 4% unemployment yet we overcharge for own college education to “make” these engineers while China offers educational opportunities to anchor their industries…China provides FREE college and technical education for those who qualify.
That’s why we lag behind China in job growth and why are jobs are going overseas…and your Chinese made green energy examples will dot your landscape…Doing everything based upon corporate profit doesn’t always get you where you want to go…expeditiously.
I don’t disagree with you…We are so far behind China and India right now I’m not sure we’ll ever catch up. Personally I’m trying to save as much as I possibly can…I don’t see our economy getting any better soon. We have lost so many jobs and the drain is still happening…Great for the Millionaires who already have their money…lousy for our kids and those of us who aren’t millionaires.
I just worry that wind is not the solution, it may not even be a solution. For every megawatt of wind power we install we have to install an equal amount of quick-start gas-fired generating capacity. Also, wind power is often available when we least need it. The west Texas farms generate the most in spring and fall, neither the peak seasons for need.
And why does wind power get a free ride for it’s destruction of birds? Thousands die annually from hitting blades, and they’re often the most endangered large species.
I just worry that wind is not the solution, it may not even be a solution.
It’s a combination of solutions…Not just Wind…or Solar…But I do believe it’s doable.
Every form of energy has its role. However, most experts believe that within our lifetime sun and wind may only produce 25-30% or so of our energy needs.
The real savings appear to be in designing a “smart grid”, where each building is clad in solar panels and generates electric power all day, stores it, as well as sending any excess power into the grid. A ground-effect heat pump supplements the heating. A local college here has already designmed an “energy neutral” house; it requires no net input of heat or electricity. The cost is rather steep per useful square foot, but it demonstrates that it’s possible. The house does not rely on wind power, which is too unpredictable for an individual dwelling to make sense.
Such houses could also store electricity batteries to power electric vehicles, although they may only supply part of the energy needed by an EV.
Personally I think the “Grid” is a waste. I think the best solution is for people to have the ability to generate the own electricity (solar, wind, fuel cell…etc). There’s so much power loss just transmitting across the grid.
You can find homes right now today in NE that generate their own power…The islands off the coast of Maine has more then a few.
I agree. Localized power generation using the advantages found nearby is the most efficient. That’s not a corporate money maker and is dependent upon govt. subsidies. Selling power from large central locations where money is. The last thing power companies want is to be in competition with too many public owned local hydro, wind or solar plants selling surplus power back into the grid.
I don’t know about that. If I was using wind and solar to supplement the grid, and feed energy back to it, that would be one thing. However, if I had to run a generator during peak use, I think getting my power from the grid would be preferable. It would generate less pollution since most generators are air-cooled with no emissions equipment. There is only so much power that you can store in batteries, and storing it would mean either using DC power or using an inverter, which isn’t very efficient.
A “smart grid” does not need to be nearly as heavy as a conventional; one. The reduced loads because of owners genarating most of their own power will make future additions almost unnecessary. There are several countries, like Denmark, who are going this route. Owners have to be prepared to make substantial investments in solar/wind equipement a well as batteries and converters.
On offshore islands where power is generated by diesel genrators at a very high cost, the idea of solar/wind supplenmentary generation makes sense.
Needles to say this needs goverment involvement to set the “buyback” rates and determine the tax incentives necessary to make it a success.
It still takes a great deal of time to pay off the solar generation equipment, even with big government subsidies. Wind is impractical for most people. I’m sure that I would not be allowed to construct a wind tower in my back yard. Power companies that eventually use wind and solar will also have to construct back-up generating capacity unless they have natural gas fed plants already. Anything like this is going to take government and business coordination to make it work any time soon.
"It still takes a great deal of time to pay off the solar generation equipment, even with big government subsidies. "
Exactly. What extra money does our government have? We and the EU are finding out there are limits to deficit spending. Are huge energy subsidies (of any type) worth cutting other services?
jtsanders and texases are right about there being no extra money in many countries to do all these things. What makes scientific and environmental sense often is too expensive or makes no economic sense. These minor irritants do not bother the likes of Al Gore and Greenpeace. Likewise Amery Lovins of the “Rocky Mountain Institute”, who has lived off-grid for years, promotes the same make-believe world. He installs and promotes all the energy saving gadgets given to him by the manufacturers and runs seminars on how you can do that too, without the give-aways of course.
A more easy intermediate step is to gradually convert coal fired generating stations to efficient cycle gas firing and get more electric vehicles on the road, and give some tax credits for increasing home insulation and high efficiency furnaces.
Obama’s first responsibility, however, is the solvency of the US economy; the environment will have to wait a little longer.
jt “Wind is impractical for most people.” Agree, and so isn’t solar, geothermal, tidal, river and others. There are local strategies that could be applied and each sould specialize. Local engineers at nearby university whom I have talked to feel this is the most cost effective approach. Centralized power production from big plants with the accompanying transmission losses make local generation a no brainer.
Doc,"Obama’s first responsibility, however, is the solvency of the US economy; the environment will have to wait a little longer."
IMO, standing pat and waiting fro the world to slow down to our pace is what got us into this mess. Short terms goals instead of long term strategies are needed now. Tapping the rich back to pre Bush rates and stepping out of the role as the worlds police force does wonders. Re building Iraq which we help destroyed without the benefit of their oil revenue was the big unplanned for side step. An aggressive new strategy and investments in our youth is what China and India has been doing. Should we not be doing the same ?
dagosa, most people live in or near cities, and we just don’t have the space to put up a wind tower. It can make sense for a farmer in the right area, but that is a small part of the population. I do agree that different areas should use the methods that make best sense for them. BTW, hydroelectric generation in the traditional sense is already spent. There are no more rivers in the USA that would be good candidates for dams with turbines.
I almost responded to Docnick’s last post about the President’s responsibilities, but decided that just cutting expenditures is not necessarily the only way to address government outlays. If we did that, we would lose 1.3 million jobs as a direct result of reducing spending by $100 billion. Then there would be the collateral job losses because another million people are out of work. We can’t afford to think that way. It seems to me that it is irresponsible behavior and I do not believe that Mr. Obama would stand for it easily. Of course, he does not propose or pass legislation. We’ll just have to see what happens. I hope we see other changes, such as restructuring entitlements and grants, and even taxes. We had 2 tax cuts in the face of two wars. That was an irresponsible act by our elected officials.
Here’s an example of lots of money spent with little results:
The solar panels will cost about $11 million, and produce about $100,000 of electricity a year. A 100 year payout isn’t just bad, it’s much worse that putting that money into energy saving projects, like improving insulation and appliance efficiency.
Lot of show, but the money could be much more effectively spent elsewhere.
Agree with texases. Over the last 5 years we have cut our natural gas bill by 45% through better insulation, installing a high efficiency furnace and reducing air leakage. This totalled $3500 net after the government rebate. The payback was 4.5 years!!
We similarly cut our electric consumption by 40% through fluorescent bulbs, efficient appliances as they needed replacing, using timers, etc. The payback was similar, and our total energy bills are now 42% less.
Sears is promoting tankless gas water heaters, which have a payback of 22 years!! where I live. I can also buy solar panels down the street. All have far too long a payback to make it worthwhile. However, the price of solar panels is comoing down fast, so I may have some in the future.
Most people are rational, and buying a Prius or other itme that takes too ling too pay for itself makes no sense to them.