Re: Energy Sources now and in the Future - World moves on Oil
From: Rick Gravrok (rick.gravrokgmail.com)
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:44:50 -0700 (PDT)
Yes, while the world may move on oil, it doesn't have to be limited to
fossil fuels. Check Wikipedia, or do your own research on Algae Oil or Algae
(Bio)Fuel and you'll see what we should be putting our efforts into
developing. Here's a bit from Wikipedia: "The United States Department of
Energy 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy>estimates
that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United
States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only
0.42% of the U.S.
map.[11]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#cite_note-Hartman-10>This
is less than
1⁄7 the area of corn <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize> harvested in the
United States in
2000.[12]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#cite_note-11>However,
these claims remain unrealized, commercially. According to the head
of the Algal Biomass Organization algae fuel can reach price parity with oil
in 2018 if granted production tax
credits.[1<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel#cite_note-parity-12>"
-   Rick Gravrok, Monterey Cohousing Community, Minnesota

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Norman Gauss <normangauss [at] 
charter.net>wrote:

>
> There is a tendency to forget that the world moves on oil.  All of its
> airlines, railroads, trucking fleets, and commercial shipping are fueled by
> oil.  Much of its electricity is generated by the use of fossil fuels.  If
> the cost of extracting and refining oil permanently increases, so will the
> cost of much of what is for sale in stores.  Even the poor will suffer.  BP
> may have goofed in public relations, but at least they are trying to
> extract
> more oil until it becomes so expensive that burning it is not cost
> effective
> anymore.
>
> As for natural gas, so far, transportation has not accepted it as a cost
> effective fuel.  It might be available for generating electricity and
> heating buildings, but for now vehicles need petroleum products, as
> gasoline, diesel oil, jet fuel, etc.
>
> Norm Gauss
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Tyson [mailto:landrest [at] cox.net]
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 3:05 PM
> To: Cohousing-L
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Energy Sources now and in the Future
>
>
> CoHo:
>
> Forgive me if this point has already been made, but no finite resource can
> be exploited infinitely. "Conservation," or avoiding waste, can delay the
> inevitable, but once finite resources like petroleum and coal become more
> and more expensive to extract, their products and benefits will
> increasingly
>
> become the property of, and for the exclusive use of, the most wealthy. As
> such points are approached, "production" will fall, hence consumption will
> fall too.
>
> The burning of petroleum removes this highly efficient source for
> higher-priority uses like lubrication and, say, sterile,
> disposable/recyclable products like hypodermic needles (which have saved
> many a life and extended life-expectancy) from the equation earlier,
> meaning
>
> that extraction of energy from biological sources will become even more
> uneconomical than it is now (even now it is largely a heavily subsidized
> con-job). "Biofuels" are only possible because of fossil energy inputs,
> now,
>
> and the basic con is that outputs exceed inputs. However, that is doubtful,
> and even the "calculations" made to justify this practice (which diverts
> agricultural space and products from food production, thus raising food
> prices, and increasingly lays waste to complex ecosystems) can claim only
> marginal net outputs in excess of inputs (like sugar-cane). The "catch" is
> that sugarcane can't be grown just anywhere (and the expansion of sugarcane
> production or any other crop-based source of energy requires the
> destruction
>
> of the ecosystems that now occupy the space "converted" to such production.
> The value of such ecosystems is NEVER factored into such calculations.
>
> All world cultures are on a terminal binge--terminal, not just for humans,
> but for much of the earth's life.
>
> There is no free lunch.
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norman Gauss" <normangauss [at] charter.net>
> To: "'Cohousing-L'" <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2011 12:57 PM
> Subject: [C-L]_ Energy Sources now and in the Future
>
>
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TPES_outlook.jpg
> >
> > The Dept. of Energy has compiled a graphical representation of energy
> > sources now in the future.
> >
> > If you can display the above webpage on your computer, you will see that
> > the
> > sources of energy are listed in order of decreasing importance as
> follows:
> > 1. Liquid (Oil mainly)
> > 2. Coal
> > 3. Natural Gas
> > 4. Renewables (Wind, Water, Solar)
> > 5. Nuclear
> >
> > Anyone who believes that non-fossil sources of energy are the wave of the
> > future should take a look at this chart.
> >
> > Norm Gauss
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 10.0.1390 / Virus Database: 1516/3768 - Release Date: 07/16/11
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/
>
>
>

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.