— at least, that’s how I’m guessing the mainstream media narrative, throwing in with the environmental non-profits (who have no political agenda or leanings whatever, and so are pure as the driven snow, that by 2010 most children will never see again, and by 1995 will be covering the earth, depending on who you listened to), will soon take shape, particularly once word of this leaks out on a wider scale:
According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.
What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?
As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.
Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.
The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.
If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.
So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power.
— All the more reason to strangle this in its grave: companies loyal to the administration have been carefully selected to profit through the chimera of “alternative energy” subsidies; control over the citizenry through rising prices connected to increases in fuel costs has been finessed into place, creating a dependency that will force people into the city centers, where they’ll use government mass transit and become dependable Democrat voters in exchange for federal largess.
Cheap fuel could undo all the hard work of the socialists — spurring growth, rejuvenating industry, adding jobs, and restoring economic sustainability to any number of families who currently can’t make it without government assistance.
And that, to the left, would be disastrous.
So. Just you wait.
Were I running for the GOP nomination I would talk about the prospect of cheap fuel and energy independence until I’m blue in the face. Drill, baby. Drill.
(h/t geoffb)
Not to mention all the jobs to be had by drilling baby drilling, here and now now now.
How easy would it be to turn Barcky and the Dems into the “Party of ‘No'” in a campaign? NO cheap fuel, NO jobs, NO independence from foreign oil… hell, the debate runs itself.
Curiously, fracking might also be incontrovertably linked to ultimately freeing us from dependance on foreign energy sources as well as the micromanagement of our lives by the environazis.
Now that’s change I can believe in.
The natural replacement for “fossil fuels” (it’s a theory, people) was nuclear energy. People pissed their pants over it, so now we have nothing.
It’s still sitting there, waiting to be tapped.
However, so is a crapload of coal. We can already do a lot with coal, including making other fuels from it, if necessary, beyond those mentioned in the article.
Renewable energy is likely a pipe-dream. The only thing I’ve seen that might be promising is using algae to produce diesel fuel. Apparently you can squeeze it directly out of the little critters. They are looking at getting it to a level such that it would cost $60 – $80 per barrel. It can be grown either by exposing it to sunlight or by feeding it sugar in big tanks. Supposedly the yield is very high. By the acre (if you used open ponds I would guess) you can get orders of magnitude more energy than you could from, say, soy beans. I’m ignoring the mosquito breeding ground aspect of the thing.
What I don’t know is how much energy you need to input to the system to get the energy out. That’s one of the main problems with most “renewable fuels.” They don’t have a net energy output, which makes them a waste of time. The other problem is that their energy output per acre is too low to make them viable in any case. There isn’t enough land available in this country to grow enough plants to make enough fuel, even if it did have a net energy output. The algae thing seems to be skirting that problem.
Still, I could be wrong and the algae thing could be another waste of time. Exxon is putting some money into it, so it is getting support. Contrary to the progressives out there, I think the smart oil companies would be highly motivated in getting the products they eventually sell any way they can, including from non-crude sources if they can make it work. They want to sell fuel, they don’t necessarily want to buy oil. The problem with the price of crude is that it is so dependent on the providers willingness to pump it out of the ground. They could drive the price down to nothing quite easily. To be independent, we probably need to be ready to support alternatives that may end up costing a heck of a lot more than middle east crude.
Supposedly the yield is very high. By the acre (if you used open ponds I would guess) you can get orders of magnitude more energy than you could from, say, soy beans.
Anything that takes up space on the surface of the land is problematic. If they could set up corrals in the ocean for breeding, then fine. But corn-fed ethanol shows us that arable land, unlike “fossil” fuels (do we really know how they’re made?) is definitely a limited resource.
Unless that global warming thing is real (what? still emerging from the last Ice Age?), and then finally Canada will be useful.
Also, these freaks who insist on making petroleum a scarce resource need to be reminded continually that when petrol prices go down, they also go down for Nepal and Guatemala and Burkina Faso.
Or was helping the super-poor of the world become prosperous not an actual goal?
Like I said, the algae can also be “brewed” in big tanks. It need not take up arable land. Plus, for algae, the land doesn’t need to be arable, since you would need water to grow it, not soil. The water could be a problem, of course, but crappy soil wouldn’t be an issue.
And sound like the simpleton hoochie what talks funny? The horror! Energy is a complex problem requiring explication followed by proposals of complex solutions. You start engaging in child-like sloganeering like “drill baby, drill!” and you’ll lose the high-minded. Don’t you know we need those people to like us!?!
If Salon is getting on board, you know there is something to this. http://www.salon.com/technology/peak_oil/index.html
Don’t worry about giving Salon a hit, the comment section is pure comedy gold.
Frack, baby, frack!? Yes We …should! “Can” is going to probably be decided in 2012…
Not necessarily. The EPA is an authority unto itself. “Unitary executive” be damned!
Here’s the real truth about fracking: http://www.drillingahead.com/video/the-whole-fracking-story
I wouldn’t worry about it; pouring diesel into ponds was an early method of mosquito control.
Harvesting American energy resources = jobs, exports, cheap food and national security.
Other than the above, I guess there’s no compelling reason to develop convention American energy sources.
conventional.
Fracking is okay, but I still prefer frelling.
or the ever-popular “fugging”
Frickin’ A.
Somewhere in the universe, a bunch of refugees fleeing from a bunch of evil robots, is wincing and they don’t know why.
Fracking is a second cousin to felching, no?
I’m not sure where JD’s headed with that one.
Just to ruin the joke, word-wise I prefer using “frel.” Sure, it marks me as an uber-geek, but I am one, so whatevs. It’s less harsh-sounding than frak or that other f word both words were invented to replace.
The EPA was created by unitary executive action for the first 13 years of its existence.
How is that a good thing?
You know what?
I’m just out of gas (literally).
Let’s leave this at: “NO ENERGY FROM OUR OWN RESOURCES! WE MUST PAY MORE FOR ENERGY BECAUSE WE ARE GUILTY OF EVERYTHING WE ARE ACCUSED OF, AND MUST MAKE IT RIGHT WITH THE WORLD BY FUCKING OURSELVES UP OUR OWN BUTTS!” Does your dick reach your ass?
Truth be damned, because Marxists are producing this episode of the Twilight Zone.
Yes, honestly. Marxists in “need some help?” clothing. It’s just too much trouble to try any other explanation. Self sufficiency?
Why, no. Lets give Brazil two (or was it three?) billion dollars to drill the way we are not allowed to. And then let them ship all of their oil to China!
Win/Win!
Good idea.
Really..
I don’t like saying “shit.” With “frel,” I can curse satisfyingly, yet still have “fuck” in reserve if I’m feeling really cranky.
Ah.
It’s less harsh-sounding than frak or that other f word
Aren’t you forgetting one?
OK. I give.
Will “flinking” do?
I think this makes for a “triple down” for Mitt. Healthcare, ethanol and now AGW, he’s on the Dem side everywhere.
As for that Snow-billie, she just keeps doing it to them.
Heh, timb sighting on that thread, Geoff.
“he’s on the Dem side everywhere.”
link
Out for kicks, she is.
*hic*
*hic*
them be the days when pop culture employed american themes.
Timmuh has he own little very tightly enclosed world as always.
So leftists have (so far) this week 1) exposed their dicks now 2) stepped on them. Winning! Both which were public and self inflicted. I knew they were into some funky stuff, but golly!
You’d think after a while they would catch on that Palin’s into a bit of misdirection. The argument from the leftists seems to be that she got the ‘conventional truth’ wrong. Is that much different than their “the science is settled” in so much as it ain’t and conventional wisdom ain’t all that either? No one I know voted for Nixon!
The pisser is that fracking could go a long way to save our economy, and in a big way, lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
But the Marxists say “NO”, and our public school educated nerfs say: “YEAH! Don’t destroy Gaia, She is so fragile!”.
The true bottom line is that they have no idea that the Earth can heal itself in a quicker time than the human body can. Tthe Earth is a hardy place, more than able to heal itself quickly, and spitting on enviornmental asholes who know NOTHING about the reality, except for what CNN tells them.
I grew up on a farm where there was a dump that was about 250 years old. Oil, Chloridine, horseshit,gasoline, and ANYTHING that needed to be thrown away, was thrown into this dump. It was covered with treees and vegetation no matter what was thrown into it. Until the Eco-asshats came along.
It did not matter that all was fine, these idiots closed down half of our farm because they THOUGHT they saw a white egret there.
Fuck them and the Marxist horse they rode in on…We had REAL horses (that became an eco-negative as soon as the Marxists arrived. “You’re horses are urinating on the ground! Yeah. Fuckin’ bummer, huh?”.)
Stupid, brainless, clueless illiterate fucking morons rule.
Anybody else noticed this?
Or is it just me that is close to tearing throats out?
I can understand not knowing that. It’s real easy because… I didn’t know that. What I can’t understand is not googling it to check before showing my ass.
Hell, I google what people here say all the time. And that’s just for pop culture allusions and jokes that fly over my head. If I was looking to score political points I’d probably double google it and then bing it once or twice to be sure.
Some of these people actually draw salaries for this. That’s amazing really. Like Oliver-Willis-isn’t-an-outlier amazing.
The arable land thing is questionable. We’ve got vast shitloads of land that gets plenty of sun and don’t grow shit. If we’re bringing everything needed but the sunlight, we’ve got plenty of places to put stuff like that. I suppose that doesn’t necessarily make the land arable, but it would finally give us a use for Nevada that doesn’t involve Vegas or Reno.
I am sometimes tempted to just wonder aloud about something, but most times I stop and think, and realize that I can probably find out for my own damn self.
But sometimes I’m too lazy, or it’s just more fun the other way. But at least then I know that I’m setting myself up.
Much like Obama dating that stupid book
Like he’s ever picked up a book.
There’s another use (well, two, now that I think about it) for Nevada that doesn’t involve the jurisdiction of either city.
“We’ve got vast shitloads of land that gets plenty of sun and don’t grow shit.”
and that’s just the federal govt.
Use number one, it’s the new California after Governor Lex Luthor sinks Cali into the ocean.
Use number two, bury nuclear waste.
Did I get them both?
Heh. Bitch set ’em up!
You got use number two right, bh.
I think you missed the ranches that aren’t. Call the “Spitzervilles”.
them not the.
That would be use number one. Only legal outside the city limits.
I saw that on CSI. What? No. Seriously.
Hell, I google what people here say all the time. And that’s just for pop culture allusions and jokes that fly over my head. If I was looking to score political points I’d probably double google it and then bing it once or twice to be sure.
Ah, but you’re not a creature of the Left, y’see.
To be a Leftist is to be completely assured of your inherent correctness at all times, on all topics, because yours is the Truth, the Light, and the Way. The only reason anyone could possibly disagree with you is because they are evil, and only want bad things.
If someone is able to pound evidence into your child-like skull to the effect that “no, look, these objectively provable facts disagree with whatever it is you’re saying,” well, then the facts are bad/wrong/evil, and things shouldn’t be that way. More importantly, you’re still “right”, because you reject a ‘flawed’ reality in favor of utopia, which just shows how much your brain works at a higher level, unconstrained as it is by nuts-and-bolts “it won’t work!” details that bog down ‘lesser’ intellects.
See that lovely “leftists == narcissists” thesis being posted by Dr. Sanity.
Been reading through the comments in that Jabobson post geoffb linked earlier. What is it that Jeff likes to call it when he’s demonstrating the way language is used and abused for political ends? Aperformative, isn’t it?
The only thing missing over there is somebody to assume the role of the good man in order to lament the fact that Palin says things that the Leftist media can misconstrue and how unhelpful it is when she does that.
My favorite so far is from the guy who includes the Palin quote that proves the opposite of what he thinks it does.