If you had to chose, energy independence or a clean environment?

Re: If you had to chose, energy independence or a clean enviroment?

The only time we will truly have energy independence is when we develop renewable energy sources. Those will likely be environmentally friendly, thus eventually we'll have both.

 

Re: If you had to chose, energy independence or a clean enviroment?

This should be a really easy one choice for all. Obviously not though as of now we have a tie.
The state of the planet is a barometer of live on earth, some things like oil are simply not renewable resources. So why waste time, money, and the environment, for us and future generations.
Sure it'll make a lot of people rich for a short period of time but at what cost to others. Read up on what happened to West Virginia when coal was king there. People tossed out of their homes by eminent domain because the State was bought by the Coal men. People working themselves literally to death because they owed their souls to the company store. Black lung, emphysema, birth defects. You name it was there and the after affects are still there.
Why not spend money on developing an alternate energy supply. We already have a start with the hybrids. There are people working on hydrogen energy cells and other ways to supply energy.
Why destroy the planet for short term gains.

 

Better fuel efficentcy would lesen dependence on foriegn sources of oil and would go a long way towards helping the environment since millions of cars are used every day. But its a hot potato both parties are loath to touch.

 

Heard that RFK Jr. stopped a wind power project in Mass. because it wrecked the view from his home.

With friends like that....

 

The two goals are hardly at odds. Many alternate energy sources are clean and would improve the ecology... as would reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.

 

How true and how totally depressing. There's an obvious and relatively painless (partial) solution, but we're not willing to make any short-term sacrifices.

 

Any of you guys read Wired?? It's becoming my favorite magazine.

Anyway, take a read of this article:

Let a thousand reactors bloom

Explosive growth has made the People's Republic of China the most power-hungry nation on earth. Get ready for the mass-produced, meltdown-proof future of nuclear energy.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

Never underestimate the power of human ingenuity to think of new and radical ways to solve problems.

and

Why hybrids are hot
Have you seen gas prices? Purists can wait for hydrogen. The market can't.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/start.html?pg=2

Never underestimate the power of serving a market need to lead to innovation and declining costs.

Hey, but then again, I am just a optimist.

 

Coal has costs well beyond financial ones. Extracting coal takes a tremendous toll on the environment, including aesthetics (which do matter).

Personally, I don't see any reason why we can't do both energy independence and a clean environment. The first step in achieving both is reducing our energy consumption. I want my home - when I build it - to be as "green" and energy efficient as possible. I plan to use recycled materials where appropriate, and low-impact materials like bamboo floors. I want to use SIP construction to make the house energy-tight, and use double or triple glazed windows to control energy loss/uptake thru window openings. I hope to be able to use a geothermal heat pump to heat and cool the home, and I would like to prepare the house to be able to take advantage of higher-efficiency solar cells as they become available down the pike. My long-term goal is a net-zero energy usage home.

 

Unless they discover how the secrets behind cold Fusion that would allow a tremenous amount of energy in a clean and cheap way, theres no magic bullet to the energy troubles of the world.

Anyone know when the Middle East is expected to run out of oil? I have heard lots of estimates, some even of a few hundred years. But if/when it happened, that would be the proverbial wrench tossed into the gears of the worlds markets. I reckon alternative energy sources would seem cheap in that senario.

I got to say we can do both, but since everythng takes sacrifices and has strings attached, it will probabley be an energy crisis of global proportions that gets the ball moving faster.

 

Then take a look at this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6055003/
True it's in the early stages and isn't on the market but it looks like it won't be overlong before we see more and more prototypes and then the cars will be in the showrooms.
This is what I've been waiting for. It'll be a long long time before we get over the use of fossil fuels if we ever do in some capacity. Right now, this is a close as we are to the silver bullet.
Why it's been a long time coming is trying to keep it in stable quantities and it looks as if they're getting over that.

 

Sorry, using coal is going backwards. I can't believe it's even an issue. It's messy, hard on the environment and it certainly is not inexpensive.
Somebody right now is making a lot of money in subsidized research but it's not the panacea for replacing oil we buy.

Not quite sure what this means?
I'll agree with the wind machines, they're as ugly and as obtrusive as a coal mine.

Here is a bit of info on "Todays" costs on Hydrogen. With mass production for auto usage this is sure to drop. Far cleaner, healthier, little or no immission problems. Compare that to coal.

So gas around here is just about $2.25...work it out.

 

IIRC in France electricity production has been almost entirely nuclear powered. Its safe, and relatively speaking doesnt effect the environment at large.

usscouse, as for pure hydrogen for fueling vehicles, you are talking about produced from some form electricity. That means to do it on a large scale economicly you are back to coal (although coal power plants probably burn far cleaner than an engine running the product of coal liquification) or nuclear. Or hydro. Personally if you consider the technical and scientific merits, nuclear makes a TON of sense, but well sense, environmentalism, and energy policy are not on speaking terms in this country.

 

Unfortunately true, using fossil, carbon based fuels is still a little hard on the environment and global warming (Same thing, I guess) That's why nuclear energy could be useful. Does anybody know what the French do with the waste??? ....Scary thought knowing the frogs.

 

Close this thread, BP and Shell don´t like it.

 

http://www.ourcoolhouse.com/

Some of the technologies have a ways to go yet, but that doesn't mean I can't prepare. It's difficult to work up a $/sqft cost when I don't have a floor plan (we are probably *years* from building on our land). I just have a list of objectives, some of which will undoubtedly not make the final project. Bamboo floors run from $4-$8 per square foot. Geothermal systems are more expensive to install, but do realize a significant savings in power consumption and efficiency. I'm also not afraid to spend more upfront if the increased quality means lower replacement/maintenance costs down the line (I would very much like to use a standing-seam or synthetic (recycled rubber) slate roofing, both of which would last muchlonger than 30-year shingles, and be better suited for adding water collection capabilities).

I think that some of the costs "above and beyond" standard building costs would be recouperated by savings in energy usage. Some of those "additional costs" would be free (orientation on site and choice of floorplan to maximize passive solar efficiency), and some would not. My wife and I also feel that being lower impact has positive value, and are willing to pay some more when we can afford it to buy that. And if the house is well designed, I'll be well positioned to take advantage of lower cost, higher efficiency solar panels in 20, 30, 40 years. I plan to build my house to last, and it needs to be prepared for the (uncertain) future.

Frankly, I'm not one to throw up my hands and give up because there isn't a clear path to a clean, energy efficient future. If everyone in the US could reduce their energy consumption by 20%, the impact would be huge. That's a positive first step! Better fuel efficiency in automobiles would be tremendous. Better public transit would help. Better regional land use management would help. There are so many things we could be doing better, and I think it's criminal not to be doing any of them.

 

Re: If you had to chose, energy independence or a clean enviroment?

Write down the time and place. I agree with peledre.

 

I'm short on time and can't do one of my usual heavilly footnoted diatribes. However, I think that the poll question poses a false dichotomy. There are lots of ways to achieve energy independence with improved environmental conditions.

I think the question is predicated on the assumption that energy independence equals meeting our energy budget with petroleum products at the current rate of their use in the energy budget. Again a false assumption and one that very few people on either side of the aisle consder a viable long-term solution.

The first method of dual achievement is through conservation. This can either be done through leadership and consious choice, or through market pricing.
I feel that post-9/11 was a massive opportunity lost by leaders in both parties, but especially by the Administration. It was at that time that patriotic feeling was at it's peak and the public would in all likelyhood have responded well to admonitions to conserve energy in the interests of the war, to stick it in the eye of the Saudis, or just because it was our national duty. But instead the Administration simply sent out a message that essentially said, "go on about your business as usual and consume like crazy to build the economy back up."

Of course no one at this time would dare to presume to tell the American people that their SUV's and tank-like 4x4s are supremely unpatriotic and contributing to the imminent collapse of the economic recovery. Total lack of leadership on the issue.

But the supply-demmand squeze is going to keep oil prices high for some time and the consume market will eventually react. I've heard many of the partners in our office -- who to a man drive huge vehicles under the business vehicle write off -- bitching about gas prices and vowing to sell the things if it goes on much longer. If it goes on much longer you won't be able to give a way an Escalade, but that's a different thread

So, increasing prices will probably drive up conservation at the consumer level. It will also make alternative energy -- including unfortunately coal liquification -- more attractive on the pure market level without price supports. Wind and nuclear can probably begin to take up some of the growth needs.

On coal liquification. Attacking Minded, you look like you have a good handle on the technical aspects. But, I think you are overlooking macroeconomic and political aspects. The Chinese aren't hot and bothered over coal liquification because it has all of a sudden become really economic; although as oil prices rise it does start to look better. China wants to use coal because they have **********loads of the stuff and doing so allows them to maintain a modicum of energy independence. At their present rate of growth they are going to surpass the US sometime in the mid to late teens. That's a phenomenal amount of hydrocarbons they are going to need and the world's oil production just can't meet it. China currently produces about 40% of it's own energy needs. They need to keep that number reasonably stable. It's just their mindset.

On the macroeconomic side I'm just not seeing how coal liquification can really be economically sound outside of $80/bbl crude. The energy inputs required to get good quality, low-sulfur petrochemicals out are always going to make it a last-ditch effort. I'd rather leave the stuff in the ground for the day when we need it to make the things we need, clothes, auto bodies, medical supplies, etc. than to fuel our gas addiction.

 

nice post, but let me stop you right here - he did say "if you had to choose" - i still think this poll speaks volumes about the 12 folks who voted against a clean environment... and since they are a group and thereore it would not be a "personal attack", i shall feel completely free to imply that they are quite simply a shameless, nauseating, selfish lot

 

Nah. Your just not educated enough.

We know that the forms of energy that can make a nation self-sufficent are more green than what is normally used.

We see though the black and white you liberals love to put up.