Skip to main content

View Diary: Oil Companies Deal with Global Warming (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  sequestration feels like a 'quick fix' (4+ / 0-)

    it doesn't help at all on the resource-consumption end, Peak Oil (except in helping shift the mix to coal and coal derivatives), or societal/economic change necessary. It also seems like it introduces a new hazard, in terms of needs to secure the facility.

    Yes, wind farms and ethanol plants are great (even if the latter doesn't acheive net gains in EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested). But dollar for dollar, it's hard to beat conservation/use reduction.

    •  As everyone goes gung ho on (3+ / 0-)

      deep sequestration, a few, notably David Suzxuki, are pointing out that no one has even the slightest idea what the unforeseen consequences might be in the ocean bottoms or deep underground.

    •  Net energy gains (2+ / 0-)

         Actually ethanol does achieve a net energy gain, particularly if corn is not used. This page contains links to a number of studies. From the article:

      Virtually all studies of ethanol before 1990 showed a net energy loss.  Virtually all of the studies after 1990 show a net energy gain.  This is because the ethanol industry, in terms of energy use per gallon of ethanol produced, has become much more efficient over the years, as has the farmer, in terms of energy use per bushel of corn grown.    

      And newer technology is developing that uses fuel stocks such as cellulose, algae, and municipal garbage rather than corn.

         My point is there is a long list of alternative energy technologies that are just begging to be funded, and these guys want to spend a measly million or so bucks on sequestration? Who do you suppose will get paid to pump the CO2 into their gas fields?

         I don't trust these fuckers at all. They are happy with the status quo. Just look at their profits.

      "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

      by happy camper on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 06:36:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ethanol is not very promisng right now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        besieged by bush

        If you look at a list of practical alternatives, one that is not politically motivated, ethanol is way down toward the bottom, to the point where it barely deserves to be on the list.  Making it from corn is so bad that it's almost not worth the bother.  Corn ethanol for sure doesn't deserve any funding because it's basically a waste of money that could better be spent elsewhere.  The other ethanol technologies are very green.  Even with funding there is no guarantee that they will ever amount to anything.  It doesn't hurt to do research, but once again there are much better alternatives out there that we need to fund first, including battery technology research.  

        Regarding CO2 it's actually very useful for helping to get more oil out of depleted fields.  So, the oil companies sort of have a dual incentive here with sequestration.  They can use it to get more oil out to make money on.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 06:58:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sequestration will help produce more oil (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      besieged by bush

      In a way it's a way to combat both Peak Oil and also reduce global warming.  Granted, by the time we're relying heavily on CO2 injection we're already going to be well passed peak, but it will produce a bit more oil.  Opinions of whether Peak Oil is good or not vary.  Personally I think its good in the long run, provided we manage to adapt to it without our society completely collapsing.  At the same time, much as oil sucks, we probably need to try to stem the decline, or reduce the rate of decline, as long as we can in order to successfully transfer over to a non-oil society.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Sat Nov 25, 2006 at 07:01:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site