Skip to main content

View Diary: Oil Shale-the energy density of a tater tot (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Water Is A Deal Breaker (0+ / 0-)

    You clearly do not understand the water issue in large parts of the western U.S. - nor the scope of the water that would be needed.

    There is not enough waste water available.  Transporting waste or salt water also would require a lot of energy (that will put more carbon into the atmosphere), expensive infrastructure and environmental damage (salt???).

    As would the absurd plan to divert water from the Great Lakes, which would stir up over a century of heavy metals and unknown toxins in the sediment.

    Vicious water wars of the past will be nothing to what we're going to see in the next few decades.

    Technology IS part of the energy/climate solution - for more efficient technologies, solar and wind power generation, and better power storage and transmission.

    For the real technology lovers, consider solar power satellites, which more distantly will move the waste heat generation of terrestrial power out of the ecosystem.

    Don't place your hopes on energy technologies that divert resources and make our problems worse.

    McCain not Principled, just Wrong!

    by VA Gal on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I agree. This oil shale scheme is a terrible idea. Like I mentioned, continuing to extract fossil fuels is a losing proposition.

      My objection is that the way the original author debunked the scheme doesn't help us any. The original article is merely a litany of evil. There is no context, no comparison with other energy extraction schemes, and no proposed alternative.

      I am sick and tired of hearing environmentalists scream "no! no! no!" to proposal after proposal without presenting any alternatives. It's just like how Republicans scream "no!" to any social program, but don't propose any method alleviate suffering.

      My ideal world is a sustainable one based on nuclear, solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. Solar power satellites would be great, but I suspect NIMBYism will doom them.

      However, on a pragmatic level, I don't think we'll see significant investment in renewables until fossil fuels are all but exhausted. The economic forces arrayed in favor of fossil fuels are too strong.

      The reason we continue to extract fossil fuels is that they're cheap. All sustainable alternatives involve harnessing either radioisotopes or solar energy, and in the case of fossil fuel, solar energy has already been harnessed and concentrated for us.

    •  Grr (0+ / 0-)

      I hate replying twice, but I forgot to make a point.

      Bringing in saltwater from the ocean, or replacing water taken from the river with water desalinated elsewhere, is possible technologically. You must concede that.

      It may or may not be economical right now. However, as the price of fossil fuels increases, it will become economical eventually, even if that means building a water pipeline over the Rocky Mountains.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Elections (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site