![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 8 of 8. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 10:15:20
I went to a talk yesterday where we were told that the demand for energy worldwide will increase by 55% (that is it will be 1.55 times more than now) by the year 2025. Or maybe it was 2015. Point is that with the population growth in developing countries energy demands will be high.
It reminded me of something I read last week about an unexpected environmental plus from the high oil prices. Techniques that were previously too expensive now make sense.
One of the techniques is to pump CO2 into the ground to push more oil out of a declining field. This is good for the environment in two ways - it delays puching more holes in the ground - and (the big one) pushes CO2 down the hole - instead of into the air. CO2 is a main contributor to the greenhouse effect.
Here's an article I found on a recent project.
Posted by partlycloudy on July 28, 2005, at 13:27:40
In reply to Oil price and environment - a positive, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 10:15:20
That's an interesting article - any idea of what the long term effects are of putting carbon dioxide into the earth? Are we going to warm up from the inside out like a slow cooker or something?
I'll have to wait for NOVA to do a program about it :-)
partly
Posted by AuntieMel on July 29, 2005, at 11:08:46
In reply to Re: Oil price and environment - a positive » AuntieMel, posted by partlycloudy on July 28, 2005, at 13:27:40
I have no idea what the long term effects would be, but it's bound to be a darn sight safer than the other stuff we bury.
But - hey - if it *does* get hot, we can ship our garbage there too. The heat should help take the time to break it down by a couple of thousand years.
Posted by ramsea on August 10, 2005, at 5:32:32
In reply to Oil price and environment - a positive, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 10:15:20
Just curious, what do you think of nuclear power stations? With the climate demands, we are going back to them. Are you Homer Simpson happy with this development??? ramsea
Posted by AuntieMel on August 10, 2005, at 11:57:28
In reply to Re: nuclear power stations, posted by ramsea on August 10, 2005, at 5:32:32
To be honest they scare the pants off of me.
Maybe it's the scale. If a refinery or something like that has an accident it's tragic, but it is at fairly small.
But if a nuke has an accident many, many more people die and the surrounding area becomes a dead zone for years to come.
But, assuming all runs well, they are clean!
Posted by gromit on August 18, 2005, at 0:01:30
In reply to Oil price and environment - a positive, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 10:15:20
Hi AM,
> I went to a talk yesterday where we were told that the demand for energy worldwide will increase by 55% (that is it will be 1.55 times more than now) by the year 2025. Or maybe it was 2015. Point is that with the population growth in developing countries energy demands will be high.
Surprisingly I think this approach is bass ackwards, 10 or especially 20 years of AGGRESSIVE research into alternative energy sources as well as more efficient ways of burning what we've got is the way to go. We need to use less not produce more. I think production would just be slowed to keep the prices high but I'm kind of cynical that way. I'm thinking overseas not domestic sources.
> One of the techniques is to pump CO2 into the ground to push more oil out of a declining field. This is good for the environment in two ways - it delays puching more holes in the ground - and (the big one) pushes CO2 down the hole - instead of into the air. CO2 is a main contributor to the greenhouse effect.
I think it's a great idea to get everything we can out of existing oil fields. I wonder where they would get the CO2 though, it seems like the cheapest way would be to make it themselves. But what do I know, I'm not a chemist and know very little about the oil business. I'm just pi**ed off that gas is nearing 3.00 a gallon here.
Rick
Posted by Declan on August 18, 2005, at 3:02:47
In reply to Re: Oil price and environment - a positive » AuntieMel, posted by gromit on August 18, 2005, at 0:01:30
Hi Rick
$3 a gallon? You know what it is here? A$1.20 a litre. When it goes up more there will be a ripple effect. Like stagflation in the 70s, do you think?
Declan
Posted by gromit on August 19, 2005, at 22:31:35
In reply to Re: Oil price and environment - a positive, posted by Declan on August 18, 2005, at 3:02:47
> $3 a gallon? You know what it is here? A$1.20 a litre. When it goes up more there will be a ripple effect. Like stagflation in the 70s, do you think?
I'm guessing that's more then? ;) Right after high school I worked in a gas station that had pumps that read in litres. They displayed the price by the gallon on the signs as usual though, it caused no end of anger and confusion among the customers. I don't know why we still have the old nonsensical system of measurements.
I don't know, it does affect the cost of everything doesn't it? The cost of moving stuff around has gone way up, independant truckers say it's not worth it to even start their rigs here etc. My only memory of the shortage in the early 70's is watching the steam come out of my dad's ears waiting in the huge lines, I'm a spring chicken of only 40.
Rick
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.