NSA – National Security Agency..this documentry is about America’s top secrete inteligance Organization
Continue the discussion and support climate crocks. www.climatecrocks.com Using less energy, and generating with renewables, is easier, cheaper, and more effective than fossil fuel funded propaganda would have you believe. Here are some great examples of why it’s not only smart, it’s patriotic, too. see Efficiency Part 1 – http
Video Rating: 4 / 5
bflatkitty
October 10, 2011 at 11:53 pm
There is tonnes of nasty ass water from these processes that might be cleaned by something like the everglades… if you had one for each operation.
Origin oil or ooil has a method for cleaning the exhaust gas from coal and such , producing algae bio fuel as a bi product.
One day we might get to the point were 100% of the process pollution must be utilized to make bio fuel.
That would be a fine kettle of fish, mmm fish.
greenman3610
October 11, 2011 at 12:33 am
@Funkyflorist
right.
We’ll just take all that water from the melting ice caps to Utah so they can extract and process that shale.
(pssst— you need water for that process – utah and colorado are running out of it….)
Loathomar
October 11, 2011 at 1:22 am
Oil Shale has two problems, one is the cost, it costs about $75/barrel to produce and with the current cost of $82 per barrel this is not a huge profit in it. Then there is the fact that it takes a large about of energy to get the oil from Oil Shale. So you must use 30-50% of the energy you will get from the oil, to produce the oil. Thought they use coal and not oil to produce the energy to get the oil, cause it is cheap. But this means the 30-50% more is used when using oil shale.
Loathomar
October 11, 2011 at 1:24 am
@Funkyflorist I was talking about untapped oil reserves, but there are many different types of oil. The “standard” are basically underground lakes of oil that you can drill into and pump out the oil. It is easy and cheap oil, and the ~100B barrels Alaskan reserve is the only large untapped on-land reserve in the US. Then there is outer continental shelf, still big lakes of oil, but in deep water. Then Oil shales, which is costly, but there is 1.5 trillion barrels of it.
Theimmortalwhitewolf
October 11, 2011 at 2:15 am
@Funkyflorist(CONT) you would need 5.72 times current production. That is not taking into account any energy required to mine it, transport it, to process it into oil, and ship it to local areas for sale. Does this oil produced from coal have the same energy density? If not then you would have to produce even more then that. Of course With the large increase in demand for coal it would sky rocket in price. The efficiency of alternatives keep increasing, driving down the cost per KW every year.
Theimmortalwhitewolf
October 11, 2011 at 2:41 am
@Funkyflorist So the US Department of Energy is just trying to BS people XD. 2nd when did I claim coal and oil were evil? That my friend are not my words so you may want to reread my 2 comments. You know there are several countries in which 50% or their electric supply is meet by renewable and it wouldn’t be that far of a leap to have enough to power their car fleets with hydrogen or with electricity. You still run into the large problem of making oil from coal you need(cont)
Rhine0Cowboy
October 11, 2011 at 2:46 am
@Funkyflorist
“this will only matter IFF co2 is dangerous to the environment … it isn’t”
Don’t be an idiot.
“Coal and Oil … are actually good.”
Nobody cares about coal and oil, people care about energy. Dumping more sequestered co2 from oil and coal deposits into the atmosphere will destabilize climate and ecosystem further and will cost a lot more money and lives. The current energy scheme neglects long term damage in it’s pricing and leaves the bill with tomorrows tax payers.
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 2:59 am
@Loathomar
“When comes to standard oil revisers”
~not familiar with that group, Standard Oil has been out of business for… Probably your whole lifetime…
You are also only noting the CURRENT RESERVES, I’m talking about UNTAPPED read that again,
UNTAPPED RESERVES
UNTAPPED RESERVES
UNTAPPED RESERVES
UNTAPPED RESERVES
Read it again… Of course we have less ‘TAPPED’ reserves than our current consumption…
*facepalm*
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 3:15 am
@Theimmortalwhitewolf
(cont) There are multiple untapped reserves in the US of both Coal and Oil, Kaparowitz and Escalante are just two sources in ONE state…
If your goal is ‘energy independence’ for whatever reason then you need to clarify ‘why’ it is good to be energy independent. The only energy crisis’ we’ve had are ALWAYS caused by Government Interference.
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 4:14 am
@Theimmortalwhitewolf
“coal-based synthetic fuels may produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels”
~Unproven and irrelevant, this will only matter IFF co2 is dangerous to the environment (sorry to break it to you, but it isn’t)
“Oil Production, etc.”
~Since when was Coal and Oil ‘evil’!? Before Oil we were hunting Whales to heat homes. Do you want us to go back to horse and buggies? You assume that Coal and Oil are evil when they are actually good.
ReactionVideoDotAvi
October 11, 2011 at 4:20 am
Build your own atom storage box!
dstachon2002
October 11, 2011 at 5:11 am
well done yet again. thanks @greenman3610
zzyzx0788
October 11, 2011 at 6:09 am
@Forlo12345 He’s a creationist? Well frankly thats enough for me to ignore anything he has to say about science. Creationists are the most dishonest people I’ve ever come across.
Forlo12345
October 11, 2011 at 6:37 am
Roy Spencer is also a creationist. The question you should ask people is: “If you wouldn’t want to listen to an astrologer for expertise on astronomy, or a witch doctor for expertise on medicine, or a creationist for expertise on biology, then why would you rely on a climate change denier for expertise on the climate?”
perrin6
October 11, 2011 at 6:39 am
solar toobs
ninjabob42
October 11, 2011 at 7:28 am
You have almost singlehandedly convinced me to look into solar and alternative sources of energy. At first I was skeptical, due to costs of the start up, but then I did the math – taking into account how much I spend monthly (almost 200 dollars).
Loathomar
October 11, 2011 at 7:50 am
@Funkyflorist When comes to standard oil revisers the US has ~100B barrels (11 years worth at current rates) which are located in Alaska and off the outer continental shelf (50-100 miles of the US coast and very deep). Alaska is the only real “cheap” oil to be had in the US, but there is only 10B barrels, less then 2 years of US consumption. The real oil is in Oil shales, but even the cheapest of oil shale costs over $50 per barrel to produce and can be easily over $100/barrel.
cristoballs
October 11, 2011 at 8:34 am
@Funkyflorist i’m not writing a term paper. The info I sourced is easily traceable to reliable sources. Now, do you have any real complaint with the information I cited, or can we move on?
Theimmortalwhitewolf
October 11, 2011 at 9:16 am
@Funkyflorist (cont) So the USA produced 985 MILLION TONS of coal a year… So you would need 5.72 TIMES the US production of coal a year to supply the us need. So even with all the coal produced a year you would only meet 17.5% of demand. The US currently suppies 28.6% of its oil comsumption. But if you go world wide, the world produced 6.903 billion tons…so we only need 81.6% of the world supply to meet our oil needs….good plan lets get off that oil tit and go to the coal one.
Theimmortalwhitewolf
October 11, 2011 at 9:49 am
@Funkyflorist According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
coal-based synthetic fuels may produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels. Also Texas University is converting 1 tonne of coal to 1.5 barrels of oil. The US uses ~21 million barrels a
day(7.665 billion a year) so you need 5.11 billion tonne a year or 5.63 billion tons(US) of coal to make enough oil to meet current oil consumption. (cont)
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 10:39 am
@robhoneycutt
1MW generated from burning wood IS NOT EQUAL to 1MW generated from a Nuclear Power Plant.
Not only is there a difference in time, effort, cost, and output. But there are the same differences with Solar, Wind VS. Coal, Gas, Hydro, Nuke, etc.
Keep in mind that you’ve not addressed your own contradicting comments regarding subsidies.
tinyurl (dot) com/42gysyj
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 11:02 am
@robhoneycutt
“Moron”… Your vocabulary is immense!
Considering this is the comment where you made assumptions about “All gas plants are Peaker plants” this comment is very ironic…
Go run to your ‘thousands’ of peer reviewed papers on your hard drive that you’ve read…
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 11:21 am
@robhoneycutt
Screen shot or it didn’t happen.
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm
@robhoneycutt
Nice generic assertion… Now you’re making it up… Run to google and get your citation.
I bet you don’t even read anything.
Funkyflorist
October 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm
@robhoneycutt
Oh Kay…
There are “Ad Hominem Remarks” (basically an insult)
Then there is “Argumentum Ad Hominem” (An insult that leads to dismissing an argument)
All “Argument Ad Hominem” are “Ad Hominem”, but not all “Ad Hominem”s are “Argumentum Ad Hominem”s.
See the difference? We’ve been pulling back and forth over “Ad Hominem” when we’ve left out the “Argumentum”.