From: bdbryan@eng.clemson.edu (Ben Bryant)
Subject: Re: Running out of oil.
Reply-To: bdbryan@eng.clemson.edu
Organization: College of Engineering, Clemson Univ.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:51:56 GMT

In article 15573@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu, altarrib@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Michael Altarriba) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.023431.16111@michael.apple.com>, ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul27.175448.11019@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>|> 
>|> We are no closer to any realistic plan because
>|> oil is so cheap that it makes absolutely no sense to do anything other
>|> than burn it, and when it is gone (at no significant increase in costs)
>|> we can use the next cheapest VAST energy source.  (coal or nuke, most
>|> likely, depending on the outcome of global warming, acid rain, and long
>|> term rad waste disposal fights.)
>
>Ah, hold on there. Aren't you ignoring some factors here? For instance:
>
>1) The 'cost' of getting the oil from some reservoir -> gasoline, fuel oil,
>   whatever. Cheap now, but what happens when the oil you want is off the 
>   Florida coast or in the Alaskan wildlife preserve. Can you say "Exxon"?
>
>2) The 'cost' of burning the oil, i.e. air pollution. Surely not negligible.
>
>3) Once the oil "is gone", one has to mine the coal or uranium. More air 
>   pollution, OR nuclear waste. What a great choice. You did mention this
>   above, but (IMVHO) you made it sound like some sort of legislative 
>   detail you'd hire a lawyer to fix.
>
>Granted, technological solutions can be found to ameliorate the negative
>effects of using these resources. But when? How expensive are they? 
>(Rhetorical questions: I'm not looking to start more threads :)
>
>|> 
>|> >Just because I own no bed and earn 40% less than the poverty level doesn't
>|> >mean I am poor.
>|> 
>|> Sadly, I agree with you on this...  Just because I own 3 or 4 houses 
>|> (I'm not sure right now ... one is in escrow...) and earn several times
>|> the poverty level doesn't mean I am rich.   The IRS sees to that. 8-(
>|> 
>|> I AM comfortable & happy, though...  ;-)
>|> 
>
>I'm happy for you, but just what percentage of the inhabitants of the 
>planet can say that? To what lengths are you willing to go to support
>your lifestyle? I DO NOT wish to flame, just to point out that each of
>us has an effect on our environment. While I can envision a technology
>which could provide for our desires without doing permanent damage to
>our environment, we ain't got it now. Extinct species don't come back, 
>damaged habitats are less able to support life. Some of that life is
>us! Which isn't to say that the rest is unimportant, of course.
>
>I noted the cross-posting. I tried to look over sci.environment and
>sci.energy, and suspect that you've all heard this sort of thing
>MANY times before. I apologize for the inconvenience. Might I suggest
>confining this thread to sci.environment, so as to save bandwidth? 
> 
>|> -- 
>|> 
>|> E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM
>|> 
>|> 'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
>|>  genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe
>|> 
>|> I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.
>
>-- 
>*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
>*  Mike Altarriba                                           /(o\            *
>*  Solid State Circuits Research Laboratory                 \o)/            *
>*  University of California, Davis               altarrib@eecs.ucdavis.edu  *
>*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*

Exactly why the world needs to move off of terra firma, inhabit space, and let
the earth grow wild again!

-Benjamin Bryant
<bdbryan@eng.clemson.edu>

 



Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy