Clean Energy & Efficiency

Scientists Confirm Liquid Lake, Beach on Saturn's Moon Titan

The presence of a liquid 'hydrocarbon' lake has been confirmed on Saturn's moon Titan. Hydrocarbon means oil, right? Next up: nuclear-powered robot oil extractor which can travel to Saturn and return full-tanked back to earth orbit.

Saturn is only 746 million miles from earth...

( All crudes finished just below $124 today )

Seeing as GWB put a moratorium on new solar farms in June, the USA is not taking renewables as seriously as the rest of the world. And I see Obama is pushing the oil route as well. The oil companies will put up as many obstacles as possible because they know their product is overpriced and finite.

riven wrote:

Tidal is undeveloped so no cost comparisons have been based. However tidal do provide for more compact operations and higher power per structure so when it developes fully, it could be cheaper (assuming that winds stagnates).

Tidal has great potential because unlike wind, it is moving all the time. Ireland should be very well positioned, one thing we have is plenty of coast.

riven wrote:

No. It is 1/3 cheaper to build a wind farm in America than in Britian but there has been far less investment (relatively speaking) in that country. Oil is cheap. Run with it.

I'm amazed if you think the cheapness is likely to last. Scarcity and decline will mean that the price will continue to spike, in bursts, followed by minor slumps following demand destruction so obvious that it puts the specuvestors off for a bit. Even the volatility itself will start to put people off. Economic near meltdown will accompany each of the spikes, not aided by the fact that the preceeding debt fueled boom has left many the ordinary punter in the financial equivalent of hanging off a precipice by one arm. 'Twont help anyone's ailing property market, either.

I doubt the US will do this in ten years.... but they might do it in 20. They produce millions of barrels of the stuff per day themselves, but use more than half again. The strategic benefits of at least subsisting on their own/Canadian/Mexican production should be obvious even to the idiot currently incumbent in the White House, never mind his likely successors.

There is the Sapphire Energy oil from algae thing.... wouldn't need many changes to existing infrastructure...
In order for the US to be persuaded, however, we will need the price to remain above $80 per barrel for the forseeable; continued Middle Eastern instability would also help to focus people's minds

The one thing about the US is, once they decide to do something, they tend to do it to the max....

I have every confidence that there will be a massive movement away from oil in the USA in the coming years. Investment in alternative energy production has been increasing for some years now. Many see it as the new growth sector. Hopefully when Bush disappears we will start to see a more rational energy policy. When that happens you will really see movement.

Call me morgan tsvangirai all you want but someone is voting WRONG on this poll again.

Only 9 years and 345 days left til ye'll all see .. ye'll alllll seEEe



we should make a new poll. I feel a p.ie spam coming on again...

Squire wrote:

I have every confidence that there will be a massive movement away from oil in the USA in the coming years. Investment in alternative energy production has been increasing for some years now. Many see it as the new growth sector. Hopefully when Bush disappears we will start to see a more rational energy policy. When that happens you will really see movement.

If Obama makes it to the White House, and if he listens to Albert Gore (with whom I agree substantially if not fully) then maybe, just maybe, the US can eventually be weaned away from oil. If McCain makes it, forget it. The Republican Party are hopeölessly compromised on energy policy, owned, as it is, by the oil and chemical industries to a large extent.

The only other way is if a new, as yet unknown, technology comes along and makes the case for getting rid of oil compelling.

America consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day and produces 6-7. There could be an awful lot more under the shores off the American coasts - who knows? - they only allow themselves to drill in the gulf of Mexico but there could be more in the sea just outside youngdan's seaside house in New England. Did talk of drilling there drive down the price?

Map of where offshore drilling is allowed - CNN

There is a serious amount of electric car news in the news but it's unknown what length of time it might take for that market to establish itself in North America or elsewhere but it could be swift enough if customers saw big benefits in price savings. Apparently Mazda are doing the following according to Auto Express via Autobloggreen

Quote :

there aren't actually any hydrogen-powered cars available today which you can just go out and buy. Mazda may soon change all of that by introducing a hydrogen-powered rotary-engined RX-9. According to Auto Express, the new car will be dual-fuel capable, with clean credentials coming from hydrogen and performance credentials coming from gasoline. Amazingly, the article claims that Mazda's hydrogen RX could be ready for sale as early as 2012.

Autobloggreen

It could be possible for America to switch from being an import-dependent one in terms of oil to being self sufficient in oil and renewables.

a small point that has been bugging me - should the poll not read "substitute renewables for oil"?

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

a small point that has been bugging me - should the poll not read "substitute renewables for oil"?

The title is taken from a newspaper article on Al Gore's belief they can .. (don't you mean it the other way round?)

My searches have been inconclusive but I think, having refer3ence to thefreedictionary.com that where you use the structure "to substitute A for B " then it is B that is removed and A that is put in its place. Hence, my understanding that the poll suggests that renewables would be replaced by oil.

Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: 2substitute
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): substitut·ed; substitut·ing
Date: circa 1594
transitive verb
1 a: to put or use in the place of another b: to introduce (an atom or group) as a substituent; also : to alter (as a compound) by introduction of a substituent
2: to take the place of : replace
intransitive verb
: to serve as a substitute

thefreedictionary.com:
sub·sti·tute (sbst-tt, -tyt)
n.
1. One that takes the place of another; a replacement: "Fantasies are more than substitutes for unpleasant reality" Barbara Grizzuti Harrison.
2. Grammar A word or construction used in place of another word, phrase, or clause.
v. sub·sti·tut·ed, sub·sti·tut·ing, sub·sti·tutes
v.tr.
1. To put or use (a person or thing) in place of another: "substituting moral power for physical force" Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
2. Chemistry To replace (one or more elements or radicals in a compound) by other elements or radicals.
v.intr.
To take the place of another: "Only art can substitute for nature" Leonard Bernstein.

There are two objects to the verb 'substitute' - oil and renewables and there is the preposition 'for' which in this case probably should be 'by' or 'with' to make the meaning more clear. The use of 'for' could be an Americanism but isn't it the order of the objects in the sentence what gives it the meaning? The direct object 'oil' is the one suffering the immediate action of the verb so I'd argue that it's word order in this case.

Maybe I'm dyslexic though - does anyone else get Zhou's meaning from the sentence in the poll?

In your dictionary examples the first one - "Fantasies are more than substitutes for unpleasant reality" then 'substitute' is not a verb but a noun. Is your second example in bold not intentionally ambiguous - to me moral power is gone and physical force is in.

Now you've got me worried. Which gets substituted in this article - oil or biofuels? It could be an Americanism

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-05/17/content_602634.htm

This is the Oil Drum Europe and they are saying that renewables are a substitute for oil - again using it as a noun
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/4316

Auditor #9 wrote:

Is your second example in bold not intentionally ambiguous - to me moral power is gone and physical force is in.

I take the opposite meaning from that sentence. Moral power is in and physical force is out. I believe it follows the structure of the example before it, i.e. "To put or use (a person or thing) in place of another".

In essence, I see "America" as being the subject noun and "oil" as being the object noun in the sentence.

I could be clearer but where would be the fun in that!

Substitute something for something> substitute renewables for oil?

Or possibly oil with renewables?

I'll change it to with or by to avoid confusion.

Zhou are you saying that the poll means all those people are in support of Al Gore then - that oil can be substituted for renewables ( ) in ten years ?

I don't think it is correct to use "with" and "substitute" together. I think "for" is the correct preposition .

Based on the poll title alone, Al Gore must have switched sides and is now helping Exxon figure out a way of getting rid of all renewables!

Auditor #9 wrote:

Now you've got me worried. Which gets substituted in this article - oil or biofuels? It could be an Americanism

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-05/17/content_602634.htm

Which one in the above is out and which is in?

for is the only preposition with substitute?

Quote :

Sir Alex Ferguson, who substituted Rooney for his own good, is rarely inclined to suggest his player needs to watch his temper. "Wayne's a fighter isn't he?" the United manager said. "He's a born fighter and gets frustrated in some games."

Rooney substituted BY Ferguson, for outbutst of temper

Rooney was substituted by Ferguson for an outburst of temper. It doesn't say who was substituted for Rooney.

hmmm.... lovely....

Auditor #9 wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Now you've got me worried. Which gets substituted in this article - oil or biofuels? It could be an Americanism
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2006-05/17/content_602634.htm

Which one in the above is out and which is in?
for is the only preposition with substitute?

Renewables are in and refined oil is out: "Han Wenke, deputy director of the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), said at the ongoing forum on decentralized sustainable energy solutions in China, that by 2020 renewable energy will increase China's energy supply capacity by 400 to 500 million tons of coal equivalent."

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

Sir Alex Ferguson, who substituted Rooney for his own good, is rarely inclined to suggest his player needs to watch his temper. "Wayne's a fighter isn't he?" the United manager said. "He's a born fighter and gets frustrated in some games."

Rooney substituted BY Ferguson, for outbutst of temper

Well, in this case, Ferguson is the subject and Rooney is the indirect object. The direct object, i.e. the player who came on for Rooney, is not mentioned (unless an "outburst of temper" kitted itself out in the no. 10 spot!). I am not sure if the article writer has used a correct grammatical construction, though the sentence certainly enjoys common usage.

"By" links the subject and the verb and can be used with reference to all verbs. I am not sure if it is properly called a preposition? "For" is the preposition which must be used as between the direct object and the indirect object imho.

Sorry Zhou the BY is my own - hope you didn't stress too much on that one.

If you look at "substitute Rooney for his own good" then Rooney gets substituted and it is obvious that "his own good" isn't a player so you could have a point.

I think.

I think that in that context "for" is used as link to a reason which is normal.

Sir Alex Ferguson, who substituted ANOther for Rooney for Rooney's own good,...

has been shortened to

Sir Alex Ferguson, who substituted Rooney for his own good,...

The omission of the direct object has mead it easier for the writer to explain the reason for the action. By not mentioning the other player it is clear it was for Rooney's own good.

I'm off now to listen to some Avril Lavigne to clear all this grammar out of my head.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I'm off now to listen to some Avril Lavigne to clear all this grammar out of my head.

C u l8r boi

Geothermal: Google are investing €10 million in the technology below. It's a simple enough idea but must be very costly or tricky to implement otherwise we'd have done it by now, wouldn't we? If we achieve it then it's a near infinite renewable source of heat or electrcity or both. What the problems are with it, God only knows but if humankind managed to do it cost-effectively then surely it would revolutionise energy production overnight...

Treehugger wrote:

Yesterday Google announced that it was getting into the geothermal power game, investing over $10 million into researching Enhanced Geothermal Systems. It is estimated that using this technology, just 2% of the heat below North America would easily supply all of the United States’ current energy needs.

Now, a new report shows similarly large geothermal potential in Australia: An Australian government scientist told Reuters that 1% of the nation’s untapped geothermal potential could create enough energy for 26,000 years.

Obviously that’s easier said that done. A new report from the Australian Geothermal Energy Association outlines what can be done to make geothermal a greater part of Australia’s energy future:

1% of Australia’s Geothermal Power Potential = 26,000 Years of Energy