Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling

[scamper]

WASHINGTON - The long fight over whether to drill for oil in an Alaska wildlife refuge is nowhere near an end. But attempts to open the refuge to oil development — one of President Bush's top energy priorities — received another setback Wednesday as the Senate refused to include the drilling measure in a must-pass defense spending bill.

It was a huge victory for environmentalists and Senate Democrats who argued that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would jeopardize the wild ecosystem that characterizes the refuge's coastal plain where polar bears, caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife thrive.

Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, who has fought unsuccessfully for a quarter-century to open the plain to oil drilling, had hoped to garner enough votes to overcome a threatened filibuster by attaching the measure to the defense bill that included tens of billions of dollars for troops in Iraq and for victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish.

"This has been the saddest day of my life," Stevens said.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), R-Wash., an ardent defender of the refuge who led anti-drilling forces during the Senate debate, called Stevens' tactic "legislative blackmail" and "trickery" that united Democrats on the issue.

Republican leaders fell three votes short of the 60 votes needed to break the filibuster threat and advance the defense spending bill to a final vote, forcing GOP leaders to temporarily withdraw the bill and take out the drilling provision. The official vote was 56-44, four short, because Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a supporter of drilling, voted with those opposing it so he would have the right to ask the Senate to reconsider the issue in a second vote later.

Hours later, the Senate stripped the Alaska drilling language from the defense legislation, then passed the bill and sent it to the House, which was scheduled to reconvene Thursday afternoon. The House earlier had passed the defense spending bill with the Alaska drilling provision in it.

Before the vote, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader, charged that the military was "being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling."

But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior member known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, had no apologies.

"Every time this subject comes up ... the minority has filibustered," Stevens complained, reminding colleagues of his 25-year campaign to get Congress to allow development of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath ANWR's tundra.

After the vote, Democrats and environmentalists celebrated, knowing they had tangled with one of the Senate's toughest members and won.

"It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote. He said he expects the senators who opposed drilling — all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — not to yield to further pressures and change their vote later.

For no one believes the issue, which has galvanized environmentalists determined to protect the refuge from development, is going away.

"I expect to see it again next year," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a longtime drilling opponent.

"Yes, it'll be back," Lieberman agreed.

The question of whether to allow oil companies to explore and tap the refuge's oil has been one of the most contentious environmental fights for decades.

While drilling proposals have been passed as part of broad energy legislation in the House, each time it was blocked by the Senate, where Democrats threatened a filibuster.

Congress did approve ANWR drilling in 1995 as part of a budget package that was immune from Senate filibuster, but President Clinton vetoed it.

This year Republican leaders tacked an ANWR provision onto a deficit reduction package, only to see the language killed in the House. In response, Stevens, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee handling defense spending, turned to the defense bill, hoping it would have enough support to avert a successfully filibuster threat over the Alaska refuge.

Environmentalists viewed it as the most serious threat to the refuge in years.

"Drilling proponents pulled out all the stops, and tried every trick in their playbook," Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said. "This is a tremendous victory for all Americans and proof that the fate of the Arctic refuge must be debated on its merits, not as part of a sneak attack."

Those who advocate drilling said the oil — an estimated 1 million barrels a day during peak production — is needed for national security to reduce the country's dependence on imports. Drilling opponents say ANWR's oil would take years to develop and do little to curtail imports.

But drilling opponents argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

"Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

[scamper]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/ap_on_go_co/arctic_drilling

link

[DrMaddVibe]

Lets have higher gas prices!!!!!

Ever see a picture from the area they're talking about drilling on?

Know what kind of clip the tourism business is doing there?

I'm all for other fuel alternatives but until we ween ourselves off of the oil and the arab tit...we should be doing everything we can as a nation to keep it here at home.

[FORD]

It's not worth it. It's not worth the expense, let alone the environmental destruction involved, just to get to a pool of oil that would be gone in 6 months.

[diamondD]

6 months? Where the hell did you get that?

[DrMaddVibe]

He doesn't understand how much oil is sitting in the ground there and likes paying higher prices at the pump.

[FORD]

http://www.alaskawild.org/campaigns_arctic_oil.html#Howmuchoil?

[ELVIS]

Year after year, British Petroleum (BP), Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron doggedly seek to exploit this national treasure for short-term profits.

:rolleyes:

[scamper]

How many people a year visit this national treasure?

[ELVIS]

One

[DrMaddVibe]

ANWAR: Democrats Playing Politics with Oil

Comments? stevemitch@prairieinet.net

For Webmasters rss 2.0

Category: Political Commentary - Conservative
Posted Mon Jun 21,2004 12:38 AM Last Edited: Thu Jun 24,2004 1:40 PM

The vicious beheading of the second American civilian in just over a month by evil bastards who we, if we catch them (as Saudi Arabia apparently has) had better not parade around naked, deprive of sleep or force to masturbate, is more than just a vision of what these despots would wish on every one of us. It�s an attempt to intimidate Americans into leaving Saudi Arabia and disrupt our oil supply (as are the repeated bombings of Iraqi oil terminals):

As the Associated Press reported "The U.S. government is renewing its call for Americans to leave Saudi Arabia after the recent terrorist attacks, saying the safety of U.S. workers was more important than any effect on oil supplies or the Saudi economy.
An estimated 35,000 Americans have been working in Saudi Arabia and it was unclear how many have left since the increase in attacks, which have come at the same time the Bush administration has been pressing the Saudis to boost oil production to help lower gas prices in the United States."

Gas prices have been on the decline here recently, but as Americans stream out of Saudi Arabia heeding the advice of the U.S. Government in the wake of the brutal slaying of Johnson � just as the summer driving season picks up � prices could climb higher than we�ve yet seen them. And with our dependence on foreign oil greater than it�s ever been and growing it�s only going to get worse.

Who do we have to blame for the fact that we find ourselves at the mercy of OPEC and, now the terrorists? Well, a good chunk of the blame goes to the Democrats. Because, were it not for their pandering to leftist environmental constituents, we could be pumping an amount of oil not much less that what we are now begging the Saudi�s to ship to us out of the Arctic National Wildlife Range. But of course Democrats would rather the Bush Administration be in the position of imploring (a diplomatic word for begging) OPEC to not harm our economic recovery with production cutbacks that will raise the price of gas higher than it already is while the Democrats complain that Bush isn�t doing enough about high oil prices. Although the Saudis have pledged that they won�t cutback production and, in fact have increased production, all that may change if the specter of more beheadings continues.

We are all grateful for the fact that the Saudis apparently caught and killed some of those responsible for Johnson�s beheading. But it seems like an awful strange coincidence that they were seemingly powerless to find these Al Qaeda operatives until after they killed Johnson, then all of a sudden they find them within hours. The Saudis have been less than forthcoming with us before regarding terrorist cells that exist in their country in the past and since we need their oil, we�ve been known to give them a pass in the name of the free flow of oil at market prices. And in the future, genuflecting to the Arabs is something we had better get used to because the Democrats have effectively stifled any attempt to provide us more self-sufficiency.

The fact that OPEC and terrorism have us over a barrel kind of blows away that tired old Democrat �no blood for oil� mantra that liberals have been beating to death since before the Iraq part of the War on Terror began and in fact since the last war in Iraq some 14 years ago. The truth is it�s total BS. Let�s face it: We�re the most powerful nation on the face of the earth � bar none. If we were really the greedy bastards the liberals say we are, we�d just go in, occupy the countries and take their oil. Truth is we are not only the most powerful nation on the face of the earth and the most freedom-loving, but also the most giving and compassionate. And not only have we freed the Iraqis from a murderous tyrant, we�re helping them get their oil fields up and running again so they can produce oil to sell to us to feed our increasing demand for oil that the Democrats have rendered us unable to mediate at least partially with domestic oil.

Which brings us to ANWAR. We�ve been talking about selling oil leases in ANWAR for 20 years now But even if we started today, we wouldn�t see any oil out of it until 15 years from now. The Democrats deserve congratulations because they have managed to demagogue this issue for damn near two decades now, through the last half of the Reagan Administration, all of the Bush Administration and through the eight years of that hell known as the Clinton Administration. Now we�re better than three years into the second Bush Administration and the Democrats are still demagoguing away and we�re no closer to getting the oil that would ease our oil trouble to some extent out of the ground.

At the core of this two decades of demamgogary is a lie. This lie about ANWAR is summed up neatly in a Kerry campaign ad from the primary and early presidential election cycle. The ad showed pristine mountains, forest and streams with a beautiful woodland creature � a Caribou � in the foreground. The caption and the voice-over proclaimed that John Kerry would ensure that we didn�t allow the evil capitalist oil barrons to harm the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Range. But there�s a slight problem with not only this ad, but the entire liberal argument against drilling in ANWAR: It�s a total fabrication, 100% utter BS.

As a kid, I lived in a Alaska for 17 years. I even worked for an extremely short period of time on the North Slope of Alaska, just West of where ANWAR is, near the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. Most environmentalist wackos haven�t been on the North Slope. If John Kerry has been to ANWAR, it was probably just about long enough for him to get his picture taken with an Eskimo and get back on the plane. The average Joe seeing Kerry�s commercial probably thinks �My God, what would we want to harm the habitat of all of these lovely woodland creatures for?� not knowing that the idea that the woodland creatures and pristine wilderness would be irreparably harmed is a load of crap.

The truth is that what we�re talking about is a whole bunch of tundra � acres upon acres of moss that is covered with ice and snow for most of the year. (The tree line starts petering out after you get past the Arctic Circle about 100 miles North of Fairbanks and any vestiges of trees are completely gone by the time you reach the Northern Coastal Plain.) Underneath the tundra is permafrost � 18-inches down the ground is permanently frozen, never to be thawed until us evil capitalists burn enough fossil fuels to melt the ice caps. In Barrow, the largest town on the Northern Coast of Alaska, all water and sewer pipes are above ground. Even if they could bury them, they�d rupture in the 50-75 below winter cold. All of the drilling in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields was done in the winter because that�s the only time they can get around. How do they get around? They get around on ice roads that melt in the Spring and Summer and disappear. Trucks and other vehicles, except for those with wide tracks, can�t get around on the marsh that the tundra becomes after the ice and snow melt. All the activity on the oil fields in the summer occurs on the gravel pads the pumping stations are built on. Of course the environmentalist wackos opposed the tapping of the Prudhoe Bay fields as well, claiming it would destroy the pristine environment and provide only a few months� worth of oil. As you can see from this excerpt from the ANWAR.org web site, they were wrong:

"Discovery of the gigantic Prudhoe Bay oilfield was announced in July 1968, the largest deposit ever found in North America. (Environmentalists called it a "few months� supply.") Nine years, 7.7 billion dollars, and 1,347 government permits later, Americans cheered as oil began flowing through the 800-mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline System.

Since July 1977, the pipeline has carried more than 13 billion barrels of oil from Alaska�s North Slope. During that time Alaska oil has supplied 20% of domestic production, amounting to nearly a $300 billion offset to the national trade deficit. Natural gas, produced with the oil, continues to be reinjected pending studies to determine feasibility of a pipeline to U.S. markets. Prudhoe Bay gas reserves are 30.9 trillion cubic feet.

Today the Alaska oil pipeline carries less than half its capacity; thus the search continues for new supply to keep it operating. (Without it, the entire system must eventually be decommissioned and removed.) The coastal plain of ANWR, 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay and with similar geology, is America�s most prospective area for another giant oil field."

We've got plenty of oil up there to put in that pipeline that's running at half it's capacity, if we can get past the BS and start drilling. But the environmentalist wackos, John Kerry and their other allies in the Democratic Party continue to demagogue the issue. And they're as wrong about ANWAR as they were about Prudhoe Bay (again quoting ANWAR.org):

"Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.
Petroleum development at Prudhoe Bay has not negatively affected wildlife. For instance, the Central Arctic caribou herd is at home with pipeline facilities and has grown from 3,000 to as high as 27,100 in the last 20 years. Drilling activity in ANWR would be limited to winter months when wildlife does not frequent the coastal plain.
Constantly improving technology has greatly reduced the footprint of Arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, facility designs show the footprint would be 64% smaller."

What they are saying here is that today�s drilling and pumping technology is so efficient and unobtrusive that it�s possible to pump oil out from under thousands of acres of land from a pumping station of a few acres in size. Were not talking about strip mining or clear cut logging here.

The long and the short of it is, the Democrats as usual are lying and putting our increased energy independence in jeopardy to pacify their liberal environmentalist constituency. If Prudhoe Bay currently provides 20% of our domestic capacity, it stands to reason that, for the past 20 years, we�ve been pissing away the opportunity to tap into a source that could be combined with the Prudhoe Bay supply to provide up to 50% of our domestic oil capacity. We could, right now, be exporting only 30% of our oil supply � the same as we were in the 70�s were it not for the Democrats lies and demagoging of the issue.

Most experts (except for ones with a liberal agenda) agree that the world can continue it�s current rate of oil consumption for another 100 years or more. That�s pretty short term in the whole scheme of things. But the beauty of the capitalist system is that, when there is a real need for alternative fuel technology, we�ll develop it. The advent of stringent emission controls and higher gas mileage standards was supposed to be the death of the American automobile as we know it. The auto industry did take a pretty big hit. But they came back and are producing some of the best vehicles they ever have. Alternative fuel technology is already in use and when it becomes clear that it will be needed, it will proliferate. Right now, it�s oil that makes America run and the Democrats are standing squarely in the way of the biggest supply we have. Think of that the next time you are paying $1.90 or $2 a gallon (or more) for gas. And be sure to thank your friendly Democratic politician.


Steve Bowers has been a staunch conservative since his first vote for Ronald Reagan at the age of 19. He's the founder and president of the one man think-tank Conservatism is Reality Inc. and Senior Editor of Pardon My English, a Conservative Topics Blog. He lives with his loving, blended family smack dab in the heart of flyover country.

[FORD]

Originally posted by scamper
How many people a year visit this national treasure?

Does it matter?

Nobody lives at the North Pole except Santa Claus and possibly Superman, but does that mean we should melt the ice caps.

There is a price to be paid for destroying ecosystems, and it's simply not worth it for a 6 month supply of oil that won't even be available for another 10 years.

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.alaskamagazine.com/faq/oil.shtml

[DrMaddVibe]

Prudhoe Bay

[DrMaddVibe]

We're not talking about Club Med or the coast of Marthas Vineyard!

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.anwr.org/backgrnd/potent.html

[DrMaddVibe]

http://www.anwr.org/flash.htm

[Guitar Shark]

We really need to shift our focus away from finding more oil, and towards finding better, renewable sources of energy. The days of cheap oil are OVER and tapping the Alaska reserves will only make a small, temporary dent.

[Warham]

Actually, we'll never get away from using oil. God put it there for a reason. Even if every car didn't use oil, we'd still need millions and millions of barrels of it every year just for other needs.

There's more oil sitting in the United States than in Iraq. I don't want to hear the libs bitching about high gas prices anymore.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Actually, we'll never get away from using oil. God put it there for a reason. Even if every car didn't use oil, we'd still need millions and millions of barrels of it every year just for other needs.

There's more oil sitting in the United States than in Iraq. I don't want to hear the libs bitching about high gas prices anymore.

I'm not bitching about high gas prices and I certainly don't blame it on Bush. But I disagree that we'll never get away from using oil. It is a finite resource and eventually it will run out. The lack of foresight by our leaders on this issue is truly apalling.

[Warham]

I don't even think we're close to even scratching the surface of what amount of crude is still underground.

Besides, God only put enough in the ground to get us through the end of time. :D

[Guitar Shark]

You should read the latest National Geographic articles on the subject.

[WACF]

The damage to the Caribu herds is a big concern.

This pool of oil is not going to make that much difference to your economy.
It would make an oil company richer though...don't kid yourself that pump price will drop.

My province has huge oil reserves...the thing is that middle eastern oil is closer to the surface, thiner and therefore much cheaper to extract and refine. New ways of extracting are being tried and more and more wells are popping up.
Canada does not import oil...yet we must pay market prices due to OPEC. We pay more per litre than you guys do in the U.S., partially due to provincal and federal taxes.
As long and big business and government can make a buck on our backs they will...hence pump prices will not drop.

[DrMaddVibe]

WACF...did you even click on the links I provided?

[WACF]

I looked through the first one and did not listen to the whole recording of the second.
How anyone can say there is no impact to the enviroment is dreaming...unless of course you ONLY listen to the news releases from the intersted party.

Do you know how much oil Canada has?
We have oil sands or tar sands ourselves...expenisve to extract.
This is discussed in our weekly news on the idiot box...the discussion of the Alaska oil is not new.
Yes, an oil company can extract it...but, it is costly and they tend to look where it is easier for the moment...main reason Alberta oil is extracted more than Saskatchewan oil.
It does not mean lower gas prices like some would like to think.

[Cathedral]

I'm against drilling there because it wouldn't solve any problems and the only benefit would be to the oil industries bottom line, and i think they already have enough money.

I think we should keep importing it for as long as it is feasable NOT to tap our own resources, sort of a stockpiling mentality.
But in the meantime we should be looking into building at the very least 2 new oil refineries of our own.
Why use up our own resources if we don't have to just yet?
But our lack of refining abilites would hurt us when we finally do ween ourselves off of the foreign titties if we don't build modern facilities of our own NOW!

But since we're in need of new facilities how about we make them compatitble with the most promising of alternative-renewable energy sources?
Face it, No Oil Company is going to look at anything else to sell until the last drop of oil comes out of the ground...that's just a fact.

[FORD]

How about getting the fucking oil industry (i.e. the BCE) out of the fucking government once and for all and then proceeding with alternative energy.

Heard a clip from a Jimmy Carter speech the other night circa 1978 or so where he announced some bold initiatives for alternative power sources which would have (if I remember correctly with a head full of snot and NyQuil) reduced oil consumption in this country 20% by the year 2000 in favor of solar power. Carter further took this initiative personally by implementing solar panels on the roof of the White House.

Guess what was the first thing to go when Reagan and the BCE moved back in :(

When the oil industry IS the government, this shit will never change, and since WWII all the Republican presidents, and one of the Democrats (LBJ) have been tools of big oil.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
How about getting the fucking oil industry (i.e. the BCE) out of the fucking government once and for all and then proceeding with alternative energy.

Heard a clip from a Jimmy Carter speech the other night circa 1978 or so where he announced some bold initiatives for alternative power sources which would have (if I remember correctly with a head full of snot and NyQuil) reduced oil consumption in this country 20% by the year 2000 in favor of solar power. Carter further took this initiative personally by implementing solar panels on the roof of the White House.

Guess what was the first thing to go when Reagan and the BCE moved back in :(

When the oil industry IS the government, this shit will never change, and since WWII all the Republican presidents, and one of the Democrats (LBJ) have been tools of big oil.

That will never happen on either side of the isle, Ford.
The lure of the big money is too much for anyone to refuse and once greed takes over, it's all over.

And guess what?
It's all over.

[WACF]

How much investment is there in the States for wind power?

One thing our provincial government actually is promoting for alternative energy.

http://econet.sk.ca/solutions/energy/wind.html

http://www.saskpowerinternational.com/spi/invest/centennial/centennial.shtml

Project significance

SaskPower International is playing a vital role in helping SaskPower balance two key commitments. The first is environmental stewardship and the second is providing a safe, reliable and affordable source of electricity for its customers.

The Centennial Wind Power Project is part of SaskPower’s Green Power Portfolio. The strategy driving the portfolio is to ensure all new electricity needs in Saskatchewan until 2010 are met with environmentally friendly power sources that do not add to greenhouse gas emissions.

[WACF]

Something that helps is that we have the room for it.....

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Lets have higher gas prices!!!!!

Ever see a picture from the area they're talking about drilling on?

Know what kind of clip the tourism business is doing there?

I'm all for other fuel alternatives but until we ween ourselves off of the oil and the arab tit...we should be doing everything we can as a nation to keep it here at home.

Typical american. Thinking nothing but money.

Drilling in Alaska would lower gas prices about 1 cent per gallon. Maybe your fucking piece of shit president should justr lower the gas prices.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Typical american. Thinking nothing but money.

Drilling in Alaska would lower gas prices about 1 cent per gallon. Maybe your fucking piece of shit president should justr lower the gas prices.

http://theheretik.typepad.com/the_heretik/images/bush_bandar.jpg
Or at least his fucking piece of shit Saudi boyfriend should.

[hain23x]

That's "Brokeback Oilrig"

[mwsully]

We can throw around facts and figures forever regarding the amount of oil, impact of drilling, etc., but the fact remains that if we put any effort in tapping other oil sources, we continue to be dependent on oil, and continue to develop our society around it. To build a society around a finite energy source -- though at one time in history it seemed logical and necessary and infinite, is ludicrous now.



The sad thing about us humans is that we never know the true impact of something until it is gone. In this case, I speak of the so-called "wasteland" ANWR.

[mwsully]

Fortunately, we have people in the following article that give us hope for cheap, non-emission, renewable. This is awesome technology:

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

January 14, 2005
Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.


Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with [very efficient] large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

Infrared Power

Plastic solar cells are not new. But existing materials are only able to harness the sun's visible light. While half of the sun's power lies in the visible spectrum, the other half lies in the infrared spectrum.

The new material is the first plastic composite that is able to harness the infrared portion.

"Everything that's warm gives off some heat. Even people and animals give off heat," Sargent said. "So there actually is some power remaining in the infrared [spectrum], even when it appears to us to be dark outside."

The researchers combined specially designed nano particles called quantum dots with a polymer to make the plastic that can detect energy in the infrared.

With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.


CONTINUED

[mwsully]

Continued from previous post:

Electrical Sweaters

The new material could make technology truly wireless.


"We have this expectation that we don't have to plug into a phone jack anymore to talk on the phone, but we're resigned to the fact that we have to plug into an electrical outlet to recharge the batteries," Sargent said. "That's only communications wireless, not power wireless."

He said the plastic coating could be woven into a shirt or sweater and used to charge an item like a cell phone.

"A sweater is already absorbing all sorts of light both in the infrared and the visible," said Sargent. "Instead of just turning that into heat, as it currently does, imagine if it were to turn that into electricity."

Other possibilities include energy-saving plastic sheeting that could be unfurled onto a rooftop to supply heating needs, or solar cell window coating that could let in enough infrared light to power home appliances.

Cost-Effectiveness

Ultimately, a large amount of the sun's energy could be harnessed through "solar farms" and used to power all our energy needs, the researchers predict.

"This could potentially displace other sources of electrical production that produce greenhouse gases, such as coal," Sargent said.

In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.

The biggest hurdle facing solar power is cost-effectiveness.

At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power is significantly more expensive than conventional electrical power for residences. Average U.S. residential power prices are less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour, according to experts.

But that could change with the new material.

"Flexible, roller-processed solar cells have the potential to turn the sun's power into a clean, green, convenient source of energy," said John Wolfe, a nanotechnology venture capital investor at Lux Capital in New York City.


IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES! THIS IS WHAT OIL CORPORATIONS SHOULD BE SUPPORTING.

[scamper]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Typical american.

nice generalization

[Warham]

Hey FORD. Can you post some pics of Clinton hugging the Saudi royal family?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
We really need to shift our focus away from finding more oil, and towards finding better, renewable sources of energy. The days of cheap oil are OVER and tapping the Alaska reserves will only make a small, temporary dent.

Maybe for combustion, but oil will always be needed for lubrication of machinery. Making vast amount of synthetics for that purpose just isn't feasible yet.

But it would be cool to ride the World's First Nuclear Powered Harley Hog.

:gulp:

[Angel]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Typical american. Thinking nothing but money.

BOF, I think I'm going to like having you around here! (another name for me is the Canuck Cunt) ;)

[Angel]

If you've never been to the Arctic, you should go. I consider the Arctic one of the most beautiful regions on this planet!

[Angel]

The arctic is one of the most beautiful regions on this great planet. You just need to have the "cahonas" to handle it!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
I'm not bitching about high gas prices and I certainly don't blame it on Bush. But I disagree that we'll never get away from using oil. It is a finite resource and eventually it will run out. The lack of foresight by our leaders on this issue is truly apalling.

Naw, let's just spend billion$ both invading & occupying IRAQ, and spend twice as much on our defense budget as we should really need too instead...

And as FORD correctly stated, bitch about Democrats blocking a temporary fix that will be a drop in the bucket long term...

Yeah, the Democrats are "playing politics with oil"...

LOL What did BUSH & CHENEY do before they were coronated?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Maybe for combustion, but oil will always be needed for lubrication of machinery. Making vast amount of synthetics for that purpose just isn't feasible yet.

But it would be cool to ride the World's First Nuclear Powered Harley Hog.

:gulp:

http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Images/Products/M1BASE_0W40_top.gif
http://www.esso.cz/images/mobil1.gif

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Naw, let's just spend billion$ both invading & occupying IRAQ, and spend twice as much on our defense budget as we should really need too instead...

And as FORD correctly stated, bitch about Democrats blocking a temporary fix that will be a drop in the bucket long term...

Yeah, the Democrats are "playing politics with oil"...

LOL What did BUSH & CHENEY do before they were coronated?


Your side of the aisle said the same thing about Prudhoe Bay back in the 80's too. We're STILL pumping it out of there.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Maybe for combustion, but oil will always be needed for lubrication of machinery. Making vast amount of synthetics for that purpose just isn't feasible yet.

But it would be cool to ride the World's First Nuclear Powered Harley Hog.

:gulp:

How about opening up additional sources for oil. Recycling is being used to some extent. Motor oil can be filtered and re-used.

And there's the obvious which the government keeps deliberately overlooking, oil from plant sources, such as hemp.

As far as nuclear powered Harley's go, I'll never sign onto that one until they can figure out how to dispose of the waste by products.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, the Democrats are "playing politics with oil"...

LOL What did BUSH & CHENEY do before they were coronated?

Please. The Kennedy family has been in the oil business for years. It's not reserved for just 'neocons'.

[NATEDOG001976]

Take all the damm Iraqi oil!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
http://www.mobil1.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Images/Products/M1BASE_0W40_top.gif
http://www.esso.cz/images/mobil1.gif

Yeah Nick, I've thought of those.

But have you ever checked the price of those synthetics?

Consumers, at least most of them, ain't buying.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah Nick, I've thought of those.

But have you ever checked the price of those synthetics?

Consumers, at least most of them, ain't buying.

:gulp:

They would if the petroleum version was the same price. And it probably will be soon.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah Nick, I've thought of those.

But have you ever checked the price of those synthetics?

Consumers, at least most of them, ain't buying.

:gulp:

Yeah well, in EUROPE most drivers use synthetic (engine) oil, because it saves gas over the long haul (cold weather start up efficiency of REAL synthetic oil like Mobil1 is much greater than with conventional mineral oils)...

The price of the oil comes down a bit then, eh?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Your side of the aisle said the same thing about Prudhoe Bay back in the 80's too. We're STILL pumping it out of there.

I don't think that was ever the argument against Prudhoe bay, it was more environmental centric then...

And we're still dependent on Middle eastern oil, BTW, regardless...

[Angel]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah well, in EUROPE most drivers use synthetic (engine) oil, because it saves gas over the long haul (cold weather start up efficiency of REAL synthetic oil like Mobil1 is much greater than with conventional mineral oils)...

The price of the oil comes down a bit then, eh?

Same here in Canada, Nick.

[freak]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah Nick, I've thought of those.

But have you ever checked the price of those synthetics?

Consumers, at least most of them, ain't buying.

:gulp:

They're well worth it especially if you have a high mileage engine.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by freak
They're well worth it especially if you have a high mileage engine.

Actually, they're worth it in a newer engine too...

Although I just picked up a high mile beater for the winter and was thinking of trying Synthetic...