Okay I'm a bad liberal, but what's the deal with ANWR?

Compensate much?

goodness this has sure got away from oil slicks..... or did it?

Juro and Shadow started it... hhheehehe


But honestly, oil is a finite resource and its days are numbered. And the higher the price of oil gets, the sooner the end will be.

My money is on mining the Moon for (He3) and turning that into an energy source for the 21st century. And with the United States being the only nation with the ability to tap the He3 well on the moon, there is a good chance the US will become the next Saudi Arabia of the next century.

I gotta question this. Yes, it may be plentiful on the Moon, but Helium 3 is ALL THE WAY ON THE MOON! If you think 55 bucks a barrel is high, just factor in the cost of bringing it a quarter of a million miles back to Earth. The way I see it, He3 will be more valuable to anyone who may colonize the Moon than anyone here on Earth.

In my less than expert opinion, the next big thing is plain ol' hydrogen. The technology is still pricy, but the cost will come down, and we don't have to go to the Moon to get it.

It is... and that's precisely why I think we should not be drilling up there. If it was an endless supply, I might be more up for it, but its not. At best, it will lower the cost of a barrell of oil be $0.50.

A study done in 2000 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that there is a 95% chance of finding only 1.9 billion barrels (BBO) of economically recoverable oil and a 50% chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels of oil.

America consumes 19 million barrels of oil each and every day - or - 7 billion barrels a year.

So, we run a risk of ruining the wildlife preserve for 6-9mos. of oil, that probably won't be sold to the U.S., as Alaskan officials are keen to sell to a few Asian nations.

Interesting tidbits:

- Every year, as much energy leaks through American windows as moves through the Trans-Alaska pipeline (Worldwatch Institute).

- By increasing car mileage efficiency from 27 to 30 miles per gallon, more than 6 billion barrels of oil could be saved.

- Using the Interior Department's most optimistic scenario of recoverable oil from the refuge, the oil in ANWAR would add only 0.4 percent to world oil reserves

So, how many of you drive gas-guzzling SUVs?

Your mind is too small to see the big picture.

25 Tons of He3 can power the entire United States for 1 year. That type of energy is worth TRILLIONS. 1 Mission to the moon and back might cost a $20/billion and yield a profit of a Trillion.

Don't let the distance to the moon cloud your vision. Open your eyes...



Scientists estimate there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tons could supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, according to Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.



Source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html

Thats a nice stat. How do you plan to retro fit all the millions of existing cars on the road? Don't worry, your dream will come true as gas prices rise. "The Market" can do more in 1-2 years than Congress and Greenpeace could do in a life time. MONEY RULES EVERYTHING. If its gonna cost $5/gal, you better believe, the only cars being sold will be ones which are fuel efficient.

See Juro, Capitalism beats Socialism hands down. Let the Market rule the future, not some government agency trying to do whats best.

ME... Cost me $50 a fill up. Lucky I only work 5 miles from home. Muahahahhaha

I still disagree. I never said it wasn't a viable energy source. The problem is the details. The way I see it, hydrogen fuel cell technology is here, been around since at least the 1960's. In a few years, it will be affordable, and there will be a hydrogen distribution system in place. All of this could happen in our lifetimes.

On the other hand, Helium 3 requires that we:

Jumpstart manned spaceflight. NASA has been pretty skittish about sending people up after losing a second shuttle.

Develop a reusable vehicle that can reach the Moon.

Build a self sustaining colony on the Moon.

Build He3 refineries and develop vehicles that can safely return the stuff to Earth.

The way I see it, the glacial pace of manned spaceflight, as well as finding the money and all the inevitable legal crap that will crop up will probably bring us affordable He3 energy in probably about a century or more.

Retrofit? Why should we. If you were ill-informed enough to buy a car that gets 10mpg - too bad sucker. Like we thought the oil would last forever?

Meanwhile.. I'll sit back and thank you, Alby, for purchasing your gas guzzling unsafe SUV because it subsidized my car purchase. SUV's are the cheapest class of passenger vehicles automakers can crank out, but they have the highest profit margin - go figure.

Me.. I'll stick w/my turbocharged 20-valve 4-cylinder engine, full-time all-wheel drive with ESP and continue to get 30mpg at 80mph. Neeener-neeener.

Tenny, you must be one of those types of people who when confronted with a mountain to climb, give up and say its impossible.

First off, hydrogen fuel cell technology is a wonderful and enviro friendly technology. The 1 BIG point you're missing is the Hydrogen part. Let me give you 5 reasons why Fuel Cells won't be the future. Stop listening to your Greenpeace propaganda and start listening to the Alby Meister.





1) Pure hydrogen does not exist on Earth. Hydrogen on Earth is an energy medium, not an energy source. Because hydrogen on Earth occurs in molecules that also contain either carbon or oxygen, isolating pure hydrogen involves “reforming” existing hydrocarbon molecules.

2) Isolating hydrogen still requires fossil fuels as inputs. Reformation of hydrogen still means using hydrocarbons such as natural gas as a source of hydrogen, because the primary potential sources of hydrogen on Earth are hydrocarbons and water

3) Converting either water or hydrocarbons to hydrogen requires the expenditure of energy. Breaking hydrogen free from hydrocarbon molecules requires an expenditure of energy. Furthermore, depending on the process used, the reaction could actually use more energy than the electrolysis process itself actually produces.

4) Hydrogen is less intense than fossil fuels. For a given input, hydrogen production and fuel cell technologies generate less energy output (measured in BTUs) than traditional hydrocarbons.

5) Handling hydrogen can be dangerous. Remember the Hindenberg. Pure hydrogen is unstable and oxidizes easily, which makes it extremely combustible. Thus long-distance transport of hydrogen, say, to fill hydrogen fueling stations, is potentially dangerous.

No need to worry Juro, My baby guzzles gas, but I only fill up once a week. Others who might get 3x the gas mileage (ie: 39/mpg) may also commute 60/miles round trip a day to-from work and fill up 3x a week. As such, we end up breaking even. Every situtation is different. Now if I worked 30,40,50 miles away from work, I might have to ride my motorcycle more often. hehehe Its all relative baby..

The point I tried to make in my two previous threads was that He3 has potential BUT that potential will most likely not be realized for a very long time.

Bottom line, don't put your money on He3. Tell your grandkids to.

Ahhhh.. so, deep down in Alby lies the skeletal remains of a hippie!

I guess the point I'm trying to make Alby, is that we're at a crossroads: we could choose to mandate a higher MPG standard or drill in one of the last (mostly) untouched lands we have.

I'd rather tell my kids I at least tried to save some wilderness for them. Your mileage may vary.