Whats going to be the spin offs of higher oil prices?

Smaller cars.

It means Alberta might get back on the tracks.

@faye While we all say goodbye to fresh air.

@_bob Why do you say that?

@faye Pollution.

Thanks for the article. I love reading about geology. You know how big Alberta is? We’re not just the oil sands, plenty of oil wells.

I know it’s pretty big.

@faye: All you need to prosper in Alberta is cheap nuclear energy to use in extracting the oil from the oil sands.

@malevolentbutticklish what about nuclear waste? Here is one article on some of the problems

We already have the problem of mind-blowing tailings ponds attached to the tar sands. And we all live downstream….

Countries able to develop and export green technologies will benefit. Countries who got fossil fuel infatuation drilled into their leaders’ heads will lose.

I’m starting to think that many Americans would sooner be homeless than give up their cars.

Getting rid of that pesky mortgage payment leaves you with a lot of cash to put in your gas tank! It’s the American dream.

@noyesa: The American dream isn’t either a house OR a car. It is both.

@tranquilsea: If global warming exists, then anti-nuclear activists are surely to blame for a large portion of it. The tailings ponds are also a DIRECT RESULT of anti-nuclear activists not allowing Breeder Reactors.

@tranquilsea Most of what is classified as “nuclear waste” is not really waste at all. It can and should be reprocessed as useful nuclear fuel. Even reactors that are not called “breeder” reactors produce nearly as much fissionable material as they consume. The Uranium-238 in the fuel assemblies is transmuted by neutron capture into Plutonium-239, equally valuable as fission fuel.

Direct spinoffs from higher oil prices will be more solar, wind, hydro and nuclear power generation. Plug-in electric vehicles, better storage batteries, fuel-cell development, higher efficiency electric appliances, solar building heating and cooling, maybe the return of commercial sailing ships for nonperishable products. Orbital generation of photoelectric power and fusion-nuclear power will likely be practical sometime in this century.

I think the oilsands here are doing a lot to minimize the damage they do. Most of the land is reclaimed after they’re done. It’s not like lovely flora and fauna were there before.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land: I think you have a “great answer” but I would like to be sure and point out that many promising technologies never pan out. Solar/Orbital Solar, in particular, may not pan out. People talk about improvements in efficiency with Solar but neglect that its competition is also improving in efficiency. For instance, fusion-nuclear may obliterate any desire to build grid-connected solar plants.

@malevolentbutticklish Nonsense, cars are our freedom. There’s no way I’m riding one of those communist mind control experiments they call “public transportation”. I MAKE MY OWN PATH.

@noyesa: I am totally against public transportation. It even loses money in New York City.

@malevolentbutticklish Very true. Likewise, fusion power may never work out to be commercially feasable. I neglected to mention development of geothermal power, which is already a major power source in Iceland and New Zealand.

Ultra high speed long distance rail systems (a la TGV and the Japanese “bullet trains” are long overdue in North America and would make a tremendous saving of oil fuels by lessening reliance on air transport. Coast to coast in 10 hours vs 6–8 hours by jet.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land: Trains will never work. It has nothing to do with train technology. It has nothing to do with fuel efficiency. It has to do with the impossibility of private enterprise efficiently acquiring long skinny tracks of land in the USA do to our legal system.

@malevolentbutticklish It would have to be raised track above the median of the existing interstate highway system. An extension of Amtrack or maybe federally owned but privately run.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land: I would love to see the new version of this ten (10) freeway overpass after adding all the trains: http://www.heliphoto.net/i/10_fwy_overpass_x_110_fwy_f.jpg

We should not take people seriously who doubt global warming as such. Reading thermometers is not rocket science, but perhaps too complicated for some folks.

The scientific issue is about man-made climate change versus natural climate change.

Fission power is a dead end. We should use the existing plants, but not invest in new ones. Far too expensive anyway. Waste disposal is unclear. Uranium supplies are limited.

And we need massive energy savings programs. Germans enjoy the same standard of living using only half the energy per capita of the US. Just replacing inferior US windows with state of the art ones would result in huge savings, both heating and air conditioning. Same for other building insulation approaches.

I’ve said this before: Resisting green technology will hurt the US big time. Same for climate change denial. Here are some of the key messages

1) There is no 100% correct prediction about the climate in 2050 – climate is too complex
2) Human greenhouse gas emissions most likely contribute to global warming
3) It’s quite possible that natural cycles contribute as well
4) A few cold winters or cool summers are no proof against the continuing overall trend
5) The vast majority of reputable climatologists think that the potential harm is enormous
6) Humanity would be very stupid not to apply the precautionary principle
7) The growing middle class in Asia will significantly affect supply and demand equation for fossil fuels – oil sand extraction won’t be able to keep up with this
8) To create welfare for all world citizens we simply have no other choice than to invest in green technology
9) The unfortunate climate change denial movement is most active in the US. This is bad news for the US, but good news for the rest of the world because innovation will happen elsewhere and the US will eventually have to import new green technology products. A nation of consumers instead of producers. Unless reason prevails.