A new use for solar power: pump oil - Tree of Souls

auroraglacialis · #1 10-04-2011, 11:04 AM

This is so completely fvcked up that I dont even want to think about it for long:

Solar power glass house helps pump oil | Green Tech - CNET News

They are using "green" solar power to pump oil out of the ground.

WTF - what about using that solar power to REPLACE the need for oil instead? Argh!

(Yes yes I know, better they use this than to use oil to run the pumps, but still it feels utterly wrong to see solar power applied to drive a process that is destroying the planet)

**Advent** · #2 10-04-2011, 10:35 PM

Ugh. Horrible. Not only horrible, but rather stupid in my opinion. We'll likely run out of oil in 100 years or so anyway.

Human No More · #3 10-05-2011, 07:27 PM

..perhaps because the oil is a far more powerful and useful source of energy?

I'm not sure if you know how much 7MW is, but it's very small - ~0.07% of a typical modern power station.

Actually, this is good, it significantly reduces damage from extraction. Stop going 'anything new is bad!!'. It prevents the use of natural gas for extraction.

**Moco Loco** · #4 10-05-2011, 08:59 PM

Yeah, it does seem kind of silly (

), but really, I agree with HNM. Baby steps.

iron_jones · #5 10-05-2011, 09:21 PM

Using oil to pump oil is bad.
But using green power to pump oil is also bad.

So what should we use?

**Clarke** · #6 10-05-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron_jones

Using oil to pump oil is bad.
But using green power to pump oil is also bad.

So what should we use?

A perpetual motion machine, of course.

**Advent** · #7 10-06-2011, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human No More

Actually, this is good, it significantly reduces damage from extraction. Stop going 'anything new is bad!!'. It prevents the use of natural gas for extraction.

True. But the damage is still there, as much as you try to explain it. If people were smarter, and cared about the environment, such damage could've been avoided.

**Clarke** · #8 10-06-2011, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Advent

True. But the damage is still there, as much as you try to explain it. If people were smarter, and cared about the environment, such damage could've been avoided.

We require energy. The only alternative is nuclear power, which people irrationally object to.

**Advent** · #9 10-06-2011, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarke

We require energy. The only alternative is nuclear power, which people irrationally object to.

Nuclear power is only dangerous if in disasters or in the hands of the wrong people. Oil and Coal is dangerous in the long term, no matter who uses it.

**Isard** · #10 10-06-2011, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarke

We require energy. The only alternative is nuclear power, which certain people irrationally object to.

ftfy.

Nuclear is what's going to move us through space.

auroraglacialis · #11 10-06-2011, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clarke

We require energy.

The wording should rather be "we demand energy"

**Clarke** · #12 10-06-2011, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

The wording should rather be "we demand energy"

We require it. Have you any idea what sort of chaos erupts if we were to lose industralisation? You need industrial processing of food and energy in order to feed nations as large as ours.

auroraglacialis · #13 10-06-2011, 03:01 PM

A US citizen uses more than 10 times as much energy and resources than an African and 2-3 times as much as an European (depending on the particularities) and about 7 times as much as a Sout American.
I think there is a definite problem here what people think about needs, demands, desires and requirements and a big confusion between these things.

**Aquaplant** · #14 10-06-2011, 04:48 PM

Geographical statistics must be taken into consideration when judging the need for energy and resources. In places where temperature never drops below 0 Celsius, it doesn't take nearly as much energy to simply stay alive compared to where it can go easily below -20. Also, transportation is required more in places with harsh natural conditions, compared to where one won't freeze to death when going from place to place. Granted this could be said as an issue of comfort, but it's still relative.

Now when it comes to non-essential consumption, there are places where things can be toned down without having a significant impact of the standard of living. Still, it's no wonder people consume so much when everything we buy breaks down in less than a year due to being bad quality. Then again most of the stuff we buy is just for entertainment rather than essential need.

**Clarke** · #15 10-06-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

Geographical statistics must be taken into consideration when judging the need for energy and resources. In places where temperature never drops below 0 Celsius, it doesn't take nearly as much energy to simply stay alive compared to where it can go easily below -20. Also, transportation is required more in places with harsh natural conditions, compared to where one won't freeze to death when going from place to place. Granted this could be said as an issue of comfort, but it's still relative.

Indeed, geography is very important. For instance, I recently learned that Qatar, of all places, uses the most energy per person per year. When you look, the reason for this is rather simple.