Q. Does the US have a larger supply of coal or oil available for use? I'm pretty sure it's coal, but I'm not sure.
A. According to the US EIA, there were 263,781 million short tons of coal recoverable in the US as of the end of 2005.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6
Total U.S. coal consumption for 2009 was 1,000.4 million short tons. If the recoverable figure is correct, and consumption were to stay flat, you can see why it is often said there are over two hundred years of coal supply left in the US.
Using the same source of the data, the EIA, the US had 19.121 Billion barrels of proved reserves for 2010. Proved reserves are a very specific definition, and do not include probable reserves, which are allowed by the SEC for use by oil companies. The proved category is the most limited.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6
At the end of 2009, according to EIA, the US was consuming 18,771,400 barrels of oil a day. That is about 6.8 billion barrels. So by comparison the reserves of coal are considerably larger than those of oil. If you wanted to do the calculations in energy equivalent, I am sure the coal would still be a much larger number.
However, you did not ask about natural gas. The known reserves of natural gas in the US has changed dramatically in the past decade. Shale reservoirs in the US are now estimated to contain more than two quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which more than doubles the US's previously estimated natural gas reserves, works out close to a 200-year supply of natural gas. In an energy equivalent, 2 quadrillion cubic feet of US natural gas represents more energy than Saudi Arabiaâs 200 billion barrels of oil reserves. If that natural gas were substituted for oil, which is feasible for most applications except perhaps jet fuel, that would translate into 30 more years of oil.
http://www.chk.com/NaturalGas/Pages/default.aspx
Keep in mind that all of these numbers are highly "changeable." Recoverable reserves are always calculated, even by EIA, based on some assumption of economic cost of recovery. In other words if the coal is only worth $30 a ton, and it costs $100 a ton to get it out, it is not added to the reserves, and the same applies to oil and gas reserve estimates. As technology changes making recovery costs lower, and market prices change, so does the amount of "known" oil, coal, and natural gas. Currently there are new concepts in the oil plays in the US that may add many billion barrels to our known reserves. Some estimates of the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas already put that at 5 billion barrels. Some estimates of the Niobrara Shale in Wyoming and Colorado expect it may add much more than 5 billion barrels. The USGS has even had to go back and add reserves to their estimates of the Bakken Shale, adding another 5 billion. So, the EIA number for total reserves is probably wrong by a large factor. In a few years, the proven reserves in the US may increase by 10 or even 20 billion barrels of oil.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6
Total U.S. coal consumption for 2009 was 1,000.4 million short tons. If the recoverable figure is correct, and consumption were to stay flat, you can see why it is often said there are over two hundred years of coal supply left in the US.
Using the same source of the data, the EIA, the US had 19.121 Billion barrels of proved reserves for 2010. Proved reserves are a very specific definition, and do not include probable reserves, which are allowed by the SEC for use by oil companies. The proved category is the most limited.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6
At the end of 2009, according to EIA, the US was consuming 18,771,400 barrels of oil a day. That is about 6.8 billion barrels. So by comparison the reserves of coal are considerably larger than those of oil. If you wanted to do the calculations in energy equivalent, I am sure the coal would still be a much larger number.
However, you did not ask about natural gas. The known reserves of natural gas in the US has changed dramatically in the past decade. Shale reservoirs in the US are now estimated to contain more than two quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which more than doubles the US's previously estimated natural gas reserves, works out close to a 200-year supply of natural gas. In an energy equivalent, 2 quadrillion cubic feet of US natural gas represents more energy than Saudi Arabiaâs 200 billion barrels of oil reserves. If that natural gas were substituted for oil, which is feasible for most applications except perhaps jet fuel, that would translate into 30 more years of oil.
http://www.chk.com/NaturalGas/Pages/default.aspx
Keep in mind that all of these numbers are highly "changeable." Recoverable reserves are always calculated, even by EIA, based on some assumption of economic cost of recovery. In other words if the coal is only worth $30 a ton, and it costs $100 a ton to get it out, it is not added to the reserves, and the same applies to oil and gas reserve estimates. As technology changes making recovery costs lower, and market prices change, so does the amount of "known" oil, coal, and natural gas. Currently there are new concepts in the oil plays in the US that may add many billion barrels to our known reserves. Some estimates of the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas already put that at 5 billion barrels. Some estimates of the Niobrara Shale in Wyoming and Colorado expect it may add much more than 5 billion barrels. The USGS has even had to go back and add reserves to their estimates of the Bakken Shale, adding another 5 billion. So, the EIA number for total reserves is probably wrong by a large factor. In a few years, the proven reserves in the US may increase by 10 or even 20 billion barrels of oil.
Can someone give me an example of bias for global warming?
Q. I don't understand what my teacher is asking me to do. My papers has to referr to the melthing ice caps. do to global warming or not i dont get what she means when she says: Include a discussion whether any sources you used may be bias. Help plz
A. The assignment does not seem to be asking for examples of bias. It appears to be asking for you to discuss the sources you have, and whether or not they are biased. If you think they are, say why. If you think they are not, say why.
First you have to find sources, though. The NSIDC is perhaps the best to use - they continuously monitor the sea ice extent at both poles.
http://nsidc.org/
Another site that has a lot of good info is the University of Texas's website detailing GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), which monitors ice loss in both Antarctica and Greenland, and other data:
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/
(you can search for "Greenland" and "Antarctica" at the site - you'll get several links to paper abstracts that used GRACE data. Velicogna 2009 is, I think, the most recent paper showing detailed GRACE data, and Jiang 2010 gives a composite of several data sets extending 60 years.)
GRACE data, graphed, from SkepticalScience.com:
Greenland:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Latest-GRACE-data-record-ice-loss-in-2010.html
Antarctica:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
as well as the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington, and their sea ice volume data:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
These are where you want to go if you want the most updated and legitimate data and analyses. As for the "discussion whether any sources you used may be bias[ed]," you need to think of some reasons as to why your sources might come to a conclusion other than a full and sound analysis of the data, such as for monetary reasons, political reasons, so on. For most of these websites, substantiating bias is going to be very difficult - data centers at universities and government agencies are very thorough in their research and analyses and non-partisan. SkepticalScience, while not a major source I gave, is a blog, though citation and representation of scientific research is a top priority there.
Nonetheless, while a blog has the potential to give good info and accurately represent the views of whom they quote, you should always assume bias and make sure that you go back to the root source to get the real info being blogged about.
First you have to find sources, though. The NSIDC is perhaps the best to use - they continuously monitor the sea ice extent at both poles.
http://nsidc.org/
Another site that has a lot of good info is the University of Texas's website detailing GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment), which monitors ice loss in both Antarctica and Greenland, and other data:
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/
(you can search for "Greenland" and "Antarctica" at the site - you'll get several links to paper abstracts that used GRACE data. Velicogna 2009 is, I think, the most recent paper showing detailed GRACE data, and Jiang 2010 gives a composite of several data sets extending 60 years.)
GRACE data, graphed, from SkepticalScience.com:
Greenland:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Latest-GRACE-data-record-ice-loss-in-2010.html
Antarctica:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Antarctica_Ice_Mass.gif
as well as the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington, and their sea ice volume data:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
These are where you want to go if you want the most updated and legitimate data and analyses. As for the "discussion whether any sources you used may be bias[ed]," you need to think of some reasons as to why your sources might come to a conclusion other than a full and sound analysis of the data, such as for monetary reasons, political reasons, so on. For most of these websites, substantiating bias is going to be very difficult - data centers at universities and government agencies are very thorough in their research and analyses and non-partisan. SkepticalScience, while not a major source I gave, is a blog, though citation and representation of scientific research is a top priority there.
Nonetheless, while a blog has the potential to give good info and accurately represent the views of whom they quote, you should always assume bias and make sure that you go back to the root source to get the real info being blogged about.
Does anyone know anything about Computer Forensics?
Q. What about education in Texas?
Informative answers only!
Informative answers only!
A. Computer forensics The simple definition of Computer Forensics, "... is the use of specialized techniques for recovery, authentication, and analysis of electronic data when a case involves issues relating to reconstruction of computer usage, examination of residual data, authentication of data by technical analysis or explanation of technical features of data and computer usage. Computer forensics requires specialized expertise that goes beyond normal data collection and preservation techniques available to end-users or system support personnel." (Kroll-OnTrack). This process often involves investigating computer systems to determine whether they are or have been used for illegal or unauthorized activities. Mostly, computer forensics experts investigate data storage devices, either fixed like hard disks or removable like compact disks and solid state devices. Computer forensics experts:
Identify sources of documentary or other digital evidence.
Preserve the evidence.
Analyze the evidence.
Present the findings.
Computer forensics is done in a fashion that adheres to the standards of evidence that are admissible in a court of law.Thus, computer forensics must be techno-legal in nature rather than purely technical or purely legal.
Sure ...there are courses available in Texas...
http://www.df.shsu.edu/html/descriptions.html
http://www.compuforensics.com/
Identify sources of documentary or other digital evidence.
Preserve the evidence.
Analyze the evidence.
Present the findings.
Computer forensics is done in a fashion that adheres to the standards of evidence that are admissible in a court of law.Thus, computer forensics must be techno-legal in nature rather than purely technical or purely legal.
Sure ...there are courses available in Texas...
http://www.df.shsu.edu/html/descriptions.html
http://www.compuforensics.com/
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
