Thirst for Oil

　　Worldwide every day, we devour the energy equivalent of about 200 million barrels of oil. Most of the energy on Earth comes from the Sun. In fact enough energy from the Sun hits the planet’s surface each minute to cover our needs for an entire year, we just need to find an efficient way to use it. So far the energy in oil has been cheaper and easier to get at. But as supplies dwindle, this will change, and we will need to cure our addiction to oil.
　　Burning wood satisfied most energy needs until the steam-driven industrial revolution, when energy-dense coal became the fuel of choice. Coal is still used, mostly in power stations, to cover one quarter of our energy needs, but its use has been declining since we started pumping up oil. Coal is the least efficient, unhealthiest and most environmentally damaging fossil fuel, but could make a comeback, as supplies are still plentiful: its reserves are five times larger than oil’s.
　　Today petroleum, a mineral oil obtained from below the surface of the Earth and used to produce petrol, diesel oil and various other chemical substances, provides around 40% of the world’s energy needs, mostly fuelling automobiles. The US consumes n quarter of all oil, and generates a similar proportion of greenhouse gas emissions.

　　The majority of oil comes from the Middle East, which has half of known reserves. But other significant sources include Russia, North America, Norway, Venezuela and the North Sea. Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge¹ could be a major new US source, to reduce reliance on foreign imports.
　　Most experts predict we will exhaust easily accessible reserves within 50 years, though opinions and estimates vary. We could fast reach an energy crisis in the next few decades, when demand exceeds supply. As conventional reserves become more difficult to access, others such as oil shales and tar sands may be used instead. Petrol could also be obtained from coal.
　　Since we started using fossil fuels, we have released 400 billion tonnes² of carbon, and burning the entire reserves could eventually raise world temperatures by 130 C. Among other horrors, this would result in the destruction of all rainforests and the melting of all Arctic ice.

 

词汇：

devour / dɪ"vaʊə(r) /v.吞没，耗尽    

accessible / əkˈsesəbl /adj.可使用的，可得到的

dense /dens/adj.密集的    

rainforest /reɪnfɒrɪst/n. (热带)雨林

pump / pʌmp /v.用泵抽吸    

reliance / ɪ"laɪəns /n.依赖，依靠

petroleum / pə"trəʊlɪəm /n.石油，原油    

oil shale油页岩

dwindle / dwɪndl /v.减少    

tar sand沥青砂

diesel oil柴油   

destruction / dɪ"strʌkʃn /n.破坏.毁灭

 

注释:

1. Alaska"s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:美国阿拉斯加北极国家野生动物保护区。 2001年，美国众议院通过了一项基于布什提出的在那里进行石油开采的议案。该议案遭到环境保护主义组织的反对。因此，目前在该区禁止开采石油。
2. tonne:公吨(= 1,000公斤〉。不同于 ton。ton:在美国等于二千磅 (=0.907公吨)，所以称作 short ton:短吨。

What is NOT the result of consuming fossil fuels according to the last paragraph?

A:Rainforests will be destroyed. B:Arctic ice will be melted. C:The earth’s temperature will be raised. D:The sea level will go up.

Text 4
Admittedly, minor accidents and slip ups continue to shake public confidence in nuclear power.
Given the unquantifiable risks that nuclear power carries, it is only right that the industry be subjected to the test of public opinion and due political process. However, this argues for exceptional vigilance, regulatory scrutiny and accountability-and not for bans or shutdowns.
Those nuclear operators with a good safety record deserve to have their licenses renewed, so that existing plants may run to the end of their useful lives.
The Bush administrations enthusiastic support goes a lot further than this, however. It also wants to see new plants. Proponents of new nuclear power stations make three arguments in their favor.
They will enhance energy security by lessening dependence on fossil fuels; Far from being environmentally harmful, they will be beneficial because they will reduce the output of greenhouse gases; And, most crucially, the economics of nuclear power has improved from the days when it was wholly dependent on bail out and subsidy.
Yet these arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The claim that governments should support nuclear power to reduce their vulnerability to the OPEC oil cartel is doubly absurd. Little oil is used in power generation: what nuclear power displaces is mostly natural gas and coal, which are not only more plentiful than oil but also geographically better distributed. Security is enhanced not by seeking energy self - sufficiency but through diversification of supplies. Creating lots of fissile material that might be pinched by terrorists is an odd way to look for security anyway. What about the argument that climate change might be the great savior of nuclear power Global warming is indeed a risk that should be taken more seriously than the Bosh administration has so far done.
Nuclear plants do not produce any carbon dioxide, which is the principal greenhouse gas.
However, rushing in response to build dozens of new nuclear plants would be both needlessly expensive and environ mentally unsound. It would make far more sense to adopt a carbon tax, which would put clean energy sources such as solar and wind on an equal footing with nuclear, whose waste poses an undeniable (if remote) environmental threat of its own for aeons to come.
Governments should also dismantle all subsidies on fossil fuels--especially for coal, the dirtiest of all. They should adopt reforms that send proper price signals to those who use power, and so reduce emissions. Global warming certainly pro vides one argument in favor of nuclear power: But it is not sufficient on its own to justify a nuclear renaissance.

The most important reason wily the Bush administration support more new nuclear power plants is that （）

A:they will increase energy security B:they help lessen dependence on fossil fuels C:they are environmentally friendly D:they need little government financial support

Today almost 70% of the electrical power we use comes from power plants that use fossil fuels (矿物燃料) to make electricity. Fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, are burned to make electricity. Burning fossil fuels releases pollution and carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the air. The more fossil fuels we burn, the warmer the air around Earth gets. So building fossil fuel plans is not always the best answer.
Actually, there are other ways to make electricity without burning fossil fuels. People have been using the power of wind for centuries. Wind power won’t solve all our energy problems, but it can help meet some of the demands in certain places. Since the late 1800s, scientists have been working to turn the sun’s energy into electricity by using solar cells (太阳能电池). The problem is, solar cells are very expensive. Another way to make electricity is to use nuclear energy. It has been used for more than 50 years. Today about 10 percent of all the electricity used in the U.S.A. comes from this source.
Although nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air as the burning of fossil fuels does, there is a major drawback . The waste products from nuclear power plants are dangerous and must be stored in safe places. Many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power.
The best title for this passage may be ______.

A:The Importance of Electricity B:The Pollution of Making Electricity from Fossil Fuels C:The Advantage of Using Nuclear Energy D:Means of Making Electrical Power

Today almost 70% of the electrical power we use comes from power plants that use fossil fuels (矿物燃料) to make electricity. Fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, are burned to make electricity. Burning fossil fuels releases pollution and carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the air. The more fossil fuels we burn, the warmer the air around Earth gets. So building fossil fuel plans is not always the best answer.
Actually, there are other ways to make electricity without burning fossil fuels. People have been using the power of wind for centuries. Wind power won’t solve all our energy problems, but it can help meet some of the demands in certain places. Since the late 1800s, scientists have been working to turn the sun’s energy into electricity by using solar cells (太阳能电池). The problem is, solar cells are very expensive. Another way to make electricity is to use nuclear energy. It has been used for more than 50 years. Today about 10 percent of all the electricity used in the U.S.A. comes from this source.
Although nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air as the burning of fossil fuels does, there is a major drawback . The waste products from nuclear power plants are dangerous and must be stored in safe places. Many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power.
Which energy has damage to us according to the passage

A:Wind power B:Fossil fuels C:Solar power D:Water power

Today almost 70% of the electrical power we use comes from power plants that use fossil fuels (矿物燃料) to make electricity. Fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, are burned to make electricity. Burning fossil fuels releases pollution and carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the air. The more fossil fuels we burn, the warmer the air around Earth gets. So building fossil fuel plans is not always the best answer.
Actually, there are other ways to make electricity without burning fossil fuels. People have been using the power of wind for centuries. Wind power won’t solve all our energy problems, but it can help meet some of the demands in certain places. Since the late 1800s, scientists have been working to turn the sun’s energy into electricity by using solar cells (太阳能电池). The problem is, solar cells are very expensive. Another way to make electricity is to use nuclear energy. It has been used for more than 50 years. Today about 10 percent of all the electricity used in the U.S.A. comes from this source.
Although nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air as the burning of fossil fuels does, there is a major drawback . The waste products from nuclear power plants are dangerous and must be stored in safe places. Many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power.
We can infer from the passage that _______.

A:burning fossil fuels to make electricity is widely used B:wind power is a widespread way to make electricity C:energy problems will soon be solved D:nuclear energy will solve all the energy problems we are facing

Today almost 70% of the electrical power we use comes from power plants that use fossil fuels (矿物燃料) to make electricity. Fossil fuels, such as oil, coal, and natural gas, are burned to make electricity. Burning fossil fuels releases pollution and carbon dioxide gas (CO2) into the air. The more fossil fuels we burn, the warmer the air around Earth gets. So building fossil fuel plans is not always the best answer.
Actually, there are other ways to make electricity without burning fossil fuels. People have been using the power of wind for centuries. Wind power won’t solve all our energy problems, but it can help meet some of the demands in certain places. Since the late 1800s, scientists have been working to turn the sun’s energy into electricity by using solar cells (太阳能电池). The problem is, solar cells are very expensive. Another way to make electricity is to use nuclear energy. It has been used for more than 50 years. Today about 10 percent of all the electricity used in the U.S.A. comes from this source.
Although nuclear power doesn’t pollute the air as the burning of fossil fuels does, there is a major drawback . The waste products from nuclear power plants are dangerous and must be stored in safe places. Many people are concerned about the safety of nuclear power.
Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the passage

A:Fossil fuels should be encouraged to use to make electricity B:Not all the areas could use wind power. C:Solar energy costs the most D:Using nuclear energy will not produce negative effect.

Oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialize, according to a controversial new analysis presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realize predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures. Defending their predictions, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say they considered a range of estimates of oil and gas reserves, and point out that coal-burning could easily make up the shortfall. But all agree that burning coal would be even worse for the planet.
The IPCC’s predictions of global meltdown pushed forward the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO₂ emissions. The IPCC considered a range of future scenarios, from unlimited burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources. But geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass.
Although estimates of oil and gas reserves vary widely, the researchers are part of a growing group of experts who believe that oil supplies will peak as soon as 2010, and gas soon after. Their analysis suggests that oil and gas reserves combined about to the equivalent of about 3,500 billion barrels of oil considerably less than the 5,000 billion barrels estimated in the most optimistic model envisaged by the IPCC. Even the average forecast of about 8,000 billion barrels is more than twice the Swedish estimate of the world’s remaining reserves.
Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna, Austria who headed the 80-strong IPCC team that produced the forecasts, says the panel’s work still stands. He says they factored in a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates than the "conservative" Swedes.
Even if oil and gas run out, "there’s a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited", he says that burning coal could make the IPCC scenarios come true, but points out that such a switch would be disastrous. Coal is dirtier than oil and gas and produces more CO₂ for each unit of energy, as well as releasing large amounts of particulates. He says the latest analysis is a "shot across the bows" for policy makers.

According to IPCC, what can make up the shortfall of the oil and gas reserves（　）

A:Fossil fuels. B:Green fuels. C:Coal-burning. D:Nothing.

This doesn’t mean that wind and solar, which currently provide less than 1 percent of the world’s primary energy, will replace fossil fuels, which provide 82 percent. In fact, while companies like BP and Shell are cutting back on commercial projects in wind and solar, Big Oil is taking a closer look at how they might be used to increase efficiency internally, or to flee up increasingly profitable fossil fuels, like natural gas, for commercial sale. For example. Valero is building windmills to power refineries, and Chevron is using solar power to make steam to extract tough-to-reach oil. When you consider that the top 15 oil and gas companies have a market capitalization of $1.9 trillion, it’s clear that these firms themselves have the potential to be major renewable customers.
Big oil is thinking of using wind and solar

A:to free up fossil fuels for commercial sale. B:to replace fossil fuels for commercial sale. C:to increase efficiency of fossil fuels use. D:to reduce harm to the environment.

{{B}}第三篇{{/B}}

According to IPCC, what can make up the shortfall of the oil and gas reserves?

A:Fossil fuels. B:Green fuels. C:Coal-burning. D:Nothing.

{{B}}第一篇{{/B}}

The only way to stop the spread of aerosols in the atmosphere, according to Dr Rasool and Dr Schneider, is to use______.

A:fossil fuels B:electric power C:nuclear energy D:coal power