0
   

Oil at $87 and rising - still no alternative energy

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2007 03:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ANWR will not help us in the slightest.

Imagine a patient who is dying, and needs 4 pints of blood immediately. How much effort would you put into securing 4 spoonfuls? That's what ANWR represents. A drop in the bucket.

One of our major problems is a lack of advances in battery storage technology. Oil/gasoline isn't even really a good fuel source at all; compared to others, it is deficient in every fashion except for one, which trumps the others currently: portability.

Cycloptichorn

I like your analogy, but with a different scenario. What if the patient is dying and he needs a pint of blood to survive until a more practical cure is perfected, and they are working on that cure in a pretty ambitious way? You go ahead and let the patient die, cyclops? I wouldn't, I would give him the pint of blood and I would keep looking for more blood donors, plus keep the pressure on the work on the cure.

I disagree with you about oil or gas not being a good source, I think it is a wonderful and very efficient energy source, and the main reason that less economical and less perfected or proven alternatives are needed is because oil is being depleted, is harder to find and produce, and is getting alot more expensive.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 12:49 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ANWR will not help us in the slightest.

Imagine a patient who is dying, and needs 4 pints of blood immediately. How much effort would you put into securing 4 spoonfuls? That's what ANWR represents. A drop in the bucket.

One of our major problems is a lack of advances in battery storage technology. Oil/gasoline isn't even really a good fuel source at all; compared to others, it is deficient in every fashion except for one, which trumps the others currently: portability.

Cycloptichorn

I like your analogy, but with a different scenario. What if the patient is dying and he needs a pint of blood to survive until a more practical cure is perfected, and they are working on that cure in a pretty ambitious way? You go ahead and let the patient die, cyclops? I wouldn't, I would give him the pint of blood and I would keep looking for more blood donors, plus keep the pressure on the work on the cure.

I disagree with you about oil or gas not being a good source, I think it is a wonderful and very efficient energy source, and the main reason that less economical and less perfected or proven alternatives are needed is because oil is being depleted, is harder to find and produce, and is getting alot more expensive.


Are you kidding?

Surely you realize how inefficient the internal combustion engine is. Extremely inefficient. Less then 20% of the power contained in gasoline is transmitted to actual productive force in a standard engine, IIRC. Electric motors beat the pants off of that.

Oil and gasoline are not a productive source of energy in the slightest except for their portability. If we had batteries which could store greater amounts of charge, nobody would drive gasoline automobiles at all - they are truly relics of a past era which we still drive around in.

The oil in ANWR, if development started today, wouldn't be available for what, a decade? Please. We can't wait that long for a tiny amount of oil.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Oct, 2007 02:30 pm
from government report linked below :

Quote:
Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.


http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tech/energy.gif




FUELECONOMY
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:41 am
http://i20.tinypic.com/2q87ndw.jpg

Steep decline in oil production brings risk of war and unrest, says new study

Quote:
The German-based Energy Watch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - much earlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel.
...
The results are in contrast to projections from the International Energy Agency, which says there is little reason to worry about oil supplies at the moment.

However, the EWG study relies more on actual oil production data which, it says, are more reliable than estimates of reserves still in the ground. The group says official industry estimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels - equivalent to 42 years' supply at current consumption rates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that.

Global oil production is currently about 81m barrels a day - EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts significant falls in gas, coal and uranium production as those energy sources are used up.
[...]


http://i22.tinypic.com/68wqxl.jpg
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 06:52 am
I have been saying for years that Peak Oil is a reality. I believe it was George who dismissed it as "pseudo scientific fanatasy".

Stock markets took a big hit today. Coincidence?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 08:46 am
McGentrix wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
This is my whole point. There aren't any alternatives.


That's a pretty poor point.

BMW makes a hydrogen powered car, the hybrids have yet to hit their stride, nuclear, wind and solar power are constantly being refined and made more efficient.

We use oil because it is there, it's cheap, it's plentiful and we can. When it is no longer there, cheap or plentiful, the world will move on sparing reserves for important uses. I don't foresee a hydrogen powered airline in our near future, but tankers, cruise ships and cargo ships could have very well protected nuclear reactors someday, who knows.
you're just not up to speed on oil McG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

What do you think has been driving American foreign policy this last 20 years?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:12 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
This is my whole point. There aren't any alternatives.


That's a pretty poor point.

BMW makes a hydrogen powered car, the hybrids have yet to hit their stride, nuclear, wind and solar power are constantly being refined and made more efficient.

We use oil because it is there, it's cheap, it's plentiful and we can. When it is no longer there, cheap or plentiful, the world will move on sparing reserves for important uses. I don't foresee a hydrogen powered airline in our near future, but tankers, cruise ships and cargo ships could have very well protected nuclear reactors someday, who knows.
you're just not up to speed on oil McG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

What do you think has been driving American foreign policy this last 20 years?


http://www.munic.state.ct.us/BURLINGTON/us_one_dollar_bill/us_dollar_front.gif

Just as it has the previous 200 years.

Peak oil production? Nah. Not even close. It's human restraints and greed is all. We could easily build more refineries and oil pumps if we wished.

And coal? Please. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal and we've barely scratched the surface.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:27 am
McGentrix wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
This is my whole point. There aren't any alternatives.


That's a pretty poor point.

BMW makes a hydrogen powered car, the hybrids have yet to hit their stride, nuclear, wind and solar power are constantly being refined and made more efficient.

We use oil because it is there, it's cheap, it's plentiful and we can. When it is no longer there, cheap or plentiful, the world will move on sparing reserves for important uses. I don't foresee a hydrogen powered airline in our near future, but tankers, cruise ships and cargo ships could have very well protected nuclear reactors someday, who knows.
you're just not up to speed on oil McG

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html

What do you think has been driving American foreign policy this last 20 years?


http://www.munic.state.ct.us/BURLINGTON/us_one_dollar_bill/us_dollar_front.gif

Just as it has the previous 200 years.

Peak oil production? Nah. Not even close. It's human restraints and greed is all. We could easily build more refineries and oil pumps if we wished.

And coal? Please. The US is the Saudi Arabia of coal and we've barely scratched the surface.


Seeing as coal mining is an environmentally destructive process, as well as burning of it, I'm not sure that's the solution we need to look for.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 09:56 am
I don't see that is was offered as a solution.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 10:00 am
McGentrix wrote:
I don't see that is was offered as a solution.


Okay, never mind then.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:20 am
McG

But what underpins the dollar? What gives that bit of paper value? The dollar is the worlds reserve currency. All industrial economies need oil and if they have none domestically they have to buy it.....IN DOLLARS.

Why do you think the US invaded Iraq, and why do you think the first thing the US/Iraqi government did was to start charging for Iraqi oil again in dollars?

(Saddam switched to charging in euros in Nov. 2000).

Now the Iranians are near to opening an oil bourse which would trade in dollars and euros. The US government is desperate to stop it.

The problem is when you are in command of the worlds reserve currency, life gets a little too easy. The US govt is the only legal source of dollars. The temptation to make money by running the printing presses faster becomes overwhelming. Its a lot easier than working for your living. But it depends on the rest of the world needing dollars...

Some people say they dont want to trade in dollars any more.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:44 am
You asked "What do you think has been driving American foreign policy this last 20 years?", I answered. The same will drive American foreign policy for the next 20 years and beyond.

What do you suppose drives any countries foreign policy?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:52 am
McGentrix wrote:
You asked "What do you think has been driving American foreign policy this last 20 years?", I answered. The same will drive American foreign policy for the next 20 years and beyond.

What do you suppose drives any countries foreign policy?
in the case of America it is clearly oil. To keep you driving and to protect the dollar. Trouble is its running out, and there is no alternative.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 04:41 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
I have been saying for years that Peak Oil is a reality. I believe it was George who dismissed it as "pseudo scientific fanatasy".

Stock markets took a big hit today. Coincidence?

I believe the peak is real (Hubberts Peak), but as the peak is approached, the peak can be pushed further into the future as escalating prices spur the production of more expensive oil. So although I think the concept is valid, the time frames and shape of the curve forming the peak must constantly be revised. The concept is supported by the fact that U.S. production did peak around 1970 as he predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

All of this continues to prove the point that if we really wish to help ourselves with oil production, to soften the blow, we must be willing to take advantage of the potential reserves that we do have, and one of the remaining areas that is projected to contain elephant sized oil fields is ANWR, and that is why it is so utterly stupid to ignore it.

If someone is striken with cancer, to refuse a treatment to prolong their life while more long term treatments are perfected is very self defeating, and totally illogical, that is if you desire to live. If we as a country desire to compete and preserve our own well being, then we must do things to help ourselves with energy. I think we will eventually do it, but only after the situation worsens considerably and we get the tree huggers into a minority.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 04:52 pm
okie wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I have been saying for years that Peak Oil is a reality. I believe it was George who dismissed it as "pseudo scientific fanatasy".

Stock markets took a big hit today. Coincidence?

I believe the peak is real (Hubberts Peak), but as the peak is approached, the peak can be pushed further into the future as escalating prices spur the production of more expensive oil. So although I think the concept is valid, the time frames and shape of the curve forming the peak must constantly be revised. The concept is supported by the fact that U.S. production did peak around 1970 as he predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

All of this continues to prove the point that if we really wish to help ourselves with oil production, to soften the blow, we must be willing to take advantage of the potential reserves that we do have, and one of the remaining areas that is projected to contain elephant sized oil fields is ANWR, and that is why it is so utterly stupid to ignore it.

If someone is striken with cancer, to refuse a treatment to prolong their life while more long term treatments are perfected is very self defeating, and totally illogical, that is if you desire to live. If we as a country desire to compete and preserve our own well being, then we must do things to help ourselves with energy. I think we will eventually do it, but only after the situation worsens considerably and we get the tree huggers into a minority.


Note that the oil in ANWR never goes away; and that the need for oil will never diminish either. Therefore, the longer we leave it in the ground, the greater its' eventual value to America. Also, the longer we wait, the greater our ability to extract it without causing damage to the environment.

Think if it as a savings account Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 11:20 am
Despite all the "post 9/11" Bush errors of judgement (not to mention his "staff"), pre 9/11 he actually had a couple of good ideas in his agenda. One of these, reduction in oil dependency, was one of the better ones.

The problem remains how to go about it. Two MAIN thrusts:

1) Reduction of automobile use.

2) Elimination of oil/gas for electricity generation.

We look at Nr 2 first, because solving it will allow the implementation of Nr 1 to go "easier". There exists an immediate remedy for oil/gas fueled generator plants. Coal, of which the US has a great abundance, and nuclear power, enjoying a comeback despite years of hinderance at the hands of environmentalists, who, in retrospect, may be partly blamed for some of the resultant "global warming".

Coal, a dirty burning fuel, would have to be carefully "scrubbed" if used in new plants. All the ramifications, I profess ignorance of, but I intend "coal" to be but a short term stopgap vis-a-vis oil anyway.

Nuclear power is relatively neutral to the environment, yet the residual fuel elements are deadly and difficult to store permanently.

So, to produce the electricity needed, for the short term we will need coal, for the middle term nuclear, for the future we will need geothermal. If we put our efforts and engineering skills into geothermal development.... there, my friends, is an unlimited supply of energy. As long as there exists gravity, there will be heat at the center of this planet. This heat can be tapped to produce electricity, in abundance.

Engineering problems? To be sure, but we sent a number of men to the moon using antiquated 60's technology, why not expend the same level of intensity toward solving the problems associated with geothermal power?
(Any engineers out there with info?)

Once we are producing electricity in abundance, we can pay more attention to Nr 1. With enough electricity, motor vehicles can be replaced with golf cart type "commuters" and bicycles (or tricycles for those of you who need more "storage area").

How many vehicles can be replaced with golf carts for less than ten mile commutes? I suspect millions. How many vehicles can be replaced with bikes for less than five mile commutes? I suspect millions more.

If you think about it, there are many benefits to using the aforementioned alternatives to cars. Cost benefits amongst them. How about traffic congestion? How about parking problems? How about saving lives via traffic accident reduction? (Particularly if certain streets/roads/pathways are limited to carts/bikes only.) Very Happy

Throw on top of that an electric driven "light rail" system imbedded on remaining "all car" streets/roads.... well, you can see the beginnings of considerable savings in oil consumption.

I "commuted" to work (6.3 miles away) during the last year before I retired via bike, except for inclimate weather days. Driving took me 15 minutes to make the route, biking took me 22 minutes. (That's for you time sensitive types.) I lost 10 pounds over the year, overall, and my legs were in the best shape physically than they had been in years. This despite the fact that I have an degenerative arthritic knee that my orthopedic surgeon has been dying to replace for five years now. It can be done! Razz

The net effect of adoption of the above would do wonders for reducing oil consumption, reducing the obesity problem in this country, reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Lots of good things, global warming notwithstanding!

All we have to do is convince the average american that a vehicle is a method by which one gets from point A to point B..... NOT a prestige symbol, NOT a manifestation of "macho-ism", NOT a device for on-road NASCAR practice, NOT a life support system for an 800 watt stereo and definitely NOT a quiet place for incessant cell phone yacking! Rolling Eyes Oh.... we would probably have to invest in Government Schools to reteach the art of "walking" to many Americans. Laughing

Oh well..... like all good ideas, perhaps I ask too much. Embarrassed

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 01:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
I have been saying for years that Peak Oil is a reality. I believe it was George who dismissed it as "pseudo scientific fanatasy".

Stock markets took a big hit today. Coincidence?

I believe the peak is real (Hubberts Peak), but as the peak is approached, the peak can be pushed further into the future as escalating prices spur the production of more expensive oil. So although I think the concept is valid, the time frames and shape of the curve forming the peak must constantly be revised. The concept is supported by the fact that U.S. production did peak around 1970 as he predicted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

All of this continues to prove the point that if we really wish to help ourselves with oil production, to soften the blow, we must be willing to take advantage of the potential reserves that we do have, and one of the remaining areas that is projected to contain elephant sized oil fields is ANWR, and that is why it is so utterly stupid to ignore it.

If someone is striken with cancer, to refuse a treatment to prolong their life while more long term treatments are perfected is very self defeating, and totally illogical, that is if you desire to live. If we as a country desire to compete and preserve our own well being, then we must do things to help ourselves with energy. I think we will eventually do it, but only after the situation worsens considerably and we get the tree huggers into a minority.


Note that the oil in ANWR never goes away; and that the need for oil will never diminish either. Therefore, the longer we leave it in the ground, the greater its' eventual value to America. Also, the longer we wait, the greater our ability to extract it without causing damage to the environment.

Think if it as a savings account Laughing

Cycloptichorn
there is a certain logic to that. leave it in the ground so we have more later.

Like food. Leave it uncultivated so the soil produces more. Problem is when we reap our reward, we are dead.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 02:58 pm
Terrible analogy

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 03:02 pm
some people say death is terrible
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Oct, 2007 03:05 pm
It's a terrible analogy, as the oil is never wasted and we are in no fear of 'dying' as a species or society - even if oil starts running low.

It's just a challenge to be overcome. We spend practically none of our energies working on the problem currently. When we are forced to, we will spend more, and solve it. No different then any other problem our species has faced since the dawn of humanity.

Enough with the Cassandra act!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 12:41:45