Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

kuvasz wrote:

There's NO way you can build, AND open for business, 45 power plants over 22 years. That's unrealistic.

I am curious why you believe this? Isn't that roughly the rate China is planning on bringing them online? Is it political cooperation or actual feasibility you doubt?

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

One points out that efficiency can be measured in several respects.

The internal combustion engine is not efficient if you're measuring in terms of "how much energy can you extract from a given quantity of petrochemicals" and comparing it to an electricity-generating installation. But part of that is also "this engine can produce the requisite motive power", "the engine costs less than alternative installations", and especially "this engine can accommodate a long range". ;p

I think cyclops overlooks the context of how I am using the term, efficiency. I will stick to my contention that price is one huge indicator of efficiency of a product, in context with how practical it is to use over the long term. I am not referring to efficiency of a fuel in terms of energy extracted, after it is placed in the fuel tank of a vehicle. I am referring not only to that, but the cost of producing the fuel in the first place, plus other factors. If a fuel is extremely efficient in an engine, but the fuel is extremely rare or extremely difficult and expensive to produce or manufacture in the first place, then the fuel is not an efficient fuel in the overall economic system.

Price, by necessity in a free market, will include all factors of the process of finding, extracting, manufacturing, transporting, refining, rarity, longterm abundance, labor costs, capital costs of the plants to accomplish the above, plus the actual efficiency of the end use of the fuel. I can think of all kinds of examples, but take hydrogen, a pretty attractive fuel if you already have the hydrogen, but the rub is in producing the hydrogen in significant quantities in an economic way.

It seems intuitively obvious that if there is a more efficient method of powering vehicles, as cyclops claims, then he should patent the method, or as I suggested, go to work for GM or Ford and save their companies. Now to be clear, I believe there may be technologies yet to be developed that may supercede oil, but they have not yet been shown to be more efficient than oil. They may be in the future, but not yet.

I continue to find it surprising that seemingly elementary points of common sense meet such opposition here on this forum.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Since it is obvious that you've read BOTH plans, maybe you can tell me what you like about McCain's plan as opposed to Obama's? Since you don't say WHY or go into any detail, what do you see in McCain's plan that is better than Obama's?

I have not read both plans, and I never said I did, nor did I endorse the details of McCain's plans. I merely commented that McCain is apparently coming around to the idea of "all of the above," wherein the news article pointed out that McCain thinks we need all energy sources out there. I don't have to read their plans, I can hear what they are saying.

I am not going to disagree that McCain has been inconsistent, as I do not think he has been consistent, and I have pointed that out. I have also pointed out that I find McCain to be somewhat naive in regard to many issues, and inconsistent as well. However, I still find McCain to be more able to grasp the reality of what we should do than Obama does. Obama is a central planner type of guy, and I do not think that is the way to go.

With respect to McCain being all over the map in regard to energy, in one respect I think we should be all over the map, I think we should aggressively pursue nuclear, wind, solar, as well as more aggressive drilling.

The stupidity of not drilling is so ridiculous on its face. If drilling does no good, we should tell the Saudis, the Russians, the Canadians, the Venezuelans, in fact everybody around the world to quit drilling immediately. That should please the Democrats, and the price of oil should come down, right?

0 Replies

Oil is a precious resource which we have squandered. Instead of using it carefully to meet long term strategic objectives we have just burnt it for a fast buck. Now people are beginning to wake up to what we've done, looking to the post oil world and getting frightened.

There are alternatives to oil, but we havent developed them because we are addicted to oil. Because oil is cheap plentiful and fantastically useful. Or was.

Two decades ago we had a choice. We did nothing and now we have no choice. The future is going to be very painful for many people.

0 Replies

Hey steve, tell the U.N. to make a resolution, no more drilling anywhere on the planet. None. It should be a crime.

By the way, last I checked, oil is still pretty useful. Earth to Steve...........

0 Replies

I think I've got my feet firmly on the ground okie. Unlike some around here who have their heads stuck in the sand.

We will go looking for new oil, and I dont oppose that. But nothing will change the fact that the "easy" conventional oil which we are all familiar with is running out fast. The return on investment in strict energy terms is getting much worse...that is we are expending more and more energy to get the same or less energy out. At the same time China and India want the lifestyle that cheap oil has given the West, so demand keeps rising.

Of course oil is still useful stuff. Imagine your life without it. Or rationed to 1/2 or 1/4 your current consumption. I think its coming.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
There's NO way you can build, AND open for business, 45 power plants over 22 years. That's unrealistic.
I am curious why you believe this? Isn't that roughly the rate China is planning on bringing them online? Is it political cooperation or actual feasibility you doubt?

Can you state the number of plants that have been built in the US over the last five, ten or twenty-two years? If you can then examine the length of time span from initial decision to build the plant at a specific location until customers drew energy from them.

I know this is a trick question but if you engage in a thought experiment likely you will see what I mean, and recognize that virtually every possible technical, financial, environmental, and judicial factor in the process will have to operate at its full potential with massive government involvement and support. Now multiple that forty-five times. That is why I refer to the proposal to built 45 nuclear plants in America over 22 years as being "unrealistic."

Finally, 22 years is a long time to produce new alternative energy source technologies, especially with the current economic incentive to do so. Just think about what the technological world looked like 22 years ago in 1986 compared to today.

I suspect that by the time the nuclear plants come on-line around 2030 they will be obsolete.

btw Comparing a top down command and control economy like China with virtually no environmental safeguards to the US is not a serious comparison; try France instead, where one of their most modern nuclear plants had a radioactive water spill just last month.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Avatar ADV wrote:
One points out that efficiency can be measured in several respects.

The internal combustion engine is not efficient if you're measuring in terms of "how much energy can you extract from a given quantity of petrochemicals" and comparing it to an electricity-generating installation. But part of that is also "this engine can produce the requisite motive power", "the engine costs less than alternative installations", and especially "this engine can accommodate a long range". ;p

I think cyclops overlooks the context of how I am using the term, efficiency. I will stick to my contention that price is one huge indicator of efficiency of a product, in context with how practical it is to use over the long term. I am not referring to efficiency of a fuel in terms of energy extracted, after it is placed in the fuel tank of a vehicle. I am referring not only to that, but the cost of producing the fuel in the first place, plus other factors. If a fuel is extremely efficient in an engine, but the fuel is extremely rare or extremely difficult and expensive to produce or manufacture in the first place, then the fuel is not an efficient fuel in the overall economic system.

Price, by necessity in a free market, will include all factors of the process of finding, extracting, manufacturing, transporting, refining, rarity, longterm abundance, labor costs, capital costs of the plants to accomplish the above, plus the actual efficiency of the end use of the fuel. I can think of all kinds of examples, but take hydrogen, a pretty attractive fuel if you already have the hydrogen, but the rub is in producing the hydrogen in significant quantities in an economic way.

It seems intuitively obvious that if there is a more efficient method of powering vehicles, as cyclops claims, then he should patent the method, or as I suggested, go to work for GM or Ford and save their companies. Now to be clear, I believe there may be technologies yet to be developed that may supercede oil, but they have not yet been shown to be more efficient than oil. They may be in the future, but not yet.

I continue to find it surprising that seemingly elementary points of common sense meet such opposition here on this forum.

Wow. You honestly think that Oil, which must be pumped out of the ground, shipped across an ocean (usually), refined, shipped again, and then burned, is more efficient then electricity, generated from ANY source, and then transmitted to a battery of some sort?

I can't patent the methods; the methods are already patented. Energy storage solutions are the big thing now, the engines have already proven themselves to be superior to internal combustion in each and every way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Energy storage solutions are the big thing now, the engines have already proven themselves to be superior to internal combustion in each and every way.

No battery technology comes close in terms of simplicity cost and efficiency for storing energy than an empty steel tank. Liquid hydrogen has to be kept at cryogenic temperatures. Alternatively you can tow a trailer of bottled hydrogen. But of course the hydrogen would have to be via nuclear fuel or it wouldnt be green. Wind/solar wouldnt generate enough. The real alternative is to use less gasoline. Fewer car journeys. Smaller cars. Slower speeds and more efficient (gasoline) engines.

0 Replies

Well, except for cost and reliability. (And performance, for that matter. Yes, it's possible to build an electric with decent performance specifications, but it's NOT possible to do so on the cheap; for the cost of a high-performance electric, I could just get a gasoline-engined car and then a little Kia. ;p)

And there still is the range issue to consider. There are no solutions on the table that will get around the fact that you can just hop into a gasoline-powered car, drive until you run low on gas, refuel, then keep driving until you're too tired to keep driving. With an electric, you're in good shape so long as all you do is commute, but it's gonna be a lot harder to go visit Gramma, and if you're moving cross-country, you're gonna have to tow your electric, or take a week or two.

That doesn't mean that electrics are useless - for lots of people, commuting IS all they do, and rare events like trips or moving can be dealt with... so the electric still has high utility. (But also high cost!)

Honestly, addressing energy issues from the perspective of cars is a bad idea to start with. You're talking about a tremendous installed base with extensive infrastructure support and a relatively low turnover rate; to get people to replace gasoline-powered cars with pure electrics, they're either going to have to be cheaper (long, long way off), or have much greater utility (and right now, that equation runs the other way). Sure, you'll get some people with limited driving needs, or excess cash, to pick up an electric.

Finally, replacing a lot of cars with electrics will save a lot of gasoline, but it will stress your electricity infrastructure. It's nice to say "people will charge them at night, when peak load is low right now", but that's not necessarily what will happen - we're talking about people's CARS, and they'll charge them whenever they bleedin' need to.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Energy storage solutions are the big thing now, the engines have already proven themselves to be superior to internal combustion in each and every way.
No battery technology comes close in terms of simplicity cost and efficiency for storing energy than an empty steel tank. Liquid hydrogen has to be kept at cryogenic temperatures.

So why store it as liquid? Use the Borax bubble method. Store it as a semi-solid. Non explosive and no need for high pressures or temperatures.

Quote:

Alternatively you can tow a trailer of bottled hydrogen. But of course the hydrogen would have to be via nuclear fuel or it wouldnt be green.

See above.

Quote:

Wind/solar wouldnt generate enough. The real alternative is to use less gasoline. Fewer car journeys. Smaller cars. Slower speeds.

I agree that conservation is the right way to go in the short run; but in the long run, I do think that increases in battery technology, combined with infrastructure gains here in the States, can bring about an affordable and high-performing electric vehicle relatively quickly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wow. You honestly think that Oil, which must be pumped out of the ground, shipped across an ocean (usually), refined, shipped again, and then burned, is more efficient then electricity, generated from ANY source, and then transmitted to a battery of some sort?

I can't patent the methods; the methods are already patented. Energy storage solutions are the big thing now, the engines have already proven themselves to be superior to internal combustion in each and every way.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I honestly think oil is more efficient for some uses. Electricity may be more efficient for other uses. When electric vehicles become cheaper to buy and to operate, and are just as dependable as gasoline powered vehicles, then I would say they are more efficient. Until that happens, they aren't. Again, price is a very good indicator of efficiency as of today.

Cyclops, if all the trains, planes, ships, trucks, and automobiles were powered with batteries, have you stopped to think how much electricity would it take to recharge those batteries, how much would those batteries cost, how long would they last, and how dependable would they be, and what would be the recycling / disposal ramifications? Also, if we produce that many batteries to completely supplant fossil fuels, what about the raw materials to build the batteries?

Batteries are practical for some uses at the margins, such as small cars, but they have a long way to go to prove viability across the board. Lots of questions, and the reason this technology has not yet replaced oil is I think an obvious one. It has not yet become more efficient economically to do it. I won't say it won't happen in the future, but I suspect we will still be using oil decades from now, and it won't be because of something called "addiction," it will be because of the market and the competitive efficiencies of fuel sources.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Wow. You honestly think that Oil, which must be pumped out of the ground, shipped across an ocean (usually), refined, shipped again, and then burned, is more efficient then electricity, generated from ANY source, and then transmitted to a battery of some sort?

I can't patent the methods; the methods are already patented. Energy storage solutions are the big thing now, the engines have already proven themselves to be superior to internal combustion in each and every way.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, I honestly think oil is more efficient for some uses. Electricity may be more efficient for other uses. When electric vehicles become cheaper to buy and to operate, and are just as dependable as gasoline powered vehicles, then I would say they are more efficient. Until that happens, they aren't. Again, price is a very good indicator of efficiency as of today.

Cyclops, if all the trains, planes, ships, trucks, and automobiles were powered with batteries, have you stopped to think how much electricity would it take to recharge those batteries, how much would those batteries cost, how long would they last, and how dependable would they be, and what would be the recycling / disposal ramifications? Also, if we produce that many batteries to completely supplant fossil fuels, what about the raw materials to build the batteries? Batteries are practical for some uses at the margins, such as small cars, but they have a long way to go to prove viability across the board. Lots of questions, and the reason this technology has not yet replaced oil is I think an obvious one. It has not yet become more efficient economically to do it. I won't say it won't happen in the future, but I suspect we will still be using oil decades from now, and it won't be because of something called "addiction," it will be because of the market and the competitive efficiencies of fuel sources.

We WILL still be using oil for decades. The point isn't to replace it completely, but to use it when appropriate.

Look; let's compromise. Look at the hybrid engines which have been coming out lately for cars. These really represent the infancy of the possibilities in this area; the next generation will be a lot more efficient then the current ones. The gains in mileage that we already see should be enough to prove to you that the electric engine is far more efficient for driving a car around! So much so that it's actually more efficient to have a gas engine power an electric one, then it is for the same gas engine to power the wheels directly. I can't think of better proof for my point then that.

Hybrids get better, and what you start seeing is oil as a backup to the electric engine. We are not short on oil at this point; there is a ton of it being drilled and pumped, not less then there used to be. Why increase drilling, when efficiency gains look to be as likely to reduce price and usage as drilling more oil would?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote-

Quote:

Apparently that bastion of Marxist-Liberal propaganda, the Wall Street Journal disagrees with you.

In Oct 1929 the WSJ wrote-

Quote:

Optimism again prevails...the announcement...did more to restore confidence than anything else.

Which is, of course, meaningless but the optimism exuded cost many people their shirts. The announcement was that Andrew Mellon was to remain in the cabinet.

Also it wrote in Sept 1929-

Quote:

We would not be stampeded into selling stocks because of a gratuitous forecast of a bad break in the market by a well-known statistician.

Also on Sept 11 it opined-

Quote:

...price movements in the main body of stocks yesterday continued to display the characteristics of a major advance temporarily halted for technical adjustment.

Also it broadcast a paid advert-

Quote:

S-T-E-A-D-Y Everybody! Calm thinking is in order. Heed the words of America's greatest bankers.

Apparently in response to FDR's remarks about the "fever of speculation."

When the crash occured and some jumped from high windows the WSJ told its readers-

Quote:

Verily, I say, let the fear of the market be the law of thy life, and abide by the words of the bond salesman.

What did the WSJ have to say before the sub-prime bubble burst?

If it disagreed with me I wouldn't be jumping out of any windows.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

We WILL still be using oil for decades. The point isn't to replace it completely, but to use it when appropriate.

Then you do agree. And I would add we will be using oil because it is more efficient for certain uses, plain and simple.

Quote:

Look; let's compromise. Look at the hybrid engines which have been coming out lately for cars. These really represent the infancy of the possibilities in this area; the next generation will be a lot more efficient then the current ones. The gains in mileage that we already see should be enough to prove to you that the electric engine is far more efficient for driving a car around! So much so that it's actually more efficient to have a gas engine power an electric one, then it is for the same gas engine to power the wheels directly. I can't think of better proof for my point then that.

I've never disagreed with hybrid cars, and just as I have always contended, it has been the market, private companies, that have propelled this technology, primarily because of rising fuel prices. No surprise, and I am fully in favor of this technology, and always have been. But hybrids are not the full answer. Even if every vehicle was a hybrid, oil is still required, and the demand will not precipitously decline. Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies. I think hybrids are a transitional technology, but a good one that really has had little overall impact so far to be brutally honest, but could become more important with time.

Quote:

Hybrids get better, and what you start seeing is oil as a backup to the electric engine. We are not short on oil at this point; there is a ton of it being drilled and pumped, not less then there used to be. Why increase drilling, when efficiency gains look to be as likely to reduce price and usage as drilling more oil would?

Cycloptichorn

Hybrids really just make oil become used in a vehicle more efficiently, but they do not replace oil as the primary energy source. And even if all vehicles are converted to battery rather than hybrid, you still need a primary energy source to charge the batteries, so we still have to go back to oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and nuclear. Face it cyclops, wind and solar are of minor importance so far, they could grow as a complimentary source, but until a feasible method of energy storage is perfected, they will never supplant things like coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.

So back to the bottom line, we need to promote nuclear energy generation as our best hope to really affect the energy mix very soon. Wind and solar can compliment them more than they do now, and they are really pretty minor now, less than a percent or two I think.

I am trying to jog your opinions back to reality.

0 Replies

Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

You state,

Quote:

Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies.

Why is this a fact? If we aren't currently short, and every sign out there points to oil dropping in demand as a source for transportation power in the next 10-30 years, why should we keep drilling for new supplies?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

You state,

Quote:
Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies.

Why is this a fact? If we aren't currently short, and every sign out there points to oil dropping in demand as a source for transportation power in the next 10-30 years, why should we keep drilling for new supplies?

Really? Could you source one of those signs?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, as a proponent of nuclear technology, I am not against building more nuke plants here in the States.

But I would point out that there already exist several very robust technologies for storing solar and wind power; the first which comes to mind is the molten-sodium solar power plant, in which excess heat is stored up to be used at night. You can pump water uphill during the day with excess energy, then use that as night, as well. Plenty of solutions out there for the enterprising engineer.

You state,

Quote:
Fact is, we need to continue drilling for new supplies.

Why is this a fact? If we aren't currently short, and every sign out there points to oil dropping in demand as a source for transportation power in the next 10-30 years, why should we keep drilling for new supplies?
Really? Could you source one of those signs?

Sure thing.

http://thelightisgreen.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/tesla-roadster.jpg

Hybrids have proven to be incredibly popular here in America. It won't be long before every car on the road is a hybrid; and the technology will keep getting better and better.

Starting in 2009, the Prius will have solar panels built into the roof, to add power to the battery as well as run the AC and other electric systems. The efficiency of these panels is due to go up as well.

In short,

Increases in battery technology (ultracapactiors)
Increases in Solar Panel technology
Increases in hybrid engine efficiency
Increases in nuclear and other forms of renewable power generation

All add up to a picture in which oil becomes less and less of a source of transportation fuel technology in the next 20 years. It's hard to see how anyone could think any different.

And here's a question: how many efficiency gains are there left to be realized, in terms of combustion? How much more energy is going to be gotten out of the ICE? Not much. The last 25 years, outside of Hybrid technology, have not shown large gains in this field. When one technology clearly is showing potential for efficiency and power increases, and the other is not, it's not hard to project which will be prominent in the future.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All these amateurish and economically incoherent speculations are posited on things staying the way they are but with 2-4% growth. And on birth rates staying the same. Neither of those two factors can be taken for granted.

All one has to do is change what-

"Just Molly and me and baby makes (my blue heaven)

to- "Just Molly and me and baby makes (a screeching unending nightmare)

and from slushy C-majors into daggerish F sharp minors.

And advertise the joys of dozing on the porch.

Twenty years of Madison Ave on that and oil on the surface might be 10 cents a ton. Lucky Ol' Sun back at No 1.

You have a circularity on your hands.

If oil is not the most efficient source of energy under present conditions there is something drastically wrong with capitalism.

When a nuclear power plant can itself satisfy all the energy requirments of building it, running it and dealing with any difficulties you might be getting nearer to making sense. A NPP is made from oil and runs on oil. Its 3 shift staff are addicted to oil.

Anybody can light the blue touch paper and claim credit for the momentary light patterns in the sky.

You are just trying to justify your lifestyles.

I trust none of you will be allowed anywhere near the nation's economic levers.

0 Replies

I see. So you think increased global purchasing of more hybrids is going to offset the growing energy needs of growing economies like China and India's? Really?

You may want to rethink that one.

0 Replies

Oil Vs. Alternative Energy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know