| Author |
Topic:
Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Saintheart
Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
4/14 5:47pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Darth-Ghost posted:
I'm surprised the government hasn't started an "Apollo Program"/"Manhattan Project" kind of undertaking for finding a real, cheap, and clean source of energy for our nation's transportation systems and power plants yet, to replace oil and the other fossil fuels. Is this not obvious? Will it not help both the economy and the environment, as well as technological advance and America's image & influence? I hope the next president, whoever it is, announces a full-blown project of the sort.
I think the answer to that query lies in the examples you cited. The Manhattan Project was founded mostly because the United States became aware that Germany was researching nuclear fission, and it was desperate to be the first to achieve it. Additionally, the Manhattan Project had a visible, viable target: the scientists had already done most of the theoretical work towards building the atom bomb before the Project really got underway. Hence the tremendous funds poured into what was fundamentally a military scheme under tremendous time pressure.
The Apollo Program was a similar sort of undertaking. It had less to do with harvesting the Moon's resources and more to do with keeping ahead of the Soviet Union in the arms race. I've read of the tremor of fear that went through US society when Sputnik -- a Russian satellite -- was the first object to orbit the Earth. Again, it was an enterprise largely undertaken under time pressure and for very large political (if not military) goals, and it had a visible, viable target in place as well.
The energy crisis is a different thing entirely. There are a number of vested commercial interests in squeezing as much blood out of the proverbial stone as possible here, and dealing with the energy problem is on a scale far beyond either the Project or the Program. Additionally, there isn't (as far as I can see) a visible, viable target for the government to aim for; solar energy conversion rates are still hovering around 5-10%, you guys are still scared stiff of nuclear power because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and fusion power, to quote one of the better jokes in this thread, "Is thirty years away from commercial development and always will be."
Truth is there still is neither the political or popular will to do that which must be done. People still want their SUVs and their plasma TVs, and they don't really care about the fate of the North Podunkese Bear Rat unless said Rat is their principal meal on a Friday night.
-----signature-----
Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife.
Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007
Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/15 12:08am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Jabba, what do you think of the massive Bakken oil deposit fields sitting in North Dakota and Montanna?
The field, estimated to contain about 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil- out of a total of 400-500 billion barrels- could hypothetically increase the US's oil reserves by about 10x the current level. It looks like the field was discovered earlier, and actually surveyed in 1999, but back then, oil prices sat at around $10 a barrel. With current drilling techniques, the oil could be recovered at a $30 a barrel, which is much less than the current $100 price tag.
Speculation that I read is that if the field pans out, the US could assume a position of actually exporting oil to OPEC, if it wanted- for a complete reversal of policy. Or the oil could be kept "in house" with Canada. (Part of the field may possibly extend into Canada, so some sort of deal is probably likely.)
It's an interesting discovery, which I think opens some new possibilities.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Saintheart
Title: Manager and Wandering Swordsman of the RPF
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
4/15 5:57pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
I'm jumping in ahead of Jabba on the question, but some thoughts I had on it:
(1) OPEC isn't going to just sit there while the US gets a foot in its territory. One could assume that oil production would be stepped up in OPEC countries to counter the US trying to make itself independent on oil supply. As oil production steps up, prices come down, since there's greater supply to meet the same demand. As the oil price comes down, drilling the Bakken fields becomes less profitable (presumably).
(2) On the "in house" issue -- I don't know the oil industry well enough; do you guys have enough refineries to process all that oil and get it out in mass quantities to supply the entire United States on a daily basis?
(3) For my part, I think even the discovery of an oil field of that size is really putting the doomsday clock back by about 20 seconds or so. At the moment I'm persuaded to the point of view of others in the thread: the problem isn't population growth in the US or even OPEC countries; it's the population of China that presents the problem. If world demand for oil hits 100 million barrels per day, as it might with a fully "Westernised" Chinese society, 200 billion barrels of oil is only enough to keep that demand satisfied for a total of 200 days -- less than one year (assuming 1 billion = 1,000 million). I don't think it would get to that stage, frankly; I think you'd see a collapse of the Chinese economy before it happens. Ultimately oil can't be sustained as the prime source of fuel for the planet, because its supply isn't increasing exponentially to keep up with the demand.
-----signature-----
Michelle: my Italian queen, my angel, my reason, my wife.
Jessica: my little princess, my daughter, born 10 August 2007
Director -- Star Wars: Knighthood
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/16 4:46am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
Mr44. 200-300 billion barrels is certainly a lot of oil. The USGS estimates 3.6 million barrels of technically recoverable oil, or about 40 days of world oil production at current levels. As noted, it's among the most technically challenging oil to produce. I hope it will be developed quickly, but it likely will not dramatically alter the picture of U.S. oil dependence, and it certainly will not make the U.S. a net oil exporter.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/16 8:17am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
4/16 8:24am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
Sorry about the typo: that's 3.6 billion, not 3.6 million.
By the way, if you want to look at the assessment, when they talk about an estimated technically recoverable amount of oil in Bakken, they're also talking about oil that has not yet been discovered.
If anyone tells you that 200-300 billion barrels of oil has been discovered in the formation, it is an outright lie.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Engir1
Registered:
Apr '08
|
Date Posted:
4/16 9:34pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
4/16 10:26pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Engir1
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
We need to go nuclear while we develop solar more, imo. Its a source that really is going undeveloped in the U.S. at this point.
what will we do the the nuclear waste is my question? other then that, yes its a good idea...
And the world is always producing oil people don't be fooled... and lets remember the world runs of $$$$$$$$ which = power and that = evil.
-----signature-----
For every man who lives without freedom, the rest of us must face the guilt. (Lillian Hellman)
To those who had ordered them to death one of them said: 'We die because the people are asleep ... you will die because the people will awaken'.(Carl Sandburg)
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/16 9:42pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Engir1 posted:
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
We need to go nuclear while we develop solar more, imo. Its a source that really is going undeveloped in the U.S. at this point.
what will we do the the nuclear waste is my question? other then that, yes its a good idea...
Nuclear waste is a much smaller amount compared to the energy we get than fossil fuels. So as we have two logical options: fossil fuels or nuclear, I'll take nuclear out of those two. I'd like solar, but its not reached viability yet and needs more development.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/17 4:44am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
Concentrated solar power could be ramped up as quickly as nuclear.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Alpha-Red
Registered:
Apr '04
|
Date Posted:
5/5 8:27pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/5 8:28pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Alpha-Red
|
|
I read an article a couple days ago (forgot where) that postulated that if the U.S. were to successfully implement an alternate fuel it would destroy the economy of Arab countries and the resulting anger at us for not buying their oil would actually increase terrorism as opposed to the reverse being true. Sort of a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/5 11:48pm
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
Don't know if you guys already have, but are you all discussing ethanol fuels in here as part of your "alternate fuel sources"?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
5/6 2:28am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
|
I'd say its up for topic here.... though I'd also say its a horrendous idea proposed by elitists that care more about feeling 'good' about themselves than about the lives of the poor.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
HawkNC
Title: FanForce RSA
Oceania
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
5/6 5:56am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
...Depending entirely on the source of the ethanol. As it stands right now, current methods sourcing it from foodstock aren't really a great idea, though ethanol has been copping a disproportionate amount of flak for the recent rise in world food prices. Newer methods involving non-foodstock crops are likely to secure ethanol's place as a supplement to oil in the short- to medium-term, but the odds of it being able to displace oil entirely are slim, not just in the US but globally. Brazil has had success mostly because of its choice of crop (sugarcane, which has a much higher energy return than corn) and the vast amounts of land it has dedicated to growing it, albeit at the expense of the rainforest. Most countries don't have that luxury.
-----signature-----
Use dp/dt
--
Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
5/6 6:38am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
- Date Edited:
5/6 7:47am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
What's needed is much more serious independent academic research into the energy return of various biofuel initiatives, whether corn, sugar, switchgrass, algae, or whatever. That ought to have come first, well before the subsidies and tax breaks and mandated quotas.
Edit: Oil spiked above $121 this a.m. Goldman Sachs opened the door yesterday to another superspike of $150-$200 oil. Personally, I don't think there are any psychological/structural trading barriers to $200 oil. We might not see it this year, but next yerar
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rogue_Follower
Title: Manager: Literature
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
5/6 7:44am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
Indeed. We really need to consider the long-term here.
I think cellulosic ethanol will eventually mature and become more widespread. Take a field of corn, for example. I think we currently use the stalks for animal feed, but if it were possible for us to create ethanol from the stalks instead, then we'd be able to use the land for both food and ethanol at the same time. Similarly, it'd be great if ethanol could be produced from invasive species like kudzu or honeysuckle. That would provide an additional economic benefit to removing invasive plants. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/6 11:08am
Subject:
RE: Oil Dependency, etc.
|
There's an editorial in the Chicago Tribune today that explores the myth of biofuel as it relates to the food supply.
HERE
It seems so obvious: With so much corn being turned into fuel, food shortages must inevitably result, and biofuel programs must be the cause. However, that's completely untrue.
Here are the facts. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry (or actually because of it), the U.S. corn crop grew by 35 percent, the production of distillers grain (a high-value animal feed made from the protein saved from the corn used for ethanol) quadrupled and the net corn food and feed product of the U.S. increased 26 percent.
Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent.
America is clearly doing its share in feeding the world.
Agriculture is not a zero-sum game. There are 800 million acres of farmland in the U.S., and only about 30 percent of it is actually being used to grow anything.
Now, this article supports the idea that the perception of an ethanol-fueled (<---intentional pun there) food shortage exists largely as perception. I'm certainly not a proponent of ethanol, but it's something to think about when thinking about the science behind it.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
