|
|
opfreak - We don't want to solve a problem with imported oil, imported oil is the problem. We currently produce about 12% of the world's oil and consume about 25%. If the world political climate changes we will find ourselves in serious trouble, as a huge percentage of our oil comes from countries that don't exactly love us, like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. We don't know how much reserve we have available within our borders - the estimates vary wildly on the amounts of oil left in the Arctic and the Gulf, and even if we gave the okay it would be 15 years before we would see any impact from new domestic sources. The bottom line is that is makes sense based on both environmental and domestic security grounds to reduce our dependence on foreign sources for the oil that runs our country.
As for Canada - yes they provide us with more oil than any other foreign country, but it's still less than 40% if I remember correctly.
|
|
 |
|
opfreak
- Feb 28, 2008 12:41 pm
(#16 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
bepperb- Oh yes that burning of oil might hurt. But like i said, its like spitting in the wind. ,
vacagrande - another idiotic comment. Lets not drill becuase it will be along time before we see the oil. Lets not do anything because it will take a long time. Waa Waa Waa. That argument was used for over 10 years now. If we started when we first found the oil, then we'd have it on tap now. Instead lets kill out food supply, increase inflation expontinally (double hit on both oil increasing in cost, and less supply of food, due to food to oil production).
But no lets keep complaiing about importing all this oil, while not drilling for our own.
|
|
|
|
mnorm1
- Feb 28, 2008 12:55 pm
(#17 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
"who cares how much oil is left, the main idea here is that there is a finite amount."
The real point is: The amount of remaining oil is an estimate, and that estimate keeps moving. In 1960 there was 40 years of oil left, in 1980 40 years left, in 2000 40 years left.
If there are 2 years left, I'm concerned. If there are 50 years left, I have little concern at this time, I'll worry about more pressing items.
|
|
|
|
bepperb
- Feb 28, 2008 12:55 pm
(#18 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
I like Canada. I don't like Venezuela. They're our second or third largest supplier historically.
MNorm, if you're comfortable with having 50 years left, you're fine, we certainly have more than that. But you're still confusing "proven reserves" and "estimated reserves". Clearly we are using oil, so the amount left is going down, but you sound like you don't think that's the case. Most importantly, though, the oil in these new locations will become more and more expensive to extract... which will affect you earlier than your 50 year estimate. Three bucks last summer will turn into what this summer... and what in five years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
In truth we have thousands of years of oil left. Why? Because as all the easy sources are used up, more and more will come from more and more expensive sources. As this happens the price will steadily rise until the point where some other technology will be more practical. Then the demand will drop and the toughest sources will stay where they are.
My guess is it will not be alcohol or hydrogen that takes over, it will be plain old electricity. We are only one or two steps away from a battery that will give a useful range and maybe a generation away from surces of clean electricity.
|
|
|
|
levyrob
- Feb 28, 2008 1:29 pm
(#20 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Ethanol became a hot item because of politicians sensing money to be made. Their way is to ramrod legislation and subsidies to benefit a very few, while claiming a greater good. Thus, it is no surprise that the consequences of working the land to produce the corn, and diverting corn from the kitchen table to the gas tank were not fully considered.
Knee-jerk politicians looking for short-term gains are responsible for acting on oversimplified information they clearly do not understand.
Can you think of other legislation that passed where the consequences were not fully considered? Sure you can!
None of this means that we should not be taking steps, however incremental, to protect and preserve the environment. They should be more fully considered before being acted upon.
|
|
|
|
opfreak
- Feb 28, 2008 1:39 pm
(#21 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
I agree with firstwagons point, and battery power is getting really close to wear it needs to be to hit decent milage, if gm/toyota will get the world real eletric cars, with gas generators, that for most people provide enough electrical juice to get to work, go home, and do a few things along the way, in a year or two.... imagaine 10-20years from now?
then in the long run we should really be building more nuclear power plants to power all these cars
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're making sense opfreak - if we built cleaner, more sustainable power sources like nuclear, we wouldn't have to worry about this oil stuff.
That said (and since I love being called an idiot) - at the top end of our proven reserves, US oil alone could power our country for approximately 11 years. If we drilled the Gulf of Mexico's potential reserves, even at the top end of what's estimated to be there, we could increase that by 50 percent. To keep this country secure we can't rely on outside sources, we need to move to power sources that we can sustain and replenish from within.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just can't agree with building more nuclear power plants.
The problem of what to do with the radioactive waste has not been solved and the potentional disasters (however remote a chance) can do more damage to the world then anything even the most hard core GW supporter could come up with.
Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Sorry about the confusion between biodiesel and E85. Obviously the point was is the long-term effect on using land to power cars, and how that maybe far more damaging to the environment (not to mention our eocnomy) than using oil. I've made some minor edits to keep it clear.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
mnorm1
- Feb 28, 2008 3:42 pm
(#25 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
If the U.S. really, really wants to be energy independent, why isn't there an all out assualt on development of shale oil?
"According to a survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, a surface retorting complex (comprising a mine, retorting plant, upgrading plant, supporting utilities, and spent shale reclamation) is unlikely to be profitable in the United States until crude oil prices range between US$70 to US$95 per barrel (in 2005 dollars).
Total world resources of oil shale were estimated in 2005 at 411 gigatons (411 x 109 tonnes), which is enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion (2.8 to 3.3 x 1012) U.S. barrels. The United States accounts for 62 %"
"Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. "
At $100 per barrel for oil, the price looks right.
|
|
|
|
opfreak
- Feb 28, 2008 7:45 pm
(#26 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
mnorm1
the truth is there is tons of oil. the problem is liberals that dont want to use any of it.
Theyd rather push corn on us, or tax us too death then actually create something.
and god lord think of the complaining youd hear if you made money off oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waaaay of topic....
....it must be nice to be a car guy AND have a boat-loads of CA$H!
....lucky leno......
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every alternative energy source is flawed from an environmental perspective. Saying that we will power cars on electricity is fine but where is that power going to come from? Nuclear? the NIMBY crowd will never agree to it. Solar? Efficiency issues. Wind? Nope, kills too many birds. More than likely your electricity in the near future will come from coal (which every environmentalist loves). Check out this piece by Steven Den Beste about alternative energy sources:
http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/AnewManhattanProject.shtml
The real issue is that we don't know enough about how our climate works to fully understand how bad the problem is (even a cursory glance at the literature reveals that we are constantly discovering new things about how different parts of the atmosphere interact). I believe in living a greener life for myself because I see some benefits (mostly monetary) in driving a fuel efficient car, composting and doing little things around the house to reduce my energy consumption. I will not however be overly concerned about climate change until those in the eco-activist community start acting like climate change is a real problem (ie more web conferences and less jet setting to Bali). If climate change is as severe as some people believe, government regulation will not be the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we could snap our fingers and turn every car in America into an electric vehicle we would only cut our gas usage by about 50%. Diesel semis and farming equipment use about half the fuel we make.
The reason it’s going to be hydrogen and not electricity (Batteries) is because of semi trucks. No one realizes how much of our daily fuel is consumed by semis transporting goods across country. Cars use about half the gas we make the other half goes into diesel for trucking and food production. That is something that electricic technology has no answer for. A trucker leaving a harbor in California with a load of Toys heading to Wal-Mart stores on the east coast isn’t going to pull over ever 400 miles for a 12 hour recharge. It will take 10 days to move goods from one coast to the other with electric trucks regardless how good the batteries do.
Another misconception is that there are going to be all these places you can pull over and charge up at if you plan a cross state trip. Don’t count on that when electricity costs 5 times as much per kWh.
How much Diesel fuel does it take to ship a Prius from the factory in Japan to the dealership in California?
|
|
|
|
texases
- Feb 29, 2008 8:05 am
(#30 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Biofuels remind me of the anti-drug movie from high school, the one with the cocain-addicted rat ignoring the food for another hit. Now we're the rat, and we've figured out how to turn our food into another 'hit' of fuel. Wasn't good for the rat, not good for us...
|
|
|
|
|
|
chevy598
I agree it will be a long time (if ever) before we see an electric semi but won't a 50% drop in gas usage be a good thing? The main concern people here seem to have is importing arab oil. A 50% drop in oil consumption would eliminate the need to import any oil form the middle east.
Why wouldn't there be places across the country for recharging your car? What does the cost have to do with it? Gas stations would be just as happy to charge you for electricity as they are for gas.
Where you will first see real electric cars is as a 2nd car or city cars. Gas powered cars will be arround for a while yet.
Hydrogen on the other has too many problems and will nothing more then a niche player.
|
|
|
|
drwales
- Feb 29, 2008 10:23 am
(#32 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Gibsonian: Solar will probably be the (final) answer. Yes, it has efficiency issues now, and thus costs too many $$ per MW, but efficiency isn't an environmental/ NIMBY issue.
I can foresee using that electricity to electrolyse water into hydrogen as a more portable form of fuel for vehicles -- lighter than batteries.
Even if one must argue against anthropogenic Global Climate Change, there is still the geopolitics of (imported) oil to consider...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the final solution will more likely be a combination of solutions based on where you are in the world.
Solar can work great in dry southern areas but in Vancouver where I live, it only works in the summer. In the winter, the sun is too low in the sky and normally blocked by heavy overcast. Add to that as little as 8 hours of light out of every 24 and it just won't work.
Wind can be good if you are in one of the few places around the world that has steady enough winds.
Geothermal is great if there is any activity in your area.
My favourite is hydro since we have lots of rain and snow in the mountains around us that constantly rush down the rivers to the sea. Perfect for generating lots of clean power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
A flexible fuel vehicle doesn't have to run on ethanol made from corn. I like the Coskata carbon to ethanol process
Step 1: Make Syngas C + H2O ---> CO + H2
Step 2: Use bacteria to make ethanol from syngas
Step 3: Separate ethanol from water
They talk about biomass to ethanol conversion, but any sane businessman would use coal to make syngas. Used to be called coal gas. Converting cheap, abundant coal into much more valuable transportation fuel might be a profitable business. I'd gladly buy coal ethanol if it was cheaper than gasoline.
There is a difference between oil reserves and oil production. Even if we have plenty of oil reserves to meet our existing rate of consumption for decades, it's still likely that we will have trouble getting oil out of the ground fast enough to meet increasing demand from the US, China, and India.
|
|
