[flash]

i hear these arguments often enough, but wonder when common sense is going to enter in and overtake the conservative rhetoric we get fed on a daily basis



but, it is fun to bang this around without people getting all wound up



yes, some of the alternative fuels have complications - right now - the problem is that the basic argument that this is permanent is full of holes - one cannot make the comparison based on how it is done on a small scale - costs and efficiencies change dramatically when you go to a large scale - when it first came out, gasoline was insanely expensive compared to heating oil and other fuels of the day



as for ethanol, anything that contains starch will generate ethanol - that means plant waste - there is no need to compete with any crop - there are enough crops thrown away and ruined every year, that would merely need to go to the local still, instead of the dump - we do it with recycling now - we merely need to recycle the plant waste



we are also currently paying farmers not to grow things - why can't we pay them to grow a crop for ethanol instead? or better yet, let those farmers grow it and sell it so we can stop paying them all together



hydrogen does work just fine - it has been working in japan for 15 years - storage is a problem, but one that can be worked out - they are nearly there now - this one is going to happen fairly soon - we are slated to have the first stations in place here in california in 2010 - canada will have it up in time for the olympics



natural gas has been in use with the postal service now for about 20 years - i have yet to hear of a mail truck exploding



then there are fuel cells



the real problem is that people are not willing to spend the money to develop these alternative, in spite of the realities, because gasoline is so cheap - people hate change, and they refuse to think long term - we are narcissistic in basic nature, as much as we would like to think of ourselves otherwise - we have to give that up - the damage we have done to the planet as a result of gasoline is reason enough alone to make the change - but, our basic selfish nature and our wallet dictates that we think of ourselves first, and the future later - how many times have you heard someone say "i'll be dead by then"? that is exactly why we are where we are



the oil companies and government won't hear of it either - cmppanies would have to seriously retool, at great expense, and many would just fold - wars are fought over existing supplies - don't you think we would have even bigger problems if we just said "no" to oil?



so, until reality sets in, people wake up, and we finally dump gasoline for something better, we will continue to see rising prices, wars, and environmental disaster, all the while as the regime tightens its death grip on us



nobody to blame but ourselves

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Flash,



I totally agree that it's great to have an opportunity to discuss controversial issues without breaking down into personal attacks. If this topic were being discussed on the old 968.net, people would be insulting each others' ancestry by now. Although the "conservative rhetoric" comment was a bit out of line, as there's plenty of blame to go around for our current energy predicament on both side of the political fence, and I've tried very hard to keep politics out of my posts.



I'm thinking of how best to state this without sounding condescending, but, with all due respect, you're making a very common mistake of confusing technology, through which mankind has demonstrated remarkable aptitude to improve our lives, and fundamental science, over which we have very little control. Yes, storage tanks for gaseous fuels will in all likelihood improve, the cost to produce ethanol will go down, etc., but no matter what we do, hydrogen and natural gas will always be very diffuse gases at room temperature, it will always require 32.9 kWh of electricity (assuming 100% efficiency) to electrolytically produce a kg of hydrogen, ethanol will always have roughly 2/3 the heat content by volume of gasoline, ethanol will always remain too hydroscopic to transport in pipes, etc. No amount of scaling, technological innovation, or manufacturing efficiency will ever change any of these fundamental properties of the candidate alternative fuels.



It's a lot like trying to extract the maximum power out of an engine. Up to a point, you can optimize the intake, exhaust, compression, engine controller function, etc. ("technology" things), but you're eventually going to run into the fundamental limitations of the flow dynamics of the engine ("science" things), and start to pay a big price in terms of low end torque, durability, and around-town drivability.



Your citing of the high cost of gasoline in its early days also makes my point. Gasoline's huge fundamental advantages (which I've listed in my previous post) over competing fuels gained it entry into the game, and our ability to innovate and manufacture in volume took care of the one remaining strike against it (its cost, though I'm not sure it was even any more expensive than its competition, even in the early days). But at the core is its fundamental superiority as an automotive fuel, without which it wouldn't have even been a footnote in history. Sorry to pound so hard on the technology-vs-science thing, but it's such a key element in this discussion that its importance can't be overstated.



You state that alternatives haven't been developed primarily because gasoline is so cheap, but what about Western Europe and Japan? Two highly technologically advanced parts of the world where gasoline has been horrifically expensive for decades, due to high levels of taxation, and no large scale conversion to any alternatives has taken place in either of these areas. Just a strong demand for tiny, fuel-efficient, petoleum-based vehicles. There aren't even a whole lot of hybrids, at least in Eurpoe.



As far as your statement that ethanol can be made from anything that contains starch (aka cellulosic ethanol), while correct as it stands, also misses some huge points. The name of the game in fuel production is conversion efficiency. While, as you say, the feed stock for cellulosic ethanol is certainly plentiful, the ethanol content in the mash resulting from the fermentation process is only about 5%, vs. 15 to 20% for grain alcohol. And an even bigger problem is the logistics of transporting and storing the gargantuan masses of feed stock needed to produce this pitiful quantity of fuel. According to the department of Energy, a ton of biomass can produce 80 gallons of ethanol. To build a plant that can produce 80 million gallons of ethanol per year would require 1 million tons of stock. Hauling that amount of material would require 67,000 semitrailer truckloads, or one truck every eight minutes. Not exactly a winning proposition, energy usage-wise.



Where on earth are you getting your information about hydrogen? Yes, Honda is leasing a few Clarity's (which I believe cost a million dollars apiece to produce, though Honda is understandably tight-lipped about this) to demonstrate that it is technically possible to run a car on a hydrogen fuel cell, and BMW has a few hydrogen-fueled 7 Series running around, but the issues with producing and storing hydrogen make ethanol seem trivial by comparison. The leap from these publicity exercises to wholesale conversion to this miserable fuel won't happen in this century, I guarantee.



Of course, we will someday have to find an alternative to gasoline, but we need to consider the motivations for finding "alternatives." Usually, one wants to find an alternative to something when there is a fundamental (there’s that word again) problem with the baseline material. But, as I hope I've made abundantly clear, this is simply not the case with gasoline. Many are deluding themselves into thinking that if we could only find something else to compete with it, the demand for oil and gasoline would go down, its price would drop, plus we'd become "energy independent" (don't even get me started on this pipe dream; you think THIS post is long...) But, much like thinking we can solely "drill our way out" of the problem, this is simply a fallacy, because of the fundamental unavailability of a suitable alternative.



We need to accept the fact that there is nothing that can come remotely close to competing with gasoline or diesel in the key characteristics that constitute a good automotive fuel (again, extraction, processing, transportation, storage, and heat content), and focus our resources on making it last as long as possible. Also, we need to come to some sort of detente between the environmentalists and the drillers. Of course, nobody wants to look at oil rigs off their shoreline, but surely there is a reasonable distance (50 miles? 100 miles?) offshore where it makes sense to drill. Again, address both the demand and supply side of the equation. And then, as we creep to within a few decades of actually running out, we should start investing in making the transition to what will probably be an array of pretty (relatively) crappy alternatives as painless (fat chance) as possible.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - the "conservative rhetoric" comment was only meant to point out how polarized this has become, and how easy it is for ideas to be dismissed by what seems on the surface to be logical economic reasoning



i am not for a minute saying that gasoline has not been the most economical fuel source - i am also not disagreeing that it has a very high energy content, and as such has made for a good fuel



none of this changes the fact that we MUST find other sources - the supply is limited - the damage is obvious



as for the info on hydrogen, just google it - i have been reading articles about hydrogen powered cars in japan since about 1990 - we just had a bill passed here in 2005 laying out our own hydrogen plan, and canada is way ahead of us - we're not talking next century, we're talking next year



on the subject of ethanol, the mass, transportation of it, et all, try googling how much garbage we haul away every week - the source mass for the ethanol will seem miniscule - we have the infrastructure to make it work already in place - we just need to change the way we are doing things



that being said, i am not a big ethanol fan, but it is the simplest source requiring the least technological change - we did this in college - by the way, it took about half of the source matter you quoted to produce the fuel to run the car - might have been a different process than you are talking about though



i'm not sure hydrogen or fuel cells are the answer either - what the heck happens to all that water vapor?



in the end, comparing and contrasting is pointless - this is not something that is a "someday" kind of issue - the best estimates, at the current consumption rate, are 40 years for accessible and useable oil - that doesn't take into account the issues that will make that even more difficult as the oceans rise and the climate changes (another reality that there are those who refuse to acknowledge in spite of the overwhelming evidence)



this really needed to happen 50 years ago - we cannot continue to keep our head in the sand and think "everything is going to be all right" or "the government will step in and fix it" - it isn't, and they won't



again, comparison is not the issue here - necessity is - fortunately that is the mother of invention - rather than finding fault with things as they stand today, we need to find answers for tomorrow

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Thanks for clairfying your enthusiasm for alternative fuels. There are so many who mistakenly believe that all we have to do is muster the "will' to bring alternatives to oil/gas to the market, and the competition provided by the "new" fuel (and new is always better, right?) will somehow send oil prices skidding overnight (but won't that just reignite the demand for oil...?), and the country merrily skipping toward the utopia of energy independence. This thought process is every bit as deluded as the idea that we can simply "drill our way out" of our energy problems. I see from your last post that you believe the need to develop alternatives is driven by the reality that oil will run out someday, and we'd better be prepared for that. So, believe it or not, I think we may actually agree more than we disagree.



Our main point of disagreement may be with the timing of the introduction of alternatives to gasoilne, which is actually a fairly dicey issue, in my opinion. If we were to put forth the huge investment to bring alternatives to the market as soon as logistically possible, while there is still plenty of oil around, this will set up a direct competition between oil and the alternative, which, as I think we agree, will cause the alternative to get creamed, unless the alternative is massively subsidized. Given the cost of putting in the infrastructure for an alternative fuel, the government probably wouldn't have any money left over (oops, it's already massively in debt) to fund the required subsidies. On the other hand, we can't wait too long, or we'll really be in a world of hurt when we finally do start to run out.



I think the most sensible approach is to first buy as much time as possible by conserving, and drilling where it makes sense. If today's standard family vehicle (like the Ford Exploder or Chevy Tahoe) could be replaced, by, say, a vehicle like the Mazda 5, it would make a sizeable dent in this country's oil consumption. And again, more mass transport. And, I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but what about some investment in commuter rail? I hear the demand for Amtrak, long given up for dead, is leaping. Why not use the cheap stuff (yes, even at $4.00 a gallon, or even at the much higher rate so much of the rest of the world pays, gas is still a lot cheaper than ethanol or hydrogen) while it's still around?



In parallel, I think GM may have nailed it (how refreshing!) with the introduction of the Chevy Volt, a flex fuel plug-in hybrid, in the 2010 model year. Medium to long term, I just don't see how either corn-based or cellulosic ethanol, by themselves, can ever replace the ginormous quantity of fuel this country consumes (400 million gallons per day, according to Csaba Csere's editorial in the August 2008 Car & Driver, which would require almost 600 million gallons per day of ethanol, due to its lower heat content relative to gasoline); there just isn't enough farmable land, or transportable (and very low yield) waste matter, to create that much ethanol. But teamed with a hybrid, this may be our best, if not only viable, solution. But even this solution is far from perfect, because a hybrid by definition adds a lot of cost to the vehicle, both in its initial purchase price, and in its eventual battery replacement cost. Pay me now, AND pay me later, unfortunately. But hopefully as battery technology continues to inch forward, and research into cellulosic ethanol yields a breakthrough or two, the flex fuel hybrid may actually morph into something almost palletable. Their adoption will be fairly slow at first due to their high cost, but the early adopters will help pave the way to when we actually need them, when the supply of oil starts to run out, allowing us to be fairly well prepared. So maybe, just maybe, we're already on the way to fixing this problem.



Looking on the bright side, we're all blessed to have lived in the petroleum era, for all the issues it has caused, so let's try to enjoy it in our 968s while we can.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Lim Yong]

Just read in the popular mechanics web site that 80% of oil leases in the US that the oil companies are not

being used (something like that). Anyone know about the refineries?? that none have been build?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

no, i don't think that competition is going ot affet the oil prices - i doubt anything will ever affect that - they are what they are, and will continue to rise until we are using something else - then it will just disappear - i think it will be much more of an obsolescence thing than a competition thing - yes, oil prices will plummet in the end, but i doubt it will be at all gradual



E85 seems to be one of the next steps too



by the way, amtrack is slammed here - trains are VERY successful



regardless of economic viability of any alternative, the inescapable reality is that we must stop burning fuels that do what gasoline and oil have done to the environment - otherwise, it won't really matter

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[BigL2U]

I came across this link today and I just had to share.. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



http://nozzlerage.com/

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[redbaron]

Hey Big,



Thanks for posting the video - it really makes a point.



In my humble opinion, the best intermediate solution is the Hybrid vehicle. We have had ours for 2 years now and would never buy a "gas only" vehicle again. There was an interesting film on the Discovery Channel recently that went thru all the options - the one I liked the best was a vehicle driven by air. The developers had gotten their test vehicle to go 100 miles on the air tanks mounted below the vehicle and were working on a method to refill the tanks while driving! This would mean you would never have to "fill/recharge" your vehicle. Of course, no mention was made of what such a vehicle would cost. Can you imagine what the oil companies would say to this solution!



redbaron

- 1957 Chevy Bel Air Sport Coupe (12 mpg)

- 1994 Porsche 968 Coupe (22 mpg)

- 2006 Prius (47 mpg)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

That video is certainly amusing, and I appreciate the sentiment, but, and I know I'm setting myself up to be massively flamed over this, this ridiculous notion of "energy independence" is just sheer nonsense. There, I've said it.



As I said, I used to buy into this pipe dream as well, but I have this unfortunate tendency that the more universally accepted a concept is, the more my skepticism toward it grows, sending me to research said topic to find out if there's anything underpinning it.



In the case of "energy independence," consider the following: First, we imported about 30% of our oil when Nixon first set a goal of "weaning ourselves off foreign oil." Now it's something like 70%. But wait - the intervening decades have seen the greatest economic prosperity (punctuated, of course, by a few modest recessions) in the history of the country. The fact that we have so many available sources of this precious resource is a good thing, and has played a huge role is powering the incredible American economic engine. If we had to depend solely on domestic sources of oil, I guarantee we wouldn't have enjoyed nearly the level of economic prosperity that we have.



Second, why is oil singled out as being so important to produce exclusively domestically? We import 100% of our manganese, bauxite, graphite, and mica, 91% of our platinum, 88% of our tin, 85% of our titanium, and, well, you get the idea. These are all vital material materials to many of our critical industries. Why isn't anybody screaming about gaining our "titanium indepencence?"



As to the issue of our purchase of oil-based products like gasoline funding terror, I'd really like to see someone connect the dots on this one. Which countries exactly are doing this terror funding? Kuwait? No, Kuwait is perhaps our closest ally in the Persian Gulf, providing key military bases for U.S. forces. So it's not Kuwait. The United Arab Emirates, perhaps? Unlikely; they're also a big supporter of the U.S. military. Bahrain? Nope, the Bahrainis supply a lot of fuel to the U.S. militray, but no crude to the U.S. market. Qatar? Ditto. Iraq? Buying Iraqi crude will help shore up its fledgling government, hopefully helping speed our long-overdue exit from that country. Iran? We haven't imported a drop of oil from Iran since 1991. So it must be Saudi Arabia, right? Not so fast - last I checked, al-Qaeda despises the Saudi government and everything it stands for. The fact is, terrorist groups are funded mostly from drugs, crime, human trafficking, and the weapons trade, not from petrodollars.



I could go on for hours, and I'm sure I still wouldn't change many, if any, minds, but the facts are clear - energy independence in neither achievable, nor desirable.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - definitely a polarizing topic - obviously anybody can spin anything - but, the reality is that we see events unfold for obvious political and economic reasons - there won't be any changing that until we take the money out of the equation



eliminate campaign fund raising altogether - have the government provide a set fund for all campaigns



mandate tv time be provided - we own the airwaves, so tv time could be mandated and would be free to candidates



insist that all business interests of presidential candidates be liquidated or suspended prior to and during their term



this would remove the largest amount of leverage of special interest groups - we will never get rid of all of it, and deals will be made that benefit "friends", but at least the overt dealing would end



as for energy independence, of course we want that - yes, it will put a lot of people in the position of changing what they do for a living - so what? yes it will upset the economy for a while - so what? in the end, it will be better



if we would stop dinking around overseas, bring everyone home, quit being everyone's cop and benefactor, and let those people sort out their own problems from now on, we would have more than ample budget to retrain everyone here



there are answers - just not easy ones - that doesn't make sticking our heads in the sand the proper course of action

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[BigL2U]

Cloud9..68, I posted that link because I thought it was AMUSING!!! I apologize if the link was offensive. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/rolleyes.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



I see by your location that you're from Texas, so I guess you have a different view of the oil industry than some others may. I live in the DC area and our local news is more centered around the political and economic end of the oil conversation. I know that modern civilization will never be able to do without oil and oil based products in my lifetime and I don't think anyone wants that. But our economy is too reliant on oil as a primary energy source. If the price of "graphite" went up 400% in a 4 year period I don't think there would be massive job layoffs, escalating food cost, and an eroding dollar.

OPEC really has no competition and the oil company’s have saturated Washington with lawyers to do their bidding. Most people don't realize that pumping more oil from the ground would not lower the price of fuel as much as opening more refineries. But the oil companies closed and scrapped plans for more refineries in the late 80's because the oil supply was out pacing the demand.



As people make choices to use hybrid, electric, or other means of transportation then it will help reduce our dependence on oil and drive the cost down. You mentioned in an earlier post that people in Europe have been paying these kind of fuel prices for years, and I lived in England, Australia, and Germany, so I can honestly say you are right about that. But the Euro and the Pound are worth twice as much as the dollar and people in Europe us more public transit, or walk. European economies rely a lot less on oil than we do in America. If our founding Fathers knew we gained independence from England only to become dependant on OPEC, I'm sure they'd fire up the revolution wagons (horse drawn of course). <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/tongue.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



My $0.02

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

here's one for thought:



why is oil the only form of energy not government regulated?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RPM]

Hey! Gas dropped $.20 a gallon over the past two weeks around here! Never thought I would be happy to see $3.86 ($4.06 for premium) <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/huh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



As for that whole government regulation thing... One of the first great acts of government regulation was Theodore Roosevelt's 1906 use of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up the original petroleum monopoly: Mobil, Amoco, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, ARCO, and Pennzoil were all originally part of Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company.



Today, the government controls the other major sources of energy specifically because they are monopolies (electric power companies are the best example). Since competition in a critical industry such as these makes little sense - too much infrastructure cost in terms of power lines, substations, pipelines, etc., the government regulates the industry. The petroleum industry is competitive (well, technically it is - I suppose some would argue this), therefore it is not regulated in the way natural gas and electricity are. Of course the petroleum industry would argue that they are highly regulated, and further that their CEOs get hauled before Congress for politically-motivated tonque lashings every time demand in China and India or a spate of hurricanes in the gulf cause tighter supply, higher prices, and comensurately higher profits.



And speaking of government regulation - did you know that the governments of India, Malaysia, and China significantly subsidize the cost of gasoline to increase demand for locally built automobiles? In Malaysia gas is only around $2.50/gallon. Recent announcements by the Indian government that they would lower the subsidy led to days of rioting and violence. If you want to know what is driving up gas, there it is.



If I sound like a high school history and government teacher, I am (or was until i got a job developing software - for high school history and government courses).

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rxter]

I read a piece in the August Automotive magazine. Makes some sense. Essentially says that big oil is untouchable in the US. Similar to the banking industry. If we let those guys fail, the country falls fast. So our representatives at best get out of their way, at worst.... (I'll let flash lefty fill in the blanks <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> In our country capitalism will always win the day and so the priority will always be revs and profits (that's revenues, not revolutions, which is probably a more sane topic). And stupic people do stupid things around that motive, no doubt.



Getting away from petro at this point, like Quint said, "it ain't gonna be easy, and it ain't gonna be cheap". With or without government incentives, intereference, whatever you want to call it, we'll need a pretty long ramp to transform our economy to non petro. Where's the plastic going to come from for my nifty laptop? Probably 50+ years. We don't do central planning here in the USofA, and so the hydrogen economy or whatever, will come from entreprenuers who will have exactly the same motive as the big bad oil boys - money.



   

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

BIGL2U - Definitely no offense taken <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> As I said, the clip was amusing. It's just that it plays into this ridiculous notion of energy independence, which is one of my favorite hot buttons (though I realize I'm in the vast minority on the issue). Energy independence has become one of these motherhood-and-apple-pie topics that is misguidedly embraced by politicos of all stripes. Sigh...



Let me try one other angle. We don't import a drop of oil from Iran, which means we're "oil independent" of Iran, right? Not so fast. If Iran were to do something economically suicidal like suspend their oil production, it would send the price of oil, which is set by the world market, spiking. So, even though we don't import any oil from Iran, we would still pay the price of Iran's activity in the oil market. Face it - we live in an interdependent world, and on balance, this is a good thing. In fact, it may be the one thing that economists from both the left and right agree on.



Think about it. The "energy independence" crowd (who, to be consistent, should also cultivate a belief in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy) thinks we can somehow go from 30% oil importation in the '70s, to today's 70%, and then back to zero? Huh?!



Even if you buy into this fantasy, there are only two ways to get there. First, if we continue to rely on petroleum, we'd have to drill in every possible square mile of US-owned land, and completely fill our coastlines with drilling rigs. Nobody in their right mind would agree to that.



Or, we could try to switch to non-petroleum based fuels. But as long as gasoline and diesel are plentifully available, it places these pitiful, low-energy content, hard-to-produce/transport/store alternatives into direct competition with the petroleum based fuels. My money's on the petrol.



Now, I know I've spent a lot of time in these posts shooting down peoples' ideas, which I'm feeling a little guilty about, so let me propose what I think is a workable strategy. Why not take advantage of ethanol's one endearing characteristic, it's very high effective octane rating. Researchers are MIT (and I assume other places) are working on adapting an old idea (alcohol injection) to modern engine controllers and direct injection technologies. According to Car & Driver's Csaba Csere, this technology is cabable of allowing compression ratios as high as 14:1, AND bost levels of up to 18 psi, without detonation. This could allow the cutting in half of an engine's displacement while producing the same amount of power, increasing gas mileage by about 30%. All with relatively inexpensive, available technology, and the production of manageable amounts of ethanol.



If today's standard family vehicle could eventually be replaced by, say, a Mazda 5-sized one, with, say, a 1.3 liter turbocharged, alcohol injected engine, it would halve the typical American family's fuel use. This would not only significantly cut America's fuel consumption and CO2 emissions with very little sacrifice, but, being a relatively simple technology, it could be more readily spread to less wealthy coountries as their wealth develops.



What I'm trying to say here is that being idealistic is not a bad thing, but we also need to be realistic. As they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[BigL2U]

Think about it. The "energy independence" crowd (who, to be consistent, should also cultivate a belief in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy) thinks we can somehow go from 30% oil importation in the '70s, to today's 70%, and then back to zero? Huh?!

Cloud, it’s easy not to believe in the Tooth Fairy once your over seven, because you run out of those precious little valuable resources. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/laugh.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying we should strive for complete independence from foreign oil but we need to reduce our dependency. 70% dependent on foreign oil, and oil being 80% of our energy supply means we’re screwed my friend. If China and India double or triple their demand for oil in the next ten years, or a major war starts in the Middle East, oil prices could double or triple. Heating homes and businesses would be very expensive, and $10-$20 a gallon at the pump would put a lot of people out of business. Can you imagine if you work in a big city but have to commute, like folks in San Fran, and you were spending $60 a day to drive to and from work. Our economy would implode. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/ohmy.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />



We became so dependent on foreign oil because at $25 a barrel it was dirt cheap.. At $100 a barrel it ain’t cheap no more..



I watched the Senate Committee on Energy and Homeland Security on C-Span 07/26/2008, (I know what you’re thinking, boring, what a dork… Well that’s what my wife thinks..) <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> T. Boone Pickens, who is one of the wealthiest oil men in our country, presented his energy plan to Congress. He has the support of industrialist and financial investors like Warren Buffet backing his plan.



Mr. Pickens knows more about oil, energy, and making money than I ever will, so I thought his testimony was very intriguing. His plan would create thousands of jobs, lower the cost of oil fuel (because of viable competition), and help us reduce our dependence on OPEC. During the Hearing Mr. Pickens had a great line, he said "I'm an American first and a Oil man second". You can watch part of his testimony in the third video of the link below.



http://www.pickensplan.com/media/?bcpid=16...ctid=1651750502



Good luck

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i think we should let the economy implode - so what? nothing all that tragic happened when it did it before - sure it sucked while it lasted, but everyone got over it - my grandparents survived it - we can too - we are entirely too lazy and greedy - a big shake up is exactly what we need



failing that, i'd like to see a $2 per gallon tax to fund changing over to an alternative fuel - in 1 year, that money would fund the changes needed to make other fuels economical by establishing mass production and distribution, which is the only roadblock to solving the problem



san fran is a perfect exapmple of a real solution - BART has been incredibly successful - i remember when they were proposing it back in the 60s - i thought then that it was a great idea - it was and has been swamped since it first came online - they built it amidst a wildly varying area of development, and set back all those who thought there was no way to build it



this could be built in any urban area



we need to stop paying farmers not to plant crops - we need to stop exporting our crops - we need to start growing crops that can make alcohol, and use the existing distribution network



we are already headed that way with E85 - i see no reason we cannot go there fully, get completely off of imported oil, and onto a renewable resource, regardless of lower per unit energy content - ultimately it would be far cheaper than oil



we need to get electric cars going again - the movement has started - we need to help that - people merely need to give up the idea that their car can sit there day after day with a 400 mile range, when all they really need is 60, and 100 is just fine - we can remember to plug our cell phones in at night, and even panic when we wake up in the middle of the night and realize we forgot - why not our car?



but then there are the oil companies of course



this is our own fault - you know what winston said "democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[earossi]

A lot of hysteria here! The fact that the US government has had 36 years since the first "energy crisis" in 1972, to put together a comprehensive energy policy seems to go unnoticed. The only thing that came out, to my knowledge, was the "strategic" oil reserve wherein the Feds have been pumping crude into underground caverns in Louisianna for the last 20 years.



To me, a comprehensive energy policy would be promoting nuclear power research and plants. Most of the reactors built in this country are now at 40 years of age, which, I believe is the retirement age for the nuclear reactors in all these plants. We have gone for 40 years with the only mishap being 3 Mile Island.....yet no permits for new nukes! The major issue, I guess, is how to deal with nuclear waste. We should fund the research to deal with that.



But, if the USA were to begin, again, building nukes to displace the fossil fueled plants, that would be a great start to energy independence.



The next area to research would be secondary recovery of crude from proven wells. Existing technology recovers less than 50% of the crude in a reservoir.



Then, take up what T. Boon Pickens has been promoting.......wind power.





Then continue the research into the processing of shale oil or oil tar sands.



The green folks continue to promote ethanonl, which takes more energy to create than it provides.......this is a nowhere path, unfortunately being driven by a huge corn lobby.



And so I rant. When you do all the above, then you can talk about drilling in the tundra or offshore. In the end analysis, there is a huge amount of energy out there to develop, using current technology, that would allow us to be energy independent for centuries.



We just need an comprehensive energy policy and support......both from our US Government.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RPM]

It hurts me to say this... but France is doing a great job with nuclear energy. We could learn a lot from them.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

yeah - lots of problems



nuclear energy is viable it's also incredibly safe by comparison to incidents with oil - this is like the fear of air travel argument - far safer than by car, yet the few incidents still get all the hype - disposal of the nuclear waste is still an issue though



i think the telling sign is that all other forms of energy have government price regulation - we really need to do this with oil, and stop the speculation on oil futures - market competition philosophy does not apply here, and the public is not being served by allowing independent price control - freeze the price and see how quickly alternatives pop up



as for the ethanol economics, that argument only holds water as long as it is in its current form of production, and i am pretty sure that information is now out of date as well - in fact, in tiny production, it makes far more than it takes - we made this stuff in college for pennies, and ran cars on it - it will make far more energy than it takes to make it in large scale - the hurdle is the money needed to implement that - i agree that the corn lobbies are behind the current move, but the economics will work out in the end



but ethanol is also just trading one problem for another, though it would solve some large short term problems - the reason it is the best immediate solution is that it would get us off of oil, break the death grip of the oil companies, and open the door for other sources to be developed



as for drilling in the tundra or the ocean, well that's just plain nuts, and most everybody knows it - it stuns me every time somebody suggests we do that - the environmental damage there is well documented and visible - notice that the public has always voted down off shore drilling, yet bush still decides to overturn long standing legislation - pretty easy to see which way that wind blows



it is going to take money to develop new sources - that has to come from somewhere - people are going to have to live with that - i would happily pay more taxes if it would fix the problem

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.