Soaring Gas Prices.

[notoppings]

With gas prices soaring every day, and today marking the beginning of the summer driving season. How will you deal with the rise in gas prices?

In my state Washington the price now averages over $4.00 for regular unleaded
and $4.13 to $4.59 for premium unleaded and I anticipate a rise for the summer
traveler to increase it again by at least another 5 to 10 cents. I don't know how most people are handling the increase, do you think there will be an end in site. I heard rumors that prices will be at over $5.00 a gallon by the end of the year.

Are you going to stop driving? Can you take public transportation?

[Mozzes]

I already stopped driving. I recently moved so that I can now walk or bike to do anything I need to do.

At the rate we're going I wouldn't be surprised to see $5.00/gallon before the end of summer.

[notoppings]

I already stopped driving. I recently moved so that I can now walk or bike to do anything I need to do.

At the rate we're going I wouldn't be surprised to see $5.00/gallon before the end of summer.


That is scary to think it will be that high.

Good job on thinking ahead for your commute.

Also here is a website that targets low price fuel in your area gasbuddy.com it may help some.

[Airfire]

I bike to work when the weather is nice (2-3 days per week), but I commute via car to school (4 days per week). I invested money in a Toyota Prius back in August and I can say it is the best purchase I have made in a very long time. It is so nice not to drive a gas guzzler anymore, and now when I see gas prices that high, I still find myself saying "only $4.00/gallon? :)

Then again, that means rising prices on most consumer goods as well, so nobody wins with these prices (except for the record profits of ExxonMobil).

[Mozzes]

$5.00/gal might not be anything if crude hits $200/barrel like some industry analysts predict:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's easy to forget that most of the world is already paying about $8.00/gallon for petrol.

What is the prime cause for the increase in price of oil? I don't know. I've read that it's potentially just market speculation in which case hopefully the markets will settle soon.

If instead it's a matter of increased demand then we're probably screwed because even if we started drilling in Alaska it takes years to develop new oil fields. On the other hand perhaps it would provide the impetus to develop and implement alternative (and hopefully greener) energy sources.

[Double Victory]

$5.00/gal might not be anything if crude hits $200/barrel like some industry analysts predict:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's easy to forget that most of the world is already paying about $8.00/gallon for petrol.

What is the prime cause for the increase in price of oil? I don't know. I've read that it's potentially just market speculation in which case hopefully the markets will settle soon.

If instead it's a matter of increased demand then we're probably screwed because even if we started drilling in Alaska it takes years to develop new oil fields. On the other hand perhaps it would provide the impetus to develop and implement alternative (and hopefully greener) energy sources.

Yeah, that's the only thing that keeps me from throwing a fit every time I have to fill up. Has anyone here heard of algae farms? Apparently the idea for them has been around for almost twenty years, but the price to produce oil from algae was always too high--until now. From everything I've read, algae farms seem to be incredibly promising.... almost even too good to be true. The first algae plant went online at the beginning of April this year.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for myself--I don't have the option of quitting driving. I commute half an hour to school by car. Making that trip by bike isn't an option. I could use the bus, but then I would have to drive quite a ways just to get to the bus stop, and then since all of our buses are ghetto, I would probably get raped, stabbed, and/or mugged, and then then when I got back to my car later I'd meet smashed in windows and a missing stereo.

I can't live closer to campus, either. Living on campus would cost upwards of $10K, when living at my grandma's only costs $35 a month (which includes my cellphone), plus the cost of driving (currently about $1.2K a year).

I really hate this, though. Nothing makes me angrier than feeling like I'm being taken advantage of and ripped off when there's nothing I can do. So secretly I just dream of all the top oil executives crashing their cars and suffering burns from the resulting gas fire, or something ironic like that. I don't usually hate things, but I HATE greedy people.

[Ool]

Yeah, that's the only thing that keeps me from throwing a fit every time I have to fill up. Has anyone here heard of algae farms? Apparently the idea for them has been around for almost twenty years, but the price to produce oil from algae was always too high--until now. From everything I've read, algae farms seem to be incredibly promising.... almost even too good to be true. The first algae plant went online at the beginning of April this year.

Oh yeah, and that’s not just good for energy supply. Those algae also sequester carbon. This might also be a solution to the global warming problem.

Oil is probably hundred-million-year-old algae remains anyway…

What you have to keep in mind is that today most oceans are virtual deserts. There’s hardly any biomass in the layers where photosynthesis can take place because short of the little bit that convection moves to the top, all the nutrients are on the ocean floor, where the sun cannot reach it, catalyzing biological activity.

And that is a pity, because water is a great catalyst of all sorts of biological processes. The photosynthetic reactions would be much greater than in plants on land, allowing us to produce energy, produce oxygen, produce food. And possibly also land to live on, if we create gigantic farms on floating islands. It wouldn’t just mean a huge new agricultural industry but also lots of new artificial beachfront property…

[Aronnax]

As for myself--I don't have the option of quitting driving. I commute half an hour to school by car. Making that trip by bike isn't an option. I could use the bus, but then I would have to drive quite a ways just to get to the bus stop, and then since all of our buses are ghetto, I would probably get raped, stabbed, and/or mugged, and then then when I got back to my car later I'd meet smashed in windows and a missing stereo.


The bus really isn't that bad and most city bus lines have a bike rack on the front of the bus so you bike to the bus stop and take the bike with you. The only down side to the bus is it's slower than a car because of all the stops.

I already bike/walk or use public transportation to get most places. The car is for long trips or when I have to move a lot of things. I've been living this way for a few years now, it's not that big of a deal and it saves a lot of money.

[Double Victory]

Oh yeah, and that’s not just good for energy supply. Those algae also sequester carbon. This might also be a solution to the global warming problem.

Oil is probably hundred-million-year-old algae remains anyway…

What you have to keep in mind is that today most oceans are virtual deserts. There’s hardly any biomass in the layers where photosynthesis can take place because short of the little bit that convection moves to the top, all the nutrients are on the ocean floor, where the sun cannot reach it, catalyzing biological activity.

And that is a pity, because water is a great catalyst of all sorts of biological processes. The photosynthetic reactions would be much greater than in plants on land, allowing us to produce energy, produce oxygen, produce food. And possibly also land to live on, if we create gigantic farms on floating islands. It wouldn’t just mean a huge new agricultural industry but also lots of new artificial beachfront property…

I read that, as well. From what I've heard, though, the algae farms would be on land. One of them that's running has this system where the algae are in tubes that are stacked on top of each other. I've also heard it would only take algae farms in total equaling roughly the size of Maryland to supply all of the United States needs. I'll admit that my hopes are high on this.

The bus really isn't that bad and most city bus lines have a bike rack on the front of the bus so you bike to the bus stop and take the bike with you. The only down side to the bus is it's slower than a car because of all the stops.

I already bike/walk or use public transportation to get most places. The car is for long trips or when I have to move a lot of things. I've been living this way for a few years now, it's not that big of a deal and it saves a lot of money.

I live in Cincinnati. The bus routes are used primarily by sketchy characters at best. I would not feel comfortable riding one. As for bike racks.... I've never seen them in front of bus stops. The closest bus stop to me is still several miles away, anyway.... making that trip with a 20lb backpack wouldn't be easy. I wouldn't mind the longer trip (after all I could always do homework, like I used to do on the bus in high school), as long as it was safe.

[Ool]

I really hate this, though. Nothing makes me angrier than feeling like I'm being taken advantage of and ripped off when there's nothing I can do. So secretly I just dream of all the top oil executives crashing their cars and suffering burns from the resulting gas fire, or something ironic like that. I don't usually hate things, but I HATE greedy people.

It isn’t just oil executives that you should hate but also the day-trading speculators who drive up the futures prices because they can see a drought looming ahead.

Then again maybe you should just hate the drought that’s coming, not those preparing for it.

Actually what you should really be mad at is your country’s energy policy for the last thirty years. Ever since the first oil crisis in the Seventies it was clear that this moment would come. Back then oil production had just peaked in the US. Today it’s peaking worldwide, and it was known even back in the Fifties that this would be happening today.

Back in the days of Carter a few initiatives were started to make the US independent of imported energy from abroad, in the form of solar energy and other alternatives, energy efficient cars, and properly insulated homes. But then along came Reagan, and one of the first things he did was dismantle the solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. Then followed the Roaring Eighties and everything was forgotten and you started driving big cars again and wasting a quarter of the world’s energy like there’s no tomorrow.

Well, guess what…! It’s finally tomorrow.





Ool added to this post, 13 minutes and 2 seconds later...

I read that, as well. From what I've heard, though, the algae farms would be on land.

Yes, of course they would be. But since what you need for them to run is seawater you would build them near the coast and there would be huge potential in eventually building them offshore…

[Double Victory]

It isn’t just oil executives that you should hate but also the day-trading speculators who drive up the futures prices because they can see a drought looming ahead.

Then again maybe you should just hate the drought that’s coming, not those preparing for it.

Actually what you should really be mad at is your country’s energy policy for the last thirty years. Ever since the first oil crisis in the Seventies it was clear that this moment would come. Back then oil production had just peaked in the US. Today it’s peaking worldwide, and it was known even back in the Fifties that this would be happening today.

Back in the days of Carter a few initiatives were started to make the US independent of imported energy from abroad, in the form of solar energy and other alternatives, energy efficient cars, and properly insulated homes. But then along came Reagan, and one of the first things he did was dismantle the solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. Then followed the Roaring Eighties and everything was forgotten and you started driving big cars again and wasting a quarter of the world’s energy like there’s no tomorrow.

Well, guess what…! It’s finally tomorrow.


I am pretty upset with my country's leaders not promoting the importance of renewable energy sources, or taking any big steps to changing the way the States run. These matters are at the top of the list for determining who I'll be voting for. Unfortunately, when I last read where the candidates stood, no one was looking past anything other than getting us off of foreign oil, by some measly small percentage in the next 30 something years. They didn't even say HOW they were going to manage to do that. And then I heard that Obama was all for "clean" coal. I don't know where he stands on that today, but I am not pleased with that.

I wasn't alive when Carter was president, and I was not capable of following politics when Reagan was president. I haven't really followed any politics until I started college last year, and our grade schools have a horrible habit of not presenting important (or completely factual) information with regards to American history....


Ool added to this post, 13 minutes and 2 seconds later...



Yes, of course they would be. But since what you need for them to run is seawater you would build them near the coast and there would be huge potential in eventually building them offshore…

Well, the general consensus seems to be putting them in Arizona. It seems like if production was eventually taken off coast, that there would be an awful lot of wildlife disruption, especially considering how incredibly densely populated coastal regions are. Of course, there would be wildlife displacement in Arizona as well, but not nearly as much.

[Linza]

I'm converting a 90 Geo Prism to run on lithium iron phosphate batteries, then constructing some photovoltaic modules and installing them on the roof of my apartment community to offset the costs of charging the car. They agreed to let me, in exchange for helping them install a PV array to power the lights in the parking garage. Also, garage management where I work never actually visits the garage, so I can plug in at work, too.

(Stands on the soapbox)

It's really not all that hard. Please, research renewable energy in your area, and also consider changing your transportation away from oil altogether. No oil substitute will ever be an acceptable replacement, whether due to restricted farm land, environmental demands of production, or lack of infrastructure. Oil is dead. Set an example by moving on now, rather than later.

(Steps off the soapbox)

[notoppings]

I'm converting a 90 Geo Prism to run on lithium iron phosphate batteries, then constructing some photovoltaic modules and installing them on the roof of my apartment community to offset the costs of charging the car. They agreed to let me, in exchange for helping them install a PV array to power the lights in the parking garage. Also, garage management where I work never actually visits the garage, so I can plug in at work, too.

(Stands on the soapbox)

It's really not all that hard. Please, research renewable energy in your area, and also consider changing your transportation away from oil altogether. No oil substitute will ever be an acceptable replacement, whether due to restricted farm land, environmental demands of production, or lack of infrastructure. Oil is dead. Set an example by moving on now, rather than later.

(Steps off the soapbox)

Thats real nice did you learn that in school or work or is it just a passion?

[Ool]

Well, the general consensus seems to be putting them in Arizona. It seems like if production was eventually taken off coast, that there would be an awful lot of wildlife disruption, especially considering how incredibly densely populated coastal regions are. Of course, there would be wildlife displacement in Arizona as well, but not nearly as much.

Yeah, although the problem with creating a closed-loop system in the middle of the desert is that you have to replenish the leaks with resources from far away. That only works if the energy expended for hauling those resources is less than the energy created by the farms. Maybe it will be. Maybe you can make the system efficient enough.

Deserts might be ultimately more suited for creating purely electricity through photovoltaics or focused mirrors (and geothermally, in the case of Nevada), whereas the combustible fuel generation should be done where all the raw materials for biomass are close by—soil, sunlight, air, and water…

But the question of what works is really just a question of whether at the end of the day you get out more than you put in…

[SeaCzar]

I can say this about gas prices. As high as they are, non-OPEC (and OPEC) countries will find more oil, and the prices will drop. It may take some time, but it will happen. Its pure economics of supply and demand. I would argue that high fuel prices are not all bad. Want to stop global warming (I have my doubts about whether this is really an issue)? Make gas prices $10.00/gallon.

Express your inflationary fears here!!!

[thod]

Make gas prices $10.00/gallon.

Just looked it up, and is $8.50 a US gallon at my local station here in the UK. Since our roads are packed and nobody gives up cars, I would suggest they wont in the US either with its super cheap $4.00 gasoline.

How about you drive something car sized instead of truck sized. You see these around a lot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 45 mpg and do you realy need to go faster than 90 mph?

[Double Victory]

Yeah, although the problem with creating a closed-loop system in the middle of the desert is that you have to replenish the leaks with resources from far away. That only works if the energy expended for hauling those resources is less than the energy created by the farms. Maybe it will be. Maybe you can make the system efficient enough.

Deserts might be ultimately more suited for creating purely electricity through photovoltaics or focused mirrors (and geothermally, in the case of Nevada), whereas the combustible fuel generation should be done where all the raw materials for biomass are close by—soil, sunlight, air, and water…

But the question of what works is really just a question of whether at the end of the day you get out more than you put in…

The problem with putting solar cells in the desert is the amount of energy that would be lost transporting it to the rest of the US. A solution I like would be a government incentive for people to install their own solar panels, like in Germany. We should get a.... house building company (sorry.... I don't know if there's a specific term for that) that builds all of it's new houses with solar panels. When looking at buying a new house, $12K extra really isn't going to make THAT much of a difference, when the price was already $250K to begin with.

What would end up being more efficient in the desert.... I don't really know. As long as something gets done, I would be happy.

Just looked it up, and is $8.50 a US gallon at my local station here in the UK. Since our roads are packed and nobody gives up cars, I would suggest they wont in the US either with its super cheap $4.00 gasoline.

How about you drive something car sized instead of truck sized. You see these around a lot To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 45 mpg and do you realy need to go faster than 90 mph?

I agree. SUVs.... *shakes fist* People are buying more fuel efficient cars here, and I believe that Smart Cars sold out a whole year in advance. However, the Smart Cars didn't end up being as fuel efficient as we were lead to believe they would be....

It takes time for people to switch cars. Plus, a lot of the hybrids cost so much more than cheap cars that the price of savings in fuel wouldn't make up the difference for a number of years, if at all. (Sources vary on whether they make up the cost difference or not.)

Personally, I'd like to switch to owning a motorcycle. But there would be a large investment involved in purchasing a new vehicle, and there would be a lot of issues involved with cold/rainy weather, and the fact that drivers here don't have any concern for the safety of motorcyclists....

I can say this about gas prices. As high as they are, non-OPEC (and OPEC) countries will find more oil, and the prices will drop. It may take some time, but it will happen. Its pure economics of supply and demand. I would argue that high fuel prices are not all bad. Want to stop global warming (I have my doubts about whether this is really an issue)? Make gas prices $10.00/gallon.

Express your inflationary fears here!!!

Coming from someone who spent a year majoring in geology.... Finding new sources of oil really isn't that easy. There's a lot of extremely pricey guesswork involved. Plus, a lot of the oil we have left is, more or less, trapped inside of rocks. The extraction process for that is also extremely pricey, and as far as I know, it's nowhere near being worth the time/effort/cost involved, yet. The amount of usable oil we have is decreasing very quickly. Switching over to a renewable source of energy ASAP is an absolute must.

[Aronnax]

I live in Cincinnati. The bus routes are used primarily by sketchy characters at best. I would not feel comfortable riding one. As for bike racks.... I've never seen them in front of bus stops. The closest bus stop to me is still several miles away, anyway.... making that trip with a 20lb backpack wouldn't be easy. I wouldn't mind the longer trip (after all I could always do homework, like I used to do on the bus in high school), as long as it was safe.

The bike rack isn't at the bus stop, it's mounted to the front of the bus and is hard to notice unless there's a bike on it. I don't know how Cincinnati runs their buses but an attached bike rack is common all along the west cost.

Public buses in general are safe, they might stop some places that aren't safe but you don't get off the bus there.

[thod]

When looking at buying a new house, $12K extra really isn't going to make THAT much of a difference, when the price was already $250K to begin with.


In your dreams. Photovoltaics are expensive and 12k wont be enough for your needs. You will want a 3kw system at least for the average house and you will need a large cabinet of deep cell batteries to store the power for overnight and peak use. You get at least 25 years out of them but you are talking a $40k outlay. Most people do the maths and prefer to remain on grid. They are great for outlaying farms etc, survivalists cabins etc though.

If you really want to be energy self sufficient with enough power to charge an electric car, power the pumps to irrigate your small holdings crops etc you are going to get the most power from a micro hydro plant. Water running down a hillside packs a lot of punch. Problem is there are not that many old mills about and not everyone wants to live out in the country.

[Ool]

I can say this about gas prices. As high as they are, non-OPEC (and OPEC) countries will find more oil, and the prices will drop. It may take some time, but it will happen. Its pure economics of supply and demand. I would argue that high fuel prices are not all bad. Want to stop global warming (I have my doubts about whether this is really an issue)? Make gas prices $10.00/gallon.

Express your inflationary fears here!!!

They won’t find enough oil any more to make up for increased demand from all over the world. Always remember that back in the days of the last oil crisis places like India and China hardly even used any oil yet. Today they do.

As for the high prices of right now, that bubble may temporarily pop and prices may go down for a while if the situation in the Middle East ever relaxes. But they will never decrease to the point where they used to be in the Nineties, and eventually real peak oil—the sheer fact that the easily retrievable oil is all gone and what’s left is hungrily devoured all over the world—will catch up and once prices are back up to where they are today, not for geopolitical or speculative reasons but simply because of a lack of supply, there won’t be any going back. And that may not take more than ten years…

As for global warming stopping once oil runs out or gets to expensive, that would only be the case if there weren’t quite a few decades worth of coal still in the ground. I’m afraid we could saturate our atmosphere with carbon dioxide three times over before we run out of fossil fuels…





Ool added to this post, 8 minutes and 7 seconds later...

In your dreams. Photovoltaics are expensive and 12k wont be enough for your needs. You will want a 3kw system at least for the average house and you will need a large cabinet of deep cell batteries to store the power for overnight and peak use. You get at least 25 years out of them but you are talking a $40k outlay. Most people do the maths and prefer to remain on grid. They are great for outlaying farms etc, survivalists cabins etc though.

In Germany such investments are highly subsidized and the power they produce and contribute into the grid is bought back at five times the going rate. That kind of incentivizing got a lot of people to install solar arrays on their roofs over here. I’m invested in it myself, seeing monthly returns on that in my bank account.

But the point is, people don’t just produce the power for themselves but they put it all into the grid. They’re just getting a special bargain price for that for ten years, and after that period of time the system is already installed, so they might as well leave it running.

That’s what you guys should do, too, if you ever manage to get over your pathological government intervention paranoia…





Ool added to this post, 13 minutes and 53 seconds later...

It takes time for people to switch cars. Plus, a lot of the hybrids cost so much more than cheap cars that the price of savings in fuel wouldn't make up the difference for a number of years, if at all. (Sources vary on whether they make up the cost difference or not.)

Yes, that’s the problem with leaving it all up to the free market to adjust. Eventually it will, of course. Eventually people will buy more energy efficient cars if they can’t afford the gas prices any more or move places with a shorter commute. But it involves such a huge amount of financial pain first, so much re-investing, giving up homes, giving up cars prematurely, all of which high, long term expenses…

Now my sister bought herself a diesel-powered Volkswagen Beetle over in Texas even before the fuel prices hit the roof, but then she’s originally from Germany. She thinks ahead. Americans, apparently, don’t. At least that’s the impression that I got from my visits over there…

[jesse]

I can say this about gas prices. As high as they are, non-OPEC (and OPEC) countries will find more oil, and the prices will drop. It may take some time, but it will happen. Its pure economics of supply and demand. I would argue that high fuel prices are not all bad. Want to stop global warming (I have my doubts about whether this is really an issue)? Make gas prices $10.00/gallon.

Express your inflationary fears here!!!

China and India still have not peaked and whether there will be more oilfields found in the near future are enormous question marks. Who knows, given how queasy and unstable the oil and natural gas markets are to any perceived threat, maybe many of the oil companies do have massive oilfields but have not put them into use.

As you say, if it were pure economics of supply and demand, China and India have plenty of room for growth. If there is not a flush of more supply, the price will only go up. It is also going up because the US dollar is weak, and because inflation is constantly reducing the value of the large currencies.

Do you think the "energy" companies have any desire to find alternative energy resources when oil and natural gas are surging in price? :irked:

[Aronnax]

Do you think the "energy" companies have any desire to find alternative energy resources when oil and natural gas are surging in price? :irked:


Yes I do, energy companies want to control the energy in the next market as well as the current one. They're also aware that they'll eventually run of of oil and gas to sell.

[Ool]

Do you think the "energy" companies have any desire to find alternative energy resources when oil and natural gas are surging in price? :irked:

Actually they do (or at least they should), because it doesn’t matter how high the price of oil is if there is no more oil left to pump out of the ground and to deliver.

What oil companies are not keen on is selling what they have left cheaply or producing it fast. They’re not interested in building new refineries, either, if they’re not sure there’ll be anything left to refine in the next two decades. The longer they can stretch what they have left and the more expensively they can sell it the better for them.

This strategy is, of course, profit-motivated, but it is also good for us. Why? Because if the oil companies kept producing oil cheaply even while it’s running out they would do no one a favor—not themselves and not us, either. All they would achieve is making less money while lulling us into a sense of false supply security. And then, once there really is no more oil left, we’d be truly screwed, and with no remaining grace period to adjust our habits.

Jay Leno made a joke last week about the fact that the futures market is speculating the oil price up because they’re anticipating a shortage in five years. His punchline was, “so why not raise the price in five years…?!” You can’t get any more moronic and American in your attitude than that. That would be like stepping on the brakes once you’ve already hit the wall. There is a reason why they’re called “futures…”

[Octavianus Caesar]

Congress just recently shot down a bill that would have opened up the OIL SHALE for harvesting, which would have given America access to 1 Trillion barrels of oil, which would have lowered gas price to $90 a barrel and in ten years or 1 Billion barrels it would have dropped to $20 a barrel.

Congress just passed making the Polar Bears "endangered" so we can not drill in the Arctic, which would have given us access to another 1 Trillion barrels of Oil. They make Alaska off limits to drilling. They say we can not build refineries, they make offshore drilling illegal, yet China is off the Coast of Florida.

Bill Clinton made a national park out of the only area in the US where we can get "clean" coal, the other place that has it is Indonesia (which just happened to have given Clinton a big check, when he was president) the other place is in South America, they do not have the means to access it.

The profit of the Oil Companies is .5 cents, the Federal Government makes .15 cents, most states make .7-.10 cents a gallon.

[Ool]

You do realize, I hope, that there are also quite a few nimby environmental problems associated with coal mining and shale oil production. Congresspeople wish to get re-elected in their home state. If they pass bills that turn large parts of it into lunar landscapes and poison their rivers and lakes with mercury then it doesn’t matter just how cheap gas is going to get. They’d be out of a job no matter what.

It was so much easier just to tap into a big, pressurised black puddle underground or to import one’s fuel altogether. All that mining is rather more disruptive and a lot uglier. Always has been. Coal miners have never been exactly at the top of the social ladder…

And then there’s the great big global problem of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere. That’s not a nimby issue but a rather serious one nevertheless…

[Octavianus Caesar]

The balance lies in between what i said and the concerns you pointed out, if we take this extreme of doing it no matter what or not doing it all, we will all have serious problems. We are living in the consequences of not doing anything and it is costing us a lot of money and congress appears not to care, so they deflect it to the oil company. This cycle has to stop and common sense has to be reengaged.

[Aronnax]

Congress just recently shot down a bill that would have opened up the OIL SHALE for harvesting, which would have given America access to 1 Trillion barrels of oil, which would have lowered gas price to $90 a barrel and in ten years or 1 Billion barrels it would have dropped to $20 a barrel.

Good, processing oil shale into oil is a terrible technology. The water consumption is outrageous and to get that water back into a usable form takes more energy that you get out of the oil you extracted. We can get around just fine with expensive oil, drinking and farming without clean water is far more difficult.

If you want to create oil thermal depolymerization is the superior technology if you're planning for long term production. The only reason oil shale is getting pushed is because the infrastructure to process it is relatively inexpensive to build or already exists.


Congress just passed making the Polar Bears "endangered" so we can not drill in the Arctic, which would have given us access to another 1 Trillion barrels of Oil.

OK.


They make Alaska off limits to drilling.

Congress made a section of public land that was already a natural preserve off limits to drilling and the total recoverable barrels in ANWR wouldn't do much to change the price of oil. There are still places in Alaska where drilling is permitted so this statement isn't accurate.


They say we can not build refineries, they make offshore drilling illegal, yet China is off the Coast of Florida.

"They" is a horrible word because you're addressing 2 different groups. The first "they" are the fuel manufacturers themselves, "they" are unwilling to build a bunch of new refineries because the profit margin on additional fuel manufacturing capacity vs refinery cost is very low.

The second "they" are the citizens of the effected states. Apparently "they" don't like having oil wash up on their beach and are exercising their right as an individual state to make decisions within their waters. If you want to promote offshore drilling you're free to move to a coastal state and try to vote in some representatives who like the idea of shallow water oil rigs. It'll be difficult though, tourist dollars bring in far more money than oil production.

The oil rigs that the Cnooc operates are deep water rigs. Those rigs are so far offshore that they're not subject to US law, the last part of this statement is irrelevant.


Bill Clinton made a national park out of the only area in the US where we can get "clean" coal, the other place that has it is Indonesia (which just happened to have given Clinton a big check, when he was president) the other place is in South America, they do not have the means to access it.

"Clean" coal is a misnomer and refers to the sulfur content. Sulfur can be removed with scrubbers but in general even coal that's been "cleaned" is still pretty nasty. There's a lot of heavy metals like uranium and mercury present in coal that's scattered in a large radius when you burn coal. It's no coincidence cancer clusters exist around coal plants.

Coal is a dead end technology, it's useful now but doesn't warrant further development because it suffers from the exact same problem as oil, there's only so much in the ground. Breeder reactors, TSP and wind farms address long term energy needs and have the capacity to do so for several centuries.



The profit of the Oil Companies is .5 cents, the Federal Government makes .15 cents, most states make .7-.10 cents a gallon.

Fuel tax is used to build and maintain the road system. We "could" remove the gas tax but then income tax would have to go up to pay for roads. The other option would be to quit building and maintaining roads, but then who'd buy gasoline if there were no roads to drive on?

[Octavianus Caesar]

Congress made a section of public land that was already a natural preserve off limits to drilling and the total recoverable barrels in ANWR wouldn't do much to change the price of oil. There are still places in Alaska where drilling is permitted so this statement isn't accurate.

It was in reference to ANWR, my apologies for not making it clearer.

"They" is a horrible word because you're addressing 2 different groups. The first "they" are the fuel manufacturers themselves, "they" are unwilling to build a bunch of new refineries because the profit margin on additional fuel manufacturing capacity vs refinery cost is very low.

The second "they" are the citizens of the effected states. Apparently "they" don't like having oil wash up on their beach and are exercising their right as an individual state to make decisions within their waters. If you want to promote offshore drilling you're free to move to a coastal state and try to vote in some representatives who like the idea of shallow water oil rigs. It'll be difficult though, tourist dollars bring in far more money than oil production.

The oil rigs that the Cnooc operates are deep water rigs. Those rigs are so far offshore that they're not subject to US law, the last part of this statement is irrelevant.

They is more directed at Congress.

It is relevant, because we have oil off our own shore and we are allowing it to be harvested by foreign powers, which is a direct hit to national security.

The problem with your responses, is that they are "no" to expanding the oil and gas industry to provide for the American people. Almost everything you have said has been said by members of congress, objections are fine in and of themselves, but what do you propose to change or increase the oil and gas problem?

Everything I have said are potential solutions, are they the best, possibly no, but they are something that can be done. But all I hear from people in congress is "NO!" and yet they do nothing to increase production or they come up with ideas that are absurd, like the Ethanol, food price has skyrocketed over that and the Wheat declining. I have seen reports where there is now a famine in certain parts of the world because food supply is short and it is because of the corn ethanol production.

The US is now importing wheat for the first time in 50 years and it looks like South America may become the next major wheat producer to replace the US.

The US used to be the major oil producer for the world, now we are the major importer of it, if the Ethanol is not stopped, we will be importing our wheat from South America.

[Aronnax]

It is relevant, because we have oil off our own shore and we are allowing it to be harvested by foreign powers, which is a direct hit to national security.


The Cnooc rigs are in international waters and aren't military installations so I'm not sure how they pose a threat to US national security. Pemex has oil rigs off US shores in a similar direction, do they also threaten US national security?



The problem with your responses, is that they are "no" to expanding the oil and gas industry to provide for the American people. Almost everything you have said has been said by members of congress, objections are fine in and of themselves, but what do you propose to change or increase the oil and gas problem? Everything I have said are potential solutions, are they the best, possibly no, but they are something that can be done.

The answer is "no" because oil is a dead end and domestic oil production cannot solve, or even do much to alleviate, our energy problems. There are a few bucks to be made with domestic drilling but no solutions. We consume 20.6 million barrels of oil per day, the recoverable amount of oil in ANWR wouldn't last the US a year and a half at our current rate of consumption.

The practical solution is to start looking for new sources of energy, not root around looking for short term solutions that will damage our water supply and fisheries.

Thermal depolmerization is a proven method for manufacturing oil and can fill the gap until long term solutions can be brought on line. Lithium-ion batteries and barium-titanate capacitors are both very promising technologies that can use energy from the electric grid to meet our transportation needs. Once the demand is on the grid thermal solar power, wind farms in conjunction with pumped storage hydroelectricity and breeder reactors can produce the required amount of energy domestically.

But all I hear from people in congress is "NO!" and yet they do nothing to increase production or they come up with ideas that are absurd, like the Ethanol, food price has skyrocketed over that and the Wheat declining. I have seen reports where there is now a famine in certain parts of the world because food supply is short and it is because of the corn ethanol production.

The US is now importing wheat for the first time in 50 years and it looks like South America may become the next major wheat producer to replace the US.

The US used to be the major oil producer for the world, now we are the major importer of it, if the Ethanol is not stopped, we will be importing our wheat from South America.

The profit margin on wheat is terrible, that's why we're importing it. Soybeans and corn were worth more per acre so that's what our farmers grew. When the price of wheat goes up we'll increase domestic wheat production. We're still one of the largest exporters of food in the world, we just rotate crops based on market value. Food shortages are a tragedy and there are better solutions than ethanol but food -> fuel will remain an option until we move to electric transportation.

Regarding oil: we switched position as an exporter to an importer because our consumption went up and the oil we could easily get to ran out. Food is a renewable resource, oil isn't, they're not comparable in that manner.

[thod]

The profit margin on wheat is terrible, that's why we're importing it. Soybeans and corn were worth more per acre so that's what our farmers grew. When the price of wheat goes up we'll increase domestic wheat production.

I have noticed a large switch to wheat this year from other crops in UK and France (where I have been this year). US farmers are not so keen on wheat because its so variable with rust diseases etc. So expect a big fall in wheat prices next year. I dont know why soya is not grown in Europe. Is there something about the climate that means it doesn't do well?

[Octavianus Caesar]

The practical solution is to start looking for new sources of energy, not root around looking for short term solutions

The problem is most wont even allow a short term fix to allow a longer term fix to become viable.

Ethanol if we grew only that from corn, that will suffice for 20% of our production, given that corn is not for food anymore and it is also grown for cows.

The Cnooc rigs are in international waters and aren't military installations so I'm not sure how they pose a threat to US national security. Pemex has oil rigs off US shores in a similar direction, do they also threaten US national security?

The idea is a foreign power taking oil that should have gone to the US. If there is ever a war with China, they are taking oil from our coast to fuel their machines. And many military strategist say that China and the US will go to war at one point in the future, either over Taiwan or some other factor, maybe even oil.

The answer is "no" because oil is a dead end and domestic oil production cannot solve, or even do much to alleviate, our energy problems. There are a few bucks to be made with domestic drilling but no solutions. We consume 20.6 million barrels of oil per day, the recoverable amount of oil in ANWR wouldn't last the US a year and a half at our current rate of consumption.

That is why it is combined with other oil adventures. either Oil Shale, Coal or Synthetic oil. We claimed, along with Russia, the largest oil reserve in the North Pole, since we now can not harm the Polar Bears, Russia will take most of it, if not all of it.

The point i am making is we are hamstringing ourselves on this issue, no one is willing to go extreme for the short term so we can arrive at another solution.

Nuclear is shut down, oil drilling is shut down, ethanol is a bust, no matter what is proposed someone is going to yell "What about the environment" and we will get nothing done, while China and Russia take the oil around us and the environmentalist yell and scream over everything we do and the world laughs at us.

Exactly what you are doing, your argument fails, because you say "what about the environment" and then others say shut them all down or do no more. And where does that lead us?

[Aronnax]

The problem is most wont even allow a short term fix to allow a longer term fix to become viable.

The "short term fix" isn't a fix at all and several of them, like off shore drilling and shale, compromise long term resources like fisheries and water supplies. Food and clean water is more important than a few years worth of oil.

We can easily reach a long term solution without offshore drilling or shale processing.


Ethanol if we grew only that from corn, that will suffice for 20% of our production, given that corn is not for food anymore and it is also grown for cows.

I don't advocate ethanol, I'm not sure why you're trying to carry this point with me. But if you really want to discuss ethanol we can, the solution will be to eat less beef, use less ethanol or a combination of the two. This problem is easily solved by market forces.



The idea is a foreign power taking oil that should have gone to the US. If there is ever a war with China, they are taking oil from our coast to fuel their machines. And many military strategist say that China and the US will go to war at one point in the future, either over Taiwan or some other factor, maybe even oil.

It's not our oil, it's in international waters, if US companies wanted to develop that resource they could have built a deep water platform out there. Congress or the Chinese or the Environmentalists didn't stop US oil companies, US oil companies stopped themselves.

Regarding a future war with China, our economies are too integrated at this point for either party to risk a conflict. It would cripple both nations within a few months if trade and currency flow stopped between the two, no bullets or missiles required. Assuming that we actually decided to untangle our economies it would take decades to do so and in a few decades the world will no longer run on oil.

But lets pretending that economic consequences were ignored and both nations went to war, how do you propose that China would get oil from oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico all the way to China to "fuel their machines"?


That is why it is combined with other oil adventures. either Oil Shale, Coal or Synthetic oil. We claimed, along with Russia, the largest oil reserve in the North Pole, since we now can not harm the Polar Bears, Russia will take most of it, if not all of it.

The point i am making is we are hamstringing ourselves on this issue, no one is willing to go extreme for the short term so we can arrive at another solution.

If you reread my earlier post you'd notice I had suggested synthetic oil production. If you read the post before that it explains why oil shale is impractical.

The regions in the north pole that has an estimated 400 billion barrels under it has regions that can be claimed by Canada, Denmark, the US and Russia, other section are in international waters. The technology to extract it doesn't exist yet and all those nations are trading partners, meaning we still have access to the oil even if we didn't pull it out of the ground. We still haven't figured out what belongs to who, how we're going to get the oil out or even if we can afford to get it out. Arctic oil reserves aren't an option yet and won't be for some time to come.


Nuclear is shut down, oil drilling is shut down, ethanol is a bust, no matter what is proposed someone is going to yell "What about the environment" and we will get nothing done, while China and Russia take the oil around us and the environmentalist yell and scream over everything we do and the world laughs at us.

Exactly what you are doing, your argument fails, because you say "what about the environment" and then others say shut them all down or do no more. And where does that lead us?


OK, it's clear you didn't completely read my earlier post and are attributing arguments to me that I didn't make.

[PRBori]

Is 4.15 where I am and its eating up my budget. For the new job I cannot take metro or anything else, on top of it I need my car in case my daughters school calls for emergency. With no family in the area things are harder.... so of course I must drive at all times. It takes $60 dollars to fill up my car this days, before it was about $40. If it keeps going up it's just going to have a great impact, but what can I say. Welcome to life.

I limit my driving a lot and I stay at home a lot as well in order to avoid unnecessary driving.

[Ool]

Is 4.15 where I am and its eating up my budget. For the new job I cannot take metro or anything else, on top of it I need my car in case my daughters school calls for emergency. With no family in the area things are harder.... so of course I must drive at all times. It takes $60 dollars to fill up my car this days, before it was about $40. If it keeps going up it's just going to have a great impact, but what can I say. Welcome to life.

I limit my driving a lot and I stay at home a lot as well in order to avoid unnecessary driving.

On an academic level this is fascinating to watch, seeing how the American Way of Life will be forced to massively readjust its infrastructure now, in ways that everyone should have seen coming decades ago but apparently no one did, because, unlike in Europe, there was never any historical precedent of energy shortage there, no experience of that phenomenon first hand.

On a personal level I can see how it must suck ass, though…





Ool added to this post, 15 minutes and 20 seconds later...

[…] I have seen reports where there is now a famine in certain parts of the world because food supply is short and it is because of the corn ethanol production.

Or biofuel production in general. Actually part of that problem is the fact that there have always been such huge quantities produced in the US and Europe that it was easy to cheaply export the surpluses to the developing countries. That had the unfortunate side effect of destroying the market for local agriculture there. Rather than being taught how to fish the people were given fish.

So now we’re suddenly in a situation where we have no more fish to spare, metaphorically speaking, and while they have potential to grow their own food over there they’ve never developed it. Eventually it might lead to an Irish Potato Famine situation on a continental scale…





Ool added to this post, 11 minutes and 22 seconds later...

Regarding oil: we switched position as an exporter to an importer because our consumption went up and the oil we could easily get to ran out. Food is a renewable resource, oil isn't, they're not comparable in that manner.

Yes, except that a lot of food yield increase is based on petrochemical fertilizer. There is a non-renewable element in our present food production, which we will have to do without in the future…





Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 16 seconds later...

But lets pretending that economic consequences were ignored and both nations went to war, how do you propose that China would get oil from oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico all the way to China to "fuel their machines"?

Coincidentally, the same can be said about about the US and their going for oil reserves in the Middle East. That would be a long way to bring the stuff home in times of international crisis…

[Aronnax]

Yes, except that a lot of food yield increase is based on petrochemical fertilizer. There is a non-renewable element in our present food production, which we will have to do without in the future…


The Haber-Bosch process will still work with manufactured methane. We'll get similar yields but it'll cost a little more to produce. Like a lot of the impending changes it'll be fine in the first world but the nations that depend on cheap surplus food are going to get screwed.




Ool added to this post, 6 minutes and 16 seconds later...



Coincidentally, the same can be said about about the US and their going for oil reserves in the Middle East. That would be a long way to bring the stuff home in times of international crisis…

Submarines definitely have a way to ruin an oil tanker's day...

It's really a sad conflict, so many Iraqis have died and now their nation is perched on the edge of a civil war. On the US side there's a lot of people who feel obligated to try to fix Iraq since we broke it and don't understand how badly the contractors are fleecing us.

[Octavianus Caesar]

The "short term fix" isn't a fix at all and several of them, like off shore drilling and shale, compromise long term resources like fisheries and water supplies. Food and clean water is more important than a few years worth of oil.

We can easily reach a long term solution without offshore drilling or shale processing.



I don't advocate ethanol, I'm not sure why you're trying to carry this point with me. But if you really want to discuss ethanol we can, the solution will be to eat less beef, use less ethanol or a combination of the two. This problem is easily solved by market forces.




It's not our oil, it's in international waters, if US companies wanted to develop that resource they could have built a deep water platform out there. Congress or the Chinese or the Environmentalists didn't stop US oil companies, US oil companies stopped themselves.

Regarding a future war with China, our economies are too integrated at this point for either party to risk a conflict. It would cripple both nations within a few months if trade and currency flow stopped between the two, no bullets or missiles required. Assuming that we actually decided to untangle our economies it would take decades to do so and in a few decades the world will no longer run on oil.

But lets pretending that economic consequences were ignored and both nations went to war, how do you propose that China would get oil from oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico all the way to China to "fuel their machines"?



If you reread my earlier post you'd notice I had suggested synthetic oil production. If you read the post before that it explains why oil shale is impractical.

The regions in the north pole that has an estimated 400 billion barrels under it has regions that can be claimed by Canada, Denmark, the US and Russia, other section are in international waters. The technology to extract it doesn't exist yet and all those nations are trading partners, meaning we still have access to the oil even if we didn't pull it out of the ground. We still haven't figured out what belongs to who, how we're going to get the oil out or even if we can afford to get it out. Arctic oil reserves aren't an option yet and won't be for some time to come.




OK, it's clear you didn't completely read my earlier post and are attributing arguments to me that I didn't make.

Each paragraph is represent by a number.

1. The way to be independent, is to get off foreign trade of oil, especially the middle east. The only way to do that is to increase domestic production. Then from there, work to create another solution.

2. That is possible, but no one has come up with anything reasonable yet.

3. I was using it to contrast where one idea failed to get us off oil. People are saying we need to get off oil and there is no real soluble solution to it.

4. The Oil companies are bound by law what they can or can not do. One example is this: US Law says we can not do business with Iran. An American company can not go into Iranian territory waters and drill, it is illegal. But a European company can go in there and drill and charge large amounts of money (because there is no competitor) and when the US is able to drill, that same European company goes in and underbids the US for the job.

I read this exact scenario in Bio of Dick Cheney when he was President of Haliburton. US Law prevented the company from deep sea oil drilling and that bid went to a Scandinavian company.

5. That is a valid point.

6. When the war starts, they would be stopped, but before then, as I see it we are giving them oil that we ourselves need. So more oil for them is less oil for us. So if a war did break out, they would have a greater surplus than us.

7. I read those. If I missed the synthetic oil, then I apologize.

8. If that is the case, then someone is misinforming me, if not then someone is misinforming you.

9. No I am taking what you have said and applying it to the greater argument of "No we do not need to do that!" when it comes to oil.

The question is given back to you, what do you propose?

[Ool]

The Haber-Bosch process will still work with manufactured methane.

Actually it works with manufactured hydrogen. No need to go through the methane stage, unless you’re talking about retrieving some from landfills or something…





Ool added to this post, 23 minutes and 43 seconds later...

I read this exact scenario in Bio of Dick Cheney when he was President of Haliburton. US Law prevented the company from deep sea oil drilling and that bid went to a Scandinavian company.

That’s really all you need to know in order to understand why they were so hell bent on invading Iraq and Iran of all countries: so the companies they were affiliated with would be able to drill for oil there, as opposed to the competition, foreign or otherwise. In Iran you have the unilateral sanctions by the US because of that old grudge with the Shah and the hostage crisis. And as for Iraq, all anyone could legally get out of there was a little bit of oil for food.

It was never anything to do with a terrorist threat from those countries and everything to do with national and international sanctions that were a pain in Cheney’s ass. Everyone with moderate intelligence and insight in people’s financial motivations should see that. That fact that Americans didn’t and still don’t—well, it’s about on par with people’s falling for religion. You just shake your head, wondering to yourself, “is it really that easy to dupe folks…?”

And the answer is, apparently, “yes.”





Ool added to this post, 25 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Actually it works with manufactured hydrogen. No need to go through the methane stage, unless you’re talking about retrieving some from landfills or something…

Oh, wait, yes there is. Of course you need to have methane at some stage, even if you used hydrogen. Never mind my talking out of my ass.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._process

All I recalled was that if you had hydrogen gas you could also use it to make fertilizer, so if you had plenty of electricity, it would also work. And since I’m interested in a world abundant with electricity from solar power from space, that was what I was fixated on…

[Antares]

I deal by taking the school bus ;) But of course, I expect that the fees will increase also.

[dissident]

I only drive 1.5 miles to get to work and it takes under 5 minutes, so it doesn't effect me.

Crack spreads are in the process of correcting themselves, so more of the refining costs are getting passed on to the consumer (refiners were getting killed with losses and their stocks trading at all time lows because although oil was rising, the refining costs weren't getting passed onto the pump, just the oil price.. the recent rise the past few weeks was this correction beginning)

refining stocks are a good buy here btw.

[PRBori]

On an academic level this is fascinating to watch, seeing how the American Way of Life will be forced to massively readjust its infrastructure now, in ways that everyone should have seen coming decades ago but apparently no one did, because, unlike in Europe, there was never any historical precedent of energy shortage there, no experience of that phenomenon first hand.

On a personal level I can see how it must suck ass, though…



Is a pain. I wouln't mind taking a bike ride or rollerblading to work if it was closer but my drive is about 1hr counting the drop-off and pick-up of my sweetie pie. However, with a child I would have to think twice for there are many idiots in the street and I would consider a car safer than a bike. That said I have no choice but to deal with the prices.

Other people think that buying a hybrid would work... but for me buying a car now means more bills and I have no desire to get myself in more debt. My car will stay with me until it goes no further. I rather spend money fixing the small issues on my own time than paying $500+ every month for a car which price fells about 20% once taken out of the lot.

For those who have diesel, you are lucky, for it can be converted to regular vegetable oil instead with a $500 dollar system. I know a co-worker did that to his car and it worked fine for him.. too bad mine is not diesel otherwise I would have taken care of that in a heart bit.

[Aronnax]

The "short term fix" isn't a fix at all and several of them, like off shore drilling and shale, compromise long term resources like fisheries and water supplies. Food and clean water is more important than a few years worth of oil.
The way to be independent, is to get off foreign trade of oil, especially the middle east. The only way to do that is to increase domestic production. Then from there, work to create another solution.


There is no domestic solution to our oil problems unless we cut our consumption by over half. There's too much demand and not enough oil in the ground, even if you include "the forbidden fruit"(ANWR, shale, deep water). If your only concern is avoiding oil from the middle east I've got some good news for you: nearly all of the oil imported by the US comes from Mexico, South America and Canada. Europe and Asia are the ones who buy most of the middle east oil (it's related to transport distances).

You don't seem to understand how oil is distributed across the world. Every drop that comes out of the ground effects the oil market. It does this by either by being sold or by being consumed and displacing demand that would have ended up on the oil market. There's no earmarks on barrels of oil, who pumps it doesn't really effect the market price. The only difference between Shell (dutch) and Exxon-Mobil (US) is who's shareholders profit from their activities. If you're not a stockholder and just buy gasoline the source doesn't effect you in the slightest. This is how the free market works, unless you advocate some form of nationalist socialism there's no way to unhook the US from the global market.



We can easily reach a long term solution without offshore drilling or shale processing.
That is possible, but no one has come up with anything reasonable yet.


There are lots of reasonable solutions, I touched on them earlier but didn't go very deep. Battery technology is getting very good, plug in hybrids are just around the corner (GM is scheduled to launch one in 2010). The difference between the current hybrids and a plug in is how they operate over short distances. The Chevy Volt (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) will have a 40 mile electric range on a single charge then switches over to a gas engine for longer trips. Most Americans drive less than 40 miles a day, the energy consumed for most trips will be moved to the electric grid instead of oil wells. This kind of technology will push the engineering envelope and bring practical full electric vehicles into production much faster.

Our shipping and long distance transportation industries needs to move away from diesel trucks and aircraft to electric trains. The technology to do this already exists but we need to start building the infrastructure now to make the transition smooth. The market can and will make this decision for us if we wait long enough but this is one of those situations where long term planning will make the switch far less painful.

To compensate for the increased electric load we need to start scaling up domestic energy production. There's no reason to displace the energy load onto coal only to end up with the same problems we face with oil right now. Coal works nicely as a transition energy source but new infrastructure should be built planning for long term solutions. The US has massive wind and solar energy sources and the technical expertise required to build breeder reactors. To compensate for the periodic nature of wind and solar sources you use them in conjunction with pumped storage hydroelectricity. Pumped storage hydroelectricity is an old, proven technology that can store massive amounts of energy efficiently and can react to sudden changes in load faster than coal or gas plants can. Breeder reactors can cover energy demands in regions where solar or wind aren't practical.

We have the technology and the capital to make the switch, we just need the will to do so.



It's not our oil, it's in international waters, if US companies wanted to develop that resource they could have built a deep water platform out there. Congress or the Chinese or the Environmentalists didn't stop US oil companies, US oil companies stopped themselves.
The Oil companies are bound by law what they can or can not do. One example is this: US Law says we can not do business with Iran. An American company can not go into Iranian territory waters and drill, it is illegal. But a European company can go in there and drill and charge large amounts of money (because there is no competitor) and when the US is able to drill, that same European company goes in and underbids the US for the job.

I read this exact scenario in Bio of Dick Cheney when he was President of Haliburton. US Law prevented the company from deep sea oil drilling and that bid went to a Scandinavian company.

I think I explained earlier why it doesn't matter to a consumer if Shell or Exxon Mobil pumps the oil unless you're also a shareholder.



But lets pretending that economic consequences were ignored and both nations went to war, how do you propose that China would get oil from oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico all the way to China to "fuel their machines"?

When the war starts, they would be stopped, but before then, as I see it we are giving them oil that we ourselves need. So more oil for them is less oil for us. So if a war did break out, they would have a greater surplus than us.

Oil is consumed about as fast as it's pumped. Nations hold a strategic reserve to buffer for war or disaster. The amount of oil contained in the strategic reserve is predetermined, supply doesn't really effect it.


If you reread my earlier post you'd notice I had suggested synthetic oil production. If you read the post before that it explains why oil shale is impractical.
I read those. If I missed the synthetic oil, then I apologize.

Thermal depolymerization is a process to manufacture synthetic oil. It's strength is it can be used to manufacture oil out of anything from toxic waste and scrap plastic to pond scum and turkey guts. There's already a TDP plant on line in Missouri.



The regions in the north pole that has an estimated 400 billion barrels under it has regions that can be claimed by Canada, Denmark, the US and Russia, other section are in international waters. The technology to extract it doesn't exist yet and all those nations are trading partners, meaning we still have access to the oil even if we didn't pull it out of the ground. We still haven't figured out what belongs to who, how we're going to get the oil out or even if we can afford to get it out. Arctic oil reserves aren't an option yet and won't be for some time to come.

If that is the case, then someone is misinforming me, if not then someone is misinforming you.

There is the international oil market issues I explained earlier, so "who pumps it" doesn't matter as much as "how much is pumped". There's also the dipomacy issues of who owns what but assuming we can quickly resolve that the biggest problem still remains.

We're still not sure how we'd get the oil under the north pole out of the seabed. Remember what sunk the Titanic? Right now we don't know how to design deep water oil platforms that can handle iceberg collisions and arctic storms. Barring an engineering breakthrough we'd have to wait until the polar ice melts and that doesn't solve any energy problems that we have "right now".



No I am taking what you have said and applying it to the greater argument of "No we do not need to do that!" when it comes to oil.

The question is given back to you, what do you propose?

You tried to put someone else's argument in my mouth because I shared a few common points with it and you had a canned arguement handy. Debate is about addressing points raised by your opponent or raising your own. Strawman arguments are a waste of our time.

I oppose oil extraction from oil shale because it threatens our water supply. To clean up the mess made by oil shale processing takes more energy than you get out of the oil. We don't need more short term solutions to long term problems. Clean water is the oil of the 21st century and right now the US is poised to do very well provided we don't poison our water supply for a few years worth of oil. Trading what amounts to invested capital that will pay ever increasing dividends for cash you won't invest is never a good idea but that's what oil shale extraction amounts to.

With the current global economy domestic or foreign oil production don't really mean what they used to. We have access to the world's oil supply, just like every other nation with cash handy and it's available to whoever will pay for it. My solution is mostly outlined in the earlier sections but I'll summarize: Don't worry about domestic oil production because we don't have the resources to make a difference at our current level of demand. Instead we need to focus on increasing domestic energy production and converting our infrastructure to operate on electricity instead of oil.





Aronnax added to this post, 3 minutes and 55 seconds later...

It was never anything to do with a terrorist threat from those countries and everything to do with national and international sanctions that were a pain in Cheney’s ass. Everyone with moderate intelligence and insight in people’s financial motivations should see that. That fact that Americans didn’t and still don’t—well, it’s about on par with people’s falling for religion. You just shake your head, wondering to yourself, “is it really that easy to dupe folks…?”

And the answer is, apparently, “yes.”


Goring said it best:

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[blueback]

On an academic level this is fascinating to watch, seeing how the American Way of Life will be forced to massively readjust its infrastructure now...On a personal level I can see how it must suck ass, though
I had to laugh at this.

I agree with both sides to an extent. I think that we have to switch to a sustainable source of energy as soon as possible, but I don't have any problem with us doing whatever it takes to do that ASAP to avoid a collapse if fossil fuels run out before we are ready. If we have waited too long and we have to produce every last drop of oil we can get our hands on no matter how dirty it is then we should. Living in a world without salmon is better than living in a world without civilization.

[Ool]

I agree with both sides to an extent. I think that we have to switch to a sustainable source of energy as soon as possible, but I don't have any problem with us doing whatever it takes to do that ASAP to avoid a collapse if fossil fuels run out before we are ready. If we have waited too long and we have to produce every last drop of oil we can get our hands on no matter how dirty it is then we should. Living in a world without salmon is better than living in a world without civilization.

Well, eventually genetic engineering may provide us with a biodiversity unparalleled by what nature ever gave us, if only we get there—if only we don’t cut off an essential limb before we are capable of making better artificial limbs…

What is also important is to find new alternatives that aren’t only sustainable but abundant. At least when we clearly see that those alternatives exist we should go for them, and the huge amount of solar energy wasted into space is such an alternative.

Why should we do that? Because at every second that we’re not going for those unused resources we are committing a great sin of waste. Every second that we allow the Sun to waste hundreds of yottawatts per second for nothing when we could use it to grow and to eventually use more than a non-negligible fraction of it is a second that we’re being lazy, shiftless wastrels.

Forget about the bad mileage that we allow our cars to have! The fact that we allow the Sun to burn for almost no one at all to benefit from it is umpty orders of magnitude more outrageous…!

[Octavianus Caesar]

You tried to put someone else's argument in my mouth because I shared a few common points with it and you had a canned arguement handy. Debate is about addressing points raised by your opponent or raising your own. Strawman arguments are a waste of our time.

It was not a strawman, it was putting what you were saying into context of the bigger argument of what others have said, most who say similar things to what you have said.

Most want to deny the present situation, while at the same time shift to something entirely different, where there is very little infrastructure for such a new incorporation.

People like me offer solutions by expanding what is already there, that will drive the price down and in time may even be better for the environment and certainly it will be better economically.

My problem is simply removing the present system for a "possibly" better idea of something else.

A lot of what you offer sounds goods, but the incorporation infrastructure is not there, thus the price for them will be higher, thus it will be cheaper to expand what we have now, while at the same time incorporate new ideas into the system, so the alternative is there. Free Market must determine what happens.

Congress would rather shove it down our throats, and most Americans will not buy it. The Electric Car was a bust and the Car companies wasted millions on it, only to sell less than 100,000?

[Aronnax]

It was not a strawman, it was putting what you were saying into context of the bigger argument of what others have said, most who say similar things to what you have said.

You attributed an arguement to me that I didn't make, that's called a straw man (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) arguement. I share some points but the larger arguement is different. I only share a few points with their arguement, namely the futility of oil shale and ANWR as an actual solutions. I understand the free market and I've suggested atomic power and synthetic oil several times now.

Straw man arguments are a common mistake, accept it and move on.


Most want to deny the present situation, while at the same time shift to something entirely different, where there is very little infrastructure for such a new incorporation.

I'm not denying the present situation, if you bother to do the long division you'd see why increasing domestic oil production won't do a thing to fix our problems.

No matter what happens in terms of domestic oil production we'll end up having to build new infrastructure very soon. This is also one of the times where subsidies are good because it'll buffer the transition, preventing a harsh market correction that could potentially cripple our industry, transportation, water and sanitation systems while we wait on new power plants to be built.


People like me offer solutions by expanding what is already there, that will drive the price down and in time may even be better for the environment and certainly it will be better economically.


The problem is your solutions aren't solutions, they're band aids at best (ANWR) or economic folly at the worst (oil shale). Being opposed to shale isn't some new age hippie rhetoric, calculate the entire agricultural production, in billions of dollars, of Arizona and Southern California for the next 50 years. Now calculate the cost to construct and operate desalination plants in California and the Aqueducts necessary to supply water to LA, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson and Las Vegas.

The Colorado river is a big deal, diverting and contaminating the diverted water to process shale is economic suicide if you can plan for more than 10 years at a time.


A lot of what you offer sounds goods, but the incorporation infrastructure is not there, thus the price for them will be higher, thus it will be cheaper to expand what we have now, while at the same time incorporate new ideas into the system, so the alternative is there. Free Market must determine what happens.

This goes back to subsidies to cushion for the increase in electrical demand as oil becomes more expensive. You've got 2 options: see what's coming and build ahead of time or ignore it or wait for the market to correct the problem and suffer through a nasty "correction" (hint: the great depression was a market correction).


Congress would rather shove it down our throats, and most Americans will not buy it. The Electric Car was a bust and the Car companies wasted millions on it, only to sell less than 100,000?

Market forces will eventually kill the gasoline as dead as a stone, it's only a matter of time. The cost of fuel will inevitably rise, eventually to a point where gas powered cars are no longer practical. Congress doesn't have to do a thing, the oil will eventually run out. What Congress is attempting to do is encourage development in other areas through subsidies and avoiding panic induced pit falls like shale. They're not doing a great job but that's the direction they're heading in.

When compared to gasoline cars electric cars are young and have a lot of room for development, especially in the area of batteries. Electric cars have struggled in the past due to a combination of cheap gas and weak R&D when compared to gas engines. Both of those areas are changing because of recent breakthroughs and the ever rising cost of oil. They will replace gasoline engines eventually, it's not a matter of "if" it's only a question of "when". Based on the cars the major auto manufactures have slated for production and the research I see that "when" is just around the corner.

[yondyr]

re solar... the panels at $600 per 83 watts last many years, having 18 of them - but the batteries, mine come from South Africa, I can't expect to last much beyond ten years, at about $8000 per set of 12 times 2 volts. Trace 3000 watt inverted costs about $4000. with minor costs for setup. some people here trickle charge from a creek which helps a great deal.. but all in all it's not lavish in that one can turn on the washing machine or drill press without resorting to the backup generator. Still, it does mean I can move into the future knowing I've been as frugal as possible.

[Octavianus Caesar]

The problem is your solutions aren't solutions, they're band aids at best (ANWR) or economic folly at the worst (oil shale).

Band aids, if done right will lower cost and expand what we have.

Granted the problem may not resolve itself and people will become more apathetic to it.

What is happening now is the best time to shift over, but at the same time the money needs to be there, if the system grinds to a halt, then nothing will change.

The "band aid" effect will allow the system to keep moving assuming people start to shift over.

But what most are proposing is grinding everything to a halt. And then figure what what needs to be done.

Congress is proposing some bill, Carbon tax or something, that will or could shoot gas up to 8.00 a gallon.

Congress wants to "green" everything and damn the consumer.

I'm not denying the present situation, if you bother to do the long division you'd see why increasing domestic oil production won't do a thing to fix our problems.

I am not saying that they be long term, just short term to to shift everything over. The idea is there and people are ready to shift, the problem is Congress will halt everything before we are able to get to the shift point, they will take money, raises taxes and hinder production of the energy companies all in the name of some Green initiative.

You've got 2 options: see what's coming and build ahead of time or ignore it or wait for the market to correct the problem and suffer through a nasty "correction"

This is a lot of what i am trying to say, we agree on something. :thumbsup:

Market forces will eventually kill the gasoline as dead as a stone, it's only a matter of time. The cost of fuel will inevitably rise, eventually to a point where gas powered cars are no longer practical. Congress doesn't have to do a thing, the oil will eventually run out. What Congress is attempting to do is encourage development in other areas through subsidies and avoiding panic induced pit falls like shale. They're not doing a great job but that's the direction they're heading in.

Congress stinks in this area. the Market should determine it and it may sooner than later.

[Jakalwarrior]

Switch grass FTW :D way way more efficent than corn and cheaper to process.

Anywho, my plan revolves around a single cylinder high compression motorcycle running on ethanol. Should be good for 65-70mpg. Only cost about 5000 for the bike + 500 for conversion. Am thinking a DR650 since its air cooled and will be easier / cheaper to maintain. Sure it will only go about 100mph tops but it will go anywhere (its a street legal dirt bike) and rock for gas mileage. Also the poorer I get the better the mileage gets... as I get thinner from starvation lol and reduce the weight of the vehicle by a signifigant amount.

[Ool]

Congress stinks in this area. the Market should determine it and it may sooner than later.

Well, the problem is that Congress is made up of people, and people seem to be totally unaware of the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource and a geological fluke. It is made up of people who are unaware or in denial of that fact because they were voted into office by people who are just as unaware and in denial about the issue.

That's the problem of democracy. People get the government that represents them, including their cluelessness.

The market isn't interested in people's delusions, though. It just presents the facts of supply and demand. But the downside is that the market adjusts situations cruelly, including through bankruptcies, famines, death... It's like evolution in that respect--it has the capacity of working things out in the end for whoever survives. But that doesn't necessarily mean that things will work out for you...

[SirJac]

The problem with oil is the exponential growth in consumption of a finite resource. The last 15 years we have been averaging an annual increased consumption of oil of about 2%. Sounds small, but 2% exponential growth is the same thing as doubling our consumption in only 35 years. In a doubling period (the time it takes for something to double with exponential growth), we consume more oil then we have consumed for the whole of previous history. This is key, since the best minds in the world believe that we have used roughly half of the worlds total oil reserves. This means that if exponential growth in oil consumption continues at 2%, there will be no oil left on earth in 35 years.

This assumes that we exploit all oil resources available and manage to tap all reserves that are currently unreachable. This also does not take into consideration that the growth in oil consumption has been increasing recently due to the rising economies in China and India.

Obviously this is not actually possible because while oil consumption can grow at 2% annually, oil production cannot and has not for many years. In fact the world is now actually consuming more oil then is produced and for now the difference is being made up by strategic reserves. This alone is enough to send the price of oil skyrocketing but consider that world oil production has at best been relatively constant and more likely has been decreasing, supply and demand is in a prime position to hit much harder and faster then the vast majority are prepared for.

We've run out of time to do anything to stop it or even mitigate its effect. This isn't going to be a smooth transition over 20 years, it's not going to be a rough transition over 10 years. It's going to be a brutal world wide transition over 5 years. That is the problem with exponential consumption of a finite resource, by time people realise there is a problem it's usually too late to do anything about it.

If we had all the time in the world there are alot of great options to reduce our dependancy on oil, but we don't have any time left so now we are going to have to withdrawl the hard way.

[phantasma]

It's scary to think I'll be paying for my own gas shortly. I recently got my drivers license and it's only a matter of time. :(

I just can't believe the government isn't open to drilling in Alaska. People complain about the poor polar bears (which are RISING in numbers), the oil spills, and the destruction of pristine habitats, but I've looked into it and the site where they want to drill is pretty much a blank wasteland and relatively, it isn't a big site at all. Besides, no one cares about the poor desert animals that may have been hurt when people started drilling in the middle east.

Hopefully the intense demand will give way to new resources for the supply. Hopefully people will stop kidding themselves about the 10% ethanol in their gas tanks. As great a vision it is, it dilutes the gasoline, and it's made out of food that could and should be given to starving people.

[Ool]

I just can't believe the government isn't open to drilling in Alaska. People complain about the poor polar bears (which are RISING in numbers), the oil spills, and the destruction of pristine habitats, but I've looked into it and the site where they want to drill is pretty much a blank wasteland and relatively, it isn't a big site at all. Besides, no one cares about the poor desert animals that may have been hurt when people started drilling in the middle east.

Yeah, ANWAR drilling would probably cause a lot less environmental damage than your everyday housing boom suburban sprawl did on the mainland. You might as well drill for it.

But it’s not going to last for long—on its own it would be about six months worth. And it would take a while to get to. And after that’s gone there’d be no more ANWAR oil left

So it could cause a little dent in the oil prices for a short while, easing the pain a little for maybe a year or two. You better pump it out being aware of that…!