View Full Version : My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil
BMT (RIP)
07-09-2008, 03:30
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121556087828237463.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries
:munchin
BMT
Great article, Sir.
I'm not sure that natural gas powered vehicles are an optimal choice; but at least Mr. Pickens is opening the conversation.
Good one... The locals down here have been converting their Taxis over to gas for the past 2-3 years. It is easy and very cheap. Hell if a Peruvian can do it why can't the Great American Motor Industry?:munchin
The Reaper
07-09-2008, 08:00
I am not sure that we would derive sufficient power from windmills to justify covering 30 states with fields of them, but he is a bonafied oil expert. Five years ago, ethanol seemed like a good idea as well.
Personally, I think the long term answer is nuclear power (fusion reseach should be accelerated immendiately) and fuel cell technology, but clearly, we are going to need to have several interim solutions.
IMHO, he should have hit immediate exploration and accelerated drilling ASAP much harder as an interim fix.
IIRC, LNG produces less energy per pound than gasoline, but it does burn slightly cleaner. This swap would have a secondary effect of running already elevated LNG prices further through the roof.
As an aside, Toyota just announced that they would be offering an option to put solar panels on the roof of the Prius. Net energy produced is barely enough to run the air conditioner.
TR
Good one... The locals down here have been converting their Taxis over to gas for the past 2-3 years. It is easy and very cheap. Hell if a Peruvian can do it why can't the Great American Motor Industry?:munchin
Yeah, but it does cut back on trunk space for the taxis to the airport. :D
The power cycles created by windmills require conditioning before hitting the grid, and its not an easily regulated and controlled source. What does that mean? Once again, we need an improved, high capacity battery to truly take advantage of wind (and many other alternative source) energy.
I'm with TR...the sooner we get serious about nuclear power, the better.
The Reaper
07-09-2008, 08:47
The power cycles created by windmills require conditioning before hitting the grid, and its not an easily regulated and controlled source. What does that mean? Once again, we need an improved, high capacity battery to truly take advantage of wind (and many other alternative source) energy.
I'm with TR...the sooner we get serious about nuclear power, the better.
Roger all. Furthermore, you either have to have sufficient reserve capacity in the grid to provide 100% of the power needs for low or no wind days, or storage for the windmill power to cover needs during reduced wind power production. How do you store terawatts of power?
This would lead to a very spotty availability, with California type rolling brownouts or blackouts to reduce demand to actual real time generating capacity.
The winds drops, and you lose power periodically. You want to live in the Southern or Southwestern summer with intermittent AC?
TR
Yeah, but it does cut back on trunk space for the taxis to the airport. :D
Yes it does....... When I am driving I look at those yellow tanks and just think when i hit them how hot it will get.:) For them....
The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites in the Midwestern United States. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. These percentages would hold true for any array of 10 or more wind farms, provided it met the minimum wind speed and turbine height criteria used in the study.
LINK (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121144907.htm)
As for fusion...+1.
I am not sure that we would derive sufficient power from windmills to justify covering 30 states with fields of them, but he is a bonafied oil expert. Five years ago, ethanol seemed like a good idea as well.
TR
Just put them on Capital Hill, plenty of Hot Air there and it never stops:D
These percentages would hold true for any array of 10 or more wind farms, provided it met the minimum wind speed and turbine height criteria used in the study.
Interesting, as long as you understand:
1) This requires a minimum of 10 fields (in reality, at least double that to meet growing generation requirements) of 330 ft tall wind turbines scattered through the Midwest, taking up to 40 acres per MW of production. To put that into perspective, a small biomass electric plant produces around 35MWh.
2) This requires thousands of additional miles of high voltage transmission lines and towers to connect all these farms, as suggested in the study
3) This assumes a minimum windspeed of 15.4 mph at any given time at more than 1 location, and was based off annual averages from the NWS
4) The proposed and studied locations are in the Midwest; the power requirement to send that electricity through lines to distant grids (northeast, northwest, southeast US) will significantly reduce the efficiency of the farms
So, while the plan sounds good on paper, implementation is another matter entirely.
The Reaper
07-09-2008, 12:45
And you will still have occasional days of peak demand in the winter and summer where the wind just isn't blowing on a day when people need electricity for air conditioning or heat.
Trust me, if it can go wrong, it will, and at the worst possible moment.
TR
So, while the plan sounds good on paper, implementation is another matter entirely.
Yes, Sir, I agree completely. In addition, there is a cost, in terms of crude oil, to build and maintain the wind generators - as well as the associated infrastructure you mention. The actual net energy return, over the life of the wind generation facility, has not (so far as I know) been determined. This is precisely the same sort of pattern we saw with corn ethanol - large-scale implementation of a new idea before considering the consequences.
And yet...in my opinion, we as a nation need to begin serious contemplation of the problem. If we don't, the outcome may be unpleasant.
The Reaper
07-09-2008, 13:29
Speaking of second order effects, even electric cars require a power source to recharge from.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
One of you smart math or engineering majors figure this out.
Number of cars in the US, times
Miles driven per year, times
Horsepower per car (assume 200 bhp is the average, it is probably higher), converted to KW, equals:
How many gigawatts (or likely terawatts) of electric generating capacity would be required to recharge and operate a 100% replacement of gasoline powered vehicles with battery powered electric versions?
How many do we generate here now?
How much is excess recharging capacity is currently available in the US grid?
How many additional generating plants will this then require?
What would the annual consumption of fuel per year be for the supplemental plants, in tons of coal, gallons of fuel oil, gallons of LNG, tons of uranium, etc.?
We will ignore, for now, new battery material commodity requirements, replacement needs, disposal issues, charging stations for trips outside the very limited range of the electric car, charging times (a battery is not a gas tank, and fuel stops will be measured in hours, not minutes), additional transmission line upgrades, grid improvements, home charging stations, upgraded home wiring to feed those stations, infrastructure, etc.
I think this answer will shock some people.
TR
At least this article mentions the need for energy diversity, there will be no one magic thing that will fix the energy problem. We will need to combine all these technologies to continue as a species. This of course brings the population crunch issue to light as well but that’s getting OT. Nuclear power (fission and fusion),wind, hydro, geothermal, biofuels/biomass and even the much maligned solar (assuming a greater then 40% efficiency and less need for rare earth metals like iridium and gallium) will all need to play nice with each other in the coming years.
Some of the ideas that my more educated friends have been talking about are very exciting. For example my friend Robert is working with a team that is trying to find a metal salt that when covered with water and stuck with sunlight will produce hydrogen(and oxygen of course). The idea sounds kind of…fishy but its sound enough for the DOE to give them a substantial grant.(I email him and will post the link to the site and research documents for the more technically inclined, I do know they are way over my head.) http://www.thesharkproject.org/ is the link to the site.
The engineering challenges for fusion also loom rather large on the proverbial horizon, the intense neutron flux of the reaction damaging the containment magnets as well as making the reactor itself radioactive. Something ITER is going to be trying to solve when it comes online sometime in the next 7 years.
MIT recently has shown some rather impressive things they have done with parabolic mirrors in the interest of solar energy. I don’t have the article on hand but I think they were intending to use it in a liquid sodium storage plant (like the Solar Two plant in Barstow).
At least this article mentions the need for energy diversity, there will be no one magic thing that will fix the energy problem. We will need to combine all these technologies to continue as a species. This of course brings the population crunch issue to light as well but that’s getting OT. Nuclear power (fission and fusion),wind, hydro, geothermal, biofuels/biomass and even the much maligned solar (assuming a greater then 40% efficiency and less need for rare earth metals like iridium and gallium) will all need to play nice with each other in the coming years.
Overall need to make changes to the way we use energy most likely won't happen.
Nuclear power as far as a power source for general power is a very smart way to go. Look I know who they are and how you may feel.. but France is all most 90% Nuclear power.. only "old" power plant are still running.
Electrical powered vehicles should all ready be "out" on the market. Ford produced a Totally electric Ranger Pick-up truck. A Family friend had on Gas powered and a Electrical. They have a 250 Acre ranch in centeral west texas. He would drive around 150+ acres a day on the electrical truck. CBS 60 Minutes interviewed he and two other owners. All of them had to turn them in after a 5 year lease. No way of buying it. He had to drive it to Dallas, some 200+ miles, to have it crashed.
Big bussness doesn't want to change so America won't get a change any time soon.
Just like the 50 mile off one gallon of gas carboretor. Never saw that hit the market. Fuel injectors were the way to go for Detroit.
AngelsSix
07-09-2008, 20:00
With the increase in problems with gas, oil, road rage, traffic congestion, environmental issues and increase in obesity, perhaps everyone should just start riding bicycles.....:rolleyes:
frostfire
07-09-2008, 20:31
an old salt at the range drives an '89 Honda CRX. It averages 52mph city and highway combined. Of course, the market didn't fly in the 90's because Americans like 'em big, very fast, sound-proofed and packed with steel. And now people are excited when they hear 40mpg hybrid car :rolleyes:
Ret10Echo
07-22-2008, 07:26
Pickens is testifying on the Hill today at 0930R....:munchin
http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Energy.aspx
Pickens' words more than just wind
By: Erika Lovley
July 22, 2008 09:12 AM EST
No doubt there are a lot of folks out there with grand schemes and blue-sky brainstorms about how to tackle America’s energy problems.
But T. Boone Pickens is more than just an opinionated fellow who talks a big game. He’s an opinionated fellow who talks a big game and is backed up by an even bigger bank roll, estimated at $4 billion.
Little wonder then that Pickens is stirring a gust on Capitol Hill, quickly becoming the hot ticket with his self-financed campaign to put wind power at the center of the nation’s energy strategy, while the political world is newly focused on $4-a-gallon gasoline and energy independence.
He meets Tuesday with the entire House Democratic Caucus. The Texas oilman has not always been the most popular fellow among this group during his long career as a corporate raider, which started in the 1980s — not to mention his role as a funder of the Swift Boat Veterans in the 2004 presidential campaign.
In an interview, Pickens said Democrats reached out to him. “I haven’t come up here trying to talk to anybody,” he said. “I felt like the grass roots is where I’d have my support.”
Indeed, just last week, the “Pickens Plan,” which he’s touting in a lavishly funded national television, Internet and newspaper campaign, was drawing mostly shrugs on Capitol Hill. Many congressional offices knew no details of the plan, and most staffers said their bosses were too busy to bother.
But that’s before word got around that Pickens was coming to town.
His campaign reported “dozens and dozens” of requests for sit-down meetings.
“Then I started to hear from friends on both sides that called me,” Pickens recalled. “I talked to the speaker, and I’ve got a meeting with Mitch McConnell. They called and wanted to know what I’m up to.”
Some are skeptical of the Pickens Plan, which calls for the government to help fund construction of new wind generation facilities to produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and slash one-third of foreign oil imports over the next 10 years.
Some are skeptical, too, of his motives, saying Pickens is looking to benefit his BP Capital Management company, which invests heavily in renewable energy.
But, munching on Famous Amos chocolate-chip cookies in his Hay-Adams hotel suite, the 80-year-old Pickens said he’s in a new phase of his life.
“I didn’t want to come and go in this life and feel like I had something that would’ve helped the country,” he said. “So I thought, ‘What the hell, it’s time to stand up and be counted.’”
The hoopla has already attracted the interest of the nation’s top political players, including President Bush, former Vice President Al Gore, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Ralph Nader and Warren Buffett.
Pickens says imports are costing America $700 billion a year, asserting that this will eventually be the largest transfer of wealth in history.
The switch to wind for some of the country’s electricity needs would allow natural gas to be conserved for use in motor vehicles, which would burn more cleanly at a cost of only $1 per gallon in some parts of the country.
“I want to elevate my plan into this presidential debate and the very critical situation that the country’s facing right now regarding how much oil we’re importing,” Pickens said. “I’d like to see it [implemented] in the first 100 days of the next presidency.”
Pickens has already spent a bundle unveiling his plan, committing to spend $58 million through the end of the year. And he already has a handful of lobbyists on staff and may add more.
The American Wind Energy Association and the Sierra Club are helping him push parts of his massive wind lobbying campaign in the coming months.
But do lawmakers like what they hear?
Some, including Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), do.
The one thing I see as a problem with Pickens' plan is yes NG and Wind will help out on our Energy problems. But I can't see if helping out with the foreign oil.
NG fuel cells willn't "make up" the gap of usage of gas.. a wind car.. I know he hasn't said that.. but the amount of foreign oil we as a nation take in if for gas is SOO much. SO I don't see Pickens' plan really working.
I like the fact that Picken is working on a plan, I feel that the plan is there and the Detorit and Gas Companies all know what can be done but don't want to give up those $700k quarterly earnings.
I think the guy in Cali that has made a battery pack for the SUV (or all hybrids) that extends there range by 25 to 40%. Once again the Gas Companies want to pay it from him.
Ret10Echo
07-22-2008, 08:03
CNG vehicles can take much of the pressure off. My buddy was running dual gas/propane vehicle in High School...and that was a little while ago...
For electrical power generation, wind is supplemental except for areas that are in particular geographic areas. It isn't the total answer. Difficulty with electrical power is you have to use what you make..solar and wind are complimentary. You usually have one or the other through daily cycles.
Transmission (High Voltage) is a serious problem. No right-of-ways and additional power generation still can't get to where it needs to because of maxed out transmission systems and a lack of high-voltage transformers. The way the power grids are set up (various interconnects) it doesn't lend itself to power sharing across various regions of the U.S.
The Reaper
07-22-2008, 10:37
I think with the red ink flowing in Detroit these days, if anyone actually had a 100mpg carburetor, or a more efficient vehicle, it would be out already, cause they would sell (and license) millions of them and make a fortune.
One of the envirowhackos preferred fossil fuel energy sources for power plants, because of the low emissions, is NG. IMHO, wind production, and large scale solar power generation, are not techincally or economically feasible. That brings you back to coal, which I think is dead for now, or nuclear, which will have a long lead tme to restart.
Natural gas is also very popular as a heating fuel, so its price is higher than I would like for motor vehicle use.
If we could replace some of the electric power generation with renewable sources, or more practically, nuclear, I suspect that the older coal fired plants would be among the first to go. Not much pressure would be taken off NG, but I suppose every bit helps. Some fuel oil fired plants (probably used mostly for back-up power right now with the fuel costs) might also be taken off line, and free up a small amount of fuel oil for the marketplace.
If we got to electric cars, we will not be able to retire any electric generating plants for a very long time. The power requirements will be tremendous.
If we all had electric cars right now that were highly efficient, long range, inexpensive, and powerful, we would still need a power source to charge them from. IIRC, the rapid charge electric cars of the past required more than 240 volts to recharge, and were limited to less than 100 miles range. If you can imagine a large appliance, like a stove or a dryer running for 6-8 hours every night in your home, and where that power will be coming from, you might start to get the picture.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Ret10Echo
07-22-2008, 10:51
Is one poison better than the other?
If I'm going to be gouged I might as well get gouged for a U.S. natural resource as opposed to one from somewhere else....
Although many of the alternatives require offshore manufacturing to put into play. There aren't too many solar cell manufacturers left in the U.S.
Be nice to have a small, grid-tied wind turbine, photovoltaic system in the back yard....
It is discouraging to look at what the "goal" is for plug-in cars. I work 56 miles from home....one way.
Lithium-ion shows promise in giving cars a range of 40 miles per charge,
"The target is 40 miles, and we don't think we can do that with nickel-metal-hydride," he said in an interview. "Lithium-ion, it's a lot more likely to get there."
So why does the government yet again seek to set an amazingly low standard for itself? Tesla is doing 170 - 200+ miles per charge RIGHT NOW...
What is this, "No manufacturer gets behind?"
What a waste
So why does the government yet again seek to set an amazingly low standard for itself? Tesla is doing 170 - 200+ miles per charge RIGHT NOW...
Why? 'cause they know where their f#$%ing bread is buttered, that's why. :mad: Set low standards and, even if you meet them, the American public won't want it!!! I hate to sound like a hippie here, but the eschewing of electric cars is crap. True, they can't solve every problem, but it'll solve MOST commuting problems for MOST people. Last I heard, "most" makes it a market. Look at Hybrids. The technology is there to turn EVERY car into a Hybrid, with power for those that stomp on it and fuel efficiency for those that don't. Plug in hybrids are the best of both worlds. 40+ "free" electric miles, then 400+ miles via "traditional" hybrid driving. Who has a problem with that??? Hmmm, Big Oil, maybe.
The problem with drawing from the grid for electric cars, as TR enumerated, is the total added draw to the system. Possibly, just possibly, if the gov't stopped subsidizing an oil industry that's turning record profits and can offer a former CEO a $8 BILLION severence package and turn that unrealized revenue into grants and research for renewables (say, cheaper and more efficient photo-voltaic) and improved battery tech, we might be able to charge our car using energy gathered from the sun right at our own house and drive longer on that charge. Not everyone could, but MOST.
I'll tell you, as far as renewables go, if the sun ever goes away, we have alot more to worry about than energy for my toaster...:confused:
And expanding drilling just pisses me off. There are over 6,000 leased permits to drill currently held by the oil companies that have ZERO going on. Why? Because if the oil companies can get the gov't to open up protected lands, they'll be able to drill everywhere - they can hold onto the old permits, get new ones for the previously protected lands, and NOT DRILL. This will keep the price (profits) nice and high. If pressure gets to be more than the average whimpering from the American public (read: enough for the politicians to actually fear for their jobs :boohoo), they can start drilling on some of their permits... I think this should be fairly simple to understand: Why would the oil companies want to lower the gas prices? They OWN American politics. They just want more access to cash, in the form of the "protected lands" - and we're gonna give it to them. They have dangled the "hydrogen car" carrot for decades now... Hmmm, only prototypes on the road. Nothing for Dick and Jane... They will keep the price high as long as they can. The only thing that will really change prices is if the OPEC nations agree to drop the price of oil like they did in the 70's (or 80's - I was too young to remember). And THAT will only be to dissuade alternative technology innovation. Keep the junkie hooked.
How about they drill on the permits they've got? If we give them access to the reserves, what's out there will only fill our country's need for a little over a year... Seems to be a great pay-off for drilling on protected lands, but that's the hippy in me - looking for some sort of rationale.
My problem with Nuclear is the waste... That's the big one. What to do with it and where to put it. Sorry, I'm from VT - we think about that stuff.
Solar is part of the solution, as is wind, hydro, nuclear, and oil. Oil will be a part of human culture until our demise. I just wish the oil companies would dump some of their massive profits into renewable R&D. There's generations to come to squeeze money out of, might as well be a market leader.
Sorry for the rant.
...And expanding drilling just pisses me off. There are over 6,000 leased permits to drill currently held by the oil companies that have ZERO going on. .....
I like viewing Ice Road Truckers. Interesting show here and there. In one part the truckers where moving a drilling site.
The site was a bust, I think they were looking for gas, and they were moving lock, stock and drill bit to a new site. The foreman mentioned but I forgot how many millions he said was wasted. They were hoping for better luck at the next locaion.
So you're saying "Big Oil" can sink wells anywhere on the leased land - no problems?
So you're saying "Big Oil" can sink wells anywhere on the leased land - no problems?
Nope, but they have over 6000 (roughly 6400) permitted sites that have zero activity on them. Not drilling per se, just holding onto the land IN CASE they want to drill, or find something later.
Why would we open up the nature reserves for a YEARS WORTH of oil? Doesn't make any sense. long term impact for extremely short gain.
Have them drill/explore on what they have. If they get nothing after THAT, we should discuss the possibilities, not before.
Ever think that maybe the oil companies are keeping the price high to entice political pressure to let them buy permits in the reserves. When the price is low, there's no need to drill there.
Let's see, PROFITS for the top oil company (singular) last year was $40 billion (beating it's previous record, set the year before) and this year should beat that by $10B to $40B.
I love (sarcasm) to hear the current industry line: "profits are not large as a percent of revenue." Wrong, but nice spin fellas. Profit as a return on investment is the proper measure. Return of profit on capital investment attracts capital in the first place. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this is why we call the system “capitalism.”
With return on investment hovering right around 25-30%, it's no wonder so many politicians are financially tied to oil - either through direct investment or "campaign" and "PAC" contributions... Makes me want to f#$%ing yack. Glad they're in it for the "little guy".
Again, sorry for the rant. No one's opinion here bothers me, we've all got 'em, but if you've ever had to dip into savings to buy your heating oil to stop your house from freezing this winter and having pipes burst or a frozen child, this is ridiculous to the point of insanity...
I think with the red ink flowing in Detroit these days, if anyone actually had a 100mpg carburetor, or a more efficient vehicle, it would be out already, cause they would sell (and license) millions of them and make a fortune.
Sir- I respectfully disagree. The NiMh battery was out and available for electric cars, but the controlling interest in the company was bought by a car company and the batteries sat there on the shelf, while the car industry said that the batteries available aren't good enough. Then, the interest was sold to an oil company who continued to keep it on the shelf. They deliberately submarined a small industry to further their goals.
So, no sir, I don't think that if there was a 100mpg carb out there that we would necessarily have it.
Plug in hybrids get awesome gas mileage. The tech is currently available - you can do it yourself for $10k, surely a mass production would drop the costs. Where are all the plug-in hybrids?
The Reaper
07-22-2008, 15:15
Why? 'cause they know where their f#$%ing bread is buttered, that's why. :mad: Set low standards and, even if you meet them, the American public won't want it!!! I hate to sound like a hippie here, but the eschewing of electric cars is crap. True, they can't solve every problem, but it'll solve MOST commuting problems for MOST people. Last I heard, "most" makes it a market. Look at Hybrids. The technology is there to turn EVERY car into a Hybrid, with power for those that stomp on it and fuel efficiency for those that don't. Plug in hybrids are the best of both worlds. 40+ "free" electric miles, then 400+ miles via "traditional" hybrid driving. Who has a problem with that??? Hmmm, Big Oil, maybe.
The problem with drawing from the grid for electric cars, as TR enumerated, is the total added draw to the system. Possibly, just possibly, if the gov't stopped subsidizing an oil industry that's turning record profits and can offer a former CEO a $8 BILLION severence package and turn that unrealized revenue into grants and research for renewables (say, cheaper and more efficient photo-voltaic) and improved battery tech, we might be able to charge our car using energy gathered from the sun right at our own house and drive longer on that charge. Not everyone could, but MOST.
I'll tell you, as far as renewables go, if the sun ever goes away, we have alot more to worry about than energy for my toaster...:confused:
And expanding drilling just pisses me off. There are over 6,000 leased permits to drill currently held by the oil companies that have ZERO going on. Why? Because if the oil companies can get the gov't to open up protected lands, they'll be able to drill everywhere - they can hold onto the old permits, get new ones for the previously protected lands, and NOT DRILL. This will keep the price (profits) nice and high. If pressure gets to be more than the average whimpering from the American public (read: enough for the politicians to actually fear for their jobs :boohoo), they can start drilling on some of their permits... I think this should be fairly simple to understand: Why would the oil companies want to lower the gas prices? They OWN American politics. They just want more access to cash, in the form of the "protected lands" - and we're gonna give it to them. They have dangled the "hydrogen car" carrot for decades now... Hmmm, only prototypes on the road. Nothing for Dick and Jane... They will keep the price high as long as they can. The only thing that will really change prices is if the OPEC nations agree to drop the price of oil like they did in the 70's (or 80's - I was too young to remember). And THAT will only be to dissuade alternative technology innovation. Keep the junkie hooked.
How about they drill on the permits they've got? If we give them access to the reserves, what's out there will only fill our country's need for a little over a year... Seems to be a great pay-off for drilling on protected lands, but that's the hippy in me - looking for some sort of rationale.
My problem with Nuclear is the waste... That's the big one. What to do with it and where to put it. Sorry, I'm from VT - we think about that stuff.
Solar is part of the solution, as is wind, hydro, nuclear, and oil. Oil will be a part of human culture until our demise. I just wish the oil companies would dump some of their massive profits into renewable R&D. There's generations to come to squeeze money out of, might as well be a market leader.
Sorry for the rant.
Gagners:
I think to some degree, you have been drinking the Kool-Aid. Not surprising given the amount of propoganda you are subjected to in your area.
Hybrids have a real set of problems of their own. Remember when ethanol was the big fix? Maybe the good ideas don't always work out like we planned.
One of the main problems with photovoltaics, other than cost per kWh, is that they only produce power when the sun is out. I do not know about you, but I do not plan to live with a few hours of electricity per day, especially if you are asking me (and 100,000,000 other Americans) to charge my electric car from it overnight. Where does the electricity come from at night? Who is going to prepare the grid to receive wind and solar power?
IF you were running an oil company, and had rigs available, with oil selling for more than $125 per barrel, would you really be sitting on likely fields waiting for something? These people have to answer to Boards and shareholders. I am confident that they are drilling likely productive sites as fast as they can. I strongly suspect that much of the available land for exploration simply isn't promising. What good is millions of acres with no oil under it. You want them to drill where the oil isn't, while ignoring areas proven to be rich with it? If it isn't promising with oil prices where they are right now, when will that leased land be drillable? Probably only after all other sources are gone. Having said that, why keep ANWR off limits right now?
As far as oil company profits go, we have beaten that myth to death here before. Oil companies are not particularly more profitable than most other companies. If you bought access to a resource with it valued at $25 per barrel, and the price rose to $145 per barrel, you would be sitting pretty as well. How come no one is bitching about the gold mining companies making big money now?
The nuclear waste would all be securely stored in a remote mineshaft in Yucca Flats right now, if the greens allowed it. I would certainly feel safer with ten times as much waste stored there than I do with the current backlog scattered around the country in sites of questionable security, with people looking to do us harm roaming loose and plotting. Yet the enviro-whackos continue to fight the secure storage site.
Not busting on you personally, just that I see a lot of AlGore and NYT headlines in what you are saying, and as President Reagan said, "so much of it just isn't so".
As far as heating oil costs, you could insulate your house further, turn down the thermostat, put in a more efficient furnace, burn wood, or pellets, use solar heat, or just move to a place that does not get so cold in the winter. Your ancestors lived there before oil heat or fiberglass insulation were around. Did someone promise you a cheap supply of heating oil for the rest of your life? I thought we were experiencing global warming anyway? According to AlGore, you could be living in a tropical paradise by the time you retire.
TR
The Reaper
07-22-2008, 15:21
Sir- I respectfully disagree. The NiMh battery was out and available for electric cars, but the controlling interest in the company was bought by a car company and the batteries sat there on the shelf, while the car industry said that the batteries available aren't good enough. Then, the interest was sold to an oil company who continued to keep it on the shelf. They deliberately submarined a small industry to further their goals.
So, no sir, I don't think that if there was a 100mpg carb out there that we would necessarily have it.
Plug in hybrids get awesome gas mileage. The tech is currently available - you can do it yourself for $10k, surely a mass production would drop the costs. Where are all the plug-in hybrids?
NiMH is old tech. GM is investing billions into the Volt, and they cannot get LiIon or any other battery to hold the charge they need it to safely for the size and weight constraints. Where do you get your news?
There is no such thing as a 100mpg carburetor. The efficiencies of an internal combustion engine and the physics of propelling a 4,000 pound vehicle at 65 mph do not allow it. If we all want to drive mopeds every day, maybe.
Why do I want to spend $10K on top of a $30,000 investment in a new vehicle which will, as owners of battery powered devices already know, a new battery pack costing several thousand more dollars in a few years?
Where does all of the lead, cadmium, nickel, lithium, etc. come from, and where does it go when you are done?
TR
Listened to an interesting interview several months ago with a reporter who covers the auto industry, who has written a book or two about it. I apologize, I can't remember her name. She made the assertion that in actuality, the auto industry detests big oil because so much of what they do is restricted by big oil. Don't know if it is true but it is an interesting thought. Lends credence to the idea that if there was a 100 mpg carbeurator out there they would LOVE to put it on cars to stick it to big oil. As to ethanol, it is, I think, a very viable industry, but not from corn. Sugar cane and certain grasses which can be grown on land not currently being farmed look good. Also, algae seems to have great potential, especially when coupled with coal fired electric generation. Algae removes 85% of the CO2 which it uses to generate ethanol. Some people believe such a process could generate electriciy free. There are some patents in the pipeline for such a process right now.
Gagners:
I think to some degree, you have been drinking the Kool-Aid. Not surprising given the amount of propoganda you are subjected to in your area.
I understand where you are coming from, in both of your posts sir, but I still have to say that drilling in ANWR does nothing but serve the short interest greed of the oil industry. Sorry, that's the way I see it. Throw a year's worth of oil at the American public, which they don't have to buy from anyone, to slightly lower (if at all) the cost of gas at the pump. Sounds like a fatter margin to me.
GM is investing billions into the Volt. It'll be a concept for a few more years, then maybe we'll see something real. I hope it's sooner than later.
Li-Ion has the power and storage to propel the Tesla at supercar speeds for over 220 miles (teslamotors.com). The batteries are there and, with the advent of large-format Li-ion, it'll only get better.
And I was being sarcastic about the 100mpg carb. Although I still say that, even if there was one, we wouldn't necessarily have it.
As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... The amount of waste produced will increase on an exponential level (as oil usage did when OPEC cut costs three decades ago). If it's cheap, we'll just use more. Secure storage is great, yet finite. eventually, we will outgrow our storage capacity. Space to store it, therefore, will be what is at a premium.
And yessir, I've been sippin' from the old VT fountain for hippies... It's hard not to (reminder: find out how COL Jack manages...:lifter), but I think we both, in fairness, are getting fed the propaganda lines from both sides and the truth/answer/whatever is somewhere in between.
Listened to an interesting interview several months ago with a reporter who covers the auto industry, who has written a book or two about it. I apologize, I can't remember her name. She made the assertion that in actuality, the auto industry detests big oil because so much of what they do is restricted by big oil. Don't know if it is true but it is an interesting thought. Lends credence to the idea that if there was a 100 mpg carbeurator out there they would LOVE to put it on cars to stick it to big oil. As to ethanol, it is, I think, a very viable industry, but not from corn. Sugar cane and certain grasses which can be grown on land not currently being farmed look good. Also, algae seems to have great potential, especially when coupled with coal fired electric generation. Algae removes 85% of the CO2 which it uses to generate ethanol. Some people believe such a process could generate electriciy free. There are some patents in the pipeline for such a process right now.
Problem with ethanol (I know, gagners dislikes a "green" technology!!! Oh the horrors!!!) is that it is fairly inefficient compared to gas. Not to mention extremely expensive to produce now - with the shift to producing ethanol, the price of corn has gone up via demand, since we're still using it as a food (silly us). Ethanol companies are going under rapidly.
Also, if we were to switch to massive ethanol production, we would be growing corn (using current, viable model) over much of the country. As our need for fuels increases, where do we plant more corn? I'm talking about distant future, of course, but I feel the need to project things out. We get to a point where we can't physically produce anymore and we are either importing
1) our fuel (again) or
2) our food (worse)
I...As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... .
My wife likes to keep the A/C set on 75 in the summer. Waste to one is comfort to another.
I want to drive my 4x4 to the range on Saturday its my business not some tree huggers.
The tone of your posts comes out as someone who would be more that happy to tell others what they should be doing. And that is just what libs want to do - tell us how we should be living.
Smoking - trans fats - oil - guns and on and on and on. They know what is best for us. Are you one of them?
Are you one of them?
No, I'm sure not. I have concerns that there will be a storage crisis in the future if we switch over to nuclear lock-stock-and barrel. Not sure how that translates in telling you what to do?:confused:
And, I also believe, personally, that drilling in ANWR is more about corporate profits than helping the little guy at the pump.
My opinion that we should seek alternatives is no different than someone's opinion to drill in ANWR immediately or run their A/C @ 75. They're opinions, hopefully informed ones. Neither one is telling the other person how they should live. You can be sure that if I were rich, I wouldn't be worried about the price of gas or my heating bill or the gas mileage of my car. But I'm not. My opinions are formed b/c these issues affect me greatly.
If I'm coming off as liberal, I'll apologize, I guess. Last I knew, differing opinions led to better decisions via discussion and debate. Didn't mean to offend.
....Not sure how that translates in telling you what to do?:confused:.....
Read you post again - the part I quoted.
That reads to be against something because if you do it they will use more, needing more, requiring more. So to stop it we make them do with less.
Energy should be an "all fronts" battle but far too many want the fight to be someplace else.
LIBs are the biggest hipocrits - IE Teddy and the Wind Farm "NIMBY" - AlGore jetting to a Global Warming conference in a private jet - Anti Gun Libs with armed body guards.
Now I'll tell you I drive a Ford Focus for work. It's a cheep car, gets good gas MPG, I can drive it into the ground and throw it away after 6 years. It costs me gas and routine maintenance. Show me an elec/bat/hyb car that costs the same to buy and run for 6 years and I'd be one of the first to switch.
I ain't rich and I don't have time to be stuck in the middle of nowhere because my battery ran down or the sun went behind a cloud.
As far as nuclear waste, my concern is this: as more of our power needs are shifted to nuclear, we get into a cycle: there will be more demands on the plants = more plants = more available power = lower prices = more use (more waste) = more demand = more plants etc... The amount of waste produced will increase on an exponential level (as oil usage did when OPEC cut costs three decades ago). If it's cheap, we'll just use more. Secure storage is great, yet finite. eventually, we will outgrow our storage capacity. Space to store it, therefore, will be what is at a premium.
Probably true. In essence, what you're saying is that nuclear plants support continued exponential growth.
However, our global economy is based on precisely that. Organizations - whether oil companies or charities - depend on it. One need look no further than a price-earnings ratio to see investor expectations of future earnings growth. Likewise, we see the same pattern in China; a large population with many still quite poor looks at the relative affluence of a few, and has aspirations.
This is where the issue of oil, whether foreign or domestic, becomes problematic. Consumption tends to keep going up, tracking exponential growth in the greater economy. In fact, one researcher perceives a strong correlation between GDP and oil (Link - See page 9) (http://www.aspousa.org/proceedings/houston/presentations/HIRSCH%20HOUSTON-ASPO-USA.pdf) The economic cost of independence may be greater than we are willing to pay. A transition to nuclear faces similar demands from exponential growth, and hence the challenges you mention.
Reducing energy demands is likely to have an adverse effect on the greater economy. One person's conservation may represent another person's job. Certain geologic realities may force us in the direction of reduced oil consumption - in which case, nuclear plants would be really nice to have. As for addressing the underlying issue of exponential growth...well, that seems to me like a grand challenge. :munchin
Ret10Echo
07-22-2008, 18:22
I watched the hearings from the Hill today...interesting information to take in. Couple of points: First, a personal pet-peeve....if you think that any sort of fuel that is made from something that is currently part of the food-supply-chain...I think your are nuts. The only thing "bio" that is reasonable to turn into fuel is something that I would probably just throw away or flush...
1. If the ANWR had been opened back in "The day" estimates are that it would have been just about depleted now. (Not sure of the validity of that...)
2. Real renewables (wind, tidal) tend to fit in alignment with major population areas in the U.S.
3. Vehicles other than "plug-ins" compete for a depleting resource and in many cases can not take advantage of renewables.
T. Boone made a good case, but I tell ya, the guy that followed him was in disagreement on certain points. Trying to find his name....
One thing that also bothers me is the continued idea that certain options will only last for 10 or 15 years, but will eventually run out... That gets close to whining and seems to have the "Why bother, it'll only break" attitude. For some I guess it is easy to quit before you start so you don't have to do it later... I realize that there is a lot of money at stake if you are going to switch from one to the other along the way. Apparently most things are in fact a stop-gap until a better application of the electric vehicle is developed or a true renewable bio-fuel is developed that is comparable to the efficiency of gas.
Link to the CSPAN Video Library:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=206507-1
Apparently most things are in fact a stop-gap until a better application of the electric vehicle is developed or a true renewable bio-fuel is developed that is comparable to the efficiency of gas.
Yes, Sir, I could not agree more.
While it's true that many approaches are temporary, the critical point is not that one should surrender - rather, we need to recognize they are temporary and plan toward a more permanent solution.
The present problems were predicted in 1952 - and we ignored the warnings. Admiral Rickover noticed the upcoming problems in 1957 - and he was, likewise ignored. (Interesting article here (http://www.energybulletin.net/node/22890)). So, seemingly, half a century warning is not sufficient....
We should certainly use stop-gap measures. But while we're doing that, we need to ask what happens in 20 years or so.
GratefulCitizen
07-23-2008, 00:55
I think with the red ink flowing in Detroit these days, if anyone actually had a 100mpg carburetor, or a more efficient vehicle, it would be out already, cause they would sell (and license) millions of them and make a fortune.
Natural gas is also very popular as a heating fuel, so its price is higher than I would like for motor vehicle use.
TR
There is an upper limit to the level of fuel economy which is useful (to an individual consumer).
The reason for this is mathematics.
We all see the big numbers for fuel economy on some cars (45/35...woo-hoo!).
This measurement method is a marketing gimmick (big numbers look good).
A better measure than mpg would be gphm (gallons per 100 miles).
15 mpg = 6.67 gphm
25 mpg = 4 gphm
35 mpg = 2.86 gphm
100 mpg = 1 gphm
To drive 12,000 miles per year (typical):
15 mpg = 800 gallons
25 mpg = 480 gallons
35 mpg = 343 gallons
100 mpg = 120 gallons
At $4/gallon, the yearly difference between a 35 mpg car and a 100 mpg car: $892.
Given the other costs of vehicle ownership, this is not worth it for the majority of consumers.
***************************
***************************
Vehicles capable of good mileage have been around for awhile.
Emissions laws have tended to undercut efficiency.
The Chevy Sprint/Geo Metro/Chevy Metro are an example of this.
Generation I had a highly effective cylinder head design and was carbureted.
For generation II, emissions laws required fuel injection, which (for some odd reason) required a different head design.
Fuel efficiency dropped in these versions.
(except for the Xfi models, but those would have done better with the original head, too)
The OBD-II became mandatory in 1996.
This further reduced fuel efficiency in the generation III models.
(Wouldn't allow lean-burn or high combustion temperatures)
My parents owned the generation I and II models. (4dr hatches)
I own a generation III model. (2dr hatch)
Gen I: actual performance 62 mpg (hwy).
Gen II: actual performance 55 mpg (hwy).
Gen III: actual performance 49 mpg (hwy).
(My gen III can get over 55 mpg due to some goofy mods and driving techniques, but this wouldn't happen under normal circumstances)
Other attempts didn't catch on...
Bill Crower had a mileage kit for the small-block Chevy in the late 70s - early 80s.
It had domed pistons which raised the static compression ratio to around 15:1.
The camshaft timing closed the intake valve late to reduce dynamic compression.
(Atkinson cycle)
A full-size (carbureted) chevy would get 30+ mpg.
Some of the Toyota, Ford, and Chevy hybrids now use this technique.
The engines of the late '60s had excellent thermal efficiency.
A 4 cylinder Nova with a manual transmission would get superb mileage.
Eventually, various emissions requirements killed the thermal efficiency of the '60s.
(phaseout of tetra-ethyl lead, etc.)
CNG has some potential due to the anti-knock characteristics.
The higher compression ratios would lead to higher thermal efficiency than in gasoline engines.
However, emissions restrictions (IIRC -- NOx) would likely rein in combustion temperatures and limit performance.
People will buy what they will buy.
Oil will be required.
I'm all for another Project Rulison (say...in ANWR? :D)
--My .02
Read you post again - the part I quoted.
That reads to be against something because if you do it they will use more, needing more, requiring more. So to stop it we make them do with less.
Energy should be an "all fronts" battle but far too many want the fight to be someplace else.
I'm sorry Pete, I think we talked past each other there. We agree. I don't want people to use less. I'm an American too. My wife drives an SUV.
I mentioned to TR a few posts ago that putting all of our energy eggs in one basket doesn't seem to be the answer - no matter the basket. They all have drawbacks or limited resources that will put us back in this same scenario in the future. With Nuclear, it's waste. With Wind, it's availability. With ethanol, it's space/efficiency. And on and on. The economic growth that I mentioned (the part you quoted) will happen, no matter the method, but with nuclear power, the waste will grow with it.
I'm merely suggesting that we should be looking to diversify our energy production. That way, we have built-in flexibility. If one is slacking or more efficient methods are discovered, we start flexing, rather than be painted into a corner via one solution.
And the LIBs ARE hypocrits, I agree. If you really want to see liberal at it's best, don't stop at the Democrats, look further and you'll find the only Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders...
BTW - Did you see any legislators complaining about how "private security firms" do business when they were protecting them during legislative visits? Nope.
frostfire
07-24-2008, 17:29
Bloomberg.com, New York, 2008-07-23 Oil Falls Below $125 as U.S. Fuel Supplies Gain, Demand Drops
By Mark Shenk
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil futures fell below $125 a barrel for the first time in seven weeks after a U.S. government report showed that fuel stockpiles increased as consumption tumbled to the lowest in more than a year.
Gasoline supplies rose 2.85 million barrels last week, the Energy Department reported. Stockpiles of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, climbed 2.42 million barrels. U.S. fuel demand averaged 19.9 million barrels a day, the lowest since January 2007.
"The inventory and demand numbers make it clear that demand is being affected by high prices and the weak economy," said Kyle Cooper, an analyst at IAF Advisors in Houston . "The 19.9 million barrel demand number is incredibly low and has to have the bulls worried."
Crude oil for September delivery fell $3.98, or 3.1 percent, to settle at $124.44 a barrel at 2:59 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 4. Futures are up 66 percent from a year ago.
"Technically, we are looking for oil to settle below $121.61 and $120.75 a barrel, which were lows before the start of summer," said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York . "If we do, you can expect the market to break down further."
Oil fell as low as $121.61 a barrel on June 5 and touched $120.75 on May 15.
Demand has dropped for three straight weeks, the Energy Department report showed. U.S. fuel consumption averaged 20.3 million barrels a day in the past four weeks, down 2.1 percent from a year earlier, the department said.
Refinery Operations
Refineries operated at 87.1 percent of capacity last week, down 2.4 percentage points from the week before, according to the department. It was the lowest utilization rate since the week ended May 9. Refineries were forecast to operate at 89.5 percent of capacity last week, unchanged from the week before, according to the median of analyst estimates in the Bloomberg survey.
Crude-oil inventories dropped 1.56 million barrels to 295.3 million. Stockpiles were forecast to decline 675,000 barrels, according to the survey results.
"Any bullish impact from the crude-oil drop has been offset by rising product inventories in the face of falling refinery utilization rates," said Bill O'Grady, director of fundamental futures research at Wachovia Securities in St. Louis . "This is another sign that demand is being hammered. You've reached a
price level where there's a demand response."
Analysts were split over whether gasoline inventories rose or fell last week, the survey showed. Distillate supplies were forecast to climb 2.5 million barrels.
Gasoline Prices
Gasoline for August delivery fell 11.26 cents, or 3.6 percent, to settle at $3.0344 a gallon in New York , the lowest close since May 2. Futures reached a record $3.631 a gallon on July 11.
Pump prices are following changes in futures. Regular gasoline, averaged nationwide, fell 1.3 cents to $4.042 a gallon, AAA, the nation's largest motorist organization, said today on its Web site. Pump prices reached a record $4.114 a gallon on July 17.
Crude oil has tumbled 16 percent from a record $147.27 a barrel on July 11, as a stronger U.S. dollar limited the appeal of commodities as a hedge against inflation and high prices cut fuel consumption. Price also fell the past two days because a hurricane moved away from oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico .
Interest Rates
Oil and other commodities may drop further and the dollar increase if the Federal Reserve boosts interest rates to curb inflation. Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser today said higher mortgage costs and continued declines in house prices pose no bar to raising interest rates.
Policy makers must increase borrowing costs before inflation expectations become "unhinged," Plosser said in an interview with Bloomberg Television today.
The dollar rose 0.5 percent to 107.90 yen at 2:55 p.m. in New York, from 107.33 yesterday. It reached 107.97, the highest since June 26. The U.S. currency appreciated 0.7 percent to $1.5674 per euro, after rising to $1.5670, the strongest since July 9.
The UBS Bloomberg Constant Maturity Commodity Index, which tracks 26 raw materials, gained 31 percent in the first half of the year as the U.S. currency retreated 8 percent. The index has fallen 8.8 percent this month as the dollar has stabilized.
Hurricane Dolly
Hurricane Dolly came ashore in southern Texas today, where coastal residents sustained their first direct hit by a hurricane in almost a decade. Dolly packed winds of 100 miles (161 kilometers) per hour as its eye hit South Padre Island , about 35 miles (50 kilometers) northeast of Brownsville , at 1 p.m. local
time, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center.
Dolly is the season's first hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, home to about a quarter of U.S. oil production. The storm has steered south of most rigs, which are off the East Texas and Louisiana shores.
Brent crude oil for September settlement dropped $4.26, or 3.3 percent, to close at $125.29 a barrel on London 's ICE Futures Europe exchange, the lowest settlement since June 4.
--With reporting by Scott Lanman and Demian McLean in Washington
and Kathleen Hays in Phildelphia. Editor: Joe Link, Theo Mullen
To contact the reporter on this story:
Mark Shenk in New York at +1-212-617-4331 or
mshenk1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Dan Stets at +1-212-617-4403 or
dstets@bloomberg.net. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHLWg6Vg1XYs&refer=home
GratefulCitizen
07-26-2008, 18:55
More on fuel efficiency:
The Shell Oil test car and related conspiracies:
http://www.opel-p1.nl/custom/testcar/Shell%20Opel.htm
A few years ago, there was a group of people trying to sell a device which did the fuel vaporization thing like on the test car.
They tried to sell it to the mechanic who works on our UPS trucks.
The device demonstrated significant economy gains, but it was expensive and the mechanic was suspicious about potential long-term engine damage.
There was a ridiculously inexpensive device originally developed in 1971 which supposedly improved fuel economy.
The EPA did some questionable testing and considered the device ineffective.
The original developers petitioned the EPA in 1980-81 to reconsider and were basically stonewalled.
An engineering professor from MIT verified the efficacy, as did Mexico's analog to the EPA, and a couple of Japanese sources.
Most internet sources will discredit the device as junk.
Here are the actual 182 pages of documents:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb82183567.pdf
I have one installed on my commuter.
The fuel economy is still improving. (broke the 60 mpg barrier on Thursday)
Once the economy plateaus, I'll do some careful test runs with and w/o the device.
Who knows? Maybe there is something to some of the conspiracies.