Discussion in 'Legal' started by Mr. X, Jun 6, 2005.
I saw some AKs in the hands of Osama and some redheaded Arab, stock footage though.
For transportation fuel, Shell, et al in Indonesia are doing direct conversion of natural gas, with Palladium as the catalyst.
At today's oil prices, shale oil and gasoline from coal are competitive, but there is the necessary time lag to get such plants built and on line.
Hydrocarbon fuel cells are getting toward the status of "off the shelf hardware" and are some 30% more efficient than IC engines. I'd say that's a notable improvement in the use of fossil fuel...
Overall, the problem is neither the amount of remaining oil or the changes in usages of various energy forms or sources. It's all sorts of political stuff, whether Chavez in Venezuela or Al Qaida in the MidEast.
As far as our own transportation, I don't there's much the government can do to improve things...
Actually it's an UNnecessary time lag. We haven't built either an oil refinery or a nuclear power plant in this country in about 30 years. If you had the money to build one or the other, you'd have to accept that you would not live to see ground broken, and that the cost of lawsuits and delaying tactics by "environmentalists" would exceed the actual construction cost by an order of magnitude.
Only in the hands of robbers, and terrorists, and police containing crowds.
I wonder why it was even aired to begin with.
With out a doubt, with out a doubt.
The inflexibility of the "environmental" nut-cases never ceases to amaze me. Our civilization NEEDs abundant electrical power, just no way around it. So how do we generate that power?
Coal fired plants.
EnviroNazi: OH NO!!! That makes too much smoke and acid rain!
OK, put scrubbers on the plants.
EN: OH NO!!! That makes too much waste ash that caustic as all heck. Besides, mining coal ruins the envirnment.
OK, How about Natural Gas?
EN: OH NO!!! The pipelines disrupt the migrator patterns of <insert fluffy animal here>, and importing LGN is just a bomb waiting to happen, and the harbors ruin wetlands.
OK, lets do Nuclear fission plants.
EN: OH NO!!! Thats *RADIOACTIVE*, and the waste lives forever. Besides, you just want to build bombs
EN: Blight on the landscape
EN: Kills fish.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
At that point, I just wanna round up the EN and put 'em in giant hamster wheels to drive the generators.
on me and sez:
"Actually it's an UNnecessary time lag. We haven't built either an oil refinery or a nuclear power plant in this country in about 30 years. If you had the money to build one or the other, you'd have to accept that you would not live to see ground broken, and that the cost of lawsuits and delaying tactics by "environmentalists" would exceed the actual construction cost by an order of magnitude."
I wuz thinking of the actual physical time required to build.
Now I'll get rhetorical: If you're gonna build another of a same-old, same-old whatzit, just like the previous half-dozen, on the same sort of terrain, with the same general species of wildlife, what are you gonna learn from umpteen gazillion dollars worth of Environmental Impact Statement?
"In seven days, God created Heaven and Earth." Yeah, since he didn't have to do an EIS.
The purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement is not to learn anything. It's purpose is to create an almost unsurmountable hurdle and strangle industry.
Look at the Aspin fires a couple of years back in New Mexico. The district forester had been trying to thin out that second growth forest and get dry fuel off the ground for five years and blocked at every turn. You should read her comments about EIS and how you can NEVER produce a satisfactory one.
And did the resulting fire IMPROVE the environment? :banghead:
Biodiesel requires no new technology at all -- the major problems are regulatory. The technical problems are:
1. Biodiesel eats rubber -- you have to replace all rubber-based lines and gaskets.
2. Biodiesel has a flow problem at low temperatures. This means:
a. Store it below ground, where it can't gel.
b. Take precautions in transport for the same reason.
c. Retrofit vehicles with small auxiliary tanks -- in cold weather start the engine with geo-diesel, and switch to biodiesel when it warms up.
On the plus side, biodiesel gives better mileage and less engine wear. It is enviornmentally friendly, and biodiesel refineries are also environmentally friendly. It doesn't require drilling and other expensive and enviornmentally objectionable actions.
And, of course, it's renewable -- we can grow all we need this year, and still grow as much next year.
I agree that bio diesel is a promising development. There are lots of promosing developments. What I mean when I say no one is doing anything is that is just doesn't seem like the rank and file of the populace and the government are seriously considering any alternatives.
Even suggesting that there is an energy crisis looming labels you a doomsayer, hysterical, etc.
We can have as many links to as many alternative fuel web sites as we want, and it doesn't matter - because no one seems to care. We could easily poor a few billion a year into this problem, and solve it before it gets really bad.
But we don't.
All the people who don't give a sh*t now will be the first one's screaming "How did this happen" and "why didn't anyone do anything" when gas is someday $6 a gallon.
I'll be the first to admit that I certainly could do more to save energy. Up until a few years ago I never paid it much mind, either. We're all guilty to some degree here.
BTW, I totally do NOT claim to know much about this subject. All I know is that all of us could and should put a little more thought into how what we do impacts that which is around us.
The net effect - no one is doing anything. Someone, somewhere has a problem with every alternative that comes about. We could burn old cooking oil in diesel engines and people would complain the road smell like French fries.
Even nuclear (fission) power is not the ultimate solution as it's even questionable as to how much easily accessable uranium there is available.
I come from a household of people who working in the nuclear industry. The anti-nukes have all but destroyed the one thing that could at least keep the damn lights on if our oil flow was disrupted.
I have a question for you then. How come every nuclear power plant in this country is different, or some variation of, all the others? Why don't they build them all exactly the same? It seems to me that a 'cookie cutter' method of designing and building would cut down on costs and construction time and environmental challenges significantly.
IOW, to go to biodiesel for everyday passenger car use, you'd have to toss out the gasoline motors.
It's simple economics to run a multi-based fuels system. You start making gasoline from coal to reduce the demand for oil and thus maintain a fairly constant price per barrel. You start making biodiesel for existing diesel usage, which also reduces the demand for oil.
Roughly half (or a bit less) of all oil is used for transportation fuels. The rest goes into everything from road asphalt to home heating oil to consumer plastics.
Natural gas is the sole raw material from ethlene. Ethlene is the raw material for over 300 consumer products.
Oil and natural gas are too important to "waste" on generating electricity. IMO.
I think picking "one" thing would be setting us up for a future situation to what we have today. I think the best course of action is to diversify our energy supply ... nuclear, bio, wind, hydroelectric, hydrogen, etc. We'll likely have to pick a primary source for transportation fuels as a matter of convenience, but we've already put all our eggs in one basket and look where it got us.
I have read a lot of articles that have said the fuel cells are simply not likely to ever happen. Nor will any alternative based upon hydrogen. Many source I have read state that the ROEI (return on energy investment) of hydrogen is like 2-1, meaning that you get twice the energy from the hydrogen as you used to extract it. I think with oil it's like 30-1 or more.
There are a lot of great ideas - but from what I have read none of them come anywhere near oil's ROEI. So, even IF we fully convert to alternatives quickly and smoothly, energy will likely never be as cheap as it use to be.
So, any way you shake it folks, we ARE going to have to eventually live a little smarter, or pay out the rear for energy.
One of the biggest costs in nuclear plant construction is not the cost of the plant itself. The technology is pretty well established. It's the federal licensing, rules, regulations, and environmental controls, among other things that drive the costs up.
Localities that wanted to discourage nuclear plant construction long attempted, with limited success, to make it even harder for nuclear plant. In Maine, where I grew up, the state had the "Close Maine Yankee" referendums numerous times, losing each time by an ever narrowing margin.
IF the governement could make it not quite as expensive to license a nuke plant, then sure - what you propose could and should be done.
I think nuclear power is a good investment right now ... and could help reduce our dependancy on oil as part of a multi-tiered energy policy, if we had one.
Our energy policy consists solely of Arctic Drilling, which I am quite frankly sick of hearing about.
Well said. One of the things that I DID like about "Oil Storm" is that it do a decent job of showing the broad effects of an oil shortage. It would effect EVERYTHING. No one would be immune.
I think people forget that almost everything is oil related in some way. Again, talk about putting all your eggs in one basket - but a 30-1 ROEI is a pretty tough deal to not take advantage of.
Uh -- revenues are the reason that business exist. We as consumers buy the company's goods at a rate the market dictates. If we disagree with the pricing, then we don't buy the goods. Adam Smith had a thing or two to say about this way of life, but then again, so did Marx. Is someone proposing that the gubmint step in and fund it all? Or that we collectively set fixed revenues for private enterprises? One sounds like communism, the other sounds like Fascism. Sometimes capitalism yields unpleasant results, and it's then that you find out just how much people really love it (or not). Good outweighs bad, and that's the reason America's great.
2) Unconventional oil. Point of reference: liberal estimates put Saudi proven reserves in-country at 200 billion boe. There are 2 trillion (with a T) boe proven locked up in oil shale, and 1.5 trillion is in our own country. 800 billion is in Colorado alone. Wanna talk about strategic reserves? Hows about four to five times the oil available from Saudi Arabia on our own soil in a landlocked state? Until now, it has never proven to be cost-effective to get at. These stats ought to let the nervous nellies get some rest tonight...
Have a great evening,
For the love of God no - I would never want the government to fund it all, nor set price controls. My point is only that we should be a little more conscious of where our energy comes from and how we use it. Oil itself is not bad or evil, nor is it even a bad idea to use. It is a bad idea to depend upon it alone to drive our entire economy and way of life.
Sure, everyone can keep on resting easy until it is a serious problem if that makes them feel better. Please don't be offended when I am a little suspicious of oil companies telling me not to worry - everything will be alright.
You are correct about oil being about the best thing for EROEI (energy return on energy invested). This is because we aren't creating the energy - we're just extracting it from the ground. However, hydrogen's EROEI is not 2:1; it's actually 1:6. In other words, six units of energy must be expended to create one unit of hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen is a fuel, not an energy source; this is a common misconception. For hydrogen to be a viable replacement for fossil fuels, we would need a practically unlimited source of electricity to create the hydrogen. It doesn't help that right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is by cracking the hydrogen atoms from natural gas (another fossil fuel).
If it caused that kind of nonsense here among the sane and rational, think of the damage it did out in the hinterland.
There is plenty of oil as our buddy Richard points out. No need to diversify.
The bottleneck is refineries and thereby the EPA who mandate many types of boutique gas for different locations and seasons.
There doesn't need to be an "energy policy" from the gvt, just get out of the way and let the market decide.
The market will tell you when to change and to what.
How long did it take the music biz to change to CD's and everone uses them now (about 2 years).
I thought it was just the lefties who have this 1930's industrial robber baron mindset.
That's not how it works any more.
If you are going to panic without doing any background study then don't watch lefty disaster movies (they just want to paint all right-wing stereotypes as bad bad bad).
Suggest you start with junkscience.com and work outward from there.
The cost of regulation is high, but totally necessary. There are a ton of nuclear power related incidents that have already happened. Thankfully nothing too big.
The worst case scenario is another Chernoybl, and that's pretty bad.
I'm sure our President has a plan in place to deal with an energy emegency.
Strategic Oil Reserve. That's what it's for.
Oil does not make the world go around, money does.
THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!
Separate names with a comma.