RGO
Member
<shrug> When full, there's only enough oil in the SPR to last about a month. Two, when you add domestic oil production to the mix.
Anyone watch "Oil Storm"?
- Thread starter Mr. X
- Start date
- Status
<shrug> When full, there's only enough oil in the SPR to last about a month. Two, when you add domestic oil production to the mix.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
What "Oil Storm" and "The China Syndrome" have in common is that they are not documentaries. 
The world was gonna come to economic ruin during the Carter era, if we didn't first have a nuclear war with the USSR, so we got the Survivalism movement.
We muddled through.
Folks can dream up all manner of horribles, and the reality is that we muddle through. However, if government helps, it takes longer...
We survived the dot-com bubble, with the eight trillion dollar stock market loss. Did anybody here really notice?
We have a housing bubble going on right now. Like all booms, it's gonna end. I imagine that there again, we'll muddle through.
Same for energy. We'll drill here and conserve there and folks will figure out some way to cope and we'll muddle through.
That's what people do...
, Art
The world was gonna come to economic ruin during the Carter era, if we didn't first have a nuclear war with the USSR, so we got the Survivalism movement.
We muddled through.
Folks can dream up all manner of horribles, and the reality is that we muddle through. However, if government helps, it takes longer...
We survived the dot-com bubble, with the eight trillion dollar stock market loss. Did anybody here really notice?
We have a housing bubble going on right now. Like all booms, it's gonna end. I imagine that there again, we'll muddle through.
Same for energy. We'll drill here and conserve there and folks will figure out some way to cope and we'll muddle through.
That's what people do...
, Artnordaim
Member
<shrug> When full, there's only enough oil in the SPR to last about a month. Two, when you add domestic oil production to the mix.
But that is only if we completely run out of oil isn't it? In a case similar to what was presented in Oil Storm, the SPR would have provided enough oil to regulate our oil needs for at least 18 months, from the numbers they presented (700 Million barrels in reserve, only losing ~1M barrels a day).
But that is only if we completely run out of oil isn't it? In a case similar to what was presented in Oil Storm, the SPR would have provided enough oil to regulate our oil needs for at least 18 months, from the numbers they presented (700 Million barrels in reserve, only losing ~1M barrels a day).
Ratus
Member
mmike87
Member
Well, if being a little conscious of where your energy comes from and how you use it is "lefty" then so be it.
You are making the same generalizations about people you don't agree with that the anti-gun folks do about us and our guns.
Gun owners pride themselves as being responsible citizens who take responsibility for what they do and how they do it. I would think that this type of personality would be have an open mind about taking a look at our energy usage and how can can responsibly utilize the resources we have rather than squander them with wild abandon.
Even IF there is plenty of oil, and there may well be, it's still OK to waste it? Nice attitude. Also, if we had a more diversified energy base, perhaps the refinery capacity issue would not be as much of a bottleneck.
Energy is a matter of national security. Of course we should have an energy policy. "Provide for the common defense" - try doing that without any energy.
You know it's bad enough that we trashed half our manufacturing base and are largely dependant on foreign powers for a lot of our manufacturered goods. What the hell - let's be 100% dependant on foreign countries for our energy, too. Every time you turn on the light switch, you can here a the voice of some offshore worker in India thanking you kindly for using their electricity. OK, maybe that's a stretch.
You're right. It's much better to just be oblivious. Sounds like the same argument anti-gun folks spew as they tell us we don't need guns to defend ourselves. Pretend the danger isn't there, therefore it's not.
Oh, anyone who doesn't agree with the status quo on a gun forum is a liberal. If not wanting to blatently and blindly consume with no regard to where it came from or where it's going is a pre-requisite for being a member of "Club Conservative" than that's pretty disturbing.
Stickjockey
Member
Last edited:
mmike87
Member
Oh, but what a glorious month (or two) it would be!
mmike87
Member
Am I seeing things of does that site have a link to information about Turkey?
RGO
Member
True, two months if we lose all imports and don't cut demand.
It is true that we can make oil. The biggest problem is the aformentioned EROEI. Making oil via thermal depolymerization has an EROEI of about 5.6:1, rather than 30:1 that we get from petroleum in the ground. In other words, we would have to live with less energy unless massive feedstock for TDP (or something else) is available.
I don't agree with the status quo on nuclear power, and I'm hardly a liberal.
The liberal/left really screwed America with their rediculous de-facto ban on nuclear energy, now they're complaining about our oil dependency? Amazing!
France has been getting, what, 80% or so of their power from nuclear plants, yet it's hardly the glowing radioactive wasteland that the liberal/left promised would happen. We got to give them credit for not listening to their environmental left-wing wackos, and they're way better off for it.
Bush has addressed this:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7646880/
Which is exactly what needs to be done, but faster, much faster. The sooner we can build enough nuclear plants to stop importing oil from the middle east, the better.
jefnvk
Member
So, you just want to let it sit in the ground, not being used?
You see, the good thing about America is that I am free to waste whatever I can pay for. If I want a car that is measured in gallons per mile, and I can afford to feed it, why can you tell me that I can't buy the gas? It is a private party sale between the gas station and me, I don't see you involved. It is mine to waste as I see fit. Just because we have built up a dependency on the stuff, doesn't mean I should be forced to only use so much, so there is more for you.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
First off, play "Remember Pearl Harbor". Then think "rationing". And recall a few tidbits from that era...
Gas rationing went into effect almost immediately. IIRC, there were three categories of quantity you could buy, per week, as a function of your occupation. Farmers and school teachers had higher priority than did city dwellers where any sort of public transportation was available.
The government issued coupon books, for so many gallons per week for an A, B or C rating.
There was some Black Market selling of gas, of course, but it was shame on your happy tail if you got caught. The neighbors had no sympathy: "We're all in this together; you're either with us or against us." Psychologically, the rationing itself was intended to bring us together, aside from a certain amount of necessity. (Tires, meat, shoes, sugar...)
The sale of new cars was frozen as of midnight, New Year's Eve, 1941. No mas. Zip, zilch, nada. The factories, of course, went to building tanks and planes and military vehicles.
So there would be no great difficulty in setting up a rationing thing, other than being burdened by a heckuva lot of whining cause the red got licked off folks' candy...
Hey, folks might actually have to stay home and talk to each other!
, Art
Gas rationing went into effect almost immediately. IIRC, there were three categories of quantity you could buy, per week, as a function of your occupation. Farmers and school teachers had higher priority than did city dwellers where any sort of public transportation was available.
The government issued coupon books, for so many gallons per week for an A, B or C rating.
There was some Black Market selling of gas, of course, but it was shame on your happy tail if you got caught. The neighbors had no sympathy: "We're all in this together; you're either with us or against us." Psychologically, the rationing itself was intended to bring us together, aside from a certain amount of necessity. (Tires, meat, shoes, sugar...)
The sale of new cars was frozen as of midnight, New Year's Eve, 1941. No mas. Zip, zilch, nada. The factories, of course, went to building tanks and planes and military vehicles.
So there would be no great difficulty in setting up a rationing thing, other than being burdened by a heckuva lot of whining cause the red got licked off folks' candy...
Hey, folks might actually have to stay home and talk to each other!
, ArtStickjockey
Member
...heh...Sorry. Link amended to correct website
Richard Howe is right (he didn't mention Canadian oil sands either), but I believe that the teledrama that started this is right about short term prospects and the kind of social and economic damage that will be wrought in that period until the technology is brought online to exploit the oil shales and oil sand or create significant numbers of thermal depolymerization plants, and I don't expect the oil to be cheap in such case, something the movie hinted at, as we have additional bottlenecks in our refining capacity. We will have to get used to prices significantly greater than they are now - perhaps this could change further down the road.
Considering that evironmental regulations are making diesel vehicles prohibitively expensive to manufacture to meet 2007 emission standards (world's strictest), count this as BS unless he can ease the red tape from the EPA and evironazis. Same goes for nukes and new refineries.
richyoung
Member
I don't (and never have) supported the Government taking money away from ME or ANYONE else to pay for ANYTHING other than border control, national defense, and a handful of other LEGITIMATE government functions. The government has no power or right to take anyone's money to pay for someone else's retirement, medical care, shchooling, etc. If you agree, then vote as I do. Regardless, the fact that some congresscrooks are buying votes with the public purse (wrong one) IN NO WAY legitimizes butting into my business vis-a-vis what kind of vehicle I drive.(wrong two). It's called "personal choice", "personal responsibility", and "FREEDOM"!
...and if you have a pool, then you deplete the supply of easily available potable water, and if you sell novelty ballons, you drive up the cost of helium, and if you have air conditioning, then you are contributing to acid rain and rolling blackouts. Everybody wants to "draw the line" in such a way that "the other guy"s ox is gored.
richyoung
Member
Can you NOT see how your last sentence is a direct contridiction of your first one? And for the record, NO - I do not AGREE. Some of the finest or funest things in life could be considered "wasting" natural resources - spectator sports, hunting, amusement parks, movies, television, radio, music, art, plays, sky diving, moto-cross, "plinking", other shooting sports. Lastely, even you admit to not being frugal - something about the Prius not being a good family car? Maybe that "individual" in the SUV has a soccar team to coach, or trailer with a scooter for Shriner parades, or his minivan is in the shop - point is you DON'T KNOW, (nor is it any of your business) WHY that particular person is driing that vehicle that day. Do you really want someone to go through YOUR life and decide for you what you "need" and what you have that isn't "being frugal"? Or maybe we should let people decide for themselves....
richyoung
Member
Which had NOTHING to do with gasoline. America was a net EXPORTER of fuel, and had more than enough for civillian consumption. The INTENT of gas rationing was to save RUBBER, (tires, that is...) because at the time, no synthetic rubber was practical, and all the natural rubber plantaions were in or threatened by Axis powers. Lots of rubber goes into WWII era tanks, airplanes, gas and oxygen masks - not to mention tires! Happily, today is much different, what with neoprene, plastics, and such.
mmike87
Member
Rebar - not sure if you misunderstood me in some way, but I am totally FOR nuclear power.
One of my arguments is that we should have further diversified our energy supply, nuclear being one of the better options, right now, IMO.
Even if someone doesn't give a damn about the enivronment, "peak oil" or whatever, folks still have to admit that having a reliable uninteruptable energy supply is a matter of national security.
One of my arguments is that we should have further diversified our energy supply, nuclear being one of the better options, right now, IMO.
Even if someone doesn't give a damn about the enivronment, "peak oil" or whatever, folks still have to admit that having a reliable uninteruptable energy supply is a matter of national security.
Imagine it this way: it's the beginning of the jet age and everyone has their idea how jets should function, look, etc. Just as they are the first ones are being built, someone puts a stop to production of any additional ones. The ones in construction can, sometimes, be completed but nothing beyond that.
That's where we are at with the nuclear industry. The ones in existence are different designs because they were all designed when the evolution of civil nuclear power was in flux. There are many new designs on the books and in service around the world, but none are in construction here because nothing has been allowed to be constructed.
As for the need for strict oversight alluded to earlier, the fact is that such oversight has little to do with halting of construction. Anti-nuclear propaganda has interfered with construction, and such activities are actually counterproductive to overall safety and the environment. The public and the environment desperately need more nuclear power. But instead of building new plants using the lessons of the past, plants that are more efficient and safer, we are being forced to try and upgrade existing plants which will have to serve well past their intended operational lifetimes.
Which is why...UGH...the French actually have something that would be worth our while to emulate, being that they are probably the most effective users of nuclear power. That thing would be a standardized reactor plan that any operator will be familiar with at any plant and so will engineers and regulatory personel, leading to safer operation from lack of confusion about operating procedures, easier outside support in emergencies, and decreased design and construction costs.
Control Group
Member
Disclaimer: I am actually a fan of nuclear power, and think we should build more nuke plants. In fact, if it would mean fewer power outages, I'm perfectly happy with the plant being in my back yard. I would love the opportunity to vote a nuke plant into existence a block up the road from me.
That being said, however, there are points the anti-nuke crowd raises that are worthy of consideration. First, waste disposal. Even if we start building breeder reactors, there will eventually be final end products that something needs to be done with. Granted, the higher the danger of the waste, the shorter tha half-life, but there's a "sweet spot" in the middle where the waste is uncomfortably dangerous and the half-life uncomfortably long. I'm sure this would be solvable in a more pro-nuclear political climate, but it still bears thinking about.
Similar to the above, decommissioning nuclear plants needs to be addressed. I'm all for building new, modern designs to replace the aging ones we've got. But I'm unaware of any real plan for decommissioning the old plants (this doesn't mean one doesn't exist, obviously, just that I don't know of it).
And finally, many people claim that nuclear power's image of cheap energy is flawed, because it depends on government subsidies of plants. That without those subsidies, nuclear power would end up being significantly more expensive than other "traditional" means of energy generation.
Now, I know that France manages to get a huge percentage of its electricity from nuke plants, so someone, somewhere, has addressed these problems. But I don't know if they solutions are good ones. Like I said, I'm all for more nuke plants, but I'm very curious as to the implications/solutions of all these.
That being said, however, there are points the anti-nuke crowd raises that are worthy of consideration. First, waste disposal. Even if we start building breeder reactors, there will eventually be final end products that something needs to be done with. Granted, the higher the danger of the waste, the shorter tha half-life, but there's a "sweet spot" in the middle where the waste is uncomfortably dangerous and the half-life uncomfortably long. I'm sure this would be solvable in a more pro-nuclear political climate, but it still bears thinking about.
Similar to the above, decommissioning nuclear plants needs to be addressed. I'm all for building new, modern designs to replace the aging ones we've got. But I'm unaware of any real plan for decommissioning the old plants (this doesn't mean one doesn't exist, obviously, just that I don't know of it).
And finally, many people claim that nuclear power's image of cheap energy is flawed, because it depends on government subsidies of plants. That without those subsidies, nuclear power would end up being significantly more expensive than other "traditional" means of energy generation.
Now, I know that France manages to get a huge percentage of its electricity from nuke plants, so someone, somewhere, has addressed these problems. But I don't know if they solutions are good ones. Like I said, I'm all for more nuke plants, but I'm very curious as to the implications/solutions of all these.
jefnvk
Member
So, we should restrict things we have built a dependency on
Again, this concept works all fine and well in a communist society, where everything is severly restricted. But to tell me that I can't buy so much gas now, so 50 years down the road we may get an extra few years out of the supply
Maybe not if you were a pure libertarian, but there are many aspects where an unrestrained free market forces will burn through limited resources, becoming unsustainable. A few extra years may be all it takes and the odds of totally depleting oil reserves are low, but you will certainly shift the supply and demand curves to the left on most major consumer goods.
- Status