COLOMBUS, Ohio, March 9 (AFP) - US President George W. Bush called Wednesday for development of US oil reserves in Alaska, including within the bounds of a wildlife refuge, to contend with the US undersupply of petroleum.
"To produce more energy at home, we need to open up new areas to environmentally responsible exploration for oil and natural gas, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Bush said, as he made a speech here.
"The Department of Interior estimates that we could recover more than 10 billion barrels of oil from a small corner of ANWR that was reserved specifically for energy development."
The amount of oil Bush said could be accessed would be equivalent to that currently obtained "from 41 (US) states combined."
The Republican president in 2001 presented a bill seeking to develop US petroleum reserves at the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Congress never voted on it due to opposition from Democrats and environmentalists.
But following Bush's second term presidential victory last November, party officials suggested that the vote might go through thanks to a larger Republican majority in Congress.
Developing...
I hope this is able to go through. We need to use our own oil before fuel cells get fully developed and oil is worthless.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Btw, Jay, I think you misunderstand the role of fuel cells. They're not sources of energy, they're basically batteries.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell no. They need to leave that place alone, plain and simple. Besides, tapping it won't save us from the dreaded peak oil Which I am scared of.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here Here Synesthesia! Peak Oil is creeping me out big! There was on article on China's global hunt for oil on the BBC yesterday.
We are peaking and demand is spiking. This does not bode well.
BTW, how do fuel cells make oil worthless? What energy is used to charge the cells? What is the replacement for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, tires, energy production, and about everything else our economy and way of life depends on?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with the Bush administrations argument to drill in the reserve is that the peak amount of 10 billion barrels will only sustain U.S. consumption for six months(according to the USGS). Real smart plan, but then again, Bush is going to need a job in three years. It may as well be at an oil company.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arg. I do NOT want to think about peak oil... There's really not much that can be done about it and these leptons will NOT try to find an alternative source of energy to lessen our dependence on oil... Furthermore, it might not do a bit of good anyway... Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, we all know how truly pledged big oil is to keeping their environmental promises. I mean have you seen how fast Exxon cleaned up after their little spill. It took about a decade for the money they were ordered to pay to actually be paid.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew a conservative who was strongly against drilling in Alaska... on the theory that it was better to use up all the Mideast's oil first and save ours for when we really need it and everyone else is out.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not worried about the environment. I believe we will hit peak oil and the long road to depletion long before oil can do any permanent damage. I would be worried for "Mother Earth" if we had an unlimited supply of oil. We don't.
I am scared of a major depression, world conflict (especially with China) over oil, and not being able to grow or afford food. The world instability that is going to occur in our lifetime is far more troubling then oil on a shore. Poor poor Toshi.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no US undersupply of petroleum. There is only the VAST wastage of petroleum, natural gas, and other resources due to governmental incentives to do so.
posted
Bang your head all ya like. But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles. It’s happening already. You’ve seen the hybrids. We had the huge thread on the 500 miles per gallon story. Yes, we’ll still use oil for other things. But, it’ll be cheap then. Worthless comparatively. The funniest thing about the environmental arguments are that we’d rather let other countries use bad practices where we don’t see it, instead of doing it ourselves where we can do it right.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, I'm not sure you're getting what people are saying about fuel cells. Fuel cells aren't an energy source any more than a Duracell battery is. They are an energy storage device.
The energy must be produced elsewhere. Massive increases in solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and wind electrical generation will be needed to reduce our need for fossil fuels. Fuel cells are incidental to this effort at best.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm banging my head because: 1) As Miro said, Fuel cells are NOT an 'alternative energy source'. Besides, even as 'batteries' they're not even close to being ready for use in a car.
2) Even if there is going to be some magic 'other effective energy source', I don't follow the logic of saying that we should use up this resource now 'while we still can'.
Shouldn't we save this reserve for when/if we really NEED it? I mean after all, I may be paying more but I'm still filling up my tank. We don't have a shortage as far as having enough fuel, we're just paying more for it.
This is like going and drinking all the water in your bomb shelter since the water company raised it rates. What if you actually need that bomb shelter someday?
and, if the Government is really serious about solving out 'energy crisis' maybe it should start by investing some serious money into R&D of new techologies.
posted
This is terrible. Absolutely. It's called a Nature Reserve not because you've got to be careful and responsible about your drilling there, you're supposed to do that everywhere, but because it's supposed to be Reserved for Nature.
I just don't get it. The man must be mad.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't suppose you'd care to elaborate on your reasons, Dag?
No one else has elaborated their reasons for being against it, except ElJay's conservative friend.
Essentially, though, it's because the reasons to oppose it aren't compelling to me. Maybe if someone comes up with a new reason, I might change my mind.
posted
Well, I'm against it because I feel it's very short-sighted. We need to be spending funds on perfecting/developing newer energy sources. It's pretty clear that our supply of oil, coal, etc. will not be around forever and we need to be decreasing our dependency on them, not disrupting animal reserves because there's a 6 month supply of oil there. I'll leave it at that for now.
But Dags, I am interested in hearing your reasons for being pro-drilling. I always like to hear opposing views because often I learn things from them.
quote:Bang your head all ya like. But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles.
I've said this before here, but one of the things that I as an engineer find infuriating about many people is the way that they just sort of assume we're going to wave our magic wands and solve your (and our) problems in the blink of an eye.
Fuel cells are not the magical solution to the limited resources problem, for a number of reasons that I and others have elaborated on at some length on various threads here. Nothing else is ready for prime time, either.
The best thing to do is to get away from this absurd notion of one vehicle per person.
quote: It’s happening already. You’ve seen the hybrids. We had the huge thread on the 500 miles per gallon story. Yes, we’ll still use oil for other things. But, it’ll be cheap then. Worthless comparatively.
This is just wrong. Where do you think we get plastic from? How do you think we'll make plastic when it gets difficult to extract petrochemicals from the ground and we've dug up all of our old landfills? How do you think we'll make cars? Computers?
quote:The funniest thing about the environmental arguments are that we’d rather let other countries use bad practices where we don’t see it, instead of doing it ourselves where we can do it right.
Now that is a sound argument, but it leads me to a different conclusion: I think that Western governments should simply require all oil companies that are based in or operate in industrialized nations to follow the same environmental practices in their operations outside of the Western world as they do for their "domestic" operations. These kinds of environmental and safety standards should be global.
As to drilling in Alaska, I think Bush is simply using it. He knows it isn't going to solve anything one way or another, but he likes to look like he's acting on things (social security is another example), so he talks big. But drilling in doesn't do much of anything to solve the problem, and Bush's implications that it will simply lead American consumers to think that they are free to keep on consuming at their present absurd rate.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that it's just 6 months doesn't matter - that's 6 months for the whole country. Which means that for a much longer period of time, it will reduce what we would otherwise have imported.
I'm also not convinced that the drilling would be terribly harmful to the wildlife refuge as a whole.
Finally, drilling doesn't preclude research on alternative energy sources.
posted
Dag, if it helps any I would rather we decrease what we import as well.
"But drilling in doesn't do much of anything to solve the problem, and Bush's implications that it will simply lead American consumers to think that they are free to keep on consuming at their present absurd rate."
Twinky said that rather well, I think. This is pushed by consumerism. To me, drilling is rather like sticking our heads in the sand and continuing along on our present path. There needs to be a line that we refuse to cross, and there should have been long ago.
quote: But it’s not going to be long, within our lifetime, that either fuel cells or some other effective energy source replaces gasoline in our vehicles.
When you talk about replacements for gasoline, you are really talking about replacements for fossil fuels. Fuel cells just store energy, they do not create energy. What we need is something that replaces fossil fuels for harnessing energy. Fuel cells still need to be charged by an energy source, and are not part of the equation--unless you want to subtract how much energy it takes to create them, and then fuel cells are arguably bad for our energy crisis.
What will we charge them with? We have Solar, Wind, Tidal, trash decomposition to produce methane, and biomass alternatives like ethanol to produce energy.
quote:Let's put it another way; if 8 billion were to have Australian oil plus gas use via methanol 30 billion ha would have to be in plantations constantly yielding 7 t/ha. But there are only 13 billion ha of land on the planet!
Not enough arable land to produce the biomass fuel to convert our economy is just one of the many problems of relying on ethanol.
Tillerson, the president of Exxonmobil corp has this to say:
quote:The enormity of what our petroleum industry delivers day in and day out is not well understood by the public and, regrettably, by many policy-makers. This gives rise in some circles of well-intended but misplaced views of the role that alternatives can play in the future energy picture. For example, you would need to cover [with solar power equipment] four city blocks of Manhattan to provide an energy equivalent of one very average Exxon or Mobil corner retail gas station."
Big energy market "The world energy market is huge, and it will take a great deal of investment and a very long time before significant changes are going to be evident in the mix of energy sources that we depend upon for our economic prosperity. For the foreseeable future—and in this business, we have to see the future in terms of decades—the world economy will continue to require significant and growing supplies of crude oil and natural gas. Any notion of a silver-bullet solution for the developed economies, and particularly here in the US, is simply not realistic across this time frame[.]
I could go on. Would you like me to?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yes I understand they’re a battery. And yes, I know they’re not ready yet. But they will be. Sooner then later. And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water. They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air. Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait. And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? Plus those counties wouldn’t be so rich anymore and less able to fund terror.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, to me its worse because this place is an animal reserve. Somewhere along the way this piece of land and the animals that survive on it were considered important enough that they be declared off-limits. Now, because we practically refuse to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and we need oil, all the sudden the land and animals aren't so important anymore. There was a line drawn, but we're now willing to jump over it because of selfish needs.
I know this sounds simple, but that's the best way I can explain how I feel.
quote:And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water. They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air.
This is akin to saying, "Let's burn the carbon that's in CO2 in the atmosphere. We'd lower green house gasses and get free energy at the same time."
Hydrogen in water has no energy to give up in a chemical reaction. Any hydrogen in the air is either in water or in trace amounts.
quote:Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait.
It's not technical. It's a key distinction in energy policy. Imagine we had unlimited non-polluting electricity and perfect land-based transmission. We would still have to come up with some way to power non-attached power consumers, such as cars, tools, and the like. Fuel cells will help greatly in that regard. But not with the necessary condition - sufficient power in the right place to charge them.
quote: 1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?
quote:Converting water to hydrogen is done through electrolysis. Scientist David Pimentel has established that it takes 1.3 billion kWh (Kilowatt hours) of electricity to produce the equivalent of 1 billion kWh of hydrogen. (BioScience, Vol. 44, No. 8, September 1994.)
Even a small positive EROEI, if obtainable, is not a solution because fossil fuels on the whole return many times the energy invested, not just a fraction. That's why we use them.
Ethanol is another case in point. Some research has shown a negative EROEI for ethanol. Newer research from Oregon shows a slightly positive return. Ethanol is, at best, a slightly beneficial temporary alternative - not a substitute.
Claims that cars can run on vegetable oil never take into account the amount of energy necessary to generate the vegetable oil (farming, vegetable transport, extraction, etc.).
quote:2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?
3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?
4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?
5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?
6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?
7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?
8. Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?
9. Infrastructure Requirements -- Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?
quote:A 1999 University of California study revealed that more than 3,000 gallons of gaseous hydrogen is necessary to produce the same energy as a gallon of gasoline.
Compressed hydrogen is highly explosive. Liquid hydrogen comes close to equaling gasoline's energy but it is so cold, it fractures the metals used in fuel systems. Where will people get hydrogen? And if one relies on a zero-point technology to make it, how much energy will be returned and where will the new engines come from?
posted
Here is a link to the report by US Fish & Wildlife Service that discusses the environment impacts by drilling in this area.
I don't know how anyone can be surprised that Bush is once again pushing for this. He has been trying to get drilling in this area forever it seems. I'm thinking it is one of those "Clinton was against it so I'm gonna do it" things...since it won't have any REAL impact on the oil supply. I just chalk it up to another bone-head Bush policy that I'm against.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes I understand they’re a battery. And yes, I know they’re not ready yet. But they will be. Sooner then later.
[quote]And it looks like eventually these hydrogen cells could run off of water. There’s different ways of doing it where you can use water or produce water.
That's electrolysis, and you have to put more energy in to make the hydrogen than you get out when you use the hydrogen.
Which reminds me that I meant to try to get solid fuel cell efficiency data. I should look into that...
quote: They’re also looking at doing it where it could run off the hydrogen in the air.
There is almost no hydrogen in the air.
quote:Whichever they perfect for me to have 200 horses under the hood is fine with me. If you want to get technical and ague about something silly like that they’re not an alternative energy source, feel free. I for one am excited about them and can’t wait.
They aren't, and that's not just a semantic quibble. What lem and I are both saying is that they do not solve the problem. The hydrogen still has to come from somewhere and right now that somewhere is from petrochemicals (and even that process is less efficient than simply burning the petrochemicals directly).
So you may not have your 200 horses under the hood, or even a hood of your own. What you are more likely to have, in a sensible world, is an electric bus/train, and no car of your own. The bus could even be fuel cell powered, if an efficient means of generating and distributing hydrogen can be developed (no such means exists today).
IMO, the notion that we can simply replace the engines in our cars with something "clean" and then suddenly everything will be hunky-dory is just ridiculous.
quote:And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? Plus those counties wouldn’t be so rich anymore and less able to fund terror.
American oil is more expensive than Middle Eastern oil to produce, so profits on it are lower. That's why the Middle East is so lucrative -- you can just stick a pipe in the ground and up it comes. Finally, because oil is fungible (sells for the same price worldwide), it more or less doesn't matter where it comes from, the cost is essentially the same. Drilling Alaska won't save America any money, and ten billion barrels won't put an appreciable dent in your imports. America imports over six million barrels of oil per day from its top four suppliers alone.
Basically, I'm opposed to drilling in the reserve because I think it's a political diversion tactic that doesn't actually accomplish anything other than distracting the public from the problem.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, lem, I'll start by reposting a minor rewrite of what I previously posted here, which was deleted from the archives due to one of the forum glitches:
Annual Wind Energy Potential in billions of kiloWatthours for wind class of 3 and higher, factoring in environmental and land use exclusions.
.North Dakota 1,210 ..Nebraska 868 ......Colorado 481 ......Illinois 61 ...........Texas 1,190 ..Wyoming 747 .New Mexico 435 ..California 59 .........Kansas 1,070 .Oklahoma 725 ...........Idaho. 73 .Wisconsin 58 South Dakota 1,030 .Minnesota 657 ......Michigan. 65 .......Maine 56 .......Montana 1,020 ..........Iowa 551 .....New York. 62 ....Missouri 52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a minor revision of my writings elsewhere which was also posted here previously - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - First, I'm not sure whether the AWEA's "energy potential" means 1) total wind energy, or 2) the amount that could be realisticly extracted&converted into electricity, or 3) what could be delivered in a timely manner to satisfy the electricity market's usage demands, or something in between. And it's a BIG step between potential energy and usable electricity.
Assuming that it is 2), there is the problem of peaks and valleys in power production. Somewhat smoothed out through averaging across the national powergrid, but it is still a headache. A better storage system will have to be devised to even come close to making maximum utilization of the potential. After the initial production of electricity, there's a way to come up with a bit better than 80%efficiency thru the conversion to storage to reconversion for usage process (not counting transmission losses). However, I don't know whether or not there is sufficient potential storage* capacity by that means without really mucking up the environment.
Wind power machinery coexists quite well with farming and ranching operations. The AWEA figures probably included farms and grazing lands as the majority of their windpower production areas, though they don't seem to include offshore production. And most of the US is connected to the NorthAmerican powergrid. Present US electricity use is about 3800billion kWh, or 13000 kWh per capita (per person average).
Assume that Texas&Colorado has the same per capita usage as the US. Then that Colorado&Texas could provide for the electricity demands of their own ~26million people with ~338billion kWh of useable electricity converted from their 1671kWh windpower-potential. That would imply ~20% conversion efficiency from windpower potential to usable electricity using interpretation 2) of AWEA's numbers.
So, beginning with the assumption that the Texas&Colorado combination would use all that could be produced in those two states, there's no reason that the rest of the top twelve states (those with high windpower potential and relatively low populations) can't become major electrical power exporters. Using the same 20% potential-to-usable conversion efficiency, the other 10 states in the top 12 could provide ~1,680billion kWh to the NorthAmerican powergrid.
So the top twelve windpower states could produce about ~2018billion kWh, or ~53% of the ~3800billion kWh produced in the US. Add the 7.19% currently produced by hydroelectric generation and 19.84% produced by nuclear, and that's ~80%.
Considering that the older&prosperous members of the EuropeanUnion use ~5400kWh per capita or ~41% of the US per capita to maintain an equivalent lifestyle, there is obviously room left for improvements in efficiency of US utilization. So it's hard to believe that the US would suffer by using twice as much electricity per person as the more prosperous EU nations.
But even assuming that the US would want 100% of current production, reduction of fossil fuel generation from 70% to 20% of the total would create a substantial reduction in demand for fossil fuels. There would also be a more favorable US balance of trade due to lessened oil&gas importation, as well as from the lessened world oil&gas prices due to a decrease in US demand-pressure. And lower fuel cost would mean cheaper generation of electricity by the fossil-fuel plants that remain, as well as less strain on the environment.
Remember this is at 20% conversion efficiency in the top twelve windpower-potential states**. At ~38% efficiency those same twelve states could provide 100% of US electricity needs**.
And remember it does not include conversion of the 38 other states' windpower-potential. Nor the offshore windpower potentials of the states: which would be substantial, especially for the coastal states not counted amongst the top twelve. Then there is the VAST excess Canadian windpower potential: which I'm sure they would be happy to sell, in the same manner as OntarioHydro/etc currently exports surplus electricity into the US market.
100% windpower production of baseline electricity needs presents opportunity to reduce oil&gas importation in other ways. Which I'll return to.
* A schematic of the proposed Galala-RedSea power storage system which could be adapted for use -- including matching demand peaks&valleys to production peaks&vallleys -- with solar/wind electricity powerplants.
** Both statements do not include storage-conversion losses and transmission losses to&from storage sites.
posted
I actually really like the idea of sea wind farms. The ones off the coast of Norway, for instance, are a really good case study and will hopefully be used as an example for other regions. We could do this in Canada, and I'd be thrilled if we did.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the research area on PEI with the windmills, and it was pretty cool, twinky. Even so, when we got there ,and for about 20-30 minutes, none of them where moving, due to lack of wind.
posted
Evironmentalists are cracking down on windfarms. They're trying to get the licenses revoked for the huge one in the Altamont Pass on the grounds that it's killing birds.
Can you give me more links to study that out? I am doing a personal project trying to determine whether Peak Oil is an insurmountable crisis. The more I read, the more I am convinced it is. HOWEVER, I have not made a study of Wind Power...yet. I know my hometown's electric company just put out a flyer asking if anyone wanted to be charged off of the wind power grid. The wind power does not yet exist, but if we are willing to pay a little more, they will have the money to build the windmills. I am thinking of joining in.
I have also not looked into the claim that there is plenty of oil but America has not built new refineries.
Any info I can use is appreciated!
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been against Alaskan drilling for years, as far back as I remember. And it's always been for two reasons before.
1. That it's a nature preserve, and it needs to be preserved, that I'm sick of big oil, big timber, etc destroying the environment for profit.
2. It ignores the issue that we need to be using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.
But recently I've changed my mind. I don't so much buy into the environmental argument, because it IS such a small portion of the reserve, and I believe impact will be minimal.
However, I still beleave my second reason is enough to stop any drilling in Alaska. Most estimate indicate that we won't be able to get any of the 10 billion barrels out of Alaska for ten years. That's at least 10 years more of putting off responsible energy development. I don't care if they want to drill there, but the only way I would ever go along with it, is if in the same bill that authorizes it, billions are approriated to update the energy grid and for renewable energy. It will be good for the enviornment and extremely good for the economy.
I guess it all boils down to me being sick of Bush putting off the responsibilty of bringing this nation's energy structure into the 21st century. Hell I'd settle for the second half of the 20th century. When he decides to step up to the challenge, I'll support ANWR drilling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, twinky, long before I ever ran across the Galala proposal, using Norway's fjords was my first thought after that of multiplying US hydropower production to act as a windpower storage "battery" -- by using excess windpower electricity to pump the hydropower-released freshwater back up into the reservoirs -- led to thinking of damming across inlets on the US coast.
Consider low dams placed across the fjords to store energy -- using excess windpower electricity to pump seawater up into the reservoirs -- to allow hydropower production to fill in shortages when windpower production is less than the electricity demand. Norway could remain the wealthy"oil"exporting nation, ie power capitol of the EU long after its NorthSea oil&gas fields ran dry.
posted
This is just a chapter in history, the sad thing about the Middle East is that it will become an economic sink after the worldwide dependency on oil splutters to an end.
I do not know what intrinsic value all that oil deep in the ground has for mother Earth, it certainly will not do us much good if it gets spilled in the ocean and the atmosphere, but that will happen anyway. Short term interests should prevail while the long term solution is developed, these new solar cells are commercially viable though while I agree with the potential of wind power, I find it to be a bit intrusive.
Of course I have never cared for power lines either. As long as the new sources are opening, we should decrease forgein dependancy for our own security.
After all while drugs may or may not fund terrorists, we know for certain oil does!
posted
Don't forget that northern Ecosystems and Environments are far more precarious (sp?) that temperate zones.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And if we’re getting out own oil and not wasting money on oil from the Middle East, don’t you think we’d have more $$ for R&D? --Jay
...because oil is fungible (sells for the same price worldwide), it more or less doesn't matter where it comes from, the cost is essentially the same. Drilling Alaska won't save America any money...--Twinky
Twinky is right, Jay. Oil is fungible like any other global commodity. I was going to say that myself.
The war on terror as justification for drilling in ANWAR? Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Mormo, outright laughing at someone isn't very polite, even if you do think his ideas are wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn’t the extra supply make prices go down worldwide or did I miss something in my economics class?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to throw in another alternative, what about using algae for biodiesel? (You may want to skip the first paragraph. It has a bit of a... slant.) The article goes over the benefits of biodiesel (it uses existing infrastructure, there are existing vehicles that can run on the stuff, zero net greenhouse emissions, etc.) and lays out a method to replace imported oil with algae farms in the desert. The focus is on transportation rather than generation of electricity, but that's a huge chunk of where our oil goes, so it's still very relevant.
The article does gloss over some problems, like the huge initial cost of the farms and the substantial upkeep costs (though the upkeep is considerably less than what we pay for oil currently). There's also the issue of the high-particulate emissions that diesel engines produce, though the author's pet idea of diesel-electric hybrids does go a long way towards reducing this one.
Any other problems/benefits/other consequences that I'm missing? Does this look possible? Politically feasible?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
I know I plan on writing my congressperson about this, and I hope all of you do too. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
