Energy

[SloopJohnB]

At first I thought I'd reply to Chuck only, but I guess we could start a discussion about this subject.

Here's what I'm replying to (LINK):

My answer: build nuclear power plants and sell inexpensive electric cars powered by the electricity produced by the nuclear power plants. At the same time, drill for more oil here in the U.S., and build refineries in the U.S. Short term and long term solutions that are far more feasible than biofuels, which require a lot of energy to produce, make food prices high, and create their own special brand of pollution.

Your take on the energy thing reminds me of two concept-cars from the 50s and 60s: the Ford Nucleon and the Ford Seattle-Ite XXI. Both were supposed to be powered by small, replaceable nuclear reactors and it was said they could travel more than 5000 miles with a tiny reactor. I'm sure these two cars would have been a blast to drive... There were only three (quite significant) problems:

1) nuclear reactors needed to be mass-produced, and no-one knows how to do that, even today;
2) no-one knew what to do with the tons and tons of nuclear waste that would have been produced;
3) accidents involving a nuclear-powered car could have had very, very bad consequences.

Still, I'm fascinated by these two cars.


Your solution seems to be the best one, but the US will need a lot of time and money to build enough nuclear plants (today, they only produce 20% of the electricity). I guess this would be feasible in France though, where 75% of our electricity comes from nuclear plants. But it looks like electric cars don't have a very bright future ahead of them. Have you ever seen the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car"? If you haven't, you should!

And I'm not that convinced by bio-fuels either. Perhaps it could work in a few decades, when most cars are powered by alternative energies and only old cars owned by collectors still need petroleum-based gas or bio-fuel.


I'm sure other people on this board have their own point of view on this subject, please feel free to tell us what you think! 

[lance]

Well, the car would not be nuclear powered, it would be electricity powered(with the electricity gained from a local nuclear plant.

I think that Chuck is onto something(both long and short term.)

I have heard, though, that uranium is in dwindling supply around the world, and of course without uranium there are no nuclear power plants.

Let's hope that's not true.

Also, platinum which is an essential element in electric batteries is also dwindling.

Here's a fascinating if terrifying website on a pretty scary future!

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[SloopJohnB]

Well, the car would not be nuclear powered, it would be electricity powered(with the electricity gained from a local nuclear plant.

I know, I was just showing that some engineers had even wanted to go further! 

I have heard, though, that uranium is in dwindling supply around the world, and of course without uranium there are no nuclear power plants.

Let's hope that's not true.

I've heard that too (but other sources say the contrary...). What I know is that the uranium enrichment process (used today) is expensive and difficult, but an experimental nuclear power plant called ITER is being built just to check if it is a viable solution (and it should be - engineers are 99% positive). This nuclear power plant is a "fusion plant", which primarily uses hydrogen. That's good news, as hydrogen reserves are virtually infinite! Moreover, fusion power plants produce less toxic waste! 

Here's a fascinating if terrifying website on a pretty scary future!

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

Ouch 

[Mahalo]

The Democrats in the USA have not allowed any refineries to be built and won't let us drill for oil in the USA. While the high cost of energy is a problem in the USA, Republicans are getting the blame. However the Democrats control the Federal Gov't and will gain even more seats this Nov. in the election. Add to that the Democrat idea of capping CO2 emissions and taxing it for Global Warming reasons, the cost of energy will continue to rise. They won't allow any more nuclear pwer plants to be built because the environmentalists bitch and moan. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The little guys get hurt.

I know that drilling for oil and building more refineries is only a temporary solution. However if this was done years ago we wouldn't be feeling as much of a burden as we do. Alternative fuels are in the process of being developed. Personally, I love my Chevy truck and don't want an Electric Car. However, God Bless you if you do, you should have the ability to buy one.

I wish the American Federal Gov't would allow the supply of oil to increase in order to ease the pain at the pump. With the Democrats in charge that will not happen. Look at Pelosi's pledge to lower gas prices two years ago---how come I don't hear anybody talking about that? What has she done and what has happened to gas prices since she became the Speaker? Now there's talk of a price cap on gasoline? Nixon tried the same thing with disasterous results.

I blame Leftist Energy Policies more than anything else. If there is not an increase in supply then the prices will continue to go up as demand is growing globally. 

[lance]

The Democrats have had Congress--barely, and with a hold so loose that GWB mostly walks all over them--for less than two years. Before that for TWELVE years the Congress was held by the Republicans, and for six years they had control of all three branches of the government. Even now, after losing Congress, the Democrats hold on it is so tenuous that Bush ii able to walk all over them on many issues.

Neverthe less it's true that it has been the Democrats who have consistently held up for the drilling in Alaska, and it may be that the time for drilling there has come.
However...
There are estimation of about seven and a half billion barrels of oil in Alaska. At current rates of world-wide consumption that is a four month supply. It would offer relief of only a few cents per gallon I'm afraid


AS far as refineries go, that would not have any impact on price or supply( as long as the other refineries are working. You can build a hundred of them, but that will not make the number of barrels per day go up any higher. You need more oil to refine before you spend a few mill on refineries, I would think. Also just because American oil companies are not building refineries in the USA, that does not mean they are not building refineries elsewhere in the world--or that they wouldn't/couldn't if there was any point to it.

The truth is though: the world is running out of oil. Blaming that on one American political party or the other is silly. Two people died today  in Spain more or less directly over the price of oil--better vote Republican!! But surely tension in the Middle East, which is certainly a result(partially) of American Republican policies has jacked up the prices of oil worldwide. Pelosi's promise two years ago was a hollow one. Even McCaine's proposed tax cut is  not going to help matters--long term it will actually increase it.

The world supply of oil has to increase, I do agree with you there. But Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter.
It ain't gonna happen.
Even that Alaskan oil is not going to make much difference. IMHO.

[Mahalo]

I totally repsect your opinions, Lance. Honestly. Indeed, I agree with you that the bull-merda going on in the Middle East has driven up the price of oil, but it is not just the U.S. There is a nut job (A-Jad) running Iran, the Saudi's continue to cultivate a culture of hate, and the Israel/Palestine thing will go on forever. Hugo Chavez anyone? President Bush has tried to set up a Democracy in the Middle of Hell, he has tried to do something in the most volatile region in the world. We have not been attacked on American soil since 9/11. Meanwhile the Dem's refuse to see-hear-speak of any progress by the brave men and women putting their lives on the line for you and I.

I'm not the biggest Pres. Bush fan either. I could write a novel about all the things I disagree with him but I am not going to be somebody who hates him blindly...

Meanwhile the Federal gov't continues to refuse drilling offshore of the USA while other countries do! China, India, and Cuba are drilling for oil off the coast of Florida...link (it's a good one): http://lighthousepatriotjournal.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/myth-blaster-china-cuba-and-india-drilling-offshore-of-america/

"To counter current price hikes, regulators should eliminate supply bottlenecks by promoting refinery expansion, eliminating unnecessary gasoline blend requirements, and by easing tariffs on imported ethanol."

It is silly to say the world's dwindling oil supply is the responsibility of one Party...I tried to phrase my previous post on American energy problems knowing that some of the other posters are in different countries...if I did a poor job of conveying that I stand corrected.

"Dems propose several “new” plans for 2008, including anti-price gouging laws, laws against OPEC price fixing, a roll back on oil company tax breaks, and the infamous Windfall Profits Tax. The common theme with these brilliant ideas? None can promise any more oil. So much for trying to actually solve the oil production problem…"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26817

Until the day comes when alternative fuels are available then America need more domestic supply and less Federal Regulation. Even as you said, Lance, if the supply won't make that much of a difference, it could help, especially if that oil stayed in the U.S. and wasn't shipped elsewhere. Still, things will work out in the end and everything will correct itself sooner or later. One day everybody's house will look like this:

 http://www.off-grid.net/index.php?p=680

[lance]

Well, I guess we agree that more drilling should be done==although I would say that hitherto the Dems were right to stop it. It can and does mess up the environment, especially when there's a mistake. Also, there are obvious strategic reasons for holding onto oil as long as possible at a time when it looks like we are running out. But maybe the time has finally come when it's necessary.

 As far as keeping it in the USA/North America, it almost certainly would, but that wouldnt matter too much because oil is sold at the same price everywhere, unless its subsidized, like in the oil-producing countries. I really think that if drilling started by year's end the price of oil would only go down a few dollars a barrel. I really think the high prices are here to stay.

If the USA/Israel/whoever attack Iran, oil will go up to 200 dollars almost instantly, causing a very deep world-wide recession.

I personally have little faith in current alternative fuels, I think nuclear power may be the only way to get out of the mess we're in--if that's even possible. (Of course I am no real expert, though.)

When I was in America in March(In Missour) gas was about 2.95/gallon and I definitely felt the bite, even though that price was less than half the price it is in the country I live in. (But in this country people are more careful with their money than most Americans are.)


 But I was really amazed at how many HUGE trucks, SUV's, etc there were driving around. Not only more than Europe. I would say significantly more than even ten years ago. That has got to stop. In fact, prices are already forcing big car manufacturerrs in the USA to change their tactics. Higher fuel efficiency will cost cost the consumer less(and even put oil prices down a little, I guess.) Also the USA desperately needs to build a new public transport system. It NEEDS it, and will need it more in the future. THese problems might alleviate now and again, but I think for the most part they are here to stay. Oil is not an inexhaustible resource. Period.
I'm not arguing with you here, I'm sure you agree. Just on a little soapbox.

I guess I think where we differ is causes and reasons and "ways to fix it. You can make a very good argument that the Dems plans are better for the long term, especially if revenue is directed from oil sales to building infrastructure(as it has been in Europe.)
You see, I don't think there is any fix to this problem--and we've got to plan ahead for when oil really does go to 200 bucks or more--which I think it will.

 I really think, since the price of gas has gone up almost six times it's former price in the last five years or so, that something more than tension in the Middle East and the development of China/India are to blame. We are simply running out of oil. ANd civillization is going to crash when it hits 300 dollars/barrel. WE need to plan for that. Or somebody does. And I think, honestly somebody is.

I don't want to get into a debate on Iraq war in general. I've had many of those arguments. I generally don't think it was a good idea or the right thing to do. BUT. If the world is running out of oil, it may have been the only thing to do in their eyes. The implications of someone else controlling all the oil is terrifying to the US government and I think they would wreck even the US/world economy to keep control of it--because without it, the US could be doomed in the future.
All the rhetoric about terrorism etc. being a cause for the war I t hink is frankly ridiculous, only a means to an end. My opinion. Yours is probably different. Like I said, I don't really want to go there: I doubt if either of us would tell the other something he hasn't already heard!

[Mahalo]

I don't want to get into a debate on Iraq war in general. I've had many of those arguments. I generally don't think it was a good idea or the right thing to do. BUT. If the world is running out of oil, it may have been the only thing to do in their eyes. The implications of someone else controlling all the oil is terrifying to the US government and I think they would wreck even the US/world economy to keep control of it--because without it, the US could be doomed in the future.
All the rhetoric about terrorism etc. being a cause for the war I t hink is frankly ridiculous, only a means to an end. My opinion. Yours is probably different. Like I said, I don't really want to go there: I doubt if either of us would tell the other something he hasn't already heard!

Well put....I agree. Isn't it nice to discuss wihout arguing? Very good call, Lance.

(Of course I am no real expert, though.)

Me neither...

You see, I don't think there is any fix to this problem--and we've got to plan ahead for when oil really does go to 200 bucks or more--which I think it will.

I think it will too.

But I was really amazed at how many HUGE trucks, SUV's, etc there were driving around. Not only more than Europe. I would say significantly more than even ten years ago. That has got to stop. In fact, prices are already forcing big car manufacturerrs in the USA to change their tactics. Higher fuel efficiency will cost cost the consumer less(and even put oil prices down a little, I guess.) Also the USA desperately needs to build a new public transport system. It NEEDS it, and will need it more in the future. THese problems might alleviate now and again, but I think for the most part they are here to stay. Oil is not an inexhaustible resource. Period.
I'm not arguing with you here, I'm sure you agree. Just on a little soapbox.

I guess I think where we differ is causes and reasons and "ways to fix it. You can make a very good argument that the Dems plans are better for the long term, especially if revenue is directed from oil sales to building infrastructure(as it has been in Europe.)

WE need to plan for that. Or somebody does. And I think, honestly somebody is.

I hope somebody is too. I pray on it. Seems like I agree with you pretty much on everything you just posted. I think in America the Repubs and Dems need to work together for long term solutions. Alternative fuels are the way of the future but how long until they make headways in the market is unknown...Investors need incentives and the technology needs to improve...(unless there is some conspiracy out there to keep us addicted to oil...who knows)!!

Cheers.

[the captain]

You guys are having a great discussion here. It's good to see it--no name-calling! I tend to lean left politically but also do believe that without continuing to (as sensibly as possible) use our own (U.S., that is) oil supplies, we're digging ourselves a deeper hole in terms of reliance on unstable and unfriendly nations. One small glimmer of hope I have is from some stories I've read this week that the oil supplies beneath North Dakota are increasingly being retrieved and with technological advances may bring more still. I don't think we can rest easy knowing there is more domestic oil to use/waste, but hopefully we can continue to reduce dependence on the Irans and Saudi Arabias of the world while we find another source of power.       (North Dakota story: http://www.startribune.com/business/19577194.html?location_refer=$sectionName )

[Alex]

Nothing would make me jump for joy more than seeing the oil companies go out of business...as long as we end up substituting gasoline with something cleaner and renewable. Maybe vegetable oiled powered cars could become the wave of the future. Vegetable oil would surely produce much better smelling car exhaust than gas.

And hopefully we won't have to drill for more oil in this country than we already do, especially not in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.

[the captain]

Vegetable oil would surely produce much better smelling car exhaust than gas.

As someone who worked in a fast-food restaurant in his teens, I can assure you that isn't true.