New energy policy for America.

[dumpster56]

Like I said in another thread the arabs do not need to bomb any more american cities they just need to raise the price of oil to a point where it bankrupts america.

 

[Khan]

Like I said in another thread the arabs do not need to bomb any more american cities they just need to raise the price of oil to a point where it bankrupts america.

Arab /= Muslim /= OPEC

OPEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a large group of countries[1][2] made up of Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Ecuador

 

[Gumby]

My preference would be a vastly increased number of nuclear plants, with plug-in electric cars and electrified rail systems. Since we will always need some oil for lubrication, and to make aviation fuel, petrochemicals and plastics, I would also build a nuclear plant up in the Alberta oil sands or the Wyoming oil shale deposits to provide the energy needed to get that oil out.

 

[prgsdw]

Build 3 Nuclear Power plants per state. It would revive the economy, it would put the arabs in Opec on notice that we here in the states will have as much electric power as we need. Let the Chinese buy the stinkin oil!

Well we've got 5 in Pennsylvania (and one really famous one...) so the rest of the country needs to catch up.

 

[ERD50]

Like I said in another thread the arabs do not need to bomb any more american cities they just need to raise the price of oil to a point where it bankrupts america.

newguy, you still don't grok the whole supply/demand thing, do you?

OPEC (not just Arabs, as Kahn referenced) cannot directly set the price of oil. They can agree to reduce output, which will cause prices to rise (offset by fewer barrels sold). Sure, they could refuse to sell a single drop, but then they wouldn't make any money, would they? Their impact is limited (from wiki):

OPEC's influence on the market has been called into question. ...

OPEC's ability to control the price of oil has diminished somewhat since then (my note: 1973), due to the subsequent discovery and development of large oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea, the opening up of Russia, and market modernization.

Is Oklahoma City an American city? Let's not blame everything on the 'arabs', OK?

-ERD50

 

[dumpster56]

newguy, you still don't grok the whole supply/demand thing, do you?

OPEC (not just Arabs, as Kahn referenced) cannot directly set the price of oil. They can agree to reduce output, which will cause prices to rise (offset by fewer barrels sold). Sure, they could refuse to sell a single drop, but then they wouldn't make any money, would they? Their impact is limited (from wiki):

Is Oklahoma City an American city? Let's not blame everything on the 'arabs', OK?

-ERD50

Come on Iraq is happening for one reason and one reason only, an american police station in the part of the world that has an awful lot of oil. We left saudi arabia after 9/11 .. Why?? Bin Laden said that was one of his reasons for the attacks on 9/11

Interesting. NO??

If we want to keep the happy driving around the good ole usa we better keep american troops in that part of the world.

Opec cannot pump more oil because there is not as much left as everyone thinks.

 

[Gumby]

newguy, you still don't grok the whole supply/demand thing, do you?

OPEC (not just Arabs, as Kahn referenced) cannot directly set the price of oil. They can agree to reduce output, which will cause prices to rise (offset by fewer barrels sold). Sure, they could refuse to sell a single drop, but then they wouldn't make any money, would they? Their impact is limited (from wiki):

Is Oklahoma City an American city? Let's not blame everything on the 'arabs', OK?

-ERD50

+1 to ERD50 for the Stranger in a Strange Land reference. (And by the way, Newguy, he is correct -- oil is fungible)

 

[ERD50]

Come on Iraq is happening for one reason and one reason only, an american police station in the part of the world that has an awful lot of oil. We left saudi arabia after 9/11 .. Why?? Bin Laden said that was one of his reasons for the attacks on 9/11

Interesting. NO??

If we want to keep the happy driving around the good ole usa we better keep american troops in that part of the world.

Opec cannot pump more oil because there is not as much left as everyone thinks.

And how does any of that address my counter to the statement you made?

Originally Posted by newguy888
Like I said in another thread the arabs do not need to bomb any more american cities they just need to raise the price of oil to a point where it bankrupts america.

In fact, if what you say is true(sources?), that OPEC cannot pump more oil, then prices will adjust all by themselves - no 'conspiracy theories' needed.

-ERD50

 

[Marquette]

(And by the way, Newguy, he is correct -- oil is fungible)

In my opinion it's the most fungiblest of the fungibles. Fungibly speaking, of course.

 

[jazz4cash]

Many of the problems sited with Ethanol are really due to the fact that we have NO ENERGY POLICY. I think its a mistake to reject biofuels as one piece of a diversified long-range energy policy, given additional development is required. That's basically what's happened with Nuclear...no defined policy and private industry gravitates to the least risk path. The descriptions used in this thread such as "Manhatten Project" and "Apollo Program" are right-on, it really is that important, but there's just a total lack of leadership. Pols can barely utter the term "energy independence" but no real plan to achieve same, and don't dare utter conservation which is also a piece of the diversifed policy. I don't say conservation in the sense of cutting back on useful consumption so much as eliminating the waste.

 

[Brat]

I am with those who advocate diverse sources, with an emphasis on renewable domestic production. The problem with nuclear at the moment is the lead time (setting aside the waste storage issue). While we use little electricity for transportation and heating that can be changed relatively quickly. Solar (both photovoltaic and thermal), wind, and geothermal can be brought on line sooner than nuclear. There will always be NIMBYs trying to thwart any generation facility but nothing like to opposition to nuclear (which is fear based).

For you boaters out there with in-boards: do not use gasoline with ethanol. It will ruin your engine. Switch to diesel. Gasoline with ethanol has a short shelf life.

 

[Insanity]

Brazil fuels most of its cars using E85 and E100 produced from sugar cane. Their production process produces over 4 units of energy for every unit consumed because sugar cane practically bleeds raw sucrose sugar, and sucrose sugar is the ideal feedstock for making ethanol. Heck, when I was a student taking organic chemistry we used blackstrap molasses, a waste product produced while refining sugar cane, to make ethanol.

Corn, on the other hand, is more starchy than sugary and not a great feed stock for making ethanol. To make matters worse corn is also a very high-maintainance crop. So here in the US, where we have a powerful farm lobby that knows how to grow corn, we have a farm subsidy policy parading around like an energy policy drag queen and producing just over one unit of energy for every unit consumed.

Ethanol form corn is not a great idea. What we need is leadership that focuses in on what's a good energy policy instead of what's good politics.

 

[chinaco]

Lack of leadership is because the Bush clan made their money from oil.

If anyone is waiting for him to make that a priority... don't hold your breath.

He signed that recent bill only as a political move so it would not seem obvious.

Sad to say, McCain probably will not do it either. He is sticking with the line... let the markets decide. The problem with that is that big business will not react until we are caught in a vise. The massive infrastructure cost and lead time required for smooth transition will take government and leadership.

McCain seems to be too caught up in the Iraq war. He is so bent on proving (or getting people to believe) that the "Surge" worked that he is distracted from domestic problems.

McCain would have to do a 180 degree change to get my vote. Since he is trying to keep the ultra-conservatives energized... I do not expect that to happen. It is a good thing for him that he is not giving up his Senate seat. He is a good Senator. That is probably where he should stay.

 

[travelover]

............ So here in the US, where we have a powerful farm lobby that knows how to grow corn, we have a farm subsidy policy parading around like an energy policy drag queen and producing just over one unit of energy for every unit consumed. ..............

Well said.

 

[FinanceDude]

Ethanol is a viable product because it can work with our current technology. It can be mixed with gasoline. We can produce enough of it help offset oil consumption. We do not have to be 100% ethanol.

But it still takes a LOT of OIL to break down the corn, so the net is almost no advantage........

Something else that would help with the final product is for the US legislature to pass a bill that sets a nation-wide standard for a Gasoline standard instead of all the the different variations that states require.

yeah, that's a HUGE hurdle..........

 

[Marquette]

I probably have too much faith in technology, but I see ethanol as a good thing, even if it is corn-based right now. First, we're not going to advance the process without some hang-ups and we're not going to advance it if we don't start. So, while we can probably all agree that corn-based ethanol, as it stands right now, is stupid, it did get ethanol into the limelight and got more money into the sector.

Now we have people looking at how to get ethanol from cellulose. That opens up switch grass, grass clippings, and corn sileage as possible sources. And, we have people looking at how to extract the ethanol from the corn while leaving it intact enough to use as cattle feed. Both of those options would leave corn as a food source.

I try and temper my technological enthusiasm with my knowledge of human nature, but I'm becoming more and more bullish on long-term energy. I was a peak oil doom and gloomer, but I think we're going to see some interesting developments in the next 10 years that have me hopeful we can progress.

On other fronts, chemists are looking at creating designer bugs that will create hydrocarbons. While it seems far-fetched that they'd be able to come up with something ready for an industrial setting, at least they're trying.

On yet another front, while I've been sorely disappointed with lackluster gains in solar efficiency, I think we're starting to make inroads in other areas, such as lower maintenance (PV cells in large scale) and maybe we'll see more efficiency gains as the market continues to be interested.

Additionally, I think the big oil companies are starting to look down the line to see how they'd continue to exist post-oil. BP is investing in biodiesel research, Chevron is looking at geothermal, etc.

Unfortunately, there are going to be a lot of spurts and stops along the way. As it stands now, and has been pointed out, the relative cost of oil is going to drive a lot of the innovation or lack of innovation in the US. We desparately need a national energy policy to be part of each party's platform. However, politicians are rather reactionary creatures and I don't see them exercising the necessary brain cells until it's far too late to do something proactive and visionary.

 

[Razor]

Ethanol from corn was one of the worst ideas ever. Billions of dollars is being wasted on corn ethanol when it could have been spent on developing energy sources that actually do have the potential to help solve this nations energy crisis. Pork barrel.

 

[FinanceDude]

Ethanol from corn was one of the worst ideas ever. Billions of dollars is being wasted on corn ethanol when it could have been spent on developing energy sources that actually do have the potential to help solve this nations energy crisis. Pork barrel.

Well, the farmers are getting rich,and my ADM stock is up nicely..............

 

[Razor]

Well, the farmers are getting rich,and my ADM stock is up nicely..............

Down 3% so far today.

 

[FinanceDude]

Down 3% so far today.

Yeah, I bought it in mid August..........

 

[jazz4cash]

I probably have too much faith in technology,

Me too.

 

[imnxpat]

Nuclear Power? Does anybody here remember Chernobyl? Or Three Mile Island? Furthermore, there is still no facility available for premanent disposal of radioactive waste.

Let's focus instead on conservation and alternate sources such as solar and wind power.

 

[Insanity]

I probably have too much faith in technology

Me too.

I'm not sure we, as a culture, have too much faith in technology. I think it's more that we have a tendency to put too much faith in technologies of the past.

If we believed in technologies of the future we'd be out there investing in research, trying to create the next thing, jumping on new technologies as they become viable, not trying to re-invent the old ones. If we had true faith in technology we'd be pouring money into solar, into tidal generation, into wind, into electric cars, even into nuclear. Instead we invest in the technology of our great-granddaddies, trying to re-invent coal into "clean coal" and gasoline into "E-85."

 

[Insanity]

Nuclear Power? Does anybody here remember Chernobyl? Or Three Mile Island? Furthermore, there is still no facility available for premanent disposal of radioactive waste.

Let's focus instead on conservation and alternate sources such as solar and wind power.

Of course I remember TMI and Chernobyl. I also remember years of investigation and recommendations that have been made since then, and note that, even though many countries get the majority of their electric power from nuclear, no one has had that scale of accident since Chernobyl. We're not foolproof, but it does seem that humankind can learn from our mistakes.

And I agree with you about doing more with conservation and renewables, but conservation can only take us so far when we're here, sitting at our computers and reading by electric light in our centrally heated homes.

What we need is a lot of R&D into renewables and widening range of energy options. You and I agree on that . . . where we differ is nuclear energy's role in energy policy. I don't like putting too many eggs in one basket, so the nuclear basket has a place in my philosophy. I'm comfortable with that because the newer generation of reactors are much safer and I see the safe re-processing and storage of nuclear industry waste as a political, not scientific problem.

 

[jazz4cash]

I'm not sure we, as a culture, have too much faith in technology. I think it's more that we have a tendency to put too much faith in technologies of the past.

If we believed in technologies of the future we'd be out there investing in research, trying to create the next thing, jumping on new technologies as they become viable, not trying to re-invent the old ones. If we had true faith in technology we'd be pouring money into solar, into tidal generation, into wind, into electric cars, even into nuclear. Instead we invest in the technology of our great-granddaddies, trying to re-invent coal into "clean coal" and gasoline into "E-85."

I generally agree. Coal is being burned now and it will continue to be burned so it has a place and it too needs to be on the list for technological advancement. Same for Ethanol. The faith we have as individuals is not reflected as a society because we have no energy policy so we stumble around in the dark and put our freedom at risk. IMO Technology is the one area we can maintain world leadership so why not a national effort to develop a diverse portfolio of energy resources deployed according to some best fit to needs model. Industry jumps on old tech because its easy and low risk and I wouldn't expect much different without a national mandate.