What's the best solution to our energy problems?

[fossten]

Which one is the best, and why?

 

[shagdrum]

I really don't think there is any question on this one...

 

[taylor414ce2003]

answer is none of the above they are all short term solutions eventualy the well will be dry!!!!! another short term fix is taking oil,we invaded an oil producing country why not get something out of it!!!!
what ever hapeened to the oil crises of the 1970's it didnt just go away. Real Alternive fuel sources should have been developed by now,these gas prices are no surprise!!!! If our gov. spent 1/2 as much $s on new energy sources as it does on UFOs and developing WMDs 90% of Americans would never evan have herard of Iraq,Iran etc!!!!!!!

 

[shagdrum]

answer is none of the above they are all short term solutions eventualy the well will be dry!!!!! another short term fix is taking oil,we invaded an oil producing country why not get something out of it!!!!
what ever hapeened to the oil crises of the 1970's it didnt just go away. Real Alternive fuel sources should have been developed by now,these gas prices are no surprise!!!! If our gov. spent 1/2 as much $s on new energy sources as it does on UFOs and developing WMDs 90% of Americans would never evan have herard of Iraq,Iran etc!!!!!!!

Actually, we have been investing money in alternative energy sources for years. We have yet to see any evidence to suggest that any of them are more then a pipe dream, let alone a viable alternative to oil. Real alternatives would have been developed by now, if any were viable (given current technology).

Besides, your whole analysis intentionally disregards any "short term" solutions, and is thus unrealistic. The long term is irrelevant without the short term. If there is no bridge (short term solutions) between now and long term solutions, then the long term solutions are worthless.

Also, what definition of "short term" are you using? Because drilling for oil is hardly just a short term solution. Short term usually means less then a year. It will take longer then that to get oil to the market from new drilling sites, and the oil is already conservatively projected to last for decades, based only known reserves, not taking into consideration the new reserves we will inevitably discover.

You should focus on the here and now as well, not just some Utopian vision of energy consumption that might come about 40 plus years in the future.

Besides, government is usually terrible at planning for the long term. They are too concerned with the here and now (short term), and usually aren't too good at fixing those concerns either.

Your whole argument is nothing more then a red herring, and is thus irrelevant.

 

[shagdrum]

We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!:soapbox:

We need to be investing in alternative energy sources like; Flux capacitor's, antimatter warp drives, hyperdrives, transporter technology, ZPM's, FTL drives, the Genesis device, wormhole technology, stargates, etc., etc. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In fact, maybe we can create an energy source that runs on belief and wishful thinking.... :lol:

 

[taylor414ce2003]

We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!:soapbox:

We need to be investing in alternative energy sources like; Flux capacitor's, antimatter warp drives, hyperdrives, transporter technology, ZPM's, FTL drives, the Genesis device, wormhole technology, stargates, etc., etc. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In fact, maybe we can create an energy source that runs on belief and wishful thinking.... :lol:

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternitives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

 

[Marcus]

Here's something I posted yesterday at another forum, with some rewording here and there. Part of the thread was about oil spills, so part of my reply had to with that. The rest addresses the topic at hand:


First off, READ ME.

Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast
Government to buy back leasing rights

Thursday, May 30, 2002
WASHINGTON -- With his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, looking on, President Bush sealed a deal Wednesday to prevent further oil and gas drilling off the white sand beaches of the Florida Gulf Coast and in the cypress swamps near the Everglades.

The unexpected announcement would require the federal government to repurchase $235 million worth of oil and gas leasing rights in the Destin Dome area, about 25 miles south of Pensacola, and in three wildlife areas including Big Cypress National Preserve.

Jeb Bush acknowledged that the Oval Office announcement would boost his re-election campaign in Florida, the swing state in the 2000 presidential election and a tourism mecca where polls show 75 percent oppose offshore drilling.​

More at link above. I'm sure some of you will argue that that was a different time, and that's true. But my point is that no politician from either party is above bowing to political pressures.


Second, I've heard several pundits make the claim that there were no oil spills associated with Katrina and Rita. The US Minerals Management Service issued a report in May, 2006 that contradicts that rosy picture.

Some highlights:

Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and reports, the number of pipelines damaged has risen to 457 from 183. The number of larger diameter pipelines (10 inches or greater) that were damaged has risen to 101 from 64.

MMS has also revised the number of platforms destroyed from 115 down to 113...

MMS also is releasing the following tally of hurricane-related oil/condensate/chemical spills in Federal offshore OCS waters as reported to MMS and the National Response Center. Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater. No shoreline or wildlife impacts were noted from these spills.​

Please note that, in the interests of honesty, I didn't conveniently leave out the last sentence of that last excerpt. However, the sentence doesn't tell the whole story. There were indeed oil spills created. See this satellite photo taken September 1-2, 2005 (fairly large download):

http://skytruth.mediatools.org/sites/default/files/photo_import/1904/935/11946-lg.jpg

See all those dark splotches? Those are oil spills. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

But what about spills at onshore facilities which support those offshore platforms? A true disaster. All in all, the Houston Chronicle estimated a total of 595 spills with over 9 million gallons of oil spilled due to Katrina and Rita, both onshore and offshore.

There's no doubt that technological improvements have made it possible to avoid some large-scale disasters, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there are no longer any dangers.



I want to talk a bit now about this fallacy that offshore drilling will have an impact on oil prices.

It's been stated that there is a potential of 18 billion barrels of oil around the outer continental shelf that remains off limits. Let's put that number into perspective.

According to this Department of Energy report (PDF - see table 10), there are almost 41 billion barrels of oil available JUST IN THE GULF, THAT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR EXPLORATION! That's over twice the amount estimated for the rest of the outer continental shelf combined! Why do we need to open up more when the oil companies haven't even begun to tap what's available to them right now? I'm not referring to the Democratic talking point about the 57 million acres, or whatever the number is, of land that the oil companies have available. I'm talking about offshore reserves that we know are there and are ready to produce!

Next let's put into perspective the amount of oil that can realistically be produced on a daily basis if we open the rest of the OCS. Last year, the DOE released a report, Annual Energy Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030. Do a find on "Impacts of Increased" to go to the relevant section. In it, they use a couple of projections, the first being the "Reference Case", which assume that the OCS will NOT be opened up, the second being the "OCS Access Case", which assumes that it WILL be opened.

Let's forget about all of the arguments about how many years it will take before anything comes to fruition and skip right to the numbers for the year 2030, and pretend we can start drilling at full production right now.

According to the report:

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20)...​

The actual number, if you click the links under the charts, are 2.2 million bbls a day for the reference case vs. 2.36 million bbls a day in the access case. That's a difference of 160,000 barrels a day.

So, opening up the rest of the OCS will increase TOTAL domestic production by 3 percent. While that's an improvement, it's hardly the goldmine that pundits make it out to be. But hey, that's better than NO extra production right? Sure, you could make that argument. But will it make a difference at the pump? Unlikely.

I intentionally left off the last sentence in the excerpt above. It reads--and this is the key:

Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. ​

Too many people seem to forget this inconvenient fact. America doesn't set its own oil prices. The world market does (I'm ignoring the artificial hyper-inflation of prices due to skewed futures markets for now). The oil companies aren't going to give Americans a discount. They're going to sell it for the market price.

Total world oil production is around 86 million bbls a day. That additional 160,000 bbls a day we'd get from the OCS amounts to less than 2 tenths of one percent of total world production. Hell, double that amount and you're still at less than half a percent increase in world production. What kind of effect do you think that will have on oil prices? If you answered "NONE" you win!

OK, you argue, let's do it just so we're sending that much less money to the terrorist havens in the middle east and communist dictators in South America. That's a fine sentiment, but just bear in mind that these countries aren't going to be losing one red cent simply because we aren't buying from them. We're not talking about trucks or baby strollers that we can boycott and have a true impact on sales. Oil is a vital resource that will always have buyers. If we don't buy their oil, someone else will.


Offshore drilling is not the panacea that pundits and partisan politicians make it out to be. It will solve nothing. The finger pointing is disingenuous, and nothing more than pandering and posturing.

If someone has some opposing information, I'm all ears.

 

[shagdrum]

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternatives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

It is called illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

The hydrogen cell is the most promising of the potential alternative energies, IMO. But it is still a very long way off from being a viable alternative. Sun and wind are a joke and a pipe dream; the technologies are inherently inefficient and unable to compete with gas in a free market. They can supplement oil based energy at best. There is no change that either, or both of those can replace oil as the main form of energy that drives the modern world. Nuclear energy is a must better option for that (at least on the non-transportation end of things).

Oil was never a "pipe dream", because it was never over hyped as a "solution" to a perceived problem; in other words, it was never a "dream" of any kind. It was just the natural course of human progress.

There was never a social and/or political movement to replace the then current form of transportation with oil based transportation.

 

[shagdrum]

Marcus, I will get back to your post later. I don't really have time to respond at the moment, and the quality of your post demands some care and attention to detail in a response.

 

[fossten]

Where did I say that?
what do you call the Hydrogen cell,I call it evidence that there are alternitives to oil along with the sun and wind ..Oil was once a pipedream!!!!

How do you suggest we fuel our jets, boats, and make things like shingles for houses? Oil is used for far more than just fueling cars.

By the way, the world is literally drowning in oil. If you search, you'll find the thread I posted a while back that shows that the world, as of right now, has over 100 years of oil in harvestable quantities.

 

[fossten]

But what about spills at onshore facilities which support those offshore platforms? A true disaster. All in all, the Houston Chronicle estimated a total of 595 spills with over 9 million gallons of oil spilled due to Katrina and Rita, both onshore and offshore.

There's no doubt that technological improvements have made it possible to avoid some large-scale disasters, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that there are no longer any dangers.

I knew somebody would try this baloney red herring eventually. That's why I saved this:

Mother Nature, the biggest oil polluter on Earth

posted at 5:15 pm on July 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Senator Jim DeMint has joined the effort to bring a little rationality to American energy policy. His office has clipped this video from Fox News that talks about the issues of increasing domestic production — and exposes the greatest oil-spill polluter on Earth. It’s a real mother:

[visit link to view youtube video]

DeMint’s office provided this handy chart, showing the 63% that nature itself puts in the water as oil seeps from natural vents.

Now, some can say that the percentage due to spills from drilling and extraction remains low because we restrict that activity — but we don’t restrict it everywhere, and drilling spills have become very rare. On the other hand, we keep buying more of our oil from abroad, which means we have to bring more of it by big tanker across a much longer voyage, and that brings more risk. Already it accounts for four times as much as drilling and extraction spillage, and it could get worse:

Considering that U.S. oil consumption and oil imports have steadily increased, the trend of declining spill incidents and volume in past years is noteworthy. Yet, recent annual data indicate that the overall decline of annual spill events may have stopped. Both consumption and imports are projected to maintain upward movement, and the United States is expected to increase the proportion of its imported oil. More oil-carrying vessels will be entering U.S. waters, and a higher percentage of transported oil will likely travel by vessel. The threat of oil spills may increase if more oil is being transported into and around the nation.

Enhancing domestic production would reduce opportunity for environmental damage. Further, opening up oil shale and other land-based oil reserves would eliminate risk for shore spills altogether. More importantly, it would put the US on a path to greater energy independence, create jobs, and slow down the massive transfers of wealth from America to nations of questionable friendship with us, or worse.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/14/mother-nature-the-biggest-oil-polluter-on-earth/?print=1

By the way, Marcus, or TommyB, or whatever your name is :

You think oil spills are bad now, imagine how bad they'll be as we depend more and more on oil tankers coming, I might add, from less environmentally conscious third world countries. The United States is already the cleanest and most environmentally responsible country in the world thanks to your treehugger buddies. Things will only get worse if more banana republics become our suppliers.

 

[Joeychgo]

Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

BUT -- I also think we should tax the oil. (after drilling as above) If people are willing to pay $4 now, then we can tax cheaper oil. This will have 2 effects. Keep demand down a bit, and provide a good revenue source.

Next, we HAVE to keep pushing for development of more efficient engines, alternative energies, etc.

We also need to start employing those alternative energies as we can where they are easiest to do so that will make a significant difference. ie. Power all cop cars with some alternative energy -- or something like that.

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

In short, drill now, develop for the future.

 

[shagdrum]

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

Well, there is only so much energy you can get from solar panels and wind farms, and that tech has pretty much plateaued (if not peaked). They are not an effective or realistic solution. A supplement, at best.

Besides, if your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, solar panels and wind powers are not the answer. Those alternatives take up massive amounts of land mass to produce relatively little energy. To occupy that land mass, trees and other plants that absorb CO2 emissions must be cut down.

Oil at least draws energy from well under the ground where things are already dead and leaves the various plant life in place to absorb and reduce CO2 emissions.

Reforestation has been the only effective way shown to reduce greenhouse gases.

The best solution for non-transportation type energy, if one of your goals is to reduce CO2 emissions, is nuclear power.

As for transportation based energy needs, oil is currently the only viable energy known (at least without enough drawbacks to make it a net negative for the economy and most Americans, like E85 is).

I will note that hydrogen shows some promise, but is still a long way from being a viable solution.

I also have to ask, why do we have to develop more efficient engines? I see no necessity for that. Only a lot of hyperbole and people trying to force their own priorities (dictated by their political agenda) on society.

 

[JoeyGood]

Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

BUT -- I also think we should tax the oil. (after drilling as above) If people are willing to pay $4 now, then we can tax cheaper oil. This will have 2 effects. Keep demand down a bit, and provide a good revenue source.

Next, we HAVE to keep pushing for development of more efficient engines, alternative energies, etc.

We also need to start employing those alternative energies as we can where they are easiest to do so that will make a significant difference. ie. Power all cop cars with some alternative energy -- or something like that.

We also need to find new ways to heat and power our homes. Solar panels and wind farms need to keep growing in number and improving in efficiency.

In short, drill now, develop for the future.

I Agree , places like the gulf are filled with oil and more refineries are a must for us . look at South America and learn from them, Brazil has been using Sugar Cane for fuel for quite some time. If cut out the Saudi oil and get it from both South America and Canada wouldn't that be better? This in turn would keep us from using any reserve oil we had.

Speaking of reserve oil, Do they rotate this oil or something or do we just keep a stock pile of it, Where is it all kept and how much is enough?

From what it looked like to me when the gas prices went up and people cut back and started using mas Transit they in turn went to the development of Ethanol. What that translated to me was if we can't screw you with the gas will do it an other way, which brought up the price of everything else we use.

Looks like we (middle class) can't win no matter what we do. From what i can tell and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. This country is being run like a book i read called the The Art of War

 

[fossten]

This country is being run like a book i read called the The Art of War

I thought it was more like Atlas Shrugged.

 

[JoeyGood]

I thought it was more like Atlas Shrugged.

HHMMMM could be a combination of both

 

[taylor414ce2003]

We shouldn't drill, it is only a short term solution!

I have a solution!:soapbox:

We need to be investing in alternative energy sources like; Flux capacitor's, antimatter warp drives, hyperdrives, transporter technology, ZPM's, FTL drives, the Genesis device, wormhole technology, stargates, etc., etc. :lol: :lol: :lol:

All that would be R Reagans dream with his Star Wars program

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Besides, your whole analysis intentionally disregards any "short term" solutions, and is thus unrealistic. The long term is irrelevant without the short term. If there is no bridge (short term solutions) between now and long term solutions, then the long term solutions are worthless.

thought I said to start taking oil out of the country we invaded for short term fix

 

[taylor414ce2003]

Well, I think we should drill, and drill and drill. Period. Flood the market and drop the cost of oil to nothing. This includes constructing more refineries as well.

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

 

[fossten]

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

1. We’re not running out of oil.

2. Even if we were, it would take 100 years based on present known reserves.

3. It’s likely that increased technology will allow us to find oil previously unavailable.

4. Even if we can’t do #3, we have 100 years to find alternative sources. Certainly they’ll have the solar/electric car battery worked out by then if the government gets out of the way. Let the markets solve it.

5. Based on the above 4 points, there is no reason why we should pretend like we have a shortage in oil. It’s there, so we should use it, and use the hell out of it. Restricting ourselves from using a cheap, accessible, and useful resource is stupid and punitive.

6. The best solution is for government to get out of the way and let the market handle it. If increased efficiency in automobiles is the way to go, the public will demand it themselves and the industries will produce to meet the demand. If the public doesn’t want little Prius deathtraps or ugly-light twisty bulbs, the government should not be FORCING industries to produce them.

Do you hear me, Joey?

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

Nobody's more ignorant of energy solutions than the government.

 

[JoeyGood]

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

Nobody's more ignorant of energy solutions than the government.

I Agree with you on this but that's what they're doing or trying to do now.

but we're just the little voice (little voice that keeps the country going) that can't do anything about the next puppet that goes in to office or what they vote on in congress,

they say our voice is heard but guess what.... it's the money hungry execs running the country so in any case we can be heard but not listened to (meaning yea we (politicians) let the people speak but we decide the final outcome is)

The rich get richer the poor stay poor and the middle class gets the shaft

 

[shagdrum]

More drilling is just ignoring the fact that we will run out of oil!!! not in our lifetime but maybe your kids or your grandchildren.

There is no way to know that. It is simply an assumption you are making. In fact, the theory of abiotic oil, if true, would blow that assumption out the window.

Petroleum is believed by most to be formed only from the remains of buried plant or animal material. Abiotic oil however might be formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called the mantle, deep in the Earth where there is a great amount of heat and pressure. Furthermore, the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it since the formation of the oil. In short, according to this idea petroleum is not a fossil fuel and has no intrinsic connection with plant or animal remains.

There are two theories of abiotic oil:

- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory.

- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than theorized in petroleum geology. ​

Besides, as Fossten pointed out, even if we were running out of oil, that is such a long way off (100 or more years) as to be a non-concern at present. It is simply a red herring to this discussion. Nice try.

 

[shagdrum]

...there is no reason why we should pretend like we have a shortage in oil. It’s there, so we should use it, and use the hell out of it. Restricting ourselves from using a cheap, accessible, and useful resource is stupid and punitive.

The best solution is for government to get out of the way and let the market handle it. If increased efficiency in automobiles is the way to go, the public will demand it themselves and the industries will produce to meet the demand. If the public doesn’t want little Prius deathtraps or ugly-light twisty bulbs, the government should not be FORCING industries to produce them.

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

Nobody's more ignorant of energy solutions than the government.

x2

 

[ford nut]

1. We’re not running out of oil.

2. Even if we were, it would take 100 years based on present known reserves.

3. It’s likely that increased technology will allow us to find oil previously unavailable.

4. Even if we can’t do #3, we have 100 years to find alternative sources. Certainly they’ll have the solar/electric car battery worked out by then if the government gets out of the way. Let the markets solve it.

5. Based on the above 4 points, there is no reason why we should pretend like we have a shortage in oil. It’s there, so we should use it, and use the hell out of it. Restricting ourselves from using a cheap, accessible, and useful resource is stupid and punitive.

6. The best solution is for government to get out of the way and let the market handle it. If increased efficiency in automobiles is the way to go, the public will demand it themselves and the industries will produce to meet the demand. If the public doesn’t want little Prius deathtraps or ugly-light twisty bulbs, the government should not be FORCING industries to produce them.

Do you hear me, Joey?

The government should not FORCE industries to produce things.

Nobody's more ignorant of energy solutions than the government.

You scare me when your right fossten
Joey does have a point though, we need more refineries.
I got this from one of your fav. web sites
http://www.slate.com/id/2102031/

There are plenty of reasons gas costs so much, but one of them is that the United States doesn't have enough refineries. The National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association says that the last new refinery built in the United States was Marathan Ashland's Garyville, La., plant—and it was completed in 1976.

 

[fossten]

There are plenty of reasons gas costs so much, but one of them is that the United States doesn't have enough refineries. The National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association says that the last new refinery built in the United States was Marathan Ashland's Garyville, La., plant—and it was completed in 1976.

Yep - and you can thank the envirowackos and Democrats for that.

Hurricane Katrina exposed the need for refineries. Yet the Do-Nothing Congress has done zilch about it since then.