OPEC cuts oilproduction!

[DrinkSweetTea]

http://www.grassolean.com/

 

[atpcliff]

Hi (again)!

I forgot to mention GM's determination to once again be the global automotive leader, by producing inexpensive to build hydrogen fuel-cell powered autos.

About 5 years ago, they went Exxon and told them their plans. They wanted Exxon to be their partner in developing the infrastructre for hydrogen fuel.

Exxon told them they were an oil company, and walked out. GM said it didn't matter, and that they'd find someone else.

BP now calls themselves and "energy company" vs. an "oil company". They are doing this because they, like GB, can see the writing on the wall, and they want to be global leaders in the post-oil economy. If companies like Exxon stick with their oil plans, they will be left behind like the horse carriage makers were after the turn of the century.

Cliff
ELP

 

[jarhead]

I believe that E-85 ethanol is made from 85% oil. 15% comes from an alcohol based from corn. It takes a lot of energy to grow corn. Diesel for the tractor and combine, nitrates and ammonia for the fertilizer, pesticides for the 'bug's, and gas for the crop dusters that put the stuff down. As someone already stated, there is no free lunch.

 

[sqwkvfr]

Nope, 85% ethanol.

The energy cost/benefit is higher than oil, but it's better than a lot of other alternative sources, and the associated benefits to the economy make it an even lesser evil.

I think it needs a harder look than it's getting.

 

[jarhead]

I think it's obvious that something must be done. Fossil fuel is a finite resource, and we are depleteting it at a faster and faster rate, as the world grows in population, and the appetite for energy grows. I think all agree with that. WE (the human race) must come to terms with that, or their will be chaos, war, and death, until we go back to the stone age and heat our homes with camel dung, and use the same beast for transportation.

My view is that far too many blow this off as a 'simple problem', i.e. just use the wind, just use the sun......it isn’t that easy. I live in Minnesota. The coldest days of the year are when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn’t shine. Industry and our economy must have a steady, reliable, on demand supply of energy. Without that, we will be living in a culture much like Lewis & Clarke did. With 300 million people, that is not possible.

The political problems are the biggest problems......nuclear, coal, wind, oil, a mouse running on a tread mill.....it’s all in the equation.

 

[moving2vegas]

free lunch

You're right. To get 40 miles worth of hydrogen, you have to burn 40 miles worth of petro in the production process. Remember energy's never created or destroyed, only changed. But who says you have to change petro to hydrogen? The battery in your car passes electricity through water and it (the battery) gives off tiny amount of hydrogen gas. Many researchers are working on that exact idea today, and hydroelectric power is petro free. My question is: why convert elec to hydrogen anyway? I personally don't want to be in a vehicle accident, then take out a city block because I'm running around in a mobile mini H-bomb. Just drive all electric. The technology for sustainable, durable, and practical all electric vehicles is here. We (as consumers) have to accept it, and purchase these cars. If 80% of the vehicles on the road are electric, the only problem I see is vehicles used for hauling or mass transit ie.. semi trucks, pick-up trucks, commercial vehicles, aircraft, ect... In that case, all the petro we produce/ use is diesel, avgas, jet and some auto gas. The problem isn't OPEC, the president, or the auto manufactures. It's us the consumer, you and me. We are unwilling to change. But we can certainly b*tch and complain.

 

[jarhead]

Well, Hydro power isn’t exactly “free” There is the cost of land reclaimation, the building of dams, and the occasional draught where no power at all can be produced. None the less, Hydro power is good where it is available. I assume you know that electric power can just be sent coast to coast from the generating plant? Line losses are part of any electrical equation. Why do you suppose railroad trains full of coal travel from Montana to Minnesota? Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to build the power plant in Montana, generate the power, and send electricity over the wires to Minnesota? (tic)
(hint: it can’t be done) Same goes for hydro…..ya gotta be “in the area”

Sorry, battery power is not free at all either. Some source of power had to input that power to the battery; be it lightning bolts, electric eels, or a coal (or nuclear) power generating plant.

 

[moving2vegas]

jarhead

reread... I said petro free. I realize electricity isn't free. We're talking about drastically reducing our need for foreign oil. Nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, hydrogen, piss, whatever. WE have to do something. It starts and ends with us. I bought a prius this year (love it) and when a suitable all electric vehicle comes out, I'll buy that. Don't get me wrong. I'm still part of the problem and I'm not a tree hugger, granola crunching environmentalist. I own a small fruit ranch and own horses, therefore I have a big F-350 diesel that sucks down the petro. That’s because I have to. No electric vehicle is going to pull 4 tons of fruit to market. But I pulled my head out this year and bought the hybrid. What if we all drove one? What 25% less demand? Time to change folks.

 

[jarhead]

Been considering a Prius myself for around town driving. Still have the big Expedition for my hunting trips, and for pulling a heavy boat up to the lake, as that's what works for those recreational pursuits.

But, yes, we all are gonna get weaned, one way or another in the future.

 

[A Squared]

The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.

Oh, please. This is a completely absurd statement and you haven't a shred of information to support this.

Let's take a look at reality for a moment, please. The maximum solar energy which reaches the earth's surface is about 1000 watts/ square meter. That's the absolute max, high noon, not a cloud in the sky, sun directly overhead. You can't get more than that, because more simply does not exist. Now the United State's yearly electricity consumption is 3.6 trillion Kilowatt-hours per year. Assuming perfect conditions, this requires about 411 square kilometers of absolutely 100% efficient solar cells. But wait, that's based on the sun being directly overhead 24 hours a day. It's not like that where I live, and I'm pretty sure it's not like that where you live. A good ball park estimate is that the sun is below the horizon half the time, OK so now we need 811 sq. km covered in Solar Cells. But wait, that's still assuming the sun is directly overhead 12 hours out of 24. The amount of energy that strikes the earth varies with the zenith angle, or the angle of the sun from directly overhead. In fact, it varies with the cosine of the zenith angle. We can estimate the reduction by multiplying by 2/pi (that is generous as it only considers the angle of the sun and not the additional atmospheric scattering at low sun angles) So now we need about 1274 Sq km. of these theoretically perfect solar panels. But wait there's more, (there always is, isn't there) we haven't accounted for latitude. If we assume that we're in New Mexico, or Arizona at a latitude of about 35 degrees, the sun's zenith angle at noontime is going to vary from about 12 degrees in June to 58 degrees in December. That reduces the peak sun energy at noon 3 % and 50%, respectively. Let's just ballpark it and say we need a factor of .75 to correct for that. There was a time when I could do math like that, but I have come to appreciate gross simplifications. They are much faster and don't make my brain hurt. Anyway, that simplification is again very generous as it ignores the shortened days and greater time the sun spends low on the horizon in the mornings and afternoons. What are we up to now ... oh yeah now we need 1700 square kilometers of solar cells, a square about 41 kilometers on a side. Just about half the size of Rhode Island. That's still with a perfect sky, never a cloud and perfect solar cells. Alrighty, lets take a look at those perfect solar cells. How do solar cells actually perform? I'm looking at a solar cell here that is 1.3 square meters and puts out 167 watts. That's about 12% efficient, which is in line with the current technology. Hey, suddenly we're up to 14,166 square km of real solar cells. Now we're talking bigger than Connecticut!

It's really easy to sit there and say "wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US" It's not quite so simple when you start taking a look at what's really involved.

 

[Capt. Tex]

Capt Tex,

Assuming your number of $160 billion is accurate, how would that money have found more oil, or other energy sources?

Assumptions??? What rock have you been hiding under dude?? Bush had two instances of 80 billion approved for Iraq in the last year. And as for finding more energy sources, it's called research genius.

The problem isn't OPEC, the president, or the auto manufactures. It's us the consumer, you and me. We are unwilling to change. But we can certainly b*tch and complain.

Well said. Until we give up SUV's, 4 stroke deisel long bed trucks, we're headed back for the stone age once the dust settles from the nukes.

 

[jarhead]

Why the hostility? I said I assumed your 160 billion number to be correct. You want me to research what you stated?

No, I am not a genius....just a citizen on this forum.

If you want to get picky.....wasn't the last appropriation $87 billion?

Again, why so hostile????

 

[jarhead]

Capt Tex

In your list of vehicles to get rid of, you forgot to list airplanes.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi A squared!

I just read an article by a subsidiary of Boeing from a year ago. They manufactured a solar cell with 37% efficiency.
http://www.spectrolab.com/com/news/news-detail.asp?id=152

So, in your example, the amount of solar cells needed would be reduced to a 1/3 of what U specified.

Think how efficient we could get solar cells if our country really put their money and effort into the program.

On the wind power front, we could put up wind turbines in both the Dakotas, and part of TX, that would provide all the power needed for the whole US.

Think of all the other states that can produce tons of wind power: NE, KS, OK, NM, NV, etc.

Jarhead:
We can combine the wind turbines and solar cells with large water/hydrogen fuel cells. The turbines/solar cells can be used to convert the water to Hydrogen in the fuel cells, and then when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, the hydrogen can be used to run the fuel cell to produce electricity.

It doesn't matter if we want to end our oil dependence or not, it will end. If we are proactive and control the transition, it will be much smoother than if we bury our heads in the sand and wait for the Dark Ages to overtake our world, just like they did with the fall of the Roman Empire. It took Europe over 1000 years to recover.

Cliff
ELP

PS
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html
This is the webpage talking about a new process for solar cells that may be able to increase the efficiency above 70%.

 

[Dizel8]

Well, this turned into a great and lively discussion. Who knew we had so many smart people and I mean that sincerely. Anyway, onwards....

There are obviously plenty of energy sources for us to use. Yes, taking up a whole state to derive energy is a little extreme, but solar cells research, is really still in its infancy and as new techniques are discovered, efficiency is increased.
Windpower, wavepower, hydro etc.

But, I think we al realize, that we are headed for a time without oil. I read some place, that we had another 25-50 years left, that was at present consumption, but from what I read, the developing countries are increasing use at a furious rate, in particular China.

We should not be looking at just one source of energy, since there is more than one. Further, and this may get me in trouble, I think we need to reasses nuclear power. Yes, somewhat nasty byproducts, but it is clean and relatively efficient. If only we could get fusion to work at normal temperatures, but while I am sceptical, I think perhaps it will happen.

However we do it, if we can decrease our oil consumption, it will do wonders for the trade deficit and it will greatly reduce our reliance on our oil producing "friends".

 

[Big Duke Six]

I had read a few years ago that if we took a 100 square mile area in AZ and built a giant solar collection field there, that it would replace all other forms of electrical power generation in the US. From what ASquared says, that would be close to enough, and is not that far-fetched because AZ has extremely strong and reliable sunlight, and has vast tracts of land that, while beautiful, are not really well suited for other purposes. Obviously there are transmission considerations and one field in AZ could not efficiently supply the entire country, but the premise is sound. Then, if we split that one hypothetically huge field among AZ, CA, NM, NV, UT, CO and TX it seems like that would take care of a large part of the country directly. Obviously as you go East the weather and available land becomes less favorable, but other forms of alternative production are available there (nuclear, hydro etc) and in any case, converting the excess electricity produced in the western states to hydrogen, then shipping it East when necessary seems plausible. During severe times, there are also considerable reserves of natural gas and coal in the country that could back up the solar resources. They would play a secondary role rather than the primary role that they now fill.

It seems to me that since the problem and solution is a national one, the Feds would have to lead the way. The problem as I see it is the synchronization of the Federal Gov't and the open market. For example, when we opened up the Strategic Oil Reserves a few years ago to ease a crunch, that oil had to flow into the world market first before it could be refined and utilized by US consumers. There is no way that I know of to give Mobil or Exxon a few million barrels of oil and stamp it "For US Consumption Only". So we did not necessarily reap the entire benefit of those millions of barrels of oil we dumped on the market. Same problem with "drilling in Alaska". It's an international market and system, at least right now before the situation is critical. Then it will be every country for itself. The same is true for the electrical/hydrogen problem - it is a national system and would need close coordination by the Feds to work. I am referring to cost here mostly - it seems that somehow federal regulation (I hate those terms) would be required so that in the early stages (i.e. highest costs) the people in the East would have to share the costs with the people in the West as the new system was built. It would ultimatley benefit the entire country, so that seems fair to me.

As far as foreign policy goes, I am comfortable paying for foreign oil right now as opposed to using our own. When OPEC runs out, we'll hopefully have some left and will be in the catbirds seat then. Long term, I feel more secure this way, even if it is money out of my pocket now. I would also be all for developing alternative sources of electrical power now, rather than later, and utilizing it now for personal vehicles. We need to save petroleum for larger vehicles (airplanes) where alternative power solutions are much more complex. Switching now to alternative sources for small vehicles will buy us time to work out solutions for the more difficult applications.