Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
OPEC cuts oilproduction!
- Thread starter Dizel8
- Start date
- Watchers 6
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Q200_FO
What, No booze?!?
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2003
- Posts
- 220
OPEC.....
We need to put some serious and I mean SERIOUS research into developing our own fuel and energy sources so we can tell OPEC and their Arab cartel to keep their oil and shove it up their ass. If we don't then they will always have us by the balls. But with this administration in office (and any administration funded by special interests for that matter) funded by big oil that'll never happen. Bush and his cronies are very happy to have OPEC keep a tight squeeze on America's scrotum.
We need to put some serious and I mean SERIOUS research into developing our own fuel and energy sources so we can tell OPEC and their Arab cartel to keep their oil and shove it up their ass. If we don't then they will always have us by the balls. But with this administration in office (and any administration funded by special interests for that matter) funded by big oil that'll never happen. Bush and his cronies are very happy to have OPEC keep a tight squeeze on America's scrotum.
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
sweetea,
It appears that you've copmpletely missed the point of my post.
Hydrogen is not an energy *source*, at least not on this planet. It takes just as much energy to make hydrogen as you get from burning it. Hydrogen is no more an energy *source* than coil springs are an energy source, or wet cell batteries are an energy source.
Even if we developed cheap, efficient, high performance hydrogen powered cars which fulfilled everyones transportation needs. You are still left with the question of where are you going to get the energy to make the hydrogen to power the car. To make 100 BTU of hydrogen fuel, you need 100 + BTU of energy from some other source. There is no free lunch. until you figure out where that 100+ BTU of energy is going to come from, hydrogen power is just a silly fantasy.
If we lived on a planet with vast hydrogen gas reserves underground, and you could just drill a hole and it would flow out, hydrogen would be a good deal. We don't, so it has to be manufactured in a process that has a net energy loss.
It appears that you've copmpletely missed the point of my post.
Hydrogen is not an energy *source*, at least not on this planet. It takes just as much energy to make hydrogen as you get from burning it. Hydrogen is no more an energy *source* than coil springs are an energy source, or wet cell batteries are an energy source.
Even if we developed cheap, efficient, high performance hydrogen powered cars which fulfilled everyones transportation needs. You are still left with the question of where are you going to get the energy to make the hydrogen to power the car. To make 100 BTU of hydrogen fuel, you need 100 + BTU of energy from some other source. There is no free lunch. until you figure out where that 100+ BTU of energy is going to come from, hydrogen power is just a silly fantasy.
If we lived on a planet with vast hydrogen gas reserves underground, and you could just drill a hole and it would flow out, hydrogen would be a good deal. We don't, so it has to be manufactured in a process that has a net energy loss.
sqwkvfr
Baseball junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,673
To me, this one's easy. E85. 85% Ethanol made from good old corn.
Seems to me that this would open a huge market for farmers and seriously ease our energy crunch. E85 would require the smallest and least expensive changes to our current fuel delivery infastructure and automobiles.
Until then, a universal blend of fuel would help a little. Right now, oil companies raise their rates to recoup the costs of seasonal blend changes required by the Feds. Different areas of the country require different blends different times of the year. If one part of the country runs low on fuel, they can't just ship it in from the nieghbors.....they have make more than planned and that gets expensive, fast.
Seems to me that this would open a huge market for farmers and seriously ease our energy crunch. E85 would require the smallest and least expensive changes to our current fuel delivery infastructure and automobiles.
Until then, a universal blend of fuel would help a little. Right now, oil companies raise their rates to recoup the costs of seasonal blend changes required by the Feds. Different areas of the country require different blends different times of the year. If one part of the country runs low on fuel, they can't just ship it in from the nieghbors.....they have make more than planned and that gets expensive, fast.
atpcliff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,260
Hi!
To start with, oil is a dead-end energy source. What I mean by that, is it's going to run out, and it won't sell for $25/barrel down to the last barrel. The cost will rise and continue to rise until it's impractical for use as a transportation fuel.
1964 was the peak of oil discovery. We now have very advanced scientific tools to discover oil, and they aren't working, as there basically is no more oil to be found. The last 2 major finds were the North Sea and Alaska, and those both happened years ago.
The other problem for us (the US), is that we import over half of the oil we use, and that percentage is going to go up drastically until we stop using oil as a fuel.
If we drill everywhere in Alaska, and get out all of the oil that we can, that will provide the US with about 6 months worth of oil. It is a very short term solution, and we need long term ones.
Our trade deficit is VERY high, and it's because of oil. It doesn't matter what party is in power, or who is president, it won't be solved until we quit using oil. I hate buying gas for my car, knowing how much of that money is going to corrupt rulers in the Moslem countries.
One situation we have is that we don't pay for our gasoline when we pump it into our cars. Our gasoline prices have been artificially low for years, and even now, in fact, gasoline costs very little when compared with historical pricing.
American consumers will change their driving and buying habits when gasoline costs about $4+ at the pump. When consumers pay this amount at the pump, they will buy gasoline-efficient cars, or alternative fuel cars, they will drive less, and they will use public transportation more.
The problem that is delaying our transition to alternatives to oil, is that, while gasoline actually costs us between $5-$15 per gallon, we aren't charged that price at the pump.
One of the actual costs of gas, that we don't pay at the pump, is the cost of military spending to protect our oil. We pay a variety of taxes, including income tax, that pays for military spending. What's worse, is we're also adding to the deficit to pay for these gasoline costs.
If we had to pay the actual cost of gasoline at the pump, it would be easier for us consumers to see how much we're actually paying for our gas, and it would speed our transition away from oil.
What's worse, we, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the cost of gasoline in other countries. I read an article in the past year by a British politician, who said that we are subsidizing British gas to the tune of $1 a gallon. He said that $.70 of that dollar is our tax money spent on our military to protect the oil supplies. I assume that if British gasoline is being subsidized, we are also helping to pay the oil costs of a lot of other countries.
The reason that OPEC is increasing their capacity, is that the value of a US Dollar is down 30% against the Euro, so the OPEC countries need to pump more oil to keep their buying power up. Luckily for us, OPEC is still using the US dollar as a standard instead of switching over to the Euro, which would be devastating to our economy.
As for hydrogen as a potential fuel, it could work out very well. We could use wind turbines in the plains states, and solar power in the high-sun states to break water down into hydrogen, and then use our existing pipeline technology to ship the hydrogen to market, just as we do with oil now. The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.
We could develop larger hydrogen fuel cells for those solar and wind locations which would, in addition to providing hydrogen for transportation fuel, provide electrical power when the wind turbine or solar cell wasn't producing electricity. They would produce the hydrogen in the fuel cells when they were working, and then the fuel cells could use the hydrogen to make electricity at night or if the wind slowed down at that location.
My brother believes that a biodiesel fuel engine, coupled with a plug-in hybrid setup would actually be better than a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the car was parked, the electrical power provided by the sun and wind power, would recharge the battery in the vehicle. If, while you were driving, for example on a long trip, and the battery needed charging, the biodiesel engine could then charge the battery, just like our current hybrids do.
One problem with using biodiesel, is our farm productivity is based on buring oil in the farm machinery. However, if we converted the farm machinery engines to biodiesel, that would solve that problem.
The US currently has the #1 solar energy potential of any country on earth, and the #1 wind energy potentil of any country.
Let's develop these sources of energy, available here, on our land, paying US companies to make the equipment, and paying US citizens to run this operation. This would make our country much stronger economically, make us less able to be blackmailed by other countries with control our energy supply, and our military wouldn't have to be running over to the Arabian peninsula every few years.
I fought in the Persian Gulf War, and I don't want my kids to have to go back there to protect our access to dwindling supplies of oil in 15-20 years.
I think spending $20 bill/yr, starting this year, and ending whenever we can get a viable renewable energy source in place to serve our countries needs for the long term.
Cliff
ELP
PS-About 100 years ago, we used horse power as transportation, and many people said that the automobile would never amount to much. As proof, they pointed out that there were no roads, no stations to refuel the cars, and no places to get them fixed. It would cost the country too much money to build these facililties, which is why the "fad" of the auto would die out, and horses would continue to be the transportation vehicle of choice.
To start with, oil is a dead-end energy source. What I mean by that, is it's going to run out, and it won't sell for $25/barrel down to the last barrel. The cost will rise and continue to rise until it's impractical for use as a transportation fuel.
1964 was the peak of oil discovery. We now have very advanced scientific tools to discover oil, and they aren't working, as there basically is no more oil to be found. The last 2 major finds were the North Sea and Alaska, and those both happened years ago.
The other problem for us (the US), is that we import over half of the oil we use, and that percentage is going to go up drastically until we stop using oil as a fuel.
If we drill everywhere in Alaska, and get out all of the oil that we can, that will provide the US with about 6 months worth of oil. It is a very short term solution, and we need long term ones.
Our trade deficit is VERY high, and it's because of oil. It doesn't matter what party is in power, or who is president, it won't be solved until we quit using oil. I hate buying gas for my car, knowing how much of that money is going to corrupt rulers in the Moslem countries.
One situation we have is that we don't pay for our gasoline when we pump it into our cars. Our gasoline prices have been artificially low for years, and even now, in fact, gasoline costs very little when compared with historical pricing.
American consumers will change their driving and buying habits when gasoline costs about $4+ at the pump. When consumers pay this amount at the pump, they will buy gasoline-efficient cars, or alternative fuel cars, they will drive less, and they will use public transportation more.
The problem that is delaying our transition to alternatives to oil, is that, while gasoline actually costs us between $5-$15 per gallon, we aren't charged that price at the pump.
One of the actual costs of gas, that we don't pay at the pump, is the cost of military spending to protect our oil. We pay a variety of taxes, including income tax, that pays for military spending. What's worse, is we're also adding to the deficit to pay for these gasoline costs.
If we had to pay the actual cost of gasoline at the pump, it would be easier for us consumers to see how much we're actually paying for our gas, and it would speed our transition away from oil.
What's worse, we, the US taxpayers, are subsidizing the cost of gasoline in other countries. I read an article in the past year by a British politician, who said that we are subsidizing British gas to the tune of $1 a gallon. He said that $.70 of that dollar is our tax money spent on our military to protect the oil supplies. I assume that if British gasoline is being subsidized, we are also helping to pay the oil costs of a lot of other countries.
The reason that OPEC is increasing their capacity, is that the value of a US Dollar is down 30% against the Euro, so the OPEC countries need to pump more oil to keep their buying power up. Luckily for us, OPEC is still using the US dollar as a standard instead of switching over to the Euro, which would be devastating to our economy.
As for hydrogen as a potential fuel, it could work out very well. We could use wind turbines in the plains states, and solar power in the high-sun states to break water down into hydrogen, and then use our existing pipeline technology to ship the hydrogen to market, just as we do with oil now. The wind and solar power could replace ALL of the electrical production capacity in the US as well.
We could develop larger hydrogen fuel cells for those solar and wind locations which would, in addition to providing hydrogen for transportation fuel, provide electrical power when the wind turbine or solar cell wasn't producing electricity. They would produce the hydrogen in the fuel cells when they were working, and then the fuel cells could use the hydrogen to make electricity at night or if the wind slowed down at that location.
My brother believes that a biodiesel fuel engine, coupled with a plug-in hybrid setup would actually be better than a hydrogen fuel cell car. When the car was parked, the electrical power provided by the sun and wind power, would recharge the battery in the vehicle. If, while you were driving, for example on a long trip, and the battery needed charging, the biodiesel engine could then charge the battery, just like our current hybrids do.
One problem with using biodiesel, is our farm productivity is based on buring oil in the farm machinery. However, if we converted the farm machinery engines to biodiesel, that would solve that problem.
The US currently has the #1 solar energy potential of any country on earth, and the #1 wind energy potentil of any country.
Let's develop these sources of energy, available here, on our land, paying US companies to make the equipment, and paying US citizens to run this operation. This would make our country much stronger economically, make us less able to be blackmailed by other countries with control our energy supply, and our military wouldn't have to be running over to the Arabian peninsula every few years.
I fought in the Persian Gulf War, and I don't want my kids to have to go back there to protect our access to dwindling supplies of oil in 15-20 years.
I think spending $20 bill/yr, starting this year, and ending whenever we can get a viable renewable energy source in place to serve our countries needs for the long term.
Cliff
ELP
PS-About 100 years ago, we used horse power as transportation, and many people said that the automobile would never amount to much. As proof, they pointed out that there were no roads, no stations to refuel the cars, and no places to get them fixed. It would cost the country too much money to build these facililties, which is why the "fad" of the auto would die out, and horses would continue to be the transportation vehicle of choice.
DrinkSweetTea
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2003
- Posts
- 94
atpcliff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 4,260
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
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
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
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.
Last edited:
sqwkvfr
Baseball junkie
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,673
jarhead
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
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.
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
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.
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
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
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.
(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.
Last edited:
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
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.
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
master of my domain
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2002
- Posts
- 1,162
A Squared
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 3,006
atpcliff said:
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.
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Connecting Jump Pack to EarthX Battery
- Latest: Cactus Charlie
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
