OPEC cuts oilproduction!

[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.