Slashdot Mirror

Electricity may not be a fuel in the conventional sense, but it IS a fuel. Also, there seems to be a horrid misconception that electric cars are 'clean'. Most of the energy in the US is generated from either non-renewable resources or pollution creating ones. So yes, cars still require 'fuel'. Just because it comes in kw/h instead of gallons or litres doesn't make them some sort of magical perpetual motion machines.

Good try though.

Oh, and for the curious:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0102.html

According to this, computers and peripherals used 21 billion kWh in 2001, out of a total of 1,140 billion kWh in the US. which means that residential computer use is 1.8% of the total. Probably gone up a bit since then, but I doubt to 10%.

If you include all electronics (including TVs and stereos, etc.) it reaches about 10%.

You can't prove motivation unless some inside whistblower leaks documents. The reality is the number of refineries in the U.S. is half what it was in the 20 years ago though a lot of closures were small and inefficient refineries that stopped being viable when Federal price controls and subsidies ended under Reagan in 1981. Capacity has dropped from over 18 million barrels in 1981 to a little over 16 million today though demand is slightly higher. There is very little excess capacity today which is very profitable but it also means refineries are often working at close to 100% of capacity, they aren't getting sufficient down time for maintenance, accident rates are higher and when an accident of major failure shuts down a big refinery it further tightens supply and pushes up prices further.

Here is one good reference with charts. In particular look at this chart. Again 1981 is a landmark year because thats when Federal price controls and subsidies ended, low efficiency refineries dropped like flies and we got a supposed "free market" which unfortunately has lead to sky high prices today.

Not sure I should really imply there is a conspiracy here though its quite possible the industry is working together to keep refining capacity on a razor thin margin which helps push prices up, especially in the summer. You could call it efficient free market at work or some could call it price fixing to maximize profits.

I've seen Saudi officials being questioned by the press about high oil and gasoline prices and they will always shoot back with a key part of the problem is inadequate refining capacity in the U.S.

You can't prove motivation unless some inside whistblower leaks documents. The reality is the number of refineries in the U.S. is half what it was in the 20 years ago though a lot of closures were small and inefficient refineries that stopped being viable when Federal price controls and subsidies ended under Reagan in 1981. Capacity has dropped from over 18 million barrels in 1981 to a little over 16 million today though demand is slightly higher. There is very little excess capacity today which is very profitable but it also means refineries are often working at close to 100% of capacity, they aren't getting sufficient down time for maintenance, accident rates are higher and when an accident of major failure shuts down a big refinery it further tightens supply and pushes up prices further.

Here is one good reference with charts. In particular look at this chart. Again 1981 is a landmark year because thats when Federal price controls and subsidies ended, low efficiency refineries dropped like flies and we got a supposed "free market" which unfortunately has lead to sky high prices today.

Not sure I should really imply there is a conspiracy here though its quite possible the industry is working together to keep refining capacity on a razor thin margin which helps push prices up, especially in the summer. You could call it efficient free market at work or some could call it price fixing to maximize profits.

I've seen Saudi officials being questioned by the press about high oil and gasoline prices and they will always shoot back with a key part of the problem is inadequate refining capacity in the U.S.

Wow...thanks for providing a fact filled response to my display of facts (irrelevant or otherwise is left up to the reader to decide.) My first thought was not to reply, since you didn't provide anything of substance to reply to. But this is /., so what the hell...

Facts? You talked about your monthly bills and that you bought a motorcycle. Those are anecdotal details, not facts relevant to your larger claim that market forces are sufficient to stop an energy crisis.

Here are some examples of actual facts.

• Fact: Fuel expenses are the second highest operating cost for the airline industry.
• Fact: Every penny increase in the price of jet fuel per gallon turns out to be $180 million dollars per annum.
• Fact: Worldwide, oil demand is increasing and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
• Fact: Worldwide, oil production, on the other hand, is leveling off and will probably continue to or may even begin to decline in the near future.

See how that works?

Competition is an amazing thing ... businesses find all kinds of ways to cut costs when they have to. And if prices go up 25% AND 25% fewer people fly, well, we have a magical 25% reduction in consumption, don't we.

But the free-market supply-demand curve is a simplification only completely accurate in ideal circumstances. The airline industry is, in fact, probably best example of an industry where such a simplification doesn't work. First of all, the airline industry is highly subsidized and regulated by the government. The basic infrastructure costs are enormous, and these costs are present regardless of demand. Combine that with the fact that the profit-margins are slim and based upon a high-volume of demand and it's obvious that simply increasing prices won't help. Listen, we're not talking about fucking lemonade stands here.

-Grym

Wow...thanks for providing a fact filled response to my display of facts (irrelevant or otherwise is left up to the reader to decide.) My first thought was not to reply, since you didn't provide anything of substance to reply to. But this is /., so what the hell...

Facts? You talked about your monthly bills and that you bought a motorcycle. Those are anecdotal details, not facts relevant to your larger claim that market forces are sufficient to stop an energy crisis.

Here are some examples of actual facts.

• Fact: Fuel expenses are the second highest operating cost for the airline industry.
• Fact: Every penny increase in the price of jet fuel per gallon turns out to be $180 million dollars per annum.
• Fact: Worldwide, oil demand is increasing and will continue to for the foreseeable future.
• Fact: Worldwide, oil production, on the other hand, is leveling off and will probably continue to or may even begin to decline in the near future.

See how that works?

Competition is an amazing thing ... businesses find all kinds of ways to cut costs when they have to. And if prices go up 25% AND 25% fewer people fly, well, we have a magical 25% reduction in consumption, don't we.

But the free-market supply-demand curve is a simplification only completely accurate in ideal circumstances. The airline industry is, in fact, probably best example of an industry where such a simplification doesn't work. First of all, the airline industry is highly subsidized and regulated by the government. The basic infrastructure costs are enormous, and these costs are present regardless of demand. Combine that with the fact that the profit-margins are slim and based upon a high-volume of demand and it's obvious that simply increasing prices won't help. Listen, we're not talking about fucking lemonade stands here.

-Grym

The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W.

I should take that at face value; that is, as pure uninformed flamebait. Instead, I'll take a moment to correct you on two points:

First, Oil production is not in shambles. Production was at 2.5 million bpd "Before U.S.-led forces defeated Saddam Hussein".

The latest figures show that oil production is now at 2.75 - 2.85 million bpd . This is up from about 2.3 million bpd last month.

Not "in shambles".

Second, I assume you're being semantically dense when you blame the temporary damage to Iraq's oil production on George W.

In spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq's oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80 percent of total damage. Starting in mid-May 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which had the lead in restoring Iraq's oil output to pre-war levels -- began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). In May 2004, Iraq's Qarmat Ali water injection facility reportedly was 75 percent operational again, helping boost production from Rumaila and other southern oil fields. (Taken from the DOE factbook.)

Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil. The US currently purchases about 25% of Iraq's exports, or about 600,000 bpd. This puts Iraq at number six as a supplier to the US, behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, each over 1.5 million bpd. Iraq is a bit player in this game.

But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.

The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W.

I should take that at face value; that is, as pure uninformed flamebait. Instead, I'll take a moment to correct you on two points:

First, Oil production is not in shambles. Production was at 2.5 million bpd "Before U.S.-led forces defeated Saddam Hussein".

The latest figures show that oil production is now at 2.75 - 2.85 million bpd . This is up from about 2.3 million bpd last month.

Not "in shambles".

Second, I assume you're being semantically dense when you blame the temporary damage to Iraq's oil production on George W.

In spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq's oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80 percent of total damage. Starting in mid-May 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which had the lead in restoring Iraq's oil output to pre-war levels -- began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). In May 2004, Iraq's Qarmat Ali water injection facility reportedly was 75 percent operational again, helping boost production from Rumaila and other southern oil fields. (Taken from the DOE factbook.)

Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil. The US currently purchases about 25% of Iraq's exports, or about 600,000 bpd. This puts Iraq at number six as a supplier to the US, behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, each over 1.5 million bpd. Iraq is a bit player in this game.

But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.

The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W.

I should take that at face value; that is, as pure uninformed flamebait. Instead, I'll take a moment to correct you on two points:

First, Oil production is not in shambles. Production was at 2.5 million bpd "Before U.S.-led forces defeated Saddam Hussein".

The latest figures show that oil production is now at 2.75 - 2.85 million bpd . This is up from about 2.3 million bpd last month.

Not "in shambles".

Second, I assume you're being semantically dense when you blame the temporary damage to Iraq's oil production on George W.

In spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq's oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80 percent of total damage. Starting in mid-May 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which had the lead in restoring Iraq's oil output to pre-war levels -- began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). In May 2004, Iraq's Qarmat Ali water injection facility reportedly was 75 percent operational again, helping boost production from Rumaila and other southern oil fields. (Taken from the DOE factbook.)

Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil. The US currently purchases about 25% of Iraq's exports, or about 600,000 bpd. This puts Iraq at number six as a supplier to the US, behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, each over 1.5 million bpd. Iraq is a bit player in this game.

But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.

Somewhere on another thread, it was stated that (roughly) 1 gallon of gasoline = 34 Kwh of electricity. US Motor Gasoline consumption is (as of 2004) about 9 Million barrels/day. 1 Barrel = 42 gallons...

So the total energy consumption in the US used by gasoline powered vehicles is the equivalent of 12,852,000,000 Kwh/day (9 million bbl/day * 42 gal/bbl * 34kwh/bbl) - that's 12 Billion Kwh/day or 4,690 Billion Kwh per year. In 2003, the total electric production of the United States was 3,891 billion Khw / year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electric .html

In 2002, Nuclear made up 780 billion Kwh of that total...

So that means if we wanted to create only nuclear power to replace all gasoline powered vehicles, we need about 7x the current installed capacity of nuclear plants added.

I feel confident the ball park number above is off by a factor of 2 or 3, but how long would it take to build that kind of additional capacity? How much would demand increase during that period due to population growth?

(of course, the numbers above don't include diesel)

Looks like it's time for a JFK-like commitment to major investment and regulatory reform if this is going to happen. People are always whining about how there is so much partisanship in Washington. Perhaps this could be the issue to break the us-them mentality.

How much is it worth to us to tell the Saudis and Venezuela that we hope they enjoy drinking their oil..?

To give a fair estimate (ie: I havent looked this up) we can assume 10-15% (And really I think that percentage number is far too high ...) makes up the rest of power types, like solar and wind.) that means 45% total in renewable resources, leaving 55% for things like coal and natural gas.

So, for all my sarcasm your estimates weren't far wrong.

Hey all!

A.C. and I go way back, but I have to say he's talking out the side of his mouth.

Solar:
First RTFA. OF COURSE it's cost effective in LOTS of places.

Wind:
Lots of places can harvest wind to varying degrees. http://www.google.com/search?q=wind+map

Nuclear:
So all that's been missing all these years is standardization of plant design, eh? Genius. Let's see them do one without massive government subsidies. Let's see how far the safety claims go with the general public when you want to build one in anyone's back yard but YOUR OWN. Actually, your neighbors wouldn't let you do it either.

Communism? Breathe deeply and just do some Google searches on these things. The Communists are not out to get you. No they're not under your bed either.

You've completely neglected to neglect biomass and geothermal power generation. Wha?

The information is out there.

Lots of it is here:
+ http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/processnj/Process_prod uction_njava.htm
+ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

The bottom line maybe we can agree on. If we don't start moving away from oil dependency soon, we are going to hurt once the peak oil period hits.

(Going off topic a bit..)
Focusing purely on the energy side of the equation is deceiving as well. Almost nothing in our economy is made without some oil by-product. Everything from paint, to pharmaceuticals, to house construction products, containers. Are the renewable materials industries going to be ready to pick up the slack, or are we going to be as treeless as we will be oilless? We'll need wood, steel, glass, ceramics in volumes never before seen.

Hey all!

A.C. and I go way back, but I have to say he's talking out the side of his mouth.

Solar:
First RTFA. OF COURSE it's cost effective in LOTS of places.

Wind:
Lots of places can harvest wind to varying degrees. http://www.google.com/search?q=wind+map

Nuclear:
So all that's been missing all these years is standardization of plant design, eh? Genius. Let's see them do one without massive government subsidies. Let's see how far the safety claims go with the general public when you want to build one in anyone's back yard but YOUR OWN. Actually, your neighbors wouldn't let you do it either.

Communism? Breathe deeply and just do some Google searches on these things. The Communists are not out to get you. No they're not under your bed either.

You've completely neglected to neglect biomass and geothermal power generation. Wha?

The information is out there.

Lots of it is here:
+ http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/processnj/Process_prod uction_njava.htm
+ http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

The bottom line maybe we can agree on. If we don't start moving away from oil dependency soon, we are going to hurt once the peak oil period hits.

(Going off topic a bit..)
Focusing purely on the energy side of the equation is deceiving as well. Almost nothing in our economy is made without some oil by-product. Everything from paint, to pharmaceuticals, to house construction products, containers. Are the renewable materials industries going to be ready to pick up the slack, or are we going to be as treeless as we will be oilless? We'll need wood, steel, glass, ceramics in volumes never before seen.

If the place is profitable, more will sprout up like crazy...

OK, here are some notes on this:

1. It's not like you are covering 4500 acres (that's 7 sq. miles) with solid concrete. The actual footprint of these dishes is fairly small; the main impact will be the amount of sunlight hitting the ground. judging from the area, this may not be such bad thing. Shade for the desert tortoises and the like.

2. It's reasonably scalable. Using SGS's numbers, and being conservative, let's say these things can crank out 400 kWh/m2 per annum. At 2004 US electrical consumption of roughly 1.2 trillion kWh (source: EIA), you're talking about needing ~30 billion sq. m. of collectors, which is about 12,000 square miles, to supply 100% of current electrical needs. You could fit that in about 5% of Texas- not an insignificant amount of land, but doable (you don't have to have all the collectors in one place, and you can probably install them on under-utilized land- say, parking lots- just jack up the collectors a few feet to provide SUV clearance).

So although I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape, I don't see the land area requirements as a big deal. If these things are truly economically competitive, as the article suggests, watch out.

The evidence is actually easy to find.

Yes, it is easy to find. And what better source than the Department of Energy?

Here are some graphs depicting oil production. Note the one on the lower left which shows the US's production. The trend is declining production, and has been for decades. The net-energy problems with the oil shales aside, at the very least it would take about 10 years for the first oil rig to become operational in the shales if we started today. Seeing as how that's the case, this decline in production won't be slowing anytime soon.

Contrast that with this graph depicting oil consumption. Note the graph on the right depicting the US's oil consumption. The trend is increasing rapidly.

Recap-- Domestic Production: Down, Domestic Demand: Up. Is the problem not already obvious?

It might be possible that we could break even with oil alone. (However, just briefly looking at the above graphs, the numbers don't seem to add up.) It doesn't matter, though. I'm not even going to try to argue against USA Today's "conclusion." But based upon the data, even if we were able to acheive self-suffiency, how long do you think we could keep that up? A year? Maybe a decade? Eventually it won't work if current trends continue.

Self-suffiency would only be possible in my opinion, if we radically changed our energy distribution methods (using a variety of alternatives--not just one or two) while simultaneously curtailing demand on an epic scale. This would be a huge undertaking that would take decades and be very harmful to the growth-based economy we exit. Now what congresscritter looking to get re-elected is going to support that? Do you really think the Big Oil lobby would just rollover and let that happen?

Foreign Oil isn't going anywhere.

-Grym

The evidence is actually easy to find.

Yes, it is easy to find. And what better source than the Department of Energy?

Here are some graphs depicting oil production. Note the one on the lower left which shows the US's production. The trend is declining production, and has been for decades. The net-energy problems with the oil shales aside, at the very least it would take about 10 years for the first oil rig to become operational in the shales if we started today. Seeing as how that's the case, this decline in production won't be slowing anytime soon.

Contrast that with this graph depicting oil consumption. Note the graph on the right depicting the US's oil consumption. The trend is increasing rapidly.

Recap-- Domestic Production: Down, Domestic Demand: Up. Is the problem not already obvious?

It might be possible that we could break even with oil alone. (However, just briefly looking at the above graphs, the numbers don't seem to add up.) It doesn't matter, though. I'm not even going to try to argue against USA Today's "conclusion." But based upon the data, even if we were able to acheive self-suffiency, how long do you think we could keep that up? A year? Maybe a decade? Eventually it won't work if current trends continue.

Self-suffiency would only be possible in my opinion, if we radically changed our energy distribution methods (using a variety of alternatives--not just one or two) while simultaneously curtailing demand on an epic scale. This would be a huge undertaking that would take decades and be very harmful to the growth-based economy we exit. Now what congresscritter looking to get re-elected is going to support that? Do you really think the Big Oil lobby would just rollover and let that happen?

Foreign Oil isn't going anywhere.

-Grym

hmmm really: www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electricgeneration .htm
america: coal 50% nukes, 20%, hydro 7%
yes majority, but still 20% is a fair amount

http://www2.nrcan.gc.ca/es/erb/erb/english/View.as p?x=454&oid=779
canada: 60% hydro, 16% nuke, 20% fossil fuels
the majority is hydro.

IN FACT! if we go here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/iea/elec.html

and look at 6.3 World Net Electricity Generation by Type, 2002

we see that the world totals are:
World Totals
fossil fuels 9,905.81
hydro: 2,619.10
Nuclear 2,546.01
total: 15,363.07

so fossil is 64% of the WORLD and 34% is nuke or hydro. Considering fossil is older its no wonder it generates more, yet still 34% is a fair bit. but again your missing the point.

not only is it moveing the source of generation to more efficent and cleaner stations, burning coal/gas/oil in central places like a powerplant allow you to put in expensive scrubbers to clean the air, and use more efficent converion metholds. cars will never be that clean OR efficent.

also once hydrogen is used to power cars and fueling stations are widespread, it hopefully can be used to power more things like generators and anything needing portable power.

and personaly i'd much rather have a few fossil plants somewhere far away and all the cars in the city no longer putting chemicals and pollutants into the air I breath thank you.

so go suck a tailpipe form a fossil fuel car

World total combined electricity consumption for the year of 2003 was 14767.74849 billion kWh (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/ta ble62.xls)

Even if they used 4 times the world consumption over a few millionths of a second that's only about 7 to 8 kWh... Cheapskates!

Scientists today successfully generated a powerful current - roughly four times the electrical power on Earth - to create....

But, as you can see here, they were generating the same current level over 4 years ago, so this is hardly a new result.

P.S. Current production levels are not the same as resource availability. Learn the difference.

Those craters are subsidence craters from underground bomb tests. See http://www.nv.doe.gov/news&pubs/photos&films/photo lib.htm for some good pics and information. The nevada test site is not part of area 51, just borders it.

Check out how other radiation experiment "volunteers" were selected. It's lots of reading, but according to the US Department of Energy in their earlier radidation experiments you'll see that they picked retarded children; institutionalized children; kids of people on welfare or other government assistance; people in hospitals without informing them; government sponsored schools feeding radioactive "vitamins" to kids, etc. To quote one of their pages

"This research involved the use of many subjects whose capacity to consent to be a volunteer was questionable at best, including children, the mentally retarded, and prisoners
...
It is difficult to reconcile these deliberations with the fact that many subjects of CMR-funded research were not true volunteers. Whether the CMR believed that the needs of a country at war justified the use of people who could not be true volunteers as research subjects is not known.

Check out how other radiation experiment "volunteers" were selected. It's lots of reading, but according to the US Department of Energy in their earlier radidation experiments you'll see that they picked retarded children; institutionalized children; kids of people on welfare or other government assistance; people in hospitals without informing them; government sponsored schools feeding radioactive "vitamins" to kids, etc. To quote one of their pages

"This research involved the use of many subjects whose capacity to consent to be a volunteer was questionable at best, including children, the mentally retarded, and prisoners
...
It is difficult to reconcile these deliberations with the fact that many subjects of CMR-funded research were not true volunteers. Whether the CMR believed that the needs of a country at war justified the use of people who could not be true volunteers as research subjects is not known.

• Interesting that they focus on the non-lethal aspect. I'd suspect the military would also be interested on whether you could turn up the power a bit, and you have a lethal ray gun that can hit lots of people at once.
• Wonder if the volunteers of which the article speaks were found in a similar way that earlier human radiation 'volunteers' were found.
• Wonder if making people feel like they're being burned alive counts as torture?

Ummm. Since when are the BTUs in electricity variable? Answer: when you include generation and transmission. 3416 is (about) 100% efficient conversion to heat (which isn't hard). That's the number you used - however, it misses out on a major component: electricity consumed (in BTU) is way less than the BTU burned to supply it.

Generation averages http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html around 33%. Overall system inputs are a bit over 10,000 BTU http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/ei/elec.ht ml to deliver 1 KWHr (3400 BTU) to the user, including generation and transmission. So it's totally unreasonable to assume no overhead, which is what you did by using 3416 BTU/KWHr. If we use the DOE numbers, the electricity use is roughly triple what you show, or around 300,000,000,000 BTU. That doesn't change the overall result (surplus goes down to around 800,000,000,000 BTU).

So, around 2.2 TBTU spent, and net result 3TBTU (positive 700 GBTU). So at best the payback is around 1.3x input.

You also have to add in fuel costs for transport to the refinery, transport to the end-use point (you can't transport it in pipelines), fuel used for planting, fertilizing, spraying, harvesting. Also energy costs for insecticides.

A good (and balanced) overview is http://www.rppi.org/ps315.pdf

Estimating 131 billion gallons of gasoline used per year in the United States, a total cost of the Iraq war to date of $181 billion over two years--that comes out to $0.69 per gallon.

It might also help the U.S. trade deficit (just over just over $50 billion per month) if you weren't importing 2.4 million barrels of oil per day from the Middle East (at $50 per barrel, that's $3.6 billion per month).

(20 million barrels / day) * (1.7 MWH / barrel) = 34 TWH /day = 1.4 TW

I don't know where you get your total energy data from but it is WRONG. Got a link? Did'nt think so.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/archives/theameri cas/chapter2a.html

"Oil, for instance, makes up about 40% of energy consumption in North America" (1997 data).

Currently, the cost of producing ethanol from cellulose is estimated to be between $1.15 and $1.43 per gallon in 1998 dollars. According to this paper, that cost could drop by another $.60/gallon by 2015.

I've heard about a slightly better process for producing ethanol from general biomass instead of only from the corn itself. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass. html

What it doesn't say is that a LOT of Ethanol produced in the Aggro states run on power grids that get most of their power from dams/windmills.

I have to call bs on this one. A vast majority of our power comes from oil/gas and coal. The rest is made up mostly of nuclear. According to this diagram, only ~6% of our energy comes from renewable sources (which includes wood, hydro, wind, solar, ethanolized gasoline (hah!), and geo).

The important thing about energy production and use is what the stuff costs not how efficient it is. Thats why hydro pumping stations work to move energy production from low to high demand cycle. This is also the key point to pursue in terms of strategies to move toward energy security. The cheapest forms of energy known are fission and coal. The drawback of these is poor portability and scalability. It would be impracticle to put fission reactors in cars for example. The popularity of oil comes from its flexibility of use and has been pointed out with better battery technology we could use cheaper energy sources for general fuel use. While I agree that research into alternatives to oil are in the long term interest of the non-middle eastern nations the far more important pursuit is the radical reduction of the cost of energy. This is obviously not achievable by merely paying part of the bill out of general revenue. Currently well as of a few moths ago http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec1_13. pdf the energy cost for your car was cheaper then what we had coming out of the outlets in out homes. That is the important number to pursue.

of the Trinity test can be found at the Nuclear Weapon Archive, and Trinity site, and even the DOE is trying to make a buck on the side by selling the movie.

You are taking a highly efficient easy to transport form of energy (electricity) and...

Electric power is not "highly efficient". According to the DOE, 2/3 of all energy input into electrical power generation is lost as heat.

From the DOE Annual Energy Review: 2003, page 64 (PDF)

Note. Electrical System Energy Losses. Electrical system energy losses are calculated as the difference between total primary consumption by the electric power sector and the total energy content of electricity retail sales. Most of these losses occur at steam-electric power plants (conventional and nuclear) in the conversion of heat energy into mechanical energy to turn electric generators. The loss is a thermodynamically necessary feature of the steam-electric cycle....In addition to conversion losses, other losses include power plant use of electricity, transmission and distribution of electricity from power plants to end-use consumers (also called "line losses"), and unaccounted for electricity....Overall, approximately 67 percent of total energy input is lost in conversion; of electricity generated, approximately 5 percent is lost in plant use and 9 percent is lost in transmission and distribution.

Electricity is a staggeringly extravagant means of supplying power. No, I'm not offering an alternative. Unlike battery powered vehicle advocates, I choose not to pretend electricity is "efficient" just because my computer doesn't have a gas tank and tail pipe. The power plants do!

Coal gas seems to be where the big boys are going.

Hence here in coal rich australia our rulers are mad keen on the "Hydrogen Economy".

Parent: We'll see if you're still saying after they find oil there!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

The call for an environmental protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came after scientists discovered large deposits of natural resources such as coal, natural gas and offshore oil reserves in the early 1980s. Antarctica is considered to be part of the theoretical super-continent known as Gondwanaland, which separated near the end of the Paleozoic era and consisted of South America, Africa and Australia. And, because it once was completely covered in vegetation, many scientists believe it may hold one of the last supergiant oil fields yet to be discovered. The continental shelf of Antarctica is considered to hold the region's greatest potential for oil exploration projects, and although estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves. However, Antarctica's extreme conditions make oil field accessibility in many areas economically problematic. ...

The devastating March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound two months later sent an even stronger alarm around the world to dozens of international environmental organizations for the need to protect Antarctica's unique environment from similar accidents. Although avoiding altogether the issue of sovereignty claims, the development of the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty is viewed as a model for future environmental treaties which employ the precautionary principle towards natural resource exploration.

Alternatively, you could have bought a diesel. Even less fuel consumption than a hybrid.

Diesel is cheaper than petrol too.

The trouble with hybrids is that they simply don't make ecomomic sense.

Actually, taking into account the total cost of ownership (fuel and maintenance costs, depreciation and other factors), hybrids may save enough money over the long term to more than make up for the "cost" of the hybrid drive system ($2,500 to $3,000, in the case of the Prius).

Undersea deposits

reformulating coal and tar sand

capturing feedlot methane

using plasma to burn carboniferous waste

Where am I gonna find a 500mi cord that'll fit in the trunk[?]

Electric isn't going anywhere for most of America's driving requirements

Most power for the creation of hydrogen in the US will probably come most directly from Coal (which is burned to make electricity, which can be used to perform electrolysis on water, which gives us Hydrogen).

The US has a shitload of coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. If we switched entirely to coal power (we're already ~70% of the way there), we could go for another century, quite possibly two without importing any more. And the other ingredient for electrolysis, water...well, we have a fair bit of that too.

So, a better name for the "Hydrogen Economy" might be the "Coal Economy", but it really does have a chance to seriously reduce US dependence on foreign oil. Coal is, of course, a notoriously dirty power generation method, but there have been serious efforts recently to clean it up a bit. The real future may be something like FutureGen (warning: may contain DOE propaganda :) where a single plant produces electricty for homes and hydrogen for fuel cell cars and the like, ostensibly with no emissions. Plus, if we switch all our vehicles to hydrogen now, we can use some other power source for electrolysis (wind, solar, fusion, geothermal, whatever) later on.

Believe me, if they discover massive amounts of oil in antarctica, and an easy way to extract and ship it, we'll be doing it as fast as possible.

Actually, if I understand correctly, the reason is that the Madrid Protocol of 1998 put a 50 year moratorium on drilling for oil in antarctica. It actually looks like there may be a significant amount of oil there:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html

The 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid Protocol, entered into force in 1998 and serves as an additional mechanism for ensuring the protection of the Antarctic environment. The Madrid Protocol goes further than the original treaty as it designates Antarctica as a natural reserve devoted to peace and science and places a moratorium on mining and drilling for oil for a minimum of 50 years. The Protocol sets forth basic principles and detailed, mandatory rules which apply to all human activities in Antarctica.

The call for an environmental protocol to the Antarctic Treaty came after scientists discovered large deposits of natural resources such as coal, natural gas and offshore oil reserves in the early 1980s. Antarctica is considered to be part of the theoretical super-continent known as Gondwanaland, which separated near the end of the Paleozoic era and consisted of South America, Africa and Australia. And, because it once was completely covered in vegetation, many scientists believe it may hold one of the last supergiant oil fields yet to be discovered. The continental shelf of Antarctica is considered to hold the region's greatest potential for oil exploration projects, and although estimates vary as to the abundance of oil in Antarctica, the Weddell and Ross Sea areas alone are expected to possess 50 billion barrels of oil - an amount roughly equivalent to that of Alaska's estimated reserves. However, Antarctica's extreme conditions make oil field accessibility in many areas economically problematic.

That's just the production & export.

Check out the Reserves.

Norway comes in at a whopping 8 billion barrells.

Canada has 178, Venezuala has 77, Russia 60, Iran 125, Iraq 115, Kuwait 101, and of course the king: Saudi Arabia - 261. Hell, even the US has more oil reserves than Norway at 22.

Besides, is that really anything to be proud of??

Shouldn't Norway get on another high horse and proclaim that they'll be free of all fossil fuels by 2009 or something?

Kudos for their efforts with taking a stand, but we'll see how long it lasts.

The EU is already rolling over to the smell of MS greenbacks.

How many journal publications and published research centres were involved before these famous tests on humans. I certainly don't call bullshit on the human testing part.

Norway is the worlds third largest oil exporter, right begind Saudi Arabia and Russia ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2 .html ). The biggest oil-operator in Norway, Statoil, is owned by the Norwegian Government, so they are not totaly irrelevant. I guess everyone could stop trading with them, but I that would mean that oilprices would go through the roof (as Norway is seen as one of the most reliable oilsupplier).

Most of the mercury is isolated in one place and there is a 24 hour reclaimation process going on to get it back out of the soil (Yes, there are ways to do so. I don't know the details, but have seen the equipment.) The contaminated watersheds are indeed roped off, with cleanup techniques being applied. People know what lakes and rivers are okay for fishing, swimming, etc. The problem is not trivial, but does not pose a significant danger to the public. After all, there are 30000 people living in Oak Ridge with thousands more in surrounding areas. It's not as if the whole city is radioactive and full of mercury with no one doing anything about it; the contamination is isolated into specific areas with active cleanup operations going on. I would suggest checking out this site before crying "BS!". Perhaps fire off some emails asking for details about the cleanup process.

Also, I never used the war as an excuse. I simply stated that foolish things were done during the Manhattan Project, which didn't just disappear as soon as the war was over. The Manhattan Project simply redirected partially into new directions. Were stupid things done in the 50's too? Sure. Are things being done to clean up Oak Ridge? YES! Just because you don't know of methods to get mercury out of soil doesn't mean that there aren't any. I may not know the details, but I know people that have worked on the problem. And let me reiterate that the contaminants that wash into the creek have a ways to go before reaching water that can be used by the public. Are the toxins in that first lake used by the public higher than normal? Yes, but it's not as if no one has told the residents how to safely deal with it. Would you rather nothing be done about the contamination?

This is what it boils down to: (1) The contamination is there, whatever the cause -- stupidity, ignorance, lack of foresight. (2) The danger to the public is minimal, especially if they stay away from the contaminated areas, which they should do anyway since going to those areas would constitute federal trespassing. (3) Cleanup of the contaminated areas is ongoing. In fact while the cleanup proceeds, ORNL is using the unique opportunity of actually having contaminated sites to develop new techniques. This is much better than trying to develop a technique in theory with nothing to test it on until there actually is a problem.

None of this has anything to do with the historical importance of Oak Ridge. For better or worse, it is undeniable that the operations that went on in Oak Ridge had a great impact on the world at large. Why should some mistakes in the past and a few hot zones (that you won't be allowed near) prevent you from visiting an important historical site and a very fine town? I can assure you that visiting the Y-12 plant will not shorten your lifespan. It will not make you complicit in some evil government coverup. What it will do is educate you on what happened in the past and what is going on now. Hopefully it will instill some national pride in you, as well. Despite its mistakes, and regardless of your views on whether the atomic bombs should have been used, I fail to see how anyone can deny the amazing acomplishment that was the Manhattan Project. Armed with nothing but a theory and some empty farmland, we produced a monumental (if terrible) achievement in less than a decade. The pace at which Oak Ridge itself was built has probably never been equalled.

So, I beg of you, talk to some people involved in the Oak Ridge cleanup, some of the researchers who have taken technology that was used to make a bomb and have turned it into something that makes drugs that may oneday save your life, or some of the residents of Oak Ridge (of which I am one). Do this before you start crying "Evil!", "BS!", "PR COVERUP!". In fact, go on the tours of Y-12, X-10, and K-25. Ask questions. If the answers aren't to your liking, do some investigation and come back and report back to us.

to digitize their documents, when they are so busy removing, reclassifying, and denying access to current government information.

I have a bit of insight here. I worked, formerly, at a Dept. of Energy National Lab. We've all read about how Los Alamos lost some computer disks (later claiming that they never really existed). However, I happen to know that the security within the DOE system is HIGHLY vulnerable. Here's a link to the Inspector General (oversight committee) site for the Dept. of Energy:

http://www.ig.doe.gov/igreports.htm#cal2005

I didn't look, but I'd bet they exist for each of the departments within the Federal government (DOD, NASA, etc.) I read the IT security report for 2004... to say that things are improving is really scary... because they SUCKED in 2004.

The simple fact of it is that the gov. can't afford to send its people to training to actually learn how to secure their networks. [stark generalization follows] They have an older workforce that could care less about learning about these things with their spare time. Training is the only answer.

Then, they can't afford to pay enough to keep security-qualified people, either. With a rare exception, these security experts are too expensive for the cost-conservative corporations to justify when they are being paid to keep costs down and perform projects based on annual funding.

Finally, with their current 'sub-contractor' based mode of operation, they [the feds] can't really enforce a lot of standards as they would like. These sub-contractors don't care about the data. Their contracts are tied to performance based bonuses, which they earn by succeeding in some measurable project (not IT).

In short, the system is severely broken.

I'm not real familiar with what this guy was doing, but it seems to me that he thought it was a game. They're gonna smack him around so that the rest of the script kiddies out there get the idea that it's NOT a game *much like the RIAA, et al.* did with Peer to Peer networks.

I'm no security expert (heard of port-scanning, but I have better things to do with my time), but

I KNOW that there are vulnerabilities in the DOE system. I was asked to quit because I kept bringing them up. How's that for a supportive work environment?!

[rant]
Let me ask this question... is knocking on a door a crime? What if it's unlocked? What if it swings open? What if you peek in? If no one asks you to stop, (or there are no signs, etc.) is it illegal to walk in? It IS illegal to impersonate an authority figure (cops, etc)... So, I would assume that a SysAdmin is an authority figure? Maybe that's the only law that they should change. But, are you an authority figure, if you have a password? How do we define juridiction? Maybe the other laws (cyber security) were just a knee-jerk reaction to something that they didn't bother to research and understand. One last thing, is it illegal for everyone to go to the bank and ask for their money? Is it illegal for everyone to go to the library? DOS attacks are protests, they should be protected under the 'freedom to assemble.'

And, yes, I am an anonymous coward. I hope this makes things a bit more interesting.

In North America at least, the trend has been going largely in the opposite direction. We are seeing REforestation rather than DEforestation. This is in despite of an increasing population.

It can be a little tough to find good data given all the bullshit flying around but here's a map that shows the amount of forest land in the US from 1620 onwards:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg96rpt/chap7.htm l

A move to more densley packed cities is also a contributing factor to reforestation.

Article such as the one Zonk cited are a favorite of the hard left environmental movement. These 'studies' cherry pick data to paint an alarmist picture. The media usually swallow these article whole with little crtical thought. In the end, these distorted pictures don't do anything to help real environmental progress.

In North America at least, the trend has been going largely in the opposite direction. We are seeing REforestation rather than DEforestation. This is in despite of an increasing population.

It can be a little tough to find good data given all the bullshit flying around but here's a map that shows the amount of forest land in the US from 1620 onwards:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg96rpt/chap7.htm l

A move to more densley packed cities is also a contributing factor to reforestation.

Article such as the one Zonk cited are a favorite of the hard left environmental movement. These 'studies' cherry pick data to paint an alarmist picture. The media usually swallow these article whole with little crtical thought. In the end, these distorted pictures don't do anything to help real environmental progress.

In North America at least, the trend has been going largely in the opposite direction. We are seeing REforestation rather than DEforestation. This is in despite of an increasing population.

It can be a little tough to find good data given all the bullshit flying around but here's a map that shows the amount of forest land in the US from 1620 onwards:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg96rpt/chap7.htm l

A move to more densley packed cities is also a contributing factor to reforestation.

Article such as the one Zonk cited are a favorite of the hard left environmental movement. These 'studies' cherry pick data to paint an alarmist picture. The media usually swallow these article whole with little crtical thought. In the end, these distorted pictures don't do anything to help real environmental progress.