Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, http://www.neis.org/press/NASBIERVII.htm does not exist on our site. If you suspect an error on one of our pages, please send email at: webmaster@neis.org

So your source is a non-existent press release published by an activist organization with no credibility? Well, I'm convinced.

Or not. Your figures are bunk.

As for the incidents you reported, yeah, power generation has a lot of dangers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4207/is_19950213/ai_n10185056

http://www.topix.com/us/osha/2008/08/snowflake-man-is-killed-in-power-plant-accident

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSWNAS1045

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKN0244772420071003

None of those accidents were nuclear, but they all resulted in deaths. When you're dealing with megawatts of power, it's important to remember that a megawatt of generated power can just as easily become a megawatt of destructive force.

There are actually quite a few more accidents at nuclear plants than the ones you listed. What's fascinating, though, is that there are so few deaths or injuries. As with other power generating technology, Nuclear has become better understood and safer over time. Fewer and fewer people are dying from regular power generation, and nobody is dying anymore from nuclear generation. That's despite the fact that 19.4% of US Power is Nuclear. As a resident of Illinois with 11 power generating reactors online, I'm proud to say that we have provided nuclear power to the nation for over 30 years and in a very safe manner. A benefit you are no doubt receiving.

I honestly hope they build more of those suckers in my back yard. Because I sure as hell would rather be breathing the clean air offered by nuclear options rather than the toxic, radioactive crap produced by the coal plants used to provide over 50% of the US's power needs.

Try virtually nonexistent - I'm more likely to win the lottery.

If the risk of a Chernobyl-style catastrophic failure was "virtually nonexistent", we would not have had one already.

Unsolved in the USA, France and Japan seem to have little issue with it.

France's waste is still in "interim storage", awaiting a long-term solution. Meanwhile, it's leaking into groundwater.

Japan's waste also still has no long-term home; they plan to start building a facility in the 2030s.

In essence, solar costs about $.30/kwh. http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm Location is important. Costs more in Germany, less in California. http://www.solarbuzz.com/statsCosts.htm. This competes against under $.10/kwh in the US for other sources. But there are variations around the world and even within the US http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

That list of myths debunked seems pretty sensible, even in details that run counter to conventional wisdom. But even though the list properly cautions several times against how most any equipment left plugged in will still drain power while doing nothing useful (infinitely bad efficiency), the article still makes an inefficienty mistake:

Sleeping continues to draw a small amount of power, between 1 and 3 watts, even though the system appears to be inactive. By comparison, Suspend draws less than 1 watt. Even over the course of a year, this difference is probably negligible.

Over the course of a year, 2 unnecessary watts is 17.532 unnecessary KWh. Sure, that's only about $1.75 at about $0.10:KWh. But that's for each device. At home, in addition to sleeping computers, there's dozens of devices with AC adapters wasting watts most of the day (and night), which is possibly hundreds of dollars wasted. In offices and datacenters, possibly thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year wasted. And each KWh means loads of extra Greenhouse CO2 unnecessarily pumped into the sky, even if it's (still) cheap to so recklessly pollute.

Which is what the One Watt Initiative is designed to minimize. The US government has joined the global efficiency organization, mandating purchases of equipment that consumes no more than 1 watt in standby mode. Whatever the global impact of 3W wasted in standby can be cut by 2/3 if switching to 1W.

In the short run, that makes energy bills lower (and, by saving heat from standby devices, further lowers energy costs due to less required cooling). In the long run, we've got more fuel and intact climate left to work with - and that stuff just costs way too much to replace when it runs out.

Most of the oil that the U.S. consumes comes from the U.S., Canada and Mexico (Canada is our largest supplier by quite a bit); I don't think Canadians and Mexicans hate us, more just find us tiresome. Most of the rest of it comes from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, countries with which we have quite a bit of political friction, but I'm not sure that the people hate us (especially the majorities, there are certainly people in each country who are not USA #1 fan).

Source:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

According to the DOE 1,787,910 thousand metric tons of CO2 are released by coal to generate 1,881,571 million kWh, which if my calculator has not failed me, means that generating the 100 kWh used by the device to capture one metric ton of CO2 would release less than 0.1 metric ton of CO2. So it has about a 10:1 advantage which could be increased with technological improvements.

We could put it back where it came from, in abandoned oil wells, and salt caverns. We already do this with natural gas storage. Se here for details http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/storagebasics/storagebasics.html

All these posts about farting planets are very amusing, but should be moderated "funny," not informative.

Companies in the United States currently have billions of cubic feet of natural gas and other gases into long-term underground storage facilities. In fact, anyone familiar with the working end of the natural gas business will be happy to spend hours explaining how it works. The Department of Energy -- http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngcapacity/ngcapacity.pdf has some info on the practice.

Put simply: gas underground moves very, very slowly. The diffusion rate can be measured, and while some gas will inevitably escape, the amount lost can be measured very precisely (and accurately).

Unless we as a society are willing to suffer blackouts, coal and other fossil fuel power plants will be around for years. Heck, even Al Gore says a minimum of 10 years, and I personally (as an energy industry guy) think it's going to be a lot longer than that.

If you accept that there is a man-made climate crisis coming, then storage of CO2 is an excellent short term fix to reducing emissions as we move away from a carbon-based economy. Whether you think of this as "short term" storage or "long-term" storage depends on your outlook. Is 100 years long or short? Seen from a geological timeline, it's laughably short. Looked at as a means of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere starting today -- it's a great first step.

Using their extensive studies of the Yucca Mountain region, experts estimate the chance of a volcanic event disrupting the proposed repository to be about one in 63 million per year. This equals about 0.0000016 percent chance per year that a volcano will disrupt the repository. Put another way, it means there is about a 99.9999984 percent chance per year that a volcanic event will not disrupt the repository. http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0341.shtml

Nuclear / Fossil fuel prices:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

there is only one short term solution. We need an Apollo type national commitment to building Nuke plants.

Nuclear isn't a short term solution, unless you call 5 years short term and can build one that quickly. However a 5 megawatt wind turbine can be erected in weeks. Erect 20 a month and in one year you'll add more than a gigawatt of power*. Apply an Apollo project to wind and you could produce more power quicker than you could with nuclear.

As Texas oil Billionaire T Boone Pickens has intimated in his plan for wind farms, the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply almost if not all of the 48 contiguous states with electricity. If that's not enough all along the Pacific coast then through AZ and NM to Texas there's more. Then there's the Mid Atlantic states on up to Maine. For instance the wind potential between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras is estimated to be 330 Gigawatts.

Quite simply wind beats nuclear.

Falcon

*I use 1 gigawatt because in California 4 reactors, 2 each in 2 power plants, generate 4.324 Gigawatts. That's just over a Gigawatt per reactor. It's the same in Alabama, 5 reactors generate just over 5 Gigawatts.

there is only one short term solution. We need an Apollo type national commitment to building Nuke plants.

Nuclear isn't a short term solution, unless you call 5 years short term and can build one that quickly. However a 5 megawatt wind turbine can be erected in weeks. Erect 20 a month and in one year you'll add more than a gigawatt of power*. Apply an Apollo project to wind and you could produce more power quicker than you could with nuclear.

As Texas oil Billionaire T Boone Pickens has intimated in his plan for wind farms, the Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to supply almost if not all of the 48 contiguous states with electricity. If that's not enough all along the Pacific coast then through AZ and NM to Texas there's more. Then there's the Mid Atlantic states on up to Maine. For instance the wind potential between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras is estimated to be 330 Gigawatts.

Quite simply wind beats nuclear.

Falcon

*I use 1 gigawatt because in California 4 reactors, 2 each in 2 power plants, generate 4.324 Gigawatts. That's just over a Gigawatt per reactor. It's the same in Alabama, 5 reactors generate just over 5 Gigawatts.

I'm an EE, so I used some 'rule of thumb' type numbers.

US Department of Energy says 10,656 kWh per year household average. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html#total Pick your region, my region happens to have higher than average, which is why I picked 12,000 kWh per year (homes in the south tend to use more electricity, conveniently they also get more sunshine)

I didn't consider gasoline/transportation - but a gallon of gas has ~115,000 BTU of energy, which is roughly 33kWh (1kWh = 3413BTU).

Average gasoline consumption (US) is 1,143 gallons per household. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/page_a02.html

Your solar number is lower, so run with that. 380kWh * 365 days = 138,700 kWh. (pretty close to 130,000 eh?) Which equates to roughly 4,200 gallons of gasoline worth of energy.

So yeah, at 100% efficiency solar would completely take care of household energy usage, including transportation. Even 40% efficiency would cover it (using conservative numbers)

I'm an EE, so I used some 'rule of thumb' type numbers.

US Department of Energy says 10,656 kWh per year household average. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/detailcetbls.html#total Pick your region, my region happens to have higher than average, which is why I picked 12,000 kWh per year (homes in the south tend to use more electricity, conveniently they also get more sunshine)

I didn't consider gasoline/transportation - but a gallon of gas has ~115,000 BTU of energy, which is roughly 33kWh (1kWh = 3413BTU).

Average gasoline consumption (US) is 1,143 gallons per household. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts_survey/2001/tablefiles/page_a02.html

Your solar number is lower, so run with that. 380kWh * 365 days = 138,700 kWh. (pretty close to 130,000 eh?) Which equates to roughly 4,200 gallons of gasoline worth of energy.

So yeah, at 100% efficiency solar would completely take care of household energy usage, including transportation. Even 40% efficiency would cover it (using conservative numbers)

"For all of Iran's bluster-- if they stopped selling us oil they would A) Get invaded and B) Go bankrupt in probably the reverse order."

Well, they may get invaded and go bankrupt anyway, but they *don't* sell us any oil now. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) Us (USA) and them don't like each other, remember?

Where in Europe? For example, in Belgium, gas is about $8.00/gal while diesel is about $6.70/gal. Looks like the UK is the only European country covered that has cheaper gas than diesel. Note that these prices have little to do with the cost of the fuel itself; they're mostly taxes.

Either way, if you compare the same model of car with the same horsepower as a diesel versus gasoline, the mpg increase is generally around 40%. And of that, 15% is due to the greater density of the fuel. So, it's an improvement to be sure, but not as huge as an improvement as a quick glance at the numbers would make it appear.

Where in Europe? For example, in Belgium, gas is about $8.00/gal while diesel is about $6.70/gal. Looks like the UK is the only European country covered that has cheaper gas than diesel. Note that these prices have little to do with the cost of the fuel itself; they're mostly taxes.

Either way, if you compare the same model of car with the same horsepower as a diesel versus gasoline, the mpg increase is generally around 40%. And of that, 15% is due to the greater density of the fuel. So, it's an improvement to be sure, but not as huge as an improvement as a quick glance at the numbers would make it appear.

It depends on the emissions in question.

NOX controls reduce power because a catalytic converter impedes exhaust flow,
but in the case of diesel they're better than the alternative

Particulates tend to result from incomplete combustion, a rather clear indication
of sub-optimal power generation. Sure slapping a big HEPA filter on the exhaust to
cut PM2.5 is going to hurt performance, but tuning the system to actually burn the
fuel oughtn't.

at $4 a gallon, 30mpg in a gas engine gives you 300 miles for $40.

That's not a comparable vehicle. Most diesels get far less than 65 mpg, so this should be compared to a leading car, not a typical car. There have been gas powered vehicles in the 50 mpg range. That would be 500 miles for $40 and 6500 miles for $520. For the diesel example, 6500 miles is $500.

The diesel is still cheaper, but not as much cheaper as you indicated.

Of course, it turns out that diesel is not that much more expensive than gasoline. According to the DOE, diesel is only about sixty cents per gallon more expensive than gasoline usually and only twenty cents more expensive now (gas has been spiking while diesel has remained stable). Using sixty cents difference, for the ten gallon tanks, we have for diesel:

$4.60 a gallon, 650 miles for $46 and 6500 miles for $460.

That's a $60 savings per tank over the 50 mpg gas alternative. About a penny per mile cheaper for diesel.

Take a look at this chart of the top exporters of oil to the US. Who is #1? Not Iraq. #2? No. #3? Nope. You'll find that oil exports from Iraq to the US have remained relatively constant for years before and after "Shock and Awe." The only spike was in 2004.

I'd love to see the results of removing Junk DNA from a human's genome, and then pump it into an egg and grow it up all normal like and see what kind of walking cancer emerges.

Would you be satisfied if it was done in a mouse instead? Because that's already been done. These researchers removed 2.3 million bases from the 2.7 billion-bp genome, and could find no defects in the resulting mice. I totally agree that "we don't know what it does" != "it has no function". But some of it, clearly, really is just junk. --jjj.

I had mod points I was going to use for this discussion but they didn't have a 'not true' option.

DOE Reserve Estimates

The reserve numbers keep going up because they keep finding more and more of the stuff and nobody is burning it.

Natural gas is a very good option, in fact the best option for internal combustion. All combustion reactions produce CO2 and H20. Natural Gas (CH4) only releases CO2 and H20 upon combustion...no other chemicals like sulfur, mercury or other similarly nasty chemicals to have in the air. It's a big improvement over petroleum-based fuels.

Of course the CO2 emissions have been almost flat under the environment friendly Bush administration versus the vicious Earth-rapers Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look at this speadsheat.

Of course the CO2 emissions have been almost flat under the environment friendly Bush administration versus the vicious Earth-rapers Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look at this speadsheat.

Another thing that occurred to me is that this entire article and all it represents are merely a ploy on the part of Big Oil to put the idea of wind power in a bad light. [emph. added]

Only 1.1% of US electricity is from oil, and that is as a stopgap when a coal train is delayed etc., and the rare use of petroleum coke.

Why do people think we burn oil for electricity? The research is very easy to do:

eia.doe.gov

I've got it memorized just for these occasions. EIA dot DOE dot GOV

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

Electricity comes from coal, nuclear, and natural gas in that order.

I guess it's just easier to make up a conspiracy theory that fits political prejudice than do any actual research or thought.

That's not the only reason diesel costs more: Diesel Fuel Prices: What Consumers Should Know.

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

From the first link :
US Oil Consumption.
2004 40.294
2005 40.393
2006 39.958

I also understand that we are using less oil this year than last year and last year was less than '06. Although, I can't find a link for that so you'll have to take my word... or not. Not that it would matter as you didn't look at the links I provided the first time.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?

OK, how's this quote:

We cannot long continue our present rate of progress. The first check for our growing prosperity, however, must render our population excessive.

Sound familiar. I hear the same argument made every day. This one is different in that it was made about coal, not oil. Oh, and it was made in 1865. Such statements have been made ever since. Take this one for example:

Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.

That was from an article written in 2007. It says the same thing.

Here is someone how agrees with me:

Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom.

Of course, I said we'd be out of oil by now. Well, that may have been an exaggeration. We will never run out of oil. Eventually, it will be too expensive to bring out of the ground. So while we will have oil under ground, WE, meaning those with empty gas tanks, will not.

I was speaking of M. King Hubbert. He said US oil production would peak in 1970 and then fall. That was over 38 years ago. We should be out by now. While Hubbert was correct in his claim, his dates and reasoning were way off. It's not because we have run out of oil as he predicted, but because environmentalists have done whatever they can to curtail US energy production (not just oil!).

links:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47276
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

We were not talking about total energy, we were talking about oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman. Where are these predictions?

Flat in comparison to what? Here [indexmundi.com] is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

A report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will be slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970 from 18,000 British thermal units (Btus) to about 8,900 Btus.

Moving along...

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

It's 2%.

That might be the case in larger cities, but in smaller towns (like where there is ONE gas station) the price wouldn't change a bit.

Fair enough... my only experience is in places where gas stations come in threes or fours. I'm not familiar with small town economics. Most people in the US live in cities these days so you can't ignore that it would help most people, even if it's not the people who need help the most.

As for increasing Global Supply, I don't think increasing the Global Supply by 200,000 Barrels is going to do a whole hell of a lot when the World now uses over 80,000,000 MILLION barrels (and will use even more a decade from now when this 200,000 hits the market).

Where are you getting 200k from? I would guess that production from *all* untapped sites in the US is more than that.

Either way, I believe the Gulf of Mexico produces about 1.2 million barrels a day. A 200k increase amounts to 16% of that. That is pretty significant if you ask me. When a hurricane shuts down 20% of Gulf production, we see the impact in oil prices. (Although admittedly I believe the stronger impact is end-user price changes due to refinery shutdowns in that region.)

According to this report, the 95% probability case for ANWR production is:

EIA scheduled daily production rates for postulated yearly development rates of 250 and 400 million barrels per year. The production rate peaks at 650,000 barrels per day for the development of 250 million barrels per year and at 800,000 barrels per day for the 400 million barrels per year development case.

So we're talking 650k to 800k barrels per day from ANWR alone.

So lets do the math (I'm honestly not sure which way it's going to end up, so I'm trying not to go into this with preconceived notions of whether the air pressure thing will help). Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, and think offshore drilling is a short-sighted plan.

According to your fact sheet, properly inflated tires can provide up to 3% better fuel economy. According to the Department of Energy, US residential vehicles drove 1,793 billion miles in 1994 (the most recent year a lazy Google lookup brought - if someone has more recent data, by all means lets use that). According to what I could find, 1 gallon of crude makes approximately .45 gallons of gasoline (based on brief Google search - anyone have more accurate numbers?) I wasn't able to find national averages for fuel efficiency, so I'm going to pull numbers out of my ass, but use a few different possible 'national MPG' numbers for comparison, so we can at least can idea of whether the tire pressure idea could have any impact...

First, lets look at a national average of 10 MPG (probably too low). At 1,793 billion miles in 1994, consumers used 179.3 billion gallons of gas, assuming that 10 MPG number. But if they were driving on low tires (at 97% fuel efficiency...) they had 9.7 MPG and used 192.8 billion gallons of gas. So, in that case, Americans could have saved up to 13.5 billion gallons of gas inflating their tires. Max savings: 30 billion gallons of crude oil, or 710 million barrels

Assuming 20 MPG, the hypothetical 97% fuel efficient country drives around at 19.4 MPG and uses 92.4 billion gallons of gas, versus 89.7 billion gallons of gas at 20 MPG (a potential savings of 2.75 billion gallons). Max savings: 6.1 billion gallons of crude oil, or 145 million barrels

At 30 MPG (extremely unlikely, but presented for the sake of completeness) the country drives around at 29.1 MPG and uses 61.6 billion gallons of gas, versus 59.8 billion gallons at 30MPG (a potential savings of 1.8 billion gallons). Max savings: 4 billion gallons of crude oil, or 95 million barrels

So what do those numbers mean? Well, according to the Energy Information Administration, offshore drilling would potentially tap 18 billion barrels of crude, with production at max capacity by 2030.[1] So it looks like, even at the extreme end, just inflating tires would only be in the ballpark of 5% of the lower 48 states' offshore drilling capacity. (If all my math is right, which seems rather unlikely for math done during my lunch break...anyone spot any major flaws?)

At the same time, those savings would be per year. The same report says that offshore drilling would not have a large effect on oil production or prices "before 2030,"[2] so that 100 million barrels (the lower end of the savings spectrum) would add up to 2.2 billion barrels saved by 2030, a more respectable chunk of the estimated offshore capacity. So While I certainly don't pretend to have done enough research to say what (if anything...) can bring down gas prices, it looks like offshore drilling is not the short-term answer McCain says it is. Likewise, a 3% drop in gas prices in my area (Chicago) would be 12 cents, which is nothing to sneeze at - in fact, when I go in to get my oil changed this month, I'm going to make sure they check my tire pressure...

-Trillian

[1] - http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
[2] - http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/

US Energy Use By source and Sector

Actually, hardly any of our electricity is derived from resources originating from outside of North America. Coal is the biggest source of electricity in the country, and the only major foreign source is natural gas from Canada.

I've never thought of Canada as a regime. I'm pretty sure that what little oil America buys abroad it gets from Canada.

Canada leads, but Saudi Arabia is close behind. Notably, Venezuela is fourth on the list.

your cash goes to: 1. Chavez in Venezuela to support anti-American jingoism
2. Putin in Russia to support Russian Neoimperialism such as in Georgia
3. Bin Laden via Saudi Wahhabism, the ultra-fundamentalist form of Saudi Islam that gives rise to treating women like cattle, nonSunnis like subhumans, and Islamic terrorism in its myriad forms wherever such groups are supported by conservative Arabic funds

Actually -- the cash goes to Canada first, then Saudi Arabia, then Mexico. After that, it's Venezuela at #4 -- and Russia is way the hell down the line at #10.

thems the facts. get with it America

Where do you get your facts, anyway, talk radio? Anyway, there's probably a place for your isolationist politics - good luck with that.

So basically he has a vehicle that will pay for itself in fuel and maintenance in about 7 years. Another flaw of the GP is assuming that gas prices stay the same over a 7 year period. If the last 7 years are any indication ($1.358 in 2001 Aug 12, $3.71 Aug 11, 2008 Citation DOE Midwest Prices)they won't in fact it's likely to increase another 2 dollars by then so in 2016 he will be saving about $1150 a month depending on how inflation keeps pace it could make a significant difference.

$12,000 to convert a car. Let's see - estimating $200 a month in gasoline costs, and assuming that electricity is free (which it isn't)...He might break even in 5 years.

As for paying $2 to keep one dollar from going overseas, I didn't know that Canada was overseas.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy (in 2003)... Oil Demand by Sector: Transportation 68% Industrial 23% Residential 4% Electricity Generation 3% Commercial 2% The US does not depend on oil for electricity. The US creates 49% of its electricity from coal, 19.4% nuclear, 20% natural gas, and 7% hydroelectric. The left over is made in other ways, but only 1.6% of the power generated in the US is actually produced from OIL. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html Priority 1 here should be energy independence with transportation, based on the numbers. Our ability to create electricity has almost nothing to do with oil.

While NG does come from fields much like oil, it doesn't get shipped over here from the middle east. Production is domestic. Thus, engaging in wars overseas, for oil or not, won't have an effect on NG supplies.

Actually, nearly 20% of US NG supplies are imported, mostly from Canada. We do get a small amount of LNG from the mideast. That amount is rising.

Of course, you could always argue about catalytic converters and whether torching a barrel of oil is more or less harmful than burning the equivalent amount of gasoline, or what percentage of the oil is used to make plastic. But most of the carbon goes right into the air. The oil fires were just cutting out the middle-man, as it were.

It's necessary to consider that the Kuwait oil fires were burning roughly 2/3rds of the daily US oil consumption (as of 2007) across a relatively small land mass. It's easy to point out the equivalency by claiming that burning the oil out of the ground is no different than burning it from the engine of a car, but I think that's grossly naive. Considering that Kuwait was still suffering from the 1991 fires as reported in 2003, I think you're overlooking the health effects of burning nearly a day's worth of US oil consumption in an area not much bigger than Connecticut--without first refining it.

There are some things a little worse than carbon dioxide, and I frankly wouldn't want to live next to an oil well that's been on fire for months on end.

Any particular reason you decided to manually line break this post?

Solar panels will be used to charge batteries of electric and plug-in hybrid cars.

Possibly. I prefer to think of this stuff like a network cloud. Electricity from solar is no more suited to the powering of an electric car than electricity from a coal plant. A kwh is a kwh.

If anything, standard driving tendencies would make solar power LESS suitable for charging electric cars - they tend to be out and about during the day, which would require either additional batteries or fancy heat storage techniques to produce power during the time the car's plugged in at night.

Solar power is great for things like air conditioning, though, because of it's tendency to produce the most power during the hottest parts of the day.

Newer fuel cell technology will need solar power to split water.

How about using heat and energy from a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen using a highly efficient process?

ALL of this will become economical as the price of oil continues to rise, which it will since demand is now equal to or greater than supply and is growing more rapidly than supply.

Going by the news, demand in the USA is actually dropping, and by economic theory demand=supply. It's just that the demand/supply price curve is no longer at a price point for many traditional uses. People now see more benefit in alternatives and conservation.

I am familiar with the SASOL process. It is one of many alternatives including oil sands etc. Canada has the largest world reserves of oil sands. Given current prices oil sand production is ramping up fairly rapidly in Canada, and now supplies a significant fraction of US demand. Canadian production of oil sands is actually exceeding the decline in production of oil in conventional Canadian reserves and is the reason Canada is now the leading petroleum exporter to the US. Canadian oil sands reserves exceed the total world reserves of conventional oil. Venezuela plus Canada equal 2x current world conventional oil reserves.

THERE IS NO REASON THE US NEEDS TO IMPORT OIL FROM OUTSIDE THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE GIVEN $100+ bbl pricing.

Also - the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal. It has the largest proven coal reserves in the world, enough for at least 300 years of consumption at current rates using conventional recovery methods, i.e. at current costs of recovery.

US coal reserves available using unconventional recovery methods (i.e. higher cost) are MUCH larger. potentially enough for at least 1000 years at current use rates. Maybe as much as 3000 years.

US nat gas reserves are not quite as large, however there are at least 20 years of reserves left using conventional recovery methods, and several decades more using higher cost recovery methods such as horizontal drilling. The CURRENT price of nat gas already makes horizontal drilling economical, and some companies are bringing production based on this technology online today. Price increases earlier this decade have already spurred increases in production and proven reserves of nat gas in the US when it was recently thought we would be having nat gas shortages before 2010.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/natural_gas_production.cfm

Now that doesn't mean I like the idea of unconstrained release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But it is important realize that it is not fossil fuels we are running out of. It is cheap oil we are running out of.

If we are going to develop alternative sources of energy the first thing we should be focusing on is understanding what forms those alternatives should take in order to maximize the economic gain from that investment.

My opinions on this are: (in order of priority)

1. Efficiency - especially in developing nations. China and India get very poor economic results per kw and their economies are starting to get very big. In 25 years I think China + India will equal the US. (I know others think it will happen faster, but I think long term estimates are more than a little over optimistic).

2. Conservation (imposed by tax policy if needed)

3. Replacements for gasoline. (NOT ethanol from corn that is STUPID!).

4. Non greenhouse gas producing fixed energy sources. Solar, tidal, geothermal, fusion, breeder whatever.

Note that I put solar as priority 4.

reserves mean nothing. The cost of digging it up mean a lot.

Take a look here for coal prices. I know that in the UK, we closed all the coal fields because they cost too much to dig the stuff out of the ground (compared to buying it from Australian fields). That's changed now and fields are being reopened.

from the Times in 2007
"Coal prices have soared recently, in common with other fuels. The McCloskey coal consultancy said that last month the price for world coal delivered to the Aire Valley in West Yorkshire - where the majority of Britain's coal-fired power stations are located - was $102 per tonne. This compares with $85 in January and $74 in July 2005."

Not to mention in the USA too:
The company's average selling price for coal in 2007 was $52.15 per ton, and in 2008 the average price is $62.25.

Energy prices are increasing across the range, oil has little to do with energy generation.

there simply is no third possibility.

I think there are other possibilities.

1. Why doesn't anyone want to talk about the known increase in solar radiation over the last 30 years? AFAIK, we don't have numbers going back any further, but it seems fairly obvious that if there is more solar radiation entering the earths atmosphere, the climate will change.

2. Maybe we won't run out of oil because it isn't really made from dead trees and dinosaurs. I've been meaning to find some numbers, but I have a hard time understanding the amount of decaying organic matter necessary to create the 80+ million barrels/day of oil pumped from the ground in 2005. I know were talking about geologic time scales here, so I'd be interested in seeing some numbers about how many trees and dinos that adds up to.

I'd also be interested to find out how trees and dinos ended up 10k+ feet below the surface of the earth. Some of these are 35k+ feet (7+miles) deep.

3. I doubt there were many trees or dinosaurs on Hyperion or Titan, 2 of Saturns moons. Yet, they have pools of hydrocarbons, hmmmm.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in the world getting so polluted that we can't breathe or grow food. I'm just concerned that global warming is really another scam to take more of my money in the form of taxes to "save the earth". If I remember correctly, when I was a kid, the big fear was we were going into a new ice age. Now we have the same data providing proof for the exact opposite hypothesis. Now get off my lawn.

As much as I hate Wal-Mart, I have to say that they have been using biodegradable bags for a very long time... Biodegradable shopping bags, please!

Doesn't matter--things don't biodegrade in a landfiill!

Even if a canvas bag "falls apart" in six months (doubtful--I started using the ones that Publix and Target supply about six months ago and they look fine) it's still better than regular disposable bags--just do the math. Say you use a canvas bag instead of a plastic bag (and the canvas ones easily hold 2-3x as much as the flimsy plastic ones) for a weekly trip to the store. 6 months x 4 weeks = 24 bags. If one canvas bag holds as much as two plastic bags and you use it for a year you're now at 100 bags saved. So get some stylish bags, or take care of yours, or clean them every so often.

No one's saying you've got to strut around town with them, just use them to go from the store to the car and then into your house. (Unless you live within walking distance from the store. If that's the case, spring for some real bags.)

I agree that the little plastic bags make handy trash bags for wastebaskets at home and I'm not saying you have to quit using them altogether. As with everything else, there is a "happy medium" in there somewhere.
 
...although paper is a nice idea and all, it is basically useless for that or any other bag purpose, because it's not waterproof.

Like everything else in life, it depends on what you need. Inside my house, waterproofness isn't an issue. Paper bags can hold much more weight than plastic bags, and if you put a lot of loose stuff into a paper bag--clothes, christmas lights, whatever--the paper bag gives it some shape and they can even be stacked, unlike plastic bags which are like stacking dead jellyfish. A doubled paper bag is almost like a cardboard box but they stack very small when not is use.

They run at maximum capacity because they shut down refineries when they aren't needed.

The US currently consumes over 20 Million barrels of oil a day. The EIA lists the combined output of all US refineries at just over 17 million barrels a day, which means we are importing refined fuel. The reason they shut refineries down is to convert them to winterized/standard fuel mixes at the changing of the season and for maintenance. A single refinery going down unexpectedly will have an immediate effect on gas prices at the pump as the only way to continue to meet supply and demand is to import more refined fuel. Heck, even in the scheduled down time, when switching to and from winterized fuel, you can usually expect a short term $0.05 price jump at the pump.

I disagree on your assessment that more drilling won't lower the price. I believe it will.

That's nice. How did you come to that conclusion? The oil fairy tell you? Or just going with the gut on it?

Me personally, when it comes to the future of transportation fueling, I'll take the word of people who's job it is to monitor and determine such things. Following the recommendations of the Department of Energy http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html opening up the continental shelf to drilling would provide an almost negligible benefit by 2030. This study also assumes that the lifting of the federal ban on drilling in these areas would be followed by the States lifting their own bans, which, in the case of California, will not happen.

So, go with your gut if you like, I'll stick to the scientists point of view.

-Rick

I didn't say anything about the amount of oil. The DOE reports say that for me. Production wouldn't begin until 2017, there would be no effect on the market through 2030. As a kicker "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant." Doing a little back of the napkin math, a *really* optimistic projection would have us reduce prices by no more than 10 cents a gallon (not until 2030 mind you), assuming OPEC doesn't reduce output to compensate. I'm sorry if I'm so selfish as to think that isn't a particularly impressive return.

As for relative risks to the environment, I'm less concerned about the tankers, more about the drills. The odds of a hurricane hitting Saudi Arabia: Small. The effects of a spill in the middle of a lifeless desert: Minimal. Not the case for the Gulf Coast.

Today (June 2008) there are 6.7 billion people in the world, and 304 million in the US. (See the US Census). The world is currently producing about 85 M barrels of oil per day, and the US consumes about 20.7 M bls/day (see World Oil balance).

Note that world petroleum production peaked in 2005. This works out to 8 gallons of petroleum per US citizen daily. This consumption includes gasoline, asphalt, heating oil, jet fuel, deisel fuel, lubridants, food production, and petroleum-based plastics. Of these products which is the LEAST painful to reduce?

So with 4.5% of the world population we are consuming 24% if the world's oil. In other words, adding 21 MBls indeed won't lower the price of gas.

From the Energy Information Administration:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

1. "The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

2. Do oil options or futures go out further than 5 years anyway?

Finally, from the same link:
3. "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

If you don't care about the marine environment or the fishing industry, drilling for a couple of buckets or mblpd of oil may make sense. But don't fool yourself into thinking it will have any effect on gas prices.

First, your link is wrong. You are linking to the vote on when to come back from adjournment which occurred on the 31st. Adjourning passed 213 - 197 today, the first.

Second, you have anything to back up your claims on oil prices dropping? The Bush Administration's own Department of Energy says that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

You mean a trillion barrels of oil won't make a drop in the sea's worth of real change and call it an "Energy Policy".

You're clearly not reading the same EIA reports the rest of us are. The delta appears to be about 0.2% of world supply.

There is more than just the Continental Outer Shelf that needs to be explored:

ANWR: 10 billion barrels
Outer Continental Shelf: 18 billion barrels (estimated; the actual total is undoubtedly much higher, since exploration has been banned)
Oil shale: 1 trillion barrels

Also, according to the link you provided:

Although existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012, the AEO2007 reference case assumes that they will be reinstated, as they have in the past. Current restrictions are therefore assumed to prevail for the remainder of the projection period, with no exploration or development allowed in areas currently unavailable to leasing.

The whole point of the debate was to remove those restrictions, which would render the entire report you linked to obsolete.