Tapping Shale Reserves, US Would Become World's Top Oil Producer By 2017

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that according to a report by the International Energy Agency, the U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's leading oil producer by about 2017, will become a net oil exporter by 2030, and will become 'all but self-sufficient' in meeting its energy needs in about two decades — a 'dramatic reversal of the trend' in most developed countries. 'The foundations of the global energy systems are shifting,' says Fatih Birol, chief economist at the Paris-based organization, which produces the annual World Energy Outlook. There are several components of the sudden shift in the world's energy supply, but the prime mover is a resurgence of oil and gas production in the United States, particularly the unlocking of new reserves of oil and gas found in shale rock. The widespread adoption of techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has made those reserves much more accessible, and in the case of natural gas, resulted in a vast glut that has sent prices plunging. The agency's report was generally 'good news' for the United States says Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, because it highlights the nation's new sources of energy but Levi cautions that being self-sufficient does not mean that the country will be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets. The message is more sobering for the planet, in terms of climate change. Although natural gas is frequently promoted for being relatively low in carbon emissions compared to oil or coal, the new global energy market could make it harder to prevent dangerous levels of warming (PDF). 'The report confirms that, given the current policies, we will blow past every safe target for emissions,' says Levi. 'This should put to rest the idea that the boom in natural gas will save us from that.'" The folks over at The Oil Drum aren't quite so optimistic: shale reserves may have an abysmal EROI. And, of course, Global Warming is a liberal myth.

Comments

It's a sad sign of the times

[aurispector]

When the partisan political aspect of an issue is already included in the original post.

Bettter to shut down discussions about AGW before they start! It's settled science!

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[jellomizer]

The problem lies in the fact the issue isn't black and white. Yes fossil fuels cause Global Warming. However we can't get get off the stuff, as Fossil Fuels are a relatively concentrated, and stable form of energy, that can moved and transported and held in long term reserves.
We cannot go off fossil fuels. Alternative energy isn't there yet. In the mean time we need to use it, and if we can get it from politically safer areas all the better. If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ArcherB]

When the partisan political aspect of an issue is already included in the original post.

Bettter to shut down discussions about AGW before they start! It's settled science!

Well, you could reply in kind and say, "There is no way in Hell that environmentalists or our current administration will allow us to become energy independent if it rained oil!" And, sadly, it's true. They will find some cost of extraction that is just too high to spend like they are trying to do with fracking now.

Fact is, liberals hate oil. They were fighting oil drilling long before global warming was ever considered an issue. So, we know it's not GW they are worried about. I think they don't like people making money or they think that we all live in cities where only the very weatlhy have their own cars (with drivers) and think everyone should have to take the subway.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

That's really great rhetoric. Did you know that the United States gets 1/3 of its crude oil imports from Canada? That's more than it gets from any other nation -- Saudi Arabia included. Are they killing themselves in Canada over petty differences? By the way, could you tell me what's so unstable about Saudi Arabia? George W. Bush seemed to think they were okay.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ByOhTek]

I'm a moderate liberal, but I wouldn't say I hate oil. I would rather say that I would prefer an alternative (def. more in the way of nuclear, the waste, while worse, is more easily contained).

However, I am strongly against drilling for American oil now. I think, when oil starts running really low in other regions, then we should start drilling it. By that point, they'll have exported all their oil at relatively low prices, and we'll be able to export it at much higher prices. It's an investment.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

Can we include Israel in that bargain? And neither we or Mexico grow enough poppies to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan yet.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[dave420]

Maybe they didn't like drilling because of the ecological damage drilling causes? If it were gravy they were drilling for, they'd still feel the same. Stop looking at things so simplistically. It's really not helping you look rational.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The main thing that holds back alternative energy sources is their relative price. The potential is there, but it would require vast investments of money which won't happen until that investment is profitable. However, if the cost of fossil fuels included the cost AGW causes then the equation would be different. If fossil fuel sources were taxed to pay for increasingly frequent events like Sandy then alternative fuels would have a chance sooner.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[MickyTheIdiot]

What is most sad is because of the captured nature of congress the real discussions (of course happening in the back rooms) is about how this helps or hurts oil companies. Our system has real problems doing stuff for the greater good of all when the internal debate is basically controlled by a group of oil robber barons.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

We cannot go off fossil fuels. Alternative energy isn't there yet

Maybe not, but we do have the technology and the resources to replace 100% of our transportation fuel use with biofuels, and a significant portion of our other use with wind and solar, and we're not even doing what we can do. Our commitment to wind and solar is negligible compared to our capability, and we actively fight against biofuels.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

Or it could be we don't like breathing and drinking that crap. I suppose we could come around if the oil companies paid the medical bills, and for the clean up, instead of just passing the costs onto the consumers.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Joce640k]

The problem lies in the fact the issue isn't black and white. Yes fossil fuels cause Global Warming. However we can't get get off the stuff

Can't? Or don't want to?

Why can't electricity be produced without fossil fuels? A fraction of the current investment in warmongering could build some of those next-gen nuclear power stations that have been discussed here many times. The ones with almost zero safety/waste issues who's theory has been known for decades but none have been built...what's going on there?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Joce640k]

vast investments of money which won't happen.

It's a tiny fraction of the "war on..." and bailout money. And it would solve the energy problem. Why aren't people falling over each other to do it? Because the oil barons who run the country don't want it, that's why.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

Can we include Israel in that bargain? And neither we or Mexico grow enough poppies to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan yet.

As entanglements in ghastly foreign sandboxes go, opiates are pretty trivial compared to oil. With just a few minor regulatory tweaks, we could have the heroin users of the first world Doing Their Patriotic Duty by switching to synthetics like Fentanyl and away from foreign terrorist-poppies!

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

Can we include Canada in that bargain, you antisemitic snow-back fuck. Israel did not ask to be attacked by their neighbors in 48, 68, and 73. The Jews did not ask to be labeled "Apes" and "Pigs" in the 7th century Mein Kampf read every day by Muslims worldwide. Just because two people are fighting and have been at it for a long time does not mean both sides are guilty. Sometimes there is an aggressor and a victim.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[gsgriffin]

That appears to be a popular sentiment, but I fear what will become of extremely wealthy Islamic nations (because we've been buying so much oil from them) when this hand is no longer feeding them. They won't be killing just each I other, and they have lots of money to effectively kill anyone they like.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

If you work or own major shares of any company involved with oil exraction/processing, its understandable why you want to wring every last drop until its all gone. Too profitable to stop. Big oil needs to be the next tobacco - demonized for its real cost. While tobacco kills individuals primarily via cancer, burning fossil fuels has been driving mass extinctions globally, along with habitat destruction/disruption. Plastics & other toxic garbage debris has been screwing up the food chain in the oceans, and big oil sonar cannons and other noise pollution damaging marine life's low frequency communication/navigation ie beached dolphins & whales. The OA is a wishlist for big oil. Alternative green energy sources including nuclear need to ramp it up now. Dont be the generation that kills everything due to one sector's unmitigated, unchallenged greed.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

And who is going to pay the costs of not getting off the stuff? All this environmental damage is not free and it has a real cost in terms of our health (and the money it takes to fix it) and also in terms of damage done directly to us in the form of stronger storms.

Saying that fossil fuels are cheaper is just a way of externalizing the costs. It is letting large businesses make a fortune while our tax dollars go to clean up the damage and the money spent to repair the damage dwarfs the money made from the fuels.

Also we can eliminate fossil fuels for most uses already right now and we are doing very little of that. About half the energy used in a house is just wasted due to poor insulation. No matter what kind of fuel source you have if you throw away a significant fraction of your power you are going to have problems.

We have also developed better battery technology, building technology for cars to make them lighter and stronger and companies like BP keep buying up the patents on them like on lithium polymer batteries.

Sure we can't go 100% off fossil fuels but there is no 100% solution. We can still use a lot more wind, solar, nuclear and combine that with better insulation, EVs for most normal commuter driving and still get at least 80% or more of the way to not using fossil fuels anymore.

This attitude seems pretty defeatist. Since we can't do 100% we might as well do nothing. The problem is the costs of doing nothing are enormous. Even if all we did was spend the kind of money we do on various wars on insulating houses in America it would still make a huge impact in our emissions and reduce our need for fossil fuels by a lot. That even has a better payback for the society that then wars do.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

What's more interesting is the post contains two liberal knee-jerk positions: There's too little resources, oh noes, government intervention needed! And there's too much of it, government intervention needed.

As usual, Julian Simon wins again. Resource prices go down over time as freedom-based capitalism works its magic, and quality of life measurements go up.

It keeps ahead of the curve, which is the counter-intuitive bit that so many physical scientists self-curbstomp over, not understanding the economics has been shown to work over and over again.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

Opium wars go father back than petrol wars. The nature of addiction being what it is makes it a very important product to control.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Yeah! And why did they not bring up the theory that the earth is full of oil and it is regenerated by pixies?
Why did they assume a round earth at all?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

And sometimes they switch aggressor and victim role back and forth.

Like when they want to bomb Iran for fun, or just dole out a little collective punishment to the Palestinians. As far as I am concerned they are all as guilty as each other.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I think it is a sad sign of the times that basic science IS in fact a partisan political issue for some. Making a joke about that fact in a post, isn't the issue in my opinion.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Which is why fuel is so cheap in Somalia!

Capitalism is a system of allocating resources, it may in fact be the best one we have. Lets not pretend it is magical.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

When was the last time a retailer leaked hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of gallons of toxic liquid into an environment?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

two words:

Is Lam

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Just going to throw out there that raining oil would probably be hazardous to the environment. I understand that the world isn't perfect I have no problem with using oil as long as we need to. But IF Global Warming is happening and DOES present a danger to American/Human life then it's the governments job to do something about it. The very reason we have a government is to do exactly that. We watch they government and they watch other hazards.

As a for instance... Let's just say that Nuclear Energy wasn't entirely safe but it was a fantastic source of cheap energy. I'm assuming that if it was raining Nuclear Energy, you'd be all for the harvesting of that as well? Quite frankly, no. You would expect the government to step in and protect you from that.

The two major differences in this scenario are that A) Nuclear Energy not handled correctly could very easily have a negative effect on you and your body in the very near future and B) Nuclear Energy is not established and therefore would be much easier for the government to overturn. Oil has been around for a long time and getting rid of something that's been around for so long will be difficult regardless of how dangerous it is.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[aicrules]

You mean that stuff that is already in the environment? But if you really want an example, just walk by an Abercrombie & Fitch.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Eightbitgnosis]

Building things that take 20 years to until they're operational and properly permitted is financially dangerous

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[IceNinjaNine]

That's really great rhetoric. Did you know that the United States gets 1/3 of its crude oil imports from Canada?

Your point? We also get quite a bit from Mexico. I have to ask: are you Canadian? It always seems that the Canucks bring up this factoid to pump their ego. Yes, I already knew that we get a shit ton of oil (and resources) from Canada.

That's more than it gets from any other nation -- Saudi Arabia included. Are they killing themselves in Canada over petty differences?

Honest question, do the Canadians give us "special pricing", or do they sell at market rates? A disruption in the Middle East still affects the U.S.

By the way, could you tell me what's so unstable about Saudi Arabia? George W. Bush seemed to think they were okay.

Are you serious?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Some small amount of it in the environment.
We released a lot more than would be natural.

Sure the area will recover, but the immediate economic impact on the people in the area is not acceptable. The economic impact in the short term is for me the biggest problem. The extraction operation cut corners and fishermen were stuck with the bill. That part is not liberal or conservative, it is simple reality. When push comes to shove these companies never pay for the damage they cause those around them.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

How are "biofuels" superior to gasoline? Don't they both add carbon compounds into the atmosphere? For that matter, given vast new supplies of natural gas, why not use LNG to power cars and trucks? It burns much more cleanly than does oil-derived fuel.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not wrong in the overall gist of what you're saying, but I feel I have to correct this:

While tobacco kills individuals primarily via cancer...

Actually, a smoker's chance of dying of cancer is still pretty slim - about 5 times that of a non smoker. They've got a good 50% chance of dying of some kind of smoking related illness though (many of them equally as unpleasant as cancer); be it cancer, heart disease, stroke, obstructed lungs, or so on.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ArcherB]

When was the last time a retailer leaked hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of gallons of toxic liquid into an environment?

Go walk around the parking lot. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't monitor drilling sites. I'm saying that the very same people who bitch about some endangered fly being harmed by an oil rig don't seem to mind when something they like is built on the same spot.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

How are "biofuels" superior to gasoline? Don't they both add carbon compounds into the atmosphere?

Not net.

For that matter, given vast new supplies of natural gas, why not use LNG to power cars and trucks? It burns much more cleanly than does oil-derived fuel.

We don't have vast new supplies of natural gas, we only get that by fracking, as discussed above. We could be making biogas out of our shit, but we don't do that either. You are either an idiot or a troll. Bye!

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ArcherB]

Or it could be we don't like breathing and drinking that crap. I suppose we could come around if the oil companies paid the medical bills, and for the clean up, instead of just passing the costs onto the consumers.

Then make them clean up their crap. No one is implying otherwise. But before you assume that all oil producers leave behind a mess, I suggest you drive from Detroit MI to Traverse City MI and look at all the oil wells pumping oil directly in the middle of a farmed field. The plants there seem to be doing just fine, btw.

Oh, and ALL costs are passed along to consumers. Overhead, taxes, EVERYTHING is eventually passed down to consumers.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

I never did get the wait until everyone else runs out argument.

Eventually, the costs of alternatives like wind and solar will go down (patents and licensing fees will expire, manufacturing materials and costs will lessen with time and mature processing techniques plus increased efficiencies). There will be other discoveries where we can store energy better or extract it from interesting materials or processes not in use today (I like the idea of making hydrogen peroxide then using it to power low temp steam turbines in much the same way compressed air is being used by the storage need is much lower and not geographically limited). This will lead to less demand on oil thereby making the price remain cheaper. There is a somewhat strong global initiative to replace oil because of climate change fears (whether true or not) and we aren't to far from being able to if we didn't care about other things like growing food.

It will be like saving that pound of really good meat for a special day and forgetting it can spoil. Or maybe it's more like those guys who built a time capsule out of an old salt mine and placed a car and other items so they would be in mint condition and valuable when they opened it after 50 just to find a water source infiltrated the cavern and they were all rust.

I say use it, use it now. Get our energy security within the US, spend money on developing alternatives and we won't have to spend on our military to procure and protect foreign supplies and we won't have to swallow out pride and play nice with brutal dictators trying to ensure that oil flows our direction, Because if we save that botle of milk long enough, it won't be worth drinking.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[udachny]

As I explained for years now, US economy is so unproductive (see trade deficits and debt) that it will have to become a net energy, food and raw material exporter to pay for what it imports because soon the dollar won't cut it.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[morgauxo]

Exactly! Oh.. Wait.. Isn't that exactly what Starbucks does?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[IceNinjaNine]

That appears to be a popular sentiment, but I fear what will become of extremely wealthy Islamic nations (because we've been buying so much oil from them) when this hand is no longer feeding them. They won't be killing just each I other, and they have lots of money to effectively kill anyone they like.

So they'd be a threat to who.. the US? Russia? China? That's a really quick way to get green glassed, or at least have your infrastructure destroyed in a most profound manner. Sure, maybe you might argue that they fund a shadow war.. if we're not dependent upon them for oil these things have a way of going hot.. just like the so-called terrorist training camps getting hit by Tomahawks.

And Israel.. I suspect somebody might end up having an Israeli nuke make a surprise visit if they misbehave. I've often wondered if the Israelis have invested in neutron warheads since they potential targets are in the neighborhood.

As for the money, show me that they're not pissing it away. I've not heard (or read) of any analogs like Norway's "rainy day" fund. Now there's a nation with some goddamned sense.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[epp_b]

You're right, but why nuclear? Why not something that doesn't have the chance, however remote, of causing armageddon?

Would it be possible to power a home or office building with a roof of solar panels? What about a small windmill?

We should be also looking at ways of conserving energy. I'm not talking about BS lighting options like headache-inducing, depression-causing, carcinogen-containing fluorescents ... but building and renovating buildings (homes, offices, schools, everything) to allow in as much natural light as possible during the day. Isn't it absurd that we use any artificial lighting at all during the eight or more hours a day when we this giant *free* light source just out the window?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[IceNinjaNine]

I should have proofed that last one.. LMAO.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

Bomb Iran for fun? Is that what you seriously believe? Israel wants to Iran's hardened bunkers and provoke a response that will likely kill thousands if Israelis (Hezbollah), just for fun? I don't think I need to even justify that with a response.

And an embargo to prevent weapons from being used on civilians is hardly "collective punishment". The Palestinians are not starving. They are not dying like those in Syria or any number of other places, yet where do the Flotillas go? They go to Gaza, with passegers chanting "Remember Kyaybar, oh Jews, the Army of Muhammad is returning". Not through Ashdod, which Israel requested (so they could inspect), but directly, trying to bypass inspections and initiate a confrontation with the military in the hopes of being martyred (hardly the only passenger who said that, there are more videos).

The Palestinians are allowed to have anything they like except those things that could be used to create weapons or otherwise in a conflict with Israel. Why? Go visit southern Israel for a few days and you'll soon find out.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ShanghaiBill]

The ones with almost zero safety/waste issues who's theory has been known for decades but none have been built...?

Lots of things that are really simple in theory turn out to be rather complicated in practice. Pebble bed reactors have been mentioned many times as a panacea for nuclear problems. But when the Germans actually build one they had lots of problems that the theorists didn't foresee. The Chinese are trying again, but nobody sees PBRs as a silver bullet anymore. Since the beginning of the nuclear age people have put forth "simple" designs that will solve all our problems and make energy too cheap to meter, but reality keeps getting in the way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[mbkennel]

"It keeps ahead of the curve, which is the counter-intuitive bit that so many physical scientists self-curbstomp over, not understanding the economics has been shown to work over and over again."

Uh, no. Why don't we have cheap $20 oil? Why isn't East Texas squirting easy-to-find oil out of the ground once again?

Let's actually have resource prices going down in this area before you start crowing about the triumph of ignoring physical science.

The point is that we have to do ugly and expensive and difficult things to get something which used to be easy. Why? What's different about this than manufacturing engines?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[mbkennel]

Did you ever ask a liberal why they don't like oil?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they don't go mother back.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[microbox]

Fact is, liberals hate oil.

Some liberals hate oil. The rest of us just love science.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the "spot" you complete moron, people whine about hydraulic fracturation because of the environmental damage it causes under ground

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[jamstar7]

If we don't have to buy oil from the Middle east, we can set back and watch them kill themselves over their petty differences without much intervention from us.

Can we include Israel in that bargain? And neither we or Mexico grow enough poppies to leave Afghanistan/Pakistan yet.

As entanglements in ghastly foreign sandboxes go, opiates are pretty trivial compared to oil. With just a few minor regulatory tweaks, we could have the heroin users of the first world Doing Their Patriotic Duty by switching to synthetics like Fentanyl and away from foreign terrorist-poppies!

They used to say nobody won a land war in Southeast Asia without controlling the opium trade.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Hatta]

Sometimes there is an aggressor and a victim.

And sometimes they switch sides. Just because Jews have been historically persecuted doesn't give them license to commit atrocities today. And there's nothing anti-semetic about calling atrocities what they are, or suggesting that we no longer support the side committing atrocities.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[microbox]

Eventually, the costs of alternatives like wind and solar will go down

Alternative energy will eclipse some traditional energy markets in the next 5 years. (Red-meat conservatives will almost deny that it is happening even as it happens.)

It will be like saving that pound of really good meat for a special day and forgetting it can spoil.

Once oil is used, it is used, and there is carbon pollution in the atmosphere. It will stay there for 1000 years, and there is no sane way to extract it. Burning oil has a negative externality which has /never/ been factored into the cost.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Swampash]

When dealing with two groups of antagonistic groups, each claiming the absolute right to possess a certain piece of land because some invisible superhero who lives in the sky said so in a 100% totally true book (you know it's 100% true, it says so in the book)... perhaps one should just sit back and let them go at it. Maybe we could supply them each with weapons to hurry things up a bit.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[runeghost]

Saudi Arabia has an incredibly corrupt government; oppresses neighboring populations, such as when they sent soldiers into Bahrain to shut-down "Arab Spring" protests there; extensively oppresses their own population, denying basic human rights; supports and export religious extremism and hate speech, from places like Somalia where it has become an international problem, to here in the United States; regularly aids and abets the kidnapping of minors who hold American citizenship, a problem that's bad enough that the State Department has a web page devoted to it; and still, over a decade after 9/11, continues to fund terrorists.

Bush the Lesser was an idiot.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The victims are the citizens, the aggressors are the governments and the propaganda machines.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

Your precious Israel is no less a British creation than Kuwait. In fact the entire Middle East is a European matter. They have a much deeper interest than the US does. But when Europe calls, who better to come to their aid? Your attitude and manners indicate that rationality is off the table. This is typical of all attempts to shut down any criticism. Shout 'em down with hysterical rants. And the war goes on.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rhakka]

but external costs are paid via mechanisms that are NOT included in the cost of the fuel.

the medical and pollution aspects of fossil fuel use... to say nothing of the global warming costs and, up until recently, our geopolitical control costs (military)... are all costs associated with oil that we pay for via taxes, insurance premiums, and other mechanisms that don't dissuade oil usage per se.

until those externialities are captured in the cost of a barrel of oil, the playing field against clean alternatives is not level. thus the need for subsidies on clean alternatives. because the free market simply cannot handle external costs in a legitimate way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Not for fun, too make money. This is what world leaders really do. Starting a war sells a lot of weapons. I base this on the remarks made by their own politicians.

They do not only blockade weapons. Even a crocodile for the Gaza Zoo had to be smuggeled in. Please tell me how they would weaponize a crocodile.

Please also tell me what right the Israelis have to dictate what the Palestinians are allowed to have?

Sure the Palestinians are not nice people, I already stated that. This is a giant case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[jez9999]

You're right, but why nuclear? Why not something that doesn't have the chance, however remote, of causing armageddon?

Because modern nuclear doesn't have even a remote chance of causing armageddon. The worst crisis in the history of nuclear power gave a few thousand people cancer. The second worst crisis has killed or injured almost nobody, although caused a lot of inconvenience in the area no doubt. No other nuclear failure has caused any health problems worth mentioning, and the ones whose failures were costly to clean up were old, and would not be produced in this day and age.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source per TWh, bar none. Wind power is more deadly.

Modern nuclear can also process existing nuclear waste, which seems like a bit of a win.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

really wish the mod system had an option (or maybe a set of check boxes) for all the reasons why a post is fallacious. Even if I agreed with you, I would still mod you down. Your arguments are just terrible.

Posting anon since I have modpoints for you.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The Palestinians are allowed to have anything they like except those things that could be used to create weapons or otherwise in a conflict with Israel. Why?

This is why the settlements keep expanding and Israel keeps bulldozing houses and uprooting trees. This is why Israelis can drive on any road they want to but Palestinians have special roads. This is why Israel stopped Palestinian kids from taking the SATs this year. This is why a recent Haaretz poll found that most Israelis think that they live in an apartheid state and that it would be okay to remove the citizenship and voting rights of Israeli Arabs.

Don't kid yourself, apartheid exists and it is an enormous crime. Israel should be shamed like the former apartheid government in South Africa. There is no freedom for the Palestinians and they live under the military law imposed on them by Israel.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

They were given that land, legally. The bible has nothing to do with it. Nobody would take the Jewish refugees after WWII and they certainly didn't want to go back to live with people who just months previously were sending them off to the gas actively or passively. They were more than happy to live along side the Palestinians (though they weren't called that back then). It was the Arab Muslims who attacked again and again, and in doing so lost more and more of their land. Do some religious Zionists claim the land to be holy. Sure. There are also lots of secular Zionists such as myself who think Israel is just a good idea.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

Please tell me how they would weaponize a crocodile.

You had to ask...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

As you point out, there are plenty of other countries that are of British creation. Why, then, are the Arab Muslims always hating on the one state that just happens to be about 80% Jewish. Could it possibly have anything to do with their holy book telling them the Jews are evil?

The criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic but when you criticize Israel for minor things while ignoring the atrocities committed everywhere else it can then become antisemitic in that your clear bias speaks to motive.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the Arab Muslims who attacked again and again, and in doing so lost more and more of their land.

In the US we made up a bullshit argument like that against the Native Americans and then shoved them onto reservations. But at least we gave them the right to vote. Israel chose the apartheid road.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

...minor things...

That's funny...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Your summary of Chernobyl and Fukashima reads like it was written by someone from another planet. You do know that lots of people died at Chernobyl, right? and there are people near Fukashima who still can't go home. That's a new definition of "inconvenience."

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[xelah]

People respond to incentives - including price incentives. If the price of using fossil fuels is held below its cost (ie, with extraction, refining, distribution, safety and local and global pollution costs included) then decisions such as which car to buy, how many warehouses and what size vehicles a retailer should use, which mode of transport to use, how to design industrial processes, how to build and many others will be affected. (Don't underestimate the non-CO2 costs of pollution...really....they're very serious and yet have been pushed aside in the public debate). Supply-side, decisions on types of generating capacity, energy research and political intervention (subsidies and planning, for example) will be taken, too. Some of these decisions will have fuel-use implications for decades.

If every country in the world were to impose carbon taxes which approximate the extra costs then it wouldn't be a problem. If the US were to impose those taxes and limit production (and imports) to its own needs and those of other countries with similar rules maybe it would be mitigated a great deal. But I'm sure this is politically impossible, nationally and internationally.

The politics of the US virtually guarantee that the US can't use this fuel responsibly. The politics of anywhere virtually guarantee it, but in the US it's worse, and is more serious because of the size of US pollution. It's access to it will cause it to harm its current and future self, and the rest of humanity. But there'll be good aspects, too - using less oil from dodgy places is good (and oil revenues in dodgy places often cause political problems, too, by making politics the way to get rich, by gaining access to oil revenues, rather than business). So is using gas instead of oil.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[SteveDorries]

What's with all the love for solid fuels in your response, don't forget about MSRs. Thorium based reactors are even safer than their pressurized water Uranium based cousins. Not to disparage them, any nuclear is better than coal or oil, but Th is better than U. Here's a little video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

What gives the Israelis the right to dictate what the Arab Muslims of Egyptian descent in Gaza can have? The rockets fired every day do that well enough. Were gaza situated outside... say... Moscow, London, or Paris, they would have long since been invaded, if not outright carpet bombed, but since it's Jews on the receiving end of the rockets the whole world sits by and says "Well. They must have done something to deserve this!" The only thing the Israelis can do to stop the rockets is what they're doing right now, and I guarantee with what they give the Arab Muslims on a daily basis in terms of humanitarian aid, they would much rather the Arab Muslims learn to become self sufficient. And you know what? It works. The rockets, as frequent as they are, are nowhere near as bad as they were before the blockade. Is there the odd restriction? Sure there is. There is with any bureaucracy. Is it a war crime or a humanitarian disaster that the Palestinians don't get a crocodile? Fuck no, but people like you will complain to the UN about pittly shit like that before ever mentioning the rockets on Sderot and Ashdod and pretty much anywhere in the southern part of Israel.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it possibly have anything to do with their holy book telling them the Jews are evil?

Which holy book is this? It isn't the Qur'an.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

"increasingly frequent events like Sandy"

You don't really believe that do you? Storms are not more frequent. I find it funny how you want everyone to pay more in taxes, so hippies like yourself can build their homes closer and closer to water, whether it's on a beach or a river front in ever increasing droves. You want everyone else to pay your stupidity.

The reason people are still without power in the NE is because of people like you. People like you are saying, "If only people would have paid more taxes, the government would be able to better provide for us." That's really what you saying. Here are the facts. You see it's all about control and who gets credit for "saving the day." What happened when people tried to help? Because the help would not be provided by your own elected hippie hipsters you refused it even to point of turning goods, services, and people away. Well known people went on TV to ask for help, only to be derided by the mayors, councilmen, governors, liberal press, etc. People with the know how and equipment to repair infrastructure were turned away because they didn't belong to a fucking union, or even the local union even if they were union. People with perfectly good food and water were turned away because it didn't meet your fucked up nutritional guidelines or wasn't provided by the unions again. (I especially don't understand the logic of that one. "But Johnny will get more than his daily requirement of salt if he eats this, we'd better starve him instead, yeah, that will be best for him").

People like you are the reason people died. They didn't have to. People like you are the reason people starved to death. They didn't have to. You see it's all or nothing with your type. It has to be perfect or it must be destroyed.(remind you of Islam?) We can't work our way there, we must tax, regulate, and ultimately destroy what's already there first, even though you don't have a clue as to what comes next. That's a fucked up way of thinking.

 

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

Palestinians (Arab Muslims of Egyptian and Jordanian descent) are not fucking ISRAELI citizens. Of course they don't have the same rights. We're not talking about Israeli Arabs, who have and always will have the same rights.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[xtal]

Why is it those who complain about nuclear power plants never bat an eye at the ~4000 nuclear warheads aimed at people all over the world, ready to do harm with the press of a button, held in place with the same failsafes they deem insufficient?

Burning oil is stupid. We should be developing nuclear technologies as fast as we can. Instead we'll wait for the oil to be gone.. but I hope we don't wait until we need to use those warheads over oil reserves. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

They were given that land, legally.

Oh really?? By whom? Some bald headed old white men who didn't own it? If you mean, by legal, with a big gun, you would be right. And please, don't try to tell me they moved in peacefully. That kind of fabrication goes beyond the pale.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic but when you criticize Israel for minor things while ignoring the atrocities committed everywhere else it can then become antisemitic in that your clear bias speaks to motive.

Bullshit. I don't have to wait going down the line from North Korea onwards to criticize Israel's abuse of the Palestinians. That is moral midgetry right there. Israel moves to the top of the line because they are claiming to be a developed country with modern ethical values. When you do that and claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East, stand by for the shitstorm. Developed countries and world powers are held to higher human rights standards. Israel just doesn't measure up. But stand by. Big Daddy US isn't going to be covering for Israel as much any more. Remember that Bibi just took a shit on Obama's shoes. And I hate to break it to you, but the demographic changes (something we actually allow) in the US are going to push the US Republican Party to oblivion in 10 years. The justifier of your human rights violations is about to walk out the door. Republicans care a fuckload more about Hispanics than American Jews who tend to vote Democratic anyways.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

Yes it fucking is. And the Hadith. The only difference between Islam and NAZIsm is about 1300 years just like the only difference between Mormonism and Scientology is about 150.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Coffee is toxic?
So far I feel fine.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

I would mention the rockets just fine.
Like I said, my opinion is they are both guilty.

Try reading what I have said.

I would actually fully support the invasion of that land by Israel if it resulted in a one state solution with the former Palestinians being full Israeli citizens.

What I will not support is the current solution that is as morally bankrupt as the rocket attacks.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

And Iran and North Korea *claim* to be all sorts of things too. So basically what you're saying is the more developed countries are, the more they should be criticized... when it come to the Jews, at least. Funny thing about Prejudice how nobody who is ever guesses or will admit they are.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cayenne8]

Sure the area will recover, but the immediate economic impact on the people in the area is not acceptable. The economic impact in the short term is for me the biggest problem. The extraction operation cut corners and fishermen were stuck with the bill. That part is not liberal or conservative, it is simple reality. When push comes to shove these companies never pay for the damage they cause those around them.

Well, for the most part....we in New Orleans, and the rest of our part of the gulf coast are doing well.

It was a big jolt to the economy, but it really didn't take that long to bounce back....

It took a little long for all of the oyster beds to open back up, but for the most part, even the seafood industry bounced back pretty quickly.

What has hurt the economy badly and has kept it depressed...is the current administrations insistance on not renewing oil leases in the gulf.

Some rigs have moved out of the Gulf to Brazil....and many, many, many jobs here have been lost due to not letting us get back in the energy business.

Sure, you have to be careful...but it is still an intricate part of the economy down here....

And hey, if they want to help, how about letting the gulf states that take the risks...get a greater percentage of the oil revenues from the heavy taxes on the oil companies by the feds....could go a long way to restoring the coastline down here...etc.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CanHasDIY]

Could it possibly have anything to do with their holy book telling them the Jews are evil?

Yea, I mean, just look at some of these hateful, anti-Semetic messages:

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

And they shouted it with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten and terrify them, in order that they might take the city.

... and in case you've yet to figure out that I'm not actually quoting the Qu'Ran:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

But a one state solution would simply make Israel yet another Arab state, and in 50 years it would be another Lebanon (just take a look at the demographics there over the last century). The solution is to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt. There never was a "Palestine" anyway. Most in the west bank are culturally and ethnically Jordanians anyway, as those in Gaza are to Egypt. All you have to do to prove that is look at their names. Of course this will never, ever, happen because if Gaza were part of Egypt they couldn't find rockets all day long at Israel without getting their asses kicked all the way back to Cairo. There would also be no more "victims" with which to blame Israel for.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[dryeo]

Honest question, do the Canadians give us "special pricing", or do they sell at market rates? A disruption in the Middle East still affects the U.S.

Well our government keeps going on about how we need to sell to China so we can get full market price instead of the American price so I'd assume America as our only customer gets a deal.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[davydagger]

why is this our problem?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sl4shd0rk]

However we can't get get off the stuff

We will "get get off the stuff" one way, or another. One way is by using less energy and getting by with a bit less while alternative forms of energy are being implemented.

The other way is by continuing to consume the way we have been for the past 100+ years and exhausting the environment of it's current hospitality.

My $5 bucks goes with #2 because people, as a whole, are incapable of of doing less now, to have more later. It's just not how we're wired. Good luck.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

How would it make Israel an Arab state?
If your concern is ethnic purity, than I am not sure how to respond to such a disgusting ideal.

I do not think you can force land onto other nations. Offering it should be a possibility though.

I am not sure what insight names give us into a persons heritage, nor am I sure how that relates to where they live. I think you are trying to find evidence for your point of view were none exists.

I am not sure what you mean about there never being a Palestine. I am not sure what impact history has on this anyway. We live in the now, not ancient history.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

A zionist complaining about prejudice has to be one of the more bizarre things I've seen in this thread.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CanHasDIY]

Sure the Palestinians are not nice people, I already stated that. This is a giant case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Say
that
to
their
faces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanization

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

I'm not a Christian but I was raised one, so I know when the bible is being misquoted. I'll just take the third quote as one example. It's about an Assyrian king who was assaulting Jerusalem. What happens next? "And the LORD sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the leaders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king. So he withdrew to his own land in disgrace." (2 Chronicles 32:21) If anybody is interested in the others, you're free to google them and read them in context.

Now try and put this hadith in context for me: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)"

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

Because Israel is a honeypot -- fundamentalist lunatics focus on Israel rather than on us. It's also our only real all in the region and produces a lot of really cool technology.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cayenne8]

The criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic but when you criticize Israel for minor things while ignoring the atrocities committed everywhere else it can then become antisemitic in that your clear bias speaks to motive.

Shouldn't we get new term for this, I mean, technically, aren't pretty much all of the peoples over in the middle east semitic/semites?

Frankly, as far as the US...I do wish we could just get out of there 100%....those battles and wars have been raging over there for most of history, and it isn't like we're going to stop it.

It isn't our battle if it weren't for oil....if we could get off the dependence of it...then just leave and let them do what they will over there.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem. Do you happen to have a few extra trillion dollars laying around?

For some uses it simply isn't possible. You will NOT be able to provide the energy for an entire office tower from a roof of solar panels or a small windmill -- do the math -- small, fairly flat, warehouse-style buildings, yes, but outside base power will still be needed for low wind/cloudy/cold seasons, and I can't see tearing down entire downtown cores to make way for such construction. Anyway, you're right that it is possible, and new construction should be going that way, but the retrofit is the killer. We've built up a good century or so of one style of construction, and it won't be simple, cheap, or quick to switch to another way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a case of the NIMBY crowd. And the perceived threat of Nuclear Fallout from the Homer Simpson Nuclear Techs. To a certain degree the cost and build times of Nuclear reactors. But mostly the hippies.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

I'm speaking of religious demographics. There are over 50 Muslim Arab states. Nobody calls this racist or bigoted, despite the fact Islam is often, by law, the only religion and apostates face the death penalty. In Israel, such is not the case and even Scientology opening a new mindfuckery in Tel Aviv barely raised an eyebrow. Yet you call Israel's desire to maintain a Jewish majority so that they can remain the one Jewish state disgusting. Again. Remember what I said about selective criticism.

As far as there never being a Palestine. It's a fact. Tell me who was the first Palestinians president? Ruler? Name a famous Palestinian dish. What was the Palestinians flag? The national anthem? You won't find any of these because Palestine never existed as a country. You have Jordanians, Egyptians, and a smattering of others who like to call themselves "Palestinians" and talk about a "Palestine" because it's politically convenient.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cayenne8]

We should be also looking at ways of conserving energy. I'm not talking about BS lighting options like headache-inducing, depression-causing, carcinogen-containing fluorescents ... but building and renovating buildings (homes, offices, schools, everything) to allow in as much natural light as possible during the day....

And where, exactly....will we get all the money required to redo all this infrastructure and our buildings?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rot26]

Obstructed Lung?

That's my new band name.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar power make work in the south, but what about the north. Windmills are very inconsistent. Nuclear is safe. Just everyone thinks about the perceived threat of the pre-turn of the century style Nuclear Reactor.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[meta-monkey]

Fossil Fuels are a relatively concentrated, and stable form of energy, that can moved and transported and held in long term reserves. We cannot go off fossil fuels. Alternative energy isn't there yet.

Looks we just solved the EROI problem of shale oil. It may take more energy input than you get from shale output, and therefore we shouldn't do it, right? Or, perhaps, if we can power the shale drilling operations with difficult-to-store, impossible-to-transport energy like solar or tides and waves, we can essentially "convert" those inefficient, unreliable sources of energy into energy dense and easily transportable long chains of hydrocarbons. Problem solved!

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

No they are stateless, in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why don't you read that document and tell me how many of those rights are afforded to Palestinians. We are talking about millions of human beings living in limbo and without the right to self determination. This is apartheid and it is an enormous crime.

By your logic since Palestinians are stateless they don't have the right to resist Israel annexing their land to create a settlement, the right to travel on many Palestinian interior roads, the right to get a passport to travel abroad, the right to even take tests to study abroad, or especially the right to create their own government and have internationally recognized boundaries.

Oh, and it was funny that you brushed aside that Haaretz poll. Does it bother you that your citizens don't think that even ISRAELI Arabs should have voting rights?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Chernobyl was caused by techs not reading the failures correctly and a flawed nuclear reactor system. You can not compare a Chernobyl reactor with any reactor built within the last twenty years. Fukushima was also caused by a lot of human faults (ie building on a fault line, not putting the generators that cool the rods on the roof) not to mention a storm of the century. Fukushima was also not a current gen reactor.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[SomePgmr]

I don't understand what the problem is. It's not like oil from the middle east is magically safer and cleaner than oil we get here.

Let's use our own. Put some of our unemployed to work, bring the cost down, avoid the old suppliers as much as is practical, and be working on alternative energy technology in the background until it's a good replacement.

That sounds like a win.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

I find these states equally disgusting as your idea of a special nation for your religion. Why is that hard to grasp? I find most religion a bit disturbing and the idea of creating a nation for one religion to be nothing short of evil. Just by stating this is the nation for those who believe X you have made all those who believe Y second class citizens. Sure you let them vote, or practice religion for now, but once that interferes with the need for your state to be for those who believe in X that will change.

So by what year must a state have been created for it to exist? Are we no longer allowed to create new nations? Should Kurdistan never come to be since it has not yet existed?
Israel did not exist until 1948 so is that the cutoff?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[meta-monkey]

Why can't electricity be produced without fossil fuels?

The problem isn't just production, but storage and transportation as well, especially when we're talking about cars and trucks. Try as we might, it's really, really hard to find something as energy dense, easily transportable and convertible as long chains of hydrocarbons. Build a Mr. Fusion to power my Delorean and now we're talking (although Mr. Fusion only powered the time circuits, I know. Nerds.) Battery technology just isn't a worthwhile replacement. There's only so much lithium, which still has to be mined and processed, and there's the energy costs of building and transporting those new electric cars to replace people's existing cars for which the energy costs are already sunk. And then the batteries only last for about 7 years and have to be replaced, which is (currently) very expensive.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Randle_Revar]

>headache-inducing[citation needed], depression-causing[citation needed], carcinogen-containing[citation really needed] fluorescents

Carcinogens? Really? There appears to be one article in the Telegraph, and a bunch of copies/knock off articles. I am not seeing the actual results of the research anywhere, much less a peer-reviewed paper. I am not seeing any peer-reviewed papers by him in fact. I did find this: http://www.alab-berlin.de/portrait/portrait.html which seems to indicate that he is real person and Alab Labs does exist, but that is about it.

Which isn't to say that their aren't reasons to use alternatives to fluorescent lights. LEDs are more efficient (or can be), and more economical, and daylight is nice when and where you can get it. But "OMG carcinogens!" isn't a valid reason without proving a connection.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

I'm saying it's pointless to create a "Palestine" when the citizens are culturally and ethically Jordanian and Egyptian. They were once Jordanian and Egyptian. Why can't they be again? As for the rest. I got stuff to do now. If you can't figure out for yourself why the Jews need a state of their own...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[meta-monkey]

Yeah, but, you forget the US is also the world's reserve currency. So, the A-rabs give the US their precious natural resources, and the US gives them...I was going to say "worthless pieces of paper we print" but now we don't even do that, it's just 1s and 0s we conjure out of thin air. There's no real cost to using up the rest of the world's oil before using our own. Oh, and you're making the assumption that the costs of alternatives will fall or "other discoveries" will be made. We don't know that to be true, and hedging one's bets is a good idea.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[HornWumpus]

You and sib's miss the GP's point. Sythetic opiods 'Fentanyl' and 'minor regulatory tweaks' (making addiction a prescribeable condition) could crash the world opium market.

I'm guessing the worlds opium exporters have more cash reserves then we have will to pay for Fentanyl for the worlds junkies. According to http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2010/1.2_The_global_heroin_market.pdf heroin use is relatively evenly distributed worldwide. Hard political problem. Rich countries would have to start first. I don't see it happening.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[fustakrakich]

He will never answer the hard questions... The victim card is all he has to play, and he will cop out when the going gets tough.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

During the US Navy's entire history of operating and building modern nuclear reactors, how many accidents did they have?
The answer is: 0

Using the same nuclear technology that is used day to day in our Navy, we can easily switch to pure nuclear energy. The problem is tree hugging garbage like you, so, enjoy the smog, because it is thanks to you that we will continue to burn oil and gas.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[HornWumpus]

The last person out of Detroit should turn off the lights.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CanHasDIY]

I'm not a Christian but I was raised one, so I know when the bible is being misquoted. I'll just take the third quote as one example.

You'll take the third quote because it's the only one that's iffy. Doesn't change the fact that the Christian bible doesn't have a whole lot of nice things to say about Jews, which was quite obviously the point I was making.

Now try and put this hadith in context for me: ""The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)"

Yea, I see that one quoted by bigots a lot.

Sure, there are parts of the Qu'ran that say Muslims should do bad things to other groups... just like there are parts in the Torah telling Jews to cheat and deceive non-believers, and parts in the Christian bible telling men it's OK to rape their own teenage daughters. The difference is, you don't seem to believe that all Jews and all Christians follow such nonsense written in their holiest of books, but do seem to adhere to the belief that all Muslims march in lock-step with the fundies, and that there is no such thing as individual interpretation of their dogma. Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, most Muslims are just normal folks trying to get by day-by-day, and have no time or patience for such silliness as racism. Don't take my word for it, meet some and talk to them.

Here's a quote from the same Wikipedia page you pulled the hadith from:

According to Bernard Lewis, there is nothing in Muslim theology (with a single exception) that can be considered refutations of Judaism or ferocious anti-Jewish diatribes. Lewis and Chanes suggest that, for a variety of reasons, Muslims were not antisemitic for the most part. The Quran, like Judaism, orders Muslims to profess strict monotheism. It also rejects the stories of Jewish deicide as a blasphemous absurdity, and other similar stories in the Gospels play no part in the Muslim educational system The Quran does not present itself as a fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible but rather a restoration of its original message – thus, no clash of interpretations between Judaism and Islam can arise.

I recommend you try reading the whole thing, instead of cherry-picking the particulars that support your bigotted pre-dispositions.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Seraphim_72]

Because oil has a hell of a lot more uses than just fuel. Something has to grease the wheels.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

Maybe they don't want to be Jordanian and Egyptian anymore. Is that so bad? Perhaps they feel defined by their very struggle for a separate state. Again that seems better than fighting.

I can't see why they need a state anymore than anyone else. I see you are unwilling to explain why you feel they do. I would think they could live in any first world country, like many others of the jewish faith do.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[turp182]

This is what Iran is doing now, but not by choice...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[geminidomino]

Fitting, considering the post he was responding to, and it's rather generous definition of "Armageddon."

I still don't understand this 1950s impression that "power plant == bomb."

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CastrTroy]

Yeah, but if you keep saying that year after year the thing never gets built. If, instead, you just start building the thing, even if it takes 20 years, you are that much closer to completion. If you wait around 20 years complaining that it takes 20 years to build, you could have just built the thing, instead of making absolutely no progress for the last 20 years.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[adri]

The Wikipedia article points out that the German PBR was a prototype built in the late 60's and operational until the late 80's. A prototype. Built in an era where we were still getting a clue about this stuff.

Please use that article as an example of incorrect management/use of a prototype of an early technology that we need to evolve a little further. Same as any other early technology.

Instead, read this report, linked off of the Wikipedia article:

http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/handle/2128/3136

That's a much more interesting read than the article.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans. Always looking for the short term profit instead of the long term solution. What a bunch of fatass lazy fucktards.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[geminidomino]

Calling the stuff you buy at Starbucks "coffee" is like calling what you buy at McDonald's "food."

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

We have the technology to replace gasoline with ethanol, but the technology to produce the ethanol itself needs much improvement. As of now the net isn't that great because of how much energy is spent turning plants into ethanol. And we don't have the resources. To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board, every single car on the road. We don't have the resources for that retrofit.

Now, replacing diesel with biodiesel or even straight veggie oil, at least in temperate climates, looks much better. The base fuel is easy to make, engine conversion is relatively cheap, and the fuel can even come recycled from restaurants and food factories. Unfortunately, the "environmentalists" who run California are extremely hostile to diesels.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is the NIMBY's have all but stopped nuclear power. At least gas is 50% better than coal as far as CO2 goes.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning oil has a negative externality which has /never/ been factored into the cost.

With how dependent our current society is on high energy/volume fuels, what is the cost of not using oil for the time being.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ColdWetDog]

It's ... complicated.

Oil from the Alberta Oil Sands mostly goes to the midwest US because there is this nice pipeline that goes - wait for it - between Alberta and the mid US.

Some Canadian politicians and oil companies have proposed a pipeline between central Canada and the west coast to allow for shipments to Asia. That would give the Canadians a better bargaining position for the oil - but cost several billion dollars up front.

What is fungible is the total oil supply. If Canada supplies a whole bunch of crude to US refineries, then Saudi Arabia can sell their crude to China. But local flows of oil are often much more constrained. For example - there are few refineries that can handle the Venezuela Ororco Heavy Crude - has lots of Vanadium in it. So Venezuela has to either build their own refineries or be at the mercy of the two US plants that can handle it.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

And they shouted it with a loud voice in the language of Judah to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to frighten and terrify them, in order that they might take the city.

I haven't checked the other references, but this one is is, as far as I can tell, actually the Northern and Southern kingdoms fight one another. So you are quoting a passage about Jews fighting each other, which has nothing to do with Christians or Muslims.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand what the problem is.

Most politicians are either idiots or ineffective.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why the government should fund it.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm.. and then there is global warming on Mars.

Sure the climate is changing. That is not the debate. The debate is if its mostly man made -- and its not. It is a natural super cycle. Just like Glaciers and everything else. The folks in charge want you to believe it is man made so they can push the "cap and trade" tax crap to somehow "fix it". They already did in California. -- That is what it is really about. Making lots of money at our expense. And they enjoy manipulating you gullable tree huggers in their agenda. They have been working hard on this for over 25 years. its to make you feel like there is "a limited amount of time left and you have to do something" or else.

Man made fossil fuels represent a mere fraction of the CO2 emissions, yet they do contribute. Recent NASA satellite data revealed a fraction of a percent, this because it was able to correlate other man made chemicals in the mix to get a percentage of manufactured waste fuels. When that raw data came out, it was shunned by the mainstream press. That should of been the end of the man made debate. Yes, its hard to believe with all the mainstream press sensationalizing things.

Remember the Mars comment? Its the same thing. Our planet is no different. Its just so hard for people to grasp that the vast majority is not from man, but has been going on since the beginning of earth's history. Remember in history class the "dark ages" and then the "Renaissance". The dark ages turns out was due to a ~150 year period when the earth was much cooler and the crops failed so people starved. Renaissance was just the opposite. -- Its all the history books about the crops and weather. Japan's Massive Tsunami's have been recorded throughout recorded history, yet when it happens in recent time... "OMG Global Warming!". Its the same thing with everything else. Just the frequency varies because its a cycle.

Just look at the long list of notable scientists (read Stanford, MIT,etc ) know that and their work gets ignored and have given up fighting because of the ridicule they get from their colleagues. I was really impressed on Jesse Ventura's Show (as conspiratorial as it is) on how he interviewed key prominent professors on campus from Stanford University and MIT and they told him in so many words "yeah its a bunch of bullshit for money" but we'd be ridiculed to say so. And these guys are chairs of faculty, not some associate fringe professors. Later in the show he uncovers the man who is behind the agenda for the past 25 years and the names of the establishment families who have been funding it. Laughing all the way too. I highly recommend people watch it.

Then you have all the Climategate smear stuff that got uncovered. A lot scientists don't want to have careers ruined to say its not man made. The press wants you to believe that its a few dissident scientists, but that's not what got uncovered by the climate gate fiasco. Hundreds of scientists basically got shunned and learned quickly to get on board or be outcast. History is littered with society forcing people to accept the popular view.

Remember that it used to be called "Global Warming". Then when the seas stopped warming up and receded so they said it switched to "Climate Change". Back in 1979 Time Cover and all over they said the "Ice Age" is coming. Google it for yourself. This game has been going on for decades.

We've had in Earth's past massive volcanic eruptions with CO2 emissions that would of made the earth uninhabitable for various periods in earths history and not just in the early history mind you, this is in recent geologic past. Yet in "inconvenient truth" they claim that the CO2 emissions where never as high historically as what they are now, which is a lie. -- We'd be all dead.

I am all for alternative fuels to limit our environmental footprint, I'd love to put like solar on my roof... but Climate Change is a natural cycle and unfortunately we can't change that. The cap and trade system (which failed in Europe) was about billions of dollars and that will hurt middle class families because the buck will get passed on to them.
 

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what the previous poster meant is that focusing research on this one technology is likely to yield excellent gains.Especially when the theory is sound and the problems are in practical implementation. We won't know if the current technology solves many of these problems if we don't constantly work on it. We may be able to develop the technology if this is an area of focus.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst crisis in the history of nuclear power gave a few thousand people cancer.

A few *million*, you mean, of which a little less than a million died.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[VFA]

Bush the Lesser was an idiot.

You mean he got better?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ColdWetDog]

Chernobyl was caused by techs not reading the failures correctly and a flawed nuclear reactor system. You can not compare a Chernobyl reactor with any reactor built within the last twenty years.

True enough. Nobody else will be batshit insane enough to pull another Chernobyl.

Fukushima was also caused by a lot of human faults (ie building on a fault line, not putting the generators that cool the rods on the roof) not to mention a storm of the century. Fukushima was also not a current gen reactor.

Also true enough. But those self same human faults (economizing, poor planning, poor execution, willful blindness, hubris, arrogance and just plain incompetence) are also seen in the vast majority of other commercial fission plants. Doesn't really have to be - but it is. Reality is a bitch sometimes and until Homo Industrialis can behave a bit better, fission should remain off the table as a major power source.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ColdWetDog]

And, kind sir, can you point out a commercial scale Thorium Cycle power plant for us to inspect?

Don't put your eggs in a basket that exists in the minds of a couple of engineers. Build it, run it for a while and then get back to us.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

We have the technology to replace gasoline with ethanol

forget ethanol, ethanol is a scam to put money into Monsanto's pockets. Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline that is made from any organic material by bacteria. BP and DuPont own a holding company called Butamax which they occasionally use to sue Gevo for having the audacity to try to commercially produce butanol over a bullshit patent they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness.

To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board, every single car on the road. We don't have the resources for that retrofit.

First, that is a lot of horseshit. There's lots of engines out there right now that could run on E100 with an additive. You see them out on the road with a little "flex fuel" icon on the back of them that means they can run on E85, not that you can even get that anywhere, nor should you want to. Second, high-compression and direct-injection engines can be modified by re-jetting or by reprogramming the ECU. And even diesels can be run on E95 (5% gasoline) if their compression is high enough, and they have a turbocharger, with a timing change and some tweaks to the fuel delivery, and of course a lubricity additive. Most any IDI diesel with a turbo will work.

Now, replacing diesel with biodiesel or even straight veggie oil, at least in temperate climates, looks much better. The base fuel is easy to make, engine conversion is relatively cheap, and the fuel can even come recycled from restaurants and food factories.

It looks much better because you haven't done it. Veg oil leads to gumming and coking. Biodiesel is a great solution though, as is "green diesel" which is traditional diesel fuel made from veg oil as a feedstock instead of crude. And you can run on veg if you occasionally run on biodiesel to clean your engine, so it's not actually all bad, it's a real working fuel. But it does decrease service lifetimes of a whole lot of parts, and the blowby (there is always blowby) spoils petro-based crankcase lube over time, and so far I have not managed to locate a source for bio-based diesel-grade engine oil in the USA.

Unfortunately, the "environmentalists" who run California are extremely hostile to diesels.

That is extremely true. They are also fairly hostile to biodiesel; they've recently classified vegetable oil as being something close to gasoline in terms of spill hazard. It's not like it's benign, there are issues, but it's nowhere near that bad.

In any case, you should educate yourself regarding biofuels a bit more before making too many declarative statements about them. You clearly haven't done the research.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[runeghost]

Well, he was at least smart enough to figure out that dropping out of the public eye was the best thing to do after eight years of his "leadership".

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[d3ac0n]

until those externialities are captured in the cost of a barrel of oil, the playing field against clean alternatives is not level. thus the need for subsidies on clean alternatives. because the free market simply cannot handle external costs in a legitimate way.

Except that these "clean" alternatives have externalities of their own which are close to, if not equal to those of the oil industry. More complex ones, and much more difficult to quantify ones, but they are there nonetheless. EVERYTHING has externalities that aren't counted into the cost. This is a fact of life.

So demanding that your preferred form of energy production receive special treatment over other forms because of your personally most hated externality is not only irrational, it entirely undermines your argument in favor of "clean" alternatives.

To wit: The government should simply stay out of it. No repressing or encouraging one form of energy or another. The Market will out the most cost effective and desirable energy supply without government interference.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[SteveDorries]

Oak Ridge National Lab ran a thorium reactor for about five years before they lost funding for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment The only reason we have Uranium based reactors is because we needed them for atomic weapons. Also, I wasn't suggesting that the only power source we'll ever need are LFTRs, just that they make a lot of sense for the majority of power needs, also they have a really neat-o whiz-bang by-product medically useful radio isotopes.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Duhavid]

The Israelis committed terrorist acts until the powers that be threw up their hands and walked away.
They also sent people into the area far in excess of agreed upon quotas ( I will grant you that it was not the Israelis doing the agreeing, but still not legal ).
It is interesting that the people living on the land were not the ones doing the giving, but people living far away.
For myself, if someone in granted someone the land I was living on I would not be terribly happy about that,. "legal" or not.
Yes, a huge number of the Arab Muslims they were living among attacked. That was wrong. So are the current attempts to grab land in the disputed areas.
Personally, I agree that Israel is a great idea. I think trying to paint either side as saints with all the evil attaching to the other side is nonsense.
Which side is more evil? Not a great path to follow, I think. Finding a real way to live together would be better.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[adoll]

> Honest question, do the Canadians give us "special pricing", or do they sell at market rates?

Short answer is "special pricing", for two reasons.

First reason is the "Brent-WTI spread" that makes land-locked oil delivered to Oklahoma (WTI, today= $85.12) cheaper than sea-borne oil (Brent $107.78). Second reason is that a lot of Canada's current exports to the USA are "heavy crude" that trade at a discount to WTI (varies up to $30) because they require extra equipment to process (delayed cokers or hydrotreaters). This equipment is common in refineries near tide-water (Texas gulf coast, for example), but few exist in the US mid-west. The glut of heavy crude in that market has driven down the land-locked price that Canadians get by about $50/bbl.

Most oil in Canada comes from land-locked Alberta and Saskatchewan. Since Canada doesn't have a major pipeline connecting these provinces to the Pacific coast (yet), our American neighbours are getting our oil at a discount to what, for example, Korea would pay.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

How about something that doesn't still cause global warming? (albeit much slower). For the Earth to have a stable temperature, it must radiate heat at the same rate that it absorbs/creates it.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[ColdWetDog]

I think Thorium Cycle deserves a chance - as well as many other forms of tech. I just get annoyed when folks parade a demo device and then posit that it can supply a significant fraction of society's power.

Cf, Pebble Bed reactors. This stuff is really, really hard to do. Rocket science even.

You have to do the engineering....

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, can you go an entire post without constructing a straw liberal to attack? It's really goddamn pathetic.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[SteveDorries]

Well, the thing is, they can. As long as they are given the time and freedom to do it. Right now it's nearly impossible to do anything with Thorium in the USA because of nuclear regulations and that's a real shame because it prevents a very worthy line of research from being pursued and it stops the development of rare earth mining in this country due to the prevalence of Thorium in the rare earth deposits.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Duhavid]

We have known for some time ( Carter presidency at least ) that we need to get off oil.
We don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.

Oil is not at all like milk or meat, it has been sitting underground for a *long* time. It wont spoil.
We should move off oil for energy and save it for plastics/ and/ or leave it down there.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[painandgreed]

They were given that land, legally.

Oh really?? By whom? Some bald headed old white men who didn't own it? If you mean, by legal, with a big gun, you would be right.

Dude, they guys with the guns are who always makes the laws, just ask Mao, thus it was legal.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Plastic is made from fossil fuels, farm vehicles run on fossil fuels, our roads are made from fossil fuels, pesticides and fertilizers are often made from fossil fuel. Ships need it. Diesel electric trains need it.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

"They were given that land, legally"
Cattle-barons and homesteaders were also given land, "legally", that belonged someone else.
Hiding behind the word "legal" is a cheap way to assert that it is right. Just as any of the (tens of) hundreds of people whose homes were taken by emeninent domain in the past 10 years so that some developer could build their field of dreams and/or some pol get re-elected.

For anyone who is not a zionist, you've taken what does not belong to you regardless of how you care to justify it.
You did so because you thought you could get away with it, succumbing to greed bec you believed you were protected by the USA. Without the USA, Israel would just be another mid-east bit-player forced to resolve their differences by accepting a less than hoped-for outcome.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[radtea]

Or maybe it's more like those guys who built a time capsule out of an old salt mine and placed a car and other items so they would be in mint condition and valuable when they opened it after 50 just to find a water source infiltrated the cavern and they were all rust.

Just a nitpick on your information: there's nothing to suggest this car was buried in a salt mine, and a great deal to suggest it was not. Here is a picture of it being unearthed: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/02/07/automobiles/20100207-tulsa_index-2.html

That looks rather more like a concrete vault just below the surface in urban Tulsa than a salt mine, which is not entirely surprising because that is what it is, according to the articles on the subject.

The reason this is important is that salt domes are one of the preferred storage sites for nuclear waste, precisely because they are exceptionally dry environments, so one wouldn't want to even inadvertently give the inaccurate impression that salt mines are somehow at significant risk of water infiltration.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the CIA.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[quax]

Pebble bed reactors may not be the answer, but they are not the only alternative nuclear designs worth investigating.

For instance using an accelerator as neutron source makes for an inherently save reactor. One that can process Thorium as well as reduce the nuclear waste stockpile.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

How much does it cost to clean up all the damage caused by those spills? How much money is made on the oil involved. As far as I can see it costs of cleaning up all the damage is higher than the oil is worth.

You might want to look at test results on contaminants in many of the seafood taken from the gulf. The damage is not gone it is just not easily visible to you anymore. There is still damage and it is being paid for in hospital bills all over the country, lower productivity, direct environmental damage in the gulf area etc.

We need to do a total cost of energy which has the FULL environmental cost of the damage involved and decide on the best source of energy. Right now we have not done that work and our energy policies are reckless.

I am sorry that those jobs have been destroyed however they should probably never come back and people retrained for other jobs. Fossil fuels cost far too much and just punting the problem down the road for someone else to pay for is wrong.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rhakka]

"close or equal to"?

really. wow, that's amazing. I would love to hear more about how the pollution involved with manufacturing solar panels, which will then generate many times their energy of manufacturing over the lifetime of the panels, is somehow "close to, if not equal to" that of, say, burning oil for home heating oil, or as gas in cars, or coal for electricity, including THEIR extraction and refining externialities.

be sure to show your work, cause that's quite a doozy of a statement. It reeks of complete bullshit, actually. How many people per year die of solar panel manufacturing related pollution and manufacturing, vs oil production AND POLLUTION AND USE? do the words "orders of magnitude apart" mean anything? check out "smog related deaths" sometime. it's illuminating. and those are generally just talking about people who actually die from the immediate consequences of smog inhalation. now consider the impact on lung disease as a whole. very small doses of critical thinking are all you need.

markets cannot adjust for externialities in any truly meaningful way without very heavy educational loads, especially for complex questions. it is why a slavish devotion to free market principles is childish and shortsighted. it's a frightfully flawed model if actual human welfare is of concern.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

Does that mean you are okay with no help for solar, wind, coal. oil etc?

That means no military involvement for fossil fuel reasons. That means no money from the state department to help with negotiations to get better deals. That mean no money from the EPA to help any of them with damage they cause. If they do the damage they clean up 100% of the damage. If they cause more damage than their company is worth the company is liquidated and that is the end of them.

What I have seen is many people have said we need to get rid of government in energy and let the market decide but that will only work if the full costs are born by those that do the damage.

That also means that if we can prove that x technology caused y damage then the company pays for that period. So if coal power plants cause cancer they pay for all of that instead of handing that off as someones else problem and that gets factored into the costs of coal. The same for any toxic chemicals used to make solar panels. wind turbines etc.

It should also mean that if your have a foreseeable potential for causing harm that is in excess of the value of the company you should have to carry insurance on that since society should not be picking up the tab if you screw it. To allow companies to risk in excess of what they are worth is just externalizing the cost to the society which market forces don't work with.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Clicked youtube link, was disappointed it wasn't The Battle of New Orleans:

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down,
So we grabbed an alligator an' we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls an' powdered his behind,
An' when they touched the powder off, the 'gator lost his mind.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[mcgrew]

Capitalism is a system of allocating resources, it may in fact be the best one we have. Lets not pretend it is magical.

But it is magical. Not fairy tale magical, but David Copperfield magical -- smoke and mirrors.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[DanielRavenNest]

Once oil is used, it is used, and there is carbon pollution in the atmosphere. It will stay there for 1000 years, and there is no sane way to extract it

Plant lots of trees. Build useful things out of the resulting wood and keep them from rotting.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

It is indeed sad when children are harmed. Both sides in this conflict seem to busy blaming each other to make progress though.

I am blaming all of them.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

It is inevitable that the costs of alternative energy will fall. It is inevitable that other discoveries aiding this will happen. Patents have a far lower time span than the useful oil supplies will. Science doesn't stop just so you can make a dollar 1000 or more years from now. The global warming scare is not going to go away. Most governments even if they pay it lip service, see it as a way to increase control over a population with carbon taxes to fund otherwise unattainable or unmaintainable pet projects, with fines and penalties to assert authority. To force investments into third world countries (kyoto).

Every single time our nation has had a booming economy since 1920, it had cheap energy preceding it and every time that economy slowed, it had high energy costs before it's collapse. Shouldn't we be in charge of our own destiny and take advantage of our own supplies as world demand increases?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

Butanol is a 1:1 replacement for gasoline that is made from any organic material by bacteria.

Interesting, but I can't see us fermenting the amounts we'd need.

First, that is a lot of horseshit. There's lots of engines out there right now that could run on E100 with an additive.

There's being able to run ethanol, and being able to use it efficiently. Ethanol engines can run at a much higher compression ratio than any gasoline engine, making them much more efficient. We're talking 19:1 to get diesel-like thermal efficiency. But in a regular engine, even one considered high-compression such as 12:1, all you're doing is inefficiently using something that has a lower energy content. The flex-fuel engines on the market don't come close to taking advantage of the ethanol, basically giving you the worst of both worlds. The only reason your fueld costs aren't sky high, with the relative milege you get, is the heavy federal subsidies for ethanol.

So, to have a nation-wide fleet of cars that efficiently used ethanol, we'd need brand-new engines across the board.

You should educate yourself regarding engine technology a bit more before making too many declarative statements about it. You clearly haven't done the research.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

The real problem is that the banksters make far too much money off of money laundering to ever let legalization happen. Well over a trillion dollars gets laundered through the US banking system yearly (we're the world's largest money laundry), half of that from drugs. At ten to fifteen percent fees for money washing, legalization would present the banks with a loss of $50-$75 billion/yearly in revenue that is almost pure profit. Money laundering is so profitable that the CEO of the Dow Jones Stock Exchange went to Colombia to solicit the FARC's business, and Clinton's Treasury Secretary went directly from "public service" to CitiCorp's 'Private Banking' (money laundering) division.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

?The reason I didn't respond to all three was that I didn't want to do three times the work. Showing you misinformed once was sufficient in my mind and those who want to read the other quotes in context -- great. Jesus was a Jew, after all, so it's hard to say Christianity is anti-Semitic.

As for your accusations about the talmud... I read that often on Islamic and white supremacist sites. The problem is most Islamists and neo-facists get their information about Jews from the Qur'an or equally fallible sources. For example, the Quran says Jews are deceptive and so forth. Here is what the talmud actually says about deceiving gentiles.

As for the hadith I quoted that you think is only quoted by bigots. I'm glad you agree, since it's in Hamas's charter and regularly quoted by Fatah as well as more or less everywhere else in the middle east. I'm glad you think such is bigotry. Why, then, do you expect Israel to negotiate and make concessions to such bigots when they have made no shows of good faith? Stop the settlements? They did that for a year. Didn't help at all. Withdrew from Gaza, they turned it into a base to fire tens of thousands of rockets from. No. Not all Muslims are like this, but the fact remains this is part of their doctrine

Christianity is homophobic and sexist. Those Christians who claim to practice their religion but refuse to condemn homosexuality (and relegate women to second class citizenship in church) are indeed hypocrites, as are the Christians who ignore Jesus's commands to turn the other cheek when confronted with violence. So then are Muslims who remain peaceful despite the very clear calls in their religion to violent Jihad (literally, struggle, but used almost without exception to refer to warfare). Read Sura 9 and tell me the Qur'an is peaceful because clearly it's you who hasn't read one. This doesn't mean all Christians are homophobic or all Muslims are violent but when they behave in such manners I DO indeed blame the religion. They're merely following the immutable commandments set forth by their infallible sky fairy, and because of abrogation in Islam, it will never, ever, mature into something relatively benign like the other religions.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

Ahh.. But Carter only had an embargo pushing the need to get off oil. Now we have this scary, you are all going to die climate change driving it. Instead of it being an experiment in space age technology under carter to deal with mean oil producing nations who didn't want to sell it to us, we are dealing with the Stephen King like monster in the dark waiting to sneak up and steal your children in much worse ways then the boogerman.

Oil will lose it's value. It will lose it quickly too. This is because alternative energy will become cheaper in not more then 20-30 years. We saw an upsurge in solar and wind development when the patents from the carter experiment ran out, we will see another when the current crop disappears.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Agent0013]

To wit: The government should simply stay out of it. No repressing or encouraging one form of energy or another. The Market will out the most cost effective and desirable energy supply without government interference.

I am mostly a minimal government guy. I would rather they stop messing with as much as they do. They mostly just screw it up and cost too much in taxes. But the other day I heard a pretty good point on the radio. The new forms of sustainable energy (solar panels, etc.) will take a while before they become economical. During that time, if we aren't putting in the research into making them better and more cost effective we will be out of the race. So 20 years from now, oil is so expensive that we all use wind and solar and whatever else to make electricity to run everything. The panels and wind generators will end up being made by Chinese companies because their government paid for their companies to create those products. The business world is only interested in something if it can generate a profit in the next quarter or two. A couple decades out is way too far for our business environment to wait.

Perhaps the "free market" is the way we should go. We might pull something out at the last minute or we might be a third world country at that point with all the latest and greatest made elsewhere. It's gone that way already with most manufacturing, but we still seem to be at the top of the computing world. Good thing the government invested in all that computing and internet stuff back in the day.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anne Thwacks]

That, and Scientology never supported polygamy

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

I've always been told it was a salt mine. There are a lot of them in the area of the country. However, I do not know it was a salt mine for sure and only posted the first article I found on it. It very well could be a concrete vault and looks like it was with a second search on the topic.

I agree, it is important for the reasons you mentioned.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[davydagger]

"fundamentalist lunatics focus on Israel rather than on us."

bull fucking shit they do. They focus on us because of our support for Israel.

Real ally?? what were they doing to help the invasions of Iraq and Afganistan????

All they seem to do is eat 2 billion in foreign aid, and prevent any serious attempt we have at diplomacy in the reigon.

Don't say they share our values either, and they are NOT the only democracy.

Our unflitching support for Israel is why the rest of the reigon is at best suspicious of us.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Psyborgue]

i like your sig.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Eightbitgnosis]

Or you run out of funding in the middle of production because you're lost in a sea of red tape.

All a person can do is weigh the projected gain of building such a reactor against the cost and risk. So far everyone in a position to do so seems to think it isn't worth the risk; as they haven't tried to build one.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

Actually Semite is a language category, so even Ethiopians are 'semitic' people. That doesn't stop Israel from prohibiting the entry of Ethiopian Jews or treating Ethiopian immigrants like crap, of course.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Agent0013]

It just like the child that was abused. When they grow up, they become the abuser of their own children.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Duhavid]

Wasnt the embargo and the turmoil in the middle east bad enough?
Leaving climate change out, there are sufficient adverse effects that we as thinking ( supposedly ) creatures should be considering moving off oil.
Alternative energy really should be farther along, if we were reasoning about these things. The market is good at many things, but avoiding disaster is not one of them. By far ( re: 2008 meltdown, etc, et al ).

The trend for oil prices is up currently, you have a point that if alternatives start to make a difference, those prices will fall.
Keep in mind that the limit on patent duration as time increase approaches infinity ( from all I see ).

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Agent0013]

So you use the electricity to turn CO2 and water into long chains of hydrocarbons. We have the technology to do this. In fact, I read it here an /. not too long ago.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

So David Ben Guiron and Moshe Dyan were lying about their deliberate program of ethnic cleansing? So your own official history and the military archives of the IDF are wrong? Rather surprised to hear you take that position.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

Actually, if 100 percent of the arable land in the Untied States were planted with biofuel crops the US would be able to replace just the gasoline it uses in a year. Not nearly the full amount of transportation fuels, much less that used for home heating and industrial processes.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[meta-monkey]

Perhaps, but then you extract the energy from them by burning them, so then you've got that whole "greenhouse gas" thing everybody's talking about.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

My understanding is that actually there's a LOT of lithium, it's just in places where the mega-corps don't want to invest, like Bolivia, because the profits will go towards helping real people rather than corporate executives. The nice thing about mining lithium in Bolivia is that it's in a huge desert salt flat with essentially no biosphere to fuck up. Bolivia is having a bit of trouble getting financing because of their insistence on things like worker safety and that the majority of profits go towards human needs rather than shareholder dividends.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

Of course there's always #3, the population crashes and we use less fossil fuel because we need less. Probably a combination of #2 and #3, since fertilizers and pesticides are made from fossil fuels, and without the massive energy inputs from cheap oil our agricultural system collapses.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cavreader]

"Fossil fuels cost far too much and just punting the problem down the road for someone else to pay for is wrong."

We have spent the last 100+ years addicting ourselves to fossil fuels. We can not just stop procuring oil and gas and hope something better comes along before rising scarcity causes cost increases capable of tumbling the world economy. The most efficient electric or other alternative energy powered car could come out tomorrow and we would still need to use oil to keep all the current fossil fueled cars working. We will still need to use heating oil and gas in houses. Switching over to alternative energy of any kind will require massive infrastructure changes that will take years to enact. We will also need to create and bring online the new alternative energy infrastructure in parallel with the existing energy infrastructure.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cayenne8]

You might want to look at test results on contaminants in many of the seafood taken from the gulf.

LA Gulf seafood, is the single most tested seafood there is...and it gets A+++ rating and completely safe. It came back clean very quickly after the cleanup.

Most of the work in the immediate gulf area is either seafood, or oil production and refining....

We got the seafood back...Obama and crew have artificially held back the renewal of oil drilling...even with increased oversight.

It isn't like the US or the rest of the world is going to be able to get off oil anytime in the next couple decades at least...so, let us get back to work doing what we do for the country.....the feds shouldn't really have much at all to say about what WE do off OUR coast to begin with....

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

You cut and paste this pile of malarky in every thread where global warming is mentioned. Just shut the fuck up and go away until you have something worthwhile to post.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CanHasDIY]

It is indeed sad when children are harmed. Both sides in this conflict seem to busy blaming each other to make progress though.

I am blaming all of them.

Funny thing is, when you talk to actual Israeli's and Palestinians, neither group wants to blame the other, or cause the other harm - they all just want to be able to co-exist peacefully.

Seems men of power are the only ones who insist on bloodshed. Funny, that...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[VanessaE]

Three words: Cut the Military.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Magius_AR]

It will stay there for 1000 years, and there is no sane way to extract it.

"Human beings will never fly either" -some guy in the year 1012

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

As of now the net isn't that great because of how much energy is spent turning plants into ethanol.

This is only true when you confuse the word plant with the word corn as is common in the US. In places like Brazil where they've expanded the definition of plant to include sugar, it significantly less true.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

Keep in mind that while hydrogen, solar, etc. can replace petroleum for some uses, for others like fertilizers, plastics, pesticides and the like there is not other replacement on the horizon. When asked in the 1970s why Iran wanted nuclear power when it had all that oil the Shah replied, "Petroleum is much too valuable to burn." (Possibly the only opinion he ever held that I agree with.)

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cusco]

He says, how about letting the gulf states that take the risks, completely oblivious to the simple fact that it was the rest of us who paid for the majority of the cleanup. If the gulf states weren't run by a bunch of fucktards whose only interest was which hand was putting money in their pocket I might agree with him, but since they still insist on doing stupid things like rebuilding coastal cities that are below sea level and allowing chemical companies to self-report releases (and then claim the lower number of spills reported as an environmental success) I don't have a whole lot of confidence in their ability to keep a regional disaster confined to their region much less clean up after one.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the CIA.

Damn those time-travelling CIA agents going back in time and causing the schism between Sunni and Shia back 1400 years ago or so.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to do the engineering....

IIRC, the issues with LFTRs is less engineering and more metallurgy and business model development. The metallurgy issue should be simpler...they just need to find a substance that can stand up to molten salt at the temperatures inside the reactor without corroding as quickly as, IIRC, graphite does...replacing the internals of a reactor every 2 weeks is expensive and makes them an unreliable power source.

The business model problem may be harder to solve. Traditional reactors can be built fairly cheaply by companies that are willing to make little-to-no profit on the initial construction and, instead, make their money on lucrative enriched fuel contracts. This allows power companies to just price that cost into the cost of the energy they sell their customers. But Thorium is too abundant and doesn't need any complicated enrichment process. So companies attempting to make money on reactors will have to front-load all their profits during the construction phase and power companies will need to come up all the money up-front. Over the 30+ year lifespan of the reactor, Thorium would almost certainly be much cheaper per TWh, but it's a much harder sell as a near-term solution.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Agent0013]

But they are the same greenhouse gasses that were removed from the air to make the hydrocarbons. In the end it is carbon neutral.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

We responded to the embargo by exploring for oil in south America and third world countries we could reasonable control because the alternative energy was too expensive and inefficient. Climate change, despite it's hijacking to politically solve some of the problems created there, is something rooted deeper the political rhetoric that will persist long after we find other sources of oil.

The biggest reason we are not off oil now or further along is because the rules changed in the 1980's and the universities using federal monies for scientific research can get patents along with some of the people working on the technology. This kind of put alternative energy in much the same boat as LCD displays in which no much was done with it until the patents ran out because the cost of licenses were more then oil. Now we are in the same boat, licensing and several other factors like living wages and so on are making it too expensive for competitive use. Once the patents expire this time, there will be a lot more development improving existing properties.

The trend for oil prices is up currently, you have a point that if alternatives start to make a difference, those prices will fall.
Keep in mind that the limit on patent duration as time increase approaches infinity ( from all I see ).

I don't entirely disagree with this. Oil will fall in price as it is replaced. This will make our harder to get at and exploit sources that much less economical in the future. But what you are not considering is that we cannot explore our way out of or wait out the hostilities with climate change like we did the embargo. Whether climate change is real or not or man made, an inevitable truth is that it will persist, claims and the fears derived from it will persist, and it will drive alternative energy research and advancements that will eventually make oil less economical then traditional sources of energy. Eventually, it will reach a point where it costs more to pump the oil for energy use and it will be relegated to chemicals like plastics (if a replacement for that isn't found first).

Also, the patents aren't the parts increasing in time.. I think your looking at copyright and trademarks. Patents currently carry a 20 year term with an extension someone can file for adding 10 or 20 years. And that's if some enterprising politician doesn't create an exception for whatever device saves us from whatever fear and scare concern we are subject to at the time.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[sumdumass]

Yeah, but what is the requirement for usage in those industries compared to being used as an energy source. I don't think it is even close to being the same. The last time I checked, only about 18% of a barrel of oil went to chemical feedstock and the rest ended up being used for energy related endeavors.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you've got more BS and strawmen than Kansas.

Care to back any of that up with some sort of a citation? Thought not. Dumb asses like you are why we can't have nice things. The reason why there are still so many folks without power is that the storm was fucking huge. The reason for the fatalities was people refusing to leave during the evacuation order. That has nothing to do with where people normally live, it has to do with the fact that they didn't have any sense.

Also, compared with the deaths caused every year by honor culture, the death toll from liberal stupidity is actually pretty low.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Fusion is 50 years away. Artificial intelligence is just around the corner. Mitts going to win in a landslide. No end to hubris.

Can we have a responsible attitude please?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[hackwrench]

So, how in your view does Israel treat the Palestinians?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[gmhowell]

Because oil has a hell of a lot more uses than just fuel. Something has to grease the wheels.

The squashed remains of the 47% should do nicely. Isn't that how the Egyptians greased the skids while building the pyramids? As it was, so ever will it be.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[hackwrench]

So I think would most Israelis if it weren't for the fact that after that happened the Palestinians would still be trying to kill Jewish Israelis. As prroof, there are already Arab Israeli with representation in the Knesset. Google Arab Knesset.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with "clean" energy proponents is that they make sacred cows out of their favorite energy sources and lose site of the big picture. Lithium batteries currently in production don't come close to gasoline in terms of energy density. While some people develop better batteries, others develop better gasoline engines and cleaner ways to burn coal.

If you add to the equation environmental impact of manufacturing and disposal of lithium batteries, the whole situation becomes much less certain. Take for example high efficiency fluorescent lamps, - they all are filled with mercury. I can pretty much guarantee that most people throw burnt out lamps into regular garbage, so all that mercury ends up in our landfills.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[volmtech]

But how do you stop war spending when millions of jobs, and votes, depend on military spending? lf the nation seems weak and is attacked that would be incredibly expensive. How much military do we need?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

You should educate yourself regarding engine technology a bit more before making too many declarative statements about it. You clearly haven't done the research

I didn't say shit about efficiency, which is why your cockiness isn't warranted. I said ethanol was shit, and that it was stupid to use it. I said you could make the engines run on it. You said you couldn't. Now you're moving the goalposts to "oh, you could do it but it would be inefficient". Well, I have news for you, you're full of shit my laddo. Also, butanol has already been shown practical, which is why BP and DuPont's shell company Butamax has sued Gevo to prevent them from going into commercial production, as I said above. Stop being such a disingenuous douchebag.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you are so full of shit.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[GLMDesigns]

The price per Kilowatt of photovoltaic cells have been dropping steadily for 30 years. Extrapolating it forward (as we do with Moore's law) shows that in the not too distant future solar energy will be competitive with oil. In the meanwhile should we send money and jobs abroad (often to hostile countries) or keep it local. Unfortunately there is a political aspect to this.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[GLMDesigns]

Electricity can be produced without fossil fuels - but look at the graph it will take a few more years before that is possible. It's not simply a matter of "spending more money." Technology can be impeded by a lack of funds but more (an excess of) funds don't necessarily provide more results.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[PapayaSF]

Opium wars go father back than petrol wars.

Maybe not: The 'Judaicum bitumen' is a famous deposit of native asphalt seeping through diapirs at the bottom of the Dead Sea, which comes occasionally to the surface through seismic activity in blocks of up to 100 tons in weight which are more than 99.99% pure. It was the object of the first known battle for a hydrocarbon deposit, between the Seleucids and the Nabateans in 312 B.C.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

Those should be factored into the costs as well. We need to base decisions on the best data we have available and change whenever new information is available.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

So I suppose we have to just keep spending even increasing amounts on war spending? Just a never ending spiral of costs that don't really help our economy in the end?

We can cut back a lot and still not be weak. We can invest in infrastructure, education, high tech manufacturing that has a better payback. Even the military has proposed budget cuts for itself that would leave it more combat effective than it is now. Most of the money is just wasted on defense contractors.

This is also not based on votes. In the end ideology loses to reality and the longer you take to make those changes the more it costs and the more damage it does. We need to make the decisions purely based on data, as data changes so does the decision.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Ambassador Kosh]

I did not say we should just stop cold but if you never make attempts to change at all you won't get anywhere and the problem just keeps getting worse.

One way or another we have to make these changes since oil can't keep up with the ever increasing demands for energy. We also can't keep up wasting so much energy from things like poor insulation.

We need to work on making changes. Better insulation would be a very good start since that helps regardless of the source of energy. In areas where it makes sense we can deploy new solar and wind technology plants. We can work on building newer and safer nuclear reactors. We can refit existing fossil fuel sources to make them cleaner.

There is no one solution to fix everything.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[a_hanso]

I'd say drill now. Make the middle east irrelevant. Then we'll have fewer reasons to go to war there or meddle in their affairs. They'll have less money to sponsor terrorism and totalitarianism with.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[a_hanso]

Oh, and Venezuela will just be a bonus.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[tehcyder]

I think it's sad when the first post is by an obvious oil company shill with the intellectual capacity of a Creationist saying "but evolution's not true, it's only a theory!"

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[tehcyder]

I think of all responses to the apparent truth of AGW, the "there's nothing we can do about it anyway" one is the most depressing and dishonest.

I almost prefer the people who flat out deny the reality, since at least their refusal to do anything about it is logical (in the sense that a paranoid schizophrenic shooting himself in the face to silence the voices in his head is logical.)

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rtb61]

Nuclear is also far safer than fracking especially when it comes to extracting that shale oil. Basically a minority a fully planning on toxifying the whole of the US, extracting the profits and moving to Australia.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

I said you could make the engines run on it. You said you couldn't.

No, I said "To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board" which is true. PROPERLY. Using current engines is grossly inefficient and a waste of natural resources. Aren't we supposed to be saving those? We also don't have the resources to replace all existing engines. I can't be moving the goalposts and still be where I started.

which is why BP and DuPont's shell company Butamax has sued Gevo to prevent them from going into commercial production

Butamax is suing because Gevo is a competing company supposedly using their technology. BOTH are trying to bring butanol to market in large quantities. Butamax already has several ethanol plants signed on to convert to butanol. But to you they're evil because they're backed by an oil company. Reality check -- oil companies don't exit to make oil, they exist to make a profit, even if it is from alternative energy sources (especially with those sweet subsidies).

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

No, I said "To properly use ethanol, we need new engines across the board" which is true. PROPERLY

Well, you're wrong again; to properly use ethanol, we need a new source that isn't based on oil and topsoil. As long as it is, using ethanol is a horrible thing to do.

Butamax is suing because Gevo is a competing company supposedly using their technology. BOTH are trying to bring butanol to market in large quantities

That's funny, Gevo was actually producing it, and Butamax isn't. Gevo didn't sue Butamax until Butamax sued Gevo, we call that a countersuit and it's the only viable response to a patent suit in today's legal landscape.

But to you they're evil because they're backed by an oil company

Uh no, BP and DuPont have both proven that they are evil time and again. And if you ask for examples, you're even more disingenuous than I could have possibly imagined.

Reality check -- oil companies don't exit to make oil, they exist to make a profit, even if it is from alternative energy sources

BP is already making a profit from oil. They'd rather keep altfuels from going forward for as long as possible so they can make as much money as possible from that, and also prevent legitimate competition in the market through patent system abuse so that when the people do finally demand biofuels, which we can do simply by buying them (switch to diesel, buy biodiesel, this will lead to a gasoline replacement in short order) they get the largest possible piece of the pie. But I for one do not want BP and DuPont in charge of biofuels, because they are sleazy scumbag corporate criminals which have willfully polluted the planet that I live on time and time again in pursuit of more zeros.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[aicrules]

We're just moving it to a different part of the environment. It was still there.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[h4rr4r]

If that were true were are all the combatants on both sides coming from? Clearly at least some of the population supports these activities.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[cavreader]

Alternative energy production is being pursued. I work for an engineering firm that specializes in control systems for oil and gas pipelines and we have had to add both bio and solar energy specialists to work with some of our new and existing clients. Everything from bio-fuel, solar panels, and solar mirror technology is being investigated and test projects are being built. It's just that the conversion from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources will take a long time. It's taken 100+ years just to get the current gas and oil delivery and refining infrastructure in place to adequately service the country. It may take another 100+ years to transition to a different energy environment.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[vandamme]

Solar DHW heating technology was available 25 years ago, when I designed and built one.
I guess I'm a "Green Conservative", not a "Red Meat Conservative". Hey, I just coined a phrase.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

not to mention a storm of the century

Shut up. The only thing that storm and tsunami have in common is water. If you're going to participate in a scientific discussion at least have the god damn courtesy of watching Discovery Channel occasionally (since reading probably isn't your thing either).

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Hazelfield]

Because if we save that botle of milk long enough, it won't be worth drinking.

And that, in this case, would be the best thing that could happen.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[CanHasDIY]

If that were true were are all the combatants on both sides coming from?

Fringe lunatics and government lapdogs.

Personally, I'm of the mentality that crazy fringe loonies are an extreme minority - they just get a lot of attention because they're loud, obnoxious, and thus, impossible to ignore.

Clearly at least some of the population supports these activities.

Well, sure, some do - some folks here in the US of A support the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, but neither they nor their supporters represent Americans as a whole.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[bhiestand]

Do you have a good source on the "not net"? My understanding has been that it's still a huge net emission because of all the petrol used in farming, fertilizer, harvesting, etc. But I don't have solid sources on that and could well be wrong or misinterpreting something.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

Do you have a good source on the "not net"? My understanding has been that it's still a huge net emission because of all the petrol used in farming, fertilizer, harvesting, etc. But I don't have solid sources on that and could well be wrong or misinterpreting something.

It's that way if you use some totally idiotic feedstock like soy or corn or rape. But if you grow algae on seawater (we clearly have the technology to pump liquids across nations) then you can use wind and/or solar to keep the water going around in a circle, harvesting is a flushing process, et cetera. And it's easy to find the citations that show that we have enough unused land under the "care" of the bureau of land management to pull it off. They mine coal, they drill for oil, but they expect an environmental impact report for solar, so getting biodiesel-from-algae is not. going. to. happen. But we have the technology, we proved it at Sandia NREL in the 1980s, and it's also part of a carbon capture program for coal plants and can capture up to 80% of the CO2 output from coal-into-electricity, which effectively makes it carbon-negative, or reduces the carbon output of burning coal, I frankly don't care how you put it as it's a good thing either way.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

Well, you're wrong again; to properly use ethanol, we need a new source that isn't based on oil and topsoil.

Even if it's made from unicorn shit, usage of ethanol is bad in even high-performance gasoine engines because it is a waste of ethanol. Might as well bring back the old inefficient pushrod V8 engines and run them on premium gas.

That's funny, Gevo was actually producing it, and Butamax isn't.

Butamax has produced too. It's a standard corporate catfight for dominance of a nascent industry. It is not the mythical 100 mpg carburetor the oil companies bought and shelved like you're trying to portray. If Butamax gets its way, the market will be flooded with butanol, just THEIR butanol so they make the profit and get the subsidies.

Uh no, BP and DuPont have both proven that they are evil time and again

A lot of companies, governments and even environmental organizations have shown their evil. So? If we eliminate all, nothing gets done.

BP is already making a profit from oil.

Yes, and with government and public pressure, and the vast subsidies available, they'd like to be making money in biofuels too. The writing is on the wall for oil, and at some point the market won't bear what they need to charge to maintain profit. Artificial price supports that harm the taxpayer will no longer be needed to keep biofuels affordable relative to gasoline, and the laws of economics that keep gasoline popular now will turn people to biofuels. They are looking at the long-range profitability of the corporation, not some evil plot.

and also prevent legitimate competition in the market through patent system abuse

If Butamax invented it, and Gevo copied it, then that's an unethical use of another's idea to unfairly get Gevo ahead in the marketplace.

But I for one do not want BP and DuPont in charge of biofuels

Too bad. If they invent the technology and invest in the infrastructure, then they deserve to be major players in the industry. Your opinion seems to be based on hatred of these companies rather than an actual desire to see the progress of biofuels.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rhalstead]

It's also simple to understand. The average human...OK, most humans are completely clueless about anything technical or scientific. Cell phones: Try and explain to anyone on the street that they are just a fancy, lower powered transmitter and receiver. They still don't/can't understand why any receiver that covers those frequencies can her them. They don't understand how a car works, or that "so far" bio fuels are many times the cost of fossil fuels and often take more energy to create than we can get out of them. The USAF is using a mix of bio fuel and Jet fuel on an experimental basis that runs about $15 a gallon plus a great big subsidy. They don't understand that even if we could make batteries that would drive a car 400 miles we don't have the electrical grid capacity to charge many of them, or more than a small fraction of the number of cars on the road were they to become electric cars. Skip the electrical grid explanations or how a class X10 CME could possible result in millions of deaths because we are so dependent on technology. Again it's over their heads and someone is bound to call it a conspiracy. They figure just replace the transformers that burn out. Of course they don't understand why we don't have spares for all of them or couldn't just wind more, neglecting the point the equipment to service and rewind transformers doesn't work without the grid. Then try to explain that some pretty advanced civilizations may have existed more than 10,000 years ago, which was just after the end of the last ice age. Those would be fighting words. So, "back in the day" we had groups who associated anything nuclear with "the bomb". The movie "China Syndrome" didn't help the truth, and we had many "radicals" (and still do) who are just plain "anti-nuclear" because it's not normal. There are always those who can find the worst possible scenario (no matter how unlikely) and then blow it all out of proportion. We need to remember the conspiracists who see conspiracies behind every new project and the main stream news that blows anything newsworthy all out of proportion just adds fuel to the fire. That mainstream news is taken as the Gospel by most people without degrees in science or technology and when their proven wrong the "anti whatever" groups jump on it. Its a wonder we have as many scientifically literate people as we do.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[rhalstead]

Do you man those same codes that were hacked in Obama's office (white house) a few months ago? Isn't it comforting to know how well protected they were. Then we have the UN wanting to eliminate private ownership of firearms. Yet, the figures I read show everywhere private ownership was eliminated, violent crime went up about 30%. There is a problem with obtaining nuclear fuel, as currently we purchase a substantial amount of weapons grade material from Russia and convert it into fuel. Of course breeder reactors would eliminate that problem, but it's been deemed to dangerous to make that kind of material, even though we import many, many tons of the stuff With the public hysteria I'd be surprised if we ever build another fission reactor. Remember most of our congress critters know no more about science than the man on the street. And there's always the conspiracy theory of abundant, cheap power not being implemented because with the people getting cheap power the corporations won't get rich. Of course they neglect that the oil companies only make a few cents per gallon on gas and then complain about their huge profits. . Cheap electricity would be the same way. It'd open doors for more and better technology, never mind that we don't have enough power grid to cope with much of an increase of electric cars. Then someone points out the dangers from all those magnetic fields from those power lines...and so it goes. If some one does come up with a practical, clean, economically viable alternative fuel, the big corporations will be using that technology as soon as they can get it. If you want something energy intensive, just look at the semiconductor industry. AFAIK they use more energy per gram, Ounce, pound, or what ever unit you wish to use of product than any other industry.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[bhiestand]

Ahh, yeah, I knew I was missing something. I'm so used to people talking about corn or soy when they discuss biofuels... I completely forgot about algae.

Agreed on the double standards for coal vs. renewables. Leveling mountains is OK, but I've seen a few wind projects stalled over environmental concerns :|

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

Ahh, yeah, I knew I was missing something. I'm so used to people talking about corn or soy when they discuss biofuels... I completely forgot about algae.

Well, I hate to come on all conspiracy theorist, but only because it automatically harms your credibility whether there's something to what you say or not. That's how the major media outlets reshape debate. They repeat something stupid so much that it becomes the de facto topic of discussion, and anything else then sounds strange. Major energy companies think they have ways to profit from hydrogen so they still want to push us in that direction, and now I'm seeing articles about natural gas as the road to hydrogen? Well, that's true already, in that we get our hydrogen from natural gas...

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[robsku]

Why is it those who complain about nuclear power plants never bat an eye at the ~4000 nuclear warheads aimed at people all over the world, ready to do harm with the press of a button, held in place with the same failsafes they deem insufficient?

They don't?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but why nuclear? Why not something that doesn't have the chance, however remote, of causing armageddon?

Because modern nuclear doesn't have even a remote chance of causing armageddon. The worst crisis in the history of nuclear power gave a few thousand people cancer. The second worst crisis has killed or injured almost nobody, although caused a lot of inconvenience in the area no doubt. No other nuclear failure has caused any health problems worth mentioning, and the ones whose failures were costly to clean up were old, and would not be produced in this day and age.

Nuclear power is the safest energy source per TWh, bar none. Wind power is more deadly.

Modern nuclear can also process existing nuclear waste, which seems like a bit of a win.

Shut up. All bringing up nuclear power does is remind everyone that most people are superstitious morons.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

Might as well bring back the old inefficient pushrod V8 engines and run them on premium gas.

There's nothing inefficient about pushrods. The Chevy LS-series engines not only use pushrods, but they use only two valves per cylinder, and their efficiency is as good as the plastic fantastic DOHC engines, better than many in fact. Keep trying, you'll find something accurate to say eventually.

Butamax has produced too

They have never even tried to produce fuel on a commercial basis, only test batches.

If Butamax gets its way, the market will be flooded with butanol, just THEIR butanol so they make the profit and get the subsidies

If they were producing fuel on a commercial basis, you would have a point.

If Butamax invented it, and Gevo copied it, then that's an unethical use of another's idea to unfairly get Gevo ahead in the marketplace.

Butamax didn't invent it, Butanol is older than you or I. And neither BP nor DuPont did the obvious work they hold the patent on, which was actually done at a public university, and partially with the funds of The People. Your argument is just as disingenuous as the rest of your arguments.

If they invent the technology and invest in the infrastructure

They did not invent the technology nor invest in the infrastructure.

then they deserve to be major players in the industry

Who told you that? The god of the invisible hand?

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Joce640k]

Building things that take 20 years to until they're operational and properly permitted is financially dangerous

As compared to wars...which have no financial "danger" because you know exactly where the money will end up.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Eightbitgnosis]

Wars do have financial dangers, but also financial gains. Wars seem to pay off greater with less risk than nuclear plants to those who have control over this level of spending.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

Keep trying, you'll find something accurate to say eventually.

It's about the octane. Running high-octane fuel in an old low-compression engine is a waste of the fuel. This is because the high octane allows for higher compression ratios, which allows for engines with much higher thermal efficiency. Pure ethanol is extremely high octane, and can run high-efficiency engines that would blow up if used with gasoline. I'm talking about thermal efficiencies of 50%, where even the most highly efficient gas engines on the market run in the late 30s. See the waste of using ethanol in a regular, or even flex-fuel engine?

They have never even tried to produce fuel on a commercial basis, only test batches.

Oh no, company runs test batches to perfect the technology and entice ethanol plants to sign on to the process by showing it works. The horrors!

If they were producing fuel on a commercial basis, you would have a point.

Gevo is only producing in limited quantities too, just barely went beyond its test plant. Butamax's business model is different, selling the tech to other companies that already run ethanol plants. They already have far more capacity lined up than Gevo can hope to get any time soon.

And neither BP nor DuPont did the obvious work they hold the patent on, which was actually done at a public university

Irrelevant. They own the patent. If it is valid, then that means Gevo, the company you hold up as the opposite of evil, was cheating to get to market first.

Who told you that? The god of the invisible hand?

So, they have the technology, will probably end up producing hundreds of millions of gallons a year with their partners, far more than anyone else, and you think they should not be major players just because you don't like them?

What you have is simply two competing companies in the same marketplace, both trying to profit by bringing product to market. It is idiotic and paranoid to think Butamax is suing Gevo only to prevent widespread butanol usage.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[drinkypoo]

Irrelevant. They own the patent. If it is valid, then that means Gevo, the company you hold up as the opposite of evil, was cheating to get to market first.

On its face, the patent never should have been granted, because it was something you would obviously do.

So, they have the technology, will probably end up producing hundreds of millions of gallons a year with their partners, far more than anyone else, and you think they should not be major players just because you don't like them?

Show me the production. Gevo has tried to engage in commercial production and been stopped. Butamax has not tried to engage in commercial production. It's called put up or shut up. A corporation which is owned by two proven evil corporations promising to do something is not really interesting to me except as a threat.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Quila]

On its face, the patent never should have been granted, because it was something you would obviously do.

In your opinion. You may be right, may be not. That's why we have this process. Gevo is backed by the megacorporation Virgin Group, so this isn't the poor little guy getting squashed.

Butamax has not tried to engage in commercial production.

Gevo's business plan is to buy plants and convert them. A few years ago, both only had their pilot projects. Gevo just barely went beyond that recently with their first commercial scale plant (easier to do using stolen technology and converting your own plants). Butamax has a different business model, getting ethanol producers to switch to butanol using their technology. Having the weight of BP and DuPont behind it, they have the potential to get far more butanol flowing than the single company Gevo could hope to produce itself.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it those who complain about nuclear power plants never bat an eye at the ~4000 nuclear warheads aimed at people all over the world, ready to do harm with the press of a button, held in place with the same failsafes they deem insufficient?

Burning oil is stupid. We should be developing nuclear technologies as fast as we can. Instead we'll wait for the oil to be gone.. but I hope we don't wait until we need to use those warheads over oil reserves. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

Why is it those who complain about nuclear power plants never bat an eye at the ~4000 nuclear warheads aimed at people all over the world, ready to do harm with the press of a button, held in place with the same failsafes they deem insufficient?

Burning oil is stupid. We should be developing nuclear technologies as fast as we can. Instead we'll wait for the oil to be gone.. but I hope we don't wait until we need to use those warheads over oil reserves. Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony?

Xtal: While I agree with you regarding the further development of nuclear technologies (see www.flibe-energy.com), I've lost count of the number of people like you who keep associating oil imports with electricity generation. If you look at the federal governments energy information website (www.eia.gov) and check the pie chart there, you will notice that only about 1% of all our generated electricity is produced with crude oil. That leaves the vast majority of our crude oil supplies to be refined for transportation purposes (gasoline and diesel) as well as for producing chemicals and artificial materials. More nuclear will not have any meaningful effect on our crude oil imports unless we use the excess heat from them to produce synthetic oil from coal and NG on a fairly large scale. Perhaps that is what you are talking about when you associate oil imports with nuclear? The technology to produce synthetic crude from coal and NG has been around for decades now (Nazi Germany used it in WWII). All we have to do is decide to put forth the money, material and effort to start doing it--which is a LOT easier said than done.

But again, I agree with you about developing more nuclear.

Re:It's a sad sign of the times

[epp_b]

Nuclear power is the safest [nextbigfuture.com] energy source [forbes.com] per TWh, bar none. Wind power is more deadly.

And do you have any links citing death-by-windmill?

Awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe now the US will stop invading every country that has oil reserves.

Re:Awesome.

[Torvac]

they still need to make sure oil is handled in dollars in some way, and war is still great business even if you allready own all oil.

Re:Awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know twit, if where the US had anything to do with oil, we wouldn't be paying almost $4 a gallon. In fact if any of the conflicts had anything to do with oil, we would own all the contracts. However France, and other countries won all the major oil contracts out of Iraq. Hell if it was about oil, George Bush senior could have locked in a $10 a barrel price on Oil by simply accepting the deal offer by Saddam.

I know many of you think the U.S. is run by a bunch of morons, but believe me, they aren't stupid enough to spend all this money on "oil" and then walk away empty handed.

Re:Awesome.

[captainpanic]

Aww! 4 $/gallon??

It's the 100 $/barrel that should raise eyebrows, not the consumer price.
The 40 billion dollar profits that some oil companies have booked should raise eyebrows, not the country that is loosely associated with an oil company.

The US is indeed run by a bunch of morons. And so are most other countries, btw. But they are not in control. In most Western countries, the big industry have a powerful lobby. And they are the ones making profits from the wars in the Middle East. Big Oil, Big Weapons and Big Security firms are gaining a sh*tload of money from those wars. And they don't really care which government is helping them, as long as that government is listening.

Re:Awesome.

[h4rr4r]

1. What makes you think your prices would go down as a result of american control of resources?
2. $4/gallon is cheap as hell, compared to many place.
3. They don't walk away empty handed at all.

Oil is a fungible commodity even if we could get it for $0 out of the ground and into a barrel gas prices would not decrease very much. It would be sold as oil always is, on the open market.

Re:Awesome.

[Grizzley9]

Aww! 4 $/gallon??

It's the 100 $/barrel that should raise eyebrows, not the consumer price. The 40 billion dollar profits that some oil companies have booked should raise eyebrows, not the country that is loosely associated with an oil company.

40B on really low margins? I fail to see the issue except that you don't like big numbers.

"Peak Oil"

[argStyopa]

We've heard it before, and we'll hear it again.

"In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia ⦠cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)" (and that's just since 1975).

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Captain.Abrecan]

Strategy isn't what they are going for though. If that was their goal, yours is better, yes. But the goal is lower prices and independence. Whether or not it is a good tactical play is irrelevant because this solution satisfies it's goals (that is how politicians solve problems, as you can see).

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Unfortunately that's not how Capitalism works. This would be the definition of collusion or the United States government directing private industry not to make money. We're quite far from China in this respect and that's one area I'd like us to stay away from.

Did you know we get more crude oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia?

Re:"Peak Oil"

[biodata]

If the goal is lower prices, why did both the Bush presidents start wars that led directly to price increases? Surely the strategy of the oil industry, and their political minions, is to increase prices?

Re:"Peak Oil"

[oodaloop]

Almost makes you wonder if the wars were about something else entirely, like terrorism and regional stability, like they said. Almost, I guess.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Unfortunately that's not how Capitalism works. This would be the definition of collusion or the United States government directing private industry not to make money. We're quite far from China in this respect and that's one area I'd like us to stay away from.

Did you know we get more crude oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia?

You are missing one important point: not all 'oil reserves' are created equal. Some are nice, clean, sweet, crude conveniently buried in relatively uncomplicated rocks at moderate depth. Others are a zillion feet underwater, badly dispersed through some formation that makes geologists cry, or in the form of dubiously flammable shale or tar sands that can be coaxed into releasing just slightly more energy than required for the coaxing if you are willing to put up with ghastly byproducts.

The exploitation of different classes of reserves creates externalities of differing severity. Because markets suck at dealing with externalities, we impose some level of regulation designed either to internalize the externalities or to simply forbid activities that cause excessive negative externalities.

It is entirely possible that, if the US oil reserves are nastier, or if the Saudis need the oil money sufficiently badly to impose the externalities on themselves before we do, we would see a situation where less desirable US reserves remain in reserve until foreign reserves are tapped out.

This would be a situation created by regulatory pressures(which I would argue is hardly a bad thing, if it keeps us from experiencing the... cost insensitivity... that accompanies oil development in places like the Niger delta...); but it would hardly require the establishment of the First People's Patriotic Petroleum Five Year Glorious Plan.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[invid]

The goal is to make money.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[VortexCortex]

I agree. Furthermore: Burning Oil is BAD -- No, hear me out. We should be using it to make plastics and other neat stuff, not wasting it as a fuel. I agree we need to use it now, but think of the future, when alternative energies are viable -- We'll curse ourselves for wasting all that valuable material used to make everything from medical supplies to computer screens. We won't stop pumping oil until every last drop is gone, even if we stop using it as a fuel.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Flavianoep]

Surely the strategy of the oil industry, and their political minions, is to increase prices?

Sounds like so. Most of the unconventional oil extraction are so expensive that they are not profitable at low oil prices.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Using foreign oil, under congressional mandate, is required under national defense. It would be absolutely stupid to use our own oil until absolutely necessary.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[morgauxo]

Well.. .they did (further) destabilize the middle east and created a lot more terrorists so yeah, I guess that could have been there goal. And here I thought it was just a short-sighted side effect.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one am all for the FPPPFYGP.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[i kan reed]

You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.

I'm also pretty impressed with what we're doing with plant-based plastics these days, which are essentially renewable. Not on par with the oil-based plastics, but getting there.

Suffice it to say, I can't really hold that position anymore.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[khallow]

What's wrong with using oil for fuel? We do neat stuff with that too.

We won't stop pumping oil until every last drop is gone, even if we stop using it as a fuel.

And as we see, there's plenty left in the ground. So even if it gets too expensive to use as a fuel, it won't get too expensive to use for plastics.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost makes you wonder if the wars were about something else entirely, like terrorism and regional stability, like they said. Almost, I guess.

that sound was a jet tanker flying over your head.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[oodaloop]

Yeah, I guess the world be a better place if the Taliban still had their own country, with Al Qaeda as their guests, from which to plan more 9/11 attacks these last 10 years. Oh, and with Saddam's stabilizing effects in the Middle East as well. Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the same arguments are made about Helium, but we still put it in balloons. If that isn't bad enough, some of those baloons end up killing wild birds (when released into the air, pop, and fall to the ground).

I don't see a bunch of activists protesting parades, kid birthday parties, and hospital gift stores in outrage. In fact, just the other day, I saw a peace protest on TV where they released 1000's of balloons (not doubt filled with helium), each with some sort of peace message tied to them.

Short story. People aren't rational. In addition to mostly just doing what we want, when we want, we (collectively) follow the leaders often w/o considering if those leaders have thought about where they are leading or even the consequences of their actions (or inactions)... We mostly all grasshoppers, and there are very few ants among us.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Conventional oil did peak before 2010. However, there is a lot more unconventional oil reserves, such as tar sands and oil shale, than there ever was conventional oil reserves. But it's expensive to extract and process.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Economically speaking, prices are determined by the intersection of supply and demand curves. The only way to shift prices downward is to increase supply or lower demand. Demand for oil will not decrease in the foreseeable future, so the only way to "leverage" anyone into lowering prices is to put more oil in the market. Everyone, including the Saudis, will ask for more until that happens.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[crmarvin42]

The First problem with predictions about "Peak Oil", or peak anything for that matter, is that it assumes the current known reservers are all that exist. The Second problem with these predictions are that they don't take into account the ability of price and new technology to change what known quantities of a natural resource even get counted in the reserves.

The known reserves of Oil is higher today than it was during the oil shortages of the 1970's here in the US. This is becuase exploration continues to find new reserves. Furthermore, the Candian oil sands were known about in the 1970's, but excluded from the estimates of global reserves becuase, at 1970's prices and using 1970's technology, it was not possible to extract the oil and sell it for a profit. Both prices and technology changed, and now the Canadian oil sands are included in global reserves calculations. Also, wells are not pumped dry. They are frequently shut off when the costs associated with extraction are greater thant he price the oil can be sold for. As prices go down, producing fields are capped until prices go back up and the field can be operated without a loss. Steam injection and other techniques have made it possible to get more oil out of a well at a lower cost than was possible 40 years ago, and I see no reason to believe that this advance of technology is going to reach it's apex with current technology. The financial incentives to come up with new technologies are just too great.

This is all very clearly discussed in "Basic Economics, 4th edition" by Thomas Sowell. I'm currently listening to the Audiobook during my weekday commute and it is very understandable and quite convincing.

Now, this doesn't address the AGW issues associated with use of fossile fuels directly. However, by using up the cheap easily-accessible oil we will create an economic situation where alternatives that are currently not cost effective (with or without government intervention) will become cost effective at somepoint without increasing their cost per unit of energy. Furthermore, as each alternative technology gets closer to cost effective, investement capital will be injected into R&D to try and be the first to hit the market in a cost effective manner and reap the benefits that come from being first and getting the lions share of the market to start.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[goldstein]

Ever hear the phrase "unintended consequences"? Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to show that the second Bush administration was preoccupied with oil.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[TubeSteak]

You know, I held the same opinion until I decided to do some research to back up my position, and found that only the heaviest oils in the refinement process are any good for plastics(at least the consumer/industrial grade plastics we're used to). Those heavy oils are also the worst ones for burning for energy, with the lightest ones being converted to jet fuel and gasoline.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel
"... bunker oil is literally the bottom of the barrel; the only things more dense than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue which is used for paving roads (asphalt) and sealing roofs."

Everything that gets shipped from China arrives on a boat burning bunker fuel aka "Those heavy oils [that] are also the worst ones for burning for energy".

And I don't know where you got the idea that heavy oils are the worst for energy. In the same way that diesel has more energy content than gasoline, bunker fuel has more energy content than diesel. Bunker fuel just requires a lot more pre-treating before it can be used in an engine... which is why it gets sold so cheaply. Nothing smaller than a boat has room for all the extra machinery to heat and filter the fuel.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[i kan reed]

Interesting and informative. I may have to consider my position even further.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict that there will come a day when science figures out how to do something with oil that is much more useful to humanity than burning it up to motor people/products around a vast nation. There will be a vilification of the elders who kept the waste going so long.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[hawkingradiation]

I don't necessarily see the US as a top producer, unless all of the 12 countries above it with proven oil reserves run their supply down. For instance, the US has a 10th of what Saudi Arabia has, and until recently it was thought that Canada and the oil sands were second on the list. Canada is ramping up it's oil production and will be a heavy player in 2017 with (hundreds of) billions being invested. So where is all the optimism for US oil production coming from? Sounds like it is coming from the "drill baby drill" camp.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[petermgreen]

We crack long alkanes because that makes more valuable shorter alkanes AND alkenes for plastic production but afaict there is flexibility in what we decide to crack (and if so how many times) vs what we decided to use directly

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Holyshit, someone that can objectively look at their position and decide they may have been wrong and refine their point of view.

You are my hero you know that?

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

The goal of the second gulf war wasn't about lowering oil prices, it was about controlling the currency that is used to trade oil. Saddam Hussein murders his people, commits untold atrocities and we sit idly by. He invades another country and gets a mild scolding that forces him to leave Kuwait while still maintaining control of his country. He starts talking about selling his oil in Euros and a few short weeks later American troops are pulling down his statues and he's hiding in a hole in the ground trying not to get killed.

Oil is more than a commodity...it has functional value. As long as OPEC sets prices for oil that are not too high, dollars will be worth something. Trading oil in something other than dollars would remove that floor below which the dollar can't fall. US leaders know this an that's why they'll spend trillions of military dollars keeping the oil producers in line. Iraq was a message to the OPEC nations...toe the line and, as in Saudi Arabia, we'll use our military might to keep you in power. Step out of line and that power gets directed at you.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Solandri]

The exploitation of different classes of reserves creates externalities of differing severity. Because markets suck at dealing with externalities, we impose some level of regulation designed either to internalize the externalities or to simply forbid activities that cause excessive negative externalities.

You don't even need to bring externalities into this. If we burn $100 worth of oil to squeeze out $120 worth of shale oil, that's $100 worth of energy which is converted to entropy.

If we instead pay Saudi Arabia $120 and they spend $15 pumping out an equivalent amount of oil, that's only $15 worth of energy which is converted to entropy. The remaining $105 the Saudis are free to use to build things. We may not like what they're building, but it's still doing something more constructive with it than turning it into waste heat.

Purely from the standpoint of economic efficiency, we're better off using the cheapest-to-acquire energy first. Externalities can tip it further in this favor (or against in the case of renewables), but even if you had no externalities the apolitical preference would still be to use the cheaper-to-pump oil first.

Re:"Peak Oil"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's not like we propped up Saddam and the Taliban for decades.

15 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. So was bin Laden. None of them were Afghani.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

What good could possibly come from teaching generations of Arabs to hate us?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Re:"Peak Oil"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The one possible exception might be a situation where you need oil for specific reasons(ie. as a convenient motor fuel or a petrochemical feedstock); but you have access to otherwise unsuitable energy sources that will suffice for brutalizing your tar sands or shale. I have to imagine that some optimistic industrial-dystopian has drawn up plans for a delightfully zesty nuclear thermal extraction system or similar. If the oil is just being pumped into the electrical grid, that would make no sense; but really ghastly oil materials are, in a sense, a way of converting whatever base load fuel is cheapest into oil.

(On a different note, if one is not considering the matter apolitically, the cash left on the table of some of our oil trade partners may well be considered to be a negative externality, depending on how severe our togetherness problems with them are at the moment.)

Re:"Peak Oil"

[FirstOne]

"The First problem with predictions about "Peak Oil", or peak anything for that matter, is that it assumes the current known reserves are all that exist.

Totally incorrect.. Peak oil (supply) is based upon the notion that new discoveries(on average) have been declining for many decades and the output from those new discoveries is insufficient to overcome the production declines in existing oil fields.

Another item to consider.. is that the oil exporting countries are steadily consuming a greater share of the their production. Thus reducing the amount of oil for purchase in the international market.

The only way out of the mess is by conservation, Some of us(citizens) have already stepped up to plate and the USA reduced consumption by several million barrels day.. We still have a long way to go.. The USA currently produces 5.5-6Mbbs of crude per day, and imports 8-9Mbbs/day.. Note: Crude oil Imports were as high as 12Mbbs/day in 2005

Re:"Peak Oil"

[oodaloop]

We did support Saddam, but mainly to counteract the greater de-stabilizing force of the early revolutionary Iran. And we never propped up the Taliban. You may be thinking of the Mujahadin during the Soviet invasion. Afghani is a unit of currency. And they're not Arabs. Go learn some history. And current events. And geography. And culture. Then come back and talk to me.

Limited time offer

[Xacid]

"and will become 'all but self-sufficient' in meeting its energy needs in about two decades" for about two decades.

Re:Limited time offer

[alen]

i've read that at current consumption rates the US has enough oil to last us a few hundred years

Re:Limited time offer

[oodaloop]

Enough coal perhaps. The life expectancy of oil is around 34 years right now. Proven global reserves of usable oil are around 1 trillion barrels (7 trillion to include all shale oil and other forms of oil not currently usable). At current rate of global consumption, we would use all 1 trillion barrels in 34 years. However, the life expectancy of oil has been increasing over the years due to discovery of oil growing faster then even our rampant usage (something peak oilists conveniently ignore). It may turn out we have enough oil to last a few hundred years, but not based on current proven reserves.

Re:Limited time offer

[camperdave]

i've read that at current consumption rates the US has enough oil to last us a few hundred years

And then what? You've got to stop thinking short term, and look at the big picture.

Re:Limited time offer

[sumdumass]

According to this site, we have enough oil for 200 years

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/13/exposing-the-2-percent-oil-reserves-myth/

And yes, I understand it's biased, but I haven't found anything refuting it.

Re:Limited time offer

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Then you should really read more. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil. If we relied solely on oil in the continental USA, we would have enough conventional oil for less than 5 years's supply at current use rates. Wiki and Google are your friends.

There's lots of unconventional oil, which is neither energetically nor economically profitable. The assumption is that magic techno-capitalists will ride in on white horses and figure out how to make that stuff useful. On schedule. In time to avoid serious problems.

What could go wrong?

Re:Limited time offer

[hamburger lady]

that site conflates materials, as do many. their numbers include kerogen deposits as 'technically recoverable oil'. kerogen makes up the vast majority of their '200 years' assumption.

kerogen is an oil precursor. it's a heavy, waxy hydrocarbon group with a very large molecular weight. essentially, it's 'precooked oil'. it's what the earth turns into oil over the course of hundreds of thousands of years or more.

you stripmine it and process it, similar to tar sands, only you have to process it even more to get anything remotely resembling oil because it's far less similar to oil as bitumen is. it's more of an environmental nightmare than syncrude, and that's saying something.

it's really more similar to coal than anything else, and nobody points to our coal reserves as 'technically recoverable oil' despite the fact that it too can be turned into liquids. it's hell of costly to produce. and it can't be produced in very large amounts at a time because it has to be dug up and cooked.

you don't point to kerogen and call it 'oil' any more than you point at a cup of flour and call it a pancake.

Re:Limited time offer

[hamburger lady]

no. we have large deposits of oil precursor material that can be dug up and processed, at high cost (both pocketbook and environmental).

however, it's basically a huge stripmining operation, which means you can only produce so much in a day. even in situ technologies are very limited in throughput, as they require huge amounts of natural gas and water as well.

ignoring the cost involved, and the terrible EROEI, there's plenty. but it can't possibly make up that much of our current consumption. it's one of those situations where people look at the total amount in the ground and merely divide that by our current consumption, ignoring the physical limitations to extraction.

Re:Limited time offer

[meta-monkey]

By then we should be on dilithium. Of course, when we hit peak dilithium 200 years after that, then we're fucked.

Re:Limited time offer

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for any report from Uppsala University in Sweden. They use data from thousands of wells. You will immediately see that conventional oil peaked in 2004 and is in decline.

Yes we have been able to maintain a plateu, but only if we accept oil sand, shales, ultradeep water oil as being equal to conventional light sweet crude. Which is obviously wrong.

I wont believe the whole "US will become oil exporter" mumbojumbo until it happens. That whole theory is based on linear assumptions for two years of fracking the hell out of US shales. The low hanging fruit is son produced which usually means EROI goes down and profit goes down. Not to mention logistical and environmental barriers that are not bendable unless you defy laws of nature. (lack of water is but one problem).

Re:Limited time offer

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Keynes, "What about in the long run? In the long run, we're all dead."

Nothing and nobody beats entropy, is the big picture. At least, that is if your frame only allows Naturalism.

Re:Limited time offer

[upower]

Here's one such thourough report that refutes the "enough oil for 200 years" argument. If you don't redefined "enough" to mean something different than at least 90 mbd. "Giant Oil Fields - The Highway to Oil: Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production" http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:169774&rvn=1

Except

[Dunbal]

All these arguments fail to account for increasing US oil demand. They invariably keep demand fixed at today's demand. So while the US could "become the world's #1 producer by 2017", by 2020 it would probably be consuming everything it produces and be importing again. Provided China left any oil for anyone else by then...

Re:Except

[fustakrakich]

The US will never consume everything it produces while it can get a higher price on the global market, just like all the other commodities, the price is set by the brokers.

Re:Except

[ocop]

Oil demand in the U.S. (and the OECD more broadly) has declined and flatlined following the "Great Recession". Even in light of the recovery, petroleum consumption has remained essentially flat, with maybe even a slight decline from 2009. The economic shock of 2008's oil prices has violently reoriented the economy in some ways, and it's hard to think of a reason that oil consumption will ever tick back up as new CAFE standards come into effect. The use of oil for heating and power generation has been in decline for decades--the remaining demand is for transportation and petrochemicals. EIA US consumption data here: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WRPUPUS2&f=W

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

More or less. The reason is related to Jevon's Paradox. The politicians lack the will to put into place the taxes necessary to encourage conservation. I think the last time they did that was WWII when the excess was being used by the military. The consumers never pay the full price for gas and whenever the prices threaten to get people to conserve, the prices tend to dip. And the government doesn't step in to prevent that.

As long as gas is cheaper than alternative energy, you're not going to see any real changes.

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

All these arguments fail to account for increasing US oil demand. They invariably keep demand fixed at today's demand. So while the US could "become the world's #1 producer by 2017", by 2020 it would probably be consuming everything it produces and be importing again. Provided China left any oil for anyone else by then...

FTFA:

"The report also predicted that global energy demand would grow between 35 and 46 percent from 2010 to 2035, depending on whether policies that have been proposed are put in place. Most of that growth will come from China, India..."

Re:Except

[Anonymous Coward]

What fantasy world are you living in? The US uses 17-19 million barrels each day right now. I would be great if we were able to get down to 11 million a day that currently is produced in the US (and we should be down at 2-3 million if we were smart and worked on really fixing the issue and people weren't addicted to the stuff).

Consumption > Oil statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

Re:Except

[fustakrakich]

Much of the oil produced in the US is sold on the world market, not consumed, and it buys back from the same global market to fulfill its needs. That's how the global economy works.

Re:Except

[Dunbal]

That's simply not true. The Chinese and Indian economies alone are growing at a much, much faster rate than this. I believe China has recently SLOWED to a "mere" 7% per year. This would have its economy doubling twice in size inside 20 years. China is currently adding the equivalent of Australia, every year, to oil demand.

Re:Except

[evilviper]

All these arguments fail to account for increasing US oil demand.

Yes, everyone is ignoring tha... I mean, the issue is absolutely not, for instance, mentioned in the SECOND PARAGRAPH of TFA:

That increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become âoeall but self-sufficientâ in meeting its energy needs in about two decades

That sentence doesn't exist at all. And we're all in your debt for bringing it up.

it's not the oil...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's the refineries. If the US-ians don't build a few of these things they'll still be importing gasoline, keeping the price up. Pumping more oil merely generates revenue for the producers when they sell it on the world market...

Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Global Warming is a liberal myth.
 
Ok. So stop being a consumer. It's that simple. Sure, it means paying more and putting up with some things that oil consumers don't have to put up with but if you're so concerned than stop buying what they're selling. If enough people do it and if enough money goes into green tech than you'll be able to end the oil industry.
 
If you're waiting for the government to hold your hand than you're going to wait a long time before they really abandon the oil culture. By a long time I'm talking generations.
 
There's your choices. What's your next move? Grumble and accept your fate at the gas pumps or do you become forward thinking and move on from oil? I can tell you where I'd place my bets.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

People still have to eat. To do that they need to work, which requires transportation. People still have to heat their homes in the winter.

Your argument reminds me of the "if you're unhappy with anything about America then you should move somewhere else" argument. You set up a false dichotomy: Accept things the way they are or do something that's completely impractical in response. Because, complaining about things and voting for the type of change one would like to see obviously isn't a viable option . . .

Whether you find it to be annoying bitching or not doesn't change the fact that people bitching about things is the first step towards change. Asking people to do what is impossible for most, such as ceasing to contribute to the global demand for oil, is a lot less effective than bitching about it. Stop being the consumer . . . why don't you just advise everyone to kill themselves?

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, complaining about things and voting for the type of change one would like to see obviously isn't a viable option . . .
 
Ok. Tell me who you're going to vote for? The two party system has a stranglehold on the American political culture and both sides have shown that they're partnered up with the oil industry. If you think token gestures from the Democratic party against the oil industry is meant to bring them in line with higher thinking then I can prove you dead wrong. I don't even have to prove it, just look at the actions of the party versus their campaign talks and you'll see it for yourself.
 
  Stop being the consumer . . . why don't you just advise everyone to kill themselves?
 
Ok, wise ass, what would your solution be aside from wait for administration after administration to finally come up with a solution? Like I said originally "generations" is the time span it'll take before the government does anything and what they're going to do isn't going to be in response to global warming, it's going to be in response of trying to stop civil war from breaking out as the oil well runs dry.
 
It’s amazing how naïve Slashtards are.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... yeah... he would assumingly, like myself, grumble at the gas pump, because neither of us (I assume with OP anyway) are so goddamn stupid and self-centered to think that a single person, or even a hundred people, or even ten thousand people, can make even the slightest hint of a shred of a difference in the big scheme of things.

You seem to have forgotten that the proles (ie: all of us) have absolutely no power or say regarding anything bigger than your back yard.

so let met get this straight

[hamburger lady]

we consume about 18 million bbl/day of petroleum liquids. we produce 8, 3 of which is ethanol, and we're not going to just up and double our ethanol production.

assuming, stupidly, that there's no growth whatsoever in demand over the next 2 decades in the US, or that improvements in efficiency and mileage will counter any growth in overall demand, we're going to add about 13 million bbl/day of tight oil in 20 years?

or is natural gas going to swoop in and run all of our cars by then? this doesn't add up at all.

i understand the ability to top saudi arabia, even for a bit; if we really went nuts ramping up tight oil production we could theoretically cross to number 1. but we'd still be importing a ton of oil.

Re:so let met get this straight

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The idea that the US 'imports' oil is a myth promulgated by isolationists.

We simply 'repatriate' American oil that had the ill fortune to be buried under somebody else's sand.

Re:so let met get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Imagine the savings!

[Anonymous Coward]

On defense, when you don't have to bomb and/or invade every country that threatens the flow of oil to the USA anymore!

Gas is still affordable so far

[concealment]

Thanks to the Iraq war, Canadian oil sands, and now the vast reserves of the USA, gas is more expensive but still affordable.

If it suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.

Is it time for us to admit that petrochemical energy is a strategic objective worth considering? I don't like the idea of "wars for oil" any more than you probably do, but if we don't, a lot of people will suffer and have their livelihoods destroyed.

With these wars, the world can have a consistent oil supply at a reasonable-ish price.

Moral uncertainty has arrived. It feels bad. And yet, for now, it makes sense.

* - I don't believe Iraq was about oil per se. It was about keeping the middle east under open market control in order to counter the Russian oil supply, which otherwise would control Europe financially, putting it in the hands of the US's and Europe's traditional opposition. In addition, Iraq was about the principle that if someone hits you hard and hides behind any nation, hit the biggest bad guy who might support them and destroy his ability to protect them, which will make others think twice about supporting them.

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the idea of "wars for oil" any more than you probably do, but if we don't, a lot of people will suffer and have their livelihoods destroyed.

Invade Canada Now!

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[lexman098]

I don't like the idea of "wars for oil" any more than you probably do, but if we don't, a lot of people will suffer and have their livelihoods destroyed.

wow

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[morgauxo]

It's sad that there are so many people are so ignorant... and vote! Nobody hit the US and then hid behind Iraq. Iraq was not about 9/11 or any other terrorist issue. The religious zealots that hit the US would have been as welcome in Iraq as they are here. As a secular dictator Saddam and the extremists got along about the same as we do with them and when he found them in his country he killed them. I'm not saying that Saddam and his people were good... they did terrible things and hurt a lot of Iraqis but they had nothing to do with anything that happened to the US.

The people who actually 'hit' the US hid in Afghanistan... For a while. Then, after the US removed the government which refused to help us find them they crossed over to Pakistan. They got away with living there for quite a while in part because the Pakistanis were better at playing politics and in part because the US was too busy trying to clean up it's mess in Iraq and Afghanistan to go looking for them.

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[SandwhichMaster]

If it (gas) suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.

This is something that doesn't get noticed enough. You can talk about "Drill baby drill", "global warming is a myth", etc. all you want, but at the end of the day, it is wildly unwise to have our entire economy based around one technology. We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.

We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.

Re:Gas is still affordable so far

[mcgrew]

If it suddenly doubled in price, our economy might collapse.

I think "might" isn't a strong enough word. Look at the price of gasoline here in Springfield in 2000 and then right before the economy collapsed: in 2000 I paid $1.05 per gallon. At its height seven years later I was paying $4.50. And that quadrupling of the price was over the course of years. It was what actually caused the Great Recession -- if I spend four dollars on a gallon of gasoline to get to work, that's $4 I don't have for the mortgage.

Look at the Arab Oil embargos in the '70s, the economy took huge hits in '74 and '79 when gasoline prices doubled. We had terrible inflation along with high unemployment for years afterward.

There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient!

[arkham6]

I hate whenever i hear people say "Well, if we drilled more we could be self sufficient from foreign oil and have oil prices come down.

NO, it does not happen that way.

The US government does not drill oil. They lease out the mineral rights to companies such as shell, BP and Exxon who extract the oil and then __sell it on the world market__. Let me say that again. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right. Just because its produced here does not mean it stays here.

Another example was Norway after Hurricane Katrina. Their oil and gas prices jumped significantly after the hurricane in the gulf, yet they are a major exporter and producer. Why? Because supply went down after the storm, so prices had to go up. It didnt matter that they got all their own oil, the world markets made the prices go up.

They'd Sell to Other Countries

[GeneralTurgidson]

This post and a lot of comments make it seem like the oil produced would stay in our country and only used by us. Yea right, it would be sold to the highest bidder on the market, which will probably be China in a couple of years. Meanwhile our country is turned into a wasteland from this and fracking.

Re:They'd Sell to Other Countries

[isorox]

This post and a lot of comments make it seem like the oil produced would stay in our country and only used by us. Yea right, it would be sold to the highest bidder on the market, which will probably be China in a couple of years. Meanwhile our country is turned into a wasteland from this and fracking.

A simple solution would be oil tariffs. Refuse a license to export oil, or put it prohibitively high.

Re:They'd Sell to Other Countries

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is true that oil will be sold to the highest bidder but it will employ many people in the USA and the net effect is that the value of the produced oil ($$$$$) will remain in the USA helping the economy instead of being payed to another country.

Re:They'd Sell to Other Countries

[TubeSteak]

This post and a lot of comments make it seem like the oil produced would stay in our country and only used by us. Yea right

That was part of the stink surrounding the Keystone XL pipeline.
The folks who were going to build and run the Keystone XL Pipeline refused to commit to an agreement stating that they would not allow oil flowing through the pipeline to go outside of America.

Those six minutes of video can be summarized as thus:
Keystone CEO: we will not make a contractual condition (for our shippers) that the oil flowing through Keystone should remain in the USA or be matched with equivalent imports

Re:They'd Sell to Other Countries

[evilviper]

it would be sold to the highest bidder on the market

No it absolutely won't, unless the US Gov sees fit to give them an export license, which in this day and age, they generally don't.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/754-2-crude-oil-19634635

This topic has generated discussion that we might need to revisit such policies, but as it currently stands, no, very little of it will be exported.

If the US doesn't develop, they have NO "leverage"

[Anonymous Coward]

...

Personally, if the US has these sorts of reserves, we're idiots to tap them today. Use it as leverage to keep the Saudis pumping THEIR oil at moderate prices, and exhaust the supplies outside the US before touching our own.

Oil is a commodity.

If it's not on the market, it's not on the market.

US: Saudi Arabia, pump more oil and lower your price!
S.A.: Umm, no.
US: OK, well go develop our oil shale!
S.A.: (waiting around, still not pumping, still charging more, still funneling all that money to Islamic fundamentals....)

Umm, yeah. Fail.

Games

[Anonymous Coward]

The us is swimming in natural gas and oil reserves. BUT.
We should use up everything we can from the rest of the world first while we can afford it.

Don't you play video games? When a resource is limited, use an unlimited resource to trade for the limited resource. And save your own stockpile of the limited resource for the endgame.

The future is comming. And we still need more vespene gas.

Re:Games

[morgauxo]

That would be planning for a future that may well be beyond the current generation's interest. Most people can barely plan for tomorrow! Besides... if we really did plan for the future we would try harder to move away from petroleum as a fuel anyway.

Shale - the next bubble to pop

[FriendlyLurker]

From here

"The second thing that nobody thinks very much about is the decline rates shale reservoirs experience. Well, I’ve looked at this. The decline rates are incredibly high. In the Eagleford shale, which is supposed to be the mother of all shale oil plays, the annual decline rate is higher than 42%. They’re going to have to drill hundreds, almost 1000 wells in the Eagleford shale, every year, to keep production flat. Just for one play, we’re talking about $10 or $12 billion a year just to replace supply. I add all these things up and it starts to approach the amount of money needed to bail out the banking industry. Where is that money going to come from? Do you see what I’m saying?"

Re:Shale - the next bubble to pop

[Anonymous Coward]

From here

They’re going to have to drill hundreds, almost 1000 wells in the Eagleford shale, every year, to keep production flat. Just for one play, we’re talking about $10 or $12 billion a year just to replace supply. I add all these things up and it starts to approach the amount of money needed to bail out the banking industry. Where is that money going to come from? Do you see what I’m saying?"

The money comes from selling the oil. Either the price of oil rises to where extracting it from the shale is profitable, or the world transitions away from fossil fuels and it stays in the ground.

Re:Shale - the next bubble to pop

[Anonymous Coward]

From the people who are drilling and selling the oil. Where else?

Re:Shale - the next bubble to pop

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is that money going to come from?

Right now, most of it is from hedge funds and investment banks, and they are getting most of their money from outside the US. As much as you may think the US is screwed up politically, it is like the promised land compared to what oil and gas investors are used to dealing with.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[hamburger lady]

exactly. even if we were to somehow conserve our way to half our current usage and go full-bore with hydrofracking basins (which wouldn't last long, those basins carry a few billion barrels), we'd still pay through the nose unless we full-on nationalized our oil market and kept it all for ourselves.

Only one thing left to do!

[Omniskio]

There's only one thing left to do, and it doesn't matter if GW is A, or non-A. Move every coastal city to higher ground, because we all know the fossil fuel cartels will not stop making money off this stuff until there's and more money to be made.

Any estimates on how much it'll cost to move New York? And Los Angeles? Barcelona? Boston? London? Shanghai? Tokyo? Bangkok? Mumbai? The Netherlands? Sydney? Venice?

I'm glad it'll be your grandchildren footing the bill.

Re:Only one thing left to do!

[Megane]

Um, Venice's problems aren't from ocean level rising, they're from Venice sinking because it's built on mud. Their current problems right now are due to winds blowing in the pessimal direction to cause a surge, which still isn't as high as a surge in the mid 20th century. They're building surge control walls, but those are still about three years away.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

exactly. besides, the worlds economies are already inexorably tied together, but of course its only important to be "independent of foreign oil". what about being impervious to financial problems in europe, for example? (not saying that we dont cause financial problems for anyone else, just an example). well, its wishful thinking i suppose.

Did I miss something?

[fearofcarpet]

'The report confirms that, given the current policies, we will blow past every safe target for emissions,' says Levi. 'This should put to rest the idea that the boom in natural gas will save us from that.'

Wait, what? There is an idea that natural gas will curb CO2 emissions? Natural gas may burn "cleaner" and it may have a slighter higher energy density, but that doesn't change the equation: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O. Are we really so bereft of a basic grasp of chemistry to think that the CO2 released from natural gas doesn't count?

The link in TFA to The Oil Drum questions the whether shale oil can be competitive because of the costs associated with extraction; basically that the oil is too spread out in the shale. Those costs certainly aren't stopping them from trying. Why not put those resources into carbon-neutral energy generation? Fracking? Sure, let's give it a go, I'm like 85% sure it won't contaminate aquifers or cause earthquakes. Deep-water drilling? Sure, I like a good challenge and there's no chance that we'll wreck an entire ecosystem. Shale oil? There's only one way to find out if it's profitable! Solarthermal, biomass, photovoltaic, wind, tidal energy, geothermal? I don't know... sounds risky... and kinda hard... I'm not so sure I can make money with any of those... and I already picked out the paint for my new horizontal drilling rig.

The agency's report was generally 'good news' for the United States says Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, because it highlights the nation's new sources of energy but Levi cautions that being self-sufficient does not mean that the country will be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets

Why exactly do we need to ramp up oil and gas production when the prices are set by an international cartel? We start pumping fossil fuels into the market and Saudi Arabia and Russia just turn down the facet; prices rise and they're making the same money as before by producing less. Yay, it was worth raping the environment to have no impact on energy prices because we're "self-sufficient" now!

This headline reads to me like "US Would Become World's Top Phone Booth Producer by 2017." Are we all going to act surprised when that hippie fantasy we call a "green economy" becomes a reality for the EU or China? You know, like we were all shocked that Romney performed exactly as the polls predicted.

Am I missing something here?

Re:Did I miss something?

[mbkennel]

"Wait, what? There is an idea that natural gas will curb CO2 emissions?"

For a given energy output, burning CH4 emits less carbon than burning long chain hydrocarbons (petroleum) or solid blocks of carbon (coal).

Re:Did I miss something?

[mbkennel]

"Why not put those resources into carbon-neutral energy generation?"

Because the people with the money don't think the other choices make enough money. And they're right (about not making enough money).

Re:Did I miss something?

[Miamicanes]

> Am I missing something here?

Yes. If the US has a shitload of shale, China and Russia almost certainly do, too & just haven't found it yet. And I think it's a bit premature to think their response will be to say, "This isn't Clean Green Energy(tm), so we mustn't be like those naughty Earth-hating Americans and use it."

Far MORE likely is that average European voters will get pissed off about higher energy prices in Europe, eventually elect leaders who aren't quite as determined to be Green at any cost, and join the celebration. And probably discover plenty of their own shale while they're at it.

Not even the most wildly-optimistic supporter of "green energy" fantasizes that it can produce as much cheap energy as fossil fuels and nuclear power. Their plans all involve "somehow" imposing life with less energy on the rest of the world.

In the long run, if you want to encourage the use of fuels that don't produce greenhouse gases, support nuclear power. It's far from perfect, and can be nasty stuff at times, but the truth is... it's the best thing we have, and the best thing we're likely to have for a really long time. If we reprocessed intensely-radioactive spent fuel instead of trying to store mass quantities of it on-site (with long-term plans to bury it under a mountain somewhere), the waste problem would mostly take care of itself.

If you think of spent nuclear fuel like Alkaline batteries, reprocessing is kind of like adding a "joule thief" circuit (which multiplies the voltage of a dying battery, even as it falls off the voltage cliff) and DC-DC regulator to a consumer electronics device that would normally just use 4 AA batteries to grab ~4.5 to 6 volts, so you can wring useful power out of the battery until it's literally squeezed dry and barely outputting enough DC to detect with a multimeter.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

CH4 + 2 O2 > CO2 + 2 H2O produces more energy through the burning of hydrogen than other fossil fuels. So per MWh of natural gas burned its going to put out a lot less CO2 than oil or coal.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fearofcarpet]

Uh-huh, so the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase at a slightly slower rate. How exactly does that do anything to curb emissions? It just slows (and not by much) our progress towards the point of no return.

Re:Did I miss something?

[TheSync]

Are we really so bereft of a basic grasp of chemistry to think that the CO2 released from natural gas doesn't count?

The short-term point is that the US has reduced CO2 emissions due to a shift from coal to natural gas for electricity production.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fearofcarpet]

The problem with nuclear is that we have to invest a boatload of energy into building the plants and mining/refining the fuel, for which we will burn fossil fules. And you cannot build them fast enough to cope with increasing energy demands. I'm not an irrational optimist when it comes to green energy, but as far back as the 70's, when scientists were yelling loudly about global warming, Jimmy Carter created a "solar energy bank." Maybe his numbers were optimistic, but Cater said "I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000."

Now it's 2012 and we're utterly convinced that green power is a no-go and that it isn't even worth putting as much money/effort/tax-incentives into as oil and natural gas. Again, am I missing something? Did technology regress over the last 35 years? You can buy a solar panel for you roof, right now, for €0.40 per Watt peak. Germany is building massive photovoltaic plants and is exporting power at a profit. The added capacity from green energy sources over the last decade in the EU dwarfs coal. Nuclear is negative. The only thing that comes close is natural gas, and it is still less than 50% that of solar/wind. Even China is trying to move away from dirty energy (albeit much more slowly.)

What is so different in the US that we have an urgent need to open up new land for exploration and try to squeeze oil out of shale when, apparently, even industry experts think it isn't economically viable? What does Europe have that the US doesn't? What am I missing?

Re:Did I miss something?

[fearofcarpet]

"The agency attributed the decline to a combination of three factors: a mild winter, reduced demand for gasoline and, most significant, a drop in coal-fired electricity generation because of historically low natural gas prices. Whether emissions will continue to drop or begin to rise again, however, remains to be seen, experts said Friday."

So a confluence of three factors, the most significant of which is amove away from coal to natural gas for electricity production lead to a reduction in total CO2 output. Point taken; burning more energy-dense fuels for electricity can, along with other factors, reduce the total output of CO2. But that doesn't do anything to curb long-term emissions as energy consumption grows (the rate of growth per capita is declining, but the absolute amount is still growing) nor does it have anything to do with drilling for shale oil.

The quote in TFA was suggesting that there is an idea that switching to CH4 will prevent us from "blowing past every safe target for emissions" and that that notion should be put to rest. I am questioning whether or not that idea actually exists; are there really people so stupid that they have convinced themselves that switching to CH4 will curb emissions vis-a-vis "safe" targets for emissions; i.e., that it is some sort of energy panacea that absolves us from the responsibility of developing green energy?

Re:Did I miss something?

[HornWumpus]

Combined cycle plants can be built to burn oil. Some turbines even use a % of fine powdered coal.

They don't currently do that because of the price of gas.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Ambassador Kosh]

What I find strange is that germans are not known for ignoring practicality. We also know what a paragon of sunshine germany is. ;)

My point is that we have areas in the USA that get vastly more sunshine than germany does and yet they can use solar and wind power at a profit while we are told here it can't work.

Overall I think there is a lot of lieing going on from many sources. I also think our biggest energy problem is not generation but waste. The insulation on our homes and businesses is just amazingly poor and that has a very high energy cost. No matter how good your energy generation is if you throw nearly half of it away from poor insulation you will be in trouble no matter how you get it.

It means building twice as many wind and solar options as we would otherwise have to do. It means extracting far more coal, oil, natural gas etc than otherwise. It means more nuclear reactors to deal with the additional power requirements.

We need to insulate, increase efficiency, switch to various renewable types based on local climate, build more nuclear reactors, phase out fossil fuels and invest in better technology for power generation and more efficient usage.

Hard to squeeze oil from a stone

[dbIII]

To put things very simply, the largest problem is in-ground extraction of heated shale to get liquid causes expansion, making it hard to get to anything underneath (all the fractures and boreholes squeeze shut and the ground can hump up). Digging it up and doing stuff with it that way is like dealing with very very hard coal but with a lot less energy recoverable from it per unit volume, so almost always pointless since there are oil from coal techniques that would probably give you more for the same effort. Thus the depth of the reserves is fairly meaningless if you can only get to the top layer.
Enough of that, I need to get some sleep so that I can get up early and not see the sun in the morning :)

"may have an abysmal EROI"

[FilmedInNoir]

Why can't they just use solar powered drills?

Re:"may have an abysmal EROI"

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Not as looney as it sounds. You increase the effective net energy of crap hydrocarbons by using renewables as a power source for extraction.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[need4mospd]

Yes, but the government can make it harder to import/export, and they can "encourage"(subsidize) companies that actively "drill" within our borders.

I'm not saying I'd recommend that or that it would bring prices down, but the government has more than enough power to make it happen if you buy the right congressmen.

OIL supply does not equal ENERGY supply.

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It's all about NET energy. Otherwise, why bother? The total net energy contained by all the oil extracted up until now is MUCH greater than the energy contained in the oil that's left. So whether we've hit peak oil or not is irrelevant. What we're facing is the net energy cliff, at least as far as oil goes. Natural gas is a bright spot, assuming the government's numbers aren't political numbers. If they're real, domestic natural gas represents the equivalent of 44 years worth of oil. In reality, there will be waste and loss, so 30 years is more realistic. Still, anything that extends our energy supply is a good thing.

In the long run, we've got nuclear or nothing if we want to continue to have a large scale industrial civilization.

Re:OIL supply does not equal ENERGY supply.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long run, we've got nuclear or nothing if we want to continue to have a large scale industrial civilization.

Don't forget Hydro. Hydro has a much higher EROI than nuclear.

Re:OIL supply does not equal ENERGY supply.

[HornWumpus]

Where are these good locations for new dams? Africa? South America?

Yosemite is just asking to be damned up for power? That would totally work. Think of the MWhs and the boating!

Yes! Confusing production with reserves.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm seeing here is a lot of people interchanging production with reserves.

It looks like the US wells are pulling the oil out of the ground as fast as they find it boosting production. Whereas the Saudis are trickling out their oil based upon demand and prices. If they went apeshit like the Americans, they'd blow the doors off of the US in terms of production.

Global Warming? No problem!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only American oil and gas wells and coal mines that produce global warming. If the stuff comes out of the ground in Saudi Arabia or Iran it's OK. Just another way to siphon money out of the USA and into the third world.

You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[dbIII]

the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010

And he was right, because global oil production peaked in 2008 and we are extracting less now than we did in that year.
What, you meant something different? OK then, write something different instead of attaching whatever bullshit baggage you have to a technical term.

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[Wrath0fb0b]

And he was right, because global oil production peaked in 2008 and we are extracting less now than we did in that year.

Hmm, what else happened in 2008 that might explain why demand for oil dropped significantly around that time?

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick google reveals that you are wrong: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=production

Oil production was higher in both 2010 and 2011 than in 2008.

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[turp182]

Actually, for conventional oil, the peak was 2006:
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/iea-chart-says-conventional-oil-production-peaked-in-2006.html

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[ShakaUVM]

Don't confuse peakers with fact.

Oil Shale reserves have been a known resource for a long time, but the primary argument against them (if you go back 10 years of Slashdot history) is, "Well, if we have that resource, why are we not using it, then??"

Because it's cheaper to get oil other ways, morons. But the resource is there, and so we won't run out of petrol for quite a while.

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[Anonymous Coward]

Ordinarily, lowered demand with a steady supply should lead to lower prices. That hasn't happened, leading one to suspect that there is also a lowered supply.

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[dbIII]

So? A technical term still means what a technical term means. It's a peak on a curve.

Re:You need to look up what Peak Oil means

[cusco]

The resource is there, but it's only slightly better than creating bio-diesel from corn, efficiency-wise. Oil shale also uses massive amounts of water and creates enormous amounts of nasty by-products. That's why they weren't used ten years ago, the production cost was prohibitive when petroleum was $30/barrel. At $100/barrel they'll break even, but if they want to pay off building the production facilities oil will have to stay that price or higher for multiple years. Prior to the Bush Wars that possibility was remote at best, but we're moving into an economy where petroleum will probably never again be lower than $80/barrel so with a little market manipulation they should be able to keep oil shale profitable.

We're freakin' drug addicts

[BlackPignouf]

We're freakin' drug addicts :
we need our daily dose, and when our shady dealer doesn't play fair, we look beneath the couch.
We find some dirty old bag of crack, and scream "Yeah! We're saved! We solved our problem once and for all!"

Re:We're freakin' drug addicts

[Miamicanes]

> (...snip...) We find some dirty old bag of crack (...snip...)

  "We clear out the trash that's been down in the basement since we moved in, and discover an old, forgotten sub-basement built in the 19th century for coal that's filled with enough dirty old crack to to fill our own habit, plus the habits of the entire northeastern US, for the next 5000 years, and scream "Yeah! We're saved!..."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:We're freakin' drug addicts

[Anonymous Coward]

> (...snip...) We find some dirty old bag of crack (...snip...)

  "We clear out the trash that's been down in the basement since we moved in, and discover an old, forgotten sub-basement built in the 19th century for coal that's filled with enough dirty old crack to to fill our own habit, plus the habits of the entire northeastern US, for the next 5000 years, and scream "Yeah! We're saved!..."

There, fixed that for you.

You DO know what happens to crack heads when they get all the rock they want, right?

Re:We're freakin' drug addicts

[hamburger lady]

actually, it's "...that's filled with a few bags of coca plant seeds, and scream 'yeah! we're saved!'

Re:We're freakin' drug addicts

[Anonymous Coward]

5000 years? Yeah, I'll have some of what you're smoking, because you are addicted good.

Sorry, the math doesn't add up. We still use 7 million barrels a day in the US than we extract. And this hard shale that takes water and electricity that we don't have to refine it. That energy has to come from mining and power plants... The fresh water has to come from somewhere. Then the refined gasoline has to be transported to the station. We could boost our drilling and refining to meet demand, but the reserves will be used up faster, and while the baby boomers will be dead before the problems start, those of us that are younger will deal with the steep drop-off in easy oil.

Convert to a renewable resource.

[boylinux]

We should all be looking at burning Zombies from now on in. It will become the biggest renewable resource in the near future. If you get the loading mechanism right you can even refuel on the run.

Re:Convert to a renewable resource.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like Soylent-Green-Energy?

I like it!

EROI is bullshit

[rasmusbr]

Talking about EROI is about as meaningless as talking about ROI. Nobody cares about ROI in and of itself. You have to add time to the equation. The relevant measures in economy are measures of rate of return on investment. The relevant energy measures will always be measures of rate of energy return on energy investment.

Simple thought experiment: Company A builds a hydroelectric dam that lasts for 120 years and has an EROI of 120. Company B builds wind turbines that last for 25 years and have an EROI of 30. They both invest 1 unit of energy at year one. After 25 years company A has produced a net amount of (-1) + 25 = 24 units of energy. Company B has produced (-1) + 30 = 29 units of energy. The wind turbines are a better investment than the hydro dam from a purely energetic perspective (but not necessarily from an economic perspective).

It gets even worse for the hydro dam when you take into account that it takes as much as 20 years to build it, locking up energy investments for that time, while wind turbines only take a year or so from factory to operation, thus locking up energy for a shorter amount of time. Now I'm not saying that wind turbines are better than hydro dams. The examples could have been about any two technologies. All I'm saying is that EROI is bullshit if you use it without taking time into account.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Rates and quantities over a range. For example, how much net energy, year on year, does the first half of the world's oil supply yield compared to the last half?

Hint, bunches more.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

The energy doubling time is the physical factor, it shows the maximum rate that energy from that source could ramp up if it used all its output to expand, or alternately how much energy could be diverted to other purposes and still give the required doubling time. PV at 2:1 over 30 years could double every 15 years or stay constant if half the output is consumed.

So any renewable EROEI greater than 1 could ultimately scale to a Dyson sphere around the Sun. Less than 1 and you "produce" energy only by using the output from some higher EROEI source.

The first conventional oil wells were 100:1 EROEI, the current average is 20:1, and new wells around 10:1. Shale oil is probably less than 3:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics#Energy_usage
which means it would have to be produced at more than seven times the current number of barrels to replace the oil from today's wells.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[rasmusbr]

True, but we don't necessarily need to grow our fossil energy supply at the same rate that they did in the 19th and 20th century. In fact, we probably don't want to expand our fossil energy supply that fast if we care about climate change.

The things that do need to have a high rate of energy return on energy investment are emerging non-fossil energy sources such as wind turbines and photovoltaics. If our wind turbine or pv panel projects don't pay back their energy investments at roughly the rate that oil and coal used to do back in the 20th century then we are indeed headed for trouble, either a lack of energy or recurring weather catastrophes like droughts and hurricanes.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I doubt that we can scale renewables up the point where they replace the 160 exajoules or so of energy we use each year - at least not in a timeframe likely to maintain our current level of civilization. The other problem is that petroleum is disproportionately used as transportation fuel. The only viable substitute for this in natural gas, hydrogen (eventually), or batteries that don't suck.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[rasmusbr]

Sure, doubling time is a valid way to think about it. If we're going to expand our global energy supply fast enough to make the 21st century as prosperous as the 20th century then we need energy sources that scale as rapidly as the ones we used in the 20th century.

However if all we want to do is to replace our existing level of energy supply in the western world then we can afford to use things that scale more slowly. All they need to do is to scale fast enough to replace the energy that we lose because of peak conventional oil or because of a political will to phase out middle eastern oil.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[rasmusbr]

Sustaining our current level is not going to be major problem. All you need to do in order to sustain your current level of energy supply is to invest a little bit more of your energy from existing wells into these new but not as good energy sources. It's sort of like a tax. Another way to put it is that the bad news is that we need to replace 160 exajoules of energy supply, but the good news is that we have 160 exajoules of energy supply to work with.

The problem is how we're going to allow for global economic growth in the future. We might want some 10,000 exajoules per year on a global scale by mid-century. We do not have 10,000 exajoules to work with. It's going to have to come from exponential growth. That's a problem, because you can't have rapid growth with slowly growing energy sources.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[gestalt_n_pepper]

All you need to do in order to sustain your current level of energy supply is to invest a little bit more of your energy from existing wells into these new but not as good energy sources.
Well, it depends on net energy, to go back to the original point.
If indeed, net energy from a well in West Texas in the 1960s was around 100:1 (http://www.oftwominds.com/photos2012/EROEI.jpg) and today a net of 10:1 is considered good, then it depends on how the decline curve goes from here on out. A 10-fold decrease in world aggregate net energy in 50 years is a problem if the decline remains linear. If we're on the "long tail" we have more time, but it's still a problem. The world's interdependent, "just-in-time" supply chains depend on cheap energy. Any significant increase is going to result in sudden, nonlinear breaks as more and more industries become unprofitable, including the supply chains that actually let us produce oil.

One problem with this analysis is determining net energy. It depends on how you measure it and I trust none of the estimate numbers exactly, even though the principal of "We got the easy, high net energy stuff first" is almost certainly valid. The other problem is the net energy/price ratio over time. Due to the situation described above. I think this is nonlinear too, and that you'll see not a gradual price increase, but a series of sudden spikes, with the price settling into a new high after each spike, just as it happened in 2005 - the year, I think that we ran out of net energy "slack" in the system, and we started paying full freight for any increase in energy that we needed.

Re:EROI is bullshit

[the eric conspiracy]

If you want 20th century growth rates in the 21st century you are going to have to find something other than fossil fuels for an energy source.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Great news!

[PopeRatzo]

This means now the US can set about selling off our natural resources to the highest bidder like every other Third World shithole.

Re:Great news!

[mbkennel]

"This means now the US can set about selling off our natural resources to the highest bidder like every other Third World shithole."

Other than WW2, when has the US's natural resource extractors ever NOT sold their product to the highest bidder?

Typically Third World shitholes "sell" of the resources to the brother in law of the deciderer-for-life who hen actually sells it to the highest bidder.

Re:Great news!

[Anonymous Coward]

This means now the US can set about selling off our natural resources to the highest bidder like every other Third World shithole.

You mean like our canadian cousins?

Re:Great news!

[PopeRatzo]

Typically Third World shitholes "sell" of the resources to the brother in law of the deciderer-for-life who hen actually sells it to the highest bidder.

Don't bring the Bush family into this.

We're trying to have a non-partisan discussion here.

What's the rush?

[MaWeiTao]

Currently petroleum is still relatively inexpensive. Why not keep these supplies untapped and in our back pocket for when there is real demand. Rushing to get at these reserves merely to push down prices slightly or reduce foreign dependency seems foolish.

Furthermore, despite the incessant mantra, the majority of our oil does not come from the Middle East.

Re:What's the rush?

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Mod parent up. Saving our own continental resources for the time when oil gets *really* expensive is a lot more prudent than exploiting it all now for political purposes.

Oil isn't the problem

[paiute]

According to the Argonne National Laboratory, it takes two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil shale liquid. A lot of the shale rock is out where water is already being fought over between farmers, cities, and Native Americans.

Re:Oil isn't the problem

[slew]

According to the Argonne National Laboratory, it takes two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil shale liquid. A lot of the shale rock is out where water is already being fought over between farmers, cities, and Native Americans.

Easy one:
Case 1: Native American DO own the mineral rights. They will win.
Case 2: Native Americans do NOT own the mineral rights. Every one will lose to the owners of the mineral rights.

Cities and farmers never win this fight.

Re:Oil isn't the problem

[HornWumpus]

Water rights are a special type of mineral right. Rules are different, stuff in the ground vs. water in a river.

Farmers and cities often own water rights and do win. E.g. LA established water rights in the Owens valley. Owens valley regrets not reading water rights laws first.

Re:Oil isn't the problem

[paiute]

The situation is not that simple. Google water rights in the Walker River and Tahoe basins. You have claims on the water by several parties, not to mention the specter of a very thirsty Las Vegas keeping an eye on the upstate water.

Re:Oil isn't the problem

[robsku]

According to the Argonne National Laboratory, it takes two barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil shale liquid. A lot of the shale rock is out where water is already being fought over between farmers, cities, and Native Americans.

Easy one:
Case 1: Native American DO own the mineral rights. They will win.

If I was a yank I would be too ashamed to make that statement. Just like I would be to state that Sami people of Finland don't have the rights to land we Finns ripped from them long ago.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[serviscope_minor]

. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right.

That's a myth.

Refineries are generally built to process oil from a particular field, or a particular class of fields. You can't ship tar sands off to a light sweet crude refinery and expect to actually be able to refine them.

It's particularly bad for the heavier ones, like the sands and shales, since each deposit has a different set of impurities, which mean that different catalyst properties are required to avoid poisioning.

Of course, the end products are interchangable: diesel is diesel and Jet A is Jet A. So a failure in one supply means that the price of end producs goes up, so people can charge more for the feedstocks.

Great news

[yog]

Lots for Americans to celebrate here:

Anything that helps to wean us off Middle Eastern, North African, and Venezuelan oil is a good thing. War, support for nasty dictatorships, terrorism, patrolling the Persian Gulf: it all goes away, or becomes someone else's problem.

Natural gas is a much cleaner way to generate electricity than coal.

Jobs, and lots of them.

Cheap gas = more local chemical and plastics plants, which depend on the stuff.

Energy exports help our balance of trade.

It helps prove that private sector ingenuity and enterprise are still a good thing. The government has had little or nothing to do with this, other than throw obstacles in their path.

There's no proven ecological harm from fracking, and if there will be, solutions can surely be found. For example, tainted water supplies can be prevented by keeping the wells correctly sealed.

Re:Great news

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Yes, it's all fairy dust and unicorn farts and rainbows!

Any "self sufficiency" will be very temporary, after which we will be running on empty, geologically speaking. All the conventional oil in the USA, frakked or not, wouldn't last the USA 5 years. You can squeeze any sponge harder and get a little more out of it, for a while. While there's lots of unconventional "oil" and natural gas liquids, what remains is, for want of a better word, crud. Low net energy. Lots of sulfur. Expensive to get. Expensive to process.

Natural gas is nifty - a bright spot, assuming the government's supply estimates aren't just political numbers. If the government number are accurate, natural gas in the continental USA is worth about 44 years of domestic oil supply, if it could be used without loss or waste. Realistically, think 30 years. If the numbers are adjusted down (Because, when has the government ever been wrong...?), then we have even less time for natural gas.

We don't have an oil supply problem. We have an ENERGY supply problem. No matter what, we can't keep industrial civilization going to 2100 on hydrocarbons. We have to start exploiting uranium and thorium and develop a battery technology that doesn't suck if we want to keep something like our current level of civilization functioning into the next century.

Re:Great news

[yog]

Shoot from the hip much? There's centuries of oil and gas locked in shale, at current use rates.

It's quite likely that alternatives like solar will improve to the point where they displace coal and gas on the electric side.

Probably, transportation will become more efficient with hybrid engines taking the lead.

Wind energy still has lots of potential. Nuclear technology has improved enormously since the 1970s.

By 2100, it's highly unlikely we'll still be using significant fossil fuels. That is a safe enough prediction. But today, and for the next 20-30 years, we will be relying on fossil fuels, and a lot of it is going to be from shale (and tar sands). Get used to it.

Re:Great news

[gestalt_n_pepper]

In fact, I don't shoot from the hip much. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil
Move on to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
And here: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/ (Warning, these may be "political" numbers).
And here: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

You might also try one of those new-fangled "calculator" things.

By 2100, it's highly unlikely we'll still be using significant fossil fuels.
True, as in "none." That doesn't make it a good idea.

But today, and for the next 20-30 years, we will be relying on fossil fuels, and a lot of it is going to be from shale (and tar sands). Get used to it.
Also completely true. Especially, if the natural gas numbers approach reality and we can transition in time. We will, of course, be paying up the nose for it.

In the long run, it's nuclear and batteries that don't suck, or a distinct drop in our level of civilization.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[mbkennel]

Actually, taxing exports requires a Constitutional amendment.

Yes, keep that deathgrip on oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's how this world will move forward. Squeeze every drop of oil from anywhere you can until there's nothing left, then look around wide-eyed after the damage is done and blame others for a lack of foresight.

Re:Yes, keep that deathgrip on oil

[robsku]

It's greatly obvious this is going to happen on so many levels, and it's the people who were shouting against "alarmists" who will we baffled and blaming others too...

Oil vs Petroleum

[Anonymous Coward]

*Big Sigh*

The US will never be an exporter of Oil. The reason that the US is such a massive 'importer' of oil is that the US is just about the only place left with refineries. Everyone ships their crude to the US to get it refined. If the US started exporting oil, the people they'd exported it to would just have to ship it straight back to the US for processing.

That is the reason why the US is the worlds largest importer of oil, while simultaneously being the largest exporter of petroleum.

The whole 'dependency on foreign oil' thing is a load of bollocks, and I was saddened to hear Obama perpetuate the myths and wooly thinking in his recent speech.

Fine. Here's how you solve your 'dependency' on foreign oil, close your refineries. Yes, it'll do billions of dollars of damage to your economy, because you're not earning money from refining the world's oil anymore, but I'm sure someone else will be willing to 'take one for the team' and pick up where you left off.

Re:Oil vs Petroleum

[WindBourne]

Facts differ with you.

Enjoyed your hilarious counterfactual post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, those nutty "environmentalists" in that "current administration" - what hijinks will they come up with next?

Here in reality, nobody loves oil more than an incumbent politician - of either major party. Perhaps you haven't noticed that being covered on Faux News, so I'll give you a few key quotes:

"here's what I've done since I've been president. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment." -- Barack Obama, 2012-10-16

"I'm all for pipelines. I'm all for oil production." --Barack Obama, 2nd presidential debate

Now, I know that all the Birthers and Teabaggers who believe that the President is a "Seekret MOOSLIM!" automatically turn anything he says inside-out, but there are some simple, irreducible facts. First, the oil will run out, and second, nobody in power has any viable plan for dealing with that. Including Barack Obama, who loves the dirty energy industry payola at least as much as any Republican. Mitt Romney closed down coal plants, while Obama has been seizing inactive oil leases (some of them deep under the sea) and re-leasing them to companies who promise to develop them. But if Romney had actually taken office, you can bet he'd do the same about-face that Obama did, and suddenly become a good chum of the Texas oil industry.

Every US President since Reagan has been a promoter of dirty, unsustainable energy production, and that's just plan fact. Your persecution fantasies about super-powerful "greens" are just that, fantasies. Greens are powerless, as proven by the fact that the majority of Americans want clean power and what their government is giving them is the same old same old.

Government of people, for the people, by the people has perished from this Earth.

Re:Enjoyed your hilarious counterfactual post!

[Anonymous Coward]

the majority of Americans want clean power

The majority of Americans want cheap power and if it happens to be clean that would be a plus.

FTFY

You do not udnerstand oil

[Anonymous Coward]

There are various quality of oil grade, and the energy required to produce them. We long finished to find new sweet crude easily refinable source. We have switched to exploiting in the last decade low grade quality crude. And now we are speaking of exploiting very bad quality crude (if i dare name it that way) shale which take a lot of energy to generate few oil (still energy positive). We have reached the bottom of the bottom. There hasn't been new source discovered in what, a decade ? The peak oil finding field has long passed behind us, and now we are in the peak oil production , sure we are finding way to exploit very bad quality crude, but make no mistake , the sweet crude of 70 years ago has no comparison to the shitty shale. Next might be methane hydrate if somebody trust themselves to that. But we are at peak oil.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[khallow]

The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right.

What are you talking about? There's no central market for oil. And that's because shipping costs aren't "right". Sure, there's only so far the North American markets (there are several, such as West Texas crude, Alberta crude, New York Harbor regular gasoline, etc) can diverge from the rest of the world before it's more profitable to ship elsewhere. But higher local production does results in some noticeable degree of cheaper local oil.

Second, exporting oil does help with balance of trade which is a remarkably large outflow of wealth from the US. Keep in mind that oil consumption is a large part of the reason that the US has a huge trade deficit in the first place and the usual reason people complain about not being self-sufficient.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[need4mospd]

You assume they'll label it as a tax. While we might call it a tax, they'll call it the Bald Eagle Investment Bureau for Environmental Restoration Act.

Protecting your ignorance

[microbox]

I'm saying that the very same people who bitch about some endangered fly being harmed by an oil rig don't seem to mind when something they like is built on the same spot.

You will be able to find some wacko that reifies your pre-existing beliefs. Then you can think of /all/ environmentalists as a bunch of wacko hypocrites, and indulge in sick fantasies about how environmentalists really kill people with their stupidity.

And then you feel you know something, and therefore don't need to learn anything about what mainstream environmentalists actually think, and what mainstream science actually says, and also some of the successes of the environmental movement.

Buddhists call this protecting your ignorance.

Re:Protecting your ignorance

[paiute]

protecting your ignorance.

New Slashdot motto?

Re:Protecting your ignorance

[SomePgmr]

Buddhists call this protecting your ignorance.

Confirmation bias, irrational primacy, etc... but let's not get too far off topic.

I don't see a problem with getting our energy here instead of buying it from somewhere else, as long as we're still working on practical alternatives.

Employment up, interest in the middle east down, energy prices down, extraction happening somewhere where we have some control over regulations and oversight, etc. Sounds promising.

You'll note the "the US could be all but self-sufficient" part depends on assumptions made about increased efficiency in vehicles, appliances, etc. So we'll have to continue to make progress there, too.

Re:Protecting your ignorance

[robsku]

*applause*

It's times like this when I wish I had mod points left... You summed up pretty much perfectly what I've wanted to say but couldn't quite find as good words as yours in many occassions when some idiot has tried to group me up with a bunch of idiots, like this one did here...

IEA is a spin machine

[dwk123]

Figures that this would get coverage, but none of the analysis that shows how full of crap this report is. The US production of *crude oil* is only about 6.2 mmb/day - substantially lower than the ~10mmb/day produced by the Saudis. The IEA has included Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) in their numbers to magically claim the significant increase in US production. Given that the US consumes about 17-18 mmb/day of crude oil, it would take nothing less than a seismic shift in either production or consumption to achieve 'self sufficiency'. Not to completely downplay the significance - we are indeed awash in far more natural gas products than in the recent past and that shouldn't be missed. However, there is a lot of evidence that the depletion curves of the shale plays are not favorable, so extrapolating what is occurring now out 10-15 years is a fools game. In other words, this is basically a PR piece designed to assure investors that the oil industry is 'A-OK' - no need to worry and keep pouring the money in. Taking it as actually reflecting anything about reality would be a mistake.

Re:IEA is a spin machine

[CityZen]

And what kind of extrapolation did they do? Did they use linear extrapolation and somehow believe it would match an exponential demand curve?

(If confused, please watch the Internet's Most IMPORTANT Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ )

AOE

[gr8_phk]

However, I am strongly against drilling for American oil now. I think, when oil starts running really low in other regions, then we should start drilling it.

I agree. This is the lesson to be learned from Age of Empires. The last man standing is the one with remaining natural resources. You gather the remote stuff first and when it's all gone then you mine your local reserves. OTOH if the US soon becomes the largest producer while it's already the largest consumer, that doesn't say much about availability for the rest of the world.

Re:AOE

[cayenne8]

OTOH if the US soon becomes the largest producer while it's already the largest consumer, that doesn't say much about availability for the rest of the world.

I kinda hate to say it, but who cares about the rest of the world?

When it gets down and dirty for need....well, it is ever country for itself, pure self interest......but that's really nothing new in the course of mankind.

Re:AOE

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I am strongly against drilling for American oil now. I think, when oil starts running really low in other regions, then we should start drilling it.

I agree. This is the lesson to be learned from Age of Empires. The last man standing is the one with remaining natural resources. You gather the remote stuff first and when it's all gone then you mine your local reserves. OTOH if the US soon becomes the largest producer while it's already the largest consumer, that doesn't say much about availability for the rest of the world.

Except if you don't use your resources now and quickly build up, you may not be big enough to defend said resources as your competitors will have advanced beyond you.

Re:AOE

[meta-monkey]

Indeed. And it was all the sweeter if your early-game gold and stone mining crews could sneak around to your opponent's side of the map and deplete HIS unwatched mines he was planning to save for later.

Re:AOE

[cavreader]

The US should always put it's interest's ahead of any other countries. Sometimes that requires working closely with others but there are also times when the US can remain disengaged from other countries. If the rise in energy productivity follows the forecast it will have a couple of immediate consequences. Oil and Gas prices will drop as the US output is factored into the world market, the US military presence in the middle east can be drastically scaled back if not totally removed, and the US can disengage from the middle east in general letting the people in that region solve their own problems without US interference. If that course of action results in unending war and conflict in the region so be it.

Why did the stone age end?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Did the stone age end because we ran out of stones? Nah, it ended because we found better materials to make the tools, copper and then bronze. Later iron. Then steel.

The age of petroleum, ushered in by the gusher in Titusville Pennsylvania in 1860s, will end with more than half the oil still left in the ground. Oil prices are very unlikely to top 120$ a barrel for sustained periods of time. It might spike to 150$, but will quickly drop back. Shale oil, tar sands oil, oil from coal, etc are all profitable at prices about 100$ a barrel. Solar and wind beat fossil fuels when oil goes above 100$ a barrel.

The only huge problem is energy consumed at fixed points (homes, offices, factories) can be switched to alternative energy relatively easy. But the transportation sector (gasoline for cars, diesel for heavy vehicles, kerosene for aviation) is very heavily dependent on oil. They don't switch to alternative energy easily. But new technologies are emerging. But as the oil price goes up, things will start to change. 90% of the cars are driven less than 60 miles a day. Trucks can stretch the diesel by switching to more efficient diesel-electrics, CNG/LPG and other forms of fossil fuels that are not from Arabia. Arab oil is managed by the big oil companies who know all this. They keep the price to maximize profits without giving a toe hold for the alternative technologies. So it is very unlikely they will let the price spike much above 120$ a barrel. But all their manipulation will just delay the inevitable.

We will leave most of the coal, natural gas and crude oil, in the ground.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[morgauxo]

Correct! Let's follow it a little further, where are those companies even based?

BP = BRITTISH Petrolium
Shell is a US based subsidiary of the non US based Royal Dutch Shell
Exon is US based

How's 1 out of 3?

Coincidentally

[RoccamOccam]

Coincidentally, The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development. http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/267095-interior-proposes-shielding-federal-lands-in-west-from-drilling

The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.

“This proposal will place further limitations on the exploration and development of our country’s natural resources and is yet another example of how this administration continues to stand in the way of North American energy independence," Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the chairman of House Energy and Commerce's subcommittee on Energy and Power, said in a statement to The Hill.

Frack me . . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the techniques have been linked to some odd seismic activity as of late ( notably earthquakes in regions that don't normally see them ) I would think we might be rather well off in the Oil business as long as we don't crack the damn continent in half trying to get to it :D

Keep Our Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, we have a lot of oil and gas. So why not make it illegal to sell in the international markets? Keeping it all for home use would increase our economic strength enormously. Selling it to nations that will simply use it to make products and sell those products inside the US sounds like bad business to me.

out of date: US now net exporter of gasoline

[slew]

US-ians in fact export gasoline now because we currently have excess refining capacity.
Although in 2010, we net imported about 269K barrels of gasoline, today (2012) we net export about 439K barrels of gasoline.

Why?

Because USA refiners on the Gulf coas are now playing a profit arbitrage "trick". They are sourcing some of their oil from the US over land (basically at west-texas intermediary crude prices), and selling the refined products (gasoline, diesel), as if they were based on Brent Crude oil (the benchmark crude oil price for refineries that source to the USA via gulf coast ports). WTI is currently about $15/barrel cheaper than Brent.

This gives the gulf-coast refineries a huge incentive to be at full production sourcing WTI-oil as they are making more profit per barrel now relative to the offshore refinery competitors (that mostly need to pay the benchmark Brent Crude oil prices for their sources unless they also have cheaper internal sources to draw on). Also since gasoline usage is down (thanks to great recession) these things flipped the US to being a net exporter of gasoline.

Things are never as they always were...

go watch professional starcraft tournaments

[Anonymous Coward]

you gotta have a steady local source of energy, but to dominate, you have to claim the far away fields before the others

misleading

[kenorland]

The folks over at The Oil Drum aren't quite so optimistic: shale reserves may have an abysmal EROI.

Look at this paper:

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oilshale-assessment-2010-for-water.pdf

You can calculate EROI for two reason: one is cost, the other is greenhouse gas emissions.

For the first, that's a calculation energy companies do in order to see whether it is profitable and competitive, and you can bet that it is. That means the EROI on shale oil can't be too far from the EROI on regular oil because otherwise it wouldn't be profitable to extract it..

To calculate greenhouse gas emissions, you need to include "self energy" as a cost. But EROI-with-self-energy is a poor measure there because big differences in EROI translate into only small differences in carbon emissions. An EROI of 1:1 emits less than twice as much carbon as an EROI of 40:1. A better measure is carbon emitted per unit energy.

three kinds of people

[kenorland]

And, of course, Global Warming is a liberal myth.

To break this down for you, there are three categories of people: (1) people who deny global warming, (2) people who don't give a f*ck, and (3) people who want to do something about it. If you look at it, you'll find that most people who oppose (3) are in category (2) not category (1).

The Pipeline is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue with oil consumption is a root cause for the pipeline. I understand folks need to use oil. However, the more important issue to me is where the pipeline runs.

The original construction plans call for going through one of the largest aquifers in the midwest. The Ogallala Aquifer powers most of the agriculture in the midwest. If that aquifer gets polluted, some of the best farm land in the world would have to be irrigated by something else OTHER than that water source. After moving the original pipeline by request of the Obama administration, there are still reservations by environmentalists and geologists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-pipeline-may-threaten-aquifer-that-irrigates-much-of-the-central-us/2012/08/06/7bf0215c-d4db-11e1-a9e3-c5249ea531ca_story.html seems like a good summation.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[Anonymous Coward]

Restricting exportation entirely, however, does not; we do that already for, e.g., ITAR.

Missing the poing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think everyone is missing the point. We don't need oil (or any alternative e.g. hydrogen, electric, nuclear etc.) if we don't need cars.
80% of the U.S. developments were built in the last 50 years. That's about how long we have been totally dependent on oil for. The suburban experiment is called he suburban experiment for a reason. Nobody knows how long it will last, 50 more years possibly? I sure hope not. I see a large movement of people who are sick of being stuck in traffic each day, and all of the ills which it creates who would rather be living in real neigborhoods within walking distance of necessities or at the very least, walking distance of public transit. People always go on expensive trips to Europe and then are depressed for months when they return to their dull suburbs, wondering why America can't at least look nice. It really confuses people, but the problem is just 50 years of bad design practices with absolutely no concern for human beings. I highly recommend reading some Howard Kunstler before spending tons of money on an electric car you may regret purchasing.

Re:Missing the poing

[Un pobre guey]

You are shouting into the wind. There is a vast river of oil money clearly within view, mixed in with that of related and dependent industries including war for profit at the service of the fossil fuel business, auto manufacture and sales, auto infrastructure contractors, auto maintenance and repair, suburban home developers, real estate businesses, real estate finance, etc. You will not be able to distract anyone from it until it disappears. By then you will be an old man, and will no longer derive any satisfaction at all from saying "I told you so." The money always wins.

Conservatives take note.

[concealment]

We are much better equipped to handle change if we're diversified.

We've seen oil prices spike too many times not to know better by now.

I think everyone can appreciate how sensible this is.

We still have oil energy for what looks like at least another decade, so we need to get our act together in this time.

Germany has made strides toward this goal.

Re:Conservatives take note.

[petermgreen]

Very little electricity in the US comes from oil anyway so adding renewables or nuclear won't in itself really change their vulnerability to oil prices. Afaict the same applies in most of europe.

If we really want to diversify our portable situation we need to either move away from local and inflexible burning of fossil fuels towards more centralised soloutions or invest in technology for converting between different fossil fuels.

Geeks all suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Story about shale oil and production.

Endless arguments about Jews and Arabs.

Geeks are the lowest form of human scum.

Fuck everyone and everything

[Quiet_Desperation]

To break this down for you, there are three categories of people:

Wait, what? Not two? I'm used to there being two. Or 10.

(1) people who deny global warming, (2) people who don't give a f*ck, and (3) people who want to do something about it.

Ooo! I'm in that second category! IPCC models themselves could not calculate the number of fucks I fail to give!

If you look at it, you'll find that most people who oppose (3) are in category (2) not category (1).

Huh? I don't oppose anyone. Cite? Did you model this? Did you take negative feedback into account? What part of not giving a fuck are you not getting? Maybe we need category (4) black hearted misanthropes who laugh at the self inflicted misery of humanity. Who other than deluded ideologues who believe in some fairy tale worthiness of mankind give a shit anymore?

Re:Fuck everyone and everything

[kenorland]

Maybe we need category (4) black hearted misanthropes who laugh at the self inflicted misery of humanity

Don't need that: that category is the same as category (3), global warming activists.

Re:Fuck everyone and everything

[Un pobre guey]

No, "laugh at the self inflicted misery of humanity" falls neatly into "(2) people who don't give a f*ck."

Re:Fuck everyone and everything

[Quiet_Desperation]

Wat? Then they wouldn't be activists.

Re:Fuck everyone and everything

[kenorland]

(2) is people who don't give a f*ck about climate change. We don't give a f*ck about climate change because, while it exists, it hasn't been shown to be an actual threat and because it's going to take care of itself. The real threat is a new dark ages because Luddites take over society again.

still would import 30% of petroleum

[peter303]

Right now we import 45% of our petroleum. Adding 1.5 million barrels of production to regain worlds largest producer status would cut this to 30%. Optimistic projections are that further production increases plus conservation plus green energy might make US energy independent around 2030.

US will achieve Kyoto treaty limits same time

[peter303]

The unratified Kyoto carbon emission treaty stipulates cutting carbon emission to 5% below 1990 levels. Right now we have turned back the clock to 1992 levels. This was primarily due the Great Recession cutting energy consumption plus converting about a quarter of coal electricity to natural gas. Another large chuck of electricity generation will be converted to natural gas the rest of this decade. Combined with Bush/Obama energy efficiency laws, the US will reach the Kyoto limits before the end of the decade.

Similar cause, different fuels.

Strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

So now don't use those resources in the shale. Instead, keep buying 'cheap' oil from the mid-east and such. Use up their reserves and then we'll have world domination! Evil-Cackle!

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[ShakaUVM]

>>Of course, the end products are interchangable: diesel is diesel and Jet A is Jet A.

Unless you live in California. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_California#Petroleum

The Fine Print

[Un pobre guey]

Levi cautions that being self-sufficient does not mean that the country will be insulated from seesawing energy prices, since those oil prices are set by global markets

This is why a number of nation states, companies, and organizations promote conflict in the Middle East and vastly exaggerate the threats present there. "Instability in the Middle East" has for decades been the prime justification of high oil prices. Not "increased demand by China and India," which do not correlate with spot oil prices, nor "The Summer Driving Season," nor any of the several other horse-shit justifications that are trotted out one after another with admirable regularity. It is a sucker's game, and we are the suckers.

Duelling environmentalists

[Quila]

Nuclear is eeeeevil, so it can't be a part of the solution, even if it is safe and effective. So those environmentalists are part of their own problem.

Re:Duelling environmentalists

[fatphil]

Try telling the environmentalists that their geothermal energy is just waste heat from a huge fission reactor deep underground, and watch their heads explode!

Keystone XL

[ThatsNotPudding]

Refineries are generally built to process oil from a particular field, or a particular class of fields. You can't ship tar sands off to a light sweet crude refinery and expect to actually be able to refine them.

Yet that is *exactly* what is happening with the construction of the Keystone XL; Canadian tar, piped to Houston refineries.

"Construction of this pipeline will lower gas prices for the US consumer!"

Sorry; I meant the refined products will mostly end up aboard the supertankers sitting next door to the refineries so oil companies make more money selling it on the international market instead.

Funny how that last bit never gets talked about...

Tapping Shale reserves?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. That's not going to happen.

Obama et al. waited till three days after the election to obviate two thirds of all western tar sands and shale. The US has been and will remain completely hostile to all such development.

Energy poverty. You voted for it.

Canada's oil sands sewer pit

[Anonymous Coward]

An article I read about Canada's efforts to mine their oil sands basically showed, as far as I can tell, that they have created a massive sewer pit. A beautiful part of the world has been destroyed, along with the homes of people who once lived there, not to mention the animal life.

While it can be shown that there are safe ways to extract oil from sands and shale, it has also been shown that companies put little emphasis on safety and the environment. They cut corners in every way possible in order to increase their profit margin. After the inevitable happens, they point the finger elsewhere. Our laws encourage this behavior.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[Jawnn]

. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right.

That's a myth.

Refineries are generally built to process oil from a particular field, or a particular class of fields. You can't ship tar sands off to a light sweet crude refinery and expect to actually be able to refine them.

It's particularly bad for the heavier ones, like the sands and shales, since each deposit has a different set of impurities, which mean that different catalyst properties are required to avoid poisioning.

Wasting five mod points to call bullshit...

And yet we have the petroleum industry and their government lackeys falling all over themselves to get that pipeline built, so they can, what? That's right, carry all that oil down to the gulf coast where it can be refined and/or exported. Nice try

Why Deepwater Horizon was so bad

[Quila]

Why did it leak out so much oil? Because it took so long to plug it.

Why did it take so long to plug it? Because it was so deep.

Why was it so deep? Because environmentalists got shallow coastal drilling banned back in the early 80s.

Re:Why Deepwater Horizon was so bad

[cusco]

Why did the oil companies allow shallow coastal drilling to be shut down? Because they had almost completely tapped out the reserves there. Their pet congresscritters got to claim an environmental victory, and Big Petrol lost almost nothing. Win/win, right?

Mostly it took so long to plug because they had fucked up so bad that no one could tell what needed to be done. Took them three or four tries before they finally figured it out. If they had been following the correct procedures the incident wouldn't have happened in the first place, or if it had it would have been an easy matter to fix.

Re:Why Deepwater Horizon was so bad

[Quila]

Why did the oil companies allow shallow coastal drilling to be shut down?

They didn't. The environmentalists got their pet congresscritters to do it. Why do people think only for-profit corporations have powerful lobbies and owned congresscritters?

Not Shocking

[T.E.D.]

This really shouldn't suprise anyone. For most of the history of Oil Production, the USA has been the world's largest producer. We only lost the title in the 70's (I was a kid, so yes, I remember us being the largest before). We never left the top three, and the Saudi's never outproduced us by a large percentage.

I even remember back in the 70's being told that we had so much shale that we could easily keep leading the world, but it would probably stay put until we figured out a way to get it more cheaply, or the prices raised a fair amont.

Both have happened, so here we are.

Re:Not Shocking

[LinuxLuver]

I'm glad I don't live in the US. It would be so sad to live in a country with so little concern for the future that it was ready to crap in its own nest endlessly....thinking there would be no consequences.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[mcgrew]

Actually, taxing exports requires a Constitutional amendment.

Bullshit. You never actually read the Constitution, did you? Where did you get the idea that taxes need a constitutional amendment?

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Whoa Nelly!

[denzacar]

Israel did not ask to be attacked by their neighbors in 48, 68, and 73.

'68?

Did you perhaps mean 1967?
You know... as in the War of Attrition, which was continuance of the Six-Day War, which was started by Israel, in which they've taken a shitload of land, from Jordan, Syria and Egypt - causing the War of Attrition AND the Yom Kippur War of 1973?

Also, you ARE aware that the attack of 1948 started as a civil war, arising from Jewish-Arab conflicts from way back when the region was under the British rule?

The Jews did not ask to be labeled "Apes" and "Pigs" in the 7th century Mein Kampf read every day by Muslims worldwide.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa Nelly!
Did you actually read that line in Qur'an somewhere?

Cause... For one thing, that language there sounds A LOT like some claims I've seen in some "educational videos" about Jews.
Only, the claim was how Jewish holy scripture claims that all non-Jews were cattle etc.
And the video originated from a site where people have a strange fetish for Gothic Script fonts and Hugo Boss clothing.

Naturally, Googling for those passages I found no such claims in actual Jewish scripture (sorry, don't recall what part of Tanakh was misquoted), and where there was SOME similarity to the claims in the video it was stretched and distorted beyond recognition so it would fit that Gothic Script mold.

For the other thing...
Applying the same principle to your statement and Qur'an, again... I found no such quote.
Searching for Jews, there appear to be some lines mentioning Jews in various brackets, which may sound inflammatory if one goes there looking for a fight - until you click on the full text and find no mention of Jews in the actual text.

It's almost as if someone was INTERPRETING JEWS into those lines, in a rather informatory way.
Like when they were designing the site. Hmm...
And what's even funnier, all those lines found there that do mention Jews specifically, are from contemporary translations.
20th century and newer. Hmm...

THERE IS a mention of apes and pigs though.

Say, "O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?"

Say, "Shall I inform you of [what is] worse than that as penalty from Allah ? [It is that of] those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of Taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way."

Now... one might bend and stretch those words and say that they refer to Jews and Jews alone and that they are being called "apes and pigs".

Or... One might take it at face value and say that those lines recognize prior scripture (Jewish and Christian), addresses those followers of such scripture who have something against Muslims solely on account of them being Muslim, and then slyly evokes Pascal's Wager against those haters - cause we all know how god is known for doing nasty shit to non-believers.

Just because two people are fighting and have been at it for a long time does not mean both sides are guilty. Sometimes there is an aggressor and a victim.

If the conflict lasts for two or more generations, and there are people from those generations killed fighting on both sides - yes, they are both guilty.

It no longer matters who started it first.
All it matters is who will have the balls to end it peacefully instead of making the next generation a slave of conflict started generations ago.

Re:Whoa Nelly!

[Psyborgue]

"People of the scripture" refers to Jews and Christians. What did you think that bit meant? So yeah. You proved my point. It does refer to Jews. I would never argue the Qur'an is harsh towards Jews alone, however almost no muslims follow the Qur'an alone. When you read what (Sahih) Bukhari and Muslim have to say about Jews, versus what they have to say about Christians, the vast bulk of the hate is directed towards the Jews. How else do you explain the Arab Muslim obsession with all things antisemitic, from the broadcast of a TV series on the Protocols of Zion to passengers on the Marmara chanting "Remember Khaybar, oh Jews, the Army of Muhammad is returning!" Surely they must be referring to a metaphorical army (as Islam is a religion of peace) and not wanton slaughter of Jews. Surely that mission of peace why Hesbollah names some of it's rockets "Khaibar". How about the Muhammad at Qurayza where he executed between 400 and 900 people who had already surrendered. How about the Jewish "wife" he raped the night he murdered her husband (thankfully she later poisoned the worthless fuck). What a peaceful guy. What a peaceful fucking religion.

Re:Whoa Nelly!

[denzacar]

Dude...
You do realize that you reaching for the same all-encompassing generalizations as those people you are condemning?
Granted, you did weasel in a few concessions at some places (almost no muslims, Arab Muslim obsession) but still, you are aware you're accepting the rules of the game imposed on you by those very people you are condemning?
They make up a "game of hatin" and you jump right in. Let's see who can hate more people the most. Wo-hoo!

Also, are you seriously referencing a tale from 14 centuries ago, of questionable veracity, and then finding joy in harm supposedly done to a person of disputable and potentially non-existent historicity?

Dude! That's almost like cheering when the "bad guy gets it" while watching a cartoon.
Only... you know... more harmful to you as I suppose that you're not going to build up your understanding of the world around what happens on, say, Smurfs.
You only hurt yourself by hatin.

As for "How else do you explain..." - how about "Those are extremist assholes." Or better yet "ignorant extremist assholes".
Seems to me that it fits the description perfectly, and it doesn't require reaching for all-encompassing generalizations that put entire religious, ethnic, national etc. etc. groups into same bag.

You know... Like saying "All Jews are... something-something."
Or "All Trinidadians are... something-something."

Move our vehicles to Nat Gas to isolate from Oil .

[WindBourne]

By moving our new commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles to Nat Gas, we can drop the oil imports within 5 years. That was the intention of the Nat Gas Act. sadly, it was killed by idiots that only back oil. With gas/diesel, you have no economical alternative. Even at $150/bl, the ONLY bio-fuel that can compete would be Joules Energy. Yet, we have loads of idiots calling for us to stay with Oil.
But small electric cars combined with Nat Gas larger vehicles that are then switched to serial hybrids using Nat Gas, will bring us Independence quickly. After all, it is the gal of oil that you do not need that is the easiest to solve.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[evilviper]

NO, it does not happen that way.

Have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that you might be the one who is wrong? Arrogance plus ignorance is a bad combination.

Just because its produced here does not mean it stays here.

Yes, it stays here, except in special circumstances where the producers have good reason to request and are granted an export license.

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/754-2-crude-oil-19634635

Their oil and gas prices jumped significantly after the hurricane in the gulf, yet they are a major exporter and producer. Why? Because supply went down after the storm, so prices had to go up. It didnt matter that they got all their own oil, the world markets made the prices go up.

The US market was the one feeling the pressure from losing that capacity, causing prices to rise. World markets need not apply...

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[WindBourne]

Actually, if we quit using just oil for transportation, we will be self sufficient quickly. The reason is that we will become net exporters, not importers. That makes us self sufficient.

Beware overly optimistic forecasts

[elbow_spur]

The headline is based on the latest IEA (International Energy Agency) forecast called the "2012 World Energy Outlook"

Follow the link to a graph of what is being forecast and to the report in question:

http://earlywarn.blogspot.fr/2012/11/iea-us-to-be-worlds-largest-oil-producer.html

Look at the graph: conventional oil and natgas are in decline.
Note the super optimistic growth assumptions for unconventional gas and oil.
What is the methodology behind this extrapolation? That's the question people should be asking themselves.

Natgas price is at historic lows. Low prices mean small profits mean decreasing investment.
These days the unconventional gas industry is facing something of a bust:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/business/energy-environment/in-a-natural-gas-glut-big-winners-and-losers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How well does that fit with the optimistic growth scenario?

Also, the IEA does not exactly have a sterling reputation for balanced impartial forecasts:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency

Just because something is a headline, doesn't mean it's true. Time will tell, of course.

Total BS

[martypantsROK]

This is complete and utter crap. The notion that we'll be completely self sufficient is nothing but a pipe dream. Particularly the part about it happening by 2017 - a mere 4 years away. Do these idiots think all auto manufacturers can retool all cars to run on shale gas? That's a completely different set of complex hydrocarbons than what makes gasoline. More over, as the Oil Drum points out, the energy return on energy invested in shale gas is very poor. Furthermore, the amount of waste water generated and fresh water needed is staggering and we'll have a massive ground-water pollution problem to deal with. Getting the shale gas is only profitable when the price is high. If shale gas drilling goes wild and everybody does it, like the good capitalists Americans are, then the price goes down and it ain't worth spit any more. Also, if production of shale gas goes high, then middle eastern oil prices drop, making that an attractive option, thereby causing the price of shale oil to drop. The idiots dreaming this garbage up are stuck in microeconomics. The world doesn't work like that, and the self-sufficiency argument is thrown out the window when exposed to the light of day of macroeconomics and globalization.

Top Oil Prodcuer != Cheap Oil

[ALeader71]

Yes oil is sold in dollars. It doesn't mean that the price is tied to domestic consumption or domestic production. Oil is traded in dollars because the US dollar is the world's "reserve currency." All commodities are traded in dollars. The US dollar spends everywhere. It is the most tradeable currency. This is why the federal government can borrow $1.3T per year and pay a near 0% interest rate. This is also why we can't return to the Gold Standard. We would tank the world economy as prices for everything in every country are reset.

Getting back to oil. Higher output does not mean lower prices per barrel or lower gas prices. If we have difficulty moving that oil from well to refinery or from well to port (for oversears sale), our production increases won't matter. Shale oil also has a higher cost-per-barrel than a barrel of Saudi light-sweet-crude. Shale oil is also more expensive to refine. The economies of scale - the reducion in price paid for by early adopters - aren't there (yet). It can happen over time, but the alternative costs are ALSO dropping. China is making solar cheap. Natural gas is uncoupled from oil and the cost CAN beat gasoline and diesel on price. It won't happen tomorrow, or even in the next four years, but it is happening.

So don't worry about shale oil. If the middle east blows up or when Iran starts threatening its neighbors with nuclear weapons China and Europe will come to the US (and Canada) for oil. This could work out in our favor. We have a lot of debt, a debt-funded social safety net, and more off-book public debt than any politician wants to admit. We're gonna need trillions over the next 20 years just to remain in place. Shale oil and natural gas might just save our butts and prevent a Soviet-style collapse

The problems with alternate energies is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong; the main thing holding back use of alternative energy is the ability and need to store and transport it, much more difficult to do (sometimes impossible) with current and near-future technology. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun isn't always shining, etc. Geothermal is probably the most reliable, but not readily available everywhere. Big hurdles to jump before fossils can be replaced.

Realistic energy solutions

[Anonymous Coward]

http://kualla-kualla.blogspot.com/2012/11/duh-simple-energy-solution.html

A good article to read on that blog site that talks about ways to at least lower costs of oil and a good idea about utilizing new energy technologies faster than what these patent holders are doing so.

The water....The water

[LinuxLuver]

Shale extraction techniques are pure poison for water tables everywhere. The US may well find it had loads of fossil fuels for a time....and ever higher rates of cancer for which no one else held accountable...(as usual). The sheeple had better wake up soon or their kids (and their kids...and their kids) will be dying thanks to the oil addiction of the present generations.

Hey Fracking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at some of these states they've allowed fracking in. What does it do? CAUSES EARTHQUAKES.

Re:There is NO SUCH THING as being self sufficient

[jwhitener]

. The oil goes into a central market and could be shipped anywhere if the costs are right.

That's a myth.

Refineries are generally built to process oil from a particular field, or a particular class of fields. You can't ship tar sands off to a light sweet crude refinery and expect to actually be able to refine them.

It's particularly bad for the heavier ones, like the sands and shales, since each deposit has a different set of impurities, which mean that different catalyst properties are required to avoid poisioning.

Of course, the end products are interchangable: diesel is diesel and Jet A is Jet A. So a failure in one supply means that the price of end producs goes up, so people can charge more for the feedstocks.

If you change the word 'oil' to 'gas' though, he's right. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/us-exported-more-gasoline-than-imported-last-year/1