Oil prices and possible solutions

Now its been a while since we had a good debate. Its been even longer since we had one that didn't involve religion, the war or gay rights. Its been forever since we had one that I could have an educated comment about. Perhaps I will grow smart enough to participate with educated replies in the next one, but for now lets discuss petroleum and see how it goes.

Now i suppose most of you have heard something at least about the new proposed plans to drill in the fare reaches of northeastern Alaska. Now mind, I have no issues at all with the idea of drilling where ever and whenever its needed, as long as all possible precautions are instilled prior to prevent any spillage. What I do have problems with is the idea of drilling to "relieve" the gas prices. Thats about the most preposterous concept known. There is one thing thats fact when it comes to fuel prices. Price goes up fast, and drops slow. I have seen it go up 10 cents in one day and go down 1 cent over a matter of weeks.

This idea of drilling, it sounds like yet another ploy to increase the currency flow into the oil owners pockets, not a solution to the prices. First of all, it would take at least 2 years to see the first drop of crude to reach the market. Secondly, it would never reach it in sufficient quantities to influence prices.

The debate I wanna have is this. If you had the power, what would you do to effect change in this worlds use of fossil fuels? Also feel free to discuss any derivative created from fossil fuels.

I will allow this to run a bit before I reply. Since my job is 100% reliant on the cost of fuels, I am a bit biased, and frustrated so over the costs and do not want to direct the path this topic goes.

I'm not sure why oil has been going up in price so much recently, but what I do know is that any attempt to create cleaner, cheaper energy, that's isn't carried out by the energy companies, will be fought very strongly, simply because of money and jobs and power (which is actually absurd, as you can do much more interesting and useful things with petroleum than just burning it!).

But who knows, someone might come up with a clever way to make petrol, and we are inevitably sliding towards other power sources. At the end of the day though we want fusion and (satellite) solar power, and these are the two I'd work towards given the power.

A friend/co-worker of mine works in sales at a big name fuel supplier here in Arkansas. according to her, and of course her husband whom works in the fuel stock, fuel went up this last time because (according to him) china recently entered the market for fuel. as such, they seem to be stockpiling it for future uses.

according to him, its the old "price and demand" engine at work driving it up currently.

for my part, i feel conservation will gain us the most in the short term. what we really need is alternatives to fossil fuels. but to change the whole economy, from the bottom to the top would be an endeavor that would put the space program to shame in complexity.

new mechanics, new assembly, new storage (for the fuel), new everything.

increasing exports of barrels of crude is not an option. consider, even if we have plenty left, petrol is a finite resource. It is not replenish able as such, we most definitely have less today, than before today.

More input guys. no one has yet touched the subject i really wanna discuss. i am curious to see whom touches it first.

China entered years ago, moreso they increased demand (along with steel) in the past 5 or so years.

Oil prices have risen with economy and successive American incursions
into oil territory, hostile or otherwise. The only real solution is to
invest in hydrogen tech (or other) to sort it out, and stop starting
wars based on vendettas and economy. Particularly when they don't
target the troublesome nation for the "invasion reasons".

Oil is running out, fast. Time to look elsewhere. Sadly, as with all
other capitalist endeavours, the short term solution is profit and not
investment with a view to larger profit.

Here is what I would do if i had the power, I would make distribute stock in all oil companies to all world citizens. the chairmen would be elected by all the citizens and and it would be like a worldwide public office. We could all call to vote on who got kicked out when they got greedy. Not only that but there would be term limits and an unbreakable code of rules that would threaten any offenders to be steamrolled slowly from the feet up. then splashed with crude oil for good measure... If everyday ppl had more control over the oil companies, they would not get so damn greedy!!!!!!

[edit] Oh yeah, and f**k China...

The reason why oil prices have gone up: its starts with a "B" and rhymes with "push"

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting omegaslayer</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The reason why oil prices have gone up: its starts with a "B" and rhymes with "push"
</DIV></DIV>
i figured you'd say "tush" since we all are taking it up the arse. :sad:

Bush is just the start

The world is running outta oil

The oil wars have begun

Bio-Diesel or Fuel Cells are excellent alternatives because they're as efficient or more efficient to what we use now (comparing Fuel Cells to unleaded, not diesel, which, I hear, is more efficient and cleaner burning). Neither have any harmful byproducts (as far as I know). And Bio-Diesel would cure two a few things, actually: cleaner air (at least a large percentage of car emissions), cleaner water (since it runs on common oil, like used vegetable oil.), less sewer maintenance (there was some estimate that 60% of sewer and pipe repair is because of grease being dumped down the drain).

Now, obviously, if you're speaking of cleaner resources for the same of the environment, it'd be best to start at power generators and work down to cars and home equipment. Since, as most people are oblivious to, using a crap load of electricity, causing your fair share of generator fueling, is worse then joy riding in your car.

Again, these aren't hard facts, rather things I've read and heard, not sure if they're 100% accurate.

However, fuel cells will never work because ?the market wont allow it?. Since, I doubt any cooperation would be the sole supplier of water. It's really sad too, because there are companies investing in fuel cells, but they're not going off of water, they're using things like methanol as a base. I imagine to keep fueling stations intact.

Well, they're not really excellent alternatives if you think about it- where do we get this bio-diesel or methane or hydrogen from? The former will have to be grown in vast fields, which would involve eejits cutting down more rainforest and converting a lot of arable food-producing land; and the latter will have to be extracted from something first, which involves energy, and at the end of the day you'll lose energy in the process (though probably not much), not to mention there may be problems with us pumping too much water into the atmosphere. Again, the way forwards is solar power and fusion, along with very efficient batteries to go with (or hydrogen cells I suppose, if you're not using fossil fuels to generate it!)

But what would I do to effect such a change? I don't think there's much you can do except increase research into the technologies involved and wait for some breakthroughs that mean such technologies are cheaper, better and easier than petrol. Anything that would negate the need for refuelling stations would be pretty kick-ass, too.

An interesting thing to consider is that hydrogen does indirectly cause emissions. Currently we dont get H2 from seawater, its made as a byproduct of a chemical process used in the manufacture of... something... anyway, the hydrogen that would be used to power any H2 vehicles today would come from those plants.

There are hydrogen buses in Perth I beleive, and I think they might be introduced in other cities within a few years.

http://www.flexbeta.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t5468.html has
some interesting theory of creating energy from the moon, to quote the
post:

A potential gas source found on the moon?s
surface could hold the key to meeting future energy demands as the
earth?s fossil fuels dry up in the coming decades, scientists said on
Friday.

Mineral samples from the moon contained abundant
quantities of Helium 3, a variant of the gas used in lasers and
refrigerators as well as to blow up balloons.

?When compared to
the earth, the moon has a tremendous amount of Helium 3,? said Lawrence
Taylor, a director of the US Planetary Geosciences Institute,
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. ?When Helium 3 combines
with deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen), the fusion proceeds at a very
high temperature and it can produce awesome amounts of energy,? Taylor
said.

?Just 25 tonnes of helium, which can be transported on a
space shuttle, is enough to provide electricity for the US for one
year,? said Taylor, who is in Udaipur to attend a global conference on
moon exploration.

Helium 3 is deposited on the lunar surface by
solar winds and would have to be extracted from moon soil and rocks.
Some 200 million tonnes of lunar soil would produce one tonne of
helium, only 10 kilos of helium are available on earth.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

To exchange one engine that burns fuel, for another is a step in the right direction, but ultimately a dead-end path. we need alternatives that do not create exhaust in any stage of its use. IE, people think electricity is clean, but coal plants are messy electric generators.

in the short term, we need conservation. scrap ALL the SUV's. enforcing carpooling is not an option really because there are just to many jobs like mine. i drive 55,000 miles in my car, by myself each year. how would that work??? :sad:

even at our current level of tech, we have plenty of engines capable of 30+ miles per gallon. and thats the ones we see on the roadways. we have tech on shelves that can give upward of 150 miles per gallon. this needs to be brought out and used.

in the 50's,60's and 70's we had cars that weighed 3,600 pounds with an engine that delivered 165 horse power and could do 100 miles per hour at 20 miles per gallon. now we have cars that weigh 2,000 pounds with engines that deliver 300 horses and 20 miles per gallon. some would argue that is improvement, i differ. i see waste. 300 horses is doing 1/2 the work, it should get twice the mileage.

currently we have auto's (namely the SUV that get less than 15 miles per gallon. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that those babies are inefficient. it doesn't take an accountant to figure out that price and demand says "the SUV is driving up the prices"

the sad thing is, from a mechanical standpoint, i cannot determine why they do so poorly. their engines are perfectly capable of getting the fuel efficiency necessary. shrugs

on the long term, we need new, on the short term we need what we have NOW to work better.

Solar energy and batteries are the key. Metal ore is beginning to
run-out aswell. What are we going to do THEN? Start stealing
railway tracks and sewer grates to sell them to recycling plants (the
way they do here)?

even at our current level of tech, we have plenty of
engines capable of 30+ miles per gallon. and thats the ones we see on
the roadways. we have tech on shelves that can give upward of 150 miles
per gallon. this needs to be brought out and used.

in the 50's,60's and 70's we had cars that weighed 3,600 pounds with
an engine that delivered 165 horse power and could do 100 miles per
hour at 20 miles per gallon. now we have cars that weigh 2,000 pounds
with engines that deliver 300 horses and 20 miles per gallon. some
would argue that is improvement, i differ. i see waste. 300 horses is
doing 1/2 the work, it should get twice the mileage.

I think this is where everyone will soon be heading. In the near
future, increasing efficiency will be the key to managing fuel costs.
Already, most countries in the world seem to have more efficient
vehicles than the USA. Here we have commuter cars that give 28-30 miles
per US Gallon and commuter two-wheelers that give 141-150 mpg, going up
to 210 mpg (yes). This is because really high fuel prices have forced
our auto manufacturers to put out more efficient vehicles.

Plus, I don't see electric vehicles, hybrid engines, hydrogen motors
etc taking off very soon. Even though there are no real technical
reasons prohibiting them, the oil companies have too much control on
what happens in the (automotive) world, and they are not going to let
control slide out their grasp that easy. Until someone can come up with
a technology that can be used to make money, of the cold-hard kind, no
one will switch over.

Mining helium-3 of course would not be cheap at all- perhaps it would be a better idea to collect it directly from solar winds?

/envisages giant space-based collectors 1000's of km across
At the end of the day, tritium gives more energy (it decomposes into helium-3 anyway via very low energy radiation, that is easily shielded). The problem is that it's harder to use :/

Bio-Desiel (this conversion currently costs a few thousand ... and you have to do it yourself):

You can use used fat and oil. As in Vegitable Oil. (makes your car smell like french fries)

Hydorgen Fuel Cells (this requires the vehicle to be remodled, to fit in enough cells to be as effecient as current vehicles):

You can have a powerful energy source (battery, solar power, whatever) in the vehicle which starts the evaporation process. The fuel cell its self absorbs the hydrogen and the rest is byproduct (water vapor).

Both would eliminate fueling stations as far as I can see.
Either fusion, or solar power could be used as well. They're all valid alternatives.

I think the point is, there are MANY alternatives to petrol right now, they would just cost a little much to kick start.
And I mentioned methonol because that's the only type of base liquid motor companies are looking into (they can't make money if your car runs on water, for instance, they need something to sell you on a long term basis)

And I don't want to hear any bitching about he fuel cell aspect, they do work, and the exact type of car I'm talking about has been built and tested at MIT over several years.

I believe there was also a guy who did a bio-desiel conversion to his pickup, with several gallon drums full of oil in the bed, and was able to drive cross country (USA) without filling up. (roughly 3000 miles)

Not really much any of us could do about this though. There are more powerful contracts by nations for oil in works. Not to mention just replacing the petrol stations (use of petrol) would cost more money then drilling a new part of the world.

Believing Bush to be the cause of rising oil prices is just blind ignorance mixed with unperturbable bias. His actions may have caused a small immediate rise in price, but the fact is prices are going up regardless. As we suck the world dry of oil, the places that are cheap to extract from go first. All the really easy spots (besides a few locations in Africa so politically unstable that the Mideast is made to look like Peter Piper's Pepper Picking Fields) have been used up so the price of extraction is constantly on the rise. Eventually, more difficult locations like Alaska will become cheaper and cheaper in comparison and will eventually be tapped.

The problem with misguided officials is not their declarations of war, in this regard, but rather whether they even see this as a problem. Many bank on technological innovation as a determined linear line and believe a smooth transition is all but in the history books. While there is truth to the precept that technological innovation is often a result of pressing needs, it is ludicrous to believe that there is no negative economic impact of such a changeover. Look at the food shortages that occured when the farm system was overhauled into being much more machine reliant. There will be energy shortages, and severe, if the problem is ignored and left to sort itself. And yet, this is what many high ranking economists are doing.

Even more bizarre are the ones that completely turn the model for price prediction of an unrenewable resource on its head. Since rising prices will allow for more money spent on exploration and extraction, theoretically there is always more oil we aren't extracting yet because it is too costly, but will eventually be profitable. However, this is an infinite sum, and infinite sums can have finite values. To use the price prediction model as proof that we have unlimited oil is ridiculous, and yet it has been done.

As to the argument on the land required to grow our fuel should we switch to a vegetable oil based system, I unfortunately am unaware of the numbers involved, but I can say that there is a significant portion of land in the US where farmers are paid to not grow crops. This is a farmer relief program meant to support farmers by keeping the prices from dropping incredibly by not oversupplying the market. If these lands were converted to some other use, say growing vegetable oil for fuel, then the supply of wheat and corn and other such commodities to the market would be unchanged. Is there enough of this land to support our energy needs? I have no idea. But if it is, I believe the economic repurcussions of using this land would be almost entirely beneficial.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext> but I can say that there is a significant portion of land in the US where farmers are paid to not grow crops. This is a farmer relief program meant to support farmers by keeping the prices from dropping incredibly by not oversupplying the market. If these lands were converted to some other use, say growing vegetable oil for fuel, then the supply of wheat and corn and other such commodities to the market would be unchanged. Is there enough of this land to support our energy needs? I have no idea. But if it is, I believe the economic repurcussions of using this land would be almost entirely beneficial.</DIV></DIV>

I have tried repeatedly to explain this to some people i know and it just eludes them. they won't accept the fact that you are growing the crops for an entirely different goal.

without actually being a farmer, i have no real convincing grounds to base my opinions on either so, i always lose the discussion. :sad:
there are most definitely two distinct camps however. those that believe that crop based fuel is the solution, and those that believe that any extra grains grown will destroy the system and drive prices down. :sad:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Cash Car Star</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>While there is truth to the precept that technological innovation is often a result of pressing needs, it is ludicrous to believe that there is no negative economic impact of such a changeover. Look at the food shortages that occured when the farm system was overhauled into being much more machine reliant. There will be energy shortages, and severe, if the problem is ignored and left to sort itself. And yet, this is what many high ranking economists are doing.</DIV></DIV>

Do you think this holds true for energy production though, especially when much more becomes available? Nuclear and renewable power, though not the biggest things in the world, haven't dented any economies; petrol cars were a gradual change over around 20/30/40 years from horse power, rather than a quick explosion and would have provided thousands of new manufacturing jobs; the steam engine and coal mining revolutionised industry and lead to unprecedented growth!
Anyway, why bother with acres of plants, when you can place (potentially) more efficient and cost-effective solar panels? Doing so would replace traditional farming jobs with fewer high-technology ones, but I'm sure those many billions of dollars of subsidies I suspect you pay that are saved can go into useful related schemes...

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Leperous</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>

Anyway, why bother with acres of plants, when you can place (potentially) more efficient and cost-effective solar panels? Doing so would replace traditional farming jobs with fewer high-technology ones, but I'm sure those many billions of dollars of subsidies I suspect you pay that are saved can go into useful related schemes...

</DIV></DIV>

i know you have been here, but i do not think you fully realize the acreages available for farming. shoot, i know people whom live in the US who cannot fully comprehend how much land is empty. land doing nothing at all.

also, the technology is already in place to use them for plants. sure, i agree that solar is the way to go eventually, but on the short term, i feel it is prudent to use what is already close at hand.

the process necessary to utilize solar energy on any scale at all is years away from practical use. i think science needs to work on its storage and reducing both the size of the batteries and also the motors use of the available power. battery life would never suffice in its current config.
anyways.. i agree, but think its not the best answer right this moment.

I am going to be very blunt. Lep is the only one who has commented so far who has a realistic grasp of the scope of the energy problem and the potential solutions.

Biodiesel:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Algae is the most efficient current means of producing the requisite oils which are then processed (esterification) to produce a fuel that can burn in common diesel engines.

To produce enough energy to supply the transportation demands of the United States, something like 1/3 of the airable land of the USA would have to be used for algae ponds. To grow enough grain crops (rapeseed) would take even more land. Even if you were to do this, where does the water come from? We already have terrible problems with that in the west.

NOTE: This is for transportation ONLY. There simply is not enough energy available form biomass to meet all of our needs. Biodiesel may be a good interim measure, but it is not a viable long term solution.

Other forms of biomass fuel are more promising, such as gasification of wood, but I do not know the specifics of how much energy is actually available there. I think there is more than enough, but there has not been a huge amount of research done in this area so far as I know, so I don't see it as a likely future alternative.

[/quote]
The "Hydrogen Economy":

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It needs to be produced either from fossil fuels, biomass, or splitting water. In all cases, energy is lost in conversion. Fuel cells do not run on water, and never will.

There are MASSIVE technical hurdles still to the practical implementation of fuel cells, not the least of which is a cost-effective method of producing hydrogen. Fortunately these are now mostly in the realm of engineering rather than basic science, so I think you will see the mass introduction of fuel cell technology within the next fifty years, but not sooner than ten or twenty (except maybe in portable electronics, which will come sooner, I think).

Ultimately fuel cells and hydrogen will take over, but let me stress again that this is much like a replacement for the power grid. It does not produce energy it only transmits it to the customer.

[/quote]
"Renewable" Energy:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
Wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power are not viable options. Again there is simply not enough energy available.

As Lep indicated, Solar power is one of only three viable options available to us in the mid to long term view. There will be a mix of solar-electric generation and direct catalytic photochemical hydrogen production from water. Both of these things are a long way from being practical replacements for fossil fuels. At the moment solar-electric panels are far to fragile and expensive, while direct solar hydrogen generation has been a dream of chemist for the last fifty years. Barring a stunning scientific discovery (not unthinkable) both of these technologies are, in my view, 25-50 and 50-100 years in the future respectively.

[/quote]
Nuclear Energy:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
While Fusion is, as Lep said, one of our only ultimate alternatives (solar is the only other option in the end), there is another shorter term technology that could supply the worlds energy needs for the next several hundred years: Fast-Breeder reactors.

These are advanced fission plants which are a proven technology. Indeed, I believe that France meets much of it's domestic power needs with such reactors. These plants are unique in that they produce more fuel as they run. I do not no the specifics of the nuclear decay chain involved. However, as I said, these plants could keep the world in energy for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately this design suffers from two politically, and maybe practically fatal flaws. First, the design produces weapons-grade materials (Pu-239). Second, these reactors have a positive temperature coefficient. The first of these objections is obvious to everyone, while the second is more subtle and far more dangerous.

All American reactor designs have negative temperature coefficients. what this means is that as the fuel rods heat up, the fission reaction is attenuated. Thus, it is literally impossible to have a "meltdown". A positive temperature coefficient on the other hand creates exactly the reverse situation. As the core heats up, the reaction rate increases and generates more heat.... Chernobyl had a positive temperature coefficient. You might be interested to know that even that terrible accident was not a true meltdown. A true meltdown involves the runaway reaction of the core causing it to literally melt it's way straight through the earth's crust.

[/quote]
Conclusion:

<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
The ONLY viable alternatives in the long run are solar and fusion power. That said however, the "crisis" is not as bad as many people want you to believe. For example, there are enough proven coal reserves for the next fivehundred years. All that wants is improved technology for using it in a more environmentally benign way.

In terms of the America here is my checklist:

<UL dir=ltr>
[*]
<DIV>Conservation is #1. Strict emissions and fuel efficiency standards on all new vehicles ought to be enacted along with a massive gas tax to stimulate consumer desire for efficent vehicles and public transport.</DIV></LI>
[*]
<DIV>Throw a great deal of money into short-term high payoff ways of exploiting our massive domestic coal reserves.</DIV></LI>
[*]
<DIV>Work toward a clean energy distribution system (hydrogen)</DIV></LI>
[*]
<DIV>Continue with fusion and solar power research at the best possible rate. in particular all the countries involved need to stop their goddamn bellyaching about where ITER will be located and just build the damn thing.</DIV></LI></UL>[/quote]

Any existing consumer desire for efficient fuels (the people who care
aren't market involved anyway.. so what the f**K is the point) will be
riled and beaten down by easy points scoring
party politics to appease the desire and whim of those who live by the
"American Dream" (using the term loosely, I dont hate America, just all
western consumerist nations! :razz: ). People live for the moment, not for
the future.

In fact, I'll just opt out this thread as everything I say is the blunt truth and not conducive to good debate on the topic :biggrin:

Something something nazi conspiracy oh wait something.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gwil</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Consumer desire will be riled and beaten down by easy points scoring party politics. People live for the moment, not for the future.

In fact, I'll just opt out this thread as everything I say is the blunt truth and not conducive to good debate on the topic :biggrin:

Something something nazi conspiracy oh wait something.
</DIV></DIV>

TBH, this isn't the best of all topics for a debate (no offense Orph) because there are too many objective facts involved. The best debates are philosophical ones where facts are few and far between.

In my view, high oil prices are about the best thing that could happen to the world, and I don't really care how they get there. A tax would be best, but I'll settle for war and wanton destruction. Either one will stimulate technical innovation to overcome the obstacle.
Prays for $10/gal. gasoline

Indeed, the very nature of democracy and rampant capitalism and
consumerism dictates this problem will not be solved soon, certainly
not (solved) in any of our lifetimes. How the change comes about is
beyond me - and for good or bad is up in the air too, the way we are
heading is a morally devoid lapse in "civilised" behaviour indeed. My
ideals dictate that, will be the true downfall of the world, not a
collapse of the markets...

Like I say, i'll leave the thread :razz:

I don't entirely agree, but it is a near thing. If we can get fusion working you might be pleasantly surprised by the results at least within our lifetimes. On the other hand though, I see current human civilization as unsustainable. Collapse is inevitable for the simple reason that we are always growing. If you blow the bubble big enough eventually it will burst.

The scorn for religion, the basis of our very moral fabric will be our
downfall. We are also overdue by a species measurement (dominant
species) and a "Roman Empire" style collapse.

I'm stocking up on "how to live off tree bark for 20 days" books and whatnot, and getting my money in while I can LD

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Gwil</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>The scorn for religion, the basis of our very moral fabric will be our downfall. We are also overdue by a species measurement (dominant species) and a "Roman Empire" style collapse.

I'm stocking up on "how to live off tree bark for 20 days" books and whatnot, and getting my money in while I can LD
</DIV></DIV>
I'm not all that depressed about it. I don't figure on anything catestrophic for at least a few hundred years, but I guess you never can tell.

I'm pretty sure the Europeans will go it alone on ITER if a decision isn't made soon.

Actually I went to an interview for a summer job at JET, but didn't get it (stupid IT post! I wanted a physics one, dammit!). It's currently offline until the summer, and very few people get to go in and see the machinery itself.

Tracer, I also hate to be blunt.

except for your last part about the American checklist, everything you typed is at least a decade away, if not many decades.

the American infrastructure will not allow itself to be so vastly transformed on so big a pipe dream as the things you said. Its not that I disagree, far be it, but it is vastly unrealistic to even imagine most of what you typed, even if it is the only and best solutions proposed so far.

Americans are spoiled, bottom line thats the biggest fact you have to contend with. it is the biggest hurdle, and it will be the biggest and slowest one to change. I have heard people get stinking slobby pissed over any proposition that discriminates against their right to own an SUV. they will not stand for any solution that taxes them more than anyone else, it is "their god given right" :rolleyes: gimme a f**king break.

anywho's, I like what you typed, but honestly its either years away, or a pipe dream. sorry, but its not the best, most realistic solution today. and today is the problem. tomorrow an asteroid could cause a nuclear winter and our problems will solve themselves.

on the short term, from a purely economical standpoint people must use they available infrastructure already in place.

1) people can conserve.
2) machines can be made more efficient.
3) fuels can be grown and processed.
4) wind generators can be used more frequently. (i am surprised no one till you,said this but my being a traveler by trade, i have noticed a vast upgrade in installing these generators over the last year.)

currently, it doesn't matter if you or lep are the two most intelligent people here in this discussion, what really matters is a practical viewpoint, and any common person has that attribute. actually it is forced upon the less intelligent because life treats dumb people harsher and they tend to be more attuned to what needs to be done to make their lives less miserable.

I am not picking on you tracer, but i do feel your comments were impractical for any short term results.

No worries Orph, but I feel you may have missed my point. Yes, I freely admit (and did in my original post) that every solution (except conservation) I listed is at least 2-5 decades away. The problem is that there ARE no other practical solutions. The quantities of energy involved are just to vast to contemplate less drastic measures. I am not trying to say that Lep and myself are the smartest here, merely that our position as physical scientists has exposed us to the issues involved here on a more realistic level than the general population.

From my viewpoint, things like wind power and biodiesel are the true pipe-dreams. While they seem more achievable in the short term, the fact is that they simply do not constitute sufficient sources of energy to change anything.

I fully agree about the unchangeable nature of American society on this point. No change will ever occur for ideological reasons. Everything must be economically motivated. Oil will inevitably continue to get more expensive, and as it does, the economic pressure to find and use alternatives will increase. People may also begin to worry about global warming when none of their favorite ski resorts have any snow.

Conservation really is the only short term solution. I recycle every thing I can, use as little electricity as possible, and ride my bike everywhere. Can you imagine much of the population altering their lifestyle to reflect mine? I think not. If I could afford it, I'd have a car, although it would likely be a hybrid and I wouldn't drive it to work.

thats twice you have claimed wind power is not an option. there are untold millions of acres un-used by anything more than a a bird perch or a rabbits burrow in the US.

in fact, it doesn't even have to be barren, i would jump at the chance to have a wind generator in my yard. can you imagine the fuel savings if we did not rely on the fossil sources to heat our homes or to run the mundane items like refrigerators?

true, it wouldn't be prudent to put them in towns as most people are just to stupid to leave them alone. someone is bound to run into one while driving (and talking on their phones :sad: )

but rural and semi-rural residences could easily have one in each yard.

and thats with today's tech. there have got to be improvements available to the generating process.

i mean no insult, but America is only using a few percent of its surface for anything more than range cattle.

wind power is an option.

I seem to have misremembered the figures on that point. I looked it up, and it seems that you are right about wind power. Potentially, wind turbines could supply as much as 1/5 of the worlds energy needs and is already economically competitive with fossil fuels. My bad. I don't really understand why wind power is not exploited more in the United States, particularly in view of the massive land area we have in the mid-west.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I seem to have misremembered the figures on that point. I looked it up, and it seems that you are right about wind power. Potentially, wind turbines could supply as much as 1/5 of the worlds energy needs and is already economically competitive with fossil fuels. My bad. I don't really understand why wind power is not exploited more in the United States, particularly in view of the massive land area we have in the mid-west.

</DIV></DIV>

wipes brow

you were almost on the verge of convincing me i had made yet another mistake. I was sure, near positive, but you are way ahead of this old coot in so many areas.
thanx for confirming it at least. funny i never thought to look it up myself. :smile:

Well, it isn't the sort of thing that is really all that easy to "look up" it just happens that I have a text book sitting two feet away that addresses most of these issues. As for the "old coot" I figure anyone who makes Sargent (not to mention makes good maps) has to be pretty far up there in native intellect.

blushes

oh stop. :smile:

seriously though, it is near impossible to describe our country to anyone whom has not seen it. it doesn't seem to matter if they live here or not.

another consideration. there is vast portions of the world where the wind never stops blowing, and cannot be used by anything other than a polar bear or penguin.

other places where a scorpion is the only native alive for miles too.

wind power has got the be the least used, and most easily implemented power generation available. /me wonders what i am missing.