Did you know Americans spend $200,000 per minute on foreign oil? Did you know that 50% of that goes to the Arab world? Did you know that we are currently using 12 billion barrels of oil a year more than we are finding? NRDC has a really good in depth article, recommended reading for all.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp

A very interesting read, thanks Timber. Conspiracy theories aside, I doubt that reducing US oil needs will ever happen in the near future due to the vested oil interests...

Fascinating paragraph, near the end of the article, on non-Arab U.S. oil suppliers:

I'd no idea that Venezuela supplied so much oil to the US, and I lived there for over a year!

*edit* Asked a stupid question which I answered myself 30 secs after posting :D

[ 11-01-2004, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: aleph_null1 ]

<font color = lightgreen>This is why we need to have a two-fold strategy for freeing ourselves from any sort of foreign control. 1) Open up any and all possible offshore locations for oil exploration, as well as locations in Alaska, regardless of current wildlife status. 2) Find ways to make hybrid fuel-cell cars more attractive to people (I plan on buying one the next time we go to purchase a car).
It is only because those in power in the Middle East like American money so much that we haven't seen another "oil crisis" like what happened in the late 70s.</font>

Disagree on opening up US offshore locations and Alaska. The US has 23 billion barrels of known reserves, Alaska would only add 7-8 billion. This is really a drop in the bucket, and makes almost no difference. The solution is greater efficiency (incl. hybrid) and carrying through on the types of new technology we have available.

At 23 billion barrels reserves, 31 billion counting Alaska, and based on our 10 million barrel/day usage, the US will have enough reserves to guarantee our own oil supply for 6.3-8.4 years in the event of an emergency. If the spigot from Arab nations is shut off for some reason, forcing us to adapt or go take their oil from them by force, 6.3-8.4 years of reserves is the least I'm comfortable with. No, we should not use these reserves -- it's a dire national security need. We should build what is needed to be poised and ready to tap these reserves quickly and at a moment's notice, but we should not let our US companies' desire for a quick buck let us make a stupid decision about national security.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
[qb] Disagree on opening up US offshore locations and Alaska. The US has 23 billion barrels of known reserves, Alaska would only add 7-8 billion. This is really a drop in the bucket, and makes almost no difference. The solution is greater efficiency (incl. hybrid) and carrying through on the types of new technology we have available.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Kind of overlooking the obvious aren't you? If you don't look for it, you won't find it...as in, the Exploration is needed to find out what the reserves really are...that figure you quote is a low ball guess based only whats already been explored....the high estimate is over 100 billion barrels....at least be intellectually honest in your debates on the issue dude.
</font>


At 23 billion barrels reserves, 31 billion counting Alaska, and based on our 10 million barrel/day usage, the US will have enough reserves to guarantee our own oil supply for 6.3-8.4 years in the event of an emergency. If the spigot from Arab nations is shut off for some reason, forcing us to adapt or go take their oil from them by force, 6.3-8.4 years of reserves is the least I'm comfortable with. No, we should not use these reserves -- it's a dire national security need. We should build what is needed to be poised and ready to tap these reserves quickly and at a moment's notice, but we should not let our US companies' desire for a quick buck let us make a stupid decision about national security.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">If Bush opened up the US strategic oil reserves, it would bust the price of oil...right now Oil is near $50 a barrel not because of lack of oil....but because of massive hoarding and stock piling by Nations like China and the USA but also because of a Massive surge in commoditites speculation....if Bush dumped oil the price per barrel would deflate rather dramaticly. Its a Wall Street thing guys. (Clinton did thate same thing and hwile it had nearly no effect on gas prices...it did cause the price per barrel of oil to be slashed nearly in half at the time.)</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Actually, I believe President Bush released oil from the Strategic Reserve in March of this year to try and hold down prices.

The biggest problem is simply a lack of alternatives though. Hybrid cars are nice, but really only another drop in the ocean. I can't see any other solution than nuclear power at the moment, but apparently it's not too popular in the US. Above all, we need to stop squabbling over where to locate the new Fusion plant and get it up and running. If we can get that working, our energy problems are over.

MagiK, you may hint at vast oil reserves sitting under the pristine wilderness, but I've not seen anyone other than you alleging facts to back that up. Additionally, I feel pretty certain exploration is occuring in Alaska already -- but not all exploration is intrusive in nature. If we knew we had 100 billion barrels more, for certain, then maybe we could open up some. I'm not foreclosing that possibility. Of course, rather than 6 to 8 years of spare oil on hand, wouldn't it be nice to have 10 or 12? True security.

Shamrock, hybrid cars, even the new SUV lines, increase fuel efficiency by 50-75%. Over all of America, that would be HUGE. It would also satisfy completely our commitments under Kyoto, as an added bonus, without any harm to industry. ;)

The problem with Nuclear power is that it is not economically viable and must be subsidized. A Nuclear plant is the only kind of plant that costs more to build and maintain than you can sell the energy for. Nuke plants are completely codependent on the gummint and cannot ever make money in any sort of free market.

Ah, I hadn't realised that cars took up such a large proportion of pollution. I mean, I knew it was big, but compared to industry and the generation of power I thought that it was fairly insignificant. I stand corrected [img]smile.gif[/img]

That's true, but only because the free market doesn't allocate costs correctly in cases like this. I would have a guess that if the true cost (including environmental damage) of a coal power station were known, then the subsidies given to support nuclear power would probably look quite reasonable in comparison...

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Do you have any links I could follow? I don't recall anything being in the news about that release.
I know it was mentioned by pundits that he should...but I never heard anything about him actually DOING it.

I agree we should be developing alternative sources of energy...pebblebed reactors would be a good nuclear alternative if the general public weren't so scared out of their shorts by any thing labeled nuclear...or Nukular as some people say.....

Fuel Cells are another area that needs a lot of development in my opinion....and of course we could cover over large stretches of the US Desert Southwest for solar power if it weren't for the eco-nuts and the fact that solar cells are still way too expensive....</font>

</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

At the moment just the knowledge in my head, but I must have heard it somewhere.

I've found it referred to in an article about oil prices etc on Al-Jazeera but I'll try and find you a different source.

[ 11-02-2004, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

MagiK, hybrid cars do not require any additional "electrical resources." The engine is self-charging. There is no increased infrastructure needed. These are the hurldes of electric cars that the hybrid overcomes. Yes, they use gas -- 50-75% less gas, as I said.

Fuel cell cars will also carry infrastructure demands, as you mention. I still think we need to develop them.

Solar cells are not opposed by eco nuts, and I'm getting a little pissed at that term. Anyway, solar cells work well in conjunction with other technology, and can work very well on the roofs of buildings. Actually, they can work well on the roofs of buildings in conjunction with a "green roof" garden to minimize stormwater runoff and provide heat/cooling insulation for the buildings. Going forward in Chicago, most buildings will be required to have a green roof by code -- this will be coming along in the very near future.

Back to Alaska -- I'm not trying to mischaracterize you. I think we simply have a hole in our knowledge. I bet there has been exploration (even if uninvasive) of what reserves are available in the Tongas. You disagree, and conjure the image of greenie meanies who refuse to let that happen. I think one of us is factually right and one wrong, and we just need the time to Google it and find out what the facts of the matter are.

Hmm..it appears that my memory may be slightly off-target. What appears to have happened is that the Senate approved a sale in March 2004 and this led to the price falling, but the government basically didn't in the end and so the price went back up.

Taken from the CRS Report given to Congress found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32358.pdf

and apparently it was passed:

I'll try and find a more succint source, because that one is a bit of a mission to wade through.

[ 11-02-2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color = lightgreen>The other problem with nuclear energy in America is the fact that every plant currently in operation is a unique design. That is almost stupid! Standardize the design and you can reduce the cost of construction, as well as making sure to have spare parts on hand.

Regarding "going green" on a personal level, I would love to be able to build my own house, because there are ideas I want to try. We'll have to see what the future holds on that front.

I know that auto manufacturers will never mass-produce hybrids until the government forces them to do so because it isn't economically viable at this point, but if more people (like me) would buy them, then the economics would change.

Regardless of how much--or how little--oil might be found in places that have not yet been tapped, every little bit helps.

Don't forget the other possible source of electrical production that usually goes underreported: geothermal. Yosimite is a perfect site (yes, I know it is a National Preserve). Geothermal's biggest negative is that thermal areas are limited. </font>

http://greenhybrid.com/link/index.php

There's more of a market for hybrid cars than you think, especially with rising oil prices. The Lexus RS model SUV is now available in hybrid -- and they sold out on preorders.

But, just for the "command and control" supporters out there, California is going to pass a new greenhouse gas law that, among other things, will require better fuel efficiency and will reward hybrid vehicle fleets. This new law will also pick up slack where the federal government has failed to follow through with Kyoto.

And, under the Clean Air Act, once the "California Rule" has been adopted that is more strict than the federal rule, other states are allowed to adopt the "California Rule" without modification. Most all of the New England states have expressed their intention to do this.

Climate Change law is coming to America, and we're going to get dragged into it -- kicking and screaming most likely, but such is life.

[ 11-02-2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">Where do you get the idea that congress is going to pass "climate change" legislation? As near as I can tell..the last time they checked, they only had 12 votes for it [img]smile.gif[/img] not likely to pass unless it gets a helluva lot more votes.
</font>

Crikey! Over in the UK the government will contribute to the cost of solar panels for your home. Plus we don't have to pay to get off the grid, the grid pays you for excess electricity you don't use.

Looks like there are some roles a state can play ;)

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Here's how (*prognostication mode*):

I didn't say the Feds, first of all. Under the Clean Air Act, California, and only California, may pass more restrictive laws than the Clean Air Act itself. (Why? -- because their law was already in place when the Clean Air Act came along.) CA has proposed an act that would bring fuel efficiency and Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. They are still hammering it out.

Now, once CA has a more strict law on the books, the Federal CAA allows other states to adopt the "California Rule." Most Northeastern states have announced an intention to do this, with NY's Attorney General Spitzer at the helm (nice guy -- spoke at my swearing in in Albany).

Now, 2-4 years from now, here is your position if you are Ford or Shell or another multinational:
- GHG regulation of one type in the "CA Rule" states in the US.
- GHG regulation (or lack of) in the other US states.
- GHG rules in all your international relations (Kyoto to enter into effect shortly after Russia ratifies).

These companies will bring it all back to roost in D.C. and tell Congress/President "Enough Already!!! Give us one set of rules!!! And, please quit giving companies that don't have to compete internationally an unfair advantage!!!!"

That, in a nutshell, is how. You can argue my reasoning if you like, but I didn't dream it all up on my own -- it's what we know to be the case in the industry. Just wait around a year or two -- and see if I called it right.

I just had lunch today with a guy from the Chicago Climate Exchange ("CCX"), where companies like AEP, Ford, Motorolla have already signed up to reduce their emissions and participate in carbon trading, in anticipation of needing to be on the "high side" of compliance once the hammers start to fall. These companies aren't spending money on this just because they want to feel good. The have read the tea leaves -- and they know it is coming no matter what we do or don't want in D.C.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Hmmm thats an interesting prognostication [img]smile.gif[/img] Will be interestingto see if it works...except you forget...many of the places where Detroit does business won't be using those standards and won't be able to afford them any way ...shall be interesting to watch.
</font>

Backtracking a bit, here is a summary from the USGS circa 1999 detailing the estimated recoverable volume of oil and associated natural gas from the ANWAR region.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...l/preface.html

Pay PARTICULAR ATTENTION to the method by which the in place hydrocarbons are calculated. This is an ENTIRELY statistical method and at best represents an educated guess. How do I know? Because I do this for a living! The USGS figures for in-place hydrocarbon are done without any true hard data. As MagiK so correctly points out, you need to be actually explore the area to find out what the truth is. So far, government restrictions have prevented gathering of seismic data or drilling of COST tests (stratigraphic tests of the subsufrace) to truly evaluate the exact potential or lack of it.

Other articles worth reading:

http://www.geotimes.org/may01/anwr.html

http://www.carlist.com/autonews/opec.html

And a quick note here - the US government has some of the most FAVORABLE royalty treatment for oil companies in the world. The US government takes a small percentage of all oil found as a "royalty" tax from oil companies. The royalty rate is roughly 12.5% and recent discoveries which fall below a certain size threshold are totally exempt from all royalty until their production excedes the threshold. Compare that with countries where the government skims a massive 85+ % off the top.

Greater potential exists in the Athabasca oil sands than in the ANWAR. Read this:

http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2003/May3.htm

*whew* now that was a data dump .....

Here's another article that lists WAY more information than you probably need or want:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html

It covers everything from refining capacity to production rates.

Our biggest technological limitation is energy storage. Currently, batteries are inefficient, expensive, environmentally hazardous, heavy, their performance degrades significantly over time, etc. I could go on for a long time about it.

Storage capacitors have some advantages over chemical batteries as far as durability, but they lose power quickly and produce dangerous, unregulated voltages at useful wattage. They are only good in low power applications.

We have a lot of power to tap if only we could store the energy produced. Likewise, our machines are fairly wasteful of energy. Mother nature has designed ways to be frugal. IIRC, a gallon of gasoline is well over 30,000 calories! That's enough energy to keep an active average male human going for twenty days! A 175 lb person on a bicycle going 15 mph gets about 912 miles per gallon.

<font color = lightgreen>Oh, only a Lexus SUV. By all means, let me get my checkbook. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

</font>

Sir K, mother nature didn't make gasoline consumable, so I fail to see your point.

Azred, if you checked my links, you'd also see Ford, Toyota, and Honda hybrids. I pointed out the Lexus because it is such an extremely popular model, and because the hybrid looks the same on the outside as the non.

<font color = lightgreen>I did check out the links; very informative. I was simply pointing out the Lexus as an example and making the joke that my vast sums of normally liquid capital are tied up in portfolio shifts right now. [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

Regarding the CA Law:

November 2, 2004
Peering at the Sticker on a Cleaner Car
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, Nov. 1 - How much will it cost Californians to buy cooler cars?

The Golden State's roads are known for vintage T-birds, customized muscle cars and the Bentleys in Beverly Hills. But the state's regulators have a different kind of cool in mind - cars that emit significantly lower amounts of the gases that have been linked to global warming.

When California adopted the nation's first automotive greenhouse gas regulation in September, the auto industry and state regulators disagreed over how much it would all cost. The new regulation would require a 30 percent reduction, on average, in automotive greenhouse gas emissions - carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane - by the 2016 model year.

The regulation, though directed at greenhouse gases, would probably demand an improvement in fuel economy of more than 40 percent. While smog-forming pollutants have been regulated for decades, catalytic converters can neutralize those emissions. But no filtration technology exists for greenhouse gas emissions, so cutting those emissions would have to come almost entirely from better fuel economy, though a modest amount could be cut by overhauling a car's air-conditioner.

The staff of the California Air Resources Board says the new regulation will add about $1,000 to the cost of an average vehicle, but they said they believed that cost could be made up in five years in savings at the gasoline pump. The industry, by contrast, said it would add $3,000, a cost that would never fully be made up by fuel savings.

If the regulation survives a legal challenge from the auto industry, New York has indicated it wants to follow California's lead. Several other Northeastern states that hew closely to California's air quality standards may also follow suit.

So how would cars and trucks have to change?

The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading environmental group lobbying for the regulation, recently issued a report on how six specific vehicles could be modified to reduce global warming emissions by 40 percent or more, exceeding the California standards.

The group projected that, for a cost of $1,960 per vehicle, the 2003 model Ford Explorer XLT, with a V-6 engine, could be modified to reduce its greenhouse gas production by 43 percent, a change that would improve fuel economy by more than 70 percent. (California's standards require that emissions from vehicles in the Explorer's weight class be reduced by 24.5 percent by 2016.) The report contends that buyers could make up that added cost in a little over three years by spending less on gasoline.

Thomas C. Austin, the consultant employed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry lobbying group, to argue against the California regulation, conducted an analysis of the environmental group's projections. (The Ford Motor Company declined to offer its own analysis, referring questions to the alliance.)

Mr. Austin said that according to his analysis it would cost $4,361 a vehicle to make the modifications proposed by the environmental group, and that some changes were not feasible. He also projected a somewhat lower reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The two sides disagreed about almost every aspect of cost projections because of different methodologies and sources.

"They look for what's been published to support the case to encourage government agencies to further regulate," Mr. Austin said of the Union of Concerned Scientists, noting that to make its case, the group used "the most optimistic projections of fuel economy improvements and the most optimistic projections of cost."

Environmentalists and California regulators argue that the industry's recalcitrance is no surprise, citing its history of opposing everything from safety belts to small increases in fuel economy standards.

"The industry has a long track record of underestimating potential and overestimating cost," said Louise Bedsworth, the senior vehicles analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who wrote the report. "We've seen it on many safety regulations; we continually see this pattern of pushing back, but in most areas we've seen them come through and succeed in the end."

Here are major modifications that Ms. Bedsworth would make to an Explorer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Mr. Austin's comments on those proposals.

Aerodynamics

For starters, the Explorer, a sport utility vehicle, would need to be a lot rounder. Ms. Bedsworth said automakers could modestly reduce emissions by improving aerodynamics because cars and trucks that are less wind resistant are more fuel efficient.

"The Explorer is a pretty boxy S.U.V.," she said, a shape that makes it less aerodynamic.

Two current S.U.V.'s, Honda's Acura MDX and the Volvo XC90, made by Ford, are significantly more aerodynamic than the Explorer because of more rounded styling. The company could also cover the underside with paneling to smooth over nooks that hinder wind flow.

Mr. Austin said that Ms. Bedsworth's proposals would make the Explorer an ugly duckling. Some of the most iconic vehicles of the day are characterized by boxiness, from the Hummer to the Chrysler 300C.

"It's been decades since the auto industry showed you could produce vehicles that had half the drag coefficient than vehicles do today," he said. "But look at them. To most people, they're not the kind of cars they want to drive."

Ms. Bedsworth said Ford could also extend the Explorer's steel body over the tops of the tires to improve wind resistance, the way Honda designed the body of its tiny hybrid electric car, the Insight. But Mr. Austin said "most people think the Honda Insight is an ugly car."

Tweaking the Tires

Some new tires improve fuel efficiency with designs and materials that lessen the force needed to propel them down the road. Ms. Bedsworth says she believes further improvements are possible, but Mr. Austin said new federal tire pressure regulations might induce automakers to use larger tires that would impede efficiency gains.

Mike Wischhusen, the director of industry standards and government regulations at Michelin, said changing tire size would not necessarily change fuel economy performance by itself. His company's chief executive, Eduoard Michelin, recently outlined a goal of improving tire performance, as it relates to fuel economy, by 50 percent by 2020.

Under the Hood

Ms. Bedsworth said a variety of technologies could be combined to improve efficiency under the hood. A 42-volt starter generator, a mild form of hybrid technology, would allow the Explorer to shut down at stoplights.

The modified Explorer's engine would also combine three technologies that are in use today, though not all in one vehicle. The altered S.U.V. would have a diesel-like direct-injection gasoline engine that puts air and fuel directly into the engine cylinders rather than into precombustion chambers. The engine would also employ variable valve timing, a technology that ensures that the engine valves open and close in the most efficient manner, and cylinder deactivation, which shuts down one-half of the engine if it's not needed.

Mr. Austin said the last two technologies "don't make engineering sense" when packaged together because they were so similar in nature that using them jointly would not be worthwhile.

Ms. Bedsworth said Honda employed both technologies in its Odyssey minivans, but only one technology - variable valve timing or cylinder deactivation - was used in each minivan, depending on the version.

Ms. Bedsworth said there would still be some added benefit to using both. "The package still comes out to be cost effective," she said.

Increased engine efficiency would slightly increase, to 230 from 210, the horsepower of the 2003 model Explorer used in the study.

Improved Air-Conditioning

The industry is almost certain to argue in its legal challenge that the California regulation is pre-empted by Washington's authority to regulate fuel economy. But environmentalists point out that tweaking a vehicle's air-conditioning system is one way to get modest emissions reductions independent of fuel economy improvements.

The refrigerant used in automobile air-conditioners, known as HFC-134a, is a heat-trapping gas that is even more damaging than carbon dioxide. An improved air-conditioner could contain the gas better, or alternatively, a different type of refrigerant could be used.

Weight Loss?

Mr. Austin said to achieve the kind of emissions reductions proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, or the lesser reductions required by the California regulation, the Explorer would have to be significantly lighter. "Our analysis indicates that weight reduction is a more cost-effective way to improve fuel economy than some of the other measures that would otherwise be required," Mr. Austin said.

The use of lightweight materials like aluminum, and the cost of redesign, would add more than $1,000 to the vehicle cost, he said. But Ms. Bedsworth disagreed, saying that the Explorer's weight would not have to change to meet the emissions standards.

Savings at the Gas Pump

Mr. Austin disagreed with projections used by California regulators to gauge how many miles the average vehicle in the state is in service. Those projections are critical to making a cost-benefit analysis of the new standard. He also disputed the discount rate the Union of Concerned Scientists used to calculate the current value of future fuel savings.

Ms. Bedsworth said her projections were conservative, pointing to the $1.68-a-gallon gas price used in her analysis. Gasoline costs $2.39 a gallon, on average, in California, according to the most recent estimate from the Energy Information Administration.