Breaking the Oil Chain

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 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.

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....



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

[shamrock_uk]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[shamrock_uk]

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

On March 11, 2004, during debate on the FY2005 budget resolution, the Senate called for a suspension of deliveries and a sale, instead, of 53 million barrels of RIK oil. Proceeds (estimated at $1.7 billion) would be used for deficit reduction and increased homeland security funding for states.

and apparently it was passed:

Expectations and psychological factors also play a role in price formation. When the Senate passed a bipartisan sense-of-the-Senate resolution (sponsored by Senators Levin and Collins) to the 2005 budget resolution that would direct the government to cancel delivery of RIK oil and divert 53 million barrels to the market, the price of crude oil futures fell $0.59/barrel.

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 ]

[Azred]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

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.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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. What about the huge amonts of lead contamination of landfills as these hybrids wear out their lead acid batteries? (I thought the hybrids had to be plugged in at times too...my mistake) The increadible amounts of toxic waste that is produced in manufgacturing the toxic batteries all batteries use toxic elements..at least the materials that are commercially viable) They save gas and fix one problem but still raise other just as deadly problems. The best thing that can be said about the hybrids, is that they are "different" in where they hit the environment. Fuel cell cars will also carry infrastructure demands, as you mention. I still think we need to develop them. Oh I don't disagree aobut alternatives having costs....it's just that many people just "blip" over those costs as if they are nonexistant and I wanted to point them out. Solar cells are not opposed by eco nuts, and I'm getting a little pissed at that term. Not in and of themselves...planting them all over the landscape and spoiling the "pristine" desert environement in the huge numbers of acres that is required to make an impact is against the econut fringes sensibilities. (I'll quit useing the term econut when you drop the term "Oil Monkey" 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. I personally did a lot of research on the viability of residential solar cells..let me tell ya friends...they aint cheap enough to be a viable alternative unless you are already one of those in the upper 5-10 % income bracket. $75,000 start up cost to get you off the grid and a whopper of an annual maintenance fee for the batteries and storage systems for the cloudy and wet days...Solar Power is still expensive. 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. There have been restrictions on oil exploration in the arctic for decades. We need to open up the ares for exploration even if we aren't going to exploit right away, knowing wehat is there versus what might be there would lead to more beneficial discussions.

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

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.

[shamrock_uk]

$75,000 start up cost to get you off the grid and a whopper of an annual maintenance fee for the batteries and storage systems for the cloudy and wet days...Solar Power is still expensive.

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

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: What about the huge amonts of lead contamination of landfills as these hybrids wear out their lead acid batteries? ..... The increadible amounts of toxic waste that is produced in manufgacturing the toxic batteries all batteries use toxic elements..at least the materials that are commercially viable) They save gas and fix one problem but still raise other just as deadly problems. The best thing that can be said about the hybrids, is that they are "different" in where they hit the environment. Lead Acid Batteries can be recycled. I have a HUGE multinational client that makes and recycles batteries all over the world at ISO 14001 certified facilities. Making the batteries does cause waste -- but not as much now as it formerly did. While some old facilities still discharge under grandfathered permits, many others operate at zero effluent. Again, I have a client I can hook you up with if you like. Oh I don't disagree aobut alternatives having costs....it's just that many people just "blip" over those costs as if they are nonexistant and I wanted to point them out. Fair enough. Not in and of themselves...planting them all over the landscape and spoiling the "pristine" desert environement in the huge numbers of acres that is required to make an impact is against the econut fringes sensibilities. (I'll quit useing the term econut when you drop the term "Oil Monkey" Well, fair enough -- but I think we can reason with the nuts over time. And, you can keep the term -- I like Oil Monkee too much to let it go. I personally did a lot of research on the viability of residential solar cells..let me tell ya friends...they aint cheap enough to be a viable alternative unless you are already one of those in the upper 5-10 % income bracket. $75,000 start up cost to get you off the grid and a whopper of an annual maintenance fee for the batteries and storage systems for the cloudy and wet days...Solar Power is still expensive. Yes, it is still expensive on the individual level. In a city like chicago, several residences sit under one roof, so it makes it cheaper to *supplement* with solar. Moreover, we cannot forget the green roofs (gardens) and air circulation standards that have been developed to help make "green buildings." A lot of things working in concert together, and you can have an office that almost never has to turn on its air conditioner. We're not talking silver bullets to make ZERO impact here, we're talking using lots of factors to make significant reductions. There have been restrictions on oil exploration in the arctic for decades. We need to open up the ares for exploration even if we aren't going to exploit right away, knowing wehat is there versus what might be there would lead to more beneficial discussions. I'm fine with exploration. We can't plan without knowing the facts. However, please be as unobtrusive as possible. Sonar ranging and other methods of detecting oil reserves should be preferred over drilling lots of long narrow holes.

[/QB][/QUOTE]