It's time to tell the House of Saud goodbye.

[Patrick Degan]

As a pro-nuke turned anti -nuke, I have read that the total cost in energy input, mining, refining, waste disposal, construction costs of power plants with a FINITE lifespan before being to hot to use, nuclear power uses almost, if not more power than it produces.
Mining- This is radioactive ore, remember, so NBC protocalls must be observed.
Refining-Same smell, different fart. Uranium refining is an energy pig, just like refining aluminum ore, because is uses electricity for heating the ore.
Waste disposal- Even if the cost is pennies per pound per year, the pounds are always going up, and the year factor is HUGE!
Finite powere plant lifespan-Every 35 years or so, the whole place is shut down and entombed. Cost of plant, +cost of entombment + REPLACEMENT cost of replaced reactor.
Upside, NO exhaust gases, and all that wonderful plutonium, suitable for bombs.

The Canadians have been dealing with these problems quite successfully for four decades with their CANDU nuclear programme. Their reactors are designed to run off of natural uranium, which does not require refining and does not convert easily into weapons-grade plutonium after it is expended. Continuous-cycle refueling reduces the potential for accident and increases the control of waste products. Furthermore, a CANDU reactor can "burn" the spent fuel elements from PW reactors with little to no adaptation. Several countries, including India, have either purchased CANDU reactors or duplicated them for their own nuclear generation schemes.

Oil can be burned, straight out of the ground, (albeit VERY ineficiently before the refining process)to provide heat, for warmth, or boiling water.(steam turbine)
The refining process is simple, and well understood, and ALREADY HAS an exsisting infrastructure.

Unrefined light crude could be burned directly. Heavy crude has impurities which have to be seperated out before it can be used.

As to the methanol/ethanol stuff, the amount of energy stored in 1 liter is consideably less than that of petrolium. Same problem with propane or CNG. The fuel tank must be twice as large, for the same range/refuel time. The upside being it is renewable.

Which is why you would not use propane or CNG for storage/range-intensive applications, such as fueling cars. As for your comments about ethanol, the Brazilians have been using it extensively as motor car fuel since the 1970s. You are quite simply mistaken.

The present day system will stay with us for a LONG time. Hydrogen is merely a substitute for power lines. It is NOT, in and of it self, an energy source.-----KEY POINT--------!!!!!!!

Hydrogen BURNS. Hydrogen is used as rocket fuel. It is most definitely an energy source.

[tharkûn]

A couple of points:
1. The US doesn't need to develop new technologies to get off Saudi oil ... all they have to do is be willing to pay more for their oil. The reason the world loves Saudi oil is its CHEAP. Including exploration costs the Saudis pay out about $2 (US) a barrel on some of its exports (which goes to show you the power of a multi-government cartel) to get it out of the ground. Very few deposits the world over are so cheap.

Currently a large amount of wells in oil producing countries are not being exploited, why? Because it's simply cheaper to go to Saudi and take it from there. If you seriously want to dump Saudi oil ... all you have to do is be willing to pay the price (of course the '70s are not the most fun of economic times). Oil is a fungible commidty the Saudis have to sell it to someone so the only effect they can have is on how much it costs.

If you are willing to spend the cash ... Saudi oil is gone tommorrow ... most people aren't willing to spend the cash.

2. For power generation ... go nuclear. I'm a big fan of CANDU myself, but the French and Japanese systems also sound nice. The way I look at it I KNOW coventional power pumps loads of SO2 into the atmosphere, any irradation risk is nothing in comparison to that lovely compound's effects.

3. The biggest problem with swapping to hydrogen or whatever is economics. If alternative energy cars were economically viable ... then people would buy them and the infrasctructure would develop. As it is, I have yet to see any alternative car which is priced anywhere close to a cheap reliable car. Yes high end cars exist, but frankly people don't want to pay that much.

4. Hydrogen is not an energy source (at least under normal production from water), it's an energy storage medium. The power source would be whatever the hell is generating the electricity.

Question, I've read some articles about putting flywheels in cars to store energy (so you need less input energy). The authors talked pie in the sky, but it seems to me these would be a BAD thing in an accident (like say you flip your car). Any of the egineers think this is a good/bad idea?

[Patrick Degan]

If you are willing to spend the cash ... Saudi oil is gone tommorrow ... most people aren't willing to spend the cash.

Sadly true.

The biggest problem with swapping to hydrogen or whatever is economics. If alternative energy cars were economically viable ... then people would buy them and the infrasctructure would develop. As it is, I have yet to see any alternative car which is priced anywhere close to a cheap reliable car. Yes high end cars exist, but frankly people don't want to pay that much.

Last month's issue of Discover (or Scientific American, can't remember which) did an extensive article on what looks to be the first practicable fuel-cell car based upon a body which mates to a "skateboard" chassis containing all the drive and fuel elements built in. One possible scheme discussed in the piece to accelerate the introduction of hydrogen into the general market would be the use of reformers which can extract hydrogen from natural gas and can hook up to already-existing natural gas lines. Present day gas stations could be easily adapted with the addition of a reformer and a connection to the station's own NG pipe to the pump islands.

Hydrogen is not an energy source (at least under normal production from water), it's an energy storage medium. The power source would be whatever the hell is generating the electricity.

Fuel, then.

Question, I've read some articles about putting flywheels in cars to store energy (so you need less input energy). The authors talked pie in the sky, but it seems to me these would be a BAD thing in an accident (like say you flip your car). Any of the egineers think this is a good/bad idea?

I remember the flywheel idea as well. Got an extensive write-up in Scientific American a few years back. I thought the same thing in regards to the possible collateral damage in an accident situation as well. It sounds an intriguing concept, but may not quite be what it's cracked up to be.

[MKSheppard]

Last month's issue of Discover (or Scientific American, can't remember which) did an extensive article on what looks to be the first practicable fuel-cell car based upon a body which mates to a "skateboard" chassis containing all the drive and fuel elements built in. One possible scheme discussed in the piece to accelerate the introduction of hydrogen into the general market would be the use of reformers which can extract hydrogen from natural gas and can hook up to already-existing natural gas lines. Present day gas stations could be easily adapted with the addition of a reformer and a connection to the station's own NG pipe to the pump islands.

Interesting idea, except it costs $$$, and a lot of gas stations are independently
owned & operated. Why go to all this trouble for something that's
a VERY small niche.

Gasoline powered fuel cells, on the other hand, will work beautifully with
our existing infrastructure...

[Patrick Degan]

Last month's issue of Discover (or Scientific American, can't remember which) did an extensive article on what looks to be the first practicable fuel-cell car based upon a body which mates to a "skateboard" chassis containing all the drive and fuel elements built in. One possible scheme discussed in the piece to accelerate the introduction of hydrogen into the general market would be the use of reformers which can extract hydrogen from natural gas and can hook up to already-existing natural gas lines. Present day gas stations could be easily adapted with the addition of a reformer and a connection to the station's own NG pipe to the pump islands.

Interesting idea, except it costs $$$, and a lot of gas stations are independently owned & operated. Why go to all this trouble for something that's a VERY small niche.

It's a small niche now; the object of the exercise is to achieve the changeover from petrol-based fuels.

Gasoline powered fuel cells, on the other hand, will work beautifully with our existing infrastructure...

A possibility for the immediate short-term, but not viable in the long run and counterproductive to the goal of independence from oil.

BTW, Shep, like your current icon.

[Cthulhu-chan]

Gah! Get of the gasoline kick! Reliance on gasoline is a liability because it will eventually run out. Oh, sure it may take a while, but you need to think long term here!

[MKSheppard]

Gah! Get of the gasoline kick! Reliance on gasoline is a liability because it will eventually run out. Oh, sure it may take a while, but you need to think long term here!

Americans can't think long term, or haven't you figured that out yet?

[tharkûn]

Gah! Get of the gasoline kick! Reliance on gasoline is a liability because it will eventually run out. Oh, sure it may take a while, but you need to think long term here!
Long term oil is renewable , do you think its been sitting there since the formation of the planet?

However thinking long term we need to kick this solar power habit (you know our photosynthesis driven economy/ecology) ... solar power will run out long term.

I'm all for kicking gasoline ... when its economically viable. I'll have to find Patrik's article on reformers, but other than that most other options are worse. Batterries don't have the ability to store enough energy, flywheels (I think) have issues with conservation of moment in collisions, hydrogen is an option put producing and piping the stuff is expensive. Gasoline will eventually run it's course and die ... the option is what hell do you pay to do it early? One thing I'm really leary about is adding the energy costs of automobiles to the electrical grid in lump. Given the anti-nuclear histeria, the blanket inability of renewables to provide THAT much power ... we are looking at natural gas and coal to take up the slack. I'd prefer the gasoline to the coal and I doubt natural gas can cope with that type of demand.

What will kill the gas habit are alternative engines (and vehicles) which are more economical than the current ones. Bludgeoning some one over the head to do something for the greater good works half-assedly. Appealing to their wallet works MUCH better.

[TrailerParkJawa]

One thing to remember about ethanol. It contains less energy than gasoline. So its not more efficient. Also, if you take all that bio mass and turn it into fuel. What are you gonna put back into the soil? Artificial fertilizers. So you end up replacing one problem with another. Besides, I dont think we can make enough ethonal to supply the gas demands in the US.

Its a fine product for unique situations but gasoline is going to be the fuel of choice for the far future. At least until we find a way to my hydrogen competative, but even then its gonna need big power plants to make and crack that hydrogen.

[Patrick Degan]

Gah! Get of the gasoline kick! Reliance on gasoline is a liability because it will eventually run out. Oh, sure it may take a while, but you need to think long term here!

Americans can't think long term, or haven't you figured that out yet?

Also sadly true. But that is no excuse to not even make the attempt.

[TrailerParkJawa]

There is no economic incentive to think long term like that. Most people right now have more pressing issues. Gas is really cheap, despite how much Americans grumble about it. Especially if you have a Civic like me.

I think when the cost of Hybrids comes down, you will see alot of interest in them. One of my former co-workers bought a Civic hybrid and its a great little car as long as you only have needs for a "little" car. Im gonna be curious to see the first hybrid vans, wagons, and SUVs..

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Gah! Get of the gasoline kick! Reliance on gasoline is a liability because it will eventually run out. Oh, sure it may take a while, but you need to think long term here!

Americans can't think long term, or haven't you figured that out yet?

That may be the single most accurate thing you have ever, ever said.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just to jump in and ask a quick question...

It seems to me that much of this debate involves only one aspect of oil, namely that as an energy source. But it seems to me that oil can be used for a variety of purposes. If we reduce our dependency on oil, do we have in place alternatives that can make up the shortfall? In other words, can we make lego with less oil, if at all?

http://www.blackgold.ab.ca/leduc1/blkgld4.htm

XPViking

You've hit the nail on the head. That's what I was arguing with Patrick about, actually - Lack of sufficient supplies of oil would destroy our industry, I said, and I mentioned "petrochemical", not "energy", for a reason.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There is no economic incentive to think long term like that. Most people right now have more pressing issues. Gas is really cheap, despite how much Americans grumble about it. Especially if you have a Civic like me.

I think when the cost of Hybrids comes down, you will see alot of interest in them. One of my former co-workers bought a Civic hybrid and its a great little car as long as you only have needs for a "little" car. Im gonna be curious to see the first hybrid vans, wagons, and SUVs..

They'll eventually be possible. And so will fuel cell cars and more exotic variants. I'm just saying that they're not going to be here in time to provide an alternative for playing the political game in the Middle East - Which we'd have to do even if part of the population didn't resort to terrorism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A couple of points:
1. The US doesn't need to develop new technologies to get off Saudi oil ... all they have to do is be willing to pay more for their oil. The reason the world loves Saudi oil is its CHEAP. Including exploration costs the Saudis pay out about $2 (US) a barrel on some of its exports (which goes to show you the power of a multi-government cartel) to get it out of the ground. Very few deposits the world over are so cheap.

Currently a large amount of wells in oil producing countries are not being exploited, why? Because it's simply cheaper to go to Saudi and take it from there. If you seriously want to dump Saudi oil ... all you have to do is be willing to pay the price (of course the '70s are not the most fun of economic times). Oil is a fungible commidty the Saudis have to sell it to someone so the only effect they can have is on how much it costs.

If you are willing to spend the cash ... Saudi oil is gone tommorrow ... most people aren't willing to spend the cash.

2. For power generation ... go nuclear. I'm a big fan of CANDU myself, but the French and Japanese systems also sound nice. The way I look at it I KNOW coventional power pumps loads of SO2 into the atmosphere, any irradation risk is nothing in comparison to that lovely compound's effects.

3. The biggest problem with swapping to hydrogen or whatever is economics. If alternative energy cars were economically viable ... then people would buy them and the infrasctructure would develop. As it is, I have yet to see any alternative car which is priced anywhere close to a cheap reliable car. Yes high end cars exist, but frankly people don't want to pay that much.

4. Hydrogen is not an energy source (at least under normal production from water), it's an energy storage medium. The power source would be whatever the hell is generating the electricity.

The alternative cars also have to be able to match the performance of internal combustion cars.

As for alternative sources of oil - Nice, but, like you said, the 70s weren't the greatest of times. And it would affect far more than industry, as I've stated.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So, better to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and foreign civilians than for you to sacrifice even the tiniest bit of vehicular luxury?

That attitude, in a nutshell, is why Osama Bin Laden and his ilk can gain new recruits so easily. They simply point to it and say "see?"

My apologies. But I did expound on the point, I think. If in a harried and incoherent fashion I fully confess.

Essentially - The petrochemical is a vital sector of our industry. It could be fairly said that modern industry is fully based around petrochemicals. Vehicular luxury - That's skimmed off the top.

I can afford to drive that rather nice car because our industries, reliant on petrochemicals, are doing well. Consider it a symbol of that success. I'd be willing to go to war to keep the car simply because that war would also be sustaining our entire economy, our vital industries which are the necessary base of any further advance - We can't turn them off and then replace them - and so on.

Gasoline is minor. But it is the most visible thing of oil.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hahahaha. Ha. Ha ha.

"The Evils of Marxism". How appropriate. That's sounds almost exactly like CIA propaganda.

It's also true.

Kissinger set the CIA against Allende, not to preserve democracy or to counter a Soviet puppet in Latin America, but to prevent a charismatic socialist from providing a democratic alternative to American policy.

Allende was brutally consolidating his power as a Communist dictator. I will post a thread on this, containing certain proofs. The USA approved of the action, but support was provided (unlike in Iran).

Don't insult what he did to me.

What, were you dating him or something??

No. It's an error in the text that wasn't noticed as I produced hack job argument after hack job argument. Honestly, though, I've gotten so sick of that argument that it wouldn't matter. However, I'm compelled to defend my assertions once again; it's nature for me now..

Obviously, since Pinochet was a puppet to the U.S.

Since before that. Many South American constitutions are.

[Admiral Piett]

3. The biggest problem with swapping to hydrogen or whatever is economics. If alternative energy cars were economically viable ... then people would buy them and the infrasctructure would develop. As it is, I have yet to see any alternative car which is priced anywhere close to a cheap reliable car. Yes high end cars exist, but frankly people don't want to pay that much.

4. Hydrogen is not an energy source (at least under normal production from water), it's an energy storage medium. The power source would be whatever the hell is generating the electricity.

At the beginning few people could afford cars in general.They were expensive, gas stations were not everywhere etc.It is a problem of mass production.There is no reason to believe that the price would remain high when they started to roll off the production lines in sufficient large numbers.Before that there are some problems that need to be solved but quite frankly nothing of insurmontable.
In anycase such a shift does not happen in a night.
Hydrogen is only a medium,however there are several power sources that could be exploited to generate it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At the beginning few people could afford cars in general.They were expensive, gas stations were not everywhere etc.It is a problem of mass production.There is no reason to believe that the price would remain high when they started to roll off the production lines in sufficient large numbers.Before that there are some problems that need to be solved but quite frankly nothing of insurmontable.
In anycase such a shift does not happen in a night.
Hydrogen is only a medium,however there are several power sources that could be exploited to generate it.

Are we basically agreeing with each other in this thread about technical details? I'm checking to make sure.

[Admiral Piett]

Gasoline is minor. But it is the most visible thing of oil.

No.Gasoline is the most important item.Plastic etc are secondary in terms of oil consumed.The petrolchemical industry uses only a fraction of oil.Transports and power generation consume the large majority of it.You could run the che petrolchemical industry on the US oil deposits without problems.

[Admiral Piett]

Allende was brutally consolidating his power as a Communist dictator.

Really? I am curious to hear what bullshit you may post about this.
I hope you are not coming here saying "He met with Fidel Castro"(like if you never had relations with dictators) or "He nationalized copper industry"(common practice in the Europe at the time btw).Pinochet is a SOB.Ask to Frei or even to one of his colleagues of the military junta which did the coup.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Allende was brutally consolidating his power as a Communist dictator.

Really? I am curious to hear what bullshit you may post about this.
I hope you are not coming here saying "He met with Fidel Castro"(like if you never had relations with dictators) or "He nationalized copper industry"(common practice in the Europe at the time btw).Pinochet is a SOB.Ask to Frei or even to one of his colleagues of the military junta which did the coup.

Didn't Pinochet get convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, or something like that? Doesn't that pretty much prove he's a SOB?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Didn't Pinochet get convicted of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, or something like that? Doesn't that pretty much prove he's a SOB?

No. He's never stood trial due to his health. In fairness you can say that's his lawyers getting him off on a technicality - But he's never faced a jury to weigh the evidence and make the decision, and said evidence has never been heard in court.

Probably around 3,000 people were killed during his 17-year rule of Chile, but he was facing an active Communist insurgency during that period, dealing with the armed militias that Allende had built up in Santiago's rust belt, and the Communist partisans in the rugged terrain of the Andes, who included the foreign volunteers - And between those two sources (Along with the initial coup, which included the innovative tactic of strafing the Presidential Palace with fighter jets), and genuine prosecutions and executions of Communist infiltrators, I don't think you're going to get serious human rights violations.

Mugabe for example has undoubtably caused the deaths of many, many more people and the Left still praises him for standing up to "globalization" - There's no call from over there to prosecute him. But the Left demonizes Augusto Pinochet.

You know why? Because Salvadore Allende gave the man his job thinking that because he was a strict constitutionalist he'd obey orders. Augusto Pinochet decided that Allende was destroying the Chilean constitution and had to be stopped to save Chile, and he stopped him.

The military isn't a police force - It breaks things to stop people, and Allende had badly damaged Chile by then. 17 years later and 3,000 bodies, Chile was fixed and Augusto Pinochet stepped down, desiring only a quiet retirement.

The Left, angry that the lie of a Communist who was willing to operate democratically had been disproven by Pinochet, set out to bury the truth with slander, and they've largely succeeded.

I'll post that explaination on Allende and Pinochet's takeover shortly. It'll be a book excerpt and references.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No.Gasoline is the most important item.Plastic etc are secondary in terms of oil consumed.The petrolchemical industry uses only a fraction of oil.Transports and power generation consume the large majority of it.You could run the che petrolchemical industry on the US oil deposits without problems.

I'm not talking about consumption rates, but in terms of importance for our economy (Namely since, yes, there are replacements for a lot of oil uses in energy and in powerplants - But many are expensive or polluting, the conversion would be costly, and we'd see reduced efficiency until everything is fine-tuned. It would be a massive amount of money that would have to be a government project - Since the private sector won't do it unless it will make a profit off of it, which it won't yet. The Petrochemical industry - Well, who knows how we can replace petrochemicals there. I read one sci-fi novel where there were spacegoing supertankers importing oil from habitable planets elsewhere in the galaxy to support Earth's petrochemical industry....).

Obviously, the two are interconnected in terms of price, and that's more-or-less the critical thing.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oil is going to stay here for quite long.People do not want nuclear energy (without mentioning that a large share of world's uranium deposits are located in troubled areas) and solar panels,windfarms etc cannot satisfy every need.The importance of oil could be reduced however.

Yeah, you don't need to eliminate oil use to eliminate the Middle East's political importance. Just producing more wind turbines and solar panels would help. Ever barrel you save is one less barrel you need to buy from people who are trying to kill you.

It would seem to be the smart thing to do.

Utterly worthless technologies as of today, we need more nuclear power plants.
Though for solar and wind power I'll say that if the majority of private house owners got them for their houses, we'd probably see alot less need for central power, and thereby alot less required power from them.