Independence for Middle East Oil

[admiral_danielsben]

You're kidding yourself if you think consumers aren't interested in alternate fuel cars. The success of hybrid vehicles alone has given car manufacturers the drive to try some new things and both GM and Honda are spearheading Hydrogen powered cars for release in the next five years in consumer markets.

The problem with moving to a new fuel at this point isn't the technology itself anymore (early hydrogen cars are already running and are being used in pilot programs in Los Angeles) but getting the gas stations to go along with retooling their facilities to support the pumps and storage containers needed to stock the new fuels. This is exactly the sort of initiative the federal government should be working on by giving incentives to gas stations but of course that isn't happening. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, several executives of GM have gone on record saying that we could have hydrogen cars widespread in the next three years if the federal government would get behind them.

Don't be a moron. Hydrogen is a net-loss energy source. You'll need just as much oil--and then some--to power the power plants which will feed the hydrolytic reactors.

Does it have to be oil, though? Nuclear power, coal power, gas power, any old power can charge them up. Need not be oil.

Therefore, you just need the extra uranium, or coal, or natrual gas, or wind, or water, etc.

[SirNitram]

You're kidding yourself if you think consumers aren't interested in alternate fuel cars. The success of hybrid vehicles alone has given car manufacturers the drive to try some new things and both GM and Honda are spearheading Hydrogen powered cars for release in the next five years in consumer markets.

The problem with moving to a new fuel at this point isn't the technology itself anymore (early hydrogen cars are already running and are being used in pilot programs in Los Angeles) but getting the gas stations to go along with retooling their facilities to support the pumps and storage containers needed to stock the new fuels. This is exactly the sort of initiative the federal government should be working on by giving incentives to gas stations but of course that isn't happening. I'm not the only one who thinks so either, several executives of GM have gone on record saying that we could have hydrogen cars widespread in the next three years if the federal government would get behind them.

Don't be a moron. Hydrogen is a net-loss energy source. You'll need just as much oil--and then some--to power the power plants which will feed the hydrolytic reactors.

Does it have to be oil, though? Nuclear power, coal power, gas power, any old power can charge them up. Need not be oil.

Therefore, you just need the extra uranium, or coal, or natrual gas, or wind, or water, etc.

Fission plants are political unfeasible. Coal power belches ridiculous amounts of pollution into the air. Gas I am unsure of. Wind/Hydro/Solar power is in no way cost-effective for this.

[HemlockGrey]

So what prevents the Government from launching some sort of massive education program about nuclear energy?

Oh, right, the Government is comprised entirely of barbarians and prostitutes. Excuse my temporary outbreak of naivete.


Although I find it somewhat hard to believe that there are no nuclear advocacy groups or whatnot.

[Master of Ossus]

Ossus, what exactly do you think OPEC is for? Under a totally free global market, you would be correct, the price will be set on the international market. However, OPEC (a cartel, which are forbidden in any decently run market economy) use such charming strategies as hording, price fixing, dumping, etc.

OPEC has become MASSIVELY less powerful since the 1980's, as new finds of substantial petroleum reserves outside of OPEC nations have proven fruitful.

Moreover, thanks for proving my point. The price of energy is established on the global market. Right now, you can argue that that's being done by a cartel, but that doesn't change the fact that the world is still setting the price of energy.

Besides, it's more a matter of getting away from oil altogether so that the energy market will not be dominated by any one area of the world. The more countries that can produce fuel at competative prices, the lower those prices will go.

Except that no other form of energy CAN be produced in sufficient quantities at a low enough price to even begin to compete with the massive networking externalities that gasoline already possesses over the market. We would need to pay to eliminate or match ALL of those externalities, and in the meantime we would be screwing over everyone who stuck with oil--all for the ability to have our energy prices set by the same world market in the same manner.

[Master of Ossus]

Although I find it somewhat hard to believe that there are no nuclear advocacy groups or whatnot.

Remember that the amount of money that any individual consumer stands to save by switching to nuclear power is very small, whereas the amount of money that some people (ie. owners of coal mines, coal mine workers that form the basis of entire towns, power-plant executives, etc.) is comparatively large. This means that while any rational citizen may be willing to throw in a hundred dollars or so each year (IF they know about the issue and understand it properly), those that stand to lose are literally willing to throw thousands of dollars or more into defeating pro-nuclear legislation.

[Master of Ossus]

Does it have to be oil, though? Nuclear power, coal power, gas power, any old power can charge them up. Need not be oil.

Therefore, you just need the extra uranium, or coal, or natrual gas, or wind, or water, etc.

Nuclear power is getting killed by political concerns that don't make any sense. Coal is what the US mostly uses, right now, and is the basis for most other kinds of alternative energy (ie. ethanol). It's ridiculously bad for the environment. Natural gas is extremely limited, and while hydro power doesn't have many of those weaknesses, and manages to be fairly efficient, the capital equipment required for it is expensive, sufficiently large rivers and streams are scarce, and creating dams causes other environmental damages.

[admiral_danielsben]

Don't be a moron. Hydrogen is a net-loss energy source. You'll need just as much oil--and then some--to power the power plants which will feed the hydrolytic reactors.

Does it have to be oil, though? Nuclear power, coal power, gas power, any old power can charge them up. Need not be oil.

Therefore, you just need the extra uranium, or coal, or natrual gas, or wind, or water, etc.

Fission plants are political unfeasible. Coal power belches ridiculous amounts of pollution into the air. Gas I am unsure of. Wind/Hydro/Solar power is in no way cost-effective for this.

"Politically unfeasable", but most practical, is nuclear. It produces a LOT of energy. There are only 100 or so nuclear plants in the US; they produce about 20% of its electricity.

Coal burns dirty, but newer coal plants (or refitted ones), are much cleaner than they were 50 years ago.

CNG burns pretty cleanly. That's "Compressed Natural Gas".

To be honest, most of my knowledge of power plants comes from playing Simcity. Coal is cheap but dirty, oil is a bit cleaner and a bit pricier, natural gas is pricey but much cleaner, nuclear is pricey per unit but produces a lot of power and is clean (unless, of course, you over-use it, burn it past life expectancy, or let the UFO's blow it up, then there's radiation). Solar and wind power are pricey and not very powerful, but very clean. Hydro power is powerful but only works with flowing water. As for 'future plants', the Microwave and Fusion plants are expensive but produce a lot of energy and are fairly clean.

There are also other sorts of power plants. Geothermal, ocean power, etc. are all clean but are only practical in limited areas (like Iceland for geothermal). Biogas is a nice idea for rural Iowa and other areas where there's a manure crisis (it takes manure and watter- and i am serious now - and makes a sort of natural gas to be burned. It's actually used in India) - and yes, there is a manure crisis in parts of Iowa, seems there are more pigs taking a crap than there are farms who need fertilizer! Actually, it might not be a bad idea elsewhere - hook up sewer systems to power plants and you might power cities by sewage. Energy can be produced by burning trash - but this is if anything even dirtier than burning coal, although it'll depend on the kinds of trash burned.

Also, fossil fuels need not be developed from mining or prospecting. Ethanol is derived from plants (especially corn and sugar). React sugar with concentrated sulfuric acid (the world's number-1 chemical, it has a zillion uses) and you get what is essentially coal (a block of sulfur-rich carbon). Heck, if we could simply harness the natural gas produced when cows burp - 50 million tons per year - that's another source of energy. Termites are even bigger - they produce 150 million tons per year. And of course, there's Enigma, but I won't get into that right now.

Sadly, the one thing that cannot be harnessed is political hot air. I'm sure John Kerry and George Bush alone could produce enough energy to power Texas and Massachusetts combined, but it would be impossible to harness the energy - politicians won't talk if you try to hook a pump to their mouths.

[SirNitram]

"Politically unfeasable", but most practical, is nuclear. It produces a LOT of energy. There are only 100 or so nuclear plants in the US; they produce about 20% of its electricity.

No shit. Still not feasible for the simple fact that Politicians kill it at every chance.

Coal burns dirty, but newer coal plants (or refitted ones), are much cleaner than they were 50 years ago.

A pinto is faster than a horse. Most times. So? They are still ridiculously dirty, and I'd rather not dump more carcinogens into the atmosphere than we have to.

CNG burns pretty cleanly. That's "Compressed Natural Gas".

It does. It's also hideously expensive due to limited reserves.

To be honest, most of my knowledge of power plants comes from playing Simcity. Coal is cheap but dirty, oil is a bit cleaner and a bit pricier, natural gas is pricey but much cleaner, nuclear is pricey per unit but produces a lot of power and is clean (unless, of course, you over-use it, burn it past life expectancy, or let the UFO's blow it up, then there's radiation). Solar and wind power are pricey and not very powerful, but very clean. Hydro power is powerful but only works with flowing water. As for 'future plants', the Microwave and Fusion plants are expensive but produce a lot of energy and are fairly clean.

...I'm glad you came into this debate with nothing but knowledge from a video game. I'm going to stare in shock, aghast at trying to argue from teh mechanics of SimCity.

There are also other sorts of power plants. Geothermal, ocean power, etc. are all clean but are only practical in limited areas (like Iceland for geothermal). Biogas is a nice idea for rural Iowa and other areas where there's a manure crisis (it takes manure and watter- and i am serious now - and makes a sort of natural gas to be burned. It's actually used in India) - and yes, there is a manure crisis in parts of Iowa, seems there are more pigs taking a crap than there are farms who need fertilizer! Actually, it might not be a bad idea elsewhere - hook up sewer systems to power plants and you might power cities by sewage. Energy can be produced by burning trash - but this is if anything even dirtier than burning coal, although it'll depend on the kinds of trash burned.

Not to mention the politics of it will be horrendous.

Also, fossil fuels need not be developed from mining or prospecting. Ethanol is derived from plants (especially corn and sugar). React sugar with concentrated sulfuric acid (the world's number-1 chemical, it has a zillion uses) and you get what is essentially coal (a block of sulfur-rich carbon). Heck, if we could simply harness the natural gas produced when cows burp - 50 million tons per year - that's another source of energy. Termites are even bigger - they produce 150 million tons per year. And of course, there's Enigma, but I won't get into that right now.

Last I checked, Ethanol is a net-energy-loss.

Sadly, the one thing that cannot be harnessed is political hot air. I'm sure John Kerry and George Bush alone could produce enough energy to power Texas and Massachusetts combined, but it would be impossible to harness the energy - politicians won't talk if you try to hook a pump to their mouths.

If stupidity could be a powersource, the Libertarian party could power most of the 1st world.

[admiral_danielsben]

"Politically unfeasable", but most practical, is nuclear. It produces a LOT of energy. There are only 100 or so nuclear plants in the US; they produce about 20% of its electricity.

No shit. Still not feasible for the simple fact that Politicians kill it at every chance.

I'm saying it's the BEST method. I'm not saying it's the POLITICAL method. The two rarely come together.

Coal burns dirty, but newer coal plants (or refitted ones), are much cleaner than they were 50 years ago.

A pinto is faster than a horse. Most times. So? They are still ridiculously dirty, and I'd rather not dump more carcinogens into the atmosphere than we have to.

Best way to do that is (short-term) to adopt low-sulfur fuels, specially developed versions of diesel (and coal, too) that aren't as bad. Or you could just drive PZEV's. Or get everyone to use nuclear power plants.

CNG burns pretty cleanly. That's "Compressed Natural Gas".

It does. It's also hideously expensive due to limited reserves. [/quote]

It's relatively limited, but there's natural gas almost anywhere there's oil (even if just a little). Russia has tons of the stuff, the Middle East has relatively little.

To be honest, most of my knowledge of power plants comes from playing Simcity. Coal is cheap but dirty, oil is a bit cleaner and a bit pricier, natural gas is pricey but much cleaner, nuclear is pricey per unit but produces a lot of power and is clean (unless, of course, you over-use it, burn it past life expectancy, or let the UFO's blow it up, then there's radiation). Solar and wind power are pricey and not very powerful, but very clean. Hydro power is powerful but only works with flowing water. As for 'future plants', the Microwave and Fusion plants are expensive but produce a lot of energy and are fairly clean.

...I'm glad you came into this debate with nothing but knowledge from a video game. I'm going to stare in shock, aghast at trying to argue from teh mechanics of SimCity.

It's a good game. I suggest you try it. It's like building a city, except you can smite the residents if you feel they're unworthy with fire, tornadoes, UFO's, etc.

There are also other sorts of power plants. Geothermal, ocean power, etc. are all clean but are only practical in limited areas (like Iceland for geothermal). Biogas is a nice idea for rural Iowa and other areas where there's a manure crisis (it takes manure and watter- and i am serious now - and makes a sort of natural gas to be burned. It's actually used in India) - and yes, there is a manure crisis in parts of Iowa, seems there are more pigs taking a crap than there are farms who need fertilizer! Actually, it might not be a bad idea elsewhere - hook up sewer systems to power plants and you might power cities by sewage. Energy can be produced by burning trash - but this is if anything even dirtier than burning coal, although it'll depend on the kinds of trash burned.

Not to mention the politics of it will be horrendous.

Look, not all trash can be recycled. It has to be burned or buried (either way polluting). Why not burn it and get a little electricity out of the mix?

Also, fossil fuels need not be developed from mining or prospecting. Ethanol is derived from plants (especially corn and sugar). React sugar with concentrated sulfuric acid (the world's number-1 chemical, it has a zillion uses) and you get what is essentially coal (a block of sulfur-rich carbon). Heck, if we could simply harness the natural gas produced when cows burp - 50 million tons per year - that's another source of energy. Termites are even bigger - they produce 150 million tons per year. And of course, there's Enigma, but I won't get into that right now.

Last I checked, Ethanol is a net-energy-loss.

So? Use nuclear power (or any other power) to make it. It's for car fuel, not power plants. Also, a less-energy-intensive method may yet be discovered.

Sadly, the one thing that cannot be harnessed is political hot air. I'm sure John Kerry and George Bush alone could produce enough energy to power Texas and Massachusetts combined, but it would be impossible to harness the energy - politicians won't talk if you try to hook a pump to their mouths.

If stupidity could be a powersource, the Libertarian party could power most of the 1st world.

The idea is sound, although your suggested source of fuel is rather poor. Libertarians, moderates, and many conservatives are probably not going to get too much mileage (you may get a few gigawatts out of the religious right, however). On the other hand, if you use socialists, fascists, communists, greens/envirocommies, fundamentalists of all faiths, militant thugs, and other loonies of the statist/authoritarian variety, you'll get so much power that ---- you'll revolutionize the world. UC-Berkeley alone could provide enough electricity for all of California - never mind the other campuses, California will be exporting power to every state west of the Mississippi! Not that they will need it, of course. Canada and the US together could supply the entire Western Hemisphere with enough power that every hovel in Caracas will have electric lights and a TV - and that's not even using Venezuela's own native power sources! Energy will be pennies on the gigawatt-hour, every other power plant on Earth will go out of business, and the third world will have enough electricity that they'll be able to live in first world conditions! And they won't even have to import energy - Burma and Brazil alike will be producing so damn much they won't know what to do with it. The Middle East will lose out, oil will collapse but they won't be too badly off, they'll have plenty of electricity to go around.

If only we could harness the power of authoritarian stupidity......

[SirNitram]

I am well acquainted with SimCity. I have played each incarnation, even the Super Ninetendo Console version. It is not accurate for modelling the tradeoffs of power supply here in reality.

You can prattle about 'best' but 'best' also includes those that are actually viable and possible to accomplish. Nuclear power simply does not fufil these situations due to the actions of politicians. For the time being, oil is required. Best to focus on how to produce it elsewhere without ripping up vast tracks of land, and push for other means.

As for stupidity as a powersource, I contend you are as delusional as any partisan in your claim that the Right Wing won't supply power. The Religious Right would provide power, yes, but the repressive policies of the socially conservative are immensely stupid in their quest to return us to the dark ages, and of course, the Libertarians, with their TAXES IZ SLAVERY!!!11oneoneoneeleven stuff, well, they might as well be a perpetual motion device, exceeding even that of communists.