My solution for eliminating our oil dependency.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

From what I've heard it would take A LOT of crops to do this. We're talking much more than they make now. Now how are you going to convert that corn into ethanol? Oil.

Actually Brazil makes for a good case study of how ethanol can replace oil usage check out this article:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml

 

[Columbusite]

Actually Brazil makes for a good case study of how ethanol can replace oil usage check out this article:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ethanol15jun15,0,3313642.story?track=tothtml

That was interesting. The big problem is that we Americans use way too much gas and if we switched to this we would have to change that. Suburbs are way too spread out for public transportation to work well. We'd need a massive rise of new urbanism development in the suburbs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That was interesting. The big problem is that we Americans use way too much gas and if we switched to this we would have to change that. Suburbs are way too spread out for public transportation to work well. We'd need a massive rise of new urbanism development in the suburbs.

Yes we have a much higher population than Brazil and are far more industrialized, however, you have to think of it as diversifying your fuel reserves, I'm not saying get rid of OIL all together I'm suggesting subsidizing it with other forms of energy, imagine if you had a car that could run on Gas, Hydrogen, or Ethanol, that would subtract our oil dependency by 2/3's alone not to mention electricity which has a nearly endless array of different supplies.

Also read my first thread for making a cost effective form of Hydrogen it's the start of this thread.

Perhaps the production price as well as creating a new ifrastructure for this car might be cost prohibative but due to the huge labor force throughout the world this really shoudn't be a problem especially since we're faced with the possiblity of the industrial revolution (a truly continuous revolution) coming to a screeching halt when the Oil wells dry up.

I'm not saying that oil will run out tomorrow but it will someday that's just a fact as it is a finite supply so wouldn't it be better to start building the infastructure for hydrogen and ethanol powered cars before it becomes a serious issue.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Americans don't use too much gasoline. We just use more than other places.

The problem is that we're importing too much oil.

There should be a way to fine tune global warming so that national savings on heating fuel in the winter isn't exceeded by increased air conditioning demands in the summer. Of course using more nuclear power to generate the electricity for the AC would help decrease oil demands.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Americans don't use too much gasoline. We just use more than other places.

The problem is that we're importing too much oil.

There should be a way to fine tune global warming so that national savings on heating fuel in the winter isn't exceeded by increased air conditioning demands in the summer. Of course using more nuclear power to generate the electricity for the AC would help decrease oil demands.

Exactly, the problem is not with the rate of consumption it is with the fact that we are dependent on foriegn powers for the supply, we need to be more self sufficient as a nation in our energy production hence the title of this thread: "My Solution for Eliminating our Oil Dependency."

Instead of pie in the sky hopefullness that the American public will quit using so much energy we need real solutions to a very real problem. Pragmatism people let's think critically.

 

[teacher]

OK I got an Idea on how we can end our dependency on oil right now. The big problems with hydrogen fuel cells are the high costs of creating hydrogen and the fact that it takes other sources of fuel eg oil, coal, etc, to create it. So it's this catch 22 that I have a solution for, we should use nuclear power to create hydrogen, we now have the most effecient and cleanest form of power in the history of the world and if we use it to create hydrogen it would eliminate the high cost and the problem with using other fuel to create it and this, I think, would totally eliminate our dependency on oil, now this would entale creating more nuclear power reactors, the question is: will the same environmentalists who complain about global warming and CFC's allow us to create these new reactors? . . . I think not. We now have at our disposal the solution to oil dependency, what we lack is the will to use it.

Instead of nuclear power (that's never gonna fly with too many illinformed treehuggers),simply mandate all new construction install 100% roof coverage with solar. Use that electricity to make Hydrogen gas stored in tanks similar to propane. Then you can fill up your Hydrogen car at home. Tax incentives and rebates similar to what utility companies do today when you upgrade your HVAC. All roofs with a minimum amount of wind also use wind turbines. Sticks it to the Arabs, very green, eventually much cheaper, Hydrogen is much safer than Hydrocarbon fuels, technology allready exists, saves on paper towels that aren't used cleaning oil off of varmints, demand on petroleum products decreases lowering the price of Vaseline making Billo happier.

Oh, that's right, both parties are beholden to big oil. Never gonna happen.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Instead of nuclear power (that's never gonna fly with too many illinformed treehuggers),simply mandate all new construction install 100% roof coverage with solar. Use that electricity to make Hydrogen gas stored in tanks similar to propane. Then you can fill up your Hydrogen car at home. Tax incentives and rebates similar to what utility companies do today when you upgrade your HVAC. All roofs with a minimum amount of wind also use wind turbines. Sticks it to the Arabs, very green, eventually much cheaper, Hydrogen is much safer than Hydrocarbon fuels, technology allready exists, saves on paper towels that aren't used cleaning oil off of varmints, demand on petroleum products decreases lowering the price of Vaseline making Billo happier.

Oh, that's right, both parties are beholden to big oil. Never gonna happen.

Got any idea what 1200 square feet of solar-electric cells will cost? And then you can pay that every five or ten years to replace them, as well as the negative heating effects of having a black roof, and the expense of getting the roof washed twice a year. There's reasons why solar power, especially solar-electric, hasn't found a market.

Then who gets to clean up the pureed pigeon and spotted owls from those cuisinarts on every roof? Can they be turned off at night when people are trying to sleep?

Hydrogen...do you plan on dedicating the output of many coal burning generating stations to make the electicity to split out the hydrogen, or should the energy source be oil, gas, nuclear, wind, or hamsters? Again, there's real reasons why hydrogen isn't an optimal fuel, mostly having to do with that its not a primary source, but a derivative.

And you didn't mention tide motors, wave generators, geothermal, oceanic thermal differentials, burning garbage, and the power of continental drift.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Instead of nuclear power (that's never gonna fly with too many illinformed treehuggers),simply mandate all new construction install 100% roof coverage with solar. Use that electricity to make Hydrogen gas stored in tanks similar to propane. Then you can fill up your Hydrogen car at home. Tax incentives and rebates similar to what utility companies do today when you upgrade your HVAC. All roofs with a minimum amount of wind also use wind turbines. Sticks it to the Arabs, very green, eventually much cheaper, Hydrogen is much safer than Hydrocarbon fuels, technology allready exists, saves on paper towels that aren't used cleaning oil off of varmints, demand on petroleum products decreases lowering the price of Vaseline making Billo happier.

Oh, that's right, both parties are beholden to big oil. Never gonna happen.

Teacher that would be a good idea to produce electricty but the facte of the matter still remains that a car must have an easily excessible source of fuel for electricity powered cars. The purely electric car is cost prohibitive in relation to the current energy situation. The battry powered engine plan is not a good idea due to the amount of space the battery apparatus takes up.

The genius of using the nuclear power technique to creating hydrogen is that altough there is an energy loss the uranium is not a finite resource and one that men can make in a lab. And with a little bit of Uranium one can create vast amounts of energy which if you transfer into hydrogen can power a vehicle capable of locamothin.

 

[teacher]

Got any idea what 1200 square feet of solar-electric cells will cost?

Not cheap, NOW. Mass production lowers cost. Volume. Basic economics. And don't forget, you don't pay for electricity, Propane, Natural Gas, or that couple of bucks you spend at the Exxon every month or two.

And then you can pay that every five or ten years to replace them,

The very fact that they are being used will drive the technology foward. They'll make these technologies better, more efficiant and durable for ever and ever Amen just like refridgerators and light bulbs.

as well as the negative heating effects of having a black roof,

So you run the AC in the sommer more. Use more electricity. Now where are we gonna find more electricity?. Oh, that's right, we've put solar panels on the roof. And in the winter it's a good thing.

and the expense of getting the roof washed twice a year.

So when you go up on the roof to clean your gutters you also bring a squeege and a bucket and spend a couple of extra hours. The horror. But hey, with a ladder, a bucket and squeege I can start another business. I'll make milions.

There's reasons why solar power, especially solar-electric, hasn't found a market.

Big oil, politicians, fear of change, but basicly, it's too good an idea and the majority of the unwashed masses are baffled by a broken clothes washing machine or running toilet to begin to grasp the simple science here. They would have to know 1/10 as much about electrons as they do about the backgrounds of American Idol contestants.

Then who gets to clean up the pureed pigeon and spotted owls from those cuisinarts on every roof?

Maybe I can invent some sort of grill like device. I'll call it a screen. I'll make millions.

Can they be turned off at night when people are trying to sleep?

Maybe I can invent some sort of device that can turn it off or on. I'll call it a switch. I'll make millions.

Hydrogen...do you plan on dedicating the output of many coal burning generating stations to make the electicity to split out the hydrogen, or should the energy source be oil, gas, nuclear, wind, or hamsters?

Eventually evey roof in this country would be covered in solar. That's a lot of square feet. The whole idea is to get away from fossil fuels.

We use our coal to make Hydrogen and then we screw the friggin Arabs and pull out of that hell whole entirely and then when they have no more excuses to attack us anymore yet still do because they still have the real reason they attack us, Islam, the left will have to come to terms with the fact that these people need to be delt with, well do it, and then well have a energy self-sufficient nation that is so nearly pollution free that Ralph Nader will shut up and start restoring and racing old Roadrunners, GTO's, Camaros and such because he likes how they go fast. Now that's a run on sentence. One of my favorite creative writing tricks.

Again, there's real reasons why hydrogen isn't an optimal fuel, mostly having to do with that its not a primary source, but a derivative.

You're just not getting this are you? We put the primary source on your roof.

And you didn't mention tide motors, wave generators, geothermal, oceanic thermal differentials, burning garbage, and the power of continental drift.

I'm for all of that, but, the first post and topic of this thread was Hydrogen. Sorry for getting off topic and mentioning wind while we were up on the roof.

Let's put it like this.

Fact:

Using solar, geothermal, and hydrogen gas technology it's possible to build a home that can provide it's own electricity and vehicle fuel using existing products.
It just costs more. You can buy a hair dryer at wal-mart for three and a half bucks. Mass production will do the same to the cost of Hydrogen energy.

You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, aren't you?

Trojan, have you explained the science behind this on this thread yet?

 

[teacher]

Teacher that would be a good idea to produce electricty but the facte of the matter still remains that a car must have an easily excessible source of fuel for electricity powered cars.

You produce Hydrogen at your home from solar and store it in a tank like propane and use it to fill your Hydrogen car up.

The genius of using the nuclear power technique to creating hydrogen is that altough there is an energy loss the uranium is not a finite resource and one that men can make in a lab. And with a little bit of Uranium one can create vast amounts of energy which if you transfer into hydrogen can power a vehicle capable of locamothin.

Let me know when you've convinced the anti-nuclear crowd that nuclear energy is safe and logical.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You're a glass is half empty kind of guy, aren't you?

Actually I'm an engineer with both nuclear power experience, practical experience in running water electrolysis machinery, and experience in solar array design for spacecraft.

What are you?

Let's start with the bomb. You know, the electrolysis machine that'll pull the hydrogen out of the water you put in. Got any idea why submariners call those things 'the bomb'? It's because incorrect operation can make them explode.

You think that just anyone can run his own bomb? You're talking about a nation of people who've made a running joke out of the complexity of setting the clock on their VCR suddenly being able to safely operate a sophisticated water purification and electrolysis gadget. ( and no, you can't run tap water in your bomb, the impurities get left behind and before long you're trying to separate hydrogen from sludge).


Let's talk about solar cells.

The solar constant is 1300 w/m2 squared times to cosine of your latitude. That doesn't take into account inclination of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, which introduces a 24 degree annual variance in solar angle. That's something spacecraft don't have to contend with but it's fairly negligible hit, anyway. Spacecraft power systems aren't affected by cloudy days, either. That's probably a 80% efficiency.

Night times make things difficult, too. Cut by one half.

Silicon crystal cells have an efficiency on the order of 25%. Higher efficiency cells are available. Higher efficiency cells cost even more and don't help cost effectiveness.

Naturally, spacecraft don't have to worry about dust, dirt, or streaks, either, but your house does. Let's give that a 90% efficiency hit.

Did I mention that the sun is only shining straight on the panel for a little time each day because, well, the earth rotates and the sun moves in the sky? So the peak production hours are, well, when most people aren't home. How convenient. So you have to toss another reduction factor on your power curve, to come up with an average output. For more than six hours a day the sun is more than 45 degrees off axis. Let's make that a 70% hit.

So one square meter of cells will produce, ummm,

1300 w/m x cos 45 (latitude) x 1/2 (it ain't daytime all day) x 0.25 (efficiency) x .90 (dirt) x .80 (clouds) x .70 (sun moves)

equals about 60 watts of DC power per square meter of collector surface.

The average electric bill is about 1200 kw/hr per month, or 40 kw/hr per day. To collect this energy during the peak six hours in the middle of the day would require 110 square meters of cells, which is a fair sized roof.


In other words, you need a lot of collector area, and oh, yeah, a LOT of batteries to save that power for when you're home to use it. You know, environmentally sound lead acid batteries or maybe nice nickel-cadmiums, or any of the more exotic things, right there in your house with you. And the charging and battery maintenance gear and the static inverter. And most electric gear more complicated than toasters and lamps aren't as fond of the taste of the squarish wave of statically inverted power as compared to the nice smooth taste of proper AC generated on a real turbine. Oh, and all this gear WILL require skilled people to come play with often.

And you think that will compete with the $.0016 per kw/hr of projected nuclear generated electrical costs anytime in the near future, or the remote future?

Current costs of this gem of a system are on the order of a hundred grand.

At the average retail cost of electricity of about $.25 per kw/hr, it would take 27 years to pay for it in electrical savings...except the systems are only good for about ten years.

Who the hell is going to buy that?

And I haven't even started making fun of hydrogen yet.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You produce Hydrogen at your home from solar and store it in a tank like propane and use it to fill your Hydrogen car up.


Let me know when you've convinced the anti-nuclear crowd that nuclear energy is safe and logical.

Just fill the car up, eh? Is that liquid H2 or gaseous? Just pour it in? What pressure is the tank at? How many people are qualified to work with flammable gases in this manner? Hardly a wise idea.

 

[kcasper]

Just fill the car up, eh? Is that liquid H2 or gaseous? Just pour it in? What pressure is the tank at? How many people are qualified to work with flammable gases in this manner? Hardly a wise idea.

You don't have to be "qualified" to work with flammable gas. There are legal restrictions only when working with quantity. Think of it from another angle, do you have to be qualified to work with a gas grill?

There are already hydrogen vehicles on the street that are filled up in this fashion. They are generally hobby cars or prototypes, but they are there.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You don't have to be "qualified" to work with flammable gas. There are legal restrictions only when working with quantity. Think of it from another angle, do you have to be qualified to work with a gas grill?

There are already hydrogen vehicles on the street that are filled up in this fashion. They are generally hobby cars or prototypes, but they are there.

I'm sorry, but what I meant by qualified wasn't that they have a PhD in flammable plumbing, but that they know what they're doing. Is it safe to assume my comment about setting VCR clocks went over your head because you're in the group that can't set them?

Hobbyists by definition are more knowlegeable than the general public about the intricacies of their hobby.

Guaranteed that if home-repressurization kits became as common as computers there'll be a hell of a lot more burning bushes and people swearing to God.

Now. My Chevy Suburban has a forty gallon tank and about a 400 mile range. What volume of hydrogen gas, at 1 atm of pressure, will provide the same range, and then what pressure do you plan on storing it at?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually I'm an engineer with both nuclear power experience, practical experience in running water electrolysis machinery, and experience in solar array design for spacecraft.

What are you?

Let's start with the bomb. You know, the electrolysis machine that'll pull the hydrogen out of the water you put in. Got any idea why submariners call those things 'the bomb'? It's because incorrect operation can make them explode.

You think that just anyone can run his own bomb? You're talking about a nation of people who've made a running joke out of the complexity of setting the clock on their VCR suddenly being able to safely operate a sophisticated water purification and electrolysis gadget. ( and no, you can't run tap water in your bomb, the impurities get left behind and before long you're trying to separate hydrogen from sludge).

You would have to use distilled water.
Let's talk about solar cells.

The solar constant is 1300 w/m2 squared times to cosine of your latitude. That doesn't take into account inclination of the earth's axis to the ecliptic, which introduces a 24 degree annual variance in solar angle. That's something spacecraft don't have to contend with but it's fairly negligible hit, anyway. Spacecraft power systems aren't affected by cloudy days, either. That's probably a 80% efficiency.

Solar power would not be sufficient to produce the amount of hydrogen necessary that's why I say nuclear power is the way to go.

Night times make things difficult, too. Cut by one half.

Silicon crystal cells have an efficiency on the order of 25%. Higher efficiency cells are available. Higher efficiency cells cost even more and don't help cost effectiveness.

Naturally, spacecraft don't have to worry about dust, dirt, or streaks, either, but your house does. Let's give that a 90% efficiency hit.

Did I mention that the sun is only shining straight on the panel for a little time each day because, well, the earth rotates and the sun moves in the sky? So the peak production hours are, well, when most people aren't home. How convenient. So you have to toss another reduction factor on your power curve, to come up with an average output. For more than six hours a day the sun is more than 45 degrees off axis. Let's make that a 70% hit.

So one square meter of cells will produce, ummm,

1300 w/m x cos 45 (latitude) x 1/2 (it ain't daytime all day) x 0.25 (efficiency) x .90 (dirt) x .80 (clouds) x .70 (sun moves)

equals about 60 watts of DC power per square meter of collector surface.

The average electric bill is about 1200 kw/hr per month, or 40 kw/hr per day. To collect this energy during the peak six hours in the middle of the day would require 110 square meters of cells, which is a fair sized roof.


In other words, you need a lot of collector area, and oh, yeah, a LOT of batteries to save that power for when you're home to use it. You know, environmentally sound lead acid batteries or maybe nice nickel-cadmiums, or any of the more exotic things, right there in your house with you. And the charging and battery maintenance gear and the static inverter. And most electric gear more complicated than toasters and lamps aren't as fond of the taste of the squarish wave of statically inverted power as compared to the nice smooth taste of proper AC generated on a real turbine. Oh, and all this gear WILL require skilled people to come play with often.

And you think that will compete with the $.0016 per kw/hr of projected nuclear generated electrical costs anytime in the near future, or the remote future?

Current costs of this gem of a system are on the order of a hundred grand.

At the average retail cost of electricity of about $.25 per kw/hr, it would take 27 years to pay for it in electrical savings...except the systems are only good for about ten years.

Who the hell is going to buy that?

And I haven't even started making fun of hydrogen yet.

My whole point is based on converting Nuclear energy, which is unable to be used for locomotion, into hydrogen.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

My whole point is based on converting Nuclear energy, which is unable to be used for locomotion, into hydrogen.

Still inefficient, especially when there's a couple trillion barrels of oil equivalent in the Colorado oil shales, and ten trillion tons of carbon locked up in methan ices in the oceans.

Nuclear power makes electricity. There's a never ending demand for electrons in motion. The thing to do is to increase the share of electrical generation to nuclear and shift the carbon based fossil fuels to functions they're better suited for.

Which isn't to say that future technology improvements won't alter the equation. Perhaps bioengineered yeast will make ethanol an economical alternative instead of a boondoggle.

 

[tecoyah]

The solution is here:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming."


and its fully functional....if only we decide to use it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The solution is here:

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm

"This is a solution to three of the biggest problems facing mankind," says Brian Appel, chairman and CEO of Changing World Technologies, the company that built this pilot plant and has just completed its first industrial-size installation in Missouri. "This process can deal with the world's waste. It can supplement our dwindling supplies of oil. And it can slow down global warming."


and its fully functional....if only we decide to use it.

Holy **** I didn't believe it but then I looked it up it's real that's crazy it's an oil making machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

 

[alphieb]

Why is it less profitable to grow corn for ethenol????? Do they label the corn at the grain bin???? Don't be naive. If alternative fuel is more profitable, it would be utilized.

Did you see the article in WSJ re: hybrids. It is a marketing gimmick.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why is it less profitable to grow corn for ethenol????? Do they label the corn at the grain bin???? Don't be naive. If alternative fuel is more profitable, it would be utilized.

Did you see the article in WSJ re: hybrids. It is a marketing gimmick.

It's less profitable because the only way farmers produce ethanol for fuel purposes is with federal subsidy. Clearly if it was a profitable venture subsidies would not be required.

 

[Loxd4]

Why is it less profitable to grow corn for ethenol????? Do they label the corn at the grain bin???? Don't be naive. If alternative fuel is more profitable, it would be utilized.

Did you see the article in WSJ re: hybrids. It is a marketing gimmick.

Corn price would sky rocket just like gas price after Katrina thing in new Orland’s...and there is not enough farmable land in the USA to grow that much corn....was good in theory but not when a applied. And then you would have the farmer's running the country instead of the oil company’s...what a good change(lol).

Holy **** I didn't believe it but then I looked it up it's real that's crazy it's an oil making machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

I understand what you mean….you want more nuclear power plants in United State so they can power Hydrogen plants…so no fossil fuel would be burned…and also creating Hydrogen price to drop b/c the production cost would go down in the long run…

And that lady that said Hydrogen only need %5 oxygen to ignite…your right…but the tank can made to be able to stay together without releasing this gas all at once…or the tank could be made inside another tank…the inner tank would have the hydrogen and the outer tank could have something that neutralize the hydrogen so It not so flammable…but if we have hydrogen or liquid hydrogen getting sold at the gas station how would me make shore it doesn’t get in the hand of a terrorist…

Now the reason why this would no happen anytime soon would be b/c United State hates dictatorships governments…and this form of government control would be too much like dictatorship government…so automatically American would appose this idea of yours.

And here is the thing you can store very cold liquid substance in line liquid oxygen, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen….this container is called a Dewar. The container can hold as small as 1 gallon or as big ass 10,000 gallon of liquid substance.

Here goes a car that run off of liquid nitrogen…and you don’t have to worry about blow up just freezing up…

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm

 

[Columbusite]

Americans don't use too much gasoline. We just use more than other places.

No, that is a huge part of the problem. We're using up way too much energy for this way of life to be sustained for much longer. We use a LOT more than any other country in the world especially with the population we have.

 

[alphieb]

It's less profitable because the only way farmers produce ethanol for fuel purposes is with federal subsidy. Clearly if it was a profitable venture subsidies would not be required.

Subsidies make ethanol less profitable?? You have it backwards. Ethanol production is more expensive than pumping oil. Everyone knows that. Also, every coop in the Midwest is "venturing" in the corn game. Cargill and the boys know that the price break is $4/gal. That won't happen consistently for 10 yrs.

 

[ashurbanipal]

You know, generally I like what The Nation has to say (I know, I know it's biased people), but the most recent issue had one of the dumbest articles I've ever seen in it. It was crying about the fact that poor people who lived in small towns 50 miles from their job could no longer afford gas. And it suggested, get this, a government aid program for people that couldn't afford gas. Unreal. Actually supporting people's decision to live 50 miles from their job. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. Time to think of option B, instead of continuing to pay for it.

I would point out that rents/ property values are typically very high near where jobs are concentrated, except where the nature of those jobs cause environmental calamity. There are reasons that people moved away from their jobs. We never got very good at Urban planning in this country (some notable exceptions exist).

I'm hearing good things about ethonol these days in a south American country I believe I heard that ethonol has replaced seventy percent of oil consumption. Oh and I agree urban sprawl is a definate problem.

Cuba converted significantly to ethanol, though not without immense trouble. They import it, mostly, essentially trading it by exporting nickel.

NO NEED TO STOP USING OIL

there is a glut

Venizuala HAS more then middle east EST
BUt you have to pay and if they should change to selling it in EUros
were Toast
$ is underwritten by the fact that it is used around the world to buy oil

I know this guy was banned, but I will say it just in case anyone believes him: NO. This is incorrect. Venezuela does not have more oil than the Middle East, and there is no glut.

Oiltech has a process that can extract oil from shale at $12 - $28 a barrel. The US should be doing everything it can to promote this technology. There's almost 3 trillion barrels of extractable oil in Utah.

There are between 1.2 and 1.5 trillion barrels in place (estimated by the USGS, who are usually optimistic) in the Green River formation in Utah. I'm not aware of any reliable estimates of recoverable reserves, but if it works like oil, this would mean about 400 billion barrels will be ultimately recoverable. That's still a lot.

Anyway, it appears to me that Oiltech is being disingenuous about their claims. For instance, they claim that the massive water inputs in traditional processing are not needed for their processing because they don't use water to transport the crushed rock. In traditional shale processing, that water is used to impart hydrogen to the keragen as it is heated. Oiltech will have to add it at the point of retortion.

I have no doubt that they've made their process more efficient. But if Shell can't do it for under $40.00 a barrel, I don't believe these guys can.

Another real problem for Shale Oil extraction is that you get much less energy out per unit of energy spent on making the product. Once shale oil is refined, it's only slightly above the break even point.

The other problem--the one that kills it--is that no one is looking at it seriously right now. It will take a decade to scale up to the point where Shale Oil was producing a million barrels a day. And so far, no one is in a rush to do it.

I don't believe that 3 trillion figure includes the tar sands up in Alberta, which I've heard is good for another trillion.

I believe a trillion is correct, but for mechanical reasons it will never produce more than 10 million barrels per day.

Then there's the trillions of cubic feet of methane in submerged methane ice in the oceans. The myth of the energy crunch kept the lefties happy in the seventies, but like all things the lefties believe in, it isn't so.

The methane trapped in the Siberian permafrost is already melting, and we will likely soon be faced with runaway global warming and the attendant consequences, and you want to release more methane? 2005 is going to be the hottest, stormiest, wildest year on record, and you want to add to the problem? 29 of the 32 chimneys that form the Atlantic Conveyor have shut down thanks to desalination, and you want to make it worse? The Amazonian basin is drying up, and you want to make it drier?

Not cheap, NOW. Mass production lowers cost. Volume. Basic economics. And don't forget, you don't pay for electricity, Propane, Natural Gas, or that couple of bucks you spend at the Exxon every month or two.

No, it doesn't. It lowers what people are willing to accept as profit per unit. Cost is not substantially affected beyond a certain initial inflection point.

Using solar, geothermal, and hydrogen gas technology it's possible to build a home that can provide it's own electricity and vehicle fuel using existing products.
It just costs more. You can buy a hair dryer at wal-mart for three and a half bucks. Mass production will do the same to the cost of Hydrogen energy.

It costs a lot more. Wal mart gets that hairdryer by enforcing some vicious labor conditions in foreign countries and gutting our economic base as well (as we will shortly discover). We won't be getting "three and a half buck" solar power from China any time soon.

Subsidies make ethanol less profitable?? You have it backwards. Ethanol production is more expensive than pumping oil. Everyone knows that. Also, every coop in the Midwest is "venturing" in the corn game. Cargill and the boys know that the price break is $4/gal. That won't happen consistently for 10 yrs.

No--in order to produce ethanol profitably requires government subsidy. On its own, it would not be profitable.

I think we'll see $4.00 a gallon gasoline by early 2007, if not before. Possibly as early as next summer.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Subsidies make ethanol less profitable?? You have it backwards. Ethanol production is more expensive than pumping oil. Everyone knows that. Also, every coop in the Midwest is "venturing" in the corn game. Cargill and the boys know that the price break is $4/gal. That won't happen consistently for 10 yrs.

Is that profitable in competition with $4.00/gal gas on it's own, or is the buck a gallon stolen tax dollar subsidy included for the corn juice?

If the stuff was worth anything, it wouldn't need a federal subsidy, right?