Yup...We're Running Out Of Oil

[steve]

The Dept. of Defense must have some crazy ass "doomsday" focasts cooked up by statiticians on this problem.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=4&u=/krwashbureau/20050428/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_oilsupplies_wa_1

Global competition for future energy supplies heats up By Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
Thu Apr 28, 2:56 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Soaring demand for crude oil in China, India and other developing nations has set off a scramble to secure future energy supplies that could undermine the economic and national security of the United States.

The United States, Europe and Japan increasingly will be forced to compete with developing nations, especially China and India, the world's two fastest growing major economies, which comprise more than a third of the world's population.

"The center of gravity in world oil is shifting," said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates and an author of "The Prize," an award-winning history of oil.

"Last year, Asia consumed more oil than North America," Yergin said. He predicts an oil supply shift, too, as Africa, Russia and former Soviet republics compete with the Middle East to fill the growing demand for oil.

The developing world's growing appetite for oil is one reason gasoline prices have shot up for Americans. Over time, these emerging economies will also shape not just global oil flows and prices but also world events, said Anne Korin, the co-director of the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, an energy security think tank.

"A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore," she said. "That has profound geopolitical implications."

China and India already have moved aggressively to strengthen their relations with two oil-rich countries - Sudan and Iran - undermining U.S. sanctions against Sudan's regime and undercutting U.S. efforts to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"We are in a situation right now where the energy consumption of the developing world is having an impact on the foreign policy options of the United States," said Korin.

For now, the United States remains well positioned, at least when it comes to energy supplies. The proven reserves in the Middle East make it the expected primary global supplier of crude oil. Iraq, where the United States has forcefully established a beachhead, has proven oil reserves of between 78 and 112 billion barrels.

But political instability, increased terrorism and the spread of fundamentalist Islam make it unlikely that today's oil-production map will look the same 20 years from now.

What's clearly changing is demand. The Paris-based International Energy Agency, a research arm of the world's most developed nations, projected last year that oil demand will grow by 45 million barrels a day to 120 million barrels a day by 2030. More than $3 trillion will be invested to find and produce that oil, and more than half of that investment will serve the needs of emerging economies.

The scramble to find and develop new oil fields and natural gas wells will occur in places such as eastern Siberia and West Africa, as hungry nations hedge their bets should leading producers such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq falter.

"You need energy to develop an economy, so there's a great strategic value in securing energy assets," said Antoine Halff, an oil expert with the risk-management company Eurasia Group in New York.

One likely winner is Russia, along with some of the now independent states that formerly made up the Soviet Union. They have proven reserves of 78 billion barrels but the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there may be 171 billion barrels of estimated undiscovered oil in the region.

"Russia is virtually unexplored. Their potential is enormous," said Gary Swindell, an independent petroleum engineer in Dallas whose business is estimating reserves.

Africa is another winner. It's got 87 billion barrels of proven reserves and estimated undiscovered reserves of 125 billion, mainly in West Africa. Central and South America have roughly the same, but, as in Russia, many are in prohibitively remote areas.

Elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, Canada and Mexico are expected to remain the second and third largest U.S. oil suppliers. But smaller oil players are courting Washington's competitors.

In Venezuela, the fourth largest U.S. oil supplier, President Hugo Chavez, a self-described protege of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, is trying to rewrite concessions to U.S. oil companies and has invited China and India to participate in oil exploration. Ecuador and Colombia are negotiating oil deals with China, too.

China, the world's fastest-growing economy, is also making heavy diplomatic and energy investments in Africa. It needs to: China is projected to consume within 20 years what the U.S. consumes today - 21 million barrels a day.

Although China is the world's second largest oil consumer after the United States, it's only the fifth largest importer because of its own oil reserves. That's changing, however, because China is rapidly exhausting wells in Manchuria and the South China Sea. Soon its reliance on foreign oil will rival America's.

China's President Hu Jintao in mid-April cemented a "strategic" partnership with Nigeria during a state visit to Beijing by President Olusegun Obasanjo. Nigeria is West Africa's biggest producer and a major U.S. supplier. China's already trading development loans for energy development participation in Chad, Gabon and Angola.

In Sudan, China ignored evidence of genocide in the country's long-running civil war to entrench itself. It also effectively voided unilateral U.S. sanctions imposed because Sudan sheltered Osama bin Laden before he moved on to Afghanistan.

Sudan's widely reported human rights violations also sparked protests in Canada and Sweden that drove oil companies from those countries out of Sudan in 2002 and 2003. China, which now gets as much as 10 percent of its imported oil from Sudan, has repeatedly blocked U.N. efforts to impose anti-genocide sanctions against its trading partner.

Data from the federal Energy Information Administration help explain China's moves. The EIA predicts that China will import about two-thirds of the oil it consumes by 2025, up from the current figure of one third.

India, which has almost none of its own oil, is equally hungry. The EIA expects India to more than double its oil consumption to 5.3 million barrels a day by 2025.

Both China and India are investing billions in Iran despite President Bush's attempt to isolate the Persian Gulf nation because of its nuclear ambitions. The money is a lifeline for the world's fourth biggest oil producer, which also sits atop the world's second largest natural gas reserves. Both are off limits to U.S. companies.

Iran - already China's largest oil supplier - earlier this year signed long-term oil and natural gas contracts worth tens of billions of dollars with both China and India. Iran gave India's state oil company a 20-percent ownership stake in the development of a key Iranian oil field.

In strictly economic terms, it doesn't hurt the United States when developing countries promote oil drilling, extraction and production. That increases world supply, slakes demand and drives down prices. But access to ample energy is a prerequisite to world power.

That's a lesson not lost on Russia, the world's second largest exporter of crude oil and holder of the world's largest reserves of natural gas. The United States, Europe, India and China have each carved out stakes in Russia's energy future, while, for its part, Russia has sought to control strategic pipelines for oil and natural gas flowing from or through former Soviet republics.

President Bush travels to Russia in early May and is expected to lobby President Vladimir Putin for a multi-billion dollar pipeline deal to take natural gas to the Russian seaport of Murmansk. There, it would be liquefied and transported for sale in the United States.

Putin seems intent on using Russia's energy supplies to boost his influence at home and abroad. He's meddled in neighboring countries like the Ukraine and Georgia in hopes of securing greater control over how oil flows in and out of the region. And he has broken apart the country's largest private oil company, OAO Yukos, which had ties big U.S. oil interests, and is creating a new and massive state oil company from the ruins.

Putin has been friendliest to Western Europe, which now buys from Russia about a quarter of the natural gas it uses to fuel power plants and factories.

Russia's leader favors Western Europe because the dependency it promotes restores some of the international influence that Moscow lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union, said Clifford Gaddy, an expert on the Russian economy at the Brookings Institution.

[steve]

If only we had a President with the cojones to tell us to conserve.

[BenJammin]

Well, I am not a GWBUSH fan, but I will admit there is at least one proactive and good decision he made....

To provide significant funds for research and development of the hydrogen and alternative energy markets.

Solar (both photovoltaics and solar heat concentrators), and hydrogen technologies are the answer to this mess (forget dangerous nuclear, fission or fusion, that shit is just scary).

200 years in the future, they are going to look back on us in this time and think we were neanderthals because of the primitive ways we meet our energy demands...."oh, it's flammable, lets burn it!"

[steve]

It was one of his better moments, but the energy bill itself was heavily flawed.

It included a LOT of giveaways and welfare to the oil industry, and totally eliminated any reserach grants into Hybrid cars, solar power, wind, biomass etc.

The bill put all of our near term alternative energy research money into one basket - which seems to be unravelling as an un-wise decision.

The Sci-American a few months ago had a really freaking big and dense description of why many scientists are starting to doubt Hydrogen technology. Basically, becasue they have to heat water to a very high temperature to CREATE Hydrogen (it doesn't occur naturally on earth) they end up using almost as much energy to create it as it itself creates...it's almost a wash. Also, it's SUPER hard to transport and distribute.

The article basically said that people are starting to think Hydrogen may be viable as a way to supply Power Plant energy, but not cars.

[steve]

2 friends of mine have bio-mass trucks.
They have done much research on the stuff, so I trust their opinions on it.

They basically say it's great, but for small-scale enomies, but if it were used on a very large scale you'd have 3 HUGE problems.

1. There isn't nearly enough used oil from restaurants alone to supply even 1% of the US needs.
2. The land needed to grow enough Corn/etc. to turn into veggie oil would wipe out our agriculture needs - translation, we wouldn't have enough food.
3. Veggie oil is actually very expensive because of the labor needed to produce it.

[steve]

The Solution is tough...because it requires leaders with the cajones to tell Americans: "you'll have to sacrifice and conserve some".

We, as a nation, haven't conserved or sacrificed jack shit since World War II.
Case in point: after 911 - we were told it was our civic duty to BUY STUFF to supplant the economy.
We are dependent upon what we consume...which the Buddha might see as a problem.


The irony is, what we'd have to give up isn't stuff that are the biggest deals in the world, like:
Driving 12 MPG SUVS (drive Hybrids instead - like the 60 MPG Prius or the new 50MPG Highlander SUV (if you need 4wd and room for your family)

Taking the freaking bus or train...or even (gasp) WALK OR BIKE
Using less AC (drop some weight so we don't sweat so much)
Switch to LED lighting

Give consumers a checklist on their power bills that lets them choose where their power comes from - with tax rebates for choosing renewable.

Drive less - we're driving all over tarnation on Sat and Sun in order to feed our empty souls with buying useless crap. This, of course, in our free society could not be mandatory. But we could teach our children about consumerism and participating in govt. more in school...educate people for X-sake!

Cease welfare payments to the oil industry.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by steve
It was one of his better moments, but the energy bill itself was heavily flawed.

It included a LOT of giveaways and welfare to the oil industry, and totally eliminated any reserach grants into Hybrid cars, solar power, wind, biomass etc.


yep, that's classic gw&friends!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by steve
The Solution is tough...because it requires leaders with the cajones to tell Americans: "you'll have to sacrifice and conserve some".

We, as a nation, haven't conserved or sacrificed jack shit since World War II.
Case in point: after 911 - we were told it was our civic duty to BUY STUFF to supplant the economy.
We are dependent upon what we consume...which the Buddha might see as a problem.


The irony is, what we'd have to give up isn't stuff that are the biggest deals in the world, like:
Driving 12 MPG SUVS (drive Hybrids instead - like the 60 MPG Prius or the new 50MPG Highlander SUV (if you need 4wd and room for your family)

Taking the freaking bus or train...or even (gasp) WALK OR BIKE
Using less AC (drop some weight so we don't sweat so much)
Switch to LED lighting

Give consumers a checklist on their power bills that lets them choose where their power comes from - with tax rebates for choosing renewable.

Drive less - we're driving all over tarnation on Sat and Sun in order to feed our empty souls with buying useless crap. This, of course, in our free society could not be mandatory. But we could teach our children about consumerism and participating in govt. more in school...educate people for X-sake!

Cease welfare payments to the oil industry.

the problem with humanity. If it makes so much god damn sense, then why don't we do it?

[scorpioboy33]

I really wish gas was 3 times the price it was now...maybe than the world might stand a slight chance

[Nitro Express]

Does anyone have statistics on how crude oil is actually used. There's much talk about cars but we also power ships, planes, and use oil to manufacture things. Oil is used to make asphalt and plastics. There are a mind boggling amount of poducts made from oil.

Sure we could power trucks and cars on bio-diesel, fuel cells, or batteries. We have the technology to do. I think that's only a small part of the problem.

My brother in law flys a 747 for a living. He once was showing me the cockpit of the 747 cargo plane. The fuel indicator measures the fuel in tons on those babies, not gallons or liters. Granted jet fuel is basically kerosene but it's still cracked from the same crude oil gasoline is.

With airplanes there doesn't seem to be the options available. Fuel cells won't work and niether will electric motors. Turbine engines need to burn something. Maybe a highly refined version of bio diesel or something. Even if cars are running on alternative fuels, airplanes may still need tons and tons of oil.

Replacing our use of oil is a tough challenge. Sure we can reduce our dependance on it in some areas but other areas might not be technologically feasible without a major breakthrough.

I still think we are nuts over oil because it's cheap. Any alternative fuel is more expensive because the production costs are higher.

[scorpioboy33]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Does anyone have statistics on how crude oil is actually used. There's much talk about cars but we also power ships, planes, and use oil to manufacture things. Oil is used to make asphalt and plastics. There are a mind boggling amount of poducts made from oil.

Sure we could power trucks and cars on bio-diesel, fuel cells, or batteries. We have the technology to do. I think that's only a small part of the problem.

My brother in law flys a 747 for a living. He once was showing me the cockpit of the 747 cargo plane. The fuel indicator measures the fuel in tons on those babies, not gallons or liters. Granted jet fuel is basically kerosene but it's still cracked from the same crude oil gasoline is.

With airplanes there doesn't seem to be the options available. Fuel cells won't work and niether will electric motors. Turbine engines need to burn something. Maybe a highly refined version of bio diesel or something. Even if cars are running on alternative fuels, airplanes may still need tons and tons of oil.

Replacing our use of oil is a tough challenge. Sure we can reduce our dependance on it in some areas but other areas might not be technologically feasible without a major breakthrough.

I still think we are nuts over oil because it's cheap. Any alternative fuel is more expensive because the production costs are higher.
thanks man good post...I like learning about new shit

[4moreyears]

March 17, 1999
Low Oil Prices: A Fill Up of Good News

by Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.

Some people are just genetically incapable of accepting good news. In recent weeks the media have inundated us with stories of the latest crisis in America: low oil prices. James MacKenzie of the World Resources Institute has declared that low oil prices are harmful because they destroy the market for alternative fuels and increase pollution from cars. Meanwhile, financial analyst Teresa Wyszomierski writes in the Washington Post that low gasoline prices are bad news because they are hurting the Saudi economy.

It seems like only yesterday that the doomsayers were warning that high oil prices were a harbinger of economic collapse. Now it's bargain-basement prices that are the curse. As for Ms. Wyszomierski's absurd claim that we should worry about the Saudis, excuse me, but I don't recall the Middle East oil sheiks crying tears for Americans when we were paying our astronomical heating bills during the days of $30 a barrel oil in the 1970s.

In fact, one wonders whether those who long for the good old days of high oil prices have totally repressed that era of malaise from their memories. I haven't. I vividly remember frigid February Chicago mornings in 1973 when my parents and I scrambled out of the house early to beat the rush to the gasoline pumps. If you arrived too late, frustrated motorists would be queued up half way around the block.

Many of the doomsayers who predicted $100 a barrel oil in 2000 are the same people who falsely predicted nuclear winter, massive famine across the globe, cities so polluted that gas masks would be required and other crises of biblical proportions. And these are the same pessimists who somehow have concluded that low oil prices are the problem.

Throughout the whole energy crisis ordeal, I kept thinking: What is wrong with our country? Why is America being bought up by Arab princes? It didn't help matters that at school our social studies teacher was filling our heads with frightening forecasts about the planet's oil reserves running dry within 20 years.

It wasn't just junior high school social studies teachers who were prophesying doom. The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth report predicted that oil would cost $100 a barrel by 2000. Even President Jimmy Carter in his cardigan sweater announced to the nation that we should all turn down the thermostat and bundle up because "we could use up all of the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."

Twenty-five years later the good news is that we can conclude definitively that the globe is not running out of oil. And despite what the nattering nabobs of negativism say, this is truly good news. Oil now sells for roughly $11 a barrel, meaning that the Club of Rome was off by a factor of almost ten. The Associated Press recently calculated that oil is now cheaper than bottled water. In fact, oil is just about the cheapest liquid on earth.

Regular unleaded gasoline can now be had in many parts of the country for 89 cents a gallon, which, adjusted for inflation, is cheaper than at any time in 50 years. The average state and federal tax on a gallon of gasoline is now 43.4 cents, which means that half the cost of filling up your tank now goes for taxes, not the fuel itself.

So what lessons can we learn from the false energy crisis? I suggest three.

First, apocalyptic predictions from academics, government officials and the media should always be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many of the doomsayers who predicted $100 a barrel oil in 2000 are the same people who falsely predicted nuclear winter, massive famine across the globe, cities so polluted that gas masks would be required and other crises of biblical proportions. And these are the same pessimists who somehow have concluded that low oil prices are the problem. Just remember these Chicken Littles have a perfect record: they have been wrong every time.

Second, markets work; government interventions don't. Almost every energy policy Presidents Ford and Carter devised to try to alleviate the energy crisis backfired. The windfall profits tax and energy price controls short-circuited the market pricing system. With prices held low by government fiat, oil consumption was raised artificially high, and domestic production was kept artificially low. The result: shortages intensified, gas lines got longer and America's reliance on imported foreign oil doubled. On the day Ronald Reagan became president, his first Executive Order was to lift all remaining energy price controls. Oil prices soared in the short term, but that stimulated domestic production and exploration, thus triggering the 20-year swoon in prices.

Third, we no longer need a national energy policy or a federal Department of Energy. Actually, we never did. The energy crisis is over. Why do we still spend billions of tax dollars on energy conservation and alternative fuels programs? Why conserve a resource that is in great abundance? While we are at it, Congress should repeal another byproduct of the energy crisis: the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards for U.S. autos. With energy as affordable as ever, it makes sense that Americans want to trade in their 40 MPG Pintos for safer and heavier cars, even if they guzzle a little more gas.

The United States has an energy policy. It's called the free market. And it has worked marvelously for consumers. True, producers are none too happy these days, whether they're in the Middle East or the Texas panhandle, but for the rest of us, more cheap oil means greater prosperity. In fact, low oil prices are equivalent to a large tax cut for American workers.

Only those who fear progress and prefer to sit in darkness would bemoan our new era of cheap and abundant fuel. As for me, I say, fill 'er up


This is a bit dated but in 1972 the club of rome predicted we would run out of oil by now. But inventions like Fuel Injectors, and advances in oil drilling, refinery, and pipelines has helped increase the supply of crude available in 1972 and lower the usage of oil and crude.

[steve]

The problem with 1970s forcasts is that predictions were weighted towards KNOWN oil reserves, and did not include much in the way of finding new deposits.

Forcasters learned from that.

If we were using 1970s predictions...we'd only have about 5 or 10 years worth of oil left.

40 years of oil is what the OPTIMISTIC drilling scientists/geologists say - their predictions assume new deposits, new drilling technologies, etc.

[Nickdfresh]

I don't know the specifics, but I think SUV's/trucks are immune from the fuel economy & emissions standards of cars. There is no reason for this. Ford MC was using engines basically designed in the 1050's in their vehicles up until a few years ago. While they were refined quite a bit, they still lacked more advanced fuel emissions tech.

[steve]

Yup, they are.
Thank the GM/Ford lobbyists.

[BenJammin]

Originally posted by steve
The Sci-American a few months ago had a really freaking big and dense description of why many scientists are starting to doubt Hydrogen technology. Basically, becasue they have to heat water to a very high temperature to CREATE Hydrogen (it doesn't occur naturally on earth) they end up using almost as much energy to create it as it itself creates...it's almost a wash. Also, it's SUPER hard to transport and distribute.

The article basically said that people are starting to think Hydrogen may be viable as a way to supply Power Plant energy, but not cars.


Uh, don't know about that article, but that is not how hydrogen is produced from water. Electrolysis is used, not heat. But the result is the same...so much electricity is used, it makes the process inherently inefficient.

But there have been significant advances in using microbes and solar [separately] to produce hydrogen, including new types of catalysts which make the electrolysis part way more economical and efficient.

Gee, that article you read sounds really pessimistic and outdated.

[steve]

Originally posted by BenJammin
Uh, don't know about that article, but that is not how hydrogen is produced from water. Electrolysis is used, not heat. But the result is the same...so much electricity is used, it makes the process inherently inefficient.

But there have been significant advances in using microbes and solar [separately] to produce hydrogen, including new types of catalysts which make the electrolysis part way more economical and efficient.

Gee, that article you read sounds really pessimistic and outdated.

It was only from a few months ago, actually.
Not every opinion covered was 100% pessimistic , but the conclusions from the authors of the article were somwhat so.

Heat is used to drive the electrolysis, from what I understand. I was just trying to use fewer syllallallables. I 'spose I could also argue my way out by saying that "heat" is energy :) or something smart-alacy.

But whatever, I'm no scientist.
My only point was what you said - the problem being confronted w/ the tech. is the process is inheriently inefficient.

[WACF]

We tried Bio Diesel in the mine at I work at...the emisions made it unusable in our underground tunnels...just too dirty.

The fact is you can look at an early 70's 350 chevy with a 2 barrel or 4 barrel carb and take a newer 5.3 fuel injected chevy. The mgp is not all that much greater...for a much advanced fuel delivery system.

Hybrids are expensive...nice idea but until you get alot of them on the road the fact is repairing and maintaining them will break you...that is straight from GM.

What I like is seeing the 6 speed manual or 5 speed automatics along with the multi-displacement engines being used. That is what we should be looking at. Cruising on the Highway you do not need all 8 banging away.

The fact people with boats or campers will always need more horse power and towing weight...that means SUVs or trucks will always be on the road.

[GAR]

If there were an impending energy crisis based on lack of oil reserves, why then:

- are they banning Gopeds which can get a 200lbs man along the highway at over 60 miles per gallon with fewer emissions? They run on fucking Ryobi 49cc 2cycle engines designed for backpack leaf blowers?

- do the Feds allow the Big 3 automakers to continually lobby against funding alternative fuel autos claiming the age-old maxim "less steel weight/less safety"?

- arent solar/wind farms sprouting up all over the goddamned place besides the feigned-effort "test farms" around?

- aren't the Feds giving taxbreaks subsidies for home OR business powergen sets which include solar/wind generators?

THATS when you know its a serious issue, when you see actual effort going into conservation or alternative sources. In the meantime, I have a Corvette to fuel up for Vegas - baby! YEAH!

[Nickdfresh]

Some good questions GAR.

I think the Wind Farm/solar thing is lingering largely due to a lot of pople saying "not in MY backyard!" Everyone wants cheaper energy, they just don't want the new plants/refineries near them.

[GAR]

No it was lingering because it required heavy investment in battery storage which until nickel-metal-hydride technology displaced nickel-cadmium as best storage device (beyond lead-acid) meant that battery storage kept the cost higher than the cost of powergrid delivery ie Utility generation.

Lead acid technology sucks because once the acid becomes completely saturated with lead ions, the battery becomes unrechargeable and useless. However, the amp-hour storage capacity is the highest of all storage mediums and is still the cheapest.

NiCad sucks because those type batteries require special power conditioning for a custom recharging curve, ie, you can't just throw voltage across the terminals and expect 'em to soak it up like lead-acid type. The generated heat byproduct of NiCad recharging requires a special recharging curve to allow for a fast-rising slope initially until a certain point where then the input voltage is reduced more and more until just a trickle is applied till full-capacity is achieved.

Also, the electrolytic compound of NiCad is more easily damaged in the recharge curve so special care is required for the recharging circuit unlike the lead-acid where you can just throw voltage at it until full capacity is reached.

NiMh or nickel-metal-hydride technology based batteries are the first type of storage medium where the likelihood of damaging the electrolyte is much less likely and closer to the lead-acid type, so much they're now using NiMh batteries in dual power cars like the Toyota Prius I believe it's called. Yet even then, they require a special power curve because nickelmetal hydride batteries (like ANY metal) heats up. When metal in an electrical circuit of any type heats up, greater resistance is developed with the byproduct being heat - of which Nimh batteries, like their NiCad cousins, have greater trouble dissipating because both electroylitic compounds are paste-based.

Lead-acid on the other hand, despite how toxic they are, dissipate heat very easily because their electrolytes are a pure fluids/solid metal/pure fluids type of contact.

[steve]

Damn GAR...WTF??? Who knew you were the freaking battery man.

How about this for a solution:
cut off everyones' legs at birth and graft segways onto them.

Transport problems solved.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Some good questions GAR.

I think the Wind Farm/solar thing is lingering largely due to a lot of pople saying "not in MY backyard!" Everyone wants cheaper energy, they just don't want the new plants/refineries near them.

Look the master has a typo. He is human. Does that make you a fucking retard also?

JH

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Look the master has a typo. He is human. Does that make you a fucking retard also?

JH

no, but your handle makes you a retard

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
no, but your handle makes you a retard

Rather be a retard than a democrat. Wait a minute retards and democrats are the same thing. Oh no does that make me a democrat. AAAAAAHHHHHHH

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Rather be a retard than a democrat. Wait a minute retards and democrats are the same thing. Oh no does that make me a democrat. AAAAAAHHHHHHH

sorry man I didn't mean to confuse you

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Look the master has a typo. He is human. Does that make you a fucking retard also?

JH

Why don't you actually read my posts douchebag? I actually liked you better when you ripped other peoples articles, and posted them as your own. You were actually less of an asshole then.

Your monomania is approaching TOMBALLIN' level.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why don't you actually read my posts douchebag? I actually liked you better when you ripped other peoples articles, and posted them as your own. You were actually less of an asshole then.

Your monomania is approaching TOMBALLIN' level.

You liked me, I did not know I had a fan.

JH

[BenJammin]

Originally posted by GAR
No it was lingering because it required heavy investment in battery storage which until nickel-metal-hydride technology displaced nickel-cadmium as best storage device (beyond lead-acid) meant that battery storage kept the cost higher than the cost of powergrid delivery ie Utility generation.

Lead acid technology sucks because once the acid becomes completely saturated with lead ions, the battery becomes unrechargeable and useless. However, the amp-hour storage capacity is the highest of all storage mediums and is still the cheapest.

NiCad sucks because those type batteries require special power conditioning for a custom recharging curve, ie, you can't just throw voltage across the terminals and expect 'em to soak it up like lead-acid type. The generated heat byproduct of NiCad recharging requires a special recharging curve to allow for a fast-rising slope initially until a certain point where then the input voltage is reduced more and more until just a trickle is applied till full-capacity is achieved.

Also, the electrolytic compound of NiCad is more easily damaged in the recharge curve so special care is required for the recharging circuit unlike the lead-acid where you can just throw voltage at it until full capacity is reached.

NiMh or nickel-metal-hydride technology based batteries are the first type of storage medium where the likelihood of damaging the electrolyte is much less likely and closer to the lead-acid type, so much they're now using NiMh batteries in dual power cars like the Toyota Prius I believe it's called. Yet even then, they require a special power curve because nickelmetal hydride batteries (like ANY metal) heats up. When metal in an electrical circuit of any type heats up, greater resistance is developed with the byproduct being heat - of which Nimh batteries, like their NiCad cousins, have greater trouble dissipating because both electroylitic compounds are paste-based.

Lead-acid on the other hand, despite how toxic they are, dissipate heat very easily because their electrolytes are a pure fluids/solid metal/pure fluids type of contact.


True dat Gar! Obviously you are very informed about battery technology, but I will offer this.

To the best of my knowledge (this is a hobby of mine,btw) the object of huge solar and wind farms are to feed power directly to the grid, not to store it. Wind farms are indeed opposed due to two main things. Obstruction / spoiling of views, secondly people claim damage to bird populations (?). Don't know about the validity of those arguments, but I guess they think smokestacks are beautiful?

But people are starting to warm up to the idea. Change take time and people are naturally resistant to change, no matter the good it brings.

Solar farms on the other hand are still unable to produce electricity at a $/per kwh (kilo watt hour) that is competitive with coal, hydro, and nuclear. The only way it is moving forth for the time being is through government quotas and subsidies (in the US and abroad). South Korea just put in one of the biggest photovoltaic (the black solar panels) solar farms in existence. 60 mW I think, which is a pretty significant production, on par with a small coal fired plant, especially when you consider it is producing power only when the sun is up!.

Once solar can be produced at a price truly competitive with conventional power plants, I believe we will see the world change at a phenomenal rate. With only the conventional power plants needed at night when power demands are normally way down anyway.

But for the complete, round-the-clock answer, some solar technologies, such as solar heat concentration can also produce power when the sun is down, by storing the heat from the sun in a molten salt (yes certain salts will melt to a liquid around 400 celsius!), and then using that heat to power standard steam turbines.

This is has been tested at several sites, and can produce electricity on par with conventional power prices, but the technology needs to be further tested and proven to be accepted by the mainstream.

As I said, change takes time, but it will happen, we just have to quit being complacent and letting other countries with camel jockeys control our fate.

[BenJammin]

Originally posted by steve
The Sci-American a few months ago had a really freaking big and dense description of why many scientists are starting to doubt Hydrogen technology. Basically, becasue they have to heat water to a very high temperature to CREATE Hydrogen (it doesn't occur naturally on earth) they end up using almost as much energy to create it as it itself creates...it's almost a wash. Also, it's SUPER hard to transport and distribute.

The article basically said that people are starting to think Hydrogen may be viable as a way to supply Power Plant energy, but not cars.


Steve, I will apologize. You were totally correct. Your statement intrigued me, and I was totally ignorant of the fact that hydrogen CAN indeed be produced from water at high temps (albeit EXTREMELY high temps). I thought the high temp process only applied to getting hydrogen from other sources such as coal or natural gas.

Here's a good link

http://pesn.com/2004/07/09/6900033_Solar_Hydrogen/

...and I call this a hobby of mine (at least I didn't call myself a professional !).

I'll just go eat my crow now [roll eyes]

[Jano]

SHIT HAPPENS !!!!!

[Seshmeister]

The US has 3% of the oil reserves and currently uses 25% of the worlds output each year.

The big irony is that the most likely and logical thing that will happen in the next 20 years is that we will move to nuclear power generating all the electricity which is then used for cars.

Nuclear is fast becoming the logical answer as the least bad option.

http://www.firstfoot.com/geneolagy/images/homer.jpg

[GAR]

ENERGIZE THE CYCLOTRON~!!

[BenJammin]

Here's another good link. I follow this stuff all the time, and from my layman point of view, this looks like the real answer to our energy problems. Produce all the hydrogen you want from the sun, then use it to power everything else. Hydrogen powered fuel cells for your car AND home.

The article is legit. It basically details the process of producing cheap hydrogen from water by using titanium oxide electrodes [old technology with recent engineering breakthroughs which increase efficiency to an acceptable level].

Then you can turn the hydrogen back into water by running it through those new type fuel cells for electricity (no combustion, no CO2, just heat and water as byproducts). Then use the same water to run thru the first process!

This IS the holy grail of energy production.


http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/27/6900038_SolarHydrogen/


Fuel cell information here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html