Fighting Gas prices : will this work?

[radhak]

... I believe that on that scale there is only one real source of alternative fuel. Scary as it is - it is nuclear energy. We can talk all we want about biofuel or wind power but the real options are simple - learn to use safely nuclear energy ...

Completely agree. The biggest objections against nuclear energy today is lack of safety and waste-disposal. But the closer we get to the tipping point (where traditional energy sources dry out and mankind sits dumbly under the stars), we will need to resolve those issues and start using nuclear energy leaving all the rest way behind. Hopefully, human innovation will win.

For some parallels, by the time the 1800's drew to a close, there were dire predictions about traffic on the street : horses and horse carriages were the most used with the mechanical car just a scientific curiosity; the biggest problem then was that with so many horses on the street, there needed to be special squads just to clean up behind them. And with increasing traffic, it was calculated that the cleaning effort would prove to be woefully inadequate - far too many people were needed than were available. And lo! Henry Ford came along, and as soon as 1912 saw more cars than horses in large cities. (This article has some more detail, if you are interested).

But till that happens we are gonna pay thru our noses for our energy, sooner than later.

[Russianwolf]

I believe that on that scale there is only one real source of alternative fuel. Scary as it is - it is nuclear energy. We can talk all we want about biofuel or wind power but the real options are simple - learn to use safely nuclear energy or go back to 18th century life style when human race was not dependent on fossil fuel.

I partially agree. I think we will have to fall back on nuclear if we don't develope some of the promising alternatives in a big way quickly. The ones I'm thinking of are underwater turbines that are Tidal/Current driven. They have the potential to out do wind and solar, and 2/3 of the surface is water.

But if we don't develope the tech pronto, we have to find a better was to deal with the nuc waste that you mentioned. If I recall, there is a mountain in Cali that is one such disposal site. The internal temp of the mountain has increased due to the decay of the radioactive waste such that they are now concerned that the mountain could sheer off and collapse due to steam pressure.

[prlundberg]

I believe that on that scale there is only one real source of alternative fuel. Scary as it is - it is nuclear energy. We can talk all we want about biofuel or wind power but the real options are simple - learn to use safely nuclear energy or go back to 18th century life style when human race was not dependent on fossil fuel.

1/3 of my electricity comes from wind, 2/3 from hydroelectric. I pay about $5 per month extra for wind rather than coal, well worth it IMO.

Alternatives are capable of making a very large difference. So while I agree that, like it or not, nuclear power will need to be used, alternatives are still a major part of the solution and much of the technology is available for widespread use today.

On another note, part of the problem with people buying inefficient cars is hybrids like the Prius are selling at a high premium that would take somewhere around 120K miles to get your money back. Add that to the facts that larger vehicles are safer (in large part due to the size of other vehicles on the road) and more comfortable and it is easy to see why smaller cars haven't caught on. Eventually, they will.

[billwmeyer]

I agree that we ought to start up more nuclear plants. I have a nephew that works in one now. I find it interesting that the big oil producing nations are building and wanting nuclear power. I know we are very concerned that they are solely for weapons production, but they also seem to think it is the way to go for electricity.

Wind and solar power can do a lot for us, but we need a backup system in traditional power generating stations. I think it is going to take a lot of different technologies to get us through this.

Bill

[BigguyZ]

What I find funny/ interesting is that a lot of the people who don't want us to use fossile fuels also abhore the potential ecological impact wind farms and hydro plants cause. I think we can strike a compromise between all sides, but some people seem that they won't be happy unless we cripple our economy and go back to the dark ages...

I think Nuclear is the way to go. I know there's a lot of fear about it, but I think it's over-emphasized. These days, Nuclear is cleaner, more efficient and cost effective, and safer than it was over 20 years ago when we built our last Nuclear plant. I think I heard somewhere that France is switching to using Nuclear as a primary source of power. I think the biggest concern with Nuclear is to make sure the sites are secure and are protected against terrorist attack.

[Russianwolf]

What I find funny/ interesting is that a lot of the people who don't want us to use fossile fuels also abhore the potential ecological impact wind farms and hydro plants cause. I think we can strike a compromise between all sides, but some people seem that they won't be happy unless we cripple our economy and go back to the dark ages...

I think Nuclear is the way to go. I know there's a lot of fear about it, but I think it's over-emphasized. These days, Nuclear is cleaner, more efficient and cost effective, and safer than it was over 20 years ago when we built our last Nuclear plant. I think I heard somewhere that France is switching to using Nuclear as a primary source of power. I think the biggest concern with Nuclear is to make sure the sites are secure and are protected against terrorist attack.

I have no problems with wind power in and of itself, I just realize that the power density of water power is much greater. Also currents and tides are very sustained.

[jackellis]

re: Fighting Gas prices : will this work? (loooong reply)

I live, eat and breathe this stuff. Unfortunately, there are no easy, painless answers.

There are over 100 oil refineries in the US. Surprisingly, I believe Exxon-Mobil is not the largest operator. Other large operators include Chevron-Texaco, Exxon, Valero, Holly, Conoco-Phillips, BP.

No one wants an oil refinery in their back yard. Moreover, all this talk of alternative fuels makes it difficult to justify building a new, $5 billion factory that might become a white elephant. Existing refineries are continually being upgraded to the point where new capacity is being added every year, but demand continues to outstrip production capacity. We import about a million barrels of gasoline per day even as refineries in the US run as hard as they can. Multiple, geographically specific gasoline formulations are bad for the states that impose them and probably good for the ones that do not as far as price is concerned.

Electric vehicles for short trips are an excellent idea, but battery prices have to come way down before people will buy them in large numbers and even then, their range will be limited. Plug-in hybrids - essentially a Prius with a battery pack that lets you drive 20-50 miles - are a better solution because they combine the best of both technologies. Use batteries for short trips while being able to make long trips on gasoline or something else.

Corn ethanol is idiotic. Period (my opinion, not a fact). Cellulosic ethanol is an excellent idea but still a few years away from commercial operation. It will allow limited displacement of gasoline but it is not a solution by itself.

Wind is great when it's present and a disaster when it is not. In California, the wind never blows when it's hottest.

Nuclear power is another excellent idea, but overblown fears, mismanagement by utilities and Federal regulators, and lack of an effective long-term waste storage solution have hobbled it's development in the US and much of Europe. Even if we had a nuclear program as extensive (and well-managed) as France's, it would only displace coal and some gas-fired generation. Oil is rarely used to produce electricity any more except in remote parts of Alaska and on Hawaii.

Solar, especially in hot climates where there's lots of sunshine, has promise, especially if the collection system can produce both electricity and hot water. One technology I'm familiar with claims to be able to produce electricity and hot water for the equivalent of 4 cent per kWh electricity. That's half or (usually much) less of what most of us pay. This particular system is geared toward commercial and industrial facilities with flat roofs, with hot water used in an industrial process or to drive an absorption refrigeration system for air conditioning.

If finding and producing more oil to make gasoline and other petroleum-based products is our only concern, then there are all sorts of alternatives like the coal-to-gas and coal-to-oil technologies that were perfected in South Africa during the apartheid boycott; tar sands in Canada and the US that are quickly ramping production; and possibly harvesting methane from the sea floor. If, however, the objective is to reduce carbon emissions, then the holy grail needs to be a chemical process that mimics on a larger scale and in a much shorter time frame the natural process of converting sunlight to energy sources that typically requires a few million years.

I've come to realize that there are really only a few fundamental sources of energy on this earth: nuclear fission; nuclear fusion if it ever works for commercial purposes; solar energy, which comes in the form of wind, tides, solar photovoltaics, fossil fuels, and fuels derived from crops or plants; and geothermal, which taps heat from the earth's core. Belive it or not, solar energy in several forms is probably the most versatile, but only after it's turned into a lot of living things that eventually die off and become oil, coal or gas. We're not going to see nuclear powered airplanes or cars and I think hydrogen powered vehicles of any kind will not be commercially viable for at least another 30 years.

[billwmeyer]

Jackellis,

I don't agree with you about corn ethanol being idiotic, but I do agree that ethanol production in itself is not an answer. Corn ethanol is working to a degree now, and is being traded as a commodity, which to me shows that it is viable.

However using ethanol to solve the problem just won't work. The figures that I have seen in the industry show that if every grain of corn production in the U.S. was used to make ethanol, we would only replace 25% of our fuel needs. I was quite shocked to see this figure. In short, we need to explore many options to get where we need to be.

Bill

[davethegolfer]

Thank the environmentalists

The price of gasoline today is simply reflecting the very predictable effect of years and years of going along with any garbage science put forth by the environmentalists blindly. I would not spend your money, much less mine, on any new refinery today. First, it takes at least 7 to 10 years to wade through all of the environmental studies and permits at every step of the process and the interim capital costs nearly double due to accumulated interest. Second, we now have to use ethanol as an oxygenate which uses more energy to grow and manufacture than we get from the product. Second, environmentalists have fought every oil reserve development in the US. We can't drill offshore California, Florida, Atlantic Seaboard, most of the Rockies, and large parts of Alaska. This is in spite of the fact that we are now having to import well over half of our demand. In fact, of the drillable sediments still available in the US, over 3/4 are off limits environmentally. High prices are exactly what the environmentalists want to make us change our lifestyle. This is the price we pay for our blind support to the environmental lobby. We can't have it both ways - strong environmental restrictions and low energy prices.

[lrr]

All this talk of conserving -- using less gas, getting more efficient cars? I'm siding with Dennis Miller. I'm paraphrasing:

"Americans are at their best when in a crisis. If we conserve, we will never solve the problem. But if we all continue to use our gas guzzlers, and buy big cars, and drive wastefully, then the gasoline supply will disappear sooner. Once the end is near, we will solve the problem."

I'm sleeping better now, knowing I'm helping to solve the problem.

[jackellis]

I don't agree with you about corn ethanol being idiotic, but I do agree that ethanol production in itself is not an answer. Corn ethanol is working to a degree now, and is being traded as a commodity, which to me shows that it is viable.

Bill,

I'll agree that characterizing corn ethanol as "idiotic" might be a tad over the top, but using feed grains and a conversion process that's not terribly efficient is poor policy and poor economics. Farmers who are now betting on permanently high corn prices could find themselves in a world of hurt three or four years from now when other, better alternatives are introduced.

To Dave's point, even if we punched holes everywhere we could, about the best we could expect is to put off the day of reckoning because there's too much global competition for a shrinking pool of resources that gets more and more expensive to develop. I just spent five days in the middle of the most dramatic scenery I've ever seen and it all sits on top of huge petro reserves. Much as hate paying $4/gallon, I don't want to see it covered with oil and gas rigs because once we start developing that area it's ruined forever. Take a drive through Monument Valley sometime and you'll see what I mean.

High prices are also going to drive development of new energy resources that loosen the grip of foreigners who control huge oil reserves and don't much like us. We'll have to pay more to drive and to heat and cool our homes in the short-term but eventually those alternatives will be very competitive with oil at today's prices or perhaps even a bit lower.

[Russianwolf]

Second, environmentalists have fought every oil reserve development in the US. We can't drill offshore California, Florida, Atlantic Seaboard, most of the Rockies, and large parts of Alaska. This is in spite of the fact that we are now having to import well over half of our demand.

There is a major flaw with the reasoning of the AWR drilling proponents. Drilling is only half the project. Delivery is the other half. All this oil is on the northern portion of Alaska. Shipping in that area is seasonal and risky due to ice flows. Not the way you want to be moving oil up there.

The Alyeska Pipeline that everyone knows about can transport about 2.1 million barrels a day with large amounts of lubricant added (how you lubricate oil, I'm still not sure) , 1.4 million without the lub, average is between 1 - 1.2million barrels a day. The pipeline cost $8 billion to build in 1977. Over 14 billion barrels have been sent through the pipeline (about 294k barrels have spilled/leaked out, not bad).

Running the pipeline at full bore isn't very smart as it causes strain on the system and would result in more failures and possibly more leaks. Building another pipeline ajacent to the exsisting one would cost? $50 Billion? More? and wouldn't be ready for 3-5 years at best. We import 12 million barrels of oil a day by my figures. At best we would offset this by 2 million barrels a day?

Interesting site for info on where we are getting our oil. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...c_mbblpd_m.htm