Joint Venezuela-Russian naval exercises

[mmx1]

That first statement may or may not be true. I would like to see us try. I'll be that we can get pretty damn close. We can damn sure produce enough to eliminate the need to import from Hugo Chavez. Every Citgo you drive past is paying for Uncle Hugo's MiG's.

Supply and demand are not junk economics.

Then you'll understand that us not importing oil from Chavez will not make a dent in his finances - any faster than we make a dent in the Saudis' or Kuwaitis' bottom lines. And in comparison to the world, we don't have enough oil reserves to make a dent.

On the other hand, if we can reduce the demand for oil (worldwide) due to new technologies, we can leave them holding 100 billion tons of worthless crap.(and the Saudis too).

That would be lots of fun.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Nuclear power.... F!

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

 

[picklesuit]

I stick by my position that it is crucial to move away from oil and coal. Yes it will cost a lot, but advocating increased drilling today is kind of like (to use a metaphor from Thomas Friedman) pushing for more type-writers when the first PCs came out.

The problem with this is that the "first PC" of energy is not out yet. Plug and play electric cars still burn oil (because electricity comes from somewhere) Ethanol still requires oil to process/harvest corn/vegetable matter, nuclear energy has not been accepted in this country by the same people arguing for clean energy (a whole other argument about double standards), and hydrogen energy is not at a level to be commercially exploited. So we are left with the oil dependancy, and we are still having to import most of it. Thus comes the argument to take advantage of the natural resources in our own backyard, as opposed to continuing to pay the Saudi's and the Venezualans for theirs.

I would rather drill here, refine here, reduce the amount of dependance on foreign oil, thus decreasing the importance of keeping those lines open (you know, that whole Straits of Hormuz issue) and freeing up Naval and other military resources to do other shit (like killing Somali pirates and sinking homemade subs)

I know those profs at Grinnell spoonfeed a lot of ideas and theories to you out there...but reality is much more pertinent right now...we need oil, we will continue to need oil, and we have lots of it here.

 

[squorch2]

That first statement may or may not be true.

No, it's pretty much true:

Data comes from the US DOE. You're looking for the "unavailable for leasing" numbers.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Let's go NUCLEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously. We have the capacity to build more plants and generate energy for the entire nation at a cost that is much less than what we pay for foreign oil.

If we could get past people not wanting a plant near their home then well we might be onto something there.

 

[picklesuit]

Let's go NUCLEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously. We have the capacity to build more plants and generate energy for the entire nation at a cost that is much less than what we pay for foreign oil.

If we could get past people not wanting a plant near their home then well we might be onto something there.

+8 Why can't people get past the stigma of Nuclear?

 

[mmx1]

This seems like a reflexive but ill-informed response to any attempt to wean us off the consumption of oil.

The problem with this is that the "first PC" of energy is not out yet. Plug and play electric cars still burn oil (because electricity comes from somewhere) hydrogen energy is not at a level to be commercially exploited.

The benefit of electric/hydrogen cars is that they shift the burden of power generation to the grid, which can be generated more efficiently at a central location, can be generated by heavier fuel oils which we'd produce anyway as a product of the refining process(40% of our petroleum consumption is in gasoline), or ideally, by renewable or nuclear energy. Also, electric cars give us the flexibility of shifting power sources depending on cost/availability/unforseen consequences, rather than tying us to one resource as gasoline currently does.

Ethanol still requires oil to process/harvest corn/vegetable matter

I'm not buying ethanol as the answer to our problems, but do you really think that because the process uses SOME oil, as opposed to just burning it, that it's not a viable method of reducing oil consumption? I mean, if it took more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, wouldn't we just burn the oil instead?:icon_wink

nuclear energy has not been accepted in this country by the same people arguing for clean energy (a whole other argument about double standards), and

Well, revisit the issue and refuse to accept the status quo. The issue was decided in the 70's when the main benefit to nuclear power was it's cost.
Since it's become a national security issue and not just a matter of cheap electricity, the issue ought to be revisited. Get the greens, the anti-global warming folks, and the Islamophobes together and trample the Nuclear-phobes. (That'd be a great protestor riot).

So we are left with the oil dependancy, and we are still having to import most of it.

Actually, if you take away energy generation and some proportion of automobile usage, that's anywhere from a third to half of our current petroleum consumption. That would make domestic drilling much more realistic a solution to our problems.

 

[eddie]

I'm not buying ethanol as the answer to our problems, but do you really think that because the process uses SOME oil, as opposed to just burning it, that it's not a viable method of reducing oil consumption? I mean, if it took more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, wouldn't we just burn the oil instead?:icon_wink

I'm fairly certain we burn more oil to make ethanol than we get energy utility out of ethanol.

As for nuclear, I had a prof once tell me if we stood up a new plant every day for the next however many odd years, we'd still be behind WRT to supply. Not that I'm knocking it, i's a good start certainly.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I'm fairly certain we burn more oil to make ethanol than we get energy utility out of ethanol.

As for nuclear, I had a prof once tell me if we stood up a new plant every day for the next however many odd years, we'd still be behind WRT to supply. Not that I'm knocking it, i's a good start certainly.

Thank of how many jobs could be created in a construction industry that's dying to build.

 

[picklesuit]

This seems like a reflexive but ill-informed response to any attempt to wean us off the consumption of oil..

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't wean ourselves off of oil..I think we need all of these technologies as much as the next guy...I'm saying that they aren't at the point to replace oil, so we should continue to look for petroleum sources here...even with the cars all gone and the power grid 100% nuclear we will still need Chapstick and prophylactics...I'd just rather wear American rubbers, that's all

 

[mmx1]

I'm fairly certain we burn more oil to make ethanol than we get energy utility out of ethanol.

Source? And are you talking about the energy required to make ethanol or that required for the chemical processes? If the former, view it as a distribution mechanism, like hydrogen or batteries, and compare it in that regard (which I suspect sucks compared to either of the two - but at least you can burn it in an internal combustion engine)

As for nuclear, I had a prof once tell me if we stood up a new plant every day for the next however many odd years, we'd still be behind WRT to supply. Not that I'm knocking it, i's a good start certainly.

And that's what's wrong with the whole debate. We're not going to get there (cheaply or efficiently, anyway) with any one solution, be it nuclear energy, improved efficiency, or offshore drilling. But in concert, they might, and they certainly will do so at far less cost than if we commit ourselves to one magic bullet and deny the rest.

 

[mmx1]

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't wean ourselves off of oil..I think we need all of these technologies as much as the next guy...I'm saying that they aren't at the point to replace oil, so we should continue to look for petroleum sources here...even with the cars all gone and the power grid 100% nuclear we will still need Chapstick and prophylactics...I'd just rather wear American rubbers, that's all

But we don't need to replace oil 100% - just drive it down to a point where our supply (and the Canadians and some other friendly nations) will be enough to support it, and each of those methods will materially reduce that consumption. Sure there are a few niche uses where oil is not wholly replaceable. Industrial usage makes up maybe 10% of our current consumption. Aircraft, another 10%, and Diesel for freight and heavy machinery (i.e. construction - I'm not seeing plug-in Caterpillars anytime soon), another 15% or so. That still leaves a lot of room for substitution.

 

[picklesuit]

But we don't need to replace oil 100% - just drive it down to a point where our supply (and the Canadians and some other friendly nations) will be enough to support it. Industrial usage makes up maybe 10% of our current consumption. Aircraft, another 10%, and Diesel for freight and heavy machinery (i.e. construction - I'm not seeing plug-in Caterpillars anytime soon), another 15% or so.

So where is your argument against further drilling in here? That is what I don't get...Even at demand of 100 barrels of oil a day the wells will eventually run out...then we will need new wells. So why hamstring ourselves with dwindling supply domestically?

 

[Mumbles]

Back to the thread....
Here's what the Russian CNO said about the grande Pyotr Velikiy a few years ago.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/23/1079939651673.html

 

[eddie]

Source? And are you talking about the energy required to make ethanol or that required for the chemical processes? If the former, view it as a distribution mechanism, like hydrogen or batteries, and compare it in that regard (which I suspect sucks compared to either of the two - but at least you can burn it in an internal combustion engine)

I don't have a source that I can link to, just that I heard it from someone I trust. But I'm going to continue believing it is the devil until someone can prove to me otherwise.