# Drillers - School Is In Session



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

So, you believe in drilling.

OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.

US proven oil reserves are 21.76 billion barrels.
US daily consumption is 20.73 million barrels a day.(2004 numbers)
Of that the US Imports about 60% or 12.41 million barrels a day.(T.Boone says its almost 70%)
So if we exploited all proven reserves tomorrow (an impossability) we could be free of imported oil for about 4.8 years after which we would have no oil reserves and would be importing 100% of our oil. Even if we explored under every square foot of America and could somehow double our national reserves (very doubtful) that would only give us less than ten years at which point we would be entirely dependent on imported oil and without any reserves.

Finally, what makes you think that if we did exploit our reserves that America would get any of that oil? It wouldn't belong to America, it would belong to the multi national oil corps. who will simply sell it to the highest bidder, China, India, whoever.


----------



## Annie (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> So, you believe in drilling.
> 
> OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.
> 
> ...



'Snake Oil' - washingtonpost.com



> 'Snake Oil'
> Debunking three 'truths' about offshore drilling
> 
> Tuesday, August 12, 2008; A12
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> So, you believe in drilling.
> 
> OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.
> 
> ...



This is fairly deceiving.  Because if one assumes technology will improve the areas of windpower, solar power and non-gas cars one must assume that technology will also improve in areas of oil refining, exploration and drilling.

Based on that it is estimated that in the U.S. and offshore there are 250 billion barrels of 'potentially recoverable' oil.  This doesn't count shale oil which is being researched to the extent in can be used as fuel.  Oil shale in the U.S. is estimated at 2,175 *giga*barrels

The problem with this discussion is on both sides probably.  The potential of all that oil may be overrated.  But so is probably your belief in wind and solar.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> This is fairly deceiving.  Because if one assumes technology will improve the areas of windpower, solar power and non-gas cars one must assume that technology will also improve in areas of oil refining, exploration and drilling.
> 
> Based on that it is estimated that in the U.S. and offshore there are 250 billion barrels of 'potentially recoverable' oil.  This doesn't count shale oil which is being researched to the extent in can be used as fuel.  Oil shale in the U.S. is estimated at 2,175 *giga*barrels
> 
> The problem with this discussion is on both sides probably.  The potential of all that oil may be overrated.  But so is probably your belief in wind and solar.



Based on whose estimate? Where did you get that figure (250 billion bbl)?

As for oil shale, this is another decption. The cost of refining oil shale even at today's sky high prices of oil makes it economically infeasible, not to mention that in order to exploit oil shale you have to strip mine. There is no more ecologically damaging mining than strip mining.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Based on whose estimate? Where did you get that figure (250 billion bbl)?
> 
> As for oil shale, this is another decption. The cost of refining oil shale even at today's sky high prices of oil makes it economically infeasible, not to mention that in order to exploit oil shale you have to strip mine. There is no more ecologically damaging mining than strip mining.



That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable 

This is where I came up with the numbers.

Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Denny Crane (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable



Do you have a source for that comment? It seems that Maine is crawling with energy investment groups looking to put wind turbines all across our state. In one area of northern Maine they are currently negotiating to put 400 of them up.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> That cost of wind turbines and tranporting the energy currently also makes them unfeasable
> 
> This is where I came up with the numbers.
> 
> Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.

Clearly you need more schooling.

The oil companies want to keep us dependent on their oil because that way we have to pay them for fuel. You do realize that the wind is free, don't you? As is sunlight. After installing a wind turbine the cost is very low, basically maintenance (which is minimal since there is only one moving part). Electric generators are as reliable as electric motors. With a conventional power plant you GET to buy oil every day!

What part of free don't you get?


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> Do you have a source for that comment? It seems that Maine is crawling with energy investment groups looking to put wind turbines all across our state. In one area of northern Maine they are currently negotiating to put 400 of them up.



That's right, wind farms are popping up all over the place, there are a number of them here in Calif.

We do need investment in transmission lines so that all potential places can produce power.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 21, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.
> 
> Clearly you need more schooling.
> 
> ...



What?  A company wants to continue to make money? SHOCKER!!  If they are so cost effective why does it need to be subsidized?  The cost of getting that power to any quantity of people is ridiculous.  And no it isn't just setting up wind turbines.  They need a back of some type because they are incapable of providing power consistently or reliably. Transporting the actual power is no small feet either because as Sen. Kennedy demonstrated you have a bit of a 'not in my backyard' problem as well.

Where the numbers came from? It's called math. Go back and do some.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 21, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> What?  A company wants to continue to make money? SHOCKER!!  If they are so cost effective why does it need to be subsidized?  The cost of getting that power to any quantity of people is ridiculous.  And no it isn't just setting up wind turbines.  They need a back of some type because they are incapable of providing power consistently or reliably. Transporting the actual power is no small feet either because as Sen. Kennedy demonstrated you have a bit of a 'not in my backyard' problem as well.
> 
> Where the numbers came from? It's called math. Go back and do some.



Your getting raped and you like it.

No, oil companies have us over a barrel and they don't want to lose their gravy train, luckily they have fools like you to stick up for them.

Your 250 bil bbl is 250 bil barrels of BS.

I gave you the exact figures from the CIA's web site and you give "some estimate" and say "do some math". Math is not the problem, your making stuff up is.


----------



## chopcrazy (Aug 23, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.
> 
> Clearly you need more schooling.
> 
> ...



Oil is used primarily for transportation (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel). Solar and wind are alternative choices to electricity not to the combustion engine. Until there are improvements with engine efficiency or alternative sources battery technology and hybrid engines; oil will be needed in large quantities.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Your getting raped and you like it.
> 
> No, oil companies have us over a barrel and they don't want to lose their gravy train, luckily they have fools like you to stick up for them.
> 
> ...



There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil

At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument.  I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem.  You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.


----------



## Annie (Aug 24, 2008)

crickets


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil
> 
> At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument.  I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem.  You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.



More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building one solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

Lafayette, Indiana Weather, News, Sports and Entertainment WLFI.com News Channel 18, Its News Where You Live: First residential wind turbine comes to Clinton County


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.
> 
> The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building on solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.



Please point to exactley where there is any thing that could even resemble a lie in that post.


----------



## Chris (Aug 24, 2008)

"wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity."

Do a little reading, please.


----------



## chopcrazy (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.
> 
> The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building on solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.



You all make me laugh as you...you all are talking apples and oranges. Oil is for cars and transportation needs, primarily. Heating oil is a small component of a barrel of oil. Electricity is for powering homes and businesses.

Can someone explain to me how solar and wind will be sufficient to power a car, truck or jet plane? 

Sources of electricity are nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroectric and geothermal to name a few.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> "wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity."
> 
> Do a little reading, please.



Guess I missed the part where we can reliably predict the whether.


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 24, 2008)

chopcrazy said:


> You all make me laugh as you...you all are talking apples and oranges. Oil is for cars and transportation needs, primarily. Heating oil is a small component of a barrel of oil. Electricity is for powering homes and businesses.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how solar and wind will be sufficient to power a car, truck or jet plane?
> 
> Sources of electricity are nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroectric and geothermal to name a few.



I guess my assumption at this point is that we're both talking apples, (that is electricity).


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2008)

chopcrazy said:


> You all make me laugh as you...you all are talking apples and oranges. Oil is for cars and transportation needs, primarily. Heating oil is a small component of a barrel of oil. Electricity is for powering homes and businesses.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how solar and wind will be sufficient to power a car, truck or jet plane?
> 
> Sources of electricity are nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, hydroectric and geothermal to name a few.



Clueless, simply clueless.

Wind Power's Energetic Fans - washingtonpost.com


----------



## Chris (Aug 22, 2008)

Wind power, solar power, conservation, and algae based ethanol are the clean energy answers to the energy problem.


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Guess I missed the part where we can reliably predict the whether.



The whether? 

Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune....

Wind power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## wihosa (Aug 23, 2008)

chopcrazy said:


> Oil is used primarily for transportation (gasoline, diesel and jet fuel). Solar and wind are alternative choices to electricity not to the combustion engine. Until there are improvements with engine efficiency or alternative sources battery technology and hybrid engines; oil will be needed in large quantities.



The brainwashed repeat this stuff by rote.

Present day technology gives electric cars a range of 75 to 100 miles, but what is the range if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchange station? What would be the range? Answer - unlimited.

Or are you trying to say that somehow electric motors are not powerful enough? What do you think supplies the power to the wheels of train locomotives? Yes, electric motors, that's why they're referred to as deisel electrics. Trains have been 'hybrids' for more than 50 years.

The technologies exist right now, off the shelf. Wind is already competetives with fossil fuels and far cheaper than nuclear. The only thing we need to convert to solar, wind, and other renewables is leadership.

The future is NOW!


----------



## Chris (Aug 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Guess I missed the part where we can reliably predict the whether.



You don't need to predict the "whether."

You put the turbines where the wind usually blows. It's very simple really. Farmers used to use windmills all the time.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 23, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil
> 
> At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument.  I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem.  You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.



You're getting desperite now. That's right there is nothing wrong with the numbers I gave but there  is with the numbers you pulled out of thin air. 

Unproven reserves don't exist, they are unproven! And you think it is smart to base our future on something which may not ever materialize.

Wind and solar are both very reliable now, there's been thirty years of development incoporated into designs. The biggest inhibitor to wind right now is the need for transmission lines to the areas of suitable winds, still wind farms are springing up all over the country. Solar (PV) is also highly reliable but it needs mass production and a competitive market to drive the price down to the point of economic competitiveness.

Oil shale is the real pipe dream, it produces only 25% more energy than it consumes in the 'refining' process. Same problem as ethanol.


----------



## chopcrazy (Aug 23, 2008)

wihosa said:


> The brainwashed repeat this stuff by rote.
> 
> Present day technology gives electric cars a range of 75 to 100 miles, but what is the range if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchange station? What would be the range? Answer - unlimited.
> 
> ...



Ok...litte brain...how will your proposed infrastructure work for rural america? It would work for metropolitan areas but there is a lot of open space in the USA. At what speed,weight and altitude could I travel 75-100 miles? Would it be able to get me from San Antonio to El Paso where there are very few towns? And traveling through small towns, you would be limited to daylight driving as most small towns close up by early evening.

I am all for solar and wind providing electricity to homes and businesses. I am unclear how solar and wind could directly propel a car or truck.

Why haven't your trains electric motors been applied to passanger cars on a massive scale?

How long will it take and at what cost to get the infrastructure in place? ERCOT estimates it will cost $1 million per mile of transmission line to connect the wind mills to the electric grid. www.ercot.com/news/presentations/2006/RenewablesTransmissi.pdf 

How will the infrastructure be funded?


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirk said:


> More lies from the Bern. You are a tool of the corporate lobbyists.
> 
> The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Iraelis are building one solar energy plant that will suppy 5% of their energy needs. Every house in American should have solar shingles and a wind turbine.



Have you priced out a set of solar panels lately?  Their payback is over 20 years.  Same with a residential wind turbine.  Until the prices of those come down dramatically they will never be widely adopted, we will, instead, continue to draw our power from power plants.


----------



## Chris (Aug 25, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Have you priced out a set of solar panels lately?  Their payback is over 20 years.  Same with a residential wind turbine.  Until the prices of those come down dramatically they will never be widely adopted, we will, instead, continue to draw our power from power plants.



Please do a little reading....

Solar energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Bern80 (Aug 25, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Please do a little reading....
> 
> Solar energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



oooookkaaay,  How exactley does that link contradict that?  Lot if info in there, not much about cost effectiveness.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 27, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Please do a little reading....
> 
> Solar energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Well, I've actually priced both out.  To get enough power to power my house 80% of the time I'd need a solar panel and storage facility that would run $20,000 installed.  Not even sure I have room for a big enough setup.  I priced a wind turbine out last month.  The all wanted between $50,000-$60,000 installed for a 2kw/hr unit.

That's a lot of coin.  Solar is cheaper per kw/hr but still beyond the reach of most average homeowners, are better advised to use the money for modern thermal windows and siding.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Aug 27, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> There's nothing wrong with your proven reserve numbers, but's that all they are . They don't account for unproven reserves which we can also most likely get to nor do they account for the possbiilites in shale oil
> 
> At some point you will need to figure out that just saying 'you're wrong' isn't much of an argument.  I'm sorry you can't add two numbers together, not my problem.  You still fail to address the FACT that wind and solar simply are not reliable sources of electricity.



The big missing piece in wind and solar, at the residential level, is a useful and economic storage system for when it's cloudy or calm and for storing excess power that would normally go back onto the power grid.  I'd like to be able to store the excess power on 20+MPH windy days for use during calm periods.


----------



## wihosa (Aug 27, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Well, I've actually priced both out.  To get enough power to power my house 80% of the time I'd need a solar panel and storage facility that would run $20,000 installed.  Not even sure I have room for a big enough setup.  I priced a wind turbine out last month.  The all wanted between $50,000-$60,000 installed for a 2kw/hr unit.
> 
> That's a lot of coin.  Solar is cheaper per kw/hr but still beyond the reach of most average homeowners, are better advised to use the money for modern thermal windows and siding.



You were doing the wrong math. The object is not to be off the grid, the object is to lower your power bill.

What you want to know is how much solar panels (say a .25 kw/h) will cost and how much it will generate during the day when you are not home and using power. With two way metering any power generated and not consumed will go into the grid and literally turn your meter backward. Calculate your savings and then detemine the pay-back period for the solar panels. After that time the solar panels will make you money.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Aug 27, 2008)

wihosa said:


> The brainwashed repeat this stuff by rote.
> 
> Present day technology gives electric cars a range of 75 to 100 miles, but what is the range if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchange station? What would be the range? Answer - unlimited.
> 
> ...



It won't take all kinds of electric battery stations to get  off oil for transportation.  You almost had it right when you mentioned locomotive engines.  The most readily available and easiest implemented change we can make is to switch all cars to diesel engines.

Diesel engines as you may know were designed to run on straight vegetable oil not petrol.  In fact the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil

Rudolf Diesel bio diesel green diesel Green oil fuel bio diesel Black oil bio diesel bio diesel

*Diesel originally thought that the diesel engine, (readily adaptable in size and utilizing 
locally available fuels like vegetable oil) would enable independent craftsmen, artisans, farmers and small industry 
to endure the powered competition of larger industries that then virtually monopolized the predominant 
power source-the oversized, expensive, fuel-wasting steam engine.*

It would certainly be much easier, faster and less expensive to use a technology that already exists than to construct a new infrastructure to accommodate technology that doesn't exist yet.


----------



## Chris (Aug 28, 2008)

Zoomie1980 said:


> Well, I've actually priced both out.  To get enough power to power my house 80% of the time I'd need a solar panel and storage facility that would run $20,000 installed.  Not even sure I have room for a big enough setup.  I priced a wind turbine out last month.  The all wanted between $50,000-$60,000 installed for a 2kw/hr unit.
> 
> That's a lot of coin.  Solar is cheaper per kw/hr but still beyond the reach of most average homeowners, are better advised to use the money for modern thermal windows and siding.



The $200 wind turbine....

The Green Toolman - DIY Expert of Green Solutions


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

Denny Crane said:


> Do you have a source for that comment? It seems that Maine is crawling with energy investment groups looking to put wind turbines all across our state. In one area of northern Maine they are currently negotiating to put 400 of them up.


 
That is true, Denny, and I did not know that you were also a resident of this great state.

But I wonder if all these plans are really feasible? the one in Mars Hills looks doable to me.

But former Governor King's plan to build wind generators in the Gulf of Maine, for example, looks DOA, to me.

But he's out there touting it. 

What do you think of that plan?


----------



## Oilfield_Mafia (Sep 10, 2008)

Skull Pilot said:


> It won't take all kinds of electric battery stations to get  off oil for transportation.  You almost had it right when you mentioned locomotive engines.  The most readily available and easiest implemented change we can make is to switch all cars to diesel engines.
> 
> Diesel engines as you may know were designed to run on straight vegetable oil not petrol.  In fact the first diesel engine ran on peanut oil
> 
> ...




x2 


I totally agree with this. Even the rigs that we use to drill the gas/oil wells are mainly diesel electrics. Diesel is where its at. Natural Gas as I see would be a great "alternative" energy, as its already used widely in many cities mass transit systems.


----------



## Zoomie1980 (Sep 11, 2008)

wihosa said:


> You were doing the wrong math. The object is not to be off the grid, the object is to lower your power bill.
> 
> What you want to know is how much solar panels (say a .25 kw/h) will cost and how much it will generate during the day when you are not home and using power. With two way metering any power generated and not consumed will go into the grid and literally turn your meter backward. Calculate your savings and then detemine the pay-back period for the solar panels. After that time the solar panels will make you money.



My payback time for a $5000 solar panel is about 8 years at current utility rates.  For a wind turbine it is over 25 years.  For a hybrid car, 7 years, for an electic like the Volt, about 10 years.

It's got to get a LOT better than that before we will see a run to this stuff.  Maybe mass production will begin to get us there.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Sep 14, 2008)

wihosa said:


> Going to half to be more specific, I looked but found no mention of 250 bil bbl.
> 
> Clearly you need more schooling.
> 
> ...




My neighbor just installed a Solar power system on his home of roughly 1000sq ft...  He paid $50,000...  That is one helluva long way from free sis.

FTR: He can run his home on solar for two whole days... if he doesn't run his Air conditioner, washer, dryer, oven or stove.

ROFL... Their real Greeniacs who wanted to 'do th right thing' so they 'invested' roughly one eighth of the value of their home on what amounts to a system that turned their home into a flashlight.


----------



## KMAN (Sep 18, 2008)

Supply and Demand....period...


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 23, 2008)

> A 2005 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 411 gigatons &#8212; enough to yield 2.8 to 3.3 trillion barrels (520 km3) of shale oil.[2][3][4][5] This exceeds the world's proven conventional oil reserves, estimated at 1.317 trillion barrels (209.4×109 m3), as of 1 January 2007.[22] The largest deposits in the world occur in the United States in the Green River basin, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; about 70% of this resource is located on federally owned or managed land.[23] Deposits in the United States constitute 62% of world resources;


Oil shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if the US has 60% of (rounded) 3 trillion barrels that's 1.8 trillion barrels.

If we use 20 million barrels a day = 90,000 days (246 years) of oil from wholly domestic sources.


----------



## Remey688 (Oct 28, 2008)

No one has addressed US gases and oil containing minerals that can be converted to gasoline--natural gas, oil shale and coal. The technology is there. The Germans converted coal to run their military and civilian vehicle for the last year of combat in WWII. We have a bunch of coal and more shale and a great supply of natural gas that can come into play for vehicle fuel as well. The vehicle conversion for the latter is not expensive.


----------



## politicalguy (Oct 30, 2008)

Republican Congressman John Peterson has been known to state that if America does not become independent from foreign energy the USA will become a second rate nation. John Gambling who interviewed him this morning agreed that there has never been an effective energy policy by the government and the 50,000 lobbyists in DC need to be replaced by the citizens.

To help educate citizens on the issues, WOR radio has put up a useful tool on their website WOR News Talk Radio 710 HD - Headline driven talk and opinion - the news that matters - lifestyle features that lists all the decisions made by the Northeast Tri-State legislatures concerning energy. Check it out!


----------



## Andrew2382 (Oct 30, 2008)

wihosa said:


> So, you believe in drilling.
> 
> OK, here's what drilling will get us, now try to pay attention, this is according to the "World Fact Book" written by the CIA.
> 
> ...




wow, you are dense.

Apparently you never heard of Oil Shale have you?

TH ewhole middle east combined has an estimated 300+ billions of barrel sof oil left.

In the states of Utah, Nevada we have an estimated 900- 1.3 trillion barrells of oil through Oil Shale!  That's 3 times the middle east combined!  That doesn't include ANWR, or the OCS.

We have enough oil on our own lands to provide energy for the next 400 years.

We have the technology for it as well, Shell Corp has dumped over 3 billion dollars in Shale Tech and are ready to use it.  However, the shale is on federal lands and the dems have blocked every bill for research and development.

By drilling we can also purchase our oil on our own lands and cut our imports by half.  Our dollar stays within our borders and makes it stronger and our allies can purchasse oil from us.

School is in session


----------



## Remey688 (Oct 30, 2008)

Remey688 said:


> No one has addressed US gases and oil containing minerals that can be converted to gasoline--natural gas, oil shale and coal. The technology is there. The Germans converted coal to run their military and civilian vehicle for the last year of combat in WWII. We have a bunch of coal and more shale and a great supply of natural gas that can come into play for vehicle fuel as well. The vehicle conversion for the latter is not expensive.



We also have the technology to produce hydrogen onboard vehicles. This unit would be powered by a second alternator. Hydrogen can be added to stored fuels, gasoline, diesel, natural gas et al. This can increase vehicle MPG dramatically. Hydrogen is clean burning with water as exhaust.


----------



## Walt (Nov 11, 2008)

None of you need to fear! The government is on top of this situation and is working dillagently to lessen our dependance on foreign oil.

The Department of Energy was instituted 8-04-1977. Their job? To LESSEN our dependance on foreign oil.

Now it is 2008, 31 years later, and the budget for this necessary and productive department is $24.2 billion per year, 16,000 federal employees, and approximatly 100,000 contract employees and look at the outstanding job they are doing.

We are also producing LESS oil now than we were in the 70s and 80s.

Back in the late 70s and early 80s, the United States was producing between 8.5-9 million barrels per day of crude oil. As of the end of 2005, total crude oil produced in the United States has dropped to just over 5 million barrels per day. The United States is broken down into five different regions, called PADDs: Petroleum Administration for Defense District. PADD III is the largest producer of oil, almost 3 million barrels per day, and you can easily guess that Texas and the Gulf are included in that PADD. The West coast is PADD V which consists of Alaska, California and Federal offshore drilling. PADD V produces about 1.5 million barrels per day with 864 thousand of those barrels per day from Alaska. The total Alaskan crude production of oil represents 16 percent of all the oil produced in the United States, so losing 400,000 barrels per day represents 7.8 (or rounded to 8) percent of the U.S. production of crude oil.

I cannot post links yet so here is the title to the latter article.

Pipeline Perils
Shutting down part of the Alaskan pipeline is no small matter -- why it was done and its effects explained.


----------



## politicalguy (Nov 11, 2008)

It is difficult to make a decision on how one feels about drilling, or energy conservation and so on because it effects everyone differently.  

For example, it is easy for a farmer in Wisconsin to agree to having drilling start off the shores of Jersey. Meanwhile, New Jersey doesn't want the drilling to impede on their tourism economy. 

New Yorkers want wind energy...but are huge windmills on top of skyscrapers safe, efficient, and visually appealing?

Feeling out both sides is difficult because we are all looking out for our OWN well-being. To help with this, WOR Radio on 710 AM has constructed an amazing data sheet of information for individuals living in the New York region. As a citizen, we have a right to now how our legislatures are representing us. You can view their voting record online at wor710.com 

It's easy and allows you to see the effects of lobbying and whether or not your politician is looking out for YOUR best interest!


----------



## editec (Nov 11, 2008)

Storing wind power energy is as easy as water rolling downhill, folks.

All these potential solutions will be part of the energy miz, I expect.

Different places and different applications to fit the location and application.

I honestly can't see what any of you are really arguing about.


----------



## Remey688 (Nov 14, 2008)

wihosa said:


> You're getting desperite now. That's right there is nothing wrong with the numbers I gave but there  is with the numbers you pulled out of thin air.
> 
> Unproven reserves don't exist, they are unproven! And you think it is smart to base our future on something which may not ever materialize.
> 
> ...



You are correct relative to ethanol vs energy consumed in producing it. The energy consumed is electricity, and it can be inexpensively produced by wind-farms near the production facility, or building the facilities near hydroelectric dams.


----------

