|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
U.S. Contains Enough Oil and Gas Reserves to Fuel Country for Decades, Petroleum Institute SaysWednesday, January 05, 2011 By Penny Starr CNSNews.com (CNSNews.com) – Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, said that if the Obama administration and Congress would allow the industry access to domestic oil and natural gas reserves, the United States would get the energy it needs, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the government would add more than $1.7 trillion to its coffers. “The state of American energy must be strong in order for the American economy to thrive,” said Gerard in a speech at the Newseum on Tuesday. “How then do we strengthen the state of American energy?” “For starters, there are vast reserves of domestic resources that are currently off-limits to exploration and production: billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas ... onshore and off,” Gerard said. “And those estimates are most likely conservative given our past experience and new advanced technologies.” It is estimated that the United States has enough natural gas to fuel 100 percent of current domestic demand for at least 90 years. In addition, the United States produces about 2 billion barrels of crude oil per year, according to the API. “Accessing these U.S. resources could improve our energy security by making us less reliant on others, generate an additional $1.7 trillion in government revenue over the life of the resources and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs,” Gerard said. In API’s new report, “The State of American Energy,” which was released at the event, details how U.S. government projections of oil and natural gas reserves could provide energy for America for many decades to come. “Thankfully, America has vast domestic energy resources – enough oil and natural gas on federal lands alone to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years,” the report states. A study by Wood Mackenzie, also released at the event, shows that increased access to America’s oil and natural gas reserves could, by 2025, create 530,000 jobs, generate $150 billion in taxes, royalties, and other revenue for the government, and “boost domestic production by four million barrels of oil a day,” stated API in a press release. On the other hand, “Raising taxes on the industry with no increase in access could reduce domestic production by 700,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day (in 2020), sacrifice as many as 170,000 jobs (in 2014), and reduce revenue to the government by billions of dollars annually,” stated the release. The API report, State of American Energy, estimates that the offshore drilling regions in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast could hold as much as $7.6 billion barrels of oil and 58.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. On a related note, North Dakota is one of the fastest growing oil producing regions in the United States, where 80 million barrels were produced in 2009, the report states. Also, North Dakota’s unemployment rate is less than four percent, according to Gerard. Gerard further explained how the oil and natural gas industry could create hundreds of thousands of jobs if the federal government would allow the United States to partner with Canada to increase that country’s oil-sands production for export to refineries and distribution points in America. The Canadian Energy Research Institute, for instance, estimates that increased production would stimulate both the U.S. and Canadian economy, and create 340,000 jobs in the United States alone and add $34 billion to America’s GDP by 2015. At a press conference following his presentation at the Newseum, Gerard said the majority of Americans support developing domestic energy sources both on and offshore, a task he said the oil and natural gas industry can do if restrictions are lifted on vital resource exploration. “We have the opportunity here to create jobs, to increase the revenue of the federal government, and we can do it on American soil, with American workers,” said Gerard. He also said that between 2004 and 2007 the gas and oil industry created 2 million U.S. jobs, and is ready to do so again if it is given access to domestic energy reserves. “We have the ability, in the United States, to create vast amounts of energy,” Gerard said. “We just need the political will to do it.” The API represents more than 450 U.S. oil and natural gas companies. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-contains-enough-reserves-fuel-country
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
“We just need the political will to do it.”
Meaning the right people have to golf on the same hole.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
The Governments of North America have known this for some time now.
The last I heard, Canada is still reluctant to increase the oil sands production to what the US would like to see, their reason;
100 year prediction is not being prudent, when it comes to insuring that future generations (hundreds of years) supplies will be there.
Gulf Coast drilling will continue, but at what price? To the life forms in the Oceans and those whom depend on them.
Technically we are not quite there yet, but Alternative a long with 'green' energy is the future imo and it will also allow us to then increase domestic oil production and the jobs that come with, without the fear of exhausting them so quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
To the life forms in the Oceans and those whom depend on them.
Don't let the one rare big accident fool you.. That spill was a drop in the bucket... and was made worse when they decided to throw more chemicals at it to disperse it rather than letting the bacteria there eat it and disperse it naturally..
We are just simply losing out to the environmentalists that want us to live a certain way, regardless to the fact that we need to live that way until something better pops up.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
The Governments of North America have known this for some time now.
The last I heard, Canada is still reluctant to increase the oil sands production to what the US would like to see, their reason;
100 year prediction is not being prudent, when it comes to insuring that future generations (hundreds of years) supplies will be there.
Gulf Coast drilling will continue, but at what price? To the life forms in the Oceans and those whom depend on them.
Technically we are not quite there yet, but Alternative a long with 'green' energy is the future imo and it will also allow us to then increase domestic oil production and the jobs that come with, without the fear of exhausting them so quickly.
Not quite.... Oil sands development, particularly the large scale projects, take years to plan, approve and build. Oil sands leases are being bought up like made, but it will take awhile for them to be planned, pass regulatory examination and be built.
We have an intense regulatory system in Alberta to make sure that bases are covered and that development is in the best interest of the province.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
API is a political advocacy group for big oil.
It did not use to be that way, but it is now.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Governments of North America have known this for some time now.
The last I heard, Canada is still reluctant to increase the oil sands production to what the US would like to see, their reason;
100 year prediction is not being prudent, when it comes to insuring that future generations (hundreds of years) supplies will be there.
Gulf Coast drilling will continue, but at what price? To the life forms in the Oceans and those whom depend on them.
Technically we are not quite there yet, but Alternative a long with 'green' energy is the future imo and it will also allow us to then increase domestic oil production and the jobs that come with, without the fear of exhausting them so quickly.
Not quite.... Oil sands development, particularly the large scale projects, take years to plan, approve and build. Oil sands leases are being bought up like made, but it will take awhile for them to be planned, pass regulatory examination and be built.
We have an intense regulatory system n Alberta to make sure that bases are covered and that development is in the best interest of the province.
That's why I said that we are not technologically there yet.
I have a friend from Quebec, who has been up their working (Dry wall) and he has told me that although their was many projects at first, it's not quite a Gold rush either, because like you said there is much ground work to be done yet.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Governments of North America have known this for some time now.
The last I heard, Canada is still reluctant to increase the oil sands production to what the US would like to see, their reason;
100 year prediction is not being prudent, when it comes to insuring that future generations (hundreds of years) supplies will be there.
Gulf Coast drilling will continue, but at what price? To the life forms in the Oceans and those whom depend on them.
Technically we are not quite there yet, but Alternative a long with 'green' energy is the future imo and it will also allow us to then increase domestic oil production and the jobs that come with, without the fear of exhausting them so quickly.
Not quite.... Oil sands development, particularly the large scale projects, take years to plan, approve and build. Oil sands leases are being bought up like made, but it will take awhile for them to be planned, pass regulatory examination and be built.
We have an intense regulatory system n Alberta to make sure that bases are covered and that development is in the best interest of the province.
That's why I said that we are not technologically there yet.
I have a friend from Quebec, who has been up their working (Dry wall) and he has told me that although their was many projects at first, it's not quite a Gold rush either, because like you said there is much ground work to be done yet.
Well there was quite the boom when oil prices were rocketing for a year or so. For decades, there were only two mines in the area. In the early 2000s, two large companies, Shell and CNRL, broke ground on their projects and a flurry of new SAGD projects started up. Created a massive boom in the area. The one city of note, Fort McMurray, went from 35000 people to 100000 in the span of about 3 years.
The recession caused alot of companies to hit the brakes hard and its only over the last 6-8 months that they've started to gear back up. Odds are there will be another boom- just likely not as big.
Projects in the pipe are likely to face a bit harder of a battle getting regulatory approval as both the feds and the province are starting to watch cumulative effects of development more closely and placing a higher standard of scientific study.
As you and others have stated, these types of development are necessary to keep the world moving. This energy will fuel the world but also fuel the development of alternative energy sources. As renewable techs catch up and become more affordable, they'll start to replace carbon based energy bit by bit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I've always been of the mindset that there's no reason to deplete our reserves if we can get affordable options from elsewhere. obviously, the political strife and economic dependence have to be balanced with it.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I've always been of the mindset that there's no reason to deplete our reserves if we can get affordable options from elsewhere. obviously, the political strife and economic dependence have to be balanced with it.
I agree.
Let the other countries use up their reserves - when the price gets high enough, and it will, it will make OTHER oil reserves price effective. Plus, we'll be in control of ours at least.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,342
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,342 |
I just wish we weren't so dependent on oil... to fuel our vehicles AND our economies.
![[Linked Image from i28.photobucket.com]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/shadedog/mcenroe2.jpg) gmstrong -----------------
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
When we deplete the Middle East of it's oil reserves, there will be a lot more going on than strategic pricing. There will be wars, and they will be over the land that still contains the oil.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
When we deplete the Middle East of it's oil reserves, there will be a lot more going on than strategic pricing. There will be wars, and they will be over the land that still contains the oil.
and the USA will not have to be as heavily involved if we still have our own reserves to draw on.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Guess where they go?
Don't think the USA is invulnerable, that was proven false 10 years ago. If the middle east is out of oil then the world is in panic mode and ANYONE with oil is a target.
If there are not alternative readily available and affordable to the general public by then, then we will be looking at WW3.
I personally think we are on the cusp of the alternatives, and it will most likely never come to this scenario, but to think it can't happen is not being prepared.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
is it easier to defend your own resources or go after someone else's?
i'd rather be in the boat of those that have their own.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
Quote:
I just wish we weren't so dependent on oil... to fuel our vehicles AND our economies.
So true, but I feel we should be looking for alternatives with the same urgency we had to win WW2, it would also mean a great deal of cutting back by one and all, but nobody wants to have their soft lives interfered with such nonsense as national survival.
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
is it easier to defend your own resources or go after someone else's?
i'd rather be in the boat of those that have their own.
It's far easier to go after someone else's when everybody else currently isn't.... later on, it's much easier to hold onto your own.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
When we deplete the Middle East of it's oil reserves, there will be a lot more going on than strategic pricing. There will be wars, and they will be over the land that still contains the oil.
and the USA will not have to be as heavily involved if we still have our own reserves to draw on.
One problem....7.6 billion barrels of oil? That's approximately 1 year of US consumption at current levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
that's just offshore in the Gulf and Atlantic though.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
This just in: U.S. has enough wind and sun to fuel the country Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
This just in: U.S. has enough wind and sun to fuel the country Forever.
Might not be entirely true. I've heard an advocate for wind power say that if the US were to tap it's "full wind-power potential", it could power up to 1/3rd of the US's energy needs. Mind you, that's a windmill on every hill and building that could generate meaningful power ... and that's TODAY's usage ... not a larger population down the road. Only a third.
Now, maybe solar power could fill the other 2/3rds, but judging by the efficiency of solar power so far, it's likely not possible ... unless of course you want to throw a solar panel on every square acre of the country. The problem with both solar and wind is that they are extremely inefficient, and can't come close to generating enough power to keep up with commercial and industry needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
not to mention, if you do start using solar power in gross quantities, what does that do to global cooling?
laws of conservation of energy say it should cause a shift
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,683 |
When the oil crisis of the 70's hit, I wound up involved school and learned some pretty basic concepts regarding energy and alternative energy that have remained pretty consistent through the years.
1) As long as oil is cheap, it will be the preferred source of energy.
2) When the price of oil increases, the amount of oil increases as untapped souces will become economically viable.
3) Renewable fuels such as ethanol are great, but their use will be determined by the price of oil.
4) Wind and solar may be great, but for now they are more expensive then oil.
5) We have not found a cost effective way to make and store electricity.
There are more, involing hydroelectic, nuclear, fuel cells and other forms of energy, but the price of oil makes all other alternatives viable.
Welcome back, Joe, we missed you!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
Excl:
What you say is true at present, but it might not remain so in the not-too-distant future. I was trumpeting alternative sources for energy back in the 70's, when it was REALLY radical and far-fetched... and the advancements made since then have been slow in coming, but encouraging.
I've found that when there is sufficient demand (and a chance for economic gain), incredible things get accomplished in an astoundingly short period of time.
Think of it this way: My neighbor's iPhone has more memory and computing power than the state-of-the-art personal computer in 1996. If Human Nature can produce that sort of near-exponential advancement for something as trivial as a hand-held portable telephone, imagine what could be accomplished in the area of energy if there was truly an imperative for it to happen.
I see 2 big deterrents to the fast growth of these types of industries:
1. Man's general nature. We don't really get to work until our backs are against the wall. A global crisis or catastrophe will net in 24 months what usually takes 20 years to accomplish. We're unfortunately just built that way.
2. Rapid growth will only happen in non-crisis times if there is a huge cash incentive for making the first big steps.
#1 speaks for itself. As for #2, there are more disincentives than inducements at this time. Oil is still king, and those who make their bank on it aren't inclined to make the road easy for those whom they see as competition.
In 1981, I was working at an oil refinery. A bunch of "questioners" came in just before BP bought out SOHIO, and culled together a focus group of hourly workers to ask them what they'd like to see from the company in the next 2 decades. Mind you, this was just 2 years after the American public was idling half a tank of gas away while sitting in those infernal 'gas lines.' (How quickly we forget)
Lots of my brothers talked about daily working conditions, plant safety, contract packages, etc. When they got to me, I said: "I'd like to see a sincere effort made to diversify the company's exploration of alternative energy sources. Standard Oil has made its reputation on the drilling of fossil fuels, but the big picture suggests multiple energy sources as the way to go for our future. Putting all our eggs in one basket leaves us vulnerable to any number of things- OPEC hikes, supply shortages, etc."
I suggested that they set aside a small percentage of their assets to fund research into alternative sources of energy, as a hedge against oil-based economic collapse, and to be 'out front' of a new technology (and potential new source of revenue.)
Crickets. You could have heard a pin drop in that auditorium. The MC blew me off, and immediately went on to the next brother, who talked about shortening shift hours and lengthening days off. They didn't want to hear it, they weren't interested in it, and they weren't inclined to even take the forst steps. 30 years later, they're dealing with the dirtiest environmental PR mess in the last generation, wind turbines, solar collectors and geothermal shunts are increasing, and they still want to just drill oil. Oh, well... in another 15 years, it'll suck to be BP (as if i doesn't already suck enough now-) and the world will be moving on to something new and (hopefully) better.
My point: Big Oil has been king for 100 years... but every dog has his day... and then a new dog gets his turn. The more we get in front of this energy issue, the easier it will be to transition gradually... instead of diving into it in a headlong, panic-driven rush.
The push for alternative energy sources may have come from leftist 'environmentalist wackos,' but it represents an opportunity to those who have the entrepreneurial spirit and foresight enough to get out-front of everyone else. Once the demand is strong enough, the increase in tech will be exponential... just like it has been for the personal computing/handheld gadget industry.
Maybe I'll live long enough to see the first major steps. Until then, we'll hear the endless mantra of "economically unfeasible/ inefficient" til the cows come home.
I ain't buying it.... but I may be buying a Chevy Volt before the tune changes....
just another .02
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Good post Clem. As has been said countless times, oil is finite. It will run out eventually. We need to be searching for alternatives and pushing them hard instead of waiting until we run out of oil.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
We're waiting for the rest of the world to run out of oil, and then we'll push alternate energy on them as a testing ground while we live off of our untapped reserves.
At least, I hope we're smart enough that this is what we're doing. I would hate to think that we are going to leave an energy source in the ground to accomplish nothing while paying a higher price for others oil and oil products.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,099 |
YTown:
There's a difference between being 'smart' and being 'wise.'
My take: we might do what you propose, but we'd be better off to shoot them our 'first gen' technology, while we perfect our 2nd gen technology for ourselves. After that, let 'trickle down' play out as it will.
That way, we get the best of both worlds: transition off gradually, evaluate what others experience, and use the best (or at least better) for ourselves.
Much can be learned from real-time 'test cases.' Best that we be the leaders in this either way... as the global power exchange is already happening. NOW is the time for American ingenuity and innovation to re-write the book that already has a few pages of dry ink.
We've been complacent for 2 generations now... and the rest of the world has caught up with us. Time to reset the bar... as only we can do.
This decade is America's next big wake-up call. We need to change the way we do business, conduct our own political affairs, and present ourselves to the world. The new 'parity' that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union has created a fertile ground for ANY major nation which wishes to assert itself upon the global scene. If America wants to be more than a "One Century Wonder," NOW is the time.
Energy concerns is a pressing issue... and we are poised to be at the forefront... if we'll just take the initiative. We have the history of innovation on our side. We have the political/economic/ (and in some cases) ideological means to do it.
What we need to cultivate is the spine it takes to take that next bold step... and boldness is something we've never lacked, as a people.
My prediction: the next 10 years is "do-or-die" time for the USA. We'll either muster our crap together and show the world what we're made of, or become increasingly marginalized as a world power. It isn't too late... but we simply can't rest on our past accomplishments and history, if we're to remain a viable player in the new global game.
We have what it takes... we've shown it time and again. The Big question is this: Will we continue to see only what's immediately before us, or will we use our position (and advantage) to get out front once again?
Energy, more than any other global issue, is the lynch-pin that will hold this world together. We can either be suppliers... or consumers.
We should have been working on this like our lives depended on it back when I addressed those suits in 1981. Now, we REALLY have to buckle down.
just sayin'...
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
I just struggle to find a valid reason for us to hoard a rather sizable oil reserve while prices rise and rise and rise .....
As a side note .... I was thinking about this the other day ......
Do we have any technology that would allow for energy transmission from orbit to the surface?
If so, we could place some sattellites that would collect solar energy without an atmosphere or anything else getting in the way ..... then transmit it to a surface facility for distribution.
Then again, I just took a 2nd dose of pain meds since my back feels like someone just beat me with a hammer for about 3 days straight ..... so who knows?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
We need more diesel cars in the U.S.
Diesels get 50-60 MPG in Europe while our best non-hybrid gas cars are just now cracking 40 MPG.
The new VW Passat, a larger car, gets 43 MPG in diesel form. Its gas sibling barely cracks 30 MPG. The torque of a turbodiesel is unmatched by any gas engine.
Special interests have made our energy policy work against diesel cars in the U.S. and the automakers not named VW, Audi, BMW and Mercedes claim there's no market for it. Lies. VW's diesel sales mix is 22% and rising. All it takes is ONE serious marketing push advertising hybrid-like MPG's.
We can grow our own sustainable biodiesel here in the U.S. as well.
Want to get off of foreign oil? DEMAND DIESEL!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
It takes 25% more oil to make diesel fuel. So you either need a 25% + increase in mileage to offset it, or you need to push bio-diesels. Also account for the increased greenhouse gas emissions in the production process over gasoline blends. Not to mention the smog issues with diesel in large cities is still an issue.
Which brings me to the argument I hear many times over electric cars. That increased demand on electricity means increased fossil fuel so any savings in gas/oil is spent in generating the electricity. What they forget is that the same if not more fossil fuel is being used and wasted in the gasoline distillation process which would no longer be needed for all electric cars.
Long range electric with home/work solar charging stations would be ideal, and obtainable. For the majority of the public a 100-150 mile charge capability will work for daily commuting, especially if charging is available at the workplace. While trucks, contractors, on the road salespeople, etc, will still need longer range, the effect of the majority would be significant.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
We're waiting for the rest of the world to run out of oil, and then we'll push alternate energy on them as a testing ground while we live off of our untapped reserves.
At least, I hope we're smart enough that this is what we're doing. I would hate to think that we are going to leave an energy source in the ground to accomplish nothing while paying a higher price for others oil and oil products.
That's not how it will work my friend. First off, the US proven reserves are NOT significant when you take into account consumption. Right now, proven reserves in the US are about 22 billion barrels (not sure if that includes the 7 billion offshore quoted in the article). Current annual consumption in the US is 7.5 billion barrels per year.
The US is by far the biggest consumer of oil in the world. The US depends on oil from other countries and, without it, would not last long.
Secondly, if other countries started to run low reserve wise, do you really think they'd happily keep exporting it?
Developing alternate fuels is a huge piece of the puzzle. The other part is the actions of the citizenry and using less energy.
Want to get off foreign oil? Drive less.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 626 |
Quote:
not to mention, if you do start using solar power in gross quantities, what does that do to global cooling?
laws of conservation of energy say it should cause a shift
Actually, we tend to forget this fact - all energy on earth, including oil, come from the sun or from the radioactivity beneath the earth's crust. All of the energy you and I use everyday to breath and walk, comes from the sun, taken in through food, which got its energy from the sun. All the oil in the world comes from organic material - which was created by the sun's energy - and then pressed beneath the earth.
My point is, that the sun can provide all the energy we need, we just haven't developed the technology yet. In part, because we don't put money into the way we put money into, say, research how to find and get oil out of the ground. Those resources go towards improving solar power, and its a done deal. There are some strong interests against it though...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
that's sort of folly. yes, oil is energy that was compressed from the Sun/Earth over millions of years. however, that is not the same energy that is being used to currently warm the Earth, so it shouldn't affect energy conservation in that way (geothermal energy usage though would). hard to say the impact of removing the oil from the Earth's crust and what effect that has on the internal energy conservation and shifts and what that might do. that's where I would be more worried.
2 problems with funding solar energy
1. it won't yield results/profits right away, so companies aren't willing to put as much $$$ towards it.
2. it's sketchy as to which ways will actually work or the negative impacts that they might have. one of the biggest ways that people want to try to utilize the sun power is to create "satellites" that absorb the Suns radiation outside our atmosphere where it is more potent and send "microwaves" down to Earth for our consumption. Well, fundamentally speaking, it seems there is quite a bit of risk sending that much concentrated energy back to Earth in that manner continuously.
The other method commonly mentioned in 'white papers' is simplified to having huge batteries as these satellites and once they are full, bringing them back down to Earth and sending up a new one to charge. Noone can figure out how to effectively do this though and there are territorial issues with satellites, etc.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
All the oil in the world comes from organic material - which was created by the sun's energy - and then pressed beneath the earth.
And what you forget is that things like oil and coal were pressed beneath the earth over the course of serveral million years ... so it's not the same as the sun-on-demand type of energy generated with a solar panal.
Quote:
In part, because we don't put money into the way we put money into, say, research how to find and get oil out of the ground.
The reason that money gets put into researching oil extraction, is that it generates it's own income ... not because we are throwing federal funds at it, and hoping it will reap benefits down the road.
Quote:
Those resources go towards improving solar power, and its a done deal.
Says who? We could spend all kind of research money trying to find ways to turn lead into gold ... but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. We've already spent BILLIONS for YEARS in the space program, and a big source of energy for that program has been solar power ... so who know how maxed out on solar research we really are? That doesn't mean we should necessarily throw billions upon billions at something that might not net results ... if the potential was really there, then the private market would of already jumped all over it.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Petroleum Institute: Available Gas
& Oil Could Fuel Country For
Decades
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
