My touchy feely liberal thought of the day

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:51 pm

Theoretical question: Where would we be as a nation if in the next few years, instead of invading Iraq for what essentially amounts to strategic stable oil supplies, we instead invested all of that money in an "emergency" push for alternative fuel R&D? Would $200B (or whatever the price tag is on the war so far) develop the technologies that would make us independent of foreign oil, and thus able to marginalize the Middle East altogether (meaning we could finally ignore the whole damn region and let them beat each other up without our involvement)?

Just a wild thought, especially as that's one of my silver lining idealistic future hopes -- that fuel cells and other technologies totally replace foreign oil as our primary fuel source.

Find a way to manufacture hydrogen cheaply and cleanly (and preferably without the use of fossil fuels), and you will become a very wealthy person.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:37 pm

No. Oil, Gas & Coal will still be the cheaper fuel. The market will always purchase the cheapest fuel. Fuel cells could be a clean source of fuel, but it still takes hydrocarbons to run it. As an old time auto engineer said, new technologies take about 20 years to perfect and make it into the auto market. Maybe, around 2020 fuel cells will be the new engine of choose.

With oil at $50, this will spur exploration and in two years the price will be below $25. Just look at the history of the oil market. It has always been an bust and boom cycle.

I remeber the oil criss of the 70's and still have friends tell me that there is a gasoline carburetor that can get 200mpg but the oil companies bought the patents and took it off the market. Well I hate to tell you, if a product like this existed, it would find its way to the market. The demand would be hugh along with the profits.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:46 pm

BobCatFan wrote:No. Oil, Gas & Coal will still be the cheaper fuel. The market will always purchase the cheapest fuel. Fuel cells could be a clean source of fuel, but it still takes hydrocarbons to run it. As an old time auto engineer said, new technologies take about 20 years to perfect and make it into the auto market. Maybe, around 2020 fuel cells will be the new engine of choose.

With oil at $50, this will spur exploration and in two years the price will be below $25. Just look at the history of the oil market. It has always been an bust and boom cycle.

I remeber the oil criss of the 70's and still have friends tell me that there is a gasoline carburetor that can get 200mpg but the oil companies bought the patents and took it off the market. Well I hate to tell you, if a product like this existed, it would find its way to the market. The demand would be hugh along with the profits.

How can you say off-hand that fossil fuels would still be cheaper? Are you saying that there is no conceivable way that we will develop cheaper energy sources, and therefore, we should never try? You think that a $200B program similar to Kennedy's moon mission would absolutely fail to develop some feasible and cost-effective alternatives? How about if the cash was in the form of tax breaks (super R&D credits) so that we could let the greed (not a bad thing, mind you) of the free market develop the technologies for their own profit?

Leaving the current energy market to its own methods, it probably will take 20 years, but if we were to theoretically kick start the process with the same amount of cash we spent on the war, isn't it possible that it would all come to market much quicker?

And, yes, right now the most readily available source of hydrogen is from fossil fuels... but wouldn't that be a good place to focus the research?

The sooner we are completely independent of fossil fuels, the sooner we can quit worrying about the middle east (as we are commited to the region right now, regardless of the price of oil, which is just not a good place for us to be), which would solve a lot of problems. It probably wouldn't hurt the environment too much either. I'm not a huge global warming freak or anything, but just in case the "experts" (who are generally trying to get grant money to further their own research and prestige) are actually right in their hysteria about this thing, I'd rather we go the safe route and start looking for some cleaner fuel now rather than later.

Like I said, it's all theoretical, but a guy can dream, can't he?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 4:20 pm

Invade Iraq for stable oil prices? uuuh, no.

Drill in Alaska, north sea, gulf of mexico, Russia, Wyoming and the Wiliston basin if you want stable oil prices.

Adding a bunch of water vapor to the air might not be so smart either, which is what fuel cells do. And BTW, I assume you know that those fuel cells so far need to run on fossile fuels.

Nope - cold fusion and the perpetual fly wheel - those are the real answers. I kind of like the idea of harnessing microwaves from outer space and beaming those to earth for energy.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:32 pm

Wind energy is the only energy technology that has come on line at a reasonable cost, but only with tax breaks. As long as you build the huge wind farms in places like ND SD KS, that’s ok. It will not be my back yard then. California is sucking all of the power out of the West. Maybe we should build these huge wind farms there. Up and down the coast should be good source of wind energy.

Solar Cells. The last time I heard about these, it takes more energy to build a cell then it will ever produce. So that it is a negative energy gain. We could cover the Sierra Mountains with solar cells. The angle should be just about right for the evening sun.

We could go back to nuclear power, but then have a 10,000-year hang over. I like the fact the Montana has refused to accept nuclear waste from other states like California.

Maybe you Californian's should work on solving your instate power needs before you take my tax dollars and throw it down a money pit. Fossil fuels will be with us for a long time.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:35 pm

[Are you saying that there is no conceivable way that we will develop cheaper energy sources, and therefore, we should never try? You think that a $200B program similar to Kennedy's moon mission would absolutely fail to develop some feasible and cost-effective alternatives?ote]

Jimmy Carter tried this back in the 70's. What did it get us. Nothing, but political back talk and wasted tax dollars.[/code][/i]

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 7:40 am

Interesting thought on "nucular" power. Back in the Manhattan Project days, the liquid wastes from production at Hanford was put in single shelled tanks, because there was this consensus that the same scientists who figured out how to split the atom and harness the energy in a bomb would also figure out how to increase the rate of decay of the wastes.

It probably wasn't such an idiotic thought at the time given what Fermie and the rest were making happen. On the other hand, I think the scientists did tell 'them' that it was mathematically impossible to do this. Nevertheless, they tried anyway.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:06 pm

The cheapest energy available is from conservation -- so we give massive tax breaks for buying hummers. so much for energy independence. Clearly, oil is still much too cheap.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:07 pm

velochat wrote:The cheapest energy available is from conservation -- so we give massive tax breaks for buying hummers. so much for energy independence. Clearly, oil is still much too cheap.

I had read at one point that they were finally going to fix that stupid tax loophole, but I don't know if it made it into the most recent tax bill or not. I am going to read through the bill this week, so I'll let you know if anything constructive made the final draft. That one should be a definite no-brainer, but common sense doesn't enter into tax bills as often as they should.

It's strange that they still haven't fixed the classification of SUV's as trucks (thus exempt from fuel efficiency laws), either. I wonder how much influence the state of Michigan has on that one?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:18 pm

Based on what little knowledge I have on this topic (which isn't much), here is my comprehensive energy policy for the U.S., should I be declared king:

1. Increased fuel efficiency standards, most notably applying the past regulations to SUV's and other heavy non-commerical vehicles.

2. Increased domestic drilling, including Alaska and wherever else, following adequate assurances that it can be done without harming the environment of those areas (which I know it entirely possible, but that would be necessary to placate the people who assume that any kind of extraction makes an area look like Saudi Arabia).

3. Increased funding of alternative fuel (and improvements of nuclear power) research via a tax credit mechanism and preferential tax treatment for companies who provide "green" energy. Clearly, nothing will be accomplished unless the goals of the country and the goals of the oil companies are aligned -- that's simply where the money and power now lie. If those same companies can be coaxed into participating or even leading the charge into the future of energy, then something constuctive is much more likely. Until then, we will hear nothing more than "It's too expensive... now go buy more gas from us."

4. If necessary to fund the above, increase the fuel tax by a couple cents a gallon. It's virtually immaterial to the price of the gas, anyway, and it taxes the heaviest users (as it should be) as opposed to relying on taxes from non-related sources. If this has a measurable impact on depressing the demand for gasoline, well, that's fine too, but not likely.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:51 am

US production will have little impact on oil prices, I believe, because the market is growing so fast. Fortunately, China is implementing tough fuel economy and pollution standards. Europe is much better poised to deal with high energy costs, because they have done much to implement conservation and alternative sources of energy. When I come back from Europe, I am stunned every time by how we waste energy, as well as by how fat we are. We could save huge amounts of energy simply by turning off lights. One rarely sees a lighted, vacant corridor in Europe. You enter the corridor, and push a button that turns on the lights for maybe 2 minutes. They are "light years" ahead of us.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:28 am

Indeed, Velo...energy conservation would do more to help our situation than anything. Europe relies heavily on nucular power, which means that at some point, they will have an issue to then deal with.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:43 am

You're right that Europe depends on nucLEAR

energy. And they, like us, will need to deal with that. We made a lot of great progress in the 70s, but have lost ground since. There's no one answer to energy independence, but more drilling, while profitable, will only be a small piece of the pie. I recently bought a new condo, and immediately replaced every single incandescent light bulb with fluorescents, it's that easy to start conserving. Electricity from gas really threatens our main heat source, as combustion to electric generation to transmission lines is an extremely inefficient source of our wattage.

Pumping heat to and from the ground is another tremendous potential source of energy savings in our climate.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Oct 25, 2004 2:20 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
velochat wrote:The cheapest energy available is from conservation -- so we give massive tax breaks for buying hummers. so much for energy independence. Clearly, oil is still much too cheap.
I had read at one point that they were finally going to fix that stupid tax loophole, but I don't know if it made it into the most recent tax bill or not. I am going to read through the bill this week, so I'll let you know if anything constructive made the final draft. That one should be a definite no-brainer, but common sense doesn't enter into tax bills as often as they should.

It's strange that they still haven't fixed the classification of SUV's as trucks (thus exempt from fuel efficiency laws), either. I wonder how much influence the state of Michigan has on that one?

Well, the new tax act signed last week does at least make a token effort to scale back the SUV writeoff provision:

"For property placed in service after Oct. 22, 2004, the Act limits the amount of the cost of a heavy SUV that may be expensed to $25,000. (Act Sec. 910)"