Getting off oil as a strategic move

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm no friend of Greenpeace, but after all the crap we've been through with the middle-east I'm convinced more than ever that we need to get off of our oil addiction.



In my mind the cost/benefit questions come down to this- Will it cost more to swtich from oil to alternatives (most likely hydrgoen based) than it cost us to wage the gulf war, the current war, and the future wars that must inevitably occur when you give immature, societies enormous wealth? And even if it would cost more, how much more would it have to cost to negate the benefits of neutralizing the middle east?



Seriously, if anyone thinks they have some idea of the numbers involved here, pipe in.



Perhaps I'm too much of a techno-optomist, but it would seem that the technology is ready to go. Sure, fuel cell cars will take a little more development, but consider this... I think I read once that we could put enough wind turbines in a few hundred square miles of the Nevada desert alone to supply the entire country's stationary power needs. Next, we put a threshold tax on gas, keeping it at say $1 or above, so that OPEC can't bribe us back with cheap oil, and have all the funds go to developing a hydrogen distribution infrastructure and fuel cell cars.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    It'll be expensive but we ARE the richest country in the world and we can set the example. The advantage would outweigh the disadvantages, like less polution, more research on alternative energy sources, less interest in middle East... We have in our grasp now viable fuel cells. We can use fuels made from corn (ethanol) and we know we have a huge supply of that. How much better for the environment is harvesting corn than making an oil well. And the middle east would do well to use all that empty space to grow some crops to not only compete but feed their people! But corn is only one way to produce ethanol or methanol for fuel cells.
  • Reply 2 of 59
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I do think that much of our friction and unending involvement with Middle East nations boils down to money. And that money is tied into oil. Short term cost is more anger towards the US for not supporting those nations through their oil industries. The long term benefit is a little more of our own self-determination, a lot more freedom from dealing with otherwise unsavory governments and other conflicts of interest.



    It's one of those "damned if you do do, damned if you don't" situations. If you leave the oil, taking the money elsewhere, people will hate us for abandoning those nations financially. All the same, people hate us now for tying our interests with our investments.
  • Reply 3 of 59
    I agree. I don't have any numbers, but my gut tells me that the US oil and gas industries will be a huge barrier to alternate fuel sources. I'll bet the Bush plan of opening up Alaskan preserves to drilling in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil has a powerful special interest lobby behind it.



    But I also think that the technology does exist to reduced our oil dependency. About ten years ago, the US Army was field testing a truck with an engine lined with ceramic composites. It still ran on diesel fuel, but needed no engine oil at all to lubricate it. Since engines that size take gallons of oil to replace, not quarts, something like that would have been a great way to reduce oil consumption. I think they put over 100,000 miles on that truck, and it was still going strong. Don't know why it was never adopted (cost?).



    The technology to change and the reasons to change are out there. What we need is a way to make it happen.
  • Reply 4 of 59
    Any oil from ANWR will be sold to the highest bidder, namely industrial nations without oil reserves such as Japan; Alaskan oil exploration will be of little help to the US people, the beneficiaries being the multi-national oil companies (and their chief share-holders).



    Re. the middle East, now that Afghanistan is returning to a semblance of normalcy with the defeat of the Taliban and ongoing operations against Al Qaida, at some point in the near future Afghanistan be stable enough for that much-vaunted oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to be constructed. Kazakhstan has the worlds largest oil reserves, an underlying but seldom mentioned reason in the West's great effort to persist with Afghanistan, instead of just clearing out of there once Al Qaida have been routed. Kazakhstan oil may start coming online within the next few years, giving further "justification" for this administration's short-term based get-rich-quick energy policy of "invest in fossil fuels now", concurrently with "renewables are a waste of time and effort".



    Our addiction to oil is increasing exponentially, as is world energy demand, and at some point in the future, the cost of extracting the remaining oil will make it a commodity unaffordable to most people. Industrial nations depend upon cheap energy; without it, it's all over. Our reluctance to invest in the future, re. alternative energy resources and technologies represents the ultimate in irresponsibility and short term greed. There again, considering that over 50% of the entire Wall St. portfolio is energy-based (directly or closely related), then the dragging of heels is hardly surprising..
  • Reply 5 of 59
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    Some of the renewable energy stuff is coming directly from oil company's that want to make sure they have less dependence on outside sources (OPEC). Plus with the huge amount of resources oil company's have they could easily distribute such a method. Some companies don't use the research immediately so they can make the most $$.
  • Reply 6 of 59
    Hydrogen is the way to go. I've seen the hydrogen fleet at the munich airport.. incredible. you can literally breathe straight out of the tailpipe.
  • Reply 7 of 59
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    the U.S. should be working right now to become the next energy barons. figure out the next way to make energy for people, and get your hands on the technology, and licensce it out the wazoo.



    look how rich the middle east got from this. why don't we work to take their place when their natural resources inevetably run out.
  • Reply 8 of 59
    When America was founded, the whole purpose was to become independent, self-sustaining and not take sh-t from anyone, especially not a bunch of camel-humpers across the ocean.



    Why should Americans kow-tow to those spoiled brats/terrorists/scum in the MIddle East?



    The American thing to do would be to become independent from the Middle East for oil, develop new methods of harnessing energy, let those crazies kill themselves, and let Allah sort them out.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    Has hydrogen power managed to avoid the "Hindenburg" factor?
  • Reply 10 of 59
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>Has hydrogen power managed to avoid the "Hindenburg" factor?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't think it ever had it. It seems people make too much of that. Let's say your H2 "tank" ruptures. Where does the hydrogen go? Floats right up into the air faster than any other gas. If your gas tank ruptures where does the gas go? On the ground under your car. I think I like the first one better.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    i thought the hindenburg was more a problem with the skin of the craft.



    although the image is a tough one to shake, no matter what was to blame.
  • Reply 12 of 59
    Wow, here I expect to be accused of being some unrealistic tree-hugger and every single response seems to be in support.



    I'd still welcome any good arguments for why we should continue to support the middle east through oil purchases, but barring that I suppose the next question is why aren't we getting off oil? It would seem that public disgust with the middle east is so high that even a conservative like Bush could successfully sell a moon-mission style project for converting to alternative energy. So why isn't it happening and how do you think it will happen?



    [quote]Originally posted by Outsider

    <strong>

    We can use fuels made from corn (ethanol) and we know we have a huge supply of that. How much better for the environment is harvesting corn than making an oil well. And the middle east would do well to use all that empty space to grow some crops to not only compete but feed their people! But corn is only one way to produce ethanol or methanol for fuel cells. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think the benefits of ethanol are a little more debatable. I live in Iowa where ethanol is very popular, but I seem to recall some stats about how it takes more energy to make ethanol than it provides. I think the only reason it makes fiscal sense is because we make too much corn due to farm subsidies (which don't make fiscal sense in the first place).





    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>

    Let's say your H2 "tank" ruptures. Where does the hydrogen go? Floats right up into the air faster than any other gas. If your gas tank ruptures where does the gas go? On the ground under your car. I think I like the first one better.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Right you are Scott, I've even seen some people seriously talk about converting commercial airliners over to hyrdogren. The advantages? - 1. If the planes that hit the WTC had been this way the hydrogen would have burned away so quickly it wouldn't have had time to melt the structure and 2. Spilling hydrogen has exactly zero effect on the environment as opposed to spilling jet fuel.
  • Reply 13 of 59
    yeah, the hydrogen BMW's and MINI's have all sorts of quick-bleed valves that empty the tank completely within milliseconds of any impact... no time for an explosion.



    The cool thing about the hydrogen IC engines that i've seen is that they can also run on gasoline, and they produce monumental levels of torque and acceleration, while the only thing that is decreased while running on hydrogen is horsepower: e.g. the 745HL has a 4.5 litre V8 that makes 325 HP on gasoline, 180 on Hydrogen.





    However, torque is still about the same, I think...
  • Reply 14 of 59
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    When i say hydrogen I hope you're not talking about converting IC engines to H... that is very inefficient and heavy. The best use for H is as a fuel-cell fuel and convert the electric power directly to mechanical power in one step via an electric motor. 3 phase AC motors make an unbelievable amount of HP and torque for their size. I'm into RC cars as a hobby and exclusively deal with EP. All the fastest dragsters use EP. The fastest land record for an RC car was made by an electric (111mph). Electric has fast acceleration and awesome top end. Nitro is great for long runtimes and a flatter powerband.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    OT:



    [quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:

    <strong>i thought the hindenburg was more a problem with the skin of the craft.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    True. Hydrogen will "explode" in a quick flash, here and gone, no flames, no time to spread the fire. The Hindenburg (berg?) was coated with aluminum sulfide or something like that. Anyway, the stuff was basically solid rocket fuel, and that's what made a really big mess.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by Nordstrodamus:

    <strong>I'm no friend of Greenpeace, but after all the crap we've been through with the middle-east I'm convinced more than ever that we need to get off of our oil addiction. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm with you all the way on this one, brother. I don't pretend to have all the answers or to be an alternative energy source expert, but the mere fact that we have to ask ourselves "what other sources could we use" (either in terms of manufacturing or in terms of fuel) speaks to the fact that we've put ourselves in an unenviable position and are nowhere near to getting out of it.



    The last thing we need is to still be dependent on anyone (including ourselves) for oil 20 years from now. ANWR isn't the answer, the other 95% of that area that's already been mined obviously isn't the answer...oil wells in general are not the answer. Solar, Wind, Hydro-cell engines (or whatever they're called)...those kinds of things are the answer. We need to get our asses in gear and start making all these technologies not only feasible, but inexpensive enough to earn the label "practical."



    If Bush is smart he'll realize that investing R&D in this problem is actually more important than whatever missile shields, advanced aircraft and other military programs are on the make. That is not to say we don't need any military programs, but rather it is likely we will greatly decrease the probability of future conflict with middle-eastern countries if we cease to be dependent upon them over the next ten years or so (or become much less dependent). The less we have to interact with any of them (Israel included) the better off we'll be. The cultural barriers are far to great IMO to be overcome by simple diplomacy or student exchange programs or whatever other tired ideas the politicians might have.



    The idea is to isolate ourselves in so far as not needing to get oil from countries we otherwise would have no relationship with (good or bad). Let's put the proverbial dogs to sleep and let them stay that way, as it were.
  • Reply 17 of 59
    The thing that always gets me, and I know everyone will refute this and tell my about grand oil/auto company conspiracies, is that no one has done it yet.



    Japan is VERY dependent on just about all raw materials including oil. Their engineers are as good as any other country. Why haven't they come up with some uber engine that can run on H2 or sunlight or piss? Europe is working on this stuff too. So this problem can't be easy.



    Also where do you get the H2 from?
  • Reply 18 of 59
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Hey guess what? OPEC cut oil production by another 1.5 million barrels of oil last night! This goes into effect on December 31.



    We need to get off of oil and find something else to use as fuel, because there is not enough oil up in ANWR to sustain the US. Plus, our own oil companies don't want to use US oil because it's more expensive than foreign oil.



    Hopefully Russia will continue to provide cheap oil and we can at least side step OPEC for a while.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Scott, you get H2 either by taking water and seperating the H2 from the O (the hard way) only to combine them again in the fuel cell to produce negative and positive charge. Doing it this way would have to be done out of the car in a reforming facility. It would also be more expensive.



    Or you can use a fuel like methanol or ethanol or anything with H2 in it (H2 is more stable than single H atom) that can be relatively easy to extract the H2 from. You do this in a reformer and it pumps the H2 in one end and O from the air or other source through the other end. they combine to form water (H2O) and in that combination electricity is produced by chemical means. You don't need much fuel because liquids are dense and there is alot of H2 in any of those fuels. i think you can even extract H2 from gasoline although I beleive it's harder.



    I'm sure there are other ways to get H2 on earth. but one contriversial way is to mine it.... from a gas giant planet. Jupiter has more than we can shake a stick at. Imagine robotic mining. This would create a whole new induistry and we'd actually have a reason to go out into space besides scientific research.
  • Reply 20 of 59
    m.m. Posts: 4member
    Reducing environmental impact and dependence on oil are the focus of an ambitious program in Iceland as well - an interesting read:



    <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1727000/1727312.stm"; target="_blank">Iceland Launches Energy Revolution.</a>
Sign In or Register to comment.