Getting off oil as a strategic move
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
<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.
although the image is a tough one to shake, no matter what was to blame.
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.
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...
[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.
<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.
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?
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.
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.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1727000/1727312.stm" target="_blank">Iceland Launches Energy Revolution.</a>