Off-Shore Oil Drilling

[Davian93]

Reasoning to back it up is good as well.

[Weird Harold]

Reasoning to back it up is good as well.
Off shore drilling can only be banned or permitted in territorial waters. Most of the US territorial waters where drilling might prove fruitful are wildlife preserves to protect the coral reefs that blunt storm surges and the reef diversity that ultimately feeds much of the ocean fisheries that feed large percentage of the world.

Alternative energy technologies can provide relief for this energy crunch faster and cheaper than drilling for new oil in hostile and/or sensitive environemnts. (and I am NOT talking about the current political darling, ethanol-from-corn.)

[Davian93]

WH...have I ever mentioned how well informed you are. I agree completely on both the alternative energy and ethanol. If we invested heavily in things like geo-thermal (we had that debate probably 6 months ago), more nuclear, renewable power like that solar plan you mentioned in another thread (I remember reading the Newsweek article on that) etc, We'd be much better off.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Off shore drilling can only be banned or permitted in territorial waters. Most of the US territorial waters where drilling might prove fruitful are wildlife preserves to protect the coral reefs that blunt storm surges and the reef diversity that ultimately feeds much of the ocean fisheries that feed large percentage of the world.

Not that well informed. There's a new technology in drilling oil called Horizontal Drilling. You find the estimated reservoir, park your rig a few miles away, drill straight down then over. Voila, no disturbed reefs, nor upset polar bears or angry carribou. It's far more expensive, but with today's oil prices, it's monetarily worth it.

Then there's also the shales we are not allow to go for because Congress in its infinite wisdom won't let us.

[Weird Harold]

WH...have I ever mentioned how well informed you are. I agree completely on both the alternative energy and ethanol. If we invested heavily in things like geo-thermal (we had that debate probably 6 months ago), more nuclear, renewable power like that solar plan you mentioned in another thread (I remember reading the Newsweek article on that) etc, We'd be much better off.
On alternative energy, I've been thinking about possiblities ever since a high-school classmate decided he could get more horsepower out of his model A Ford V8 by converting it to run on an optimized Oxy-acetylene mixture -- he did get more horspower, but oxy-acetylene at optimum mixture was the common welding rig of the day and he welded his engine into essentially a solid mass shortly after he went to full throttle. :D

I'm also an avid science fiction reader, so I've seen some seriously wacky proposals that require a huge suspension of disbelief.

My biggest beef withthe search for alternative is the stupid requirement that laternative fueled vehicles be able to match the average unrefueled range of internal combustion vehicles. :eek:

A plug-in electric car that can go 100 miles between charges can be built and sold for less than a typical SUV and most people drive less than 25 miles to work, park for 6-10 hours and then drive home to park for 12-16 hours.

Normal errands seldom add a great deal of milage in one chunk and involve stops longer than the drive -- where recharging from a "Parking Meter" style "pay as you charge" brings the car back up to full charge while you prowl the mall.

But an electric car isn't considered "viable" unless it has three times as many batteries/fuel cells than it really needs so it can travel 300 miles non-stop without refueling -- which the majority of Americans (or drivers anwywhere) never do and very few of the rest do so on a regular basis.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_drilling

Just in case y'all want a more technical explanation than my oversimplified one.

[JSUCamel]

But an electric car isn't considered "viable" unless it has three times as many batteries/fuel cells than it really needs so it can travel 300 miles non-stop without refueling -- which the majority of Americans (or drivers anwywhere) never do and very few of the rest do so on a regular basis.

Not disagreeing with you at all.. but what about cross-country trips or inter-state trips, which most people make on a semi-annual basis, if not more often? Would they have to stop every 100 miles and recharge? How long does it take to charge? Would that turn a 300 mile/4 hour trip into a 10 hour trip?

[Weird Harold]

Not that well informed. There's a new technology in drilling oil called Horizontal Drilling. You find the estimated reservoir, park your rig a few miles away, drill straight down then over. Voila, no disturbed reefs, nor upset polar bears or angry carribou. It's far more expensive, but with today's oil prices, it's monetarily worth it.

Then there's also the shales we are not allow to go for because Congress in its infinite wisdom won't let us.
Gil, I'm well aware of horizontal drilling -- at least in theory. But proponents of off-shore drilling don't want horizontal wells, they want the wildlife preserves opened so they don't have to use more expensive drilling methods.

On a side note, I've never really understood why offshore/open ocean drill rigs were built to float in the ave action zone where they're exposed to storm forces and inclement weather. Why not sink them below the wave action zone -- preferably all the way to the bottom where they can be on a solid foundation without needing expensive station-keeping equipment. The technology for submerged habitats down to about 250 meters has been around for quite a while and even in deeper water, submerging to 150-250 meters is still going to put them out of reach of hurricanes and breaking waves.

[Davian93]

Then there's also the shales we are not allow to go for because Congress in its infinite wisdom won't let us.


You mean the same oil shale that makes Canada the second largest reserve of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia?

I have issues with the rigs due to the locations. Hurricanes are highly prevalent and as Katrina/Rita taught us, a rough storm season will cause oil to skyrocket up especially if we get even more of our oil from the area. I know that alot of that was from the refinery locations but I would worry about the issues of more off-shore drilling in storm ridden areas. Oil shale would be a nice thing to develop. I remeber reading an article that stated that oil shale was only economically viable if oil would sell for a then unheard of $60-70 a barrel. As it now goes for double that, I think the time has come. Montana is practically begging the Feds to allow it but the treehuggers keep saying no.

[irerancincpkc]

Bad idea, for enviromental reasons, of course.

As a side note, I find it funny McCain changed his mind on this issue, and that people can actually think it would make a difference with today's oil prices.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Doesn't matter what they want, WH. If, by law, they can ONLY drill horizontally, Chevron, Exxon, BP, etc. will take it.

Hell, my tiny little company is doing that "expensive" technology almost exclusively. And the main reason they don't sink the platforms is that it's harder than hell to get the supplies to them. And then everyone saw The Abyss and got scared.


Bad idea, for enviromental reasons, of course

On WHAT do you base this baloney, Spammer?

[Weird Harold]

Not disagreeing with you at all.. but what about cross-country trips or inter-state trips, which most people make on a semi-annual basis, if not more often? Would they have to stop every 100 miles and recharge? How long does it take to charge? Would that turn a 300 mile/4 hour trip into a 10 hour trip?

That's what Hertz, Avis, Budget, U-Haul, Enterprise, Et al are for.

Renting a car isn't all that much more expensive than having a mechanic do a pre-trip tune-up, oil change, brake inspection, etc.

Over the years, I've often rented cars for long trips because it was cheaper than making the beater I was driving at the time safe and reliable enough to make the trip or because I needed more capacity to make everyone going along comfortable for long boring stretch of open road.

Even if you take a short-ranged electric on a road-trip, gaseous-hydrogen fueled fuel cells don't take any longer to refuel than pumping gas does and is probably safer. You should stop for break every two hours anyway so refueling every hundred miles shouldn't be a huge hardship.

Battery Powered Electrics would have to standardize on a battery pack and service stations would have to invest in mass recharging stations every fifty miles or so to enable battery pallets to be swapped out in about the time it takes to replace the battery in your car now -- less time than it takes to pump 15 gallons of gas.

[Davian93]

Bad idea, for enviromental reasons, of course.

As a side note, I find it funny McCain changed his mind on this issue, and that people can actually think it would make a difference with today's oil prices.


Increased domestic drilling would make a dent in prices (not today but in 5-10 years) but nothing huge. The facts are this: We don't have enough proven reserves to make a difference in the end. Even all of ANWR is only something like 9 months worth of oil for the country. Granted there might be more oil hiding somewhere but the oil companies are spending billions and billions on trying to find it and there hasn't been a major discovery in something like 20 years. Getting the oil shale out of the rockies would help big time (that's our best bet on oil reserves) but off-shore drilling won't help that much.

Environmentally, who gives a crap? If we don't find something else economically viable, then coal mining will increase (we've got 300 years worth of proven coal reserves available) and that's far worse than even oil/natural gas. None of the legit answers are good environmentally. Nuclear has its waste/storage issues, Oil is scarce, etc. A massive change in mindset is neccessary and a investment in new technologies like geo-thermal, solar, wind, etc.

[Sarevok]

Davian: you poll misses that option "how the hell should I know?"

[JSUCamel]

WH: Good answer. Rent-a-car places would have to market themselves specifically for that purpose, and make sure the world knows about it for it to work.. but i like it.

Cool.

[Weird Harold]

Doesn't matter what they want, WH. If, by law, they can ONLY drill horizontally, Chevron, Exxon, BP, etc. will take it.

They can dril those potential fields right NOW then -- all they have to do is go outside the territorial waters and drill back to the deposits of set up inland drill out to sea.

They have to drill a bit further and it will cost a bit more but I'm OK with that. :D

Hell, my tiny little company is doing that "expensive" technology almost exclusively. And the main reason they don't sink the platforms is that it's harder than hell to get the supplies to them. And then everyone saw The Abyss and got scared.


I've wondered why oil rigs were all on the surface since long before the Abyss was written, let alone filmed. :D

ETA: Jules Verne worked out the resupply problems in theory in the mid-19th century -- robotic/remote control/ROV technology has made his solutions even practical because you don't have to decompress a sub-pilot for 8-24 hours to deliver supplies by ROV.


As for the oil shale, that needs to be reserved for when we develop the technology to make CHON bars and can mine all the food the world needs instead of wasting water on growing it. :rolleyes:

[caladanbrood]

Ethanol biofuels are almost completely counter-productive... nuclear power is by far and away the most viable long-term power solution.

[Davian93]

Davian: you poll misses that option "how the hell should I know?"

Sorry Sare...

On Oil Shale, what I've been able to dig up on the net about this issue:

1. The U.S. has around 1.5-2 Trillion 'barrels' of Oil Shale reserves. That's alot of oil to say the least. (Like 5 X the amount of oil Saudi Arabia has)

2. There are major environmental and logistical issues with it. It takes anywhere from 1-5 barrels of water (scarce enough already where the oil shale is located) to process the raw product into usuable oil...That's not including refining it into gasoline. Its also estimated to cost $75-90 a barrel to produce (my earliest guess was low).

So it wouldn't be easy or environmentally very friendly to do...and the water issue would be bigger than most think.

[Weird Harold]

Ethanol biofuels are almost completely counter-productive... nuclear power is by far and away the most viable long-term power solution.
Don't mistake Ethanol-from-corn for ethanol from any source or ethanol for "all biofuels."

Ethanol from sugar cane or sugar beets is much more cost effective than Ethanol-from-corn (or other food grain.)

Soy Bean Oil is the primary feedstock for current US biodiesels and Peanut Oil is a close second. They haven't yet taken of fto the point were other cropland is being diverted to grow them, but it's a potential problem with any biofuel feedstock.

The exceptions are micro algae, garbage, Hemp. Wood waste, and switchgrass are just a few sources of "biofuels" -- which include Methane as a substitute for natural gas -- that don't impact food productions and are unlikely to impact food productionon anything like the Ethanol-From-Corn boondoggle.

[Weird Harold]

Ethanol biofuels are almost completely counter-productive... nuclear power is by far and away the most viable long-term power solution.
PS: Nuclear is fine for powering the Grid, but I can't run my car on it and I can't afford to buy a new one that I can plug-in to a nuclear powered Grid.

I CAN retune my 22 year-old blazer to run on pure ethanol, methane, or gaseous Hydrogen. I'd have to make some fuel storag emodifications for the latter two, so Ethanol or "gasoline-from-turky-offal" is my only economical option.

PS: gotta run, I'll look up the turkey offal link later.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

They can dril those potential fields right NOW then -- all they have to do is go outside the territorial waters and drill back to the deposits of set up inland drill out to sea.

No, they can't. There are restrictions against that, too. However, China and Cuba are doing that in the Gulf and draining OUR reserves that way. And not really being environmentally responsible about it either. Wouldn't ya'll rather have a company do that that we can regulate?

As far as oil shale, that's not entirely what I'm talking about. This is: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805040322

http://seekingalpha.com/article/77406-natural-gas-playing-the-haynesville-shale

That's gas shale, but if we use that to heat our houses and whatnot, we can use more oil for gas, or how about a compressed NG engine?

[irerancincpkc]

On WHAT do you base this baloney, Spammer?
Just the fact that it would exacerbate climate change.

[caladanbrood]

PS: Nuclear is fine for powering the Grid, but I can't run my car on it and I can't afford to buy a new one that I can plug-in to a nuclear powered Grid.
I wasn't :) Using fossil fuels to power a car is fine, if you're not using them for electricity generation. The emissions and such from cars can be dealt with well enough with carbon scrubbing and storage if the technology is taken seriously.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Just the fact that it would exacerbate climate change.


So do more cows. So when you becoming a vegetarian?

[Terez]

Just the fact that it would exacerbate climate change.
Not any more than we already are. Yeah, finding alternatives to our high-emission fuels is something we need to do, but if we can solve the economic crisis without increasing emissions, then at least we've done SOMETHING right.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

And wow. That poll is having a different result than I expected.

[Davian93]

And wow. That poll is having a different result than I expected.

Really? It hasn't really surprised me yet. I thought there'd be more participation than the 7 votes but that's about it.

[Terez]

I'm not voting because the options aren't anywhere near that black-and-white.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Sure they are. Even if you want it strictly regulated, that's still saying it's a good idea.

[Davian93]

Sure they are. Even if you want it strictly regulated, that's still saying it's a good idea.

It is a yes or no question...do you think we should allow it or not...

[Terez]

No, I would want the regulations as a condition for my vote.

I realize this is a theoryland poll and not worth much in the real world, but still...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Well, then, what regulations do you want?

Keep in mind, China and Cuba are currently skirting our reserves.

[Sei'taer]

My thoughts on it:

1. As soon as congress says it's ok to drill, prices will drop.

2. Alternative fuels are great, but you have to get there from here.

3. Millions of products are petroleum based, from that crappy hairpiece you wear to the asphalt you drive on. As of now, you need oil. (yes, even that electric car has plastic or even grease in it or on it somewhere)

4. John McCain won't get my vote because of several things, but one of them is his stance on global warming, which is a money making farce. He will probably vote against domestic drilling if it is ever brought to the senate, just to anchor in those of you who believe in it.

5. If you think that the government can take over the oil companies and run them, then take a look at spending in Washington and ask if thats the way any company should be run, and also ask yourself why someone who was making 18 cents off of every gallon of gas pumped in this country and doing 0% of the work, would call in someone who was making 8 cents off of every gallon of gas and doing 100% of the work and ask them why they are making such huge profits...seems to me it should be the other way around.

[Weird Harold]

...I'll look up the turkey offal link later.

Changing World Technologies (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm)

Wikipedia article on the Thermal Conversion Process CWT uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization)

I wasn't :) Using fossil fuels to power a car is fine, if you're not using them for electricity generation.

Actually, using fossil hydrcarbons as fuel is NOT fine -- using them as fuels means destroying them completely to release their stored energy and we have so many other good, non-destructive, recyclable ways to use them that destroying them for a temporary advantage seems silly to me.

I don't have any real problem with renewable hydrocarbon fuels -- mostly bio-fuels, but there are a few non-biological ways to make hydrocarbon fuels. Internal combustion engines are smelly, and inefficient at their very best (even when burning hydrogen and ambient air, they generate nitrous compounds from the nitrogen in the ambient air.)

I'd much rather see a move to turbo-electric technology -- gas turbine driven alternators charging a surge buffer (capacitor or battery) that powers high efficency electric motors with regenerative braking capacity.

The emissions and such from cars can be dealt with well enough with carbon scrubbing and storage if the technology is taken seriously.

Which is easier to mange? A single large stationary source of CO2 or a million moving point sources emiting small amounts of CO2 and water vapor?

Large "algae biogenerators" can take the stationary CO2 output and turn it into algae to use as feedstock for any number of fossil hydrocarbon replacement products. Scrubbing a mobil CO2 emitter means chemical or catalytic processing that doesn't produce anything useful (except clean air. :D )
No, they can't. There are restrictions against that, too. However, China and Cuba are doing that in the Gulf and draining OUR reserves that way. And not really being environmentally responsible about it either.

That's a myth. Cuba and China have talked about negotiating for drilling rights, but nothing has gone any further than vague feelers. Even VP Cheney has retracted the claim as erroneous and exagerated.

Even if they do drill out horizontially to tap into reserves the US doesn't want them drilling into -- eg under US territoral waters -- that's what the US Navy is for.

As far as oil shale, that's not entirely what I'm talking about. This is: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008805040322

http://seekingalpha.com/article/77406-natural-gas-playing-the-haynesville-shale

That's gas shale,

The Haynesville Shale doesn't seem to be in any danger of not being developed. The Oil Shale in the Rockies is not something that can be cracked and pumped dry like Gas shale can -- or at least not economically. To the best of my knowledge the only economical extraction process is to mine it, crush it and wash it with steam. That's NOT a technology that is in use, nor is it a technology that I think should be put into large scale use.

Mining coal from existing mines and "gassifying" it to process into "synthetic gas" produces just as much new fuel as oil shale would with technology that is (mostly) already in widespread use or was in widespread use into the early twentieth century until electricity replaced gaslights.

but if we use that to heat our houses and whatnot, we can use more oil for gas, or how about a compressed NG engine?

The only reason that my blazer doesn't run on natural gas or hydrogen is there's no place to refuel except home (and it's illegal to fuel a vehicle from a residential gas line.)

ABout half of the busses here in Las Vegas run on Natural Gas -- it's simply a matter of replacing the diesel fuel tanks with Natural Gas cylinders and replacing the fuel lines and injectors.

Any Internal Combustion engine can run on natural gas (or Methane, Propane, Butane, or other flammable gas) with only modification the the fuel delivery system and adjustment of the timing. Diesel engines don't run well on Hydrogen because it ins't compressible enough the inject into the cylinders at high pressure, but otherwise the same thing applies to Gaseous Hydrogen any internal combustion engine will run on it.

1. As soon as congress says it's ok to drill, prices will drop.

I think most of the speculators who are driving high oil prices at the moment are bright enough to know that it will take at least five years before new off-shore production can affect supply. Prices mught drop if OPEC and other oil-exporters deliberately try to drive prices dwon to where off-shore exploration is no longer a profitable deal.

2. Alternative fuels are great, but you have to get there from here.

The vehicle you are driving right now can run on a good many alternative fuels -- many of them, like E85, without modification or with no more modification than changing the ECM chip to one for E85 vehicles.

Other than the gelling problem with current biodiesels in cold weather, The only things stopping the spread of some alternative fuels are production facilities and tank space at the corner service station.

Add a few reatively inexpensive modifications -- generally less than $2,000 -- and gaseous fuels like Natural Gas, Methane, Propane, et al can be delivered to your home and bypass the corner station completely; you can heat your house and fuel your car from the same gas tank/line (as soon as they lift the silly legal restrictions)

3. Millions of products are petroleum based, from that crappy hairpiece you wear to the asphalt you drive on. As of now, you need oil. (yes, even that electric car has plastic or even grease in it or on it somewhere)

See above regarding how I feel about burning fossil hydrocarbons. All of the uses you cite are essentially recyclable or recoverable uses of hydrocarbons.

Eventually, we'll be able to replace most of those uses with even more renewable sources -- like high-lipid micro-algae sludge but in the meantime, the best use of fossil hydrocarbons is anything but burning them as fuel

4. ...

5. ...
No comment on these points.

[Sei'taer]

The vehicle you are driving right now can run on a good many alternative fuels -- many of them, like E85, without modification or with no more modification than changing the ECM chip to one for E85 vehicles.

Other than the gelling problem with current biodiesels in cold weather, The only things stopping the spread of some alternative fuels are production facilities and tank space at the corner service station.

Add a few reatively inexpensive modifications -- generally less than $2,000 -- and gaseous fuels like Natural Gas, Methane, Propane, et al can be delivered to your home and bypass the corner station completely; you can heat your house and fuel your car from the same gas tank/line (as soon as they lift the silly legal restrictions)

My jeep at work runs on E85. About 8 months ago the city I work for decided to go green and switched all the vehicles except police to E85. I drive 100 to 150 miles a day inside a 22 square mile radius. My jeep used to get 12 mpg on regular gas. Now it gets 9 mpg on E85. Acceleration is terrible, I have problems with the catalytic converter stopping up, because the fuel doesn't burn as clean (thats what I was told, I don't understand the properties of ethanol enough to know the cause)(I've had to have it replaced already and we've only been on it for 8 months), the air-con nearly kills the thing as the compressor turns off and on, and the cost for all of this is a 2 cent saving in a gallon of fuel. If I didn't have to have a 4 wheel drive to do my job they said they would switch us to hybrid vehicles, unfortunately electric motors and mud and water don't go together very well.

As for natural gas and propane, both of these are drilled for in close to the same way as oil and are non-renewable, which is one of the gripes you have about oil. Natural gas and propane both have to undergo the same amount of precessing, if not more, than oil does. So they are alternatives, but they leave us with the same problems that we have with oil, and incidentally a lot of natural gas deposits are found in the same areas that oil and coal are found. So, by your own ideals, these are not good alternatives.

[Weird Harold]

My jeep at work runs on E85. About 8 months ago the city I work for decided to go green and switched all the vehicles ... My jeep used to get 12 mpg on regular gas. Now it gets 9 mpg on E85.

The drop in milage is about what the difference in energy density between Gasoline and Ethanol should produce -- perhaps a bit more of a drop than you should be seeing, but not much.

Acceleration is terrible, I have problems with the catalytic converter stopping up, because the fuel doesn't burn as clean ... the air-con nearly kills the thing as the compressor turns off and on, and the cost for all of this is a 2 cent saving in a gallon of fuel.

I suspect that the mechanics at the city motor pool don't know what they're doing. What you describe is what I would expect to see running E85 in a vehicle with a gasoline ECM chip -- it runs, it just doesn't run well.

Ethanol should only clog the catalytic converter if it's running rich enough to send unburned fuel into the exhaust. If the engine is properly tuned to run on E85 that shouldn't be happening.

If the motor pool didn't change their tune-up manual to match the specs for E85, then I'd expect to see the problems you're having.

If I didn't have to have a 4 wheel drive to do my job they said they would switch us to hybrid vehicles, unfortunately electric motors and mud and water don't go together very well.

The last time I was cussing at my old T-10 Blazer and dreaming of what I'd like to replace it with, I did some drooling over Dodge's Hybrid 3/4 ton Power Wagon pickup. If it lives up to it's advertised specs, it would run your jeep into the ground in chassis deep mud.

As for natural gas and propane, both of these are drilled for in close to the same way as oil and are non-renewable, which is one of the gripes you have about oil.

Not perfect alternatives, but they have two advantages over other fossil motor fuels:

1: At this juncture, they're both cheaper per MegaJoule/volume than gasoline or diesel because there isn't the demand as a motor fuel.

2: They burn cleaner than gasoline or, especially, Diesel.

But the reason for converting to natural gas or propane is that the conversion essentially prepares you for moving on to Methane or Gaseous Hydrogen as it becomes available.

The conversions for all four fuels differ primarily in the size/shape of the pressure tanks and the metering apertures in the carburator or fuel injectors. The basic conversion to Pressurized Gas from Liquid Fuel is essentially the same for any Pressurized Gas -- storage, fuel lines, and metering.

BMW has a limited edition Hydrogen/multi-fuel sedan on the market that can run on LH2 (Liquid Hydrogenavailable at Franfurt airport and selected locations in the Frankfurt area.) It's basically a BMW 300 series sedan but it has the fuel storage and engine tuning to switch back and forth between LH2 and gasoline according to availability.

Alternatives are out there right now and more are becoming available all the time. None of them are perfect -- yet -- but they won't ever get any closer to perfection unless people stop bitching about gas prices and do something to wean themselves off of fossil fuels-- as individuals and as a society.

For everyone: Next time you buy gas, ask the clerk when they're going to put an E85 pump in if they don't already have one. If they have an E85 pump, get your car upgraded to multi-fuel capability and start using E85.

[caladanbrood]

Actually, using fossil hydrcarbons as fuel is NOT fine -- using them as fuels means destroying them completely to release their stored energy and we have so many other good, non-destructive, recyclable ways to use them that destroying them for a temporary advantage seems silly to me.

I don't have any real problem with renewable hydrocarbon fuels -- mostly bio-fuels, but there are a few non-biological ways to make hydrocarbon fuels. Internal combustion engines are smelly, and inefficient at their very best (even when burning hydrogen and ambient air, they generate nitrous compounds from the nitrogen in the ambient air.)

I'd much rather see a move to turbo-electric technology -- gas turbine driven alternators charging a surge buffer (capacitor or battery) that powers high efficency electric motors with regenerative braking capacity.



Which is easier to mange? A single large stationary source of CO2 or a million moving point sources emiting small amounts of CO2 and water vapor?

Large "algae biogenerators" can take the stationary CO2 output and turn it into algae to use as feedstock for any number of fossil hydrocarbon replacement products. Scrubbing a mobil CO2 emitter means chemical or catalytic processing that doesn't produce anything useful (except clean air. :D )
I feel you're treating me like an idiot. I'm a Chemical Engineering student, I do have a clue what I'm talking about :)
Theories are all well and good, and yes, there are other solutions, but once you factor in economic viability, it's a lot better to simply carry on using fossil fuels, for which the infrastructure is still in place, than biofuels, which have all sorts of problems with them, and then convert fossil fuel plants into nuclear ones (the safest power-generating technology around, too :))

Currently, worldwide, we produce approximately 5 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Now, the earth has anything between 1000 and 10000 gigatonnes worth of storage capacity (we don't really know the exact number), and if you take away power generation, that 5 drops significantly anyway. Add to that the effect of carbon scrubbing, and you're pretty much sorted. Bioremediation like you suggest (at least I think thats what you're suggesting) is great when it works, for sure, and in it's place is a wonderful tool.


I think it's also virtually laughable that you're gonna be able to change the engines of over 600million cars (which was the number in 1997, no doubt it's gone up by now) to a different type. What will you do with the old ones? Throw them away? Waste management will be an even bigger problem than global warming within 15 years at a conservative estimate. You want to add 600million old engines to that growing pile of crap (quite literally)?



To be honest, I'm losing track of what I'm saying at this point. An amount of it is probably not relevant. I'll be back;)

[Terez]

I feel you're treating me like an idiot.
WH does that to everybody, so don't feel bad. He's our resident pedantic bear. :D

[Weird Harold]

I feel you're treating me like an idiot. I'm a Chemical Engineering student, I do have a clue what I'm talking about :)


I have no way of knowing your qualifications, I can only respond to what you post. :rolleyes:

Theories are all well and good, and yes, there are other solutions, but once you factor in economic viability, it's a lot better to simply carry on using fossil fuels, for which the infrastructure is still in place, than biofuels, which have all sorts of problems with them, and then convert fossil fuel plants into nuclear ones (the safest power-generating technology around, too :))

I do try to limit my suggestions to solutions I think are economically viable. The CWT Co. Turkey Offal to Oil plant I refrenced, for example, has had a commercial scale plant in operation for going on five years.

Their commercial-scale plant does also illustrate one of the problems plaguing many "green" technologies -- including Nuclear in the US -- frivolous NIMBY lawsuits to tie up any possible profits and shift any expansion into someone else's "backyard." In the case of CWT, they have fought lawsuits over "bad odor" that have from the summaries and decisons appear to be totally bogus complaints.

Currently, worldwide, we produce approximately 5 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Now, the earth has anything between 1000 and 10000 gigatonnes worth of storage capacity (we don't really know the exact number), and if you take away power generation, that 5 drops significantly anyway.

Eliminating every drop of oil from the Electric power generation in the US would only affect 3% of our electric power generation -- we could shut all of theoil fired power plants down right now and barely notice them.

Natural Gas plants supply 16% of our electricity, so we'd probably notice if those all shut down to day. :D But they're the easiest to convert to a bio-fuel like methane. They still put CO2 into the air, but at least it's not Fossil Carbon.

The big problem is going to be replacing the 50% of our electrical capacity that is powered by Coal -- converting the plants to other fuels is possible but a daunting project. Thebest we can do in that regard is to let them die of old age and replace them with greener technology as they wear out.

Add to that the effect of carbon scrubbing, and you're pretty much sorted. Bioremediation like you suggest (at least I think thats what you're suggesting) is great when it works, for sure, and in it's place is a wonderful tool.


Scrubbers and Carbon capture systems of some sort would have to be added across the board to coal fired plants -- actually any plant or factory that emits CO2. There are several economically viable technologies, but I think GreenFuels Corp. (http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.html) has the right idea in a system that grows algae from powerplant emissions and turns the algae into a variety of products -- including Methane to augment the fuel supply of the powerplant that's providing the CO2. It's an economically viable solution because, like CWT's process it uses other people's waste to make a profit.


I think it's also virtually laughable that you're gonna be able to change the engines of over 600million cars (which was the number in 1997, no doubt it's gone up by now) to a different type. What will you do with the old ones?

I haven't advocated replacing the engines in 600 million cars -- in fact I've argue exactly the opposite position: a few minor conversions to the fuel delvery systems and almost every vehicle on the road today anywhere in the world can run on something other than fossil hydrocarbon.

My personal vehicle is over 20 years old and I don't see any particular reason to scrap it just yet (it gets milage comparable to many new SUVs in it's class) If I had or could build a reliable supply of either Methane or gaseous HYdrogen, I'd invest the $2,000 or so needed to convert it -- which does NOT require changing the engine.

One thing that has kept me from going to an alternate fuel already is stupid smog regulations that would require me to reclassify my Blazer as a "Experimental Vehicle" -- at about ten times the registration fees -- in order to remove or modify the smog control devices mandated by federal law. (Like ST's catalytic converter which I don't believe should be needed on a properly tuned alcohol fueled vehicle.) They'd have to be removed because they rob power and cleaner fuels -- especialy Hydrogen -- makes them unnecessary.

[Weird Harold]

WH does that to everybody, so don't feel bad. He's our resident pedantic bear. :D
I am NOT a pedantic bear, Guru, wizard, or any of the other things I've been acused of. I'm an Opinionated Old Fart and nothing but. (and if Tam ever gives HOTH custom title priveleges again, it's already in the database as my custom title

[Terez]

http://www.twiceonsunday.com/malaz/ped2.jpg
I am NOT a pedantic bear
:D

[Gilshalos Sedai]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200806/NAT20080613b.html


"It is our understanding that, although Cuba has leased out exploration blocks 60 miles off the coast of southern Florida, which is closer than American firms are allowed to operate in that area, no Chinese firm is drilling there," according to the statement.

Cuba clearly is interested in developing its deep-water oil resources, estimated at more than 5 billion barrel, including areas within 60 miles of Key West, Fla., energy experts said.

Jorge Pinon, a senior energy fellow at the University of Miami specializing in Latin America, said Cuba has awarded offshore oil leases, or concessionary blocs, in its offshore waters to six oil companies -- none of them Chinese -- and soon may announce an agreement with Brazil's state oil company, Petrobras.


I stand corrected. It might be a Brazilian company. Makes it so much better. But China has done some exploration near Cuba, just not in the waters immediately offshore.

And no, WH, you can't send the Navy to attack a sovereign nation in international waters. Unless, of course, you like the current fix we're in the last time we did that? I'd like to avoid a nuclear detonation off the coast of FL, if possible.

[Weird Harold]

And no, WH, you can't send the Navy to attack a sovereign nation in international waters. Unless, of course, you like the current fix we're in the last time we did that? I'd like to avoid a nuclear detonation off the coast of FL, if possible.

Actually, yes we can send the Navy against oil companies (or oil shipping) in Interntantional Waters to enforce US mineral rights -- even if the companies/shippers are wholly owned by a nuclear armed government.

Whether it is wise to do so at any given time is another debate entirely, but the protection of US strategic and Economic interests in international waters is the reason we have a Navy rather than just a Coast Guard.

But the point is that if they are drilling in "international waters" then the US can't prohibit multi-national oil companies from drilling -- not unless we're willing to enforce our (illegal) restrictions on Anyone who drills there regardless of how many nukes the company owners might have.

[Davian93]

Doesn't the US claim exclusive rights on the Continental Shelf out to a distance of 250 miles for such things...we would merely be enforcing those rights.


EDIT: Its actually 200 miles of Exclusive Economic Zone...

[Davian93]

We also have rights to the Continental Shelf out to 350 miles...so we would be on firm legal ground to defend those rights with Military force if neccessary.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

So, a Congress that wouldn't let us drill there is going to let us defend those rights militarily?

[Davian93]

So, a Congress that wouldn't let us drill there is going to let us defend those rights militarily?

What the heck does Congress have to do with military action?...they haven't declared war in 67 years but we've managed to fight in enough conflicts since then.

[Weird Harold]

So, a Congress that wouldn't let us drill there is going to let us defend those rights militarily?
Congress doesn't object when we arrest and detain foreign flagged fisherment inside the 200 mile Economic Exclusion Zone -- over the years, that's included a few Russian "Trawlers" that generated minor internatinal incidents with a nuclear power.

The 200 mile exclusion zone doesn't apply to Cuban "territorial waters" or Cuba's Economic Exclusion Zone -- there's a line halfway between the US and Cuba (and Haiti, Dominican Repubic, and each of the other carribean nations that are inside our 200 mile economic zone) that marks the limit of our "economic zone."

Whether the environmentist lobby would press the point to protect the reef ecologies inside our economic zone is a good question: Which is stringer, environmental concern or non-violence/pacifism?

We really should have just annexed Cuba after the Spanish American War like we did the Phillipines. :D And the rest of the carribean islands and Western Atlantic archipeligos while we were at it.

Today's political picture would be a much different shade of purple if we had. :D

[Davian93]

Dont forget Canada too. We should have hung on to Cuba though...bloody thorn in the side it has been.

[Weird Harold]

Dont forget Canada too. We should have hung on to Cuba though...bloody thorn in the side it has been.

Canada is a different proposition. We have what amounts to a "joint exclusion zone" where our limits overlap.

[Davian93]

Canada is a different proposition. We have what amounts to a "joint exclusion zone" where our limits overlap.

Yeah...I'm pretty familiar with it...The book "Cod" goes into detail about it and the fishing wars that have developed before it was in place.

On Cuba, if they were to tap resources on our side of the line, that would be a basis for a confrontation...say the line is at the 45 mile marker (halfway between the 2 countries) if they cross it or tapped a major oil reserve that extends on both sides then we might have an argument...kinda like those accuastions of slant drilling made by Iraq going into Kuwait back in 91.

[Weird Harold]

...say the line is at the 45 mile marker (halfway between the 2 countries) if they cross it or tapped a major oil reserve that extends on both sides then we might have an argument...kinda like those accuastions of slant drilling made by Iraq going into Kuwait back in 91.

As long as they stay on Cuba's side of the line and aren't tapping into a deposit we're also developing, I personally couldn't care less which side of the line the deposit is on.

If we're actively developing a deposit -- (say in the Gulf) and they tap into that, it's exactly the same as Iraq slant driling into Kuwaiti deposits.

However, if the depsoit straddles the line and we're both developing it, then the precedent is the "Cod Wars" with Canada.

[Davian93]

However, if the depsoit straddles the line and we're both developing it, then the precedent is the "Cod Wars" with Canada.

Except for they're evil Commies not peace loving Canadians...

[Weird Harold]

Except for they're evil Commies not peace loving Canadians...
And we were only fighting with canada over fish, not osmething important like more fuel for our SUVs. :rolleyes:

[Davian93]

And we were only fighting with canada over fish, not osmething important like more fuel for our SUVs. :rolleyes:

LOL...exactly. Besides, what are fish good for?

~ignores obvious answer~

[Weird Harold]

LOL...exactly. Besides, what are fish good for?

~ignores obvious answer~
<resists urge to google up a Monty Python video.>

Back on topic: I think it's irrelevant who is driling off-shore, in the long run it will be bad for the environment even if the reef ecologies and wild-life refuges are avoided -- an because exploration and development are complete or partial tax write-offs, I'd like to see my tax dollars go to some other technology and some American company.

That of course would actually require that some more American Companies actually start working in the alternative energy fields.

[Davian93]

WH...on that solar plant you mentioned the Spanish are building in Nevada...is it complete yet? The article I remember reading didn't specify that much of it. If so, what type of energy output is it capable of and at what cost comparably to say coal or nuclear?

[Weird Harold]

WH...on that solar plant you mentioned the Spanish are building in Nevada...is it complete yet? The article I remember reading didn't specify that much of it. If so, what type of energy output is it capable of and at what cost comparably to say coal or nuclear?

Nevada Solar One has been online for over a year, IIRC, at a nominal capacity of 64MW and a peak capacity of 75MW.

it cost $266 Million dollars and covers a nominal 400 acres.

Comparingthe cost to Coal or Nukes is difficult because the solar plant is more expensive on the front end, but should be cheaper to operate.

ETA: I think the last construction numbers I saw for a Nuclear plant was Florida Power's study that estimated ~~$30 Billion to construct and a power cost to the consumer the first 20 years of $0.18/KWH and around 8-10 cents/KWH after the amortization is paid off.

I don't know just how much effect Solar One had on the most recent rate change, but effective 01 Apr 2008, Nevada Power Co reduced it's rates by $31,374,120 worth of revenue because of reduced energy costs for the preceding quarter. My new rate works out to $0.126/KHW with all of the per-KWH fees and charges and taxes ncluded.

[Davian93]

I wonder what type of infrastructure costs it would take to place most of the SW on solar thermal plants and then use geo-thermal for the rest of the Rockies (the rockies and west coast are prime areas for geo-thermal). Both are renewable, have a free source for power, and are very clean overall. It would be worth the cost...whatever it is.

[Weird Harold]

I wonder what type of infrastructure costs it would take to place most of the SW on solar thermal plants and then use geo-thermal for the rest of the Rockies (the rockies and west coast are prime areas for geo-thermal). Both are renewable, have a free source for power, and are very clean overall. It would be worth the cost...whatever it is.
Plants like Nevada Solar One primarily require land -- they take a lot more Acres/KW than more concentrated generation of power. Luckily many of the HIgh Tension power lines in the SW run right through prime Concentrated Solar Generation landscape, so it shouldn't take but a mile or two of additonal high tension towers to connect the the existing Grid.

Google up Nevada Power Co and browse around a bit -- you should be able to find the details on the Geotermal plant in Northern Nevada that supplies much of Washoe County's power.

The SW is also fairly good landscape for Wind Farms.

[John Snow]

Apart from any environmental concerns - or maybe not so apart.....off-shore or ANWAR drilling is a bandaid. I think, despite the variety of opinion here, there's general agreement that oil is a limited resource. The current high prices are prompting a lot of research into alternatives, which would fade away again were there the perception that we had more oil stashed away off the California and/or Florida coast. And even if we did have more than enough to just get a somewhat lower gas pump price until after November[/extreme cynicism], it would really only put the problem off until the next generation - and think how much more of a mess it would be for that generation to clean up.

[Davian93]

I'm over the opinion that the bandaid is necessary to give us time to start really going to renewable fuel sources.