Energy will not run out, nor will oil - just look at the facts and get the perspective!
And, of course, we need to blend in, rationally, the environmental considerations.
We need to MAKE SMART DECISIONS based on TRADE-OFFS, perspective, and producing a TRUE NET BENEFIT. A POOR LEADER is one who is stuck in WISHFUL THINKING and IMPRACTICAL IDEOLOGY, COSTING US MUCH MORE THAN ANY POSSIBLE BENEFITS. This is not about politics but about HAVING PEOPLE BE BETTER OFF - and PRODUCING THE NET HIGHEST HUMAN BENEFIT.
It is up to you to make a decision, to not operate on an EMOTIONAL BIAS nor be DEFENSIVE, and to operate to establish THE FACTS and to use SOUND REASONING. I wish you well......AND THE BEST DECISION, based on intelligent, responsible voting. (Link into the highlighted link.)
________________________________________________________
At this rate of population growth, we will soon run out of food to feed the people.
Ricardo Malthus, economist, early 1800's
The failure to take into account the ingenuity of man and the technological improvements he can make is one of the great shortsightedness examples. As Wayne Gretzky, the super hockey player: "A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be." And, when asked for the reason for his success in being where the puck is, he said: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."
We must anticipate where prices will be, where usage will be, and where technology and supply will be. If oil prices rise, it is no disaster, IF we are ready with new energy sources that will then be economically feasible! And premature implementation, such as using technologies before they are feasible, that causes huge costs is something to be avoided. (Ironically, the availability of feasible alternatives will, when they are economic, drive down the price of gasoline!)
Until we are actually clear on the actual causes of climate warming, we cannot make effective choices. See Climate Warming.
Electric Cars will not be cost feasible for perhaps 10 years. Meanwhile, we can invest much, much more effectively - and improve the environment even more than we would if we remain so shortsighted and limited in our thinking.
We must gain perspective and use maximum production in the US to help us avoid the most massive transfer of wealth out of the US in the history of mankind - and to enjoy the security and economic effects, plus use the additional revenues to pay off our debt, with a portion paying for fast-as-possible centralized research and development for alternative clean energy sources. We must do this wisely, in a "smart-paced, balanced" way.
We respond to very long term environmental considerations, with little effect, and, yet, we don't respond to the clear problems with Social Security and the huge Medicare liability, both of which will affect humans significantly more. Read why: Social Security.
______________________________________________________
CONTENTS
Perspective 1: Produce much more energy here, in USA
Getting rid of the barriers
Energy savers
Our resources
Oil shale drilling
Now choose
Bootstrapping possibility
Electricity
Benefit to US government revenues
ANWAR
Use of oil
Supply of oil
Oil shale
Nuclear power
Geothermal
___________________________________________________________
PERSPECTIVE 1: PRODUCE MUCH MORE ENERGY HERE, IN USA!
Produce here, create many JOBS by producing massive energy in USA - At least 200,000 jobs directly.
Energy independence within ten years or less (Very feasible goal)
Change our trade deficit, make our dollar stronger - In 2008, the price tag on petroleum-related products from foreign suppliers was $342 billion,or 44% of the total U.S. trade deficit of $764 billion. (US deficit with China: $268B)
Increase tax revenue, reduce deficit -Tax reveneue just from shale by 2035 400B
Alternative resources mostly not economical yet, so don't waste money could use better elsewhere. Do "correct timing" for future feasibility, use that in long term written plan. (Wind is cheap enough but no others.
The cost of not producing it here
Our cost for importing oil in 2008 was identified as the LARGEST TRANSFER OF WEALTH IN HUMAN HISTORY.
GETTING RID OF THE BARRIERS
Saving some odd animal, or a few animals, should not be precedent to avoiding human suffering and should not get in the way of producing more human benefits, short term and long term. Groups fighting for the environment lose their perspective overall, ending up getting little gain compared to what they could get if they were focused through better management and planning. The economic damage caused by these groups has caused much suffering for very little benefit.
ENERGY SAVERS
Rail is massively more efficient fuelwise - Switch to rail transp
Stop wasting energy! (Huge savings and reduction in pollutants; we say it, but don't
do it.)
OUR RESOURCES
Allow oil drilling offshore (18 B barrels of reserves), in ANWAR (10.4 B), on shore (21B), oil shale (2 Trillion!) and other locations where oil can safely and responsibly be recovered.
OIL SHALE DRILLING
Allow oil shale drilling in selected sites to generate feasibility and prove it can be accessed (1,000 year supply is involved here, 3 times greater than Saudi Arabia's proven reserves). Only feasible in the $70 - 95 price per barrel range.
A new U.S. oil shale industry could create up to 100,000 new jobs and contribute $1.9 trillion to the U.S. GDP.6 Source
SEE THE PRODUCTION STATS
These are in the boxes to the left:
In 2007, the U.S. imported a total of 3,656,170 thousand barrels.
1,956,596,000 barrels per year US production. Source.
What % is supplied by the sources:
Oil - 40% of energy, 70% for transportation
Coal - 23%
Natural gas 23%
Nuclear power - 8.4% cleanest , safest, least damage
Renewable energy 7.3%
NOW CHOOSE
If we are desperate, then we are forced to take expensive resources. If not, we can choose. Look at these possible choices and decide which you would choose and in which order:
Sun power - 10 x as expensive
Wind power - Cheap, couldn't find enough places,
Electric car - 5 times as expensive, but predicted breakeven, highly questionable
More fuel efficient cars by 2025 - Extra cost est. $7,500; loss of 250,000 jobs
"Bootstrapping" possibility
If we produce more oil, we could use oil revenue for taxes that could provide funds for a tax credit to have more electrical cars on the road sooner, which would save alot of pollution much quicker and pay for electrical credit?
ELECTRICITY
Annual electricity demand is projected to increase to 5000 billion kWh in 2030. Annual per capita electricity consumption is currently around 12,400 kWh. The use of electric cars may affect the usage greatly, but we don't know how fast that will come in, as the cost of electric cars is significantly too high.
ENERGY AVAILABLE BUT UNTAPPED
The Federal Government is sitting on a bounty of oil shale that could make energy cheaper in America and free it from the whims of Middle Eastern oil barons. Political roadblocks need to be removed.
BENEFIT TO US GOVERNMENT REVENUES
Oil and gas production on public lands produces royalties of up to 18.8 percent.
ANWAR - An area the size of the Dallas Airport.
The USGS says that studies of the coastal plan have shown that "technically recoverable oil within the entire assessment area is estimated to be between 10.4 and 16.0 billion barrels." The drilling area involves 2,000 acres out of 19 million. This is anywhere between about 3 years of imports to 5 years.
See the size and location. Notice that it is in desolate plains, not in all those pretty pictures of valleys and mountains! Truth Or Fiction See also anwr.org site.
The great amount of money that could result for the government would not only provide enough to give another place to the few caribou that might be affected plus do alot of good elsewhere. It seems foolish to "let the tail wag the dog", trying to protect so little compared to all the dramatically greater good that could be done.
There appears to be no good argument for not drilling, if it is based on greater good for the people and on reasoning and facts (versus a few caribou maybe being affected!).
USE OF OIL
Approximately 40% of the energy consumed annually by the United States is produced by burning oil. As of 2008, more than two-thirds of this oil is imported.. Approximately 33% of our oil is produced domestically. I used the most current data from the US Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, which is an excellent site for information.
With approximately 5% of the world's population, the United States is responsible for approximately 25% of annual global oil consumption and according to 2008 estimates has a per-person daily consumption rate more than double that of the European Union, whose population is significantly greater
Producing alot more of our own oil would not only make us less dependent on foreign oil, but also would lower worldwide demand and prices - and will, of course, lead to jobs in the US.
SUPPLY OF OIL
Contrary to the notion that we are “running out” of oil, the U.S. continues to be rich in petroleum potential. Certain sources of oil have been too expensive to produce, while others have been made inaccessible by the federal government. Others still can be accessed with new technologies and remain abundant, awaiting only government approval and/or private investment to become additional sources of new domestic energy.
Oil Shale:
One massive potential American energy resources is known as oil shale. In fact, no other nation in the world is as rich in oil shale as the U.S. The largest deposits of American oil shale are located in Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming. And though extraction poses some technical challenges, US oil shalein-place resources contain the energy equivalent of over 2 trillion barrels of oil.
To put this figure in perspective, the world has used 1 trillion barrels of oil since the first oil well was successfully drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859. As such, the United States’ 2 trillion barrels of oil shale is a potentially huge new source of oil, and must be central to any discussion of our continental energy security. Shale and other new sources of oil, like oil sands currently being developed in Canada, offer important new North American energy supply options.
NUCLEAR POWER IN USA
The country's 104 nuclear reactors produced 799 billion kWh in 2009, over 20% of total electrical output.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2018, the first of those resulting from 16 licence applications to build 24 new nuclear reactors made since mid-2007.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.
While there are plans for a number of new reactors, the prospect of low natural gas prices continuing for several years has dampened these plans and probably no more than four new units will come on line by 2020.
So, if we want to stop pollution and also be energy independent, the government should provide enough support to make it worthwhile for companies to start construction now, as it takes aout 7 to 10 years to come on line. If the program is substantial, at least combined with other sources brought on line, then there would be a natural depressing effect on the price of oil. That reduction in the price of oil will benefit the citizens substantially in the short term! And the benefit in the long term would also be immense.
GEOTHERMAL
A comprehensive study released by the American Clean Skies Foundation indicates the United States has 2,247 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves, which is enough to last more than 100 years.
Accessible enhanced geothermal systems in US; 13 million quads, or 130,000 times current annual consumption of primary energy in US.
COAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PLANTS GOING OUT OF PRODUCTION
The nation will have to start replacing dozens of aging coal-burning power plants and older nuclear plants, which are slated for retirement in the coming decades. ...
CONSIDERATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS
Everything has its trade-offs. The key for good decisionmakers is to weigh those tradeoffs and decide where the better benefits are - and true leaders should not be "ideologues", who make only "one way, or the highway" type of decisions, without balance nor good sense.
The economics for nuclear might not be so good right now, but it is a clean energy source. Fears of disaster, despite the incredible advance in technology since the 1970's reactors, are still prevalent though exaggerated
Nuclear Notes On
inmsufficient demand right now for economics for nuclear not too good
Exelon said it needs natural gas prices to reach about $8 per million B.T.U. — almost double today’s price — and a carbon fee of $25 a ton to make the project worthwhile economically.
Two nuclear projects that have gone forward, in Georgia and South Carolina, are in states where the utilities building them also distribute the electricity and operate under traditional regulatory rules that virtually guarantee them a financial return: Whatever the companies spend to generate power, the customers will pay for, unless regulators decide the expenses were not “prudent.” That regulatory compact is so strong that the South Carolina project, on the site of the existing V. C. Summer reactor, has begun work without a loan guarantee.
After three decades without starting a single new plant, the American nuclear power industry is getting ready to build again.
And cheap turbines were developed to burn natural gas to generate electricity. By the 1990s, even some nuclear plants that had been running for a few years were deemed too costly and were closed.
To help spur a revival, Congress provided $18.5 billion in loan guarantees in a 2005 energy law.
The actual construction time for a modern nuclear power reactor – say, a Westinghouse AP1000 – is three years. Three years, that’s all. Plus some number of years of approvals, planning and red tape.
Pro nuclear scientist's blog: blog
Be independent within 10 years...drives price down now, too!
Energy demand
Energy needs will go up hugely, as the developing countries become more prosperous and demand rising without much of increas in supply, means prices go up....we must increase our own supply - and as the price goes up develop more and more of our resources until renewable energy becomes cost feasible - at which point it will take over all the growth in use and then gradually replace much of the oil, but realistically there will always be some in use.
The costs by source of energy:
use for a chart of what to use)
The cost of generate electricity using Coal is around $0.04/KW/h. To generate power from gas and oil is a little bit more but still in the range of $0.08KW/h.
Wind power cost is about $0.12KW/h (currently) but the trend is going down so with economies of scale and better materials it should be heading to just a few cents higher than coal. The feasible limit of how much this could be used is estimated by some to be 20% of our power needs, with the tradeoff of ruining the view in many locations. It is feasible only in areas where there is already an infrastructure to hook up to, as it is too costly if alot of infrasture must be added.
Photovoltaics (PV’s) should be between $0.25 to 0.5KW/h even for solar concentrators and Sterling engine (Solar Thermal) the price is in the order of $0.18 to 0.22kW/h.
Biomass energy cost is based on the raw material used. In Brasil this is sugar cane and its derivatives and this allows producing energy that is a bit lower than the cost of oil generated electricity. But if you are thinking of using corn or other crops to produce ethanol then the prices are just not competitive with fossil fuels.
Nuclear competes very well with coal, but the price of Uranium has risen in the last several years so there is always the issue that demand may lead to non-parity with coal.
Hydoelectrical power plants produce energy for about the same price of coal and in some instances like in the case of Hydro Quebec maybe lower than coal. But there is a limited supply of rivers capable to provide us with this resource. Hydroelectric is the most cost effective at $0.03 per kWh.
Tidal Energy. There is a project off the coast of Portugal where the capacity will be 2.25MW of electricity and the price of the construction is about $15M. So if you compare the capital expenditures in setting a power plant using any of the technologies mentioned above you will find out that this is the least expensive.
In addition it does not have issues related with harmful emissions, also it does not have to deal with the disposal of dangerous waste materials e.g. nuclear, batteries (Lead and acids) or other problems.
INFORMATION RESOURCES
And, also, good on energy, stats, prefer nuclear: Basics
nuclear power at the edge of economic viability -good iddea
The biggest big government program is WAR
8.37 biooin barrels per day production
net imports 12.22
Old notes, to delete:
V
natural gas resources, 2007: 1451 trillion cubic feet US possesses 3% of world reserves of %,210 T cubic feet. US uses 22 Tr cu ft/year) 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the equivalent of about 80 billion barrels of oil.In recent years, however, gas producers expanded the use of "horizontal" drilling. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel, and when burned it does produce greenhouse gases. Environmentalists working for the use of renewable energy sources nonetheless see natural gas as a transition fuel.
One estimate of U.S. methane hydrates is around 200,000 Trillion cubic feet, which is close to a 9,000 years supply at current domestic consumption levels. Currently the technology to extract methane hydrate does not exist, at least not economically. That being said, the technology to extract shale gas did not exist a few years ago.
Nuclear plant
Solana, the largest concentrating solar power plant in the world. This plant, with a total investment of around $2 Billion, will generate 250 net megawatts (MW).
“The plant will be located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, Arizona. Solana will produce enough energy to serve 70,000 households and will prevent the emission of 475,000 tons of CO2 per year compared to a natural gas burning power plant.
The energy source for nuclear energy is Uranium. Uranium is a scarce resource, its supply is estimated to last only for the next 30 to 60 years depending on the actual demand.
The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 20 to 30 years in the western democracies. In other words: It is an illusion to build new nuclear power plants in a short time.
Is nuclear power renewable energy?
Nuclear energy uses Uranium as fuel, which is a scarce resource. The supply of Uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years (depending on the actual demand). Therefore nuclear energy is not a renewable energy.
Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Power Conclusion: "From the above mentioned pros and cons of nuclear power plants, it should be evident that nuclear energy cannot be a solution to any problem. Even worse: it is the source of many further problems."
Hydroelectric is the most cost effective at $0.03 per kWh. Hydroelectric production is naturally limited by the number of feasible geographic locations and the huge environmental infringement caused by the construction of a dam.
Nuclear and coal are tied at $0.04 per kWh. This comes as a bit of a surprise because coal is typically regarded as the cheapest form of energy production.
Another surprise is that wind power ($0.08 per kWh) came in slightly cheaper than natural gas ($0.10 per kWh).
Solar power was by far the most expensive at $0.22 per kWh—and that only represents construction costs because I could not find reliable data on production costs. Also, there is a higher degree of uncertainty in cost with wind and solar energy due to poor and varying data regarding the useful life of the facilities and their capacity factors. For this analysis the average of the data points are used in the calculations.
ave energy costs checklist
http://www.aceee.org/consumer/home-energy-checklist
Us government booklet
http://www.energysavers.gov/pdfs/energy_savers.pdf
electric cars
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
The United States is the largest energy consumer in terms of total use, using 100 quadrillion BTUs (105 exajoules, or 29 PWh) in 2005.
in 2005, it was estimated that 40% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 23% from coal, and 23% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 7.3%, which was mainly from hydroelectric dams although other renewables are included such as wind power, geothermal and solar energy
By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / June 25, 2010
The US could get a running start at curbing its greenhouse-gas emissions by shifting its energy mix more rapidly toward natural gas in the next few years, allowing renewable energy sources like wind and solar time to gain ground, a study released Friday found.
Americans constitute less than 5% of the world's population, but consumes 26% of the world's energy[20] to produce 26% of the world's industrial output. Two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is in the transportation sector
In 2006, U.S. Senators introduced the BioFuels Security Act.[26]
The proposal has been made for a hydrogen economy, where cars and factories are powered by fuel cells, although the hydrogen would still have to be produced at an energy cost, and hydrogen cars have been called one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases.[27][28] Other plans include making society carbon neutral and using renewable energy, including solar, wind and methane sources.
Automobiles, on the other hand, possibly could be powered 60% by grid electricity, 20% by biofuels and 20% direct solar. Re-design of cities, telecommuting, mass transit, higher housing density and walking could also reduce automobile fuel consumption and obesity.[29] Carpooling, flexcars, Smart cars, and shorter commutes could all reduce fuel use.[
Tester calls it "universal geothermal" energy because the reservoirs could be located wherever they're needed, such as near power-hungry cities worldwide
Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS)
The accessible U.S. EGS resource base is enormous — greater than 13 million quads or 130,000 times the current annual consumption of primary energy in the United States.
A cumulative capacity of more than 100,000 MWe from EGS can be achieved in the United States within 50 years with a modest, multiyear federal investment for RD&D in several field projects in the United States mit
In recent years, Wescott has returned to the idea of building geothermal power plants in the Aleutians, and using that electricity to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen could be liquified, he says, and shipped to Asia or the west coast of the United States.
-----
----
http://www.nap.edu/reports/energy/supply.html
At current rates of consumption with present technologies, uranium reserves in the United States can supply all of the world's existing reactors for 300 years.
IS THE WARMING OF THE EARTH HARMFUL?
The warming of the Earth’s surface is not necessarily harmful. This is overlooked by
many activists who preach the Gospel of CO2 reduction.
Generally warmer temperatures are beneficial, increasing bio-diversity.
Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are beneficial to plant
life. High levels of CO2 in the air enable plants to grow bigger and
produce more branches and leaves.
However, the above minor benefits are no reason not to reduce greenhouse gases and
simultaneously reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
WHAT IS THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?
In 1824, a French scientist, Jean Fourier, hypothesized
that the average temperature of the planet is warmer because of the existence of the
Earth’s atmosphere. He claimed that the warming effect of the atmosphere on the surface
was similar to how a plant warms when it is encased in a house of glass. Fourier called
this phenomenon the greenhouse effect.
The composition of the Earth’s atmosphere governs the climate of the plant and
establishes conditions vital for life. Although the atmosphere is primarily composed of
nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%), these gases do not interact with the long thermal
radiation emitted by the earth. This task is left to the greenhouse gases which account for
less than 3% in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases include: carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxides and water vapor which are very effective at absorbing thermal radiation
expelled from the Earth’s surface.
After greenhouse gases absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, they
re-radiate this energy back to the surface of the Earth, which warms the earth in the same
way that a blanket traps body heat on a cold night.
THE DOUBTERS
There are many who believe that global warming is not due to man-made emissions, but
is a natural phenomenon. This position is held by the Heartland Institute which supports
a nongovernmental international panel on climate change. This panel is comprised of
many rational and important scientists.
The man-made contribution to the current global warming is insignificant.
The observed temperature trends disagree sharply with those calculated
from existing greenhouse models. There are many short comings inherent
The scientists have traced changes in the climate since the last ice age
ended about 10,000 years ago. These scientists found extensive periods
that were warmer than today and colder than today, on a timescale of
decades and centuries.
Their most viable argument is that climate and solar warning models are
not reliable and one cannot predict the effects of global warming on
climate change.
in the models that try to simulate what is happening in the real atmosphere
and predict climate changes.
