What do you think CGCS members - is it time for the USA to get serious about energy independence... or, should we just continue with business as usual and let the Global Billionaires sell Unocal and other so-called US energy companies to China and whoever else can provide tax-free off-shore banking for their profits?
A powerful idea is spreading through America. It is a call to this generation to take action and decide the course of history by declaring and fighting for American Energy Independence.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Oil is no longer viewed as just another commodity. In the minds and hearts of the American people, oil has become associated with terrorism, political corruption, corporate greed, and global warming...
Energy is the lifeblood of the American economy. Cut off the flow of energy and the economy will die. For this reason, energy independence should be a matter of national security.
America's dependence on foreign oil has increased significantly in recent years and military tension in the Middle East has escalated into war. This is not saying the war in Iraq is only about oil. The issues are complex and the public debate about the war has divided the American people. There are no easy answers, but it is naive to think that the United States military would be in the Middle East if there were no oil.
Our nation’s wealth, along with the blood of American soldiers, is being drained onto the sands of the Middle East to keep oil flowing... Energy Independence and National Security
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer believes his state could produce oil and other petroleum products from the vast coal reserves in southeastern Montana.
The Defense Department is pushing the idea to develop a single American-manufactured fuel that it can buy, but wants it developed privately, Schweitzer said.
Fired up by the idea, Schweitzer intends to devote much of his time in the coming months exploring the possibility of having one and possibly more of these plants built in Montana by private industry.
The coal-conversion process produces no air pollution, uses no water and creates electricity as a byproduct. The petroleum fuels produced could be shipped out of state by pipeline.
At the heart of the plan is using an updated version of the Fischer-Tropsch technology, developed by two German scientists in 1923 to convert coal into petroleum products. Hitler used the process to power German tanks and other vehicles during World War II when the country was short of oil. More recently, when much of the world wouldn't trade with South Africa during apartheid, that country used the same technology to produce oil.
"What you do first is the coal gasification process," Schweitzer said. "You crush the coal up, heat it and get your gas. From there, it's a chemical reaction. You have a big tank and use either cobalt or iron as the catalyst. What you get out of that is the building blocks to make fuel. You get carbon monoxide and you get hydrogen. With those two, you can make any fuel you would like to make - diesel, gasoline, heating fuel, plastics, fertilizer or pure hydrogen."
So why hasn't anyone been using Fischer-Tropsch technology in the United States?
"It's kind of been left on the shelf because this process costs more than oil's been worth," the governor said.
The answer, Barna told Schweitzer, is that break-even point with Fischer-Tropsch technology is when oil is $35 a barrel. When oil costs more than $35 a barrel, it's cheaper to make these fuels from coal through this technology.
Pentagon officials "are interested in this obviously for national defense, where they find that 50 percent of their fuel to run the military is coming from countries we're likely to be fighting, and that is not a very good position to be in," Schweitzer said.
Schweitzer pursues coal-to-oil conversion
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/cleanhydrocarbons.html
Full Version: Energy Independence and National Security
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Energy Independence, Environment, Science and Technology > Energy, Environment, Science and Technology Issues Archive
QUOTE(Freedom4all @ Jul 4 2005, 11:46 AM)
What do you think CGCS members - is it time for the USA to get serious about energy independence... or, should we just continue with business as usual and let the Global Billionaires sell Unocal and other so-called US energy companies to China and whoever else can provide tax-free off-shore banking for their profits?
To be honest, I think the Chevron deal for Unocal has a strong chance of going through. Chevron's stock has been going up lately, which is going to make CNOOC's offer weaker, and most investors have better things to do with their money for the year it'll take for CNOOC's offer to get approved than making about 7% on top of Chevron's offer. I also think a lot of investors- maybe 20%- are going to be willing to lose a dollar or two a share to sell to an American company, rather than the commies. If CVX's stock continues to go up, it's going to be awfully close.
QUOTE
The answer, Barna told Schweitzer, is that break-even point with Fischer-Tropsch technology is when oil is $35 a barrel. When oil costs more than $35 a barrel, it's cheaper to make these fuels from coal through this technology.
Pentagon officials "are interested in this obviously for national defense, where they find that 50 percent of their fuel to run the military is coming from countries we're likely to be fighting, and that is not a very good position to be in," Schweitzer said.[/i]
Schweitzer pursues coal-to-oil conversion
Pentagon officials "are interested in this obviously for national defense, where they find that 50 percent of their fuel to run the military is coming from countries we're likely to be fighting, and that is not a very good position to be in," Schweitzer said.[/i]
Schweitzer pursues coal-to-oil conversion
Exactly. This week, I think I'll be selling my APA and buying MEE. Even without Fischer-Tropsch, coal's got a lot of room to grow. Electricity demand is coming close to our capacity to generate, natural gas and oil are getting more expensive, and a lot of utilities will be turning to coal and nuclear (as well as renewables, like wind) for new generation. When coal's trading at around $1.50/ton of reserves, it's a good deal.
QUOTE(Freedom4all @ Jul 4 2005, 11:46 AM)
What do you think CGCS members - is it time for the USA to get serious about energy independence... or, should we just continue with business as usual and let the Global Billionaires sell Unocal and other so-called US energy companies to China and whoever else can provide tax-free off-shore banking for their profits?
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/cleanhydrocarbons.html
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/cleanhydrocarbons.html
Oh I am all for the independence idea... but I'm afraid that train has left the station and derailed. BushCo has other worldly crusades in mind... while China does truly own us... with more 'owning' to come.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...502-unocal.html
China tells U.S. Congress to stop interfering in Unocal bid
ASSOCIATED PRESS
5:02 a.m. July 5, 2005
BEIJING – China on Tuesday demanded that Congress "correct its mistaken ways" and stop interfering in the proposed takeover of the Unocal oil corporation by China's state-owned CNOOC Ltd.
American politicians had warned the $18.5 billion takeover bid announced last month could pose risks to U.S. national security and called for a full review by the Bush administration.
and if I may, add a little more as to why China has us in a serious headlock while our Congress dallies with the Bushconic Plastic Bubble.
[If you bought a television, some toys or even a house recently, you may want to write a thank-you note - to China.
And you might want to stock up, since they might be more expensive soon.]
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov43...iness-headlines
Made in China, felt in America
Because the yuan is undervalued, U.S. interest rates are low, but manufacturing is declining, so the push is on to get China to float its currency
BY RANDI F. MARSHALL AND LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITERS
July 5, 2005
[If you bought a television, some toys or even a house recently, you may want to write a thank-you note - to China.
And you might want to stock up, since they might be more expensive soon.]
China is having profound effects on our economy - from providing a steady flow of cheap goods to feed America's shopping habits to keeping mortgage rates low, as the nation invests in U.S. treasuries.
There's really one central reason. China's currency, the yuan, is locked at 8.28 yuan to the dollar, which means the exchange rate between the two never changes. So the yuan fails to reflect China's growing strength and is now, by most accounts, significantly undervalued.
That means China is able to keep selling cheap goods to the United States, which helps to hold overall prices and interest rates here relatively low. But it also puts a competitive handicap on companies here, and that's partly behind the demise of the manufacturing industry.
So U.S. politicians, economists and business executives are trying - so far unsuccessfully - to persuade China to float its currency by allowing the yuan to trade at its true value on the open market.
"The reality is that there should be a free market in currencies that would allow a company in Taiwan to have the same competitive situation as a company in China or a company in Brazil ... including the U.S.," said Commerce Bank chief economist Joel Naroff.
Yuan hurts U.S. trade
Perhaps even more important, the undervalued yuan has been a huge factor in the United States' ballooning trade deficit. Nearly a quarter of the $686-billion annualized trade deficit can be attributed to China, experts say. Economists estimate China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent.
The yuan has become a political and economic hot button. It's full of complexities and debate, since no one seems to agree on just how big an impact unlocking the yuan could have - and whether the positives would outweigh the negatives.
[If you bought a television, some toys or even a house recently, you may want to write a thank-you note - to China.
And you might want to stock up, since they might be more expensive soon.]
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov43...iness-headlines
Made in China, felt in America
Because the yuan is undervalued, U.S. interest rates are low, but manufacturing is declining, so the push is on to get China to float its currency
BY RANDI F. MARSHALL AND LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITERS
July 5, 2005
[If you bought a television, some toys or even a house recently, you may want to write a thank-you note - to China.
And you might want to stock up, since they might be more expensive soon.]
China is having profound effects on our economy - from providing a steady flow of cheap goods to feed America's shopping habits to keeping mortgage rates low, as the nation invests in U.S. treasuries.
There's really one central reason. China's currency, the yuan, is locked at 8.28 yuan to the dollar, which means the exchange rate between the two never changes. So the yuan fails to reflect China's growing strength and is now, by most accounts, significantly undervalued.
That means China is able to keep selling cheap goods to the United States, which helps to hold overall prices and interest rates here relatively low. But it also puts a competitive handicap on companies here, and that's partly behind the demise of the manufacturing industry.
So U.S. politicians, economists and business executives are trying - so far unsuccessfully - to persuade China to float its currency by allowing the yuan to trade at its true value on the open market.
"The reality is that there should be a free market in currencies that would allow a company in Taiwan to have the same competitive situation as a company in China or a company in Brazil ... including the U.S.," said Commerce Bank chief economist Joel Naroff.
Yuan hurts U.S. trade
Perhaps even more important, the undervalued yuan has been a huge factor in the United States' ballooning trade deficit. Nearly a quarter of the $686-billion annualized trade deficit can be attributed to China, experts say. Economists estimate China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent.
The yuan has become a political and economic hot button. It's full of complexities and debate, since no one seems to agree on just how big an impact unlocking the yuan could have - and whether the positives would outweigh the negatives.
I don't blame the Chinese Government for playing by the rules defined by the global Billionaires.
The Chinese leaders are acting in the best interest of their people... I would like to see U.S. leaders doing the same for the American people.
What will it take to get U.S. politicians to act in the interest of the American people?
Maybe these guys have the answer:
www.nmef.org
This website gives a very good presentation of the concept of political (electoral) fusion. The website is called the New Majority Education Fund.
The U.S. Electoral System is Broken
Half of all eligible voters choose not to vote in any given election, and 27% of the voting public can elect a president. Ninety-eight percent of Congressional incumbents are re-elected. The two major political parties are completely beholden to corporate donors and it's often difficult to tell the differences between their policies. Candidates for office have to raise so much money that they can't possibly get elected without currying up to moneyed interests. And it's difficult to change how elections are conducted because our elected leaders and their two parties designed it the way it is, benefit from it, and want it to stay the same.
In our winner-takes-all elections, it's impossible for independent political parties to organize, grow, and present voters with alternatives. All they can really do is "spoil" elections - pull votes from a less-desired candidate thus throwing the election to their least-desired candidate...
There is a way to count ballots that allows alternative parties to positively impact election outcomes. There is a way to cast a protest vote that counts without throwing the election to the least desirable candidate. This way was once legal in all fifty states, is currently legal in ten states, and is still widely used in New York. It's called fusion voting.
Fusion: Changing how we vote
Fusion, once legal in all states and commonly practiced throughout the country, occurs when a third or minor party combines forces with a dominant party or other smaller parties to run a single candidate on multiple party lines. It makes possible something that many citizens wish they could do: to cast a protest vote that counts without throwing the election to the candidate they find least desirable.
Fusion also allows minor parties to demonstrate in clear, measurable terms, the level of support they provide to a candidate, thus giving them greater influence with candidates, elected officials and major political parties in policy and legislative matters. Also, minor parties that use their ballot line to endorse the candidate of another party are powerfully motivated to educate, persuade and turn-out voters. Thus fusion becomes a tool for promoting greater participation in the electoral process as minor parties mobilize the electorate to achieve their aims.
How it works
Fusion makes it possible for more than one party to endorse the same candidate. As a result, voters can cast ballots for third-party candidates without spoiling election results.
Here's how it can work:
Candidate/Percent of Vote
John Smith, Democrat -- 48%
Matt Jones, Republican -- 49%
John Smith, Working Families -- 3%
The votes are added together, and John Smith wins with 51% of the vote. But he also knows that without the support of the Working Families Party, he would have lost. And the Working Families Party presumably is able to influence John Smith's platform, legislative initiatives and votes!
The Chinese leaders are acting in the best interest of their people... I would like to see U.S. leaders doing the same for the American people.
What will it take to get U.S. politicians to act in the interest of the American people?
Maybe these guys have the answer:
www.nmef.org
This website gives a very good presentation of the concept of political (electoral) fusion. The website is called the New Majority Education Fund.
The U.S. Electoral System is Broken
Half of all eligible voters choose not to vote in any given election, and 27% of the voting public can elect a president. Ninety-eight percent of Congressional incumbents are re-elected. The two major political parties are completely beholden to corporate donors and it's often difficult to tell the differences between their policies. Candidates for office have to raise so much money that they can't possibly get elected without currying up to moneyed interests. And it's difficult to change how elections are conducted because our elected leaders and their two parties designed it the way it is, benefit from it, and want it to stay the same.
In our winner-takes-all elections, it's impossible for independent political parties to organize, grow, and present voters with alternatives. All they can really do is "spoil" elections - pull votes from a less-desired candidate thus throwing the election to their least-desired candidate...
There is a way to count ballots that allows alternative parties to positively impact election outcomes. There is a way to cast a protest vote that counts without throwing the election to the least desirable candidate. This way was once legal in all fifty states, is currently legal in ten states, and is still widely used in New York. It's called fusion voting.
Fusion: Changing how we vote
Fusion, once legal in all states and commonly practiced throughout the country, occurs when a third or minor party combines forces with a dominant party or other smaller parties to run a single candidate on multiple party lines. It makes possible something that many citizens wish they could do: to cast a protest vote that counts without throwing the election to the candidate they find least desirable.
Fusion also allows minor parties to demonstrate in clear, measurable terms, the level of support they provide to a candidate, thus giving them greater influence with candidates, elected officials and major political parties in policy and legislative matters. Also, minor parties that use their ballot line to endorse the candidate of another party are powerfully motivated to educate, persuade and turn-out voters. Thus fusion becomes a tool for promoting greater participation in the electoral process as minor parties mobilize the electorate to achieve their aims.
How it works
Fusion makes it possible for more than one party to endorse the same candidate. As a result, voters can cast ballots for third-party candidates without spoiling election results.
Here's how it can work:
Candidate/Percent of Vote
John Smith, Democrat -- 48%
Matt Jones, Republican -- 49%
John Smith, Working Families -- 3%
The votes are added together, and John Smith wins with 51% of the vote. But he also knows that without the support of the Working Families Party, he would have lost. And the Working Families Party presumably is able to influence John Smith's platform, legislative initiatives and votes!
Oil tops $61, hits record high
July 6, 2005
Oil prices climbed nearly 3 percent to finish at a record above $61 a barrel on Wednesday and analysts warned of an imminent spike in the retail cost of gasoline as storm-related power outages disrupted some oil production and refining operations in the Gulf of Mexico...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/
July 6, 2005
Oil prices climbed nearly 3 percent to finish at a record above $61 a barrel on Wednesday and analysts warned of an imminent spike in the retail cost of gasoline as storm-related power outages disrupted some oil production and refining operations in the Gulf of Mexico...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5612507/
Synthetic Diesel fuel made from U.S. coal and used as fuel for a new generation of highly efficient diesel cars could free America from dependence on foreign oil.
70-mpg diesel concept car unveiled:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8129979/
70-mpg diesel concept car unveiled:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8129979/
QUOTE(Freedom4all @ Jul 6 2005, 07:39 PM)
I don't blame the Chinese Government for playing by the rules defined by the global Billionaires.
The Chinese leaders are acting in the best interest of their people... I would like to see U.S. leaders doing the same for the American people.
What will it take to get U.S. politicians to act in the interest of the American people?
The Chinese leaders are acting in the best interest of their people... I would like to see U.S. leaders doing the same for the American people.
What will it take to get U.S. politicians to act in the interest of the American people?
I couldn't agree with you more. But I am afraid that choo choo has torn up 1000s of miles of good tracks. US leaders would need to first of all develope a good conscience, if that ever does applies to our politicians. Next they would need to fully represent the ppl of this nation in 'their' best interest...of which who pays their checks and bennies. That would also mean removing corruption from DC and our state capitols...just for starters. It would be nice to have honest elections back as well....for that usually helps to restore democracy. When all else fails with the above, I'm afraid the only option that is left is the 'R' word. Remember the other 'evil' empire that was removed during the '40s?
The top dog of this planet is about to implode.
QUOTE(ghostgovt @ Jul 7 2005, 06:19 AM)
I couldn't agree with you more. But I am afraid that choo choo has torn up 1000s of miles of good tracks. US leaders would need to first of all develope a good conscience, if that ever does applies to our politicians. Next they would need to fully represent the ppl of this nation in 'their' best interest...of which who pays their checks and bennies. That would also mean removing corruption from DC and our state capitols...just for starters. It would be nice to have honest elections back as well....for that usually helps to restore democracy. When all else fails with the above, I'm afraid the only option that is left is the 'R' word. Remember the other 'evil' empire that was removed during the '40s?
The top dog of this planet is about to implode.
The top dog of this planet is about to implode.
I don't think it has. The U.S. holds 2 1/2 Saudi Arabias worth of coal energy- which we can convert to gasoline, and if it ever comes down to it, all it'll take will be for our politicians to tell China, "We won't share!"
We have plenty of time to get the U.S. in good enough political shape to face down China, but it's better to start sooner than later.
Freedom4all:
YES!
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It appears our nation has developed “entangling alliances” to keep our supply of energy flowing. We protect monarchs in Saudi Arabia that support those that wish to destroy us.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.
-Thomas Jefferson
We were warned about such entanglements by our founding fathers over two hundred years ago. Times change and technology changes, but principles do not. We must carefully consider the course we must follow in our future energy and trade policies. We do not wish to barter away our freedoms which many Americans have fought and died for.
Today, I hear on the news of explosions in London. In today’s world, those explosions are at our doorstep. The gas we bought for our SUVs may have purchased the explosives which have caused harm to one of our nation’s best allies. Do we wish to continue to support those that wish to destroy us?
The idea of an energy supply that is produced here is an idea of freedom. If we pursue this course, we will be free of the “entangling alliances,” that Thomas Jefferson spoke of. An independent energy supply will guarantee us greater independence. The beacon of freedom which has shown from America for so long will once again shine bright.
This idea needs to be promulgated. It needs to be made known. Now is the time to bend a neighbor’s ear and discuss this matter. Now is the time to write to the local newspaper. Now is the time to issue a demand for change to the elected politician. All must be made to understand that to support the use of indigenous energy supplies is not a want but a need. It is one means to support both the standard of living of Americans and to support the liberites that we all so cherish.
There will be resistance to this idea. Foreign energy czars are entrenched within our midst. They have the wisdom to protect their own interests and there will be lies and spin put forth to prevent this idea. They have the money and will spend it to tell partial truths. They will tell us that the economics aren’t there to build coal to gas plants. Their funds will be spent on “hired guns.” Lawyers, accountants, engineers and politicians will abound to tell the Saudi’s tale.
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -George Washington
Independent energy is the star on the horizon for which we must sail. We must be people of good conscience and stay the course. We must be men of virtue and this must be our destiny. The freedom from the tyranny of foreign energy sources is answer enough for those who will produce false economic arguments. Freedom always gives a positive benefit / cost ratio. Economics is a science meant to serve men and not the other way around.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds - Samuel Adams
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one's own person is its ultimate reward
- Patricia Sampson
Let’s keep this small brush fire going. This website is but kindling. Kindling can be used to kindle a great fire. This great fire will be energy independence. Please help keep the flame burnng.
Freedom4all - Thank you for asking that question.
QUOTE
What do you think CGCS members - is it time for the USA to get serious about energy independence
YES!
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It appears our nation has developed “entangling alliances” to keep our supply of energy flowing. We protect monarchs in Saudi Arabia that support those that wish to destroy us.
Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.
-Thomas Jefferson
We were warned about such entanglements by our founding fathers over two hundred years ago. Times change and technology changes, but principles do not. We must carefully consider the course we must follow in our future energy and trade policies. We do not wish to barter away our freedoms which many Americans have fought and died for.
Today, I hear on the news of explosions in London. In today’s world, those explosions are at our doorstep. The gas we bought for our SUVs may have purchased the explosives which have caused harm to one of our nation’s best allies. Do we wish to continue to support those that wish to destroy us?
The idea of an energy supply that is produced here is an idea of freedom. If we pursue this course, we will be free of the “entangling alliances,” that Thomas Jefferson spoke of. An independent energy supply will guarantee us greater independence. The beacon of freedom which has shown from America for so long will once again shine bright.
This idea needs to be promulgated. It needs to be made known. Now is the time to bend a neighbor’s ear and discuss this matter. Now is the time to write to the local newspaper. Now is the time to issue a demand for change to the elected politician. All must be made to understand that to support the use of indigenous energy supplies is not a want but a need. It is one means to support both the standard of living of Americans and to support the liberites that we all so cherish.
There will be resistance to this idea. Foreign energy czars are entrenched within our midst. They have the wisdom to protect their own interests and there will be lies and spin put forth to prevent this idea. They have the money and will spend it to tell partial truths. They will tell us that the economics aren’t there to build coal to gas plants. Their funds will be spent on “hired guns.” Lawyers, accountants, engineers and politicians will abound to tell the Saudi’s tale.
Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. -George Washington
Independent energy is the star on the horizon for which we must sail. We must be people of good conscience and stay the course. We must be men of virtue and this must be our destiny. The freedom from the tyranny of foreign energy sources is answer enough for those who will produce false economic arguments. Freedom always gives a positive benefit / cost ratio. Economics is a science meant to serve men and not the other way around.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds - Samuel Adams
Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one's own person is its ultimate reward
- Patricia Sampson
Let’s keep this small brush fire going. This website is but kindling. Kindling can be used to kindle a great fire. This great fire will be energy independence. Please help keep the flame burnng.
Freedom4all - Thank you for asking that question.
QUOTE(GoIllini @ Jul 7 2005, 09:43 AM)
I don't think it has. The U.S. holds 2 1/2 Saudi Arabias worth of coal energy- which we can convert to gasoline, and if it ever comes down to it, all it'll take will be for our politicians to tell China, "We won't share!"
We have plenty of time to get the U.S. in good enough political shape to face down China, but it's better to start sooner than later.
We have plenty of time to get the U.S. in good enough political shape to face down China, but it's better to start sooner than later.
I certainly respect your comments about doing this alternative energy program, but a few things comes to my mind in our race to save our nation if I may share them with you and the others here.
I have always wonder why in the world that our planning fathers clear back in the mid '70s did not begin to move on such an alternative and more independent energy plans. We the ppl began questioning this even back then, as we were held hostages to the Arab oil. It appeard as deliberate negligence for decades while we stumbled to this point in time with all our problems now facing facing with this expensive energy situation.
First, as we (congress/energy dept) go through this process of battling out the hows and whens as we race against the clock, just how much time do we really have to come up with the actual alternative source and convert what we now have over to this new source? That in itself is costly. Then the time this may take. the last I heard, maybe 10 years. In that scheme of things, do we really have 10 years left to pull this off under this horrible corrupt Bush regime and all it's damage to date since the last 4 years? Will we be in 2, 4 or 6 additional war fronts within that 10 year time frame? If so, will we not be putting forth most of our power sources towards our military efforts abroad by that 10 year mark? Wars usually do that.
Secondly, I have already read where our national debt will be in the neighborhood of $2.3 trillion by 2008 I believe. You know how our corrupt govt loves to suck our treasury dept dry, and by 10 years, we may be pushing $10-20 trillion in fed deficit. Not only that, but I am sure that any energy coversion project would soak us for $100s of billions before all said and done.
Now, my own reality gut check tells me that as our gas prices rises to around $4+ gal in the next 3-4 yrs, and as all else doubles... if not more, and we have yet to pay down our existing huge fed deficit to date.... I can't imagine how we will afford/exist anything the in 5-10 years time frame.
So what I am saying here, I do wish we could have an alternative power source but within the time frame of actually getting that done and affording all of this in an inflationairy economic nightmare and the out of sight federal deficit, how can this really possibly happen in these next 5-10 yrs by the way things are going now? Even if a Dem got into office in '08, the damage done now is so severe (not to mention those other war fronts) just how 'actual' is this plan for converting over to this other energy source with pulling it off?
If we were not under this corrent corrupt govt.... and if we were not in these prefabricated wars .... and if we were still operating with a surplus of a few $100 billion, then I'd say that this concept for developing an alternative fuel source and converting over to that source would be very doable within those 5-10 years based on this entire population of this nation. That is the choo choo train that I am speaking about that has seriously derailed. I wish it were different.... I truly do. I also understand that this sounds negative, but after the 'real' beans are counted, we are in deep dire dodo of huge consequences thanks to BushCo.
Just my opinon
As we with common sense are very aware of this situation, the big wigs on top only sees the huge profits that they will continue to make and inflation will rule this planet for decades or until the economic 'implosion' occurrs.
Want to seriously change this gasoline scenario? I have beckond many on the forum to simply boycott a few major gasoline companies.... and start gas wars again, but how many are willing to sacrifice some to gain a lot in their future? Very little. Once the ppl of this nation learns to boycott, will there ever be ANY 'change' in the BushCon direction. The choice is up to the ppl. Cut your gasoline usage in half and do it by not patronizing the 2 or 3 chosen major oil companies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/28/...D8ACD31O0.shtml
May 28, 2005
And there are many who doubt the doomsday scenario will ever come true. Most oil industry analysts think production will continue growing for at least another 30 years. By then, substitute energy sources will be available to ease the transition into a post-petroleum age.
"This is just silly," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research in Winchester, Mass. "It's not like industrial civilization is going to come crashing down."
"The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground," Deffeyes said.
There will be warning signs before global oil production peaks, the bearers of bad news contend. Prices will rise dramatically and become increasingly volatile. With little or no excess production capacity, minor supply disruptions _ political instability in Venezuela, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or labor unrest in Nigeria, for example _ will send the oil markets into a tizzy. So will periodic admissions by oil companies and petroleum-rich nations that they have been overestimating their reserves.
Oil producers will grow flush with cash. And because the price of oil ultimately affects the cost of just about everything else in the economy, inflation will rear its ugly head.
Anybody who has been paying close attention to the news lately may feel a bit queasy at this stage. Could $5-a-gallon gas be right around the corner?
But Hubbert was right. U.S. oil production did peak in 1970, and it has declined steadily ever since.
Deffeyes thinks the peak will be in late 2005 or early 2006. Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons puts it at 2007 to 2009. California Institute of Technology physicist David Goodstein, whose book "The End of Oil" was published last year, predicts it will arrive before 2010.
[ The exact date doesn't really matter, said Hirsch, because he believes it's already too late. In an analysis he did for the U.S. Department of Energy in February, Hirsch concluded that it will take more than a decade for the U.S. economy to adapt to declining oil production. ]
Want to seriously change this gasoline scenario? I have beckond many on the forum to simply boycott a few major gasoline companies.... and start gas wars again, but how many are willing to sacrifice some to gain a lot in their future? Very little. Once the ppl of this nation learns to boycott, will there ever be ANY 'change' in the BushCon direction. The choice is up to the ppl. Cut your gasoline usage in half and do it by not patronizing the 2 or 3 chosen major oil companies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/28/...D8ACD31O0.shtml
May 28, 2005
And there are many who doubt the doomsday scenario will ever come true. Most oil industry analysts think production will continue growing for at least another 30 years. By then, substitute energy sources will be available to ease the transition into a post-petroleum age.
"This is just silly," said Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research in Winchester, Mass. "It's not like industrial civilization is going to come crashing down."
"The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground," Deffeyes said.
There will be warning signs before global oil production peaks, the bearers of bad news contend. Prices will rise dramatically and become increasingly volatile. With little or no excess production capacity, minor supply disruptions _ political instability in Venezuela, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or labor unrest in Nigeria, for example _ will send the oil markets into a tizzy. So will periodic admissions by oil companies and petroleum-rich nations that they have been overestimating their reserves.
Oil producers will grow flush with cash. And because the price of oil ultimately affects the cost of just about everything else in the economy, inflation will rear its ugly head.
Anybody who has been paying close attention to the news lately may feel a bit queasy at this stage. Could $5-a-gallon gas be right around the corner?
But Hubbert was right. U.S. oil production did peak in 1970, and it has declined steadily ever since.
Deffeyes thinks the peak will be in late 2005 or early 2006. Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons puts it at 2007 to 2009. California Institute of Technology physicist David Goodstein, whose book "The End of Oil" was published last year, predicts it will arrive before 2010.
[ The exact date doesn't really matter, said Hirsch, because he believes it's already too late. In an analysis he did for the U.S. Department of Energy in February, Hirsch concluded that it will take more than a decade for the U.S. economy to adapt to declining oil production. ]
QUOTE(ghostgovt @ Jul 7 2005, 05:56 PM)
I certainly respect your comments about doing this alternative energy program, but a few things comes to my mind in our race to save our nation if I may share them with you and the others here.
Thanks. Might I add in, however, that we aren't trying to save the world here; we're just trying to save our lifestyle. In the VERY worst imaginable scenario with peak oil, we all have to wind up taking the electric train to work and having gardens in our backyard. Our lifestyles and economy would probably wind up in better shape than what the Russians had during the Cold War (post-Stalin). It's not a great picture, but it's not a horrible one, either.
QUOTE
I have always wonder why in the world that our planning fathers clear back in the mid '70s did not begin to move on such an alternative and more independent energy plans. We the ppl began questioning this even back then, as we were held hostages to the Arab oil. It appeard as deliberate negligence for decades while we stumbled to this point in time with all our problems now facing facing with this expensive energy situation.
Well, you have a point, but to be fair, they did try. We did go from gas guzzlers to 25 mpg cars in a matter of 5-10 years, and for the first time in the history of the country, managed to hold energy consumption flat for about 15 years.
QUOTE
First, as we (congress/energy dept) go through this process of battling out the hows and whens as we race against the clock, just how much time do we really have to come up with the actual alternative source and convert what we now have over to this new source?
We've got twenty years, at the very least. The market will take care of switching us over to an economy that runs on coal and tar sands, rather than one that runs on drilled oil. Meanwhile, we started off with 5000 quadrillion BTUs of coal, and still have at least 4000 left in the U.S. Assuming that coal consumption peaks at 100 quads a year, we can run the U.S. on coal for at least 20 years before hitting peak coal. More likely, we'll get some help from folks switching over to hybrids (coal-derived gasoline will probably wind up costing $2.50-$3.00/gallon), or possibly even the Plug-In Hybrids that Freedom4All's been talking about; I figure there's a good chance that we'll have another 10 years of relatively flat fossil fuel consumption- and that we'll also get a lot of help from oil and natural gas in the first decade. That means that we can probably count on using less than 500 quads of coal in the next 10 years. I think a more realistic expectation is that, based on several factors that'll depend on how we generate our electricity, how efficient we are at converting coal into oil, and how much we conserve, we can expect at least 30-45 years until coal peaks in the U.S.
QUOTE
Secondly, I have already read where our national debt will be in the neighborhood of $2.3 trillion by 2008 I believe. You know how our corrupt govt loves to suck our treasury dept dry, and by 10 years, we may be pushing $10-20 trillion in fed deficit. Not only that, but I am sure that any energy coversion project would soak us for $100s of billions before all said and done.
The market will pay for every penny. Incidentally, when peak oil hits, we'll wind up selling just 5% of our first five years of energy production to them for all of the treasury debt they own. I think that's reasonable, although to some extent, it would be in our best interests to make sure that we owe China a little bit of money, and that China owes us a little bit- that way, we stay on relatively civil terms with them.
QUOTE
Now, my own reality gut check tells me that as our gas prices rises to around $4+ gal in the next 3-4 yrs, and as all else doubles... if not more, and we have yet to pay down our existing huge fed deficit to date.... I can't imagine how we will afford/exist anything the in 5-10 years time frame.
True, but then tax revenues will double, too, and our inflation-adjusted debt will be cut in half.
QUOTE
So what I am saying here, I do wish we could have an alternative power source but within the time frame of actually getting that done and affording all of this in an inflationairy economic nightmare and the out of sight federal deficit, how can this really possibly happen in these next 5-10 yrs by the way things are going now? Even if a Dem got into office in '08, the damage done now is so severe (not to mention those other war fronts) just how 'actual' is this plan for converting over to this other energy source with pulling it off?
While I think we'd have been a lot better off with four years of Kerry, I don't think Bush's presidency is going to turn out to be the nightmare that some folks make it out to be.
QUOTE
If we were not under this corrent corrupt govt.... and if we were not in these prefabricated wars .... and if we were still operating with a surplus of a few $100 billion, then I'd say that this concept for developing an alternative fuel source and converting over to that source would be very doable within those 5-10 years based on this entire population of this nation. That is the choo choo train that I am speaking about that has seriously derailed. I wish it were different.... I truly do. I also understand that this sounds negative, but after the 'real' beans are counted, we are in deep dire dodo of huge consequences thanks to BushCo.
Just my opinon
Just my opinon
Don't worry. Things are gonna be fine. They aren't gonna be perfect, but it isn't going to be the end of the world. The market's planned out how to make sure we've got relatively cheap energy for at least 20- probably 35 years.
QUOTE(GoIllini @ Jul 8 2005, 09:29 AM)
Don't worry. Things are gonna be fine. They aren't gonna be perfect, but it isn't going to be the end of the world. The market's planned out how to make sure we've got relatively cheap energy for at least 20- probably 35 years.
Actually, I became worried in late 1999 and into 2000 as Bush stole his first presidential election. Then I became very concerned in Bush's stolen election 2004. I have sinced become outraged by the ignorance of many sheeple who still keeps in lockstep with this Bush regime and it's lie wars for profits. By now, I have learned to accept what it is to be, and what is to be will not be what the sheeple thinks. It is the calm before the storm. Thanks for your very prosperous outlook into the future for it appears money will rain from the heavens. You seem to bank on the fact that taxes will be the answer to our economic prayers. We'll see how the fosil fuels fairs in the great scheme of things to come
Don't worry....be happy http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/st...1519745,00.html
Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday July 3, 2005
Oil 'will hit $100 by winter'
Worst-ever crisis looms, says analyst · Surging demand to keep prices high
Heather Stewart, economics correspondent
Sunday July 3, 2005
The Observer
Oil prices could rocket to $100 within six months, plunging the world into an unprecedented fuel crisis, controversial Texan oil analyst Matt Simmons has warned.
After crude surged through $60 a barrel last week, nervous investors were pinning their hopes on a build-up in US oil-stocks to depress prices in the coming months.
But Simmons believes surging demand will keep prices bubbling well above $50. 'We could be at $100 by this winter. We have the biggest risk we have ever had of demand exceeding supply. We are now just about to face up to the biggest crisis we have ever had,' he said.
Just as Congress signs laws to promote nuclear energy (with big tax payer subsidies), our nuclear industry is being sold off.
Mitsubishi Heavy Bids to Buy Westinghouse
Updated 1:55 AM ET July 9, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8b7mdog0&src=ap
TOKYO (AP) - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is bidding to buy Westinghouse of the United States, four decades after the Japanese machinery maker got its start in the energy business with Westinghouse technology, news reports said Saturday.
A successful deal would be the Japanese heavy machinery maker's first overseas acquisition, as it expands its power plant business worldwide _ particularly to meet demand in fast-growing, energy-hungry China.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has begun negotiations with British company BNFL, which owns Westinghouse Electric Co., and the two sides could reach a deal _ estimated at $1.79 billion _ later this year, the business daily Nihon Keizai newspaper said.
Mitsubishi Heavy could form an alliance with several U.S. companies to sweeten its offer and beat out rival bidders, the paper said. Company officials couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
The Tokyo-based company is a leader in technologies for light-water reactors, which do not produce significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium and comprise two-thirds of the world's operating nuclear reactors.
Its first nuclear plants in Japan in the 1960s were based on technology from Westinghouse.
Though its businesses overall are profitable, Mitsubishi Heavy has recently faced declining public works orders in Japan and narrowing profit margins from shipbuilding, aerospace and power networks.
Mitsubishi Heavy Bids to Buy Westinghouse
Updated 1:55 AM ET July 9, 2005
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8b7mdog0&src=ap
TOKYO (AP) - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is bidding to buy Westinghouse of the United States, four decades after the Japanese machinery maker got its start in the energy business with Westinghouse technology, news reports said Saturday.
A successful deal would be the Japanese heavy machinery maker's first overseas acquisition, as it expands its power plant business worldwide _ particularly to meet demand in fast-growing, energy-hungry China.
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has begun negotiations with British company BNFL, which owns Westinghouse Electric Co., and the two sides could reach a deal _ estimated at $1.79 billion _ later this year, the business daily Nihon Keizai newspaper said.
Mitsubishi Heavy could form an alliance with several U.S. companies to sweeten its offer and beat out rival bidders, the paper said. Company officials couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
The Tokyo-based company is a leader in technologies for light-water reactors, which do not produce significant amounts of weapons-grade plutonium and comprise two-thirds of the world's operating nuclear reactors.
Its first nuclear plants in Japan in the 1960s were based on technology from Westinghouse.
Though its businesses overall are profitable, Mitsubishi Heavy has recently faced declining public works orders in Japan and narrowing profit margins from shipbuilding, aerospace and power networks.
Heritage:
To me this one is a "so what." Note that this portion of Westinghouse was already owned by the British. Maybe the Japanese will manages this former portion of Westinghouse better. This part bids on government contracts to supply work for the DOE and some other left over aspects of Westinghouse.
Westinghouse was sliced and diced a few years back.
ABB got a portion. They handle electrical protective products that the Circle Bar Ranch used to peddle and support.
Cutler Hammer got a portion. They now sell Westinghouse MCC products. I think they got the Westinghouse Electric Supply Company (WESCO) too.
Siemens gives support for utilities under the name "Siemens Westinghouse." Same people different hardhats.
I don't know who got the rest of it, but it's like Kaiser and some other American conglomerates. It's no more.
Illini:
Does the market have your best interest in mind? The market only knows two emotions greed and fear.
I think it is time we get proactive and plan for "peak oil," increasing competition with growing markets for oil and look out for both the economic well being and future defense needs of the country.
People in the late 1920s put their trust in the market and found it was a misplaced trust. In more recent times, I've seen people have their retirement plans go awry due to the "market."
I think we need to be developing alternate infrastructure for energy supply. Make liquid fuel from coal, corn, wood, and sewage. We need to be good boy scouts. We need to be prepared for future changes in oil supply and demand. the best way is to have an alternative competing product for sale.
QUOTE
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. has begun negotiations with British company BNFL, which owns Westinghouse Electric Co., and the two sides could reach a deal _ estimated at $1.79 billion _ later this year, the business daily Nihon Keizai newspaper said.
To me this one is a "so what." Note that this portion of Westinghouse was already owned by the British. Maybe the Japanese will manages this former portion of Westinghouse better. This part bids on government contracts to supply work for the DOE and some other left over aspects of Westinghouse.
Westinghouse was sliced and diced a few years back.
ABB got a portion. They handle electrical protective products that the Circle Bar Ranch used to peddle and support.
Cutler Hammer got a portion. They now sell Westinghouse MCC products. I think they got the Westinghouse Electric Supply Company (WESCO) too.
Siemens gives support for utilities under the name "Siemens Westinghouse." Same people different hardhats.
I don't know who got the rest of it, but it's like Kaiser and some other American conglomerates. It's no more.
Illini:
QUOTE
Don't worry. Things are gonna be fine. They aren't gonna be perfect, but it isn't going to be the end of the world. The market's planned out how to make sure we've got relatively cheap energy for at least 20- probably 35 years.
Does the market have your best interest in mind? The market only knows two emotions greed and fear.
I think it is time we get proactive and plan for "peak oil," increasing competition with growing markets for oil and look out for both the economic well being and future defense needs of the country.
People in the late 1920s put their trust in the market and found it was a misplaced trust. In more recent times, I've seen people have their retirement plans go awry due to the "market."
I think we need to be developing alternate infrastructure for energy supply. Make liquid fuel from coal, corn, wood, and sewage. We need to be good boy scouts. We need to be prepared for future changes in oil supply and demand. the best way is to have an alternative competing product for sale.
C-span aired a program tonight with Ted Turner (former CNN owner) and Bill Clinton. They discussed energy programs and national security. It should re-air later tonight or catch the video at http://www.c-span.org. They were very dissappointed with Bush's energy policy. Clinton said he could win support if he tied it to national security and the economy. The business leaders in the audience seemed to support more proactive programs from our government leaders. GE announced recently a plan to spend billions of dollars to design new energy efficient products.
GoIllini, you are too young to remember what happened during the oil shocks of the 1070's. The market did not plan for those. half the gas stations had no gas, and the other half had lines of cars many blocks long waiting to fill up. Both were accompanied by deep recessions that the government was helpless to fix.
The market did adjust, but it was very painful. The next oil shock could be even worse. The market does not plan for anything. It only reacts. And that reaction can be very painful. You are right, it won't the end of the world, but it may feel like it sometimes. Just ask any drug addict who goes through withdrawal.
The market did adjust, but it was very painful. The next oil shock could be even worse. The market does not plan for anything. It only reacts. And that reaction can be very painful. You are right, it won't the end of the world, but it may feel like it sometimes. Just ask any drug addict who goes through withdrawal.
QUOTE(GoIllini @ Jul 8 2005, 07:29 AM)
Thanks. Might I add in, however, that we aren't trying to save the world here; we're just trying to save our lifestyle. In the VERY worst imaginable scenario with peak oil, we all have to wind up taking the electric train to work and having gardens in our backyard. Our lifestyles and economy would probably wind up in better shape than what the Russians had during the Cold War (post-Stalin). It's not a great picture, but it's not a horrible one, either.
Well, you have a point, but to be fair, they did try. We did go from gas guzzlers to 25 mpg cars in a matter of 5-10 years, and for the first time in the history of the country, managed to hold energy consumption flat for about 15 years.
We've got twenty years, at the very least. The market will take care of switching us over to an economy that runs on coal and tar sands, rather than one that runs on drilled oil. Meanwhile, we started off with 5000 quadrillion BTUs of coal, and still have at least 4000 left in the U.S. Assuming that coal consumption peaks at 100 quads a year, we can run the U.S. on coal for at least 20 years before hitting peak coal. More likely, we'll get some help from folks switching over to hybrids (coal-derived gasoline will probably wind up costing $2.50-$3.00/gallon), or possibly even the Plug-In Hybrids that Freedom4All's been talking about; I figure there's a good chance that we'll have another 10 years of relatively flat fossil fuel consumption- and that we'll also get a lot of help from oil and natural gas in the first decade. That means that we can probably count on using less than 500 quads of coal in the next 10 years. I think a more realistic expectation is that, based on several factors that'll depend on how we generate our electricity, how efficient we are at converting coal into oil, and how much we conserve, we can expect at least 30-45 years until coal peaks in the U.S.
The market will pay for every penny. Incidentally, when peak oil hits, we'll wind up selling just 5% of our first five years of energy production to them for all of the treasury debt they own. I think that's reasonable, although to some extent, it would be in our best interests to make sure that we owe China a little bit of money, and that China owes us a little bit- that way, we stay on relatively civil terms with them.
True, but then tax revenues will double, too, and our inflation-adjusted debt will be cut in half.
While I think we'd have been a lot better off with four years of Kerry, I don't think Bush's presidency is going to turn out to be the nightmare that some folks make it out to be.
Don't worry. Things are gonna be fine. They aren't gonna be perfect, but it isn't going to be the end of the world. The market's planned out how to make sure we've got relatively cheap energy for at least 20- probably 35 years.
Well, you have a point, but to be fair, they did try. We did go from gas guzzlers to 25 mpg cars in a matter of 5-10 years, and for the first time in the history of the country, managed to hold energy consumption flat for about 15 years.
We've got twenty years, at the very least. The market will take care of switching us over to an economy that runs on coal and tar sands, rather than one that runs on drilled oil. Meanwhile, we started off with 5000 quadrillion BTUs of coal, and still have at least 4000 left in the U.S. Assuming that coal consumption peaks at 100 quads a year, we can run the U.S. on coal for at least 20 years before hitting peak coal. More likely, we'll get some help from folks switching over to hybrids (coal-derived gasoline will probably wind up costing $2.50-$3.00/gallon), or possibly even the Plug-In Hybrids that Freedom4All's been talking about; I figure there's a good chance that we'll have another 10 years of relatively flat fossil fuel consumption- and that we'll also get a lot of help from oil and natural gas in the first decade. That means that we can probably count on using less than 500 quads of coal in the next 10 years. I think a more realistic expectation is that, based on several factors that'll depend on how we generate our electricity, how efficient we are at converting coal into oil, and how much we conserve, we can expect at least 30-45 years until coal peaks in the U.S.
The market will pay for every penny. Incidentally, when peak oil hits, we'll wind up selling just 5% of our first five years of energy production to them for all of the treasury debt they own. I think that's reasonable, although to some extent, it would be in our best interests to make sure that we owe China a little bit of money, and that China owes us a little bit- that way, we stay on relatively civil terms with them.
True, but then tax revenues will double, too, and our inflation-adjusted debt will be cut in half.
While I think we'd have been a lot better off with four years of Kerry, I don't think Bush's presidency is going to turn out to be the nightmare that some folks make it out to be.
Don't worry. Things are gonna be fine. They aren't gonna be perfect, but it isn't going to be the end of the world. The market's planned out how to make sure we've got relatively cheap energy for at least 20- probably 35 years.
QUOTE(heritage @ Jul 9 2005, 07:11 PM)
C-span aired a program tonight with Ted Turner (former CNN owner) and Bill Clinton. They discussed energy programs and national security. It should re-air later tonight or catch the video at http://www.c-span.org. They were very dissappointed with Bush's energy policy. Clinton said he could win support if he tied it to national security and the economy. The business leaders in the audience seemed to support more proactive programs from our government leaders. GE announced recently a plan to spend billions of dollars to design new energy efficient products.
Just about when I thought I had no more interest in topics here yesterday, (I was having one of those bad days) I watched this program you just mentioned last night, heritage, and wondered if anyone had posted about it here. After listening to Blair's comments about how the U.S. is not progressing on solving the Global Warming Crisis, I began thinking about how we have been tied up with Bush's Iraq, terrorism, social security agendas and are not thinking about our future on this planet. I have two grandchildren so this does matter to me although I'll be dead when it gets to the crisis stage. So will all of you. Is it possible to discuss something that isn't going to affect us because we'll all be long gone when the planet dies?
I need some feedback here please!
KT
QUOTE
Is it possible to discuss something that isn't going to affect us because we'll all be long gone when the planet dies?
I thought there has been a lot of discussion on alternatives that would lessen or alleviate global warming. We've had some pretty good discussions on nuclear power which does not produce greenhouse gases. We've also beat pretty hard on hydrogen as a fuel which if burned produces water vapor.
As usual there's a long term and short term problem here.
The short term is hitting us in our pocket books as we fuel our vehicles. It is also affecting our foreign policy since we it is a contributing factor to men and women serving overseas. The short term also covers the immediate effects upon our economy as fuel prices rise.
The long term is how to readjust how we power our machinery to minimize the effect on our environment.
We've discussed the role of government in solving both issues as well as whether we could depend on the initiative of private enterprise to deal with these issues.
What type of discussion are you looking for? The beginning of this topic asked whether we should get seious about energy independence. In my opinion, global warming and environmental issues should be a part of the topic.
Bigger use of nuclear and rooftop solar are inevitable. The quicker we start the better. Electric cars and electric heat would mean almost all our energy needs could be supplied by nuclear and solar. Any transition like that would take at least a generation, so we need to do before global warming becomes a problem not after. I beleive the nations of the world are starting to realize this, but I don't expect a lot of progress in the USA until the next president.
QUOTE(Eino @ Jul 10 2005, 10:58 AM)
I thought there has been a lot of discussion on alternatives that would lessen or alleviate global warming. We've had some pretty good discussions on nuclear power which does not produce greenhouse gases. We've also beat pretty hard on hydrogen as a fuel which if burned produces water vapor.
As usual there's a long term and short term problem here.
The short term is hitting us in our pocket books as we fuel our vehicles. It is also affecting our foreign policy since we it is a contributing factor to men and women serving overseas. The short term also covers the immediate effects upon our economy as fuel prices rise.
The long term is how to readjust how we power our machinery to minimize the effect on our environment.
We've discussed the role of government in solving both issues as well as whether we could depend on the initiative of private enterprise to deal with these issues.
What type of discussion are you looking for? The beginning of this topic asked whether we should get seious about energy independence. In my opinion, global warming and environmental issues should be a part of the topic.
As usual there's a long term and short term problem here.
The short term is hitting us in our pocket books as we fuel our vehicles. It is also affecting our foreign policy since we it is a contributing factor to men and women serving overseas. The short term also covers the immediate effects upon our economy as fuel prices rise.
The long term is how to readjust how we power our machinery to minimize the effect on our environment.
We've discussed the role of government in solving both issues as well as whether we could depend on the initiative of private enterprise to deal with these issues.
What type of discussion are you looking for? The beginning of this topic asked whether we should get seious about energy independence. In my opinion, global warming and environmental issues should be a part of the topic.
Intelligent people plan ahead.
This administration wants to take women back to the 1950s and science back to the time they thought the earth was flat. The Chinese and Indians are producing more scientists and engineers than we are in this country.
We need to discuss real energy plans not the fake environment/pro-business plans that come from this administration.
I saw a PBS program recently that showed China shutting down older polluting industries and building cleaner technology plants to improve the quality of life for their people. The pollution is causing health problems as the cities expand exponentially. To keep their new middle class economy growing, China sees the benefits in environmental protection.
This administration wants to take women back to the 1950s and science back to the time they thought the earth was flat. The Chinese and Indians are producing more scientists and engineers than we are in this country.
We need to discuss real energy plans not the fake environment/pro-business plans that come from this administration.
I saw a PBS program recently that showed China shutting down older polluting industries and building cleaner technology plants to improve the quality of life for their people. The pollution is causing health problems as the cities expand exponentially. To keep their new middle class economy growing, China sees the benefits in environmental protection.
Heritage:
So what ideas or plans should be discussed? Although we haven't discussed these on this particular thread, we've talked about alcohol fuel, biodiesel, Fisher Tropsch coal conversion, hydrogen, some energy conservation ideas, a Manhattan type project for infrastructure and research into alternative fuels, increased nuclear use and even carbon sequestration.
Economically, we've talked somewhat on how some of this could be financed and how much the government should be involved.
There's been a pretty firm concensus that Mr. Bush wants to help his oil company friends and if the people get helped too, that's a secondary consideration.
You are a chemical engineer. I think it would be very interesting if you could expound a bit on some of these ideas and to their practicality. For example, this carbon sequestration idea seems pretty far fetched to me. There's a lot of waste produced by burning coal. If you are going to capture it, you've got to put it somewhare and this has got to be very difficult.
Too bad the people in power don't care about most of us, the North American middle class. A lot of good jobs could be created by investing in alternative energy factories and infrastructure.
QUOTE
We need to discuss real energy plans not the fake environment/pro-business plans that come from this administration.
So what ideas or plans should be discussed? Although we haven't discussed these on this particular thread, we've talked about alcohol fuel, biodiesel, Fisher Tropsch coal conversion, hydrogen, some energy conservation ideas, a Manhattan type project for infrastructure and research into alternative fuels, increased nuclear use and even carbon sequestration.
Economically, we've talked somewhat on how some of this could be financed and how much the government should be involved.
There's been a pretty firm concensus that Mr. Bush wants to help his oil company friends and if the people get helped too, that's a secondary consideration.
You are a chemical engineer. I think it would be very interesting if you could expound a bit on some of these ideas and to their practicality. For example, this carbon sequestration idea seems pretty far fetched to me. There's a lot of waste produced by burning coal. If you are going to capture it, you've got to put it somewhare and this has got to be very difficult.
QUOTE
To keep their new middle class economy growing, China sees the benefits in environmental protection.
Too bad the people in power don't care about most of us, the North American middle class. A lot of good jobs could be created by investing in alternative energy factories and infrastructure.
"For example, this carbon sequestration idea seems pretty far fetched to me."
Yes, it is. Another boondoggle government ersearch project that is wasting taxpayer money.
The government wants to relieve coal fired energy plants in the Ohio Valley (PA, Ohio, WV, KY) from cleaning up their air pollution (SOx, NOx, particulates) Instead they will get to inject the gases into age old salt formations/mined cavities under West Virginia, Ohio and New York.
This research will take years and probably never amount to anything. In the meantime, Bush want to relax the air emission standards back 30 years.
Yes, it is. Another boondoggle government ersearch project that is wasting taxpayer money.
The government wants to relieve coal fired energy plants in the Ohio Valley (PA, Ohio, WV, KY) from cleaning up their air pollution (SOx, NOx, particulates) Instead they will get to inject the gases into age old salt formations/mined cavities under West Virginia, Ohio and New York.
This research will take years and probably never amount to anything. In the meantime, Bush want to relax the air emission standards back 30 years.
QUOTE
We need to discuss real energy plans not the fake environment/pro-business plans that come from this administration.
QUOTE
"For example, this carbon sequestration idea seems pretty far fetched to me."
Yes, it is. Another boondoggle government research project that is wasting taxpayer money.
Yes, it is. Another boondoggle government research project that is wasting taxpayer money.
OK, There's one down. How about hydrogen? You can make it and burn it cleanly, but how practical is it as a replacement for gasoline or diesel? Seems pretty hard to store enough of it in your gas tank and production from water uses up a lot of energy. Bush was pushing research into that a while ago, but the discussion of hydrogen in the news media seems to have gone away. People have put information on this website showing even all electric cars make more sense. Is this a real energy plan, a boondoggle or a potential solution?
There have been a lot of good comments on this thread...
In response to some of the concerns I have read:
The U.S. Military is beginning to put its muscle behind the development of synthetic fuels--gasoline, diesel and jet fuel--made from coal, biomass and oil shale:
www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43338
It might take a complete interruption of oil supply before the political process gets behind this, but when it does, it will roll out fast because the Pentagon wants it now.
As for the financing, (one of the posts above expressed deep concern about the federal debt), that is a political problem too. And, the solution is also political: We can "borrow" the money from ourselves, using the economic sovereignty of the United States as collateral: Zero Interest Financing
The only difference between a zero-interest "loan" and the "other kind" is a ZIF loan would require the Federal Government (i.e. Congress) to "borrow" the money from itself to avoid incurring interest on the debt.
The real problem with the federal national debt is the huge annual interest payments... approximately $400 billion this year, above and beyond the principle debt.
Zero Interest financing would not eliminate the obligation to repay the loan, but it would cut-out the interest-bearing portion of the debt. That would change the rules of public works financing, and remove the barriers to the development of public projects that would produce revenue and be capable of re-paying the principle over 20 years or so.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
In response to some of the concerns I have read:
The U.S. Military is beginning to put its muscle behind the development of synthetic fuels--gasoline, diesel and jet fuel--made from coal, biomass and oil shale:
www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=43338
It might take a complete interruption of oil supply before the political process gets behind this, but when it does, it will roll out fast because the Pentagon wants it now.
As for the financing, (one of the posts above expressed deep concern about the federal debt), that is a political problem too. And, the solution is also political: We can "borrow" the money from ourselves, using the economic sovereignty of the United States as collateral: Zero Interest Financing
The only difference between a zero-interest "loan" and the "other kind" is a ZIF loan would require the Federal Government (i.e. Congress) to "borrow" the money from itself to avoid incurring interest on the debt.
The real problem with the federal national debt is the huge annual interest payments... approximately $400 billion this year, above and beyond the principle debt.
Zero Interest financing would not eliminate the obligation to repay the loan, but it would cut-out the interest-bearing portion of the debt. That would change the rules of public works financing, and remove the barriers to the development of public projects that would produce revenue and be capable of re-paying the principle over 20 years or so.
www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com
Iceland the First Country to Try Abandoning Gasoline
Updated 1:32 PM ET January 19, 2006
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu..._060118&src=abc
Iceland has energy to spare, and the small country has found a cutting-edge way to reduce its oil dependency. Volcanoes formed the island nation out of ash and lava, and molten rock heats huge underground lakes to the boiling point.
The hot water -- energy sizzling beneath the surface -- is piped into cities and stored in giant tanks, providing heat for homes, businesses and even swimming pools.
The volcanoes melted ice, which formed rivers. The water runs through turbines, providing virtually all the country's electricity.
Iceland wants to make a full conversion and plans to modify its cars, buses and trucks to run on renewable energy -- with no dependence on oil.
Water Turned Into Fuel
Iceland has already started by turning water into fuel -- hydrogen fuel.
Here's how it works: Electrodes split the water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen electrons pass through a conductor that creates the current to power an electric engine.
Hydrogen fuel now costs two to three times as much as gasoline, but gets up to three times the mileage of gas, making the overall cost about the same.
As an added benefit, there are no carbon emissions -- only water vapor.
In the capital, Reykjavik, they are already testing three hydrogen-powered electric buses. The drivers are impressed.
"I like these buses better because with hydrogen you get no pollution," said bus driver Rognvaldur Jonatanlson.
By the middle of this century, all Icelanders will be required to run their cars only on hydrogen fuel, meaning no more gasoline.
"If we make hydrogen and use that as a fuel for transportation then we can run the whole society on our own local renewable energy sources," said Marie Maack of the Hydrogen Research Project.
Icelanders say they're committed to showing the world that by making fuel from water, it is possible to kick the oil habit.
ABC News' Mike Lee filed this report for "World News Tonight."
Updated 1:32 PM ET January 19, 2006
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pu..._060118&src=abc
Iceland has energy to spare, and the small country has found a cutting-edge way to reduce its oil dependency. Volcanoes formed the island nation out of ash and lava, and molten rock heats huge underground lakes to the boiling point.
The hot water -- energy sizzling beneath the surface -- is piped into cities and stored in giant tanks, providing heat for homes, businesses and even swimming pools.
The volcanoes melted ice, which formed rivers. The water runs through turbines, providing virtually all the country's electricity.
Iceland wants to make a full conversion and plans to modify its cars, buses and trucks to run on renewable energy -- with no dependence on oil.
Water Turned Into Fuel
Iceland has already started by turning water into fuel -- hydrogen fuel.
Here's how it works: Electrodes split the water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules. Hydrogen electrons pass through a conductor that creates the current to power an electric engine.
Hydrogen fuel now costs two to three times as much as gasoline, but gets up to three times the mileage of gas, making the overall cost about the same.
As an added benefit, there are no carbon emissions -- only water vapor.
In the capital, Reykjavik, they are already testing three hydrogen-powered electric buses. The drivers are impressed.
"I like these buses better because with hydrogen you get no pollution," said bus driver Rognvaldur Jonatanlson.
By the middle of this century, all Icelanders will be required to run their cars only on hydrogen fuel, meaning no more gasoline.
"If we make hydrogen and use that as a fuel for transportation then we can run the whole society on our own local renewable energy sources," said Marie Maack of the Hydrogen Research Project.
Icelanders say they're committed to showing the world that by making fuel from water, it is possible to kick the oil habit.
ABC News' Mike Lee filed this report for "World News Tonight."
QUOTE
Iceland has energy to spare,
Iceland has got less than a million people. Hydrogen may work fine for Iceland. Does Iceland have a lot of roads? Where can you drive in Iceland? The solution that may work for iceland may not work for other parts of the world.
The US does not have the geothermal energy available to it like Iceland. The US has a lot of coal. The US also has the posession of nuclear technology which could be used to make hydrogen. Is it economically feasible to use wind or solar to make hydrogen? I doubt that wind or solar will be used to make hydrogen unless and until we are very "hard up" insofar as energy resources are concerned.
President Bush pushed the use of hydrogen in some of his speeches. Has this been pursued by means of government support? Should it be pursued?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.