Posted on 11/16/2005 1:46:45 PM PST by dangerdoc
I am disgusted as I read the news. We buy oil from petty tyrants. South American thugs bad-talk us and threaten to shut off the tap. Middle-East royalty, two generations from living in mud huts fund jihadists who want to cut off our heads. We compete with communist slave-workers for oil driving up the prices. We may or may not be running out of the stuff creating the real possibility that we are going have to find a replacement anyway.
Honestly, our oil economy is going to hurt us at some point. I don’t know if it will be now in the form of sending our wealth out to people who want to harm us or from having to go off the stuff cold turkey at some point in the future. I personally believe it will be the former. I am concerned about oil funded nuclear technology going to oil funded terrorists brought into our country because of our lack of foresight.
Last century a petrochemical economy made sense. This century things are changing and we need to stay ahead of the curve.
If we need to replace oil what should we replace it with?
Hydrogen? Don’t believe what you hear. The best source of hydrogen is petrochemicals. It is not economical to produce, transport or store. Hydrogen fuel cells are not very efficient when you figure in the inefficiency in getting to the vehicle and trying to store enough in the car to get anywhere.
Ethanol? Corn farmers love it but it is too inefficient to produce and we would need to actually give up food production to provide enough.
Biomass? I have spent a few weeks google searching biomass, synthesis gas and associated chemistry. It seems like a reasonable approach. Synthetic gasoline and diesel should be fairly easy to produce on a commercial scale. It would be no more obtrusive than an oil refinery and would use fairly similar technology. It has not been commercially pursued because of the cost. Although synthetic fuels could probably be produced for less than $2 a gallon, the concern is that OPEC would respond by flooding the market with oil and bankrupt any company that invested in this type of technology. I’ve seen some conspiracy theories that the oil companies are trying to suppress biomass but I don’t think that makes sense. The oil companies’ expertise would lead them to dominate the field. Almost every step in conversion exists in modern petrochemical cracking plants. As an added bonus, it would divert money from overseas and back to the farm economy.
I’ve read that Saudi Arabia can deliver oil at less than $10 a barrel and would deplete their reserves as quickly as possible if a reasonable oil replacement were ever seen on the horizon. This is not a conspiracy, just simple economics. They have a limited supply and will work to get as much for it as possible. If a their product will be made useless, they will try to sell all they can while they can. All of this prevents companies from investing in alternative fuel technology even though the prices keep going up.
I really don’t like the government getting involved in economics and I know that the free market will solve the problem eventually but I am very concerned about where our oil dollars are going. I see this as a security issue. Can we begin development of a replacement strategy in a step-wisemannor. Do we need some sort of a price support structure to encourage the development. Do we need to summon the resolve and stop or ban the import of oil. I see real problems with almost any strategy that involves the government.
I am curious about people’s thoughts. I have numbers showing biomass is reasonable from an economic standpoint based on current oil prices.
Specifically I am curious if there are any petrochemical engineers, economists or even politicians out there with an opinion. I can share specifics but there are literally hundreds of pages and everything I have is available on the internet.
Kind of like an emergency fund, right? Still, it will be cheaper to do the drilling now than later; we only have to pump a token amount until we really need it. It will take years to bring it on line anyway.
Yeah, I know. But at least this forum has matured over the years and the discussion is relatively intelligent. We have very few threads anymore calling for a national "don't buy gasoline" day, or to boycott Amoco but not BP.
And fewer people are buying into the junk science of Thomas Gold that oil is constantly being created from the molten core of the earth.
No. Let's not. Nor the textiles nor any other industry that is a waste of resources in the US. Why drag down the economy for a bit of sentiment that you force other people to pay for?
Our current problem with oil is that we have restricted drilling and prevented refineries. Let the market work, keep the money stable, and things take care of themselves far more efficiently than any government restrictions or direction can.
"Perhaps you ought to read both what I was responding to and what I posted before commenting."
You were responding to me, so I do have a passing familiarity, lol.
If cost were the sole or even primary consideration, the US would export very little.
Energy costs comprise a far lower percentage of production costs now than during the energy "crisis" years of the 70s.
Wildly gyrating energy costs and unpredictable restrictions of supply are bad for business, too; we have been experiencing this since late summer.
The current "system" is very vulnerable, and we've witnessed the rapidity with which supply can be almost totally disrupted. A greater domestic source of supply, whether that supply is from ANWR, oil shale, coal or something else is a bit of a sideshow. Any one of these, or a combination thereof, would suffice.
Do you know how much waste vegetable oil there is out there in relation to diesel? It's miniscule and as a fuel is good to solve disposal costs. Check the price of unused vegetable oil to see what the real price comparison is if you are talking about going to biodiesel to replace diesel.
"Hybrid cars are a flash in the pan."
With the current battery pack, yes they are. Replacement cost, disposal and weight are all big problems. I'm optimistic that this will change in the next several years, provided the demand for the vehicles remains strong. I'd honestly like to see a hybrid electric with a small diesel engine, myself. Mileage in the high 70-mpg range is not unrealistic.
I was in Europe a few weeks ago and diesel over there is cheaper than regular unleaded by about 10%.
Here in Georgia at present, diesel is running about 20% more than regular unleaded.
What gives?
David Pimentel1,3 and Tad W. Patzek2 Received and accepted 30 January 2005
Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production.
Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were: • Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced (Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn). • Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.
That had to be fun.
"It got good mileage (50 MPG), but you can get that from small diesels without all the extra equipment."
Diesel and hybrid are not incompatible, is all I was trying to point out. The same improvement in mileage that you experienced with that Honda can be applied to an already more-efficient diesel.
That is the crux of the problem, artificial economics created by goverments often make things worse but things aren't working that well for us now.
We are held hostage by artifical oil econimics created by a cartel (read monopoly). Who are the monopoly busters to allow a free market to work.
You are certainly correct. Locomotives are diesel hybrids. I should have said that you can do nearly as well with a 1L Geo Metro. The Honda Insight employed at lot of fuel saving technologies other than the hybrid system, such as light weight materials, good aerodynamics, and low rolling resistance tires. The advantage of the hybrid system comes from regenerative braking and getting better acceleration from a smaller, more efficient engine. I really don't think the regen translates into that many joules being recovered and transferred later back to the wheels. The performance was definitely better than you would expect from a 1L engine, but it too comes at a price. When the pack it low, that car can't get out of it's own way. You learn early to keep close track of the battery charge, otherwise you'll be "surprised" in traffic when your car doesn't go like you expect it to. This is a little known quirk of hybrids. I think it's probably better from a safety standpoint not to have the extra power from the assist system. If you know your car is a dog, you will adjust your driving accordingly.
Clean coal power plants and coal to oil conversion is the way to go. Gas burning power plants should be banned. Gas is a fantastic fuel for use in the home
Current ethanol production uses only the edible part of the corn plant (throwing away most of the plant) and uses it for fermentation (inefficient) and then distillation is needed to concentrate the product (energy intensive) creating a product that is good to drink but not a good solution for our fuel problems.
Biomass is a generic term for the substrate. You can burn it directly to generate electricity. You can ferment it. You can gasify it and burn that to creat electricity with less air pollution. You can gassify it and then run it through a conversion plant and create methane, methanol, ethanol, or about anything you can make with petrochemicals.
"You can gassify it and then run it through a conversion plant and create methane, methanol, ethanol, or about anything you can make with petrochemicals."
The primary objection I hear is that both biodiesel and ethanol yield less energy as a fuel than is required to manufacture them. Any thoughts or observations on this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.