It's time to drill for oil....NOW!!!

[Kaebora]

Considering that the U.K. has been paying the equivalent of $5 - $6 a gallon back in 2004, I swore I wouldn't complain unless we have to pay close to that. Well, at the current rate we'll be there before the end of this year. Yes, drilling in new locations is only delaying the inevitable, but at least it buys us the time we need to switch to new fuel sources without the economy suffering with rising gas prices.

[Vuldari]

[flamebait]

What is Matt supposed to do? Go out and drill for the oil himself?

If he really believes that Oil is that important ... Yes.


Why exactly did you suggest that as an unreasonable suggestion?


By my experience, anything that is not worth enough to you to employ your own blood sweat and tears to get (throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat in front of your local congressman doesn't count), isn't really worth anything to you at all. You can do without it.


The better solutions have not been put in to play yet because the rich want to stay rich (and they won't be any more if their products and properties are no longer "Necessary"), the poor don't have enough education to know what to do about it, and everyone else is just too lazy and naive to act in their own best interests.

[Berserker]

I'll try hard not to let my personal philosophies on the fruitlessness of combatting the suicidal course of modern civilization bloat this thread. I will just recommend this book, and be on my way for now...

[Vuldari]

I'll try hard not to let my personal philosophies on the fruitlessness of combating the suicidal course of modern civilization bloat this thread.

To declare victory a futile effort, and not even try is to willfully CHOOSE defeat in the face of alternative options.


Even when the path to success can not be seen, and is not yet known, there is always the chance that one may be found if one dares to take a blind step forward into the uncertain, unknown and untraveled and can find the strength and courage to forge a new path.


In other words ... don't give up. If oblivion is our final destination, then that will be our fate, but I see no wisdom in giving up before we get there.

Even if the chance of success is 1,000,000,000,000 to One ... even the smallest fraction of a chance is, fundamentally, infinitely larger than ZERO ... which is the only possible outcome if one gives up.

... I think I'll take the infinitely larger chance of Success and just keep trying ...

[Set]

NUCLEAR!!!1!!!111!omfg!one!!11

I live smack dab in the middle of the Savannah River Site, I don't need MORE radioactive material around my house.

[cjkrythos]

Drilling is like slapping a bandaid onto a stack of bandaids. No one is going to "seek alternatives for the future." Drill for more oil and people are only going to manufacture and buy more SUVs. Consumerism demands the easy way out; the chances of positive energy reform with billions of gallons of oil floating around are slim to none. In the meantime, we'll have taken an unnecessary chunk out of the environment and prolonged our inevitable oil crisis by a few decades.

Of course, it doesn't really matter anyway. Get desperate enough and we'll drill, and the scenario I described will still happen. It's a lose/lose.

We could have had fusion power already if they dumped a trillion dollars into it. Yet the same people who don't like oil don't like nuclear power either.

Nothing short of an energy apocalypse will turn us around.

I look at in pretty much the same light, except I think that the prices will actually push America to force itself into alternative options. Instead of pushing for oil, I think we should start demanding the alternatives. Pick the ones that are most viable (electric and hydrogen cars, nuclear power plants for cities, solar power for houses, geothermal power for all sorts of things(Ive discovered you can use it for more than just heating and electric, it can even be used to cool your house like an AC unit would) and other such things. Infact, I think it would be unbelievably viable to put solar panels on a hybrid vehicle. Hybrid cars run off an electric engine that is supplemented by a gas engine(or the other way around, depending on the vehicle). If the electric engine could run longer due to the added power that solar panels would offer, then the vehicle should technically get better gas mileage because it would use the gasoline engine less. Stuff like that.

On a similar note, if it were up to me, id just get a hydrogen cell anyways, regardless of the dangers. The vehicles work just fine, the only problem in existence is that when you hit something, the explosion is pretty big. I look at it this way, if I get in an accident bad enough to cause that much damage to the engine block, then im probably gonna end up paralyzed anyways, so I might as well go out with a bang

[Howlitzer]

the problem with hydrogen cells is not the risk of explosion....it's how the heck you get the hydrogen. You need energy to extract hydrogen from water or the atmosphere, and THAT source of energy also needs to be considered....

[MattSullivan]

Did I NOT write that we should pursue alternative energy in my original post?

OH YEAH! I DID!!!

<last comment removed>

[RedEye]

The main difficulty there is that people want alternative energy available immediately.

It'll take about a decade to make a serious dent in the petro-chemical needs of the United States, and we're the richest nation on Earth! Unfortunately, it costs a lot to make Li-poly cells at the present time, and the electricity that they would store is still mostly produced at mine-mouth generation stations, like the "Four Corners" coal-fired power plant.

The demand for electrical energy is both immense and dangerous. It's immense, in that even with all the energy-saving developments in things like lighting and climate control and the teensy needs of most electronics these days, the increase in numbers pretty well negates any increase in efficiency they posess.
We are dependent on a form of energy that cannot effectively be stored, kept for need, or saved in any way; it must be generated at the same time it is consumed, and in amounts to meet an ever growing need.
If we ran out of electricity for, say, six months; the death toll would be huge. We have become too dependent on one source of energy, and the blackouts in New York show just how ill-equipped we are to deal with a failure to deliver the energy we have have become more addicted to than even petroleum: Electricity.
So, what do we do? Don't use elevators unless we absolutely have to? Change all our lights for Fluorescents? Avoid running the A.C.?

We are in a bad situation. We need two energy sources at a minimum to keep our civilization viable, and one is in short supply while the other is one blown fuse away from not being there.
Busses use either Diesel or CNG (both Petro-Chem) and Trolleys use electricity. Hydro is starting to fail as weather patterns change and dams aren't full enough. Solar is...still waiting to be developed; a few solar plants do not a power network make, and photovoltaics are for now a dead issue. They aren't efficient enough.

One hundred fifty years ago, this problem couldn't have happened. We used biological power (horses and mules and feet) for transport locally; and wood-fueled steam for longer distances. Wind moved cargoes over the ocean, and coal fired steamships were just beginning to appear.
We had a multi-sourced energy system, and it worked. Now, we have two: Petro and Electric (I include atomic power in the electric column).
We need to take some of the stress off what we have, by going back to what we used then. We have the technology to make sailing ships more efficient than ever before, and steam/wood energy is still viable as an energy source.

I don't mean "sell your car and get a horse", I mean we need to find older technologies for energy production and use those instead of what we have right now to ease the demand on the Energy net that exists today. Burning wood can be as much as 80% efficient as burning coal...and "wood" is a general term for biomass burnable fuels. These fuels can even be used twice or more: First, decompose the stuff for alcohol or methane, then burn the remainders. It IS green, since the pollutants are less loaded with CarbOxides than Gasoline, and this way we extract more potential energy from the sources we use.
And this is only one simple example: GeoThermal is possible almost anywhere there is rock and a good drilling unit (the rock heats the deeper one goes until it's hot enough to make steam). Niagra-type power plants don't require a huge lake to work, they use gravity. Rivers can turn turbines without dams, and the Ocean is a big power source thanks to the Moon and tides.
Sad fact: All of this is years and billions of dollars away. We are used to cheap energy-it's all around us-but we don't even try to harvest it. The only thing that even makes people LOOK for alternative power is expen$e.
Drilling for more is not the answer. Using what's there is.

Commence the stoning.

[Berserker]

150 years ago, the population of the entire world was just over 1 billion. Now it's nearing 7 billion.

Before we cut back on anything else, we need to cut back on people. (And I truly don't mean that in a sinister way.)

[Terastas]

Did I NOT write that we should pursue alternative energy in my original post?

OH YEAH! I DID!!!

<last comment removed>

And that's where I agree with you. The problem is that it's unrealistic to think that we could drill for oil and pursue alternative energy.

For one thing, no matter what the government does, it's going to pay for it with taxpayer dollars, and Bush's deficit is big enough as it is without the country spending money on the quick fix and the remedy.

Secondly, as others have already said, the push for alternative energy is a direct result of the oil crisis. The people pushing for alternative energy for environmental reasons, I'm sorry to say, are in the minority; when oil prices go down as a result of domestic drilling, people will just trade in their hybrids for a brand new Ford Abomination that gets three miles to the gallon and start consuming the way they did five years ago.

And finally, you had to know somebody would mention it sooner or later: global warming. Even if you don't believe it's real, wouldn't developing clean alternative fuel sources alleviate our dependency on oil and help reduce pollution levels (two birds with one stone, in other words)?

So for the record Matt, it's not about whether or not we should develop alternative energies, it's about when.

[ghostfang]

i just brought a 1300 Honda cruiser motorcycle 13$ gives me a full tank of gas i wont be driving my car for a while :/.

[RedEye]

i just brought a 1300 Honda cruiser motorcycle 13$ gives me a full tank of gas i wont be driving my car for a while :/.

What's the mileage estimation? $13.00 indicates a three or four-something gallon tank.

Your idea is a good one though. If its just you, why do you want all the extra seats and such that a car provides? A 'bike is a decent way to save some oil products, at least; and a great way to get around as well.

[MattSullivan]

motorcycle license applications have gone up85% here in Colorado. thats a good thing. I always wanted one but didn't like the ide of getting hit by some gigantic SUV. I f everyone starts riding motorcylces it'll become far safer AND economical.

[Scott Gardener]

Uh, Vuldari, how does one as a private individual go about drilling for oil? Know a place where I can rent a multimillion dollar drilling platform on, say, a student's budget? Personally, I'm a bit better off, in the top 3% income bracket in the U.S., and I don't see myself being able to drill for oil myself any time soon.

I do agree with the gist of your message, that when it matters, lifestyle changes and personal responsibility should be factored in. I'm looking into job opportunities that are closer to where I live and looking at ways to reduce consumption. Granted, as indicated before, my income can actually stomach the increased gas costs; my motivations are more about ecology and living green, because money notwithstanding, we're all on the same boat.

[Lupin]

Nuclear Power is now all-around safer and cleaner than Coal (even though coal isn't radioactive....more workers die trying to get coal than they do getting nuclear material)

While coal isn't radioactive, coal ash is.

[Dreamer]

Well, don't we already have a crapload of undrilled oil that IS legally available?

Besides, there is the very good point that it'll take years after legalization before they even get started drilling, and the oil companies won't reduce gas prices by a dime and will just pocket the profits. In that same time, we could be investing in alternate energy rather than something that will barely help.

[Uniform Two Six]

Opening up the Alaskan wildlife for drilling might fix today's problem, but it will destroy FOREVER vast tracts of land and wildlife.

That's not even the worst part. This whole ANWR thing is so sleazy. Even the most optimistic estimates for ANWR have it peaking way below the rest of North Slope in about ten years and being bone dry in twenty. That's the Republicans' own numbers! USGS estimates are waaaaaay less than that. Every reputable economist you can find agrees that even in the long term, ANWR won't do anything to the global price of oil. The thing about ANWR is that the American oil industry (not just oil companies, but associated field companies like Haliburton) can get in on the act. Instead of having to pay their pound of flesh to SaudiAramco, it's all profit. It's all about money.

One hundred fifty years ago, this problem couldn't have happened. We used biological power (horses and mules and feet) for transport locally... We need to take some of the stress off what we have, by going back to what we used then.

150 years ago, the population of the entire world was just over 1 billion. Now it's nearing 7 billion.

Before we cut back on anything else, we need to cut back on people. (And I truly don't mean that in a sinister way.)

Absolutely right, though I think there's more wiggle room than that, even. Merely 100 years ago, hydroelectric power would have met all the electrical needs for the continental United States and Canada. There was simply less people that needed energy. Right now hydro-power accounts for roughly 20% of U.S. electrical production. We have a population of 300 million right now. If we had a population of merely 60 million (that's still alot of people), all of this would be an entirely moot discussion. If you threw in a butt-load of wind production (ala T. Boon Pickens... who's a self-interested sleazebag, by the way) and put photovoltaic panels on every roof, we could still meet our needs with even somewhat larger populations. None of this requires that we give up our lifestyle that we Americans so desperately love. More than anything else, the thing that scares me is population growth. Oil and coal have been on the planet for millions of years. The most environmentally hazardous material on the planet is people. I hold a tiny bit of hope though. The trend lines are actually encouraging. Yes, our population is still growing gangbusters, but the rate of growth is ever so slowly declining. If we can get our childbirth incidence per couple under 2.0 we'll be going in the right direction for a change. That ratio has been declining for some time, and the same can be seen in most industrialized countries. We're not declining as fast as most of Europe, say. However, the rate of growth is still decreasing. In Japan, they've actually dipped under the 2.0 ratio. I think it's something like 1.8. The Japanese are actually worried about the fact that they have negative population growth. So all may not be lost after all.

[IndianaJones]

Ditch oil and fossil fuels and the humans shall replace them with crystalline energy that absorbs the sun's rays like solar power and saves the energy for night. No need for refueling or paying gas money.

UFOs don't need gas at all. They are powered by crystals.

[Howlitzer]

you're joking, right?

[Baphnedia]

Yes and no.

He might actually be referring to photovoltaic cells (which can literally be painted on to surfaces now).

As for energy, I'm going to put my $0.02 then go to work:

It isn't that we are too dependent on energy - it's that we depend on a enormous amount of infrastructure. A political parable might be we're communist when it comes to energy. What needs to take place is more privatisation. By localizing energy suppliers and energy users, facilities would need to be smaller.

For instance, if you were generating enough at your own home, and excess you didn't need were introduced for someone else, that's a far cry from not having enough for EVERYONE and running into harmful blackouts and brounouts. However, I'm not merely speaking on energy consumption for electricity or oil. Mechanical energy also has it's place.

For me, right now, I don't depend on fuel to get to and from work. Right now I'm lucky enough to live 300 feet from my office. I walk. When I am out of the Army, I'll be getting a bike (not a motorcycle, but those two-wheeled contraptions) for 'local' commuting. Sure, things will take longer. But, I'll get to start enjoying the journey again. There are better reasons to using 'simpler' forms of travel than just being cost-effective.

As for Big Oil and the automotive industry - whenever someone patents some new-fandangled contraption to make cars get 100mpg or somesuch, their patents are always bought by automakers or oil companies for millions of dollars. We've never stopped inventing. Lastly, with automakers and oil companies holding all these patents - when the time is right for them, they'll move in to remain 'on top'. They won't leave oil, until oil is too vulnerable a position, until it's too valuable.

Another commodity few think about is water. I have a feeling water will be much harder to find 'fresh' in the coming years.

There's my $0.02. Time to go to work.

[Kaebora]

I'm hopeing that an alternate fuel car will be readilly availible in the USA very soon. One that doesn't have a fuel source that fluxuates with the economy as much as gasoline. The compressed air cars are limited in distance, and require a gas tank for extended trips (even though 1,000 miles on 8 gallons sounds REALLY nice). Battery powered cars may be my next route, but its a shame that its only pulling energy from coal-burning power plants.

Solar cells never would produce enough power to keep a full sized car going, unless you inbed the panels into the body of the car, which would look as sweet as fiberglass, and probobly just as durable (plastic = not safe = not street legal). There are already some boats that do this on their front end, and it looks neeto.

The fact is, my Camaro is the last car I will own for pleasure. The rest will be super-fuel efficiant, or a zero-pollution-machine (ZPM). I don't want to suffer with the economy.

[Uniform Two Six]

It isn't that we are too dependent on energy - it's that we depend on a enormous amount of infrastructure. A political parable might be we're communist when it comes to energy. What needs to take place is more privatisation. By localizing energy suppliers and energy users, facilities would need to be smaller.

Smaller, yes. Unfortunately that would only make the energy shortage worse. All forms of power generation experience an efficiency drop off once the size of the operation decreases beneath a certain threshold. The electrical distribution system is based upon the concept of effeciency of scale. You wind up with these enormous coal-fired power plants that rely upon extensive transmission infrastructure because even with the average 11% loss of effeciency through long distance transmission, the loss is made up by efficiency of scale. Not only is it more fuel efficient, you also don't have to worry about issues like fueling, maintenance, environmental impact assessments, etc. if you are merely a consumer, rather than a producer. The only two exceptions to this basic situation are photovoltaic and wind power generation. In the former, you still have to address the issue that PV generation is not cost-effective relative to other forms of solar power production (such as using computer controlled mirrors to focus solar radiation to boil water and in turn run steam turbines), all of which also experience the same effeciency of scale issues. In the latter the most effective places to put wind turbines are rarely in places where small businesses/industry, or residences are located (ridgelines for instance), and even then the most cost-effective turbines are the ones that are 150 feet tall with 50 foot blade lengths. If everybody were to start trying to produce their own electrical power (with the exception of PV or wind generation) the ineffeciency inherent in smaller operations would lead to significantly increased fuel demand and pollution. Getting people to put PV panels on top of their businesses and homes is nigh-impossible. The economics just aren't there. Even with the cost of energy what it is, the average consumer looks at the capital investment (coupled with the current average 13 year lifespan of PV panels) of installing PV and typically says "well s****w that!". In short there's no easy answer.

[Baphnedia]

The problem with mass infrastructure power systems is that when the system fails, NOBODY has power. Except those who have private generators, and then only long enough until fuel runs out. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today. The infrastructure for power distribution fails far too regularly, because there isn't money to be made in repairing it. Most states have capped the amount electrical companies can raise prices to cover maintenance and expansion (and this is both a good and a bad thing). There were some years where the utilities tried to increase prices by 43% in a single year, which would leave anyone struggling without power.

The power distribution infrastructure is failing. Ten years ago, we didn't have brownouts that affected 1/5th of the US, where entire regions engulfing several states at a time would be nearing or reaching power failure. With the prevalence of NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) in the US, nobody is going to accept new nuclear power plants, coal plants, (heck - even the wind turbines are a hard sell). Instead, while others fight the tough fight of 'trying' to create a massive solution, go in the other direction.

Nobody can afford a drastic change - it must be realized over time. By gradually introducing power generation mechanisms into ones' domicile and workplace, it will reduce the load those places bear on the infrastructure, lowering the need to replace over-stressed systems, and preventing partial and/or complete failures of the system at large.

It was fear of what the rechargeable, electric car would do to this aging, lethargic infrastructure is the reason why the US fleet of electric cars (available in 1997, had a 300 mile range and a top speed of 75mph), no longer exist.

Solar panels are a poor answer (not only because of cost, but because energy doesn't cost enough to balance their contribution out). Some other answers to this:

Inflatable solar collectors, 1/400th the price of solar panels (but unsightly): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kROgE4Jdm-k
Paint-on PV cells: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... astic.html

[Uniform Two Six]

Yeah, but what's the alternative? Put it another way: What do you mean by "introducing power generating mechanisms"? Unless you're talking about wind or PV, then you're basically stuck with a diesel (or maybe natural gas) generator. All that does is substitute one problem for a whole set of new ones. You have to maintain it, fuel it, deal with the noise and smell. I don't know about other parts of the U.S. but here in California, you'd have to do all kinds of environmental impact assessments just to get authority from CEPA to install the friggin thing. (On a side note, this very topic has been very much at issue here in the Golden State ever since the summer of 2001 and the rolling blackouts -- businesses have been trying to install backup generators to keep that kind of thing from happening again). Wind and PV are not easy to sell for the above stated reasons. Ultimately, the easiest solution is just to get the authorities to require the utilities to upgrade the infrastructure. Here the CPUC and CalISO have been doing exactly that, and the rates have been increased to pay for the needed upgrades and expansion.

Personally, I like the idea of using PV in a much bigger way. It requires no fuel, almost no maintenance, has an almost nonexistent profile, produces no pollution, is non-toxic (the last two making it relatively hassle free to implement since there are no requirements for environmental assessment), and doesn't even make any noise to annoy the neighbors. It is extremely energy efficient since there is no transmission loss (it produces directly at the point of consumption). Best of all, your peak insolation happens generally about the same time of day that the power distribution network is under the heaviest stress. The only real down side is the initial investment and the low cost of fossil fuels (the price of oil still isn't high enough to make PV cost effective). I'd love to install PV panels where I live, but unfortunately I'm in an apartment so it isn't going to happen.