One avenue should be nuclear power.

There is new technology that is safer than previous reactors.

Western Europe has been using nuclear power for years, very safely, Especially France.

But American Greens will have to be convinced.

One of the founders of Greenpeace has guardedly changed his mind:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Nuclear makes sense, but that does not mean it will be done.

One avenue should be nuclear power.

There is new technology that is safer than previous reactors.

Western Europe has been using nuclear power for years, very safely, Especially France.

But American Greens will have to be convinced.

One of the founders of Greenpeace has guardedly changed his mind:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Nuclear makes sense, but that does not mean it will be done.

One avenue should be nuclear power.

There is new technology that is safer than previous reactors.

Western Europe has been using nuclear power for years, very safely, Especially France.

But American Greens will have to be convinced.

One of the founders of Greenpeace has guardedly changed his mind:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Nuclear makes sense, but that does not mean it will be done.

I wonder what percentage of imported oil is used in autos and what percentage used in other forms of energy production . . . I'll have to look that up.

How can the free market be expected to work to develop new energy possibilities with the vast subsidies in place to the oil industry? Let's be honest, whatever your position on the political spectrum it's clear that a large portion of the DOD's budget has one purpose: assuring the flow of oil into the US economy.

I'm not even going to assert that is necessarily bad. Certainly an important function of the US Navy and other services is to product commerce, sea lanes, and so forth. You're a Marine; no need to pont out to you the missions against pirates. Protecting commerce is a large part of what the US military is all about. And I don't say that like it's a bad thing.

But we have to be aware of how it distorts things. It amounts to a vast, vast subsidy for the oil industry.

As to solutions, solar power is showing great promise. The price of solar panels and their efficiency has improved remarkable in the last 20 years. Vast stretches of the American southwest, land that is largely useless, could be covered with enough solar farms to provide substantial energy into the American economy.

Where government funding of this has a role is that it can throw such massive amounts of capital at the problem as to even further drop the cost of production via economies of scale. A multibillion dollar purchase of solar cells would move private industry to create the refiners and fabs necessary to produce the components. This would serve as a much needed push to bring down future costs.

Solar's primary advantage is that its very low maintenance. The idea that solar panels don't even return the energy invested in their manufacture has been shown to be a complete myth. Set in the desert, or set on the roofs of homes and industry, solar panels cause energy to flow into the US economy with very little required maintenance, waste, and so forth.

Electric cars are increasingly showing incredible potential, as seen at www.teslamotors.com. They are more efficient, more reliable, have no emissions, and require less service than iternal combustion engine vehicles. A substantial push to move a large number of US vehicles over to electric power with a simultaneous push to develop massive solar resources could have a substantial benefit to the US economy.

Is it going to completely replace oil? No. Commercial aviation still gobbles up vast amounts of fuel. But what it can do is substantially reduce the need for foreign oil and at the very least give the US economy an improved resilience to international instability, much like a very enhanced strategic reserve. This would improve and expand our options to international crises, causing other economies to begin feeling pain before we do.

Our highway system was built with $25 billion in 1950s dollars. Adjust for inflation and invest just half of that into solar, nuclear, an improved electrical grid (desperately needed, anyhow) and we can have a much more efficient economy that is much more robust in the face of international problems.

It's not a retrreat into isolationism. It's not going to solve all of our problems. But it will make as stronger and more efficient. Oil is only going to continue to rise in price. And it will allow us to reduce our astonishing government subsidies to the oil industry.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. The oil industry will not give up those subsidies and they've spent a lot of money supporting think tanks and PR firms that have Americans convinced that oil is the only way and that other forms of energy simply won't work.

The Air Force is testing jet fuel right now made from coal, which we have vast amounts of as does Canada (together we have over 25 % of the world's minable coal). If the real world tests work (they worked in land testing of engines) we can save billions of gallons of oil that previously was used for just our Military, which uses over half of what the total U.S. oil consumption is.

Like said, new teck solar is here and it works and it is getting cheaper every year.

But, back to oil. Shale oil deposits in the U.S. and Canada are by the most miserly math, enought to carry our needs for more than fifty years. It was said that if oil went above $60.00US, it would be profitable to recover it. Well, it looks like we are there plus a little more.

But the real problem we have as a nation, is that we do not have refining capacity to keep up with the demand. New refinerys need to be built, but no one wants one in their backyard.

The same with nukes. Say that loud and city leaders say...NOOOOOOO ! But, they don't know or care to know about the new plants that are one hundred times safer than the ones we have operating here now.

It's politics, fear and Corporations with a big C that are holding our Republic back from being energy rich and not dependent on anyone.

Like you said, you want something screwed up give it to the government. The latest that pisses me off, is that we can't drill off our own coasts, but there are holes being punched right now in the Gulf of Mexico just off Florida by other countries and the results are going right into the Commies hands and pockets.

There is also a little place in Alaska that we have been wanting to drill and pump that might be bad for some wildlife but could be a good northern reserve field. Its not too far from the oil pipeline that is already built. There are millions of square miles up there that have not even been surveyed or sounded. I would bet that there is enough oil for the U.S. Canada and our friends for the next hundred years. I'm not the only one that thinks that, just talk to some of the Majors or a few engineers who know that part of the oil world.

I like wind power myself and solar but guess what, that won't run in my car or fly my planes or supply my military, and those are the things that count right now today.

But the rumor is that the U.S. Army is asking for bids for solar powered electric generating arrays for our mega bases in Iraq and where ever else they need them. Seems they are getting tired of trucking all that gas for generators and getting the trucks and drivers killed.

I think they are on the right track for that part of the world where the sun shines way too much.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Papa Ray,

Very interesting on the US army interest in solar power.

It would be pretty difficult, I suspect, to find out how imported oil as opposed to domestic oil ends up in products. But for all petroleum products, the percentage breakdown is

56% Gasoline
20% Diesel Fuel
9% Kerosene
7% Propane
4% No. 2 Fuel Oil

And only 1.6% of electricity is generated from petroleum products. So if you want to do something about imported oil, there is only one solution; cut down on auto/truck usage. Note avation fuel does not amount to 1% of U. S. petroleum products.

All the talk about alternatives is irrelevant to the imported oil issue until there is a battery system that will allow electric vehicles. And Tesla ain't it. We're far from an affordable mass market solution. Nothing will change until the battery problem is licked. And I hope the guy who does it gets richer than Gates.

Good points everyone!

I agree with everyone on the underutilization of solar and wind power.

However, unfortunately the only way that we will get to an alternative to oil is when the price goes up far enough that it creates more of an incentive for production of alternative fuels or alternative sources of production. Hence, the oil sands of Canada. Just a few years ago the thought of being able to produce oil from the oil sands was considered out of the question. However, rising prices and rising uncertainty in the Middle East have made the thought of producing the oil in Canada a reality.

Also, I'm pretty wary of government funded projects to develop technology. This focused spending on certain areas by the government does not encourage innovation, rather it promotes the production of technology that is just starting to breakthrough, by everyone focusing on that goal. The best way (and most unpopular) for the government to get involved if it wants to move away from oil is to tax the hell out of it. This encourages the market to decide the best alternative; not some politicians.

The best example of this is mandates for pollution controlling equipment at power plants. The govt used to set mandates on how much pollution a power plant could produce in order to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. The effect was only a few technologies used by everyone in the market. However, when they allowed for the trading of tradable pollution permits, plants began developing ways to exceed the pollution standards and the net effect was far less sulfur dioxide emissions in the atmosphere. Everyone benefited. Older plants could buy more permits to pollute and not encumber heavy fines for polluting. Newer plants could innovate and sell their permits for a profit. This equals more energy for consumers and less pollution in the atmosphere.

Again, the trick is to figure out how to move away from oil. My guess is it will take a long time and we will end up with a lot of competition between oil, ethanol, electric, and bio-diesel before there is a clear winner.

Great comments all.

James, the vast subsidies that the oil industry receives are one of the things I was getting at as to how a government screws up an economy. As far as defining the exact nature of those though, that goes beyond my knowledge. Something for me to learn more about. Your point though about the government being a large market in and of itself and that it could decide what kind of power to use, is very well taken. And yes, the military does protect commerce in general, and in some cases, some of of that is shipborne oil, but not all.

Papa Ray,
Out in West Texas, I drove once from El Paso o San Antone and was amazed at the wind farms. The turbines themselves are enormous and there are hundreds if not thousands of them. What's your take on developing wind energy in the desert?

Also, as far as deployable means of generating power go, you might check out http://www.skybuilt.com/
which has received venture funding from the CIA. Their main product looks like something the military could certainly use. As a combat engineer, I can definitely appreciate it. No fuel to truck around or store is a very good thing.

As to shale, check out the ticker for Suncor. The stock has skyrocketed in the past few years. They invest heavily in shale-oil technology.

To all,
I think these are all interesting and valuable ideas about energy independence, but I still don't see anything that would have an immediate impact on reducing our reliance on middle eastern petroleum, which is the strategic problem that we started with.

What more do you say?

In the short-term, I believe the only way for us to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern petroleum is to explore for more oil, work to develop the Canadian oil sands and continue research into ethanol and bio-diesel technology. These will likely be stepping stones or transition fuels to the next technological breakthrough.

I believe that is the only realistic way to lessen our dependence with technology that is available. I just don't see any grand leaps being taken by our politicians to change things, nor do I see any will by the American public to conserve at this point.

Unfortunately this market based mechanism for switching may take a while and by then it could be too late to avoid a disaster to our energy infrastructure .

great one, thanks :)

great one, thanks :)

We will never achieve any form of energy independance until someone or some group can con convince most people that it is in our best interests.

What are the vast subsidies the oil companies receive?

Why are the big C corporations opposing any move to alternates to oil?

I recall the group in the 70s, I believe it was called the Club of Rome, promising that oil was a finite resource and would dissapear within a few years. My! how that had a negative effect on the democratic economies of the world as we madly tried to find ways to avoid the demon oil.

It is now the 21st Century and we have exactly the same scenario being proposed.

We now have even more oil on the books than previously thought possible with even more people using that oil. We continue to be innovative (The process for using oil shale was being used in the 70s, as was a oil from coal technique).

I am in the group which believes we should use the resources we have at our disposal as a stop gap while while we develop the energy breakthrough needed to save mankind from itself.

Chester,

I think the best bet for an immediate reduction in depedence on oil would be legislation for electric cars. I'm not sure of what would be the best form for this to take. But currently we have tax incentives for SUVs, of all things. A sample idea could be something like:

Require all automakers to sell 25% of their annual sales in electric cars.

Offer tax breaks for the purchases of electric cars.

Modest tax increase on gas guzzlers and gasoline.

And how about a tax incentive for businesses to offer chargers in their parking lot for their employees? Or better yet, parking areas and walkways covered by solar cells which feed into the chargers?

Mrs. Davis claims that the technology is not there yet. I'm inclinded to disagree, however I readily admit I could use a lot more knowledge in this area. The technology does seem to be there. I encourage those interested to watch the film, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" A preview can be found here:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokilledtheelectriccar/trailer/

Mrs. Davis claims that the technology is not there yet. I'm inclinded to disagree,

To believe that the technology is there but is not being implemented requires immense faith in the power of some entity to suppress the most profitable business opportunity in history. Why would venture capitalists be dumping millions to design, develop, manufacture, market, sell and service a $100,000 plus vehicle like the Tesla Motors product with far less than a 20% chance of success if there were a superiour technology they could be implementing.

The truth is there is a very simple and easy solution to this problem that we refuse to acknowledge or implement. Put a variable import fee on oil that assures that the cost of a barrell of oil will not fall below $50 per barrel in 2006 dollars. This would provide the assurance of high prices that alternatives such as tar sands and coal conversion need to justify the massive capital investment required. It would also incent the domestic industry to find new domestic sources and activate idle ones. It would provide the incentive necessary to start serious conservation efforts on the part of consumers.

We do not have an energy problem. We have an oil problem. There is an oil problem because of cars and trucks. We need to use less petroleum products in them. We will not do so unless oil is more expensive. The only question is whether the excessive amount we are ready, willing and able to pay for the freedom of the automobile will be paid to the U. S. governement as an oil import fee or to an Arab sheik who will use the money to finance the expansion of Islam.

To the extent that there are any subsidies to the oil industry they are skewed toward increasing production which is a good thing.

The real problem with energy production in this country is the anti energy lobby of the enviromentalist that opposes nuclear power plants, new refineries, wind enrgy production facilities in New England and oil production in Alaska and off shore. Solar energy is still not competitive even at todays high prices.

Texas does have significant wind generated enrgy production and that is increasing and will include offshore platforms for wind energy off of Padre Island. It would not surprise me to see that program expanded, but to be clear, wind is a supplement that can reduce dependency by not eliminate it since obviously the wind is not always blowing.

Mrs. Davis, mass transit was invented for people like you. People who see an automoble as transportation. That is a VERY tiny portion of the population. On your way home from work today, swing by an elementary school at closing time and look at all the soccer moms lined up to get their offspring. Every one of those children could walk home or ride a bus. They don't because soccer moms vote and they very much want to pick up their kids after school. It has replaced dinner as the focal point for communications between parent and child in the modern family. Good luck with changing their habits.
You won't be able to do it. The Mullahs will. They will just machine gun any vehicle with a woman driving it. Know the American female as I do, some soccer moms will just armor up and go anyway. A tough breed, soccer moms. As a group , I suspect most can outshoot your average taliban.
As far as electric cars go, when you build one that can keep up with my '67 Camaro RS rag top with the blown (supercharged) 427 and 5.88 Lock-up rear (10.8 is my best time, but I'm sure some young buck who doesn't have hundreds of hours of love poured into it could make it go lots faster), e-mail me. I'm willing to give up the ego-bo, but I won't give up my ability to pass electric cars in a turn in lane.
If you have a problem with that, to bad. It's a free country, I'm free to do what I want with my autos and you are free to leave.
If you really want to do something about the OIL problem, Nationalize the OIL companies. Let the Feds use eminent domain to take them over and we will quickly learn just how the cow ate the cabbage. The regular employees of the OIL Companies will get GS numbers and a substantial increase in their wellfare. The bloated pigs at the top will get slaughtered, which is the standard fate of bloated pigs. There is enough OIL in shale rocks in Colorado to fill the gas tanks of an SUV for every human on this planet for a few thousand years. It just has to be mined and processed. The OIL companies won't do that because it isn't profitable enough for them.
Right now the US OIL companies are ectracting OIL at about 8 $US a barrel and selling it by the barrel at about 70 $US. Or they are refinning it and selling it as gasolene for about 120 $US per barrel. OIL processed from shlae rock woul cost them about 50-55 $US a barrel, cutting way into their profitability. Nationalize them and that is no longer a factor.
No lets get down to the nitty gritty. Anyone that thinks OIL is the root of the problem between Islam and the West is clueless. Islam is at war with the west because of what we are and what we do. If someone working in their garage today invents cold fusion, eliminating the need for OIL as an energy source, the Jihad WILL NOT STOP.
For Jihad to stop, either the west must accept Dhimmi and forget about the human rights thinge, or Islam must be exterminated. There is no choice "C", and to think so is delusional. Or at least that is what the muslims say. So far the west is full of those who think they are just kidding around. As if a homocide bomber is a joke.

"Our Country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't
be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our
women and breed a hardier race!"
-Lt. Gen. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, USMC

Stephen Den Beste made an exhaustive study of energy alternatives on his USS Clueless blog a while back.

Google for it. It answers a lot of questions and explains in fairly deep detail the options, alternatives, and costs.

Anyone who's read Den Beste knows he's nothing if not exhaustive in detail.

An excellent recent book on oil is A Thousand Barrels a second (http://www.1000barrels.com/). It looks at historical usage, current usage, the future of oil supplies, and alternatives.

The thirty-second summary is that the Peal-Oil folk are wrong; we will come out of this OK. But it's going to be a huge "rebalancing" effort since the era of cheap oil is definitely ending. Lots of oil & replacements out there but they cost much more.

One good thing is that US has much reduced its dependence on oil. There is a statistic that is the number of barrels of oil needed to boost GDP by 1%. A value of zero means zero dependence (GDP can grow without additional oil): Japan and Korea have nearly achieved this. US is about 50 now, much lower than in the 70s. China is up around 90 -- it's economy is heavily dependent on oil. So a good way to stop China's push for domination is $100 per barrel oil. It'll hurt us a bit, but them far more!

If someone working in their garage today invents cold fusion, eliminating the need for OIL as an energy source, the Jihad WILL NOT STOP.

No, it won't but it's budget, and effectiveness, will be drastically reduced as will the budgets for the madrassas.

Mass transit was no more invented for me than for grumbler. It's all a question of what we can afford. When the price goes up sufficiently, everyone will adjust their behavior.

As you alluded to, if you think the oil producing nations are mad that we "steal" their oil now (at $70.00 per barrel), you ain't seen nothing if we stop stealing their oil at any price because we really do develop alternatives to oil.

Of course, throw in a pony for me with that wish to as long as we're at it.

I am a believer in the free market but transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to OPEC every year is dangerous National Security wise.

Beyond funding some basic R & D I don't want the government getting too deeply involved. I would rather they set a minimum price of oil at say - $40 or $50 per barrel. If oil stays above that set price fine, if it falls below a tax is added to maintain that price. This could be changed monthly based on the world price.

The reason for doing this is people are not going to invest the tens of billions of dollars necessary to develop alternate energy supplies if the world price of oil can go from $11 to $70+ per barrel in a few years. The market is simply too volatile - something OPEC suppliers love.

As far as the costs of oil having a big impact on the profitability of oil companies and in changing consumer behavior, what do you readers say about the sometimes repeated assertion that the price per barrel cost of oil does not account for the cost of our military, which ensures its free flow? I think James made this assertion above.

Energy production is not a problem – it is energy storage that is handicapping the entire alternative energy market.

We can produce plenty of power from solar cells and wind turbines, but the power is not predictable and there exists no way to reliably store terra-joules of energy. With all the money spent trying to develop hydrogen storage techniques, it turns out that the most efficient storage mechanism for hydrogen energy is gasoline – it has excellent energy and mass density and is fairly stable, something that other energy storage technologies lack.

Even if the US completely cuts out all oil consumption, there will still be a large market for oil. Do you think China and India will forgo the opportunity to develop their economies with cheap imported oil just because the US decides that it can no longer afford to subsidize corrupt regimes? The same regimes will still be funded, but now the US will be paying substantially more of its GDP toward energy sources, a surefire way to loose in the global market.

Oil and its associated geopolitical problems are going to be with us for quite some time.

Chester

There are hopefull breaks coming in electrical storage. Capacitors using carbon nanotubes, on paper at least, look to shake things up. Lithium battery research is progressing and may produce something practical. The greatest near term hopefull is a company called EESTOR which, if it's not hotair, will validate it's 336 lb 52 Kwhr energy storage unit at the end of summer.

I'm all for nukes (especially that gen IV molten salt thorium burner that's talked about). Wind and solar have problems but where practicle fine, install them. In my opinion there'll never be a "hydrogen" economy, to many problems but SOFC's look real good. A company called Ion America is in the test phase with their SORFC at this time and it looks solid and dependable.

Seriously, drill in ANWR, drill off the coasts, make the ethanol, cook the shale and mine the coal. At this stage we can only move forward till technology matures in other areas. We can't become energy independent this decade or even the next but we'll never get there without starting.

As a DETROITER let me be so bold as to point out that CARS DON'T RUN ON OIL!!!

geez..

The dependence on foreign crude is a myth created by the mass media elite as a projection of their liberal guilt for driving around new yawk and el lay in their limos. Most if not all of the people in the oil drenched west have no real concept of just how huge the worlds infrastructure for crude use really is. It would boggle your mind if it were laid out for you. Did anyone see the leader of Exxon on charlie rose? It embarrassed me when he started to speak about the sheer gigantic size of it, and its not because of anything except the fact that oil is freedom and it is freedom on the largest and easiest scale versus anything anyone has ever even dreamed of. when they compared the total green effect of just one electric car from cradle to grave it ended up having a footprint of eight excursions. I have the data somewhere in my old blog posts around here.. but its old news in the D.
basically it comes down to being the richest fattest laziest greatest country in history. We sit around chewing the fat trying to find something to kvetch about and what do we pick? the one thing that makes us freer than any lucky bastards ever!!

And I'm not even talking about planes..

CANADA is our biggest oil supplier. Not nigeria, not chavez, not arabia or anyone else. Should anything stupid happen all the OTHER PRODUCERS would be up the creek and we'd be fine. Imagine how quick the prices would come down if they knew they were going to have to compete against Stephen Harper?!!

Sure I see a need to innovate, but at what cost?
When these do gooders start popping off about charging extra are they really looking into the future and seeing the extra hours young parents are going tohave to work to pay for their flights of statist fancy? how many marriages will break up over money? how many abortions because "gas is soo expensive"? and the trickle down throughout the whole economy?

Let's stay powerful so we can stay free. Let's not get all high and think we can just mess with anything because we're so Godlike with our pens.
Detroit has made immense strides to remove pollutants from car exhaust, any credit for that?!!

crickets..

At the same time that oil use is increasing due to the spread of humans living in the 21st century just like you do, they are also inventing loads of stuff to tighten down costs. but the bottom line should be all about freedom and liberty and not being an ingrate hypocrite that ignores science to settle scores and assuage guilt.

I will up on Woodward doing brake torques in your honor..

As a DETROITER let me be so bold as to point out that CARS DON'T RUN ON OIL!!!

geez..

The dependence on foreign crude is a myth created by the mass media elite as a projection of their liberal guilt for driving around new yawk and el lay in their limos.

Most if not all of the people in the oil drenched west have no real concept of just how huge the worlds infrastructure for crude use really is.

It would boggle your mind if it were laid out for you. Did anyone see the leader of Exxon on charlie rose? It embarrassed me when he started to speak about the sheer gigantic size of it, and its not because of anything except the fact that oil is freedom and it is freedom on the largest and easiest scale versus anything anyone has ever even dreamed of.

when they compared the total green effect of just one electric car from cradle to grave it ended up having a footprint of eight excursions.
I have the data somewhere in my old blog posts around here.. but its old news in the D.

basically it comes down to being the richest fattest laziest greatest country in history.
We sit around chewing the fat trying to find something to kvetch about and what do we pick?

the one thing that makes us freer than any lucky bastards ever!!

And I'm not even talking about planes..

CANADA is our biggest oil supplier. Not nigeria, not chavez, not arabia or anyone else. Should anything stupid happen all the OTHER PRODUCERS would be up the creek and we'd be fine.

Imagine how quick the prices would come down if they knew they were going to have to compete against Stephen Harper?!!

Sure I see a need to innovate, but at what cost?

When these do gooders start popping off about charging extra are they really looking into the future and seeing the extra hours young parents are going tohave to work to pay for their flights of statist fancy? how many marriages will break up over money? how many abortions because "gas is soo expensive and we can't afford another kid"? and the trickle down throughout the whole economy?

Let's stay powerful so we can stay free. Let's not get all high and think we can just mess with anything because we're so Godlike with our pens.
Detroit has made immense strides to remove pollutants from car exhaust, any credit for that?!!

crickets..

At the same time that oil use is increasing due to the spread of humans living in the 21st century just like you do, they are also inventing loads of stuff to tighten down costs. but the bottom line should be all about freedom and liberty and not being an ingrate hypocrite that ignores science to settle scores and assuage guilt.

I will up on Woodward at the cruise doing brake torques in your honor..

"It's all a question of what we can afford. When the price goes up sufficiently, everyone will adjust their behavior."
Evidence please. Yes, those on the lower rung of the income ladder will get shafted again. Nothing new there. Maybe I didn't do such a good job of making my point.
What P2 said. If the Oil Shieks don't sell their OIL to us, they will sell it to the Chinese or the Indians. There are about a billion people between those two nations that want an American lifstyle.
That means automobiles, not buses and trains. 2 car garges, with a boat in one side, dishwashers, vacume cleaners, riding mowers, Air conditioning, the whole nine yards. What OIL america doesn't buy, they will.
And I forgot who's post it was, but OIL stands for Organic Industrial Lubricant. The Acronym has been in use so long that most people think it's a word. Gasolene is refined from petroleum, which in today's lexicon is OIL.
And the fact that the Muslims are sitting on a piss pot of OIL has nothing to do with the Jihad they are waging against the west. My evidence for that is the fact that the Muslims (moslims, moors, saracens, mohammedians, and all the other names they have been identified by over the centuries) have been waging Jihad on and off against the west for the last 1400 years or thereabouts. OIL is a fairly recent development in human history.
So anyone who thinks OIL has anything to do with the current state of affairs is delusional. They need to read a little history and get a clue.

Joe,

If EESTOR delivers on its promise, and I’m extremely skeptical since I can’t find any technical information on the web, it would be a huge advance in energy storage. But, to put this advance in context, 52 kW-h is equivalent to 187 Mega Joules. Gasoline has 44 MJ per kg of mass. If we use the 336 pounds of the EESTOR device, this means that gasoline contains over 30 times the energy per unit mass of this wonder capacitor. Now this is a bit unfair, since internal combustion runs around 30% efficient rates. Correcting for this and assuming that the capacitor is used at 100% efficiency (it’s probably near 90-95%), then gasoline still contains over 10 times the energy density of this super wonder device.

If we use a 100 hp car as an example, this means that we have enough energy to run about 42 minutes before having to recharge the “batteries”. In effect, this will become another niche technology. It will be useful in roughly the same situations that electric cars are useful now – for people who use them in a very short commute to work. It’s not going to revolutionize ground transportation.

Gasoline simply excels at four criteria:
1) Excellent energy per unit mass
2) Excellent energy per unit volume
3) Stable
4) Cheap to produce

Beat, match, or come close in all four of these categories and you might have a product that will unseat gasoline. Until then...

Wow, this is a great discussion. What else do you Loyal Readers have to add? My own feelings are that energy independence might be nice, but that it would take far too long to have any discernible immediate strategic effect from the standpoint of affecting terrorist financing.

You are correct about the lag times involved with the current problems. Energy Independence is a seperate issue from the Clash of civilizations we are living thru. If Islam was in one of it's dormint periods we would still be using just as much OIL. If there were unlimited amounts of CHEAP OIL, the Jihadists would still be doing their thing.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Read ObL's fatawah and notice that OIL isn't mentioned anywhere. This is a religous war, one that started about 630AD and will continue until one side is vanquished. Don't be fooled by one side or the other stopping periodically. That is normal for long period wars. Look at the Hundred years war. After Pointiers (I think, I'm to lazy to look it up this morning), The French spent 30 years hiding from the English. So it wasn't much of a war as such things go. The Arab Israeli war has been going since 1948, with long periods of relative calm between violent clashes when the arabs think they have an advantage. It is all the same war.

If there were unlimited amounts of CHEAP OIL, the Jihadists would still be doing their thing.

Without oil profits the Jihadis would still be as frustrated about the imminent demise of Islam as they are today. But they would not have access to the financial resources that allow them to take their jihad across oceans, unlike the Whirling Dervishes. If you think the oil wealth has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Jihad, then you must also believe the Pentagon could defend us just as well with half the budget.

Chester,

The infrastructure assembled for a petrol-economy has taken nearly a hundred years to reach its current gargantuan size. Even if some wonder technology came along today which surpassed gasoline in all technical aspects, it would still take decades to switch the economy over to use the new technology. The manufacturing capacity has to be developed, the distribution schemes put together, and then people have to be coaxed to stop using their current automobiles. Even a government mandated program would take a long long time (see HDTV and digital cable standards). Our problem with Islamic-fascists is now, not twenty years in the future. No matter what we do now, we’re still going to be dealing with Islamism in the near to mid-range future.

In the long term, cheap oil from the Middle East will start to dry up and more difficult to recover oil deposits will start to gain economic viability. Thus, in the long term, the Islamic-fascist oil connection will take care of itself. So the question isn’t long term, but what to do in the intervening transition period. I argue that we don’t have the luxury to simply wait out the next twenty years until Islamic militarism runs out of money/oil – in the meantime we may get a nuclear surprise in a large western city.

I think that the lag times in the system, coupled with the fact that oil will be a valuable product for the next twenty years, regardless of any US action, mean that Islamic terrorism and energy independence need to be treated as separate issues. We’re not going to solve the first problem with the second solution until it’s way too late.

As to your other point, the price per barrel of oil does not substantially reflect our current military expenditures to safeguard crude oil supplies. It’s going to have some very weak linkage, simply since oil and oil products are taxed in the US – but I think we are looking at pennies, not dollars per barrel. Most oil is not consumed in the US, which means that the US doesn’t get to tax its consumption.

However, shoes from Indonesia don’t reflect US military expenditures to keep open sea leans and trade routes. I would argue that most trade in the world is being subsidized by the US Navy and that oil is the rule, not the exception. As a commercial society, it’s in our best interest to foster and maintain free trade. It just so happens that our self interests coincide with the better interest of the world.

I think the energy thing drove denBeste out of political blogging.T

I think the energy thing drove denBeste out of political blogging.T

Trying to counter emotion with science is very frustrating.

I have to agree with Papa Ray, it stems from two basic truths; for most of America the prevailing thought process is "I want it, but I don't want anything built near me that might ruin my view," and why doesn't the government just give it to us or subsidize it.

As for the first, until we eliminate the literally thousands of forms and studies required by states/municipalities as well as federal government before anything is built in this country, new production facilities just aren't going to happen. Citizen Advocate groups that oppose the building of anything near absolutely anything only increase the pressure to build elsewhere, and yet for some reason can't understand why jobs go overseas and power costs keep increasing.

Secondly, everything the government gets involved in and subsidizes dies a slow death. If alternative energy sources are the future of this country, then why isn't the private sector funding the research to better position themselves for this "mad rush" for the service?

I just don't ever see the US and human kind in general ever going away from an oil powered transportaion system, and because of that we will continue to see the price of oil go up until we stop protecting the view and allow our oil companies to drill where the oil is.

grumbler

Basically I agree with everything you say. Please note though that the 30% effeciency for ICE is under ideal conditions (think fixed test bed, optimal load etc.). For everyday driving use a value of 16% (18~19% for diesel).

I fully agree nothing beats liquid fuels at this stage. The reason I mention ESU's is that, if not hotair, they'd provide a short term, practical boost to economy as fuel gets more expensive. Consider if they work out putting one of those into a vehicle with a good diesel/electric setup. You'd actually get that 30%+ effeciency then. Better yet, if they can reduce size by at least half) put in a SORFC to use that diesel for power generation and now you're talking 50% or greater effeciency. Note that I don't support the current hybrids since most of the complicated engineering is plain BS.

I'm very hopefull about these esu's since if the price point and longevity assumed works out you now can make the beloved of the treehuggers (wind and solar) almost practical. Practical power storage and load leveling. I know a guy who uses a small home system, it's a very expensive hobby though he mentions the side benifit of protecting the small family pets from ravens and the occasional eagle due to the whirling vanes scaring them off hehe.

It doesn't do anyting about oil imports to generate electricity by nuclear, solar, wind or other means. Nobody has been generating electricity with oil since the big price jump of the 1970s.

We use petroleum as motor fuel. We have an enormous installed infrastructure consisting of cars, trucks, filling stations, and distribution terminals already in place.

What we can do is mix ethanol in with our fuel. Brazil already does that with ethanol made from sugar cane. Brazil has a few small oil wells and they are now exporting that oil since they don't have enough domestic demand for it.

Any car or truck made since the 1970s has neoprene hoses and gaskets instead of rubber so they can use up to 10% ethanol in the gasoline without any effect except that the exhaust is cleaner, the fuel is higher octane and the engine runs a little cooler.

You can probably push that up to 20% ethanol but beyond that, you have to modify the engine. Back in the olden days that meant using bigger jets on the carburator and advancing the distributor. Today if you have a FlexFuel vehicle, you can use up to 85% ethanol and your engine computer will make the adjustments automatically.

If you live in the Midwest, you have probably seen gas stations selling E85 gasoline which is 85% ethanol. More of them are showing up all the time. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area there are now stations in Carrolton, Irving and Plano that sell it. If you drive an SUV made in the last five years, chances are good that you have a FlexFuel engine.

Check you vehicle at this web site to see if it can use E85. Then check for the location of a gas station near you that sells E85 at the same site.

E85

Send your fuel dollars to the Midwest instead of to the Mideast.

Yes, to answer your question, wind power is used extensivly in West Texas as well as other SouthWestern States. But the investment is high and maintenance costs are high also. (you know, moving parts and all that). Also battery teck is just not here except for the really high dollar stuff used by NASA and other government agencys. When they can figure out a way to make the wind arrays cheaper, yet last longer with better storage, then you might see one in every yard where they get enough wind year round.

I wanted to call attention to this statement made by Mrs. Davis: "We do not have an energy problem. We have an oil problem. There is an oil problem because of cars and trucks. We need to use less petroleum products in them. We will not do so unless oil is more expensive. The only question is whether the excessive amount we are ready, willing and able to pay for the freedom of the automobile will be paid to the U. S. governement as an oil import fee or to an Arab sheik who will use the money to finance the expansion of Islam."

As far as I'm concerned she nails the immediate problems we have. Except I would substitute "gasoline and diesel" for the word "oil", and it also goes back to what I said about the lack of refinerys we have. There is one on the Gulf that was damaged by Katrina that is still not back in operation.

Yet, the coast line is the perfect place for a refinery. Murphy's law...right?

Mrs Davis (she must work in the petro field, as much as she knows) is right about this too: "Put a variable import fee on oil that assures that the cost of a barrell of oil will not fall below $50 per barrel in 2006 dollars. This would provide the assurance of high prices that alternatives such as tar sands and coal conversion need to justify the massive capital investment required." I've heard more oil people say that than there are hairs on my ol' head. Also something people need to understand. The prices of oil and its products are set by the "Market" and they just don't seem to get it most of the time. They feel like if the Saudi's have a bad day that our supply of oil is threatened. Like another poster said (sorry forgot his name) we don't need Saudi or Iran's oil. We don't use much of it now and we are not even getting Chavez's oil for much longer.

The tables showing where we get our oil are on the net and they show the truth. Trading on the Market has gotten to be a big business and frankly has gotten out of hand in many areas, oil being one of them.

I also saw the figures that EXXON has projected in the next few years in R&D, field exploration and development and other areas and it is more than their profit was last year plus more. And that is just one company.

We need to do the things suggested, get better equipment, better understanding by the American public and more cooperation from our government and the big C Corporations. Then we can blow the hell out of whatever we want and our oil prices will stay in affordable ranges and the rest of the world can walk, bike or take the tram.

And the Saudis and the Imans of Iran can go back to living in tents in the desert, marrying their daughters, eating goat and drinking goats milk.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

There has been some other talk about the role of energy in the big scheme of things, geopolitical and economic. I'll just say that it's huge. We live in the age of oil. Every other economic development that we think is so characteristic and important, such as space based communications, aviation, computer science, the current rate of international trade, and so much else are the direct off-spring of two essential characteristics of oil: it's ability to release energy and its ability to be transformed into the various synthetic materials that we find throughout out products.

The second part, the ability of oil to be transformed into various synthetic materials, from plastics to nylon to kevlar to virtually everything around us that is not mineral based or a direct organic byproduct (wood, leather, cotton) will assure that oil will continue to be a highly useful commodity for centuries, despite some astonishing developments.

When we look at the first thing, energy, we see that it is what makes possible our intense levels of productivity and trade. Some economists and scientists have quibbled with the idea that technological/economic progress has been accelerating in the way that people such as Ray Kurzweil see. In some regards, they see things as slowing down.

When you look back over human economic history it becomes rather easy to see that the huge advances in human productivity came as a result of techniques that allowed people to move from applying metabolic energy to seizing and exploiting energy sources from the environment. From fire to sails to windmills to waterwheels. And when you grasp that it becomes reasonable to assume that the next set of major economic advances that will transform our lives will not come just from computer science or bio and nanotech. Our economic lives will move to a new level when we discover ways of creating and directing entirely new levels of energy at dramatically reduced prices.

I'll take just one example: the supposed "water shortage" that many people speak about. There is no water shortage. The earth is covered with with huge oceans. What there is a shortage of is clean water and clean water in particular places. Currently, desalination and water transport are very expensive. But this is only expensive because both of those tasks are extremely energy consuming.

National security is obtained by the ability of a nation to generate and direct force or "project power." And what is the source of national power? It is the ability of a nation to obtain from the environment resources and through its human capital transform those resources into methods which allow it generate and apply energy. The US is a powerful nation because it can generate, within its territory, the wealth, knowledge, and equipment to project force (energy) more effectively and efficiently than other nations.

When looked at from this perspective one begins to see that research into energy is not just about saving the ozone layer, protecting from climate change, or financing kooks in caves. New breakthroughs in energy will usher in economic and technological developments which will strengthen our national security and force projection capabilities.

Only the US has the scientitific and economic might to successfully persue such a path. And it will open a way to a New American Century more effectively than any of the goofy prescriptions advocated by the neoconservative nutbars.

I've just posted a new thread about this topic with an update including my own thoughts. See the main page.

Anybody hear of thermal Depolymerization? There is a pilot plant in Missouri (I think) running. There is potential there.

CNG Compressed Natural Gas is about to go mainstream and make most of your above wishes happen right now WITHOUT further government assistance.

Carbon fiber composites have reached such a performance cost point that CGN is now a viable way to power the family auto.

The Honda 2006 Civic GX is in production and can be filled over night at your house from your own utility connection. This is NOT a dual fuel automobile.

A companion compressor running on wall current is available. In a world of $3.00 gasoline this Honda burns $2.00 methane.

The conversion of our automotive fleets over to CNG will take years.

Locally, our buses and UPS trucks have been running on it for years.

Currently vast amounts of natural gas are being used to fire up steam boilers and combined cycle power plants.

Over time this gas must be redirected towards motor fuel. Its loss can be covered by combined cycle systems using coal, hydropower, and nuclear power.

It is high time to link to the vast Alaskan natural gas deposits discovered decades ago.

Forget about mainstreaming the other energy schemes: they’re too uncompetitive with CNG.

CNG can power: trains, trucks, buses, autos … as they are already built … with trivial modifications to the fuel delivery system. The diesel engine takes the gas at full pressure right through the injector system with no modification past the fuel injection pump. Autos need a pressure step down valve.

Pollution emissions drop 90% from current levels with natural gas.

National Crisis Solved…. Next Gordian Knot Please!