Tired of high price of energy? 6

[mgnt8]

https://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=SPI&issue=HR6566&parent=SPI

 

[frv]

Yes, yes, yes!!!

That'll solve the problem!!

Never mind the 10-15 years it would take to make any new exploration economically feasible.

Never mind that even the most optimistic estimates would produce but a drop in the bucket compared to today's levels, thus making a negligible, if any impact on the price of crude.

Never mind that oil is sold on a World market, meaning we would have no more right to purchase that oil than any other country.

Let's dig, dig, dig!


Like the chinese constantly expanding a wall in a futile attemp to stop invading mongolians, we blindly want to keep drilling for an ever more scarce resource.

No conservation.
No investment in alternative energy.
No investment in research.
No nuclear.
Just dig.

Seems sensible.

 

[IRstuff]

It's actually quite amusing.

The entire ANWR reserves would only supply the US consumption of 205 days. Total US reserves would only supply our needs for about 1000 days. So much for energy "independence."

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[swertel]

No conservation.
No investment in alternative energy.
No investment in research.
No nuclear.
Just dig.

First rule of holes...
When you find yourself in one, stop digging.

--Scott

http://wertel.eng.pro

 

[mgnt8]

I think you are confused. Let me provide more detail.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6566

HR 6566:

To bring down energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, encouraging the development of alternative and renewable energy, and promoting conservation.


Lifting the executive moratorium on exploration has already caused the price of crude to drop $20 in the past two weeks, so your most optimistic estimates have already been surpassed.

 

[electricpete]

Labeled as an “all-of-the-above” energy plan, this bill seeks to attain energy-independence by increasing the supply of American-made energy, improving conservation and efficiency, and promoting the use of renewable and alternative energy technologies. A comprehensive and bipartisan approach to solving America’s energy crisis, this bill provides numerous tax incentives, encourages innovation throughout the energy sector, while also supporting the development of new oil refineries and nuclear energy facilities.

Most importantly, the American Energy Act would lift the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and add an estimated 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to our limited supply.

From what little is available on that page, it doesn't sound anything like what frv said. It sounds to me like they are attacking the problem sensibly from several angles.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

 

[frv]

I'm not referring to a "here's a billion dollars to appease those wacky environmentalists"-type investment.. I'm talking about a "let's land a man on the moon by the end of the decade"-type investment.

It would be great if the US once again led the world in something positive. Fulfill our promise as the last great hope.

I'd love for the rest of the world to say "wow, the Americans did it again!" instead of "damn!, those Americans are at it again"

I'll take your word that oil has gone down 20 dollars over the last week or two. What does that tell you? Not a drop has been produced. Futures markets operate in the range of months to (maximum) a couple of years. So they shouldn't be affected in the least by something that will not come on line for 10 to 15 years.

Circumstantial evidence points strongly toward the fact that the price of crude has risen largely as a result of speculation. There are certainly some market forces at play with the rising of the Chinese and Indian middle class. I am also not entirely convinced that oil companies are completely immune from blame for failing to provide more refining capacity.

With respect to domestic energy production, there are only two natural energy sources in the US sufficiently large as to allow us to be independent: coal and nuclear. Contrary to popular belief, natural gas is not sufficiently abundant for complete independence.

I'll admit I have not taken into account the shale oil in some of the mountain states. There could be large quantities of energy stored there. However, I have yet to read anything about the efficiency of extraction. That's not to say there is no literature or that it is not sufficiently efficient to extract. Simply that I have not done my due diligence on this part.

With respect to the "domestic sources" comment, what do you think happens to the oil that's extracted from the ground? Do you think the oil company, out of the goodness of its heart, is going to say "well, we won't sell this oil at $140 dollars/ barrel on the world market because we need to take one for the team.. let's sell this directly to America (as if that were even possible) for $70."

If you believe that, there's a lovely bridge about 2 blocks from my house I've been looking to unload. Interested?

 

[rb1957]

"let's land a man on the moon by the end of the decade"-type investment.

we undertake to develop a viable fusion power station within the next decade. sure it'll be expensive to develop and it'll almost certainly have to be an international effort ... US, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India?, Brazil?

 

[mgnt8]

http://www.geotimes.org/mar07/article.html?id=feature_gulfofmexico.html

"In 2001, Shell, Amoco, Texaco (now part of Chevron) and ExxonMobil drilled the exploratory BAHA 2 well in 2,375 meters of water in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, in a region known as the Perdido Fold Belt."

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/perdido/

"First production from Perdido is expected around the turn of the decade, with the facility capable of handling 130,000bpd."

That's 9 years in some of the deepest water ever explored. Presumably with more government support and research & development, this could be sped up. I work in the plastics industry so I can't speak as an authority.
Will one of our colleagues in the oil & gas field confirm or deny this?

 

[cranky108]

I'm sorry I don't feel a thing for people who are wasteful and don't take the time to understand how well we had it, and expect cheep energy, with no green house gases, to go on for ever.

I've had people say to me that they were going to buy a generator and live without the electric company. I just say go ahead and enjoy life without the electric company.

Yes the higher prices maybe a wakeup call, but what exactly is it telling us to do? Do without? Use something different? Or some of both?
Yes doing with less is a good idea, but ask not for whom the bell towls.
Each year there are new ideas for energy effecency that are lost because no one wants to pay more for house hold applicances, or other things. The only way efficency will become a reality is for higher energy costs, of goverment regulations. I don't like eather, but that's where we are.

Do something, or get over it, you choose.

 

[carnage1]

there are a few other options, solar is soon to be very viable due to low cost cells, and energy consumption could be greatly reduced by engineers like us being willing to question the status quo and design from concept instead of simply copying the current variant of the last design.

(solar article)

http://www.industryweek.com/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=14932

(changes to engineering methodology)

http://www.10xe.org/

http://rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

 

[cranky108]

Solar power??? See my posts under climate change, the one about black things in a white area. Should make you think.

You are correct we as engineers need to look at energy efficency. But we will always be asked why we changed the design. We need to do it for a good reason, not a feel good movement.

 

[ivymike]

based on that post, I'm not sure you spent enough time thinking about "black things in a white area." I never did see a follow-up from you... as I recall, the discussion went something like this:

cranky108 (Electrical): black things in white area is bad.
ivymike (mechanical): why?
LCruiser (Civil/Environme): Putting black things in a white desert would alter circulation patterns. All fixes for global warming are worse than global warming. Here's a reference that has the word circulation in it.
ivymike (mechanical): do you have any directly relevant references?
LCruiser (Civil/Environme): nope, just use your imagination.
ivymike (mechanical): okay, well there here's a conservative estimate that shows the global heating effect would be negligible (using 15% efficiency of solar panels instead of higher figures) and there would be other emissions-related benefits
LCruiser (Civil/Environme): yeah, well what about cost?
(no response)

 

[cranky108]

Just my thoughts. Probally good on your house, as most homes have dark colored roofs anyway.
Better might be to heat water, or pre-heat water as the case maybe.

Finding a more efficent, or cheeper energy source is a bunch of work. I don't believe there are any easy answers.
I've used wood and coal, and if done right can reduce your heating cost, but it has some down sides.
I've also used gas, electric, and pellets, and for the work gas or electric is the easyest, And more expencive.

Solar can work but you need so much space and the cost. Wind isen't always there.

If you have the time there are cheeper ways. If not stay with the triditional.

 

[mgnt8]

Common sense has struck back and may just beat the deadline.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7011805480

Somebody told me that it would take 5 years from test well to 100K bpd in the Carolina basin

 

[ewh]

IRstuff, you posted on 24JUL08 "The entire ANWR reserves would only supply the US consumption of 205 days."

Where did you get this info? I'm not doubting you, but would like to use it as ammo elsewhere myself, and without a source, it's use is somewhat limited.

Also, could someone tell me how to get a quote box? Thanks!

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. - [small]Thomas Jefferson [/small]

 

[civilperson]

I disagree, the price of energy is not too high. Rather, it is too low to encourage alternate systems or optimum conservation efforts. If the payback period for energy saving methods came down to months vs. multiple years then the use of these techniques would become common, (causing a lessening of the demand and subsequent lowering of the price). A constant high price, (by application of a high but varying tax), would cause the development of systems to cure our gluttonous use of energy.

 

[zdas04]

Civilperson,
In principle you are dead right about the problem, but shifting the price of gasoline from $4-5/gallon to its proper $9-12/gallon with taxes would disrupt today's economy to the point that we would first fall into a worldwide economic depression and then someone would start a real oil-war. Millions would die and the people remaining would be living a subsistence life style with a gun never far from hand. A steady increase over the decades could easily have been accommodated, a step change will be horrible. I know that sounds melodramatic, but I think I'm probably understating the reality.

The problem is that we've had 30 years of artificially low prices. Those three decades allowed the U.S. economy to start down some of the most unproductive and unrealistic paths mankind has ever taken. We virtually destroyed the railroad infrastructure because trains couldn't compete with trucking when diesel prices were $0.40/gallon. We built urban sprawl to an insane level so that the vast majority of people have long commutes to work or shopping. We failed to develop the late-life tools that could have increased oil recovery from 30-40% to 70-80% (doubling the ultimate recovery from oil fields). We had no incentive to keep alive a vibrant nuclear industry. We made research into any sort of alternative energy a crack-pot sideline.

To fix this litany of stupidity will take much longer than it took to break it. If we survive the next 150 years, we may be well on the road to recovery. I don't expect anything to be able to "fix" it before the next election. As long as people are talking about lowering the price of gasoline, the politicians that allowed this mess will try to lower the prices and continue the stupidity.

I was in Yosemite park last month and saw hundreds of rental RV's driving around the park (at 3-5 miles/gallon) so $5.50/gallon is clearly not nearly a high enough price.

This subject is depressing, but the politicians response to it is disgusting. They're trying to fix the high prices when they should be trying to find a mix of answers to allow us to stop exporting $0.5 billion per day to countries that don't like us much. No economy can sustain that kind of bleed indefinitely.

David

 

[carnage1]

I am counting on the next election to "fix" it, or at least throw money at it so that when I finish my BSME there will be lots of jobs open in the energy sector as well as lots of design jobs looking for efficiency improvements.
(selfish arn't I)

 

[SomptingGuy]

Our (UK) #1 natural gas supplier raised its prices by 35% this week. This coming winter will be grim for some.

- Steve