[Cody Dawg]

Link

It reads like a screenplay for a movie, but it all makes sense, unfortunately, and seems realistic.

Simulated oil meltdown shows U.S. economy's vulnerability

By Kevin G. Hall

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Former CIA Director Robert Gates sighs deeply as he pores over reports of growing unrest in Nigeria. Many Americans can't find the African nation on a map, but Gates knows that it's America's fifth-largest oil supplier and one that provides the light, sweet crude that U.S. refiners prefer.

It's 11 days before Christmas 2005, and the turmoil is preventing about 600,000 barrels of oil per day from reaching the world oil market, which was already drum-tight. Gates, functioning as the top national security adviser to the president, convenes the Cabinet to discuss the implications of Nigeria's spreading religious and ethnic unrest for America's economy.

Should U.S. troops be sent to restore order? Should America draw down its strategic oil reserves to stabilize soaring gasoline prices? Cabinet officials agree that drawing down the reserves might signal weakness. They recommend that the president simply announce his willingness to do so if necessary.

The economic effects of unrest in faraway Nigeria are immediate. Crude oil prices soar above $80 a barrel. June's then-record $60 a barrel is a distant memory. A gallon of unleaded gas now costs $3.31. Americans shell out $75 to fill a midsized SUV.

If all this sounds like a Hollywood drama, it's not. These scenarios unfolded in a simulated oil shock wave held Thursday in Washington. Two former CIA directors and several other former top policy-makers participated to draw attention to America's need to reduce its dependence on oil, especially foreign oil.

Fast-forward to Jan. 19, 2006. A blast rips through Saudi Arabia's Haradh natural-gas plant. Simultaneously, al Qaida terrorists seize a tanker at Alaska's Port of Valdez and crash it, igniting a massive fire that sweeps across oil terminals. Crude oil spikes to $120 a barrel, and the U.S. economy reels. Gasoline prices hit $4.74 a gallon.

Gates convenes the Cabinet again. Members still disagree on whether America should draw down its strategic oil reserves. Homeland Security chief James Woolsey, who ran the CIA from 1993 to 1995, argues that a special energy czar is needed with broad powers to bypass the bureaucracy and impose offshore oil drilling and construction of refineries.

That won't help now, though, or resolve any short-term issues, counters Gene Sperling, who was President Clinton's national economic adviser.

The energy secretary suggests that relaxing clean-air standards could help refiners squeeze out every last drop of gas. That makes the interior secretary, former Clinton Environmental Protection Agency chief Carol Browner, bristle. She blames Detroit for the mess because automakers failed to develop hybrids and other fuel-efficient cars.

The Cabinet can't agree on even the simplest short-term solutions. There aren't many options beyond encouraging car pools and lowering thermostats. There's no infrastructure in place to deliver alternative fuels such as ethanol or diesel made from soybeans or waste products.

Fast-forward again, to June 23, 2006. Emboldened Saudi insurgents attack foreign oil workers, killing hundreds. A mass evacuation follows from the world's pivotal oil producer, the one country that could be counted on to boost production during shortages in global supplies.

A take-charge guy with a Texas accent who led the CIA from 1991 to 1993, Gates calls yet another war-room meeting. Global recession looms. The world economy turns on cheap oil. Without foreign oil workers, how will Saudi Arabia meet its production targets and quench the oil thirst of America, China and India?

Oil prices have reached an unthinkable $150 a barrel. In Philadelphia, Miami and Kansas City, Mo., gas prices reach $5.74 a gallon. Now it takes $121 to fill that midsized SUV.

You get the picture. The scenario is intended to show how vulnerable the U.S. and world economies are because of dependence on oil from places where political instability threatens orderly production and distribution.

This year the world is consuming about 84 million barrels of oil a day. America alone guzzles about 20.8 million barrels a day. Experts think oil-producing nations have only 1.5 million barrels a day or less of unused production capacity right now. A disruption anywhere could cause market panic and spiking prices. That's largely why oil and gasoline prices are so high right now.

Saudi Arabia and other countries are trying to increase production, but that won't help much before next year at the earliest. Meanwhile, any hiccup in production, delivery or refining could cause disaster.

"A million or a million and a half barrels of oil a day off the market is a very realistic kind of scenario. You can think of a dozen different countries around the world ... where you can see that happening. Or even a natural disaster could do that," Gates said in an interview.

Former CIA chief Woolsey described as "relatively mild" the scenarios that the National Commission on Energy Policy and the advocacy group Securing America's Future Energy simulated. Both groups are pushing for reduced dependence on conventional oil.

"It was striking that by taking such small amounts off the market, you could have such dramatic impact" on world oil prices, said Robbie Diamond, the president of Securing America's Future Energy.

Richard Haass was a top adviser to former Secretary of State Colin Powell until 2003. The simulation taught him how little influence policy-makers would have in reversing an oil shock wave.

"I think where most of the work has to happen now, both intellectually and politically, is on demand" reduction, Haass said.

[Cody Dawg]

Incidentally, I am convinced that if the United States jumped on this and started measures to convert to alternative energy sources we would trump the world and save our economy.

Here's an interesting article from today's Los Angeles Times:

Plugged-In Hybrid Tantalizes Car Buffs

A Southland company comes up with a system that lets Toyota's Prius burn even less gasoline by connecting it to a regular electrical socket.

By John O'Dell, Times Staff Writer

Toyota Motor Corp. boasts that its hot-selling Prius gasoline-electric hybrid doesn't have to be plugged in.

But a growing number of hybrid buffs interested in further boosting the car's fuel economy are asking, "Why not?"

By replacing the Prius' batteries with a more powerful array and recharging it using a standard electric outlet at home, engineers have enabled the hybrid to get more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

"We want to get people thinking of [plug-ins] as a real alternative" in the country's long-term energy plan, said Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars.org, an advocacy group in Palo Alto.

The idea of plug-in hybrids is generating a lot of buzz in energy circles because of the work of a start-up Monrovia firm, Energy Control Systems Engineering. The firm bought a Prius and converted it with its own system.

Co-owner Greg Hanssen now tools around Southern California in the bright blue plug-in Prius prototype. The car can deliver 150 to 180 mpg for up to 35 miles of low-speed, around-town driving and can average 70 to 100 mpg on longer trips at higher speeds.

The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently gave the company $130,000 to convert four Priuses to plug-ins that will be tested in several car fleets.

In a standard Prius, a battery pack is charged by the vehicle's own gasoline engine and with electricity produced by the brakes. The car's all-electric mode is fairly limited because the Prius uses its gas engine except at very low speeds. Most owners get 45 to 55 mpg.

However, Energy Control Systems' design tricks the Prius' computer into thinking its batteries are always fully charged, so it uses the electric motor to try to drain them before switching on the gas engine.

Hanssen can drive his Prius in an all-electric mode for 35 miles at up to 35 mph. And when the gas engine does kick in, it burns far less fuel than a standard Prius because the system, with its extra batteries, has more electric power to draw on.

By babying the accelerator, Hanssen said, he can often run in electric mode on the freeway at 55 mph.

The new batteries in the prototype add 180 pounds to the vehicle's weight, and they use up most of the storage space under the rear cargo area — so there is no room for a spare tire.

Next year Energy Control Systems and its marketing partner, Clean-Tech of Los Angeles, hope to begin converting customers' stock Prius hybrids to plug-ins. The initial cost will be about $12,000, Hanssen said.

There are plenty of problems to overcome, though, before plug-in hybrids show up at dealerships. Automakers worry about the extra battery weight and extra cost from the super-size batteries and express doubts that owners would bother to charge the vehicles every night.

Toyota, which expects to sell 110,000 Priuses in the United States this year, warned that an after-market conversion to a plug-in system would void its warranty. Still, Toyota spokeswoman Cindy Knight said, "We are watching [plug-in designs] with interest. It is probably within the range of solutions we would consider" eventually as an alternative power plant design.

The nascent plug-in hybrid movement is also gaining traction in Congress. This month several senators introduced the topic amid a national debate over foreign oil dependency and soaring gasoline prices. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said high-mileage plug-ins provided "extraordinary hope" to reduce the nation's insatiable appetite for oil.

DaimlerChrysler is also working with the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto to develop a prototype plug-in hybrid version of its Sprinter delivery van.

"We are all aiming for the same goal," Hanssen said. "We want to persuade regulators, and automakers, that plug-in hybrids will work."

Hanssen, 38, and his partner, Pete Nortman, 48, are electrical engineers who got their start in the electric vehicle movement. Their 4-year-old firm has six employees, and Hanssen says the company pays its bills by developing electrical high-voltage management systems for various clients, including a hybrid locomotive manufacturer.

But the plug-in Prius is the firm's principal claim to fame.

In May, Energy Control Systems entered its Prius in the Tour del Sol fuel economy rally in New York. The car won its class by averaging 102 mpg over the 150-mile course. Hanssen said it cost $1 to charge the batteries the night before the race and about $4 for the gas it consumed.

If hybrid makers added plug-in, Hanssen said, mass production could get the extra cost down to about $3,000 over that of a regular hybrid model.

Just imagine how great it would be to gain autonomy and freedom from the rest of the world, especially from the Middle East.

[invisibleX]

Have you considered making a blog?

[The Godfather]

France has nuclear power plants. I want one here in Florida dammit!

[Cody Dawg]

My next car will be a hybrid SUV.

Hybrid linkage.

[budster101]

Cool. Pick-up truck hybrid... Tally ho, I'm in.

[JoshuaZ]

My next car will probably be a $60 bike (6,583 yen) bike I buy from a shop down the street. Oh, it it come with a basket on the front, and a little bell that goes 'ding' when I push it.

[Albert Pujols]

hydrogen is the future.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Incidentally, I am convinced that if the United States jumped on this and started measures to convert to alternative energy sources we would trump the world and save our economy.

Just imagine how great it would be to gain autonomy and freedom from the rest of the world, especially from the Middle East.

Yeah, and we can leave ANWR alone.

Plugging in your car doesn't help, unless we change this stat:

Electricity - production by source:
fossil fuel: 71.4%
hydro: 5.6%
nuclear: 20.7%
other: 2.3% (2001)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../print/us.html

[Cody Dawg]

AKCrab, that is like the best post. That statistic is very interesting. Thanks!

I say we should all ride around on motorcycles. We should have a motorcycle only lane on all freeways.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ

My next car will probably be a $60 bike (6,583 yen) bike I buy from a shop down the street. Oh, it it come with a basket on the front, and a little bell that goes 'ding' when I push it.

So, it will appropriate as there will be a ding-a-ling driving it. Will you ride your new "car" on the road or the sidewalk?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Have you considered making a blog?

Not Cody, but everyone else on MacNN

-t

[mitchell_pgh]

The US government is already starting to reconsider nuclear power. We haven't built new plants in years, but now that Oil seems to be such an issue, we very well may choose a nuclear option.

The French receives around 80% of their power from nuclear. I wouldn't mind also considering MAJOR wind farms.

[Cody Dawg]

How much power can a wind farm REALLY generate?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by The Godfather

France has nuclear power plants. I want one here in Florida dammit!

Can you find Port St. Lucie on a map? It's on the Treasure Coast. Look there.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

How much power can a wind farm REALLY generate?

Between a couple of MW and a gazillion MW, depending on how much land you have and how many towers you want to set up.

-t

[budster101]

Originally Posted by Albert Pujols

hydrogen is the future.

Did you mean Methane?

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah. Port St. Lucie is 30 minutes north of us. Big plant there.

[AKcrab]

Solar + wind + hydro = win
(I favor the new-fangled hydro plants that use wave action or tide action, not damming up rivers)

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.
PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

100 square miles in nevada can supply ALL of the U.S. That's only an area 10 x 10 miles.

I used the scale on the map (the much bigger original one) to make a 10 x 10 mile box. Doesn't look very big.

[Cody Dawg]

Supply all of the US with what?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Supply all of the US with what?

I even made bold the pertinent part. 800 gigawatts of power.

[Cody Dawg]

Ah! Sorry, I'm doing several things on the computer at the same time.

That's really amazing. The only reason I think the US isn't doing that is because they want to stay dependent on oil. We seem to be an oil-driven economy and they seem to want it to stay that way at the risk of all else.

[Albert Pujols]

Originally Posted by budster101

Did you mean Methane?

No, I meant hydrogen.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...drogen_pr.html

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

That's only an area 10 x 10 miles.

Keyword: ONLY.

I don't think the worlds manufacturing capacity right now would suffice to make this happen anytime soon. And at what price ? Those panels are darn expensive.

Checked some prices.

$ 181 for a 24" x 37" x .5" Electrical Output: 17v DC @ 2000mA, 30 Watts
http://www.siliconsolar.com/overcast...lar_panels.htm

So for 100 sq miles, you'd need 452,082,162, that's cost $ 81,826,871,351. $ 81 BILLION ! Just for the panels. Not included cables, converters, labor etc...

-t

[AKcrab]

Yeah, you're correct. Current manufacturing can't nearly meet the needs, and it would take $500-600 billion in investments to bring the plants up to speed. (I think all that info is in the link I gave earlier). But, look at how much we spend every day on oil, and oil refineries. (Not to mention what we spend defending/supporting our friendly oil partners.) Why NOT go ahead and fund the development of bigger, better plants, meaning more/cheaper panels.

Remember, too, that for the most part, the panels are passive. Once it gets set up, it would take nearly zero maintenance. (Except the guys going around cleaning bird poop off the cells )

Is it possible today? Not without major $$. Is there a good reason to not spend the $$? I don't think so. I would love to see my tax dollars go to some alternative energy options.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Checked some prices.
$ 181 for a 24" x 37" x .5" Electrical Output: 17v DC @ 2000mA, 30 Watts
http://www.siliconsolar.com/overcast...lar_panels.htm

So for 100 sq miles, you'd need 452,082,162, that's cost $ 81,826,871,351. $ 81 BILLION ! Just for the panels. Not included cables, converters, labor etc...

-t

20 million barrels of oil per day times $60 per barrel times 365 days = 438 billion which is also about twice the amount we have spent on the war with Iraq sam

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by budster101

So, it will appropriate as there will be a ding-a-ling driving it. Will you ride your new "car" on the road or the sidewalk?

I'll get some baseball cards and take them onto my bake so they sound like a car engine, and they i'll make gear shifting sounds. You know, because my bike will only be one gear.

I always wanted a bike with a bell on it....

Oh, and just to let you know, sidewalks and roads are often the same thing in japan.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Ah! Sorry, I'm doing several things on the computer at the same time.

That's really amazing. The only reason I think the US isn't doing that is because they want to stay dependent on oil. We seem to be an oil-driven economy and they seem to want it to stay that way at the risk of all else.

its all about the benjamins baby - **** everything else.

pretty sad if you ask me

[sek929]

The most interesting part about this scenario would be the newly revisited alternative fuels market which would be called upon in such a crisis. But of course the price of fuel (oil) would then make said technology much more expensive to develop (Read above power production stat). Which then brings the irony that said technology would have been easily attainable and cheap when oil prices were lucrative for our government. Like uhhhh, 5-10 years ago.

I'm on Nantucket right now and 87 Octane is 2.99 in the cheapest areas, any of you want to trade in your V-10s yet?

[Calimus]

While I don't believe everything on this site:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

It has a lot of interesting factual based information about our dependance on oil. Many people say we can switch to alternative sources of energy, but the problem really occurs when we don't make the switch in time. If there is a market crash due to rising oil prices the price could go up so quickly that there isn't time to switch all the existing infrastructure before the economy collapses. When I first begin reading about peak oil theory I thought it sounded kind of crazy, but there are a number of sites discussing it and a lot of reputable scholars and economists who back the theory.
Either way, we're going to have to consume less energy per person one way or another when fossile fuel becomes too expensive.

[Cody Dawg]

Not making the switch in time is what the article is about, actually.

[Lancer409]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Keyword: ONLY.

I don't think the worlds manufacturing capacity right now would suffice to make this happen anytime soon. And at what price ? Those panels are darn expensive.

Checked some prices.

$ 181 for a 24" x 37" x .5" Electrical Output: 17v DC @ 2000mA, 30 Watts
http://www.siliconsolar.com/overcast...lar_panels.htm

So for 100 sq miles, you'd need 452,082,162, that's cost $ 81,826,871,351. $ 81 BILLION ! Just for the panels. Not included cables, converters, labor etc...

-t

another problem being how the government would go about charging for something many consumers consider "free"


since sunlight costs the government nothing, one could argue for purely operational costs. ie. maintenance and wages. that wont happen ... lol


then again, i'm for nuclear power plants. ungodly ammounts of power, for a competitive (might i even say cheap) price tag. environmentally friendly (nothing into the air unlike gas/coal/oil) and with research, the waste (which is very small compared to the particulate waste from coal etc) can be disposed of in a safe way.

it's funny when people think plugging cars in is any better. during california's energy crisis, it would have cost more to plug a car in than to fill it with gas. also, that electricity is generated in powerplants that burn oil or coal or natural gas as it's fuel to convert into electricity. that process creates a LOT of pollution.

[Sijmen]

you should hear my mom talkin' about the dreaded doom scenario Moore described in one of his books(I think stupid white men). She's concerned about the money she has to pay for gas/water and electicity, which has risen more than 200 euro's in the last year. She slowly going insane.
In holland we now pay about 5,50 dollar per gallon, and that price is rapidly rising(which always does during summer). It'll probably level at 7,- at the end of the summer. At mid winter the price will be over 5,50 again until next summer when it will reach record prices we could never have imagined.
My mom is slowly adjusting to the 'new' world she is hopefully not going to live in, but just in case she is going to have solarpanels installed on the roof of the house.

Driving my bike(a beautiful black Honda CBR600F4) is already a pain in the ass, because I like to drive it alot(25.000 kilometers in the last 12 months(I only have it one year though )) and with the rising prices I guess driving will become less and less. I think the time has come to buy myself a bicycle

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Lancer409

another problem being how the government would go about charging for something many consumers consider "free"


since sunlight costs the government nothing, one could argue for purely operational costs. ie. maintenance and wages. that wont happen ... lol

I'm positive they would also say "Oh, and R&D for the future"

You could argue that oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is "free"... you just have to get it out of the ground. I think people would welcome "green" technologies. Some people are even willing to pay a bit more.

The REAL kicker is when hydrogen cars become popular... the idea of a "gas station" will become a thing of the past. Why would you need a "gas station" when you could get hydrogen from electricity at your house. The ONLY time you would need it is on long distance trips.

With fuel cell technologies, you could power your house/car off of hydrogen. No natural gas, no fossil fuels, no electricity... just hydrogen.

With a combination of solar cells, wind, hydro... we could live 100% green. Our exhaust... 100% fresh water.

The future is going to be VERY interesting.

[Cody Dawg]

Yeah, we need to make the change.

Someday our descendants are going to look back at this period of time and it will be referred to as the "Oil Age," just as there was the Ice Age, etc.

The future lies in the fuel that the sun and other stars are using.

[DBursey]

American dependence on cheap bituminous coal for power generation in the northeast / Ohio valley is adversely impacting the air quality and thus the respiratory health of central Canadians. Vast amounts of noxious discharge from these dirty, scarce-regulated plants blanket southern Ontario for days on end. Cross-border pollution has a huge impact on our environment.

To reiterate the point of an earlier poster, plugging in electric cars won't do much more than displace the emission point of pollutants if the electricity so used is sourced from dirty, antiquated fossil fuel generators.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Keyword: ONLY.
So for 100 sq miles, you'd need 452,082,162, that's cost $ 81,826,871,351. $ 81 BILLION ! Just for the panels. Not included cables, converters, labor etc...

-t

Turtle, good point, but I hardly need to point out that $82 billion is exactly the sum we spend in one year in Iraq (according to last year's additional request for defense spending.) Arguably, we'd have done a lot more to alleviate our problems in the Middle East by chucking foreign oil than we have playing Shooting Gallery in Fallujah, particularly since it is now widely recognized that the only reason we are in Iraq is to prompt democratization of that strategically important region. To put it bluntly, we wouldn't need to care as much about the Middle East if they didn't have something we desperately needed.

[Calimus]

I think the things that are often forgotten in this scenario are thing like plastics and fertilizer. Most of the food we eat is fertilized with by-products of oil. If fertiziler becomes too expensive, then we need to double or triple the amount of land to grow enough food for everyone.
There are so many things that rely on plastic today. Think of all the food packaging, product packaging, and most important, the medical applications, cheap hypodermic needles, breathing tube, bandaging, etc. All those products become a lot more expensive without cheap oil to make plastics.

[Cody Dawg]

It probably also causes multiple sclerosis (oil and coal heating.)

When I first went to see my neurologist many years ago about the symptoms I was having (which are/were consistent with MS) one of the first things he asked me was, "Did you grow up in the Northeast or Midwest?" Answer: Yes. "Do you remember if your home had oil or coal heating?" Answer: Yes. Apparently the highest incidences of MS occur in geographical areas where oil and/or coal heating is used! There are virtually NO cases of MS in the deep south or in areas where oil or coal heating are rarely used. None.

Yes, I think it poisons us - professionals think that many types of brain diseases begin with surreptitious low levels of accumulated carbon monoxide emittants that we are exposed to over many years.

Look at Michael J. Fox. He believes the same. Not only did he develop rare early-onset Parkinson's, but he is part of a cluster of four people - all young - who developed Parkinsons. Coincidence? No one thinks so.

[analogika]

Generating hydrogen requires electricity, folks.

And the problem with wind and solar energy is that there is no effective way to *store* electricity in copious amounts. Solar energy generates no wattage at night. Wind energy generates no wattage when it's still. You still need a steady, reliable source to supply the base electricity required 24 hours, plus X-reserve.

Water and geothermal energy are currently the only renewable sources that can fulfil that need, but these are limited to very specific regions and can't cover all energy needs.

What to do?

I don't know. Lots of good arguments against nuclear power, but at present, it and fossil fuels are the only sources that can guarantee adequate supply.

[DBursey]

I think the things that are often forgotten in this scenario are thing like plastics and fertilizer ...
There are so many things that rely on plastic today. Think of all the food packaging, product packaging, and most important, the medical applications, cheap hypodermic needles, breathing tube, bandaging, etc. All those products become a lot more expensive without cheap oil to make plastics.

Absolutely! A good illustration of why ours is correctly described as a petroleum-based economy. Many (perhaps most) industries are broadly based on processes supported directly or indirectly on the consumption of petroleum and its by-products.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by SVass

20 million barrels of oil per day times $60 per barrel times 365 days = 438 billion which is also about twice the amount we have spent on the war with Iraq sam

That makes it sound pretty cheap, doesn't it? I'd rather blow our tax dollars on a future-proof, renewable, clean, domestic energy source than killing a bunch of 18-year olds.

[analogika]

well, yeah - of course!

[The Godfather]

Hydrogen is just the best way to STORE energy in the future. Hydrogen cannot be counted as an energy source.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by turtle777

Keyword: ONLY.

I don't think the worlds manufacturing capacity right now would suffice to make this happen anytime soon. And at what price ? Those panels are darn expensive.

Checked some prices.

$ 181 for a 24" x 37" x .5" Electrical Output: 17v DC @ 2000mA, 30 Watts
http://www.siliconsolar.com/overcast...lar_panels.htm

So for 100 sq miles, you'd need 452,082,162, that's cost $ 81,826,871,351. $ 81 BILLION ! Just for the panels. Not included cables, converters, labor etc...

-t

I believe that mass production on a massive scale would bring the cost of solar panels down by several orders of magnitude. That's not to say that they would be cheap, but the would certainly NOT cost tens fo billions of dollars for several square miles of panels. Further, what's wrong with panels that cover the southern face of the roof of your house? In some cases that would be a fairly large area, and thus an attractive source of "free" energy.

I do not believe that "home hydrogen production" will be a reality for a LONG time. Not that it's difficult to hydrolize water and catch both the hydrogen and oxygen, but once you have the hydrogen, how do you pressurize it and keep the pressurized gas safe? Hydrogen migrates through just about ANY material, so not only would you have to keep it under pressure, you'd have to keep it COLD to minimize that migration. Not simple!

You can use an inexpensive solar panel-the kind of panel used for all sorts of uses today-to split water very easily. The hardware to separate hydrogen and oxygen is not that complex, either. But as I said, AFTER THAT it's fiendishly complex.

[meelk]

I think people who are always talking about "alternative energy" don't understand the logistics involved. Do you know that ~50 barrels of oil go into producing 1 car, between transportation of parts, production, etc etc. and there are roughly 800+million cars on the road in the world? The world economy is going to collapse over oil, the best thing you can do for yourself is be ready.

[ghporter]

Meelk, your numbers are a little misleading. It takes far less than a single barrel to produce all the transportation fuels needed for production of a single car. It's about one barrel worth of crude in the plastics in a single car, and the energy used to actually create the car from raw materials is less than 10 barrels. The 50 barrels number comes from including "batch costs" in the number-though it ignores the "batch production" of cars-the number of cars the parts from those batches would produce. Further, nobody is producing 800+million cars; they're producing a very small number in comparison, so using that number is also misleading. According to this Auto Channel article Wards reports that annual North American production is running at an annualized rate of 7,885,732, down by 1.5% from a like-2004 rate.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a crisis coming. But if people get paniced about an upcoming crisis when it is neither impending nor as dire in the mid-term (20-50 years) as is presented, they stop listening to the little boy and the wolf gets him.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Meelk, your numbers are a little misleading. It takes far less than a single barrel to produce all the transportation fuels needed for production of a single car. It's about one barrel worth of crude in the plastics in a single car, and the energy used to actually create the car from raw materials is less than 10 barrels. The 50 barrels number comes from including "batch costs" in the number-though it ignores the "batch production" of cars-the number of cars the parts from those batches would produce. Further, nobody is producing 800+million cars; they're producing a very small number in comparison, so using that number is also misleading. According to this Auto Channel article Wards reports that annual North American production is running at an annualized rate of 7,885,732, down by 1.5% from a like-2004 rate.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a crisis coming. But if people get paniced about an upcoming crisis when it is neither impending nor as dire in the mid-term (20-50 years) as is presented, they stop listening to the little boy and the wolf gets him.

If you plan on producing cars to fill the void and restructure the entire world economy on something other than oil, youll need to replace those 800 million cars. Your numbers regarding transportation and production are easily far less that I have ever seen anywhere else, btw. EVEN WITH your numbers you are still talking at least 11 or 12 barrels. I dont see it as a winning production issue given increased cost of each barrel in an oil collapse world.

[ghporter]

I do not think there is any chance in the world to recall EVERY CAR IN THE WORLD and replace it with an energy-intelligent unit. I don't think its necessary, either. Instead, the more effective strategy is to go with "multi-fuel conversions." With very little tinkering, a non-computerized car engine can be converted to burn a number of fuels. Various plastic parts may need replacement, depending on what fuels you're interested, though ethanol isn't a problem.

Make alternative fuels and conversion kits available and you'll see some interesting market dynamics; as gas prices go up so do sales of conversion kits, and shortly after that alternative fuel consumption goes up and gas consumption goes down.

After that gets started, companies that make petrochemical products will have some interesting product choices to make. Considering that the tipping point is when gasoline prices exceed alternative fuel prices, those decisions would be staggered and at different times in different regions, which would of course drive the decisions in potentially different directions. With a big enough surge against gasoline, the refiners could start looking at different uses for the crude they buy in just a few weeks.

It's been said elsewhere, but it bears repeating: Think globally, act locally. The first step is adjusting what YOU drive...

[Drakino]

The biggest misconception that people have is that the ones promoting solar/wind/water whatever are stating it must happen now and 100%. Well, some probably are, but a more rational line would be that we need to start ramping up our non oil using energy prduction now. Sure, solar is near worthless at night (near worthless, since solar in space would work great with the now in development microwave/laser power transmission for returning the power to earth), but build a few nuclear plants near the solar areas to run only when needed. Or during such a transition, start shutting down a few coal plants for parts of the day if feasible, or at least lower output during the day.

Oh, that brings up another good point. The extreme solar people need to grow up and realise that solar does have some benefits, but it also has downsides. It's not the end all be all solution, and other sources like nuclear are a damn bit better then the coal solutions. Sure, the thing could melt down. But with the technology developed in the past 30 years, it's going to melt down in a controlled fashion and not kill millions/create godzilla.

If we reduce our oil usage now, but the output from the countries we buy from continues at the same levels, it means we build up our reserves even higher. In doing so, that allows us to then keep an oil supply on hand to deal with other uses such as plastics.

Regarding those hybrid trucks, none really impress me all that much. Their MPG numbers by that page are only 5-13% better. There really needs to be some better consumer education on if they really need such a vehicle. I can enjoy vanity as much as the next person, but I think in cases of a gas hog vehicle, consumers should be presented with a paper very sililar to the situation shown by the first post in this thread. It might not hit people till they see it could easially cost them $75 to fill up, and based on their average commute, having to do that weekly. Until you show most people a $ amount, they don't just quite get it.

Thankfully my vanity vehicle is a motorcycle. My last fillup was around 50 mpg, and cost me $7. All for many hours of fun on very twisty winding mountain roads.

True, people have true uses for such trucks, and I very much saw this myself growing up and camping a lot, and also during the construction of a family cabin. I think a better idea though is instead of every family buying a truck, having some sort of communal vehicle system. I was reading where such a system was tried in CA I think. Basicially in a traditional suburban area, a small parking lot was filled with a few various vehicles. To use them, people paid a small monthly fee, and would reserve when they needed a certain vehicle. A local company took care of maintaining the cars, and it seemed to work out well. Bob Smith could drive a fuel efficient vehicle to work every day in traffic, and still borrow a truck to tow the boat to the lake for the weekend, all without $700-$1000 a month in new vehicle payments for a car and truck.