Creative Thread Time! Today's challenge: Oil Storm

[Rightwinger]

I posted this in OT with no response, maybe here it will fly....

After watching Oil Storm on FX, I had a few ideas.

Basically the movie based itself on a cascade effect.

A: Hurricane Disrupts Supply (Initial), international chaos to follow.
B: Port of Houston Shutdown - Supply Disruption Continues/Refining Capacity lost.
C: Civil rioting, national speed limit, chaos to follow.
D: Teamster strike, farmer strike, more civil rioting.
E: More Oil Imports
F: More Oil Terrorism - Supply Disruption/Refining Capacity loss
G: More Oil Imports
H: Oil goes to China (Who is on track to supercede US consumption by the way)
I: Oil comes back to US

In the end, all becomes well because refining capacity is restored and supply comes back because the US makes a deal with Russia.

Now, the chances of all those events happening specifically are not very high, but a few things are true.

Refining capacity IS at 100%. There is no refining capacity left. The last new refinery was built 30 years ago and increasing capacity is not something that happens overnight. You cant flip a switch and make things happen.

If the US has a loss of one refinery due to fire/whatever, there can be a loss of 1-3% of the entire national production.

The entire US economy is based on the concept of relatively inexpensive energy costs. If gas were to hit $5 a gallon, many industries would bankrupt themselves.

The SPR does have a capacity of over 700 million barrels. That can sustain the US for two months. HOWEVER - that is a calculation based on consumption of fuels, not the time it takes to initiate the drawdown, bidding, physical transportation of product and then refining.

if all hell broke loose and they needed to drain the SPR as fast as possible to ship crude to the refiners - and meet the "59 day import protection" status they would have to draw over 11 million barrels a day. I think that is physically IMPOSSIBLE to draw that kind of volume in 24 hours.

When Clinton released 30 million barrels from the SPR, that is based on 1 million barrels being released daily and then sold to the highest bidder.

Some things to think about...

How would you reduce US dependency on imported fuels?

I would explore three major options that are HIGHLY controversial.

In 2004, the US exported 2.3 billion worth of agricultural products to China. Soybeans to be specific. The US exported a total value of 6.6 billion in soybeans to the world in 2004. That's a lot of soybeans. I'm thinking that if we increase biodiesel research we can make Americas Breadbasket a tad more profitable.

Intitative 1: Increase biodiesel research as well as other renewable fuels.

1 bushel of soybeans yields 1.5 gallons of biodiesel. At a yield if nearly 35 bushels/acre that means that we can theoretically produce over 50 gallons of biodiesel per acre planted. The US has over 70 million acres of soybean crops, meaning that if we only utilize 10% of our current soybean crop as a renewable fuel source it will yield 350 million gallons or 10 million barrels of diesel fuel! It dosen't seem like much, but at this point it's a start. A utlilzation of 50% of current crops would be equivalent to nearly three day's total fossil fuel consumption.

Initiative 2: While researching alternative fuels, exploit current fuel sources like mad.

The US has an abundance of coal. Major electricity centers are powered by coal fired power plants, as it is a cheap and abundant source of fuel. Another major fuel is heavy fuel oil. A reduction in the use of oil fired plants would alleviate the burden on imports. My thinking is that we need to develop more coal fired power plants for the purposes of expanding our base load infrastructure.

Initiative 3: Demand is continually growing, supply is not. Curb demand by a price spike.

Refining capacity is at a maximum. There is no capacity left in the system. One of two things is going to give. 1: Expansion of current refiniers to meet demand. 2: Importation of refined product. As #2 is less economical, #1 is going to have to happen. Some hippies are going to complain, but something has to be done to provide for the future. To curb demand, increase the exise tax for all on road fuels. Use proceeds to fund Initiative 1.

That is all for now, discuss!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Rightwinger
Intitative 1: Increase biodiesel research as well as other renewable fuels.

1 bushel of soybeans yields 1.5 gallons of biodiesel. At a yield if nearly 35 bushels/acre that means that we can theoretically produce over 50 gallons of biodiesel per acre planted. The US has over 70 million acres of soybean crops, meaning that if we only utilize 10% of our current soybean crop as a renewable fuel source it will yield 350 million gallons or 10 million barrels of diesel fuel! It dosen't seem like much, but at this point it's a start. A utlilzation of 50% of current crops would be equivalent to nearly three day's total fossil fuel consumption.

I'd like to see an in-depth analysis of the energy cost of producing biodiesel before signing on to this plan. After all, we use petroleum products to produce artificial fertilizers to grow the soybeans, and there are energy costs to irrigation, processing the soybeans, and so forth. I'm not sure if this is an efficient means of producing energy compared to alternatives or an inefficient idea from the already over-subsidized agricultural industry.

Initiative 2: While researching alternative fuels, exploit current fuel sources like mad.

The US has an abundance of coal. Major electricity centers are powered by coal fired power plants, as it is a cheap and abundant source of fuel. Another major fuel is heavy fuel oil. A reduction in the use of oil fired plants would alleviate the burden on imports. My thinking is that we need to develop more coal fired power plants for the purposes of expanding our base load infrastructure.

As long as they're zero-emission coal plants, this makes sense. However, we really don't want to go back to the old days of coal when you couldn't see across the rivers in Pittsburgh at noon due to the pollution.

However, there's another current fuel you ignored--nuclear. It's cleaner than coal or oil (and even puts less radioactivity into the environment than coal.) We need to build modern nuclear power plants to replace both old, dangerous nuclear plants and our dependency on imported oil.

Initiative 3: Demand is continually growing, supply is not. Curb demand by a price spike.

Agreed. Higher prices are good if the increase is gradual as they will help reduce demand for oil, while offering incentives for more efficient machinery and alternative energy sources.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Since there are other products that come from Petroleum - besides fuels, wouldn't it be wise to invest in ways to extract organic chemical compounds from the Shale Oil deposits and the Coal Deposits - other than using [I[them[/i] as a fuel.

Simular in composition, the hydrocarbons could still be polermerized to make all those wonderful things that we have come to know and love: carpeting, plastics, Big Macs, most of the Polititians in either party . . .

Solar emergy and energy storage (battery/UPS - house style) could reduce fuel dependance to a degree right now.
Bio-diesel is do-able, as is conversion to alcohol for automobiles.

They're just putting it off - stalling for profit.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

They're just putting it off - stalling for profit.

That sums it up. Only reason we are not pumping hydrogen instead of gasoline.

I would do everything I possibly could to do a 100% switchover from gasoline to hydrogen.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

They're just putting it off - stalling for profit.

That sums it up. Only reason we are not pumping hydrogen instead of gasoline.

I would do everything I possibly could to do a 100% switchover from gasoline to hydrogen.

How are we going to replace plastics once the oil wells dry up?

 

[Steeplerot]

Hemp biodiesel

Hemp has 60% more cellulouse then soybean (hemp oil in the seeds have more easily human digested proteins also.) even more then corn too, requires no pestisides and minimal fertilizer, grows well in the desert even with some water. 10 months and your ready for another crop. Hemp can be refined to replace plastics, ropes, clothing, paper, with 1/4 the chemicals needed to make wood pulp!

This is why you do not see it leagalized.

The bad news for stoners? The female plant is the smokable one...The male hemp plants provides the superior fibers and cellulose. In other words your not going to have potheads going through your fields...Ask anyone that has grown pot before and they will tell you sativa is easily sexed about 2-3 weeks after germination.



linkageHemp is among the oldest industries on the planet, going back more than 10,000 years to the beginnings of pottery. Some believe that the oldest relic of human industry is a bit of hemp fabric dating back to approximately 8,000 BC.

Presidents Washington and Jefferson both grew hemp, as a matter of fact Americans were legally bound to grow hemp during the Colonial Era and Early Republic. The first drafts of the Declaration of Independence were written on hemp paper. The federal government subsidized hemp during the Second World War and US farmers grew about a million acres of hemp as part of that program.

Hemp grows well without herbicides, fungicides, or pesticides. Almost half of the agricultural chemicals used on US crops are applied to cotton. Hemp produces more pulp per acre than timber on a sustainable basis, and can be used for every quality of paper. Hemp paper manufacturing can reduce wastewater contamination. Hemp?s low lignin content reduces the need for acids used in pulping, and it?s creamy color lends itself to environmentally friendly bleaching instead of harsh chlorine compounds. Less bleaching results in less dioxin and fewer chemical byproducts.




A very cool spoken word from one of my big influences Jello Biafra, canidate for the green party's vice president of america 2000, (Him and Nader won 3% of the vote!) spoken word artist, and political punk rock singer legend from the Dead Kennedys speak about hemp and what happened in america...

I now provide you with Jello Biafra's Grow More Pot! in full mp3 mono sound!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Tighten up tax deductions for 'business' trucks and SUVs, so that only busineses that need them can take advantage of the tax writedown.

Offer incentives to purchase the most fuel efficient vehicle in every class (free licensing? something like that) and deeper incentives for hybrid vehicles. Offer manufacteres incentives to pursue highly efficient designs and alternative fuels. Not handouts for research - bonus incentives for bringing products to market. There's plenty of tax room to do this - eliminate the air conditioning tax for vehicles that meet efficiency targets, and use a sliding scale (say 40mpg combined now, but 50mpg five years from now).

Never talk about 'usage taxes' replavcing fuel taxes, ever again.

More nuclear power plants, large incentives to improve insulation in homes (actually, incentives to use highly insulating windows work better, because people actually replace windows, and improving insulation is very expensive and difficult). Public education campaigns for the really simple ways to use less power heating and cooling your house (window coverings, minimizing air exchange with the outside, etc. People already know about this stuff, but many are unaware of just how much difference it makes).

Tax breaks for small (maybe 15 - 27") LCD and plasma televisions/monitors, to encourage replacement of CRT models. Similarly more appliances (like computers, etc) should have those stickers on tehm that estimate cost of use per year (like fridges and freezers have now).

Legislation, if necessary, to stop office buildings from air conditioning so severely that half the staff wear sweaters in July (I've never worked in an office building that wasn't freezing cold all summer).

Incentives to install partial or full solar-power/battery systems in residences and businesses. Even 100-200 watts of production per house (more than this is quite possible) would take a massive load of the public grid.

 

[Stunt]

Nuclear, lots and lots of nuclear. Once we have large amounts of electricity output, that's when we can start getting creative. With huge electricity capacity we can: Heat and A/C our homes, power all our creature comforts, start innovating transportation (hydrogen buses), electric cars, fuel cell 18 wheelers and the like. [hydrogen requires electricity to produce - can be produced in off peak hours]

This would be a huge undertaking and is the only real solution at the moment to significantly reduce dependence on oil.

 

[Steeplerot]

They can't even keep the potholes out of the road, much less protect our current plants from terrorist attacks in this country... nuclear is a suicidal idea.
no thanks
I could care less how much people (the corporations that want to build them no less) tell me it's safe etc etc. we have had quuite a few "accidents" happen since the 50's.

When in the rare occasion it does happen the concept of losing a american city for 500 or so years becasue we were too lazy to find a safer alternative is not acceptable.

Cover the roofs of urban bulding with solar, slap up lots of wind turbines on hills, drop some tidal harnesses. But nuclear is far too dangerous until we get cold fusion.

Then go hog wild if we still need power.

A big challenge for nasa: Sounds far fetched but slap some solar panels on the oppisite side of mercury facing the sun...volia! cheap almost infinite energy and your not even impeding the rays of the sun hitting our planet naturally.

The resources used for a ICBM could very well have made great cargo transports to mercury...or with a little more know-how to the mineral rich asteroid belts right outsife of mars...

Shame we built 14,000+ of those calibur of rockets and they sit and mildew..

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
They can't even keep the potholes out of the road, much less protect our current plants from terrorist attacks in this country... nuclear is a suicidal idea.
no thanks
I could care less how much people (the corporations that want to build them no less) tell me it's safe etc etc. we have had quuite a few "accidents" happen since the 50's.

When in the rare occasion it does happen the concept of losing a american city for 500 or so years becasue we were too lazy to find a safer alternative is not acceptable.

Cover the roofs of urban bulding with solar, slap up lots of wind turbines on hills, drop some tidal harnesses. But nuclear is far too dangerous until we get cold fusion.

Then go hog wild if we still need power.

A Chernobyl type accident can?t happen here.

There has not been a major release from any commercial US plant in the history of the industry. TMI should actually be an example showing how safe out plants really are and not used in your type of people's fearmongering to the public.

Cold fusion is a pipe dream. Normal fusion will likely be at commercial scale within the next 100 years.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
They can't even keep the potholes out of the road, much less protect our current plants from terrorist attacks in this country... nuclear is a suicidal idea.
no thanks
I could care less how much people (the corporations that want to build them no less) tell me it's safe etc etc. we have had quuite a few "accidents" happen since the 50's.

When in the rare occasion it does happen the concept of losing a american city for 500 or so years becasue we were too lazy to find a safer alternative is not acceptable.

Cover the roofs of urban bulding with solar, slap up lots of wind turbines on hills, drop some tidal harnesses. But nuclear is far too dangerous until we get cold fusion.

Then go hog wild if we still need power.

A Chernobyl type accident can?t happen here.

We have heard that one before....And the soviet government told their people the same line too.

Human factor is always a risk..and humans build and maintain these places..

We had 3 mile island just a few decades ago and our plants aren't exactly in pristine condition already.

And don't tell me with new tech it is impossible, cars still crash, power plants still die off..stuff falls down..it's life.

Of course they tell you it's 100% safe..you as well as I know nothing is 100% safe unless you just don't take that risk.

Try listening to someone besides the very people trying to get these things built regardless of the safety of americans.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

They're just putting it off - stalling for profit.

That sums it up. Only reason we are not pumping hydrogen instead of gasoline.

I would do everything I possibly could to do a 100% switchover from gasoline to hydrogen.

How are we going to replace plastics once the oil wells dry up?

Did you know plastic was first made from milk?

Sour milk specifically, makes a by-product called cassein. It was the original Helicopter glass for example way back in the late 1960's.

how to makeplastic from milk

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
They can't even keep the potholes out of the road, much less protect our current plants from terrorist attacks in this country... nuclear is a suicidal idea.
no thanks
I could care less how much people (the corporations that want to build them no less) tell me it's safe etc etc. we have had quuite a few "accidents" happen since the 50's.

When in the rare occasion it does happen the concept of losing a american city for 500 or so years becasue we were too lazy to find a safer alternative is not acceptable.

Cover the roofs of urban bulding with solar, slap up lots of wind turbines on hills, drop some tidal harnesses. But nuclear is far too dangerous until we get cold fusion.

Then go hog wild if we still need power.

A Chernobyl type accident can?t happen here.

We have heard that one before....And the soviet government told their people the same line too.

Human factor is always a risk..and humans build and maintain these places..

We had 3 mile island just a few decades ago and our plants aren't exactly in pristine condition already.

And don't tell me with new tech it is impossible, cars still crash, power plants still die off..stuff falls down..it's life.

That is why safeties are built in to our plants, things like containment structures.

That would have prevented Chernobyl from spewing its core into the Russian night sky even if the operators were incompetent.

Our older plants should be replaced with the newer, safer, less complex G3 plants that are already available from GE and Westinghouse.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Whiney leftist uninformed nuclear fearmongering bullsh!t

I assume you are against greenhouse gas production as well...
Does that mean you are anti-(nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas) ?!?!

I hope you don't consume electricity, because to get it, you NEED at least one of the above.

 

[Steeplerot]

I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years.

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

They're just putting it off - stalling for profit.

That sums it up. Only reason we are not pumping hydrogen instead of gasoline.

I would do everything I possibly could to do a 100% switchover from gasoline to hydrogen.

How are we going to replace plastics once the oil wells dry up?

Did you know plastic was first made from milk?

Sour milk specifically, makes a by-product called cassein. It was the original Helicopter glass for example way back in the late 1960's.

how to makeplastic from milk

There was an article a while about plastic being made from orange peels.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years.

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

I guess that is why GE is currently marketing both clean coal,nuke plants and wind power.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years even if the risk is small

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

Wind turbines cannot generate anything near to the output of several nuclear plants even if we covered the US with them. Also, what if there is no wind on a given day?

Our energy demmands outstrip the limits of renewable enerygy currently at our disposal for reasonable costs, it will likely remain that way for quite some time.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison
I guess that is why GE is currently marketing both clean coal,nuke plants and wind power.

GE is a leader in wind turbines...an easy adaptation with their long history of jet turbine engine technology.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison
I guess that is why GE is currently marketing both clean coal,nuke plants and wind power.

GE is a leader in wind turbines...an easy adaptation with their long history of jet turbine engine technology.

more on what GE has to offer

Ge is activily marketing the clean technologies list here. Of course folks like steeplerot will claim there are all dirty technologies, but they are all much cleaner that currently deployed techology.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years even if the risk is small

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

Wind turbines cannot generate anything near to the output of several nuclear plants even if we covered the US with them. Also, what if there is no wind on a given day?

Our energy demmands outstrip the limits of renewable enerygy currently at our disposal for reasonable costs, it will likely remain that way for quite some time.

Wind power can and does produce lots of electricity, this is why I said valleys, almost always wind in mountain valleys.

http://www.local.org/localpow.html

If you didn't know The city of San Francisco already uses nuclear free wind and hydro power, if the plans go through that mayor amiano is working on with wind farms and rooftop solar will produce 6X the amount needed for the city.

That means clean local power to sell to other power-hungry cities in california.

they already have 14,000 turbines, enough to power SF.

And the turbines installed are getting old now and not maintained...(guess who bought the turbines a few years ago after the enron energy "crisis"...haliburton!)

New tech and turbine power can provide for california, just too bad lobbyists for nuke power and oil are running the show misinforming the public and putting our lives and the very soil of america at risk for their profit.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years even if the risk is small

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

Wind turbines cannot generate anything near to the output of several nuclear plants even if we covered the US with them. Also, what if there is no wind on a given day?

Our energy demmands outstrip the limits of renewable enerygy currently at our disposal for reasonable costs, it will likely remain that way for quite some time.

Wind power can and does produce lots of electricity, this is why I said valleys, almost always wind in mountain valleys.

http://www.local.org/localpow.html

If you didn't know The city of San Francisco already uses nuclear free wind and hydro power, if the plans go through that mayor amiano is working on with wind farms and rooftop solar will produce 6X the amount needed for the city.

That means clean local power to sell to other power-hungry cities in california.

they already have 14,000 turbines, enough to power SF.

And the turbines installed are getting old now and not maintained...(guess who bought the turbines a few years ago after the enron energy "crisis"...haliburton!)

New tech and turbine power can provide for california, just too bad lobbyists for nuke power and oil are running the show misinforming the public and putting our lives and the very soil of america at risk for their profit.

It appears GE would be happy sell any of solutions you seek, are they in that lobby?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I agree new saftey standards shold be placed in all of our plants, but we have better ways that are 100% safer.

westinghouse and GE are just trolling for more multi billion contracts and pumping smoke up americas ass...

How about 1 good reason why we should take that risk of possibly making an area uninhabitable for 100's of years even if the risk is small

when you can just put up harmless wind turbines in a few mountain valleys?

Oh yeah, because ge and westinghouse want more $$$.

Wind turbines cannot generate anything near to the output of several nuclear plants even if we covered the US with them. Also, what if there is no wind on a given day?

Our energy demmands outstrip the limits of renewable enerygy currently at our disposal for reasonable costs, it will likely remain that way for quite some time.

Wind power can and does produce lots of electricity, this is why I said valleys, almost always wind in mountain valleys.

http://www.local.org/localpow.html

If you didn't know The city of San Francisco already uses nuclear free wind and hydro power, if the plans go through that mayor amiano is working on with wind farms and rooftop solar will produce 6X the amount needed for the city.

That means clean local power to sell to other power-hungry cities in california.

they already have 14,000 turbines, enough to power SF.

And the turbines installed are getting old now and not maintained...(guess who bought the turbines a few years ago after the enron energy "crisis"...haliburton!)

New tech and turbine power can provide for california, just too bad lobbyists for nuke power and oil are running the show misinforming the public and putting our lives and the very soil of america at risk for their profit.

The fact remains that there is no way to store the power from windy days to use on non windy days.

A stable, non weather dependant, power source will always be a requirement.

 

[Steeplerot]

There is never a day when it is not sunny or windy somewhere....weather is a localized thing.

Also electricity can be stored for those days also. On nice windy hot days there will be a surplus just as some days it may be calm.

Put tidal harnesses into the picture and we are set. The tides are very regular regardless of what weather is like on the surface.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
There is never a day when it is not sunny or windy somewhere....weather is a localized thing.

Also electricity can be stored for those days also. On nice windy hot days there will be a surplus just as some days it may be calm.

IF you were to completely rely on solar and wind, you have to build a huge overcapicity to maintain reasonable power output. Even with that overcapicity you will still need something that generate a guaranteed level of power.