Oil thread 9-7-06:Former BP head of Pipeline invokes 5th

[dmcowen674]

$57 Barrel not price Oil Minister was expecting after annoucing additional 500,000 Barrel output:

3-17-2005OPEC May Consider Another Production Hike

KUWAIT CITY - OPEC will consider another production hike of 500,000 barrels a day if oil prices don't fall in the next 10 days, the group's president said Thursday.

"As OPEC, we will continue to watch the market closely," said Sheik Ahmed Fahd Al Ahmed Al Sabah, who is also Kuwait's energy minister.

"We believe that if prices stay as they are in the next seven to 10 days, we will start contacting minister colleagues to discuss the other 500,000 (barrels a day) that the president has the authority (to decide on) after consultations."

OPEC's acting secretary general, Adnan Shihab-Eldin, said Wednesday's closing oil price was not the result the group expected. "Prices should have eased," he said.

Oil prices extended their rise to above $57 a barrel during Thursday's session.

 

[Rhin0]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-2-2005 Firewood Sales Up As Oil Prices Rise

Seasoned firewood is now selling for roughly $180 to $230 a cord compared to between $140 and $160 a year ago

Ray Colton of Pittsfield, Vt., said his company has sold more than 4,000 cords this season, about 1,000 more than last year: "We're selling as fast as we produce," he said.

A cord is a stack of firewood 4 feet wide, 8 feet long and 4 feet high.

Oil prices are hovering at close to $2 a gallon in Maine, up more than 30 percent from a year ago. At $2.18 a gallon, kerosene is 56 cents more than last year. And propane averages $2.06 a gallon, up 43 cents from a year ago.

Prices are also up out West, including in Colorado, where local hardwood begins at $180 per cord and imported oak costs $300.

"Firewood at $180 a cord is still a deal compared to what it costs to heat your home with oil," he said.

Wood does pollute a lot more!

How many people actually use oil to heat their homes?

I hope your joking, right? A ton of people use oil to heat their homes. My dad, 3 of my uncles, countless friends, all kinds of people I know use oil.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor

How many people actually use oil to heat their homes?

I hope your joking, right? A ton of people use oil to heat their homes. My dad, 3 of my uncles, countless friends, all kinds of people I know use oil.

Funny seeing the so called P&N experts in here trying to talk about something they obviously know nothing about.

They don't know the entire Northeast quadrant of the U.S. uses Heating Oil No. 2 with Oil Burners in their homes for heat. This Oil can best be described as a cross between Motor Oil and Kerosene.

The Oil Burner Fires a flame into a box that has a coil in it. The coil has water in it and the water circulates throughout the house with radiators. The water leaves the furnace at nearly boiling and comes back very cool.

 

[Rhin0]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor

How many people actually use oil to heat their homes?

I hope your joking, right? A ton of people use oil to heat their homes. My dad, 3 of my uncles, countless friends, all kinds of people I know use oil.

Funny seeing the so called P&N experts in here trying to talk about something they obviously know nothing about.

They don't know the entire Northeast quadrant of the U.S. uses Heating Oil No. 2 with Oil Burners in their homes for heat. This Oil can best be described as a cross between Motor Oil and Kerosene.

The Oil Burner Fires a flame into a box that has a coil in it. The coil has water in it and the water circulates throughout the house with radiators. The water leaves the furnace at nearly boiling and comes back very cool.

I mean this is the internet, home of the keyboard cowboy. I really don't expect much less. If I don't know about something I try to keep my mouth shut and avoid embarassing moments. Fuel oil heat works pretty well too, it is a very warm heat and if you have everything tuned right there is no smell. It has its disadvantages too though. It has been expensive lately. On a cold day I think my dad said he burns at least 5-10 gallons or more. He has a 200 gal (i think) tank in the basment. You see the increase in diesel price? WOW. Used to be $0.50 cheaper than gasoline but now it is even more expensive. Some say it is because winter and competing with heating oil... more like price gouging probably.

Diesel fuel home heating... WOOHOO!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-2-2005 Firewood Sales Up As Oil Prices Rise

Seasoned firewood is now selling for roughly $180 to $230 a cord compared to between $140 and $160 a year ago

Ray Colton of Pittsfield, Vt., said his company has sold more than 4,000 cords this season, about 1,000 more than last year: "We're selling as fast as we produce," he said.

A cord is a stack of firewood 4 feet wide, 8 feet long and 4 feet high.

Oil prices are hovering at close to $2 a gallon in Maine, up more than 30 percent from a year ago. At $2.18 a gallon, kerosene is 56 cents more than last year. And propane averages $2.06 a gallon, up 43 cents from a year ago.

Prices are also up out West, including in Colorado, where local hardwood begins at $180 per cord and imported oak costs $300.

"Firewood at $180 a cord is still a deal compared to what it costs to heat your home with oil," he said.

Wood does pollute a lot more!

How many people actually use oil to heat their homes?

I hope your joking, right? A ton of people use oil to heat their homes. My dad, 3 of my uncles, countless friends, all kinds of people I know use oil.

linkage

About 1 in 10 and on the decline.

make that 8%.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Ethanol is an energy loser and therefore will always need to be subsidized by an energy winner (re oil).

dissing alternatives for oil and your nick is OMAR!!!!! come come lets be objective.

lol

 

[0marTheZealot]

Oil is not oil is not oil is not oil.

There are various degrees of oil. Light, intermediate and heavy are 3 grades of crude and each crude can be either sweet or sour (content of sulfur). We have a glut of heavy crude, which is almost always sour as well. Light and intermediate are most definately in decline and these are the most valuable. Most of OPEC's spare capacity is heavy crude and that is also the crude that is being pumped out of most old fields, because it is the heaviest. Sour crude and especially heavy sour crude is difficult to refine. In fact, I think there are only 3 refineries in America that can handle the sour stuff. Most refineries can only handle the sweet stuff. Heavy crude has it's own obstacles because the molecules that compose heavy crude are much larger than the molecules we are normally used to in fuel (5-8 carbons for fuels, while heavy crude can be up to 16 - 20/5 carbon molecules).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rhin0

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-2-2005 Firewood Sales Up As Oil Prices Rise

Seasoned firewood is now selling for roughly $180 to $230 a cord compared to between $140 and $160 a year ago

Ray Colton of Pittsfield, Vt., said his company has sold more than 4,000 cords this season, about 1,000 more than last year: "We're selling as fast as we produce," he said.

A cord is a stack of firewood 4 feet wide, 8 feet long and 4 feet high.

Oil prices are hovering at close to $2 a gallon in Maine, up more than 30 percent from a year ago. At $2.18 a gallon, kerosene is 56 cents more than last year. And propane averages $2.06 a gallon, up 43 cents from a year ago.

Prices are also up out West, including in Colorado, where local hardwood begins at $180 per cord and imported oak costs $300.

"Firewood at $180 a cord is still a deal compared to what it costs to heat your home with oil," he said.

Wood does pollute a lot more!

How many people actually use oil to heat their homes?

I hope your joking, right? A ton of people use oil to heat their homes. My dad, 3 of my uncles, countless friends, all kinds of people I know use oil.

linkage

About 1 in 10 and on the decline.

make that 8%.

Cute but still lame. Even 8% in the Northeast Quadrant of the U.S. is A LOT of homes.

It's not in the middle of the Corn Fields of Kansas.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

Everyone here has given up on ethanol research because when you factor everything in it is a loser. Pimental's studies are spot on. And it ultimately doesn't matter, because no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption. We currently think that 10% or so of our total oil consumption could be met with biofuels, and that's investing a few trillion to get the infrastructure going.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

Everyone here has given up on ethanol research because when you factor everything in it is a loser. Pimental's studies are spot on. And it ultimately doesn't matter, because no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption. We currently think that 10% or so of our total oil consumption could be met with biofuels, and that's investing a few trillion to get the infrastructure going.

no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption

Anyone that thinks differently is as bad as the Oil Cartel.

Something in massive abundance like Hydrogen is the best way to go.

Sub-atomic would be great too if we could contain it 100% but unfortunately everything man makes breaks so it is too dangerous at this point.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

Everyone here has given up on ethanol research because when you factor everything in it is a loser. Pimental's studies are spot on. And it ultimately doesn't matter, because no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption. We currently think that 10% or so of our total oil consumption could be met with biofuels, and that's investing a few trillion to get the infrastructure going.

The infrastructure is there for biofuels - it's production that would be increased.
Ethanol is not a loser and Pimental's study has been shredded and relies on old data(not to mention his "study" is almost 15years old)- try reading/researching the newer and better studies that are out there. I'm sure someone who is studying to be a bioengineer should be able to quickly find newer studies than the decades old Pimental one.

Yes, scalability is a factor with biofuels - I have never claimed it will replace oil nor have I heard others make such claims. However, should we not do what we can to reduce oil consumption - even if it is a small reduction? What you seem to be suggesting is that we toss our hands in the air and forget biomass. That seems rather insane at this point.

I sure hope you have some better instructors than you have so far, because they obviously haven't given you the information/education you are paying for.

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

Everyone here has given up on ethanol research because when you factor everything in it is a loser. Pimental's studies are spot on. And it ultimately doesn't matter, because no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption. We currently think that 10% or so of our total oil consumption could be met with biofuels, and that's investing a few trillion to get the infrastructure going.

The infrastructure is there for biofuels - it's production that would be increased.
Ethanol is not a loser and Pimental's study has been shredded and relies on old data(not to mention his "study" is almost 15years old)- try reading/researching the newer and better studies that are out there. I'm sure someone who is studying to be a bioengineer should be able to quickly find newer studies than the decades old Pimental one.

Yes, scalability is a factor with biofuels - I have never claimed it will replace oil nor have I heard others make such claims. However, should we not do what we can to reduce oil consumption - even if it is a small reduction? What you seem to be suggesting is that we toss our hands in the air and forget biomass. That seems rather insane at this point.

I sure hope you have some better instructors than you have so far, because they obviously haven't given you the information/education you are paying for.

CsG

Give me some primary articles about ethanol's viability.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Converting the US's electricity to nuclear power would take at least a generation. A single nuclear power plant takes several billion dollars and 10 years to build. You still haven't addressed the point that coal requires oil to dig up (up to 50% of coal production comes from oil based machines in many mines). As the cost of oil goes up so does coal.

Shale has never produced a usable form of energy. Exxon, Occidental, ChevronTexaco etc etc have tried their hands at the Colorado oil shales and haven't been able to make a profit. The Alberta oil sands are different. If we have such a huge reserve of oil shale, why do we import oil from dangerous regimes? Why not simply take the money hit and not lay in bed with snakes?

About biofuels, ethanol is a plain loser. Look at some of Pimental's work. Biodiesal is better but no where near as much as oil can provide. I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels.

The DoE article I showed you shows that it would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit half of our car fleet. It is not at no cost and it will take a lot of time. There is a push for nukes yes, but remember, nuke plants take billions of dollars and 10 years to make.

The TDP energy efficency is said in a roundabout way. The 85% efficency means that you put in 100 units of energy to get 85. Otherwise they would be violating the second law of thermodynamics. It is a good technology, but it won't replace oil. You need 13,000 plants today to meet US imports only.

The dieoff article is written by Jean Laherre, it is only linked. He is a reputadble geologist with decades of experience with the oil Majors. Look at the authors.

Again, reference the DoE article. It would take 15 years and 2 trillion dollars to retrofit our car fleet. This is "at little cost" and "minimal retrofit." Again, nuclear power plants take 10 years and billions of dollars. Not to mention construction takes oil at every single level.

Solar, wind and nuclear power plants all need materials that are mined from oil, transported with oil and constructed with oil. This doesn't even touch on the things that oil provides in other aspects, such as solvents and catalysts.

We will stop using oil, the last barrels will cost so much that it will not be economical to use. What will happen is we will resort to a less energy intensive way of life. Alternatives will play a role post-oil, but they won't allow us to live with the luxuries oil provides.

"I should know, I'm getting a degree in bioengineering with an emphasis on alternative fuels" - Then I sure as hell hope you start learning something in your classes because you are the one who keep repeating the lies about ethanol's efficiency. I've called you on this before and you've run away. I have many links and studies to show that ethanol is indeed quite an efficient energy medium. But hey, I guess you'd have to look at studies newer than 10-15 years old to know this. Pimental's "study" is no longer valid - time for some newer and better studies

CsG

Everyone here has given up on ethanol research because when you factor everything in it is a loser. Pimental's studies are spot on. And it ultimately doesn't matter, because no biofuel is scalable to any meaningful percentage of our oil consumption. We currently think that 10% or so of our total oil consumption could be met with biofuels, and that's investing a few trillion to get the infrastructure going.

The infrastructure is there for biofuels - it's production that would be increased.
Ethanol is not a loser and Pimental's study has been shredded and relies on old data(not to mention his "study" is almost 15years old)- try reading/researching the newer and better studies that are out there. I'm sure someone who is studying to be a bioengineer should be able to quickly find newer studies than the decades old Pimental one.

Yes, scalability is a factor with biofuels - I have never claimed it will replace oil nor have I heard others make such claims. However, should we not do what we can to reduce oil consumption - even if it is a small reduction? What you seem to be suggesting is that we toss our hands in the air and forget biomass. That seems rather insane at this point.

I sure hope you have some better instructors than you have so far, because they obviously haven't given you the information/education you are paying for.

CsG

Give me some primary articles about ethanol's viability.

You can start with the USDA study. It uses more current numbers than the very old ones Pimental used.(he used data from the 70's on corn yield and fermentation energy cost).

Now, I'm not going to say the USDA study is pure gold, but it uses more up to date figures in an ever changing and improving field.

2002 Study updating the 1995 study.

Keep in mind that Pimental's study was done in the very early 90's

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Omar?

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

Read the article and reading it's references now.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Read the article and reading it's references now.....

It's a study - not an article. You'll note there is a chart with a bunch of studies on ethanol listed(p6 of 20).

Hope the link has enlightened you a bit so you don't continue to believe Pimental's "study" is the final authority on this issue.

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

word. I didn't know he had '70s corn yield data. I meant article as in Journal article.

 

[slyedog]

spencer278 quoted:

The only reason for ethonal and burning corn is to support red neck farmers
================================================

how dumb, stupid and narrow minded are you?

 

[etech]

IMF Chief: Oil Prices High for 2 Years

Sat Mar 19, 9:10 AM ET

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The world will have to live with lofty oil prices for at least the next two years due to a combination of strong demand and supply constraints, Rodrigo Rato, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund (news - web sites), said on Saturday.
..

"We have to be aware that probably oil prices will stay high, although probably not at this level, in the next two years at least because of demand pressures -- there is certainly very strong demand in the world for oil -- and also because of certain supply constraints," Rato told reporters in the Indian capital.
...
But with output already near a 25-year high, the group is stretched to meet demand growth. Other major exporters Russia and Norway also cannot add significantly to this year's supply.

Rato said, though, the supply bottlenecks forcing prices higher also reflected a lack of refining capacity, where the major responsibility lay with oil-consuming countries.

Stricter environmental concerns, along with decades of low margins caused by overcapacity, have made major oil companies reluctant to invest in new refineries in the United States and Western Europe.
..
"


This board has been turned into a mini DU. Expouse your little theories and ignore any and all information and facts to the contrary. Shame that there wasn't impartial control of this board, perhaps it would not have come to such a sorry state.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
word. I didn't know he had '70s corn yield data. I meant article as in Journal article.

Well, it's good to see you've atleast realized that much - but there is much more than just the corn yield issue. The process used to convert corn to ethanol is much more efficient now than the data he used.
Ethanol is most definitely not a net loser - nor is it just a subsidy to "Big Farma" Bio-diesel is better IMO, but not everything will run diesel so ethanol is a great liquid fuel addition to gasoline. Will either "replace" oil? Nope - never claimed they would but the technology is here, the "fuel" is renewable - and it doesn't take a massive infrastructure overhaul like Hydrogen will. This is not to say we shouldn't pursue Hydrogen or other energies - but Bio-fuels will help fill the gap until we get there.

CsG

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
word. I didn't know he had '70s corn yield data. I meant article as in Journal article.

Well, it's good to see you've atleast realized that much - but there is much more than just the corn yield issue. The process used to convert corn to ethanol is much more efficient now than the data he used.
Ethanol is most definitely not a net loser - nor is it just a subsidy to "Big Farma" Bio-diesel is better IMO, but not everything will run diesel so ethanol is a great liquid fuel addition to gasoline. Will either "replace" oil? Nope - never claimed they would but the technology is here, the "fuel" is renewable - and it doesn't take a massive infrastructure overhaul like Hydrogen will. This is not to say we shouldn't pursue Hydrogen or other energies - but Bio-fuels will help fill the gap until we get there.

CsG

Yea, I've always been a bigger fan of biodiesal than ethanol simply because it is more efficent on both ends. It's easier to refine and it also gets better mileage.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
word. I didn't know he had '70s corn yield data. I meant article as in Journal article.

Well, it's good to see you've atleast realized that much - but there is much more than just the corn yield issue. The process used to convert corn to ethanol is much more efficient now than the data he used.
Ethanol is most definitely not a net loser - nor is it just a subsidy to "Big Farma" Bio-diesel is better IMO, but not everything will run diesel so ethanol is a great liquid fuel addition to gasoline. Will either "replace" oil? Nope - never claimed they would but the technology is here, the "fuel" is renewable - and it doesn't take a massive infrastructure overhaul like Hydrogen will. This is not to say we shouldn't pursue Hydrogen or other energies - but Bio-fuels will help fill the gap until we get there.

CsG

Yea, I've always been a bigger fan of biodiesal than ethanol simply because it is more efficent on both ends. It's easier to refine and it also gets better mileage.

I wish I would have had some $ to invest

Just yesterday they reached their $20million investment goal. What I think is really cool about this plant is that it won't just use soybeans - it'll use animal byproducts(fat) also.

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Former OPEC Chief can't understand it either, he thinks Oil & Gas prices should be falling:

3-21-05 Oil Prices Above $57 on OPEC's Skepticism

VIENNA, Austria - Oil prices surged above $57 a barrel Monday on continued skepticism about OPEC's ability to calm markets by increasing official output.

"You are talking to a market that is very skeptical of OPEC's ability to manage prices," said Kevin Norrish, head of commodities research at Barclays Capital in London.

Instead of reassuring markets, the increases in production are being viewed as reducing OPEC's spare capacity to meet future surges in demand, he said.

"The price is being set by the futures market and by a series of beliefs that oil is a one-way bet," he said. "The traders can't lose."

 

[dmcowen674]

3-31-2005 Oil Surges on "Super-Spike"

Oil hurtled back up to $56 a barrel on Thursday as Goldman Sachs bank, the biggest trader of energy derivatives, said prices could ultimately surge all the way above $100.

Goldman Sachs bank said in a research report on Thursday that oil markets have entered a "super-spike" period that could see prices rising as high as $105 a barrel.

These forecasts sit at the top of a table of predictions from 25 analysts, consultants and government bodies surveyed by Reuters .

A weaker dollar has encouraged funds to switch money from treasury markets into commodities, as well as insulating fuel consumption in non-dollar economies from the impact of higher crude prices.