10/13/2008 10:00:15 PM EST

Why isn't anyone talking about a hybrid solution??

posted by Sidbenmore

Energy policy is among the main issues in this election, but I haven't heard anyone talk about a hybrid solution to the energy crisis. I am definetly not an expert in energy policy but I wil explain what I think makes the most sense.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
I know Cenk and TYT have done many stories on how off shore drilling is bad and how they were dissappointed when Barack Obama decided to concede to McCain in off shore drilling. I know that off shore drilling doesn't assure that any of the oil will actually go to Americas and is put on the global market for the highest bidder. However, it seems logical to me that we should allow off shore drilling, and start opening up some of the United States' oil reserves to allow companies to start drilling for more oil. Personally, I think our reliance on oil will soon be a problem of the past as companies are pressing to invent and create new technologies to replace oil since a substitute is in such high demand. Think about the exponential growth of technology over the past few decades, there is no doubt in my mind that we will soon be able to have safe, and efficient energy within the next 10 years. So keeping that in mind, why don't we allow the oil companies to drill for the time being whilst new technologies are being researched and developed?

Also is there or is there not a way to mandate where the oil is being sold? Couldn't we then allow the oil companies to drill American oil under the pretense that it will be sold on our markets?

< My growing fears for the "United" States of America - PART 2 | Make Believe Maverick >
 Display:
Why isn't anyone talking about a hybrid solution?? | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
Here is an Energy expert... (none / 0)
This page is for Dr. Nate Lewis of Caltech about our current Energy situation. Many of your questions can be answered here.

Nate Lewis presentation

A couple of things to point out.

We currently have 40 years of proven reserves of oil. But we always have 40 years of proven reserves. When it costs 1 million dollars a day to do exploratory drilling it isn't economical to continue exploration once you have 40 years of proven reserves.

The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone; the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

In order to meet the energy needs of 2050, we need to be building the power generation infrastructure now.

There is currently a world-wide shortage of deep water drill ships, since the offshore ban we have divested ourselves of these ships. All existing deep water drill ships and all the ones currently under construction are contracted out for the next 5-7 years to other parts of the world. Unless we begin building deep water drill ships in the USA we will not be in any position to begin drilling for 10 years.

Deep water drilling is the most expensive type of drilling and as has been pointed out many times American oil companies already have lease holdings for land based drilling that they are sitting on. Those land based locations could be brought on-line much sooner than any offshore site.

Regardless how much drilling we do, we don't have the refining capacity to utilize any new oil sources. Currently our refineries are running at about 95% of capacity. We would need to build more refineries as well. NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard) problems here. Curiously I used to run a seasonal business that was very tied to the cost of gasoline so I was always paying attention to the costs as my operational season began. In 1998 gasoline was very cheap, 85 cents a gallon, and each year after that it got more expensive. Every spring I noticed announcments from the oil companies that they were shutting down some refineries for maintenance and conversion over to summer fuel blends. This caused a temporary shortage of gasoline and a short term price jump. The thing is it appears that not all of the refineries closed for "maintenance" reopened afterwards. So this effectively allowed the oil companies to shutter their excess refining capacity and help to create more sustained price hikes.

Fuel cell cars are a joke, fuel cells use platinum in them, a fuel cell big enough to run a school bus would have $500,000 in platinum in it.

It seems that the easiest thing to do right now is to mandate flex-fuel cars, these can burn and combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol. Many cars can be retrofitted to be flex-fuel, especially most cars from 2000 onwards.

Currently the most efficient solar energy generator is a 38 foot in diameter parabolic system with a Stirling Engine, generating about 25 kW directly, the efficiencies here are about 38%.

by CptRich on 10/14/2008 12:37:59 AM EST

I hate to disagree, Captain (none / 0)

"It seems that the easiest thing to do right now is to mandate flex-fuel cars, these can burn and combination of gasoline, ethanol or methanol."

Unfortunately, that would be a very easy thing to do.  Doubly unfortunately, the tundra at our northern lattitudes is melting, and a lot -- and I mean a lot -- of organic matter is rotting very quickly, releasing much more methane and other carbon compounds into the atmosphere than before, and at a faster rate.  This is an emergency condition.  We have got to dramatically reduce human-made carbon emissions quickly.

by EveningStarNM on 10/14/2008 10:26:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Next 10 Years (none / 0)

SidBenMore wrote:

Think about the exponential growth of technology over the past few decades, there is no doubt in my mind that we will soon be able to have safe, and efficient energy within the next 10 years. So keeping that in mind, why don't we allow the oil companies to drill for the time being whilst new technologies are being researched and developed?

The answer to your question is easy.  Allowing oil companies to drill more will not produce a drop more oil in the next 10 years.  The earliest we can expect to see any increased oil production by leasing more drilling sites to the oil companies are in the 2025 - 2030 time frame.

By that time we had better be well on our way to switching over to another energy source.  Obama has set a goal of having the US become energy independent in the next 10 years, and we can do it if we try.

The way for this to happen is straightforward and has been studied in detail.  First, we need to completely rebuild the electricity grid in the US.  This is estimated to cost $3-5 billion, but it could cost as much as $10 billion.  A new-technology energy grid would be able to carry electricity from solar farms in Arizona and wind farms in Colorado to New York City, for example, with no more than a few percent loss.

The next step is to require power companies to purchase excess energy from energy suppliers, whether it is a homeowner with a solar collector on his roof or a small commercial wind farm.  This would create a new economy for alternative energy, and make it practical for individuals or very small companies to profit by producing energy.  A few states already do this, but with an improved national electrical grid the price we can pay for electricity would be much higher.

I can envision that in the future there will be no roofing materials used that don't collect electricity, at least in the southern US.  This, by itself, can replace all the oil we import.

Drill, Baby Drill might be fun to chant in a crowd.  But it is no way to lead us to energy independence or to solve our larger need for energy.

by rbruck on 10/14/2008 06:39:45 AM EST

Obama IS talking hybrid (none / 0)
Obama is talking about every other energy source BUT drilling is not part of his plan...as far as the way it SHOULD be, oil and other natural resources need to be nationalized, so we will not suffer at the hands of speculators again.  Energy is ALWAYS necessary, therefore it should be taken out of the private sector.  We need to get rid of private oil companies, because the private interest is what causes the problems, much like with healthcare.  We also need to be encouraging more individuals to make their homes green/energy producers.  If everyone had a turbine/solar panels/grey water systems, etc... we would have an energy surplus.

Chris

by chrisandyasemin on 10/14/2008 10:02:05 AM EST

You didn't explain (none / 0)

"...it seems logical to me that we should allow off shore drilling, and start opening up some of the United States' oil reserves to allow companies to start drilling for more oil."

Why is it logical to do that?  Here's the logic against it:

Obama is talking about a hybrid solution that leaves out nothing.  He's specifically mentioned wind, solar, and nuclear, and I see no evidence that tidal and geothermal would  be excluded.  So, since a hybrid solution is being talked about, why do we need oil?  We should be able to reduce our dependence upon oil significantly in just a few years.  However, the damage done by drilling for oil -- and, given our record, we're going to screw up really badly at least once -- will cost billions and will permanently change an area.

As to your second suggestion about mandating where the oil is sold: the oil companies control whole countries.  What makes you think they would let us control their market that way?  Besides, such a restriction on sales would cause the price of oil to go UP!  That's Econ 101.

The premise of your original question is wrong, and your version of a hybrid solution is too narrow.

by EveningStarNM on 10/14/2008 10:19:52 AM EST

I Agree in a Hybrid Solution (none / 0)

But it Does Not Include Oil.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, Obama has already carefully planned how he would invest in modern-day solutions to the energy and climate problems. 

I absolutely concur with EveningStar regarding the rapidly diminishing perma-frost. One only has to look at how much this planet's glaciers have retreated over the last 30 years (much faster than they are growing). And this is where we get much of our fresh water.

I also agree with rbuck regarding Solar Roofing. This particular area of energy collection, may well prove to be the number one significant reduction in energy wastage. Germany is way ahead of Canada and US in this area. I have recently been offered a ground floor opportunity to get involved in solar roof coverings (mostly residential) but was involved in Solar Products (portable solar tracking systems, heating packages, ground source heat pumps and solar heat pumps) since 1990 in Alberta that has one of the best Solar Arrays in Canada (amount of sunshine per day/year).

Right now, solar energy has to be the most important, reliable and safe source of energy available, that is going to waste continuously. This should be the first area of investment. Almost everyone can take advantage of solar energy at the residential scale. Wind energy is likely the next best source (depending where you are). Ground source heat pumps and the like are already being used. Take a look at Nova Scotia where water in abandoned coal mines is used to heat and cool industrial buildings on a large scale.

The list is pretty extensive regarding that which is already available but barely being used. The potential for new sources of safe, clean energy are only a thought away but people need money and/or cash incentives to test and market these new alternative sources.

This is where Obama is "light years" ahead of the pack. He has "promised" significant dollars to go towards these alternative and "hybrid" resources. Now you only have to vote him in and take advantage of these incentives. Everyone must do their part.

Now if only Canadian Government could also adopt this idea of cash incentives and investment, we might all get somewhere.

But one thing is for sure, as EveningStar has implied, We Must Act NOW and in a significant way, before it is entirely too late (the possibility that it already is too late is a realistic consideration, but does not eliminate the need for action right now).

by SnowTiger on 10/14/2008 11:01:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why isn't anyone talking about a hybrid solution?? | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: