A tank of gas, a world of trouble

Discussion in 'Sci Reviews' started by Syzygys, Apr 20, 2007.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    "Pulitzer-winning correspondent Paul Salopek traced gas pumped at a suburban Chicago station to the fuel’s sources around the globe. In doing so, he reveals how our oil addiction binds us to some of the most hostile corners of the planet—and to a petroleum economy edging toward crisis."

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-oilsafari2-htmlstory,0,5759205.special

    This is a 4 chapters (about 30 mins read) excellent expose of the world of oil, going into places like a gasstation in Illinois, oilfields in Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
    Very stylish read, introduces the small players of the gas distribution network from the fields to the gasstation.

    One very interesting thing was the breakdown of the gas you buy by its origins. But I have to warn you, it is quite depressing overall...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    This is the exact same type of articles that were written in 1972 when the oil shortage hit America for the very first time. Nothing new being stated in these articles that wasn't covered back then. I tried to show everyone that a hydrogen based society would be the better way to go but alas the big gas companies put a halt to that idea.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    If only the so-called "environ"mentalists (emphasis on mental) would let us drill in the United States.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    There's plenty of drilling in America, who said otherwise? They just sold oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico to many oil companies. We keep using oil instead of trying to use other means like hydrogen that are safer, cleaner and non polluting.
     
  8. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    And exactly how do you propose to produce all that hydrogen? Currently, the only viable method is to burn fossil fuels at power generating plants, then use that electricity to produce the hydrogen by electrolysis and then haul it all across the country by trucks. In the end, it winds up being a net energy loss.

    Until nuclear plants come online (including breeder reactors) a hydrogen-based economy is a fool's dream. Substituting and even worse solution than the original problem. Do you actually deny that?????
     
  9. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    That's exactly what I suggested in 1974, that we build fast breeder reactors like France has now. France gets 80 percent of its energy from nuclear energy why can't America? Because the damn oil companies and people like yourself keep holding them back with your outdated type of thinking of how bad they are. If you take into consideration, which I don't think you do, that there's more pollution being spewed into the environment by oil than by nuclear. We are suffering throughout the entire Earth because of the emissions produced from oil based products as well as the plastics that don't deteriorate for thousands of years. If we keep on with oil producing only those that have oil in the future will control everyone else.

    I'm suggesting an alternative so that we aren't beholding to only the oil companies and I don't think that you see it that way. It seems you just want to keep on with the the way things are. You suggest nothing as an alternative , why not? At least I'm trying to establish something else to use while you just complain. If you're so smart then why not develop something on your own instead of putting people down for at least trying to come up with viable ideas.
     
  10. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Hey!!!!!!!!!! Back up several notches, OK?? I've been suggesting nuclear power as THE only way to go for the future - and I've said so in many, many threads here. And contrary to your babbling above about "wanting to keep on with the way things are?, I've also happily posted that there are currently 33 license applications for new nuclear plants in the approval process RIGHT NOW!!! Plus the fact that every single power generating company in the U.S. that isn't involved in those applications are keeping a keen eye on their progress through the process. They ALL want in on it - and I'm very glad to see that!

    I "suggest nothing as an alternative"?!?!?!?!? I'll suggest this - once you've pulled your entire foot an leg out of your mouth a BIG apology is in order. Take THAT suggestion and act on it!!!!

    And hydrogen is still a VERY stupid idea.
     
  11. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The hydrogen was going and still can be extracted from sea water by those breeder reactors as I also suggested in 1974. That hydrogen from those nuclear plans could be delivered to stations around the country by truck or pipeline. That way we could use hydrogen in our cars instead of gasoline. Why can't you understandthat concept and keep saying hydrgen is not a viable idea? That's why I asked you for another idea besides hydrogen to use as fuel for cars, trucks, trains and busses everywhere. Just think if a hydrogen society was started 40 years ago how faralong it would have been by now. Instead we still are trapped by oil and sinking deeper into debt everyday.
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I don't have my foot anywhere other than where its supposed to be. It is you that hasn't answered my question for your idea of an altenative fuel for cars,trucks buses and the like. Hydrogen could have been being produced right now if only people back in the 1970's would have allowed for its dvelopment but alas they weren't thinking with their heads but with big oils money in their pockets.Big oil paid billions to supress at every stepanything that the hydrogem community would develop and the media was never giving any facts about hydrogen except always showing pictures of the Hindenburg burning up killing everyone. The oil companies have always supressed any type of new technology as well.
     
  13. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Why not hydrogen? Because it's just a half-baked idea that's subscribed to only by people with little knowledge of the losses involved in producing and delivering it - that's why.

    To begin with, any electrical generating plant is only about (actually, a little less) than 50% effficient. The rest goes out as waste heat from the steam turbines and as the heat generated by the frictional losses in the turbines and alternators. Next, electrical transmission lines loose a little over another 7%. Then the electrolysis process is only 80 - 94% efficient. After that, considerable energy is needed to compress the gas and then deliver it by trucks to points where drivers could buy it.

    It would be better by far, even thought the first of those three lossy stages are still involved, to use it directly in electric vehicles. Power lines already run to every home and business, hotel, motel and service station. Absolutely no gas compression and transportation needed. Storage battery technology for vehicles is still improving - greater power density and quicker charging methods.

    So yes, hydrogen is STILL a foolish idea pushed on the public who seem to swoon over new-sounding technology by politicians who don't even know how much energy it takes to boil a pound of water.:bugeye:
     
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    The hydrogen could be produced right at the breeder reactor plant site. That way that plant is dedicated to only one thing, producing hydrogen from seawater or freshwater. It then could be piped, as I have stated, to the points of distribution just as natural gas is now. I see nothing weong with this idea myself as well as many others that believe hydrogen is a very clean and viable solution to meet energy needs and create no pollution in the future.

    Batteries cost alot to make and after a year or two they must be changed. Then where do those old batteries go? Batteries can't be used for long drives for they discharge after awhile and must be recharged which takes hours. I've heard of new batteries that take less time to recharge but there costs are even higher than those used today and they also don't last that long. With batteries you cannot have air conditioning or heating, power windows, power seats big wattage radios or much of anything electronic because it takes all of the electrical output just to operate the motor.
     
  15. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Trying to pipe hydrogen brings on a whole new set of problems that I suppose you aren't even aware of. It causes metal pipes to become brittle and damages plastic piping. So the lifespan of your distribution network would be limited and very expensive to repair - actually, to totally replace.

    Battery technology is improving much faster than you seem to know. As I said, power densities are increasing rapidly as well as the ability to recharge MUCH quicker than in the past. Also, the batteries are recyclable.

    And by the way, I still haven't seen that much deserved apology from you about claiming that I wanted to keep things as they are. I'm both surprised and disappointed because I thought you were much more of a man than that.
     
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    My humblest of apologies. I hope that will appease you .

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    The US passed it's peak in oil production in the 70's. No further drilling will change the fact that under current circumstances, we need to import oil.

    All of you have missed the point. The question isn't how we are going to run the same easy motoring economy on something else. Nuclear power will cause dependency on uranium mining. Ethanol and biofuels will cut into our food supply and are dependent on petroleum based fertilizers.
     
  18. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    No, I haven't missed anything. But others and you have. Evidently you don't fully understand breeder reactor technology nor do you understand how only a small part of vegetative products can be turned into adequate supplies of nitrogen-based fertilizers. And those are the only ones produced from petroleum (actually MUCH more derived from natural gas than oil).

    There's plenty of uranium-238 and thorium-232 to serve as fuel in breeder fission reactors until fusion comes online in 50 or 75 years.
     
  19. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Oh, you uneducated dumbfuck!!

    [and that shall be enough for an argument]
     
  20. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    That's better - thank you.
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    That view is the result of brainwashing by pseudoscientists and radical so-called environmentalists. If we were allowed to drill offshore in California, Florida, Alaska etc we would never have peaked. The reason why we peaked in the 1970s is because the granolas like Al Gore took over. We need to drill deeper but more importantly we need to drill period.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2007
  22. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Nuclear power has been held back by enviromentalists, not oil companies. I had an aunt who worked at a nuke plant that was built and ready to go in Washington State but never came on line due to enviromentalists.

    Just like with global warming, enviromentalists were trying to scare the shit out of people about nuclear power. They made movies like The China Syndrome and had everyone convinced that nuclear power was deadly.
     
  23. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    It was probably Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that had more of an effect than some movie.
     

Share This Page