The main problem with our oil refining capacities is that liberals like you that have made our laws so that no more oil refineries can be built. Our refining system is strained at 99.5% of capacity as is and when something like Katrina or Rita come through, there are major shortages because there is nowhere else for this oil and gas to come from. This has all been the doing of people like you, the tree-hugging whining liberals that would rather save a tree then have your gas prices reduced to 50% of current prices.
(posted to this blog earlier by Mikai)
I agree with most of what you say. I don't mind high oil prices - USD$7 per gallon for gasoline in this country is to me, a fair enough price for running a car provided there is more than adequate cheap public transport as an alternative - certainly the case in Edinburgh. We definitely don't have enough oil refineries, not even to meet current demand, let alone projected demand. Rita and Katrina may have brought this fact into sharp relief, but this problem existed long before these two storms came to town.
In the U.K. it's really hard to get new storage facilities for refined fuel built, let alone oil refineries. In Inverness, they tried recently just to get an off shore platform built, to allow ships to offload their fuel and the environmentalists launched a national campaign to prevent it happening.
The prevailing view of both my fellow liberals and environmental scientists in this country, not to mention the nimbys (not in my backyarders) is that we should look at ways to reduce demand, rather than improving supply lines. These are the same people who run their two cars, have their central heating on all winter and like to buy their vegetables from the supermarket. And don't want to pay unreasonable prices for any of it. Pretty hypocritical really.
This is a perfect example of what goes around, comes around. We have let environmentalists capture our energy policy, and because of that we have neither the refining capacity nor storage capacity to meet our needs. I'm all for saving the seabirds and providing them a safe refuge, in offshore islands or marshlands on the coast. But surely the time has come for the pendulum to swing back the other way a bit.
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index
I think your solution is more of a “European” method. Keep things close so you drive very little. And I agree that for those who can take advantage of it, it is a good (and environmentally responsible) solution. I think it must take some doing in a city the size of Houston! I've only visited Houston a few times. They must have a much better public transportation system than in Austin. I lived in Austin for a while, and they really could have used a good public transportation system!
Yeah, I know. I try to have a solution for what I complain about, but it's not always easy. ;)
Unfortunately I don't think there is any easy solution, especially when it comes down to what we can do as individuals. I think the best 'individual solution' I could give anyone is to try to move somewhere where driving isn't necessary. As oil prices continue to rise, it will force economies to become more localized and less 'globalized' - just look at poor Wal-Mart, whose dependence on long-haul trucking is causing them much dismay with higher fuel prices. So adjusting your life such that your work, home, and supermarket are all well-accessible by foot, bike, public transit, rollerskates, whatever.
That is a good idea for many. There are many who could ride a bike or walk to work, but our lifestyle has made us too lazy in many cases, and that's not good.
I've seen in the past where technologies suffered for lack of funding. This is a big problem with new fuels. Like with "Star Wars", new ideas are scoffed at to the point of them becoming dropped balls. There really hasn't been any serious effort given to new fuel technology over the years. Once a new fuel has emerged, the vehicles made for it would be extremely prohibitive, pricewise. Nobody could afford one but the very rich. New technology is never cheap.
A start for our energy needs would be to open up ANWAR for drilling. It's not that big a deal to expand some existing refineries or to build more. There's no point to it if we can't get more crude to it. Generally speaking, existing refineries can increase production to varying degrees - if they have the crude to refine in the first place.
I think opening up ANWR is a good thing. Yes, we don't see all of that oil. That is because it is cheaper to sell Alaskan oil to the Japanese, and have the oil that would have had to be carted all the way from the middle east to Japan go to our refineries. (okay, there are other countries involved too, I just picked one out to show the logic)
That is the same way that you can (most likely) buy your electricity from a producer hundreds of miles away. Are you actually getting electricity produced from that supplier? Of course not. You can't transport electricity that far effectively. When you buy that electricity, an electronic transaction takes place between the producers, and your supply still comes from the local producer.
That reminds me of a customer who demanded “regular” electricity rather than electricity generated at the nuclear plant. He was very adamant about it, so in the end he was assured that all of his electricity would only come from the “regular” power plant . . .
I honestly don't know where the problem is. We want to mind our own business and for the world to NOT influence our lives, politics, etc. The world seems to want us to mind our own business as well. Sounds fair to me. I'm game. We all really want the same thing, don't we?
DoxieLover, who's 'they'? There's possibly a general feeling around the world, both from Britain or the US and towards them, along the lines of 'yes, we want to trade with you but that doesn't mean we want you to move in with us, nor do we want you to impose your way of life and values on us.' I don't mind that particular attitude, towards Britain or the States. I'm pretty sure in Britain most of us feel that way ourselves. And I'm pretty sure Americans would feel much the same.
I think it is a bit on the nose though, when countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the latter especially, - this is going back a bit, but the principal is still the same - say to the States 'Iraq has invaded Kuwait, you're our ally, come and defend us,' then treat those westerners that come to their aid as second class citizens once they get there.
That's the difference between this war and WWII, when the American intervention brought it to a successful conclusion, probably saving millions of lives, on both sides of the conflict in the process. They, then, were welcomed as heroes in Britain, and their actions and sacrifice are appreciated by many Brits today.
On that subject, this article, about a US soldier's experiences in Iraq, pushed Hurricane Rita off the front page of our Independent newspaper yesterday:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article314735.ece
Oxfat, politics can be interesting. Not to mention somewhat bizarre. Have you guys in the States ever heard of a project called Operation Clark County? Just prior to the last U.S. presidential election, the Guardian newspaper over here decided it would be nice, given that "US policy now affects every citizen on the planet. So we should all have a say in who gets to the White House", if Britons took it upon themselves to write to individual voters in a place called Clark County, Ohio, where the vote was expected to be very evenly balanced.
http://guardian.assets.digivault.co.uk/clark_county/
11,000 people over here requested addresses and presumably sent off their missives. By and large the voters of Clark County were none too impressed. These were some of their very funny letters back:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1329728,00.html
In defence of oil, one thing I noticed coming back to these shores after over 30 years absence was how clean the air is nowadays. The main reasons in Britain for this are unleaded gasoline and greatly reduced use of coal. That's mostly thanks to the availability, and quality, of oil and natural gas nowadays. There are a few people over here in new housing, investing in solar panels for their roofs (one wonders if there is enough sunshine hours in this neck of the woods to make this a worthwhile investment...) and selling any surplus electricity back to the national grid. And a few farmers setting up wind farms on their land.
Max Mayfield made our front pages today, saying New York is a 'major hurricane risk.'
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article315001.ece
Do you think that would ever be likely? Most storms seem to veer off out to sea before they get that far up the coast, don't they?
During the last Gubernatorial election, Jimmy (now a resident of Florida)made a recorded telephone advertisement for one of the candidates. The other candidate won and many people resented Jimmy butting in. That is somebody we have some connection to.
What makes you think that this one has not saved millions of lives, even to this point? How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens would be laying in mass graves today? How many innocent citizens would be dead now around the world if we had not taken action? I believe we have saved thousands of lives....hundreds of thousands....with your soldiers as our primary assistants. If we were to get out as some want, can you imagine what would befall the good Iraqi citizens? The same kind of regime would surely be put back in place. The Iraqis who want a different life than the one they've been living....what of them? Ask them what their opinion of us being there is. Theirs is the opinion that really counts, not the peace/love protestors who would never fight for anything.
This war is in progress, but with many "rules" that did not exist in WWII. Should we accidentally kill a couple of civilians, look at how we're drug through the coals over it. Imagine the backlash if we engaged in carpet bombing and other non-target-specific actions, like was common in WWII. We could end this quickly, but not with the restraints we operate under. As President Bush stated from the onset, it will not be a quick war. It will take a lot of time. It will be one like we've never fought before. He told the truth, and everybody rallied around those words. Many Americans have little patience. They want everything right now. That is the reason for any change of opinion.
The article you post is only one soldier. Yes, there are a few in every service that objects to war. When I was in trade school in the service, there was one guy who couldn't take that! He was found one day, sitting in the middle of the compound, crying like a baby. I have no doubt that a few of 'em can't take fighting. The vast majority believe in what they are doing (just as I do) and are determined to get it done. We were attacked in WWII, just as we were attacked in 2001. When the Japanese blind-sided us at Pearl Harbor, the death toll was:
* US Navy 2,008 KIA
* USMC 109 KIA
* US Army 218 KIA
* Civilians 68
Total 2,403
To celebrate the US for retaliating against those killing mostly military personnel and only 68 innocent civilians, and then turn around and blast us for doing the same when 2,986 innocent civilians (583 more than Pearl) were killed by the same kind of blind-sided attack......To me, it's a slap in the face of all Americans. Terrorists are not restrained by geographical borders.
Neither peace or freedom comes via UPS or the FedEx man. It must be fought for. All of Europe and the UK should know that.
He who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.
Ja, interesting as in me calling your baby ugly. I think it is interesting, you don’t, and it is in any case a matter of deeply held belief.
However, it IS your blog. We can talk politics if you would like. I think we had a great discussion on energy going here, though. One thing about solar panels (the kind that make electricity) that people don’t realize is that the byproducts of the manufacturing process are chemicals that are quite toxic. I had an acquaintance one time in the business of waste disposal for this sort of stuff. Solar energy using current technology is not environmentally friendly.
Wind generation is a technology with some potential. I think the main drawbacks are 1. cost 2. NIMBY 3. low power output. Another drawback is while they look quiet, they do make noise.
Probably the biggest drawback is the power output. They can produce around 2-3 megawatts each. Compared to a typical power plant (let’s say a two-unit site, either coal or nuclear) that can generate around 2000 megawatts, you can see that you would have windmills all over the place.
Hey, I just looked them up on Wikipedia, and they make a big deal over wind generators failing/crashing. I didn’t know this was a problem. I knew that environmentalists were complaining that birds fly into them, but not that the generators themselves could fail catastrophically. Darn. I still think there is a use for wind generation. We’re not there yet, though.
as you seem to like to post articles from the UK I thought I's give you some information right from a source local to you.
But before that I'd also like you to look a little closer to home for a serious polution problem. While visiting family in County Cork (Ireland, In the United Kingdom just in case you geographic knowledge & interests are only across the pond). My wife and her mom found the air quite foul & sooty, There was black soot & dust everywhere. It was like being next to a factory in the 1800's. When they asked about it they found that many of the homes were heated by burning PEAT. Look to home & clean up first. The turn off your pc you are burning fuel!
The following is from an article out of a UK website on RENEWABLE fuels from & for the UK.
Wood
Only wood among the renewable fuels is significant as a chemical raw material. Wood is a complex physical and chemical structure. Its overall elemental composition by mass is about 49% carbon, 6% hydrogen, and 0.2% nitrogen; the remaining elements and their amounts and forms vary considerably from one species of tree to another. The most common cations found in wood are calcium, potassium, and magnesium; common anions include carbonate, sulfate, phosphate, and silicate. These make up the noncombustible part of the wood, the ash.
Wood can be partially burned to charcoal, which is essentially a porous form of pure carbon, in kilns which permit limited access of air. This process is called carbonization of the wood and has been in use from ancient times. Carbonization of wood will produce tar, and pine tar was once used for the calking of ships. For this reason tar and its products are still known as "naval stores". Wood tar has been used as a commercial source of acetic acid, methanol, and the solvent mixture called "turpentine".
The combustible part of wood consists primarily of various forms of the glucose polymer . Much of the remainder, ranging from 18% to 28% of the total, is a complex polymer of a phenylpropane unit; this polymer is called lignin. Treatment of wood with either aqueous strong acid or aqueous strong base produces hydrolysis of all or part of the cellulose and releases a variety of water-soluble materials as well as glucose. Lignin, however, is resistant to hydrolysis and has not yet been converted to marketable products on a large scale.
CoalCoal is the fuel present in largest quantity on earth. It is basically carbon, left over from bacterial action upon decaying plant matter in the absence of oxygen, usually under silt and water. Over millions of years the bacterial action and pressure compact the organic material, which steadily loses moisture. The original oxygen of the organic compounds is also lost along with most but not all of the original nitrogen and hydrogen, leaving the carbon.
The first step in coal formation yields peat, compressed plant matter which still contains twigs and leaves. Peat, dug from peat bogs, is used as a fuel in Ireland and Russia. The next step is the formation of brown coal or lignite. Lignite has already lost most of the original moisture, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is widely used as a heating fuel but is of little chemical interest. The next stage, bituminous coal, is also widely used as a fuel for heating. It is the most abundant form of coal and is the source of coke for smelting, coal tar, and many forms of chemically modified fuels. Some coal found in areas of mountain building, such as the Rocky Mountains and Appalachian Mountains in North America, has been subjected to great heat and pressure as a metamorphic rock. This hard coal or anthracite is almost pure carbon.
Domestic Gas From Coal
Combustible gases have been known since the days of Van Helmont (d. 1644) and the burning of gas made by destructive distillation of coal was known as a curiosity by about 1700. Commercial development and public demonstration of gas for heat and light came from the work of Phillipe Lebon (1767-1804) in France. Lebon, who publicly demonstrated gas lighting in 1801 using gas obtained from the destructive distillation of wood, was killed in a street robbery and his work was not followed up in France for some time.
William Murdock (1754-1859), an employee of the Boulton and Watt engineering firm then engaged in the manufacture of Watt-type steam engines, began his studies around 1791 and was interested in the products of the destructive distillation of coal. This process was used to make coke, or carbon, from coal and the other products, gas and coal-tar, were generally permitted to escape or were burned for fuel. Murdock did not see Lebon's Paris demonstration but Gregory Watt, second son of James Watt, did see it. Watt's report caused the Boulton-Watt firm to back Murdock's experiments and commercial gas plants for large mills were sold from 1804 onwards by the firm.
Frederic Winsor, an eccentric German, also saw Lebon's demonstration in Paris. Winsor began independent demonstrations of gas lighting in London in 1804; his approach was the supply of gas by mains from central generating plants rather than the independent house or mill generating systems sold by Boulton and Watt. The Gas Light and Coke Company was chartered in 1812 and gas piping began to spread through London. Other metropolitan centers were served with gas at a later date,. Both wooden and cast-iron pipes were used. Gas lighting at this time was by flame; the present incandescent gas mantle was not developed until 1885, at which time incandescent electric lighting was taking over an increasing share of the lighting market.
Gas today is either produced from coal and oil or found as natural gas. Natural gas is almost pure methane, CH4, with small amounts of other hydrocarbons, and is obtained from natural gas wells. Since the heat available per volume of natural gas is much greater than the heat obtained per volume of manufactured gas or "town gas", the burners and equipment must be converted when the supply is changed (as in Britain in the 1970's when town gas was replaced by natural gas from the North Sea). Natural gas, if obtainable, is preferable to town gas, but the supply is limited. Chemical reactions are used to produce town gas and to purify natural gas. Some of the same impurities, such as sulfur compounds, are common to both.
The basic process of coke production is also that used for manufacture of town gas. Bituminous coal of the gasmaking type is perhaps 86% carbon, 5.5% hydrogen, 6% oxygen, and 2.5% or so nitrogen and sulfur. An elemental analysis is all that can be meaningfully given, since coal is a complex substance. When heated in the absence of air, coal produces carbon (coke) and a mixture of many gases, (crude coal gas). The heat for the carbonization of coal is provided by use of some of the the coke product in the strongly exothermic producer gas reaction:
C + O2 --> CO2, DH0 = -393.509 kJ/mole
which in the presence of insufficient oxygen drives the endothermic formation of carbon monoxide:
CO2 + C --> 2CO, DH0 = +172.459 kJ/mole
Partial use of the endothermic water gas shift reaction equilibrium:
C + H2O(g) CO + H2, DH0 = +131.293 kJ/mole
permits control of the temperature of the reaction zone and raises the heating value of the output producer gas slightly. The final composition of producer gas is about 12% hydrogen, 25% carbon monoxide, 7% carbon dioxide, and 56% nitrogen; the nitrogen comes from the air used in the producer gas reaction.
Producer gas is mixed with crude coal gas to give crude town gas. Impurities are condensed out as the gas cools (water, tar, napthalene, ammonium chloride) or by absorption in water (NH3, H2S, CO2). The rest of the H2S is removed by reaction with Fe2O3, and the purified town gas is ready for delivery. A typical composition of town gas would be about 51% hydrogen, 15% carbon monoxide, 21% methane, 10% carbon dioxide and nitrogen, and about 3% other alkanes.
The traditional process for producing town gas has been to some extent replaced by processes using feedstocks of oil or lower quality coal. The most promising of these is the Lurgi process developed in Germany in the late 1930's. The Lurgi process operates at a higher pressure (30-40 atm) than the traditional processes, and thus in addition to the producer gas reaction and the water gas shift reaction two other equilibrium reactions can occur, coal hydrogenation:
C + 2H2 CH4, DH0 = -74.81 kJ/mole
and the Sabatier synthesis:
CO + 3H2 CH4 + H2O(g), DH0 = -206.103 kJ/mole<
At these higher pressures, virtually all of the carbon monoxide is removed by the water gas shift reaction, which considerably reduces the toxicity of the gas. The Lurgi process permits the conversion of coal into methane, from which one can synthesize other hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline. Such processes were operated on a large scale by Nazi Germany during the Second World War, but are not now economically competitive with hydrocarbon fuels obtained from oil feedstocks.
My Local electrical power is produced from COAL & YARD WASTE (Palm Frons ETC). The waste gasses are scrubbed with Water so that 98% of what is released is simply steam. The non combustable by-products are transported 3 miles up the road & sould for the production of building materials such as Gypsum Wallboard.
You should pray for all the soldiers who died to protect your life and limited liberty as your "Nation" can never have the strength by itself to protect itself from people even sicker than you who would love to slit your throat just for having the right speak you mind (even if it can only absorb what it wishes to twist & spin).
You also made a point of the United States being a small 5% of the worlds population. You should also read up on this: General Register Office for Scotland - Projected Population of ...
Projected Population of Scotland (2003 Based) ... the total population of Scotland
is projected to fall from 5.06 million to below 4.9 million in 2028; ... If it's such a great place.. why are the people running away? Could it be they are embarrased by YOU! BTW the State of New York has four times as many people as Scottland & the population is growing. So if we are to put things to a vote (as you brought up how insignificant the US is) YOU LOOSE!
We vote ( and I am unanmous in this.. to Quote Molly Sugdon) that you turn off your computer & go plant some flowers for the soldiers who died to protect your "FREEDOM"!
There maybe an element of racism involved. What would the approval ratings look like if these were blond haired, blue eyed, protestants under the same conditions.
Under the guise of multiculturalism, is it OK for us to do nothing while oppressed people suffer? Is it just acceptable in their culture to have ethnic cleansing?
Your questions are well-framed and very relevant. I hope we get points of view from everyone involved here.
Actually, I do believe the so-called gas shortage is a devilish plot by the government to pick our pockets at a fast rate. Realistically speaking, and speaking for myself alone, by the time fossil fuel on this earth is gone, guess what - I will be six feet under!
In the meantime, let's all be kind to one another, party til we puke and enjoy each day that God gives us. You say what about our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren? Hey! They have minds and by the time they have to use them, I am sure they will come up with solutions. Oh...wait....the end of times is coming, didn't you hear????
:)
Thank you, Oxfat. I only spoke the truth.
This is, to me, a really neat and exciting technology at first blush, and I have great hopes for it. On the other paw, looking at some of the issues you raise, one has to consider
The environmental impact of construction, &
The environmental impact of operation and maintenance
Hopefully as far as operation goes they'll be relatively clean, compared to the present competitive systems of generating energy. If they last long enough, they can diminish the impact of construction considerably, depending on how bad that is.
The hidden "gotcha" might be maintenance, since that carries with it an implication of ongoing construction. Of coure, construction would be ongoing anyway, as units are added (given a scenario of success with this type of thing). I guess what I'm looking at boils down to "what is the overall environmental impact per (interesting unit) for any given technology"? (Perhaps the unit could be something like a megawatt). As you point out, it's important to get to all the less-obvious parts of the picture, such as manufacture.
It seems to me that if these units (or others like them) are durable, and don't do horrible things to the environment in the making of their mirrors, cables, or little Stirling engines, they might be useful additions--at least where it's mostly sunny.
If you know of a good blog, I really would like to see how people react to your questions. They should provoke a profound discussion from those who really think about the issues.
I think a blog with:
. People that have many different viewpoints
. People who want to go further than the 'blame game'
. A blog with quite a bit of activity
What do you think?
cloudy days
wind storm blowing sand/dirt into mirrors, scratching them and forcing replacement
rain deposits forcing continuous cleaning
nominal heat generation causing more heat in that area (of course if its in death valley of like hot/desert location then going from 125-130º isn't that big of a deal)
MiKai already stated the drawbacks, such as maintenance issues. However any large electrical generation project has maintenance issues, so we would have to compare the costs. That may not be a killer.
The most important issue, also stated by MiKai, is that it only works when the sun is shining brightly. There is still a need for a base load generator for night time, and extra capacity that could come on line for cloudy days. It is difficult to bring 300Mw on line in a short period of time. Whether it is nuclear or fossil, it takes time to bring them on line. You can bring natural gas turbines on line very quickly, but I'd sure hate to pay for 300Mw worth of natural gas-generated electricity.
Nuclear is always base-loaded. That is, you bring up the unit and run it at 100%. Nuclear is also the least expensive of the most common types (coal, nuclear, natural gas) of units, so it makes sense.
It is always good to see advancements in renewables, though.
Interesting info on the base load generator topic, thanks.
On other energy topics...
I'm kind of interested in what I've heard about pebble-bed reactors. There's pros and cons to them but I hope that in the future they'll lead to safer and more widespread (did I mention safer?) nuclear power, since it really does have a lot going for it. I don't have any special links for PBR, but they're easily searchable.
Also, I seem to recall seeing in passing some reference to extraction of oil from shale becoming economically feasible if & when traditional petroleum reaches a certain price threshold. From what I understand, there's a lot of that.
Just now I went and read this on Wikipedia about oil shale It's an interesting read. People have tried before when oil got past a certain threshold, then lost their shirts when the price came back down. Now there's a lot of caution.
Plus Current extraction methods produce four times as much greenhouse gas as does conventional oil production, among other environmental gotchas.
Viewing: 51 - 79
Page: 1 | 2 — Blog Index