OPEC's Reaction to American Energy Independance

[Dr. Shane]

Opec issues warning on Bush oil pledge

Quote:

---

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Wednesday warned that President George W. Bush’s proposal to reduce US dependence on Middle Eastern oil could badly jeopardise needed investment in Gulf oil production and refining capacity.

---

Quote:

---

An Opec delegate said: “Comments like that are unrealistic. Everyone knows the world will continue to depend on Middle East imports.” The organisation would raise concerns about such statements damping investment at meetings with the European Union and other organisations “more aligned with Opec’s view”.

---

Quote:

---

Any decrease in the US dependence on oil from the Middle East could only really be achieved by a decrease in its dependence on all foreign oil – either by conservation, alternative energy or domestically produced oil and gas, analysts said.

---

[Gerr]

I wish our gov't would launch a Manhattan-like project to cut off our dependence on foreign oil by a multi-pronged attack, i.e. more efficient vehicle engines, alternative fuels, etc. It is also high time for us to develop the technology to minimize the pollution caused by the use of coal. We have the largest coal deposits on this planet!

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

I think we get less than 15% of our oil from the Middle East. So Bush's pledge to cut that amount by 25% isn't a huge goal. Most of our forgien oil comes from Venezuela, Mexico and Canada.

[David_McQueen]

The reluctance for alternaive energy sources could be linked to the lobbying and funding by oil companies.

[Bravus]

The issue with 'clean coal', though, is that what ends up going into the atmosphere is lots of lovely, clean, invisible... carbon dioxide! Unless the plants use a carbon sequestration process to capture the CO2 and store it, coal is still a fossil fuel and still contributes to climate change. Sure, getting rid of the sulphur oxides and the related acid rain is a good thing, but turning from oil to coal is not really a big step forward.

I agree with the thrust of Gerry's point, though: if a Manhattan-project like, or post-Sputnik like burst of funding and energy were put into developing alternative energy forms, it could actually happen fairly quickly. How long did it take to put a man on the moon when the will was there? The problem is a huge one, though... and the solution will likely include a whack of nuclear power, at least in the short term. Funding fusion research would be good, though.

[Gerr]

According to the reports I checked with in the internet, we get about 30% from the Persian Gulf. So that is still a tremendous amount. We get some from Mex, Venezuela, Canada & Africa, even some from Norway & Great Britain, probably North Sea oil. I think we produce close to or about 50% of what we consume.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

I got the 15% number from America Talks which airs on the Adventist-owned SafeTV and certainly is subject to error. Bill O'Reilly reported that we import 60% of our oil but he is subject to error as well.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The issue with 'clean coal', though, is that what ends up going into the atmosphere is lots of lovely, clean, invisible... carbon dioxide!

---

Sounds like you favor nuclear energy. At any rate, if global warming is caused by increased CO2 and not increased sun spots, all the Canadians should be happy as the summers will be longer, the winters more mild which makes the growing season longer. It is us poor folks in the tropics that will suffer.

Quote:

---

turning from oil to coal is not really a big step forward.

---

From a man-is-causing-global-warming prespective that would be true. From an energy-independance prespective it would be a giant step forward. However I am not aware of many electrical power plants that use crude oil products to generate power. There are a lot that use natural gas around here but not any crude oil products.

[Bravus]

Good points.

Yeah, it would be warmer in Canada (and of course it might just be an anomaly, but this winter in Edmonton has basically been 15 C above average temperatures right through the winter. That's far in excess of anything predicted by climate models), but remember that 'climate change' is not just warming: it will also make it drier (we are facing drought here due to no snow) and make the weather wilder (more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods). So no matter how you slice it, global warming/climate change is unlikely to be a good thing for humans, including those in Canada.

Nuclear is not great, of course, but we definitely need to give it another look. Every energy alternative has its costs and benefits, and recognising the costs of fossil fuels as we do now means going back to that analysis for nuclear and changing a few figures... Of course, the solution will also involve wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, ethanol, biomass, hydro... and, even more importantly, more efficient houses, cars and other energy uses.

Agreed, oil is not used so much for power generation. I guess I was thinking further forward to when we have hybrid/electric cars, so the power comes more from power stations than from internal combustion engines. President Bush favours a 'hydrogen economy' as a clean alternative, and it has potential, but the hydrogen still has to be generated (by splitting water), and doing that with coal is just as bad.

And you're right, too, that there are both the global warming and the energy-independence arguments to be made here. Gerry was making the second and I responded in terms of the first - thanks for the clarification.

[Dr. Shane]

If we split water to get hydrogen, what does that do to the water cycle? Does that actually create less water on the planet? If so, that seems worse than carbon based fuels.

[Bravus]

Nah, we wouldn't make any sort of significant dent in the world's water supply - it's pretty immense. And when the hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air in a fuel cell to produce electricity it turns back into water in the vehicle's exhaust, so the total amount of water in the world isn't decreased in an on-going way, since it's replenished by the exhaust. There might be implications for weather in the different way the water vapour is distributed, though...

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Nah, we wouldn't make any sort of significant dent in the world's water supply - it's pretty immense. And when the hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air in a fuel cell to produce electricity it turns back into water in the vehicle's exhaust, so the total amount of water in the world isn't decreased in an on-going way, since it's replenished by the exhaust. There might be implications for weather in the different way the water vapour is distributed, though...

---

Looking at your thoughts, Bravus, I want to note regarding the water cycle, it adds an extra step before it is returned to the origional water cycle...IOWs, it's like the steps that the water goes from snow to melted trickles, to creeks, to streams to lakes to oceans to clouds to snow. Now put Automobile somewhere in that cycle, and water is delayed a bit....What effects that will have on the enviorment, I don't know....I am not sure that others know either...

[Bravus]

Yeah, but not only that, it transports water into the interior of the continent in a whole new way. Not by evaporation, clouds and wind, but in big hydrogen tanks for slow dispersal in car exhausts. It could result in more rain and more cloud cover, potentially, more fog... we just really don't know. I strongly suspect it would be less damaging than CO2 in the ling run, though (assuming the hydrogen wasn't generated using fossil fuels).

[Dr. Shane]

If it could be created with carbon fuels efficiently it would still be good.

Let me be crude just to illistrate.

Lets say that 100 gallons of gasoline would be used to create 1,000 gallons of hydrogen which in a car would get 50 miles/gallon (of hydrogen). That would mean the cars would be getting 500 miles/gallon of gas.

[Dr. Shane]

Another question... does water or steam come out as exhaust? Water would mean a lot of wet streets and roads which could cause accidents, especially in cold areas where it would turn to ice.

So the hydrogen doesn't actually burn up like a carbon based fuel?