backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 441 comment(s) - last by elgueroloco.. on Aug 11 at 5:34 PM

A color-coded map of undiscovered Arctic oil deposits. Darker areas of green indicate more oil.
Race to claim begins

The Arctic may hold far more oil than previously thought; as much as 90 billion undiscovered barrels according to a new study released today by the US Geological Survey.   The new amount, equivalent to nearly 20 years of US foreign oil imports, is worth over $11 trillion dollars at current oil prices.  One third of the amount may lie in Alaska alone, according to the study's authors.

The region also holds nearly 1,700 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 27% of known world gas reserves.  Counting known deposits already surveyed, total oil and gas deposits in the Arctic are more than 410 billion barrels.

The study, known as CARA -- Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal -- included only those deposits that could be tapped with current technology.  Future advances would likely boost the number further.  Researchers in Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and Norway contributed data to the study.

According to project chief, Donald Gautier, "The extensive Arctic continental shelves may constitute the geographically largest unexplored prospective area for petroleum remaining on Earth."

A geopolitical scramble for the resources is beginning.  Russia has taken steps to secure rights to the region, last year sending a nuclear-powered ship to map a possible undersea connection between Siberia and the North Pole.  This would allow the nation a rationale to circumvent the UN 200-mile limit of offshore resource claims. 

Seven other nations have claims for the area, including Norway, Sweden, Canada, and the U.S.  Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the nation intends to "defend" its sovereignty in the Arctic, backing up the statement with a plan to divert 8 military patrol ships to the region, along with a new deep-water port.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Greetings Dr. Falken
By puckalicious on 7/24/2008 12:16:35 PM , Rating: 5
"Shall we play a game?"

"Global thermonuclear war."

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Or, how about we invest our time/money in renewable resources for long term prosperity instead of throwing away everything we have for the short term gain?




RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By michal1980 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:40:29 PM , Rating: 5
I think he is saying:

instead of eating all the bread in front of you, just use as much as you really need and try and find another source for food.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danrien on 7/24/2008 12:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
exactly. while americans have had very unhealthy diets for a long time, that hasn't stopped researchers from looking for new ways to make healthy foods. they didn't tell people to stop eating, but they did say give us some money so we can figure out how to make just as tasty food that won't give you a heart attack in 30 years. the present energy situation is the exact same in that respect, and is why research into resources not so easily depleted is so important.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xsilver on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It might not be the same for energy but even if 1 in 10 people think like this then we're in trouble.
Regular people don't engage in these types of discussions. They're too busy living. Life must be good if we're able to have these discussions though. That means we're not worried about where our next meal is coming from or where we'll sleep tonight.

I'm actually happy that we aren't the one's in charge. I'm glad the one's doing most of the buying, decision making, etc are just regular people. Sure, it may not make for the best decisions but I'd rather have it this way then to have the more radical (us geeks) in charge. Thank God for the tyranny of the majority!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Ammohunt on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BruceLeet on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By kenferg1 on 7/24/2008 8:59:50 PM , Rating: 5
I find it odd that Europeans are quick to condem Americans for oil gluteny. After all, European economies are as oil bound as any. I also find it rather interesting that Europeans are virtual silent on fossil fuel consumption by China, India, and other previously third-world nations.

Do you really think that China is going to give up oil as well as the wealth and power that it builds? Do you think India and China will accept or abide by any accords that limit their production of the trace gas CO2? The Asian giant is awakening and the Indian subcontinent will not be denied. They want what the West has had for the past 150 years: economic progress, a seat in world politics, and military power to back both.

So, while I whole heartily agree that a search for alternative energy supplies is not only smart but a moral imperative, I also acknowledge the fact that right now oil is what drives the world economy. To deny drilling for a resource that is necessary today, would be to deny the economic prosperity and technological gains that will one day make oil obsolete.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:13:01 PM , Rating: 4
Europeans find it odd that Americans are yelling and screaming bloody murder over gas prices. Your petrol is about twice as cheap as it is in Europe. Its truly bizarre to to watch. Sort of like someone earning 20k watching someone earning 40k saying that the sky is falling.
The current problem with America, imho, is based around the old saying "to someone with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China ) all these countries are on the way up. You can thank the aggressively US pushed free trade for that. While its true the US has the only military that can sit around and consider how to stop this, it really isn’t a solution, its only a possible action. The big issue is that, there is no answer, you can drill and drill all you like, but all the easy oil is gone, even if there is some mysterious deposits we find, its only a delay, its not a solution. "Just because we haven't hit the ground doesn't mean we aren't falling". If you look in the cupboard and see 10 cans of food left, do you blame your house mates you have to share with... or find more food? If there truely was no more food ( alternate energy), that is one thing. However, I’m not sure who would deny alternate energy is available.. its only that its much harder to get. But of course, remembering how good things were doesn’t make things in the future any better :)
America is the one country that has the finances to do something, almost any problem America could solve (or at least give it the best shot any country could hope). However, too much rhetoric is used to gain politic support, its poisoned the minds of the public. Its too easy to blame someone else, if you can point your finger at something and say thats the problem... hey thats easy, anyone can sell that. However, going back and saying.. wait... this isnt the whole issue, we also have to go back and change. That is suicide.
Europe is good in the sense that the power is much less controlled, you don't find the EU going down such dramatically routes because each country can parry against each other to balance the point of view, no country leader commits political suicide by going against another country (which in America is the accepted wisdom), its the benefit of localized propaganda, you don’t have the whole EU being sold on one idea.
However, its also a weakness, when a good idea comes around, its almost impossible to execute it like America could. Even with 100% support, the EU doesn’t have the same sort of money available. The US could sink 1 trillion dollars into some idea per year if required, and they have the infrastructure and talent to use it. Not like the Mideast or BRIC when they get money, but have to outsource everything because they don’t have the infrastructure or talent.
How you can turn the country into supporting such a bold investment, which tacitly admits the country is in big, big trouble, I have no idea. I wish people could stop being so polarized by opinion. Is peak oil real? Is global warming real? From what I read, I don’t see how it can be false. However, I don’t care if its false, its great if its false. I just don’t get what people who are devoted to it being false have to gain? You are right and we are fucked or you are wrong and we aren’t? It makes no sense to me, sit on the fence, reserve judgement. That takes a lot more balls than choosing some position they think makes them right. You just have nothing to gain by being against it... more pollution at the least, is that something to be proud of? Best case scenario is we aren’t fucked? Seems weird to me *shrugs*... but im happy to hear it proved wrong, honestly. IMO, that’s the best position to have, but vigorous debate on the issues is very important, just don’t let it devolve to insults and yelling.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By NullSubroutine on 7/25/2008 6:39:20 AM , Rating: 5
Your price of fuel is also increased by the taxes that pay for things like health care and I think education. You cannot look at both prices in a vacuum and say 'oh bloody hell they are a bunch of whiners'.

Both Europe and the US have an economy and financial sector setup on a certain price of things, regardless of the disparity between other countries. Wages, income, prices for products, etc all are dynamic as in they are based on the costs of other things. Yet, they are rather static when looking at a traditional long term trend of gradual increase (inflation).

However, when you introduce a certain market which is a backbone the economy like gas (you need oil for everything) this unbalances and disrupts the homeostasis of the (our) country. Gas prices doubling in such a short period in time has made it so many cannot afford transportation - and not everywhere is there public transportation. There are many places in the rural areas of the US where citizens make the lowest median wage and have to drive 80 miles a day to get to work. Add in the fact these individuals can't afford hybrid cars or newer cars that can get 30-50MPG(US gallon) on the highway. What you have people barely able to make ends meet just by the increase of 1 commodity.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By clovell on 7/25/2008 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 5
Bear in mind the following:

Domestic oil production in the US crashed two decades ago.
There are large reserves that are untouched in the US.
The percentage of oil imported into the US has almost tripled in the last three decades.
There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US since I've been alive.

Americans scream bloody murder over gas prices not because they're high - they scream bloody murder over gas prices because they're high and we can do something about that problem, but aren't.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By BZDTemp on 7/25/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/25/2008 9:23:16 AM , Rating: 4
> "The US is using twice the amount of energy per capita than any other industrialized nation "

Eh? Many nations have a higher per-capita energy usage than the US. Canada, for one, along with Iceland, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Kuwait, and a few others.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
We are also the largest, most populated, most developed, and most wealthy first world country. (Canada is bigger landwise but not population.)

What would the EU be in a similar situation? Most like the same. If cars and fuel were not taxed to death in the EU more people would have cars and the situtation would be very similar on a per capita basis.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By fibreoptik on 7/25/2008 8:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
umm I think you meant "whole heartedly" rather than "whole heartily".


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By bodar on 7/27/2008 7:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Amish weren't allowed to use the internet? We need to find a realistic alternative to oil BEFORE we give it up, otherwise we are back to 19th century transportation and production methods.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Moohbear on 7/24/2008 12:32:11 PM , Rating: 5
Let me see. On one hand, we have: preserving the ecosystem and solving the oil short/medium term shortage by developing costly or unproven alternatives and making a lot a very influent, very rich people angry.
On the other hand, we have $11,000,000,000,000 lying in the ground.
Now, try to guess what the jury will decide ;)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By vapore0n on 7/24/2008 12:44:06 PM , Rating: 3
If true about these findings, then the choice is obvious. Drill the arctic. Maybe this will give us enough time to develop the alternate fuel at price that most can afford.

Cant say that oil is the only way. We still need to go to an alternate source of energy. Its only a matter of time....and money.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foxtrot9 on 7/25/2008 4:01:45 PM , Rating: 4
While in a perfect world that sounds nice and all - it won't happen. If we drill and find another abundent source of oil, the focus will turn away from finding alternative sources. It will be much easier to just use what we have and let future generations worry about the problem. It's the same idea as our national debt and problems with social security - "don't fix the problem now because when it really becomes a big issue I won't be in office and it won't matter to me"


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
its a shame but that's pretty much how the world works now


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By xti on 7/24/2008 12:46:40 PM , Rating: 5
one of those zero's just winked at me.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By lifeblood on 7/24/2008 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 5
The silly thing is, most everyone knows the best solution. Drill the oil while diversifying your current energy sources (nuclear, solar, wind, etc) and looking for new or improved sources of energy.

The problem is, if oil is plentiful then we won't seriously look for new or improved energy sources. It seems we only get serious when are wallet is getting hurt.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By porkpie on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems? Heck, early on we burned off natural gas just to get rid of it because we had so much oil. Yeah, having a lot of something really makes us look for ways to get more of it.

Necessity is the mother of invention.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 2:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
> " that's why we're just now looking for viable alternatives when we've had 100+ years of no oil supply problems?"

Eh? Both your statements are incorrect. We've been researching wind and solar for many decades...the first concentrated solar plants were built in the 1980, and we've utilitized wind mills for power long before we began using oil. Hydrogen production has been explored for decades as well, with our largest advances made in the 1990s, when gas was $1.50/bbl.

Furthermore, we've had much worse oil supply problems in the past. In the 1970s, the US had to institute price controls and rationing....people were only allowed to fill their cars on alternate days. In the 1920s even, President Coolidge convened an emergency council to solve the 'crisis', under the belief the world would be utterly out of oil within the next 10 years.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/2008 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, by "viable" I meant that we're actually trying to bring them to market now, not just research them. If the oil price is low, it drives alternatives of out the market. The point that porkpie is making is that we'd spend more money researching alternatives when we're oil rich, which is plain wrong.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 5
i can't believe people are arguing against you isofir, your point is so obviously correct to me and I would hope many others.

sure, there have been alternative energy interests and research for a long time, but have you ever before seen the US as a whole so interested in reducing our dependency on oil? No. Why? 'cause no one likes paying $4 a gallon.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/2008 4:42:50 PM , Rating: 5
There's a difference between "interested" and "able". The more expensive oil gets, the more interested we are in not using it, but the less able we are to afford developing any alternative.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 4:48:20 PM , Rating: 5
sure, but again, the proof is in the pudding. never before has gas cost so much, and yet never before have we seen the interest and $ spend on R&D for alternative energy sources. this idea that we need the money saved on spending for gas to fund alternative energy is a very weak point. there might be a grain of truth in it, but it's insignificant. the money spent on alternative energy will come when enough people demand it, simple as that.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By grenableu on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:07:10 PM , Rating: 5
> " what about the number of solar panels installed this year vs. last year? "

Your examples deal with implementation rather than research. Acts like installing solar panels based on current technology don't help the situation. We can *never* solve our energy needs with such. They're a waste of time, money, and resources, plain and simple. A symbolic gesture valuable for emotional reasons perhaps, but not a practical advance.

What we need is a solution that works. Nuclear power is a viable solution for non-fossil fuel electricity generation, but there is no current solution for non-petroleum based transportation. None. Spending money on alternatives that aren't ready for prime time doesn't help us in the long run.

What's a better option...to spend $200M on a solar farm that produces power at 5X the cost of nuclear (or 40X the cost, if one has to store energy for night)....or that same money, spent on researching how to make cells cheaper and more efficient? Or an energy storage technology that's actually practical? Or better batteries for EV cars?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 7:21:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
and I still don't think you're giving solar enough credit. ask anyone in the solar industry how much of a difference their products make on their customer's energy bills and I'm sure you'll get some decent figures.

Ask those same customers how much they spent for those savings. $30K? $40K? $50K?

Justifying solar power by the so-called "savings" is kind of like when someone tells you how much they "saved" at the mall buying things.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 10:21:30 PM , Rating: 1
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/25/2008 9:17:17 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
no, it's not. energy savings pay you back constantly. there is an upfront cost, but over time they pay for themselves and eventually turn a profit.

Have you ever done a break-even analysis for solar? I did one last year, using a solar industry web site, and the cost break even was like 25 or 30 years!

This is why, in my opinion, you only see a tiny fraction of our energy being generated by solar power. It will stay that way until those economics change.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By s12033722 on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By eldakka on 7/24/2008 10:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
While I tend to agree with you regarding ground-based solar not really being a solution (unless they come up with practical, room-temperature superconductors for power transmission and solar farms located all around the world...) what about space-based solar power?

A large (technically possible at the moment, but really, really expensive ;) ) space based array would get sunlight 24*365, undiluted by earth's atmosphere and unaffected by weather.

Of course, the initial costs and build times (even simple satellites take years to assemble) would be incredible...But probably less than trying to make huge ground-based solar farms...

As for nuclear, I think it IS a current, viable solution, all it lacks is political will by the pollies to allow it.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Starcub on 7/26/2008 5:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're throwing a red herring here. Nuclear is viable. All it takes to build the plants is the will to do so. One stroke of a pen on the right desk, and the problem is solved.

Solar isn't viable, however, for very real, technical reasons.

Solar is viable, even with tech currently commercially available here in the US (the EU is a larger customer of solar). Several southwestern states have already built solar farm plants, and here in Florida where I live, they are planning to build one as well (and unfortunately also a nuke plant). Do you think that they would do this if the evidence failed to promote solar's viability?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By danielg001 on 7/24/2008 11:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply is good, because it exposes the understanding problem.

Energy... how do we use it, how do we need it.

Petrol in cars is not really energy as we think of it, its a battery, its a frigging amazing battery. If oil ran out, youd look back at the days you can poor essentially free liquid into your car and it just drives for ever with amazement. The industrial revolution... modern life, is built of this amazing energy source. Factories and all industrial prosperity is grown based on using the energy the planet stored for millions of years as fossil fuels.

Alternate energy isnt exactly an amazingly easy enegy we can just use as we want, we already have that energy, its coal and natural gas and crude oil. However, when we supply a few percent via alternate already without a significant GDP investment, its hard to see why we couldn't supply almost all of it. Supplemented with nuclear or whatever, even fossil fuels, doesn't matter, if we use a lot less, it lasts much longer. However, this is for POWER, the grid. Your house, your office, anything stationary.

Alternates are hard for transport, its a completely different issue. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, its a battery, but its not anywhere as good as oil. Fuel cells have a great energy density but... lets look...

kw/kg kWh/l
Hydrogen, gas (300 bar) 33 0.7
Petrol, liquid 13 8.7

http://www.fuelcell.no/hydrogen_mainpage_eng.htm

That is key, its something < 10% of the energy that oil has, and fuel cells are far more delicate than just slushing some petrol into your tank and driving away allows. They require a lot of energy to make, rare materials, they don't last very long (cars might break down, but your gas never does, its simplicity is deceptive, but oil is amazing).

Unless oil estimates are wrong, and completely amazingly stupidly wrong (20-100% underestimates just buy time, even then, they are much harder to extract), I dont see how cars will exist as they do in they future. About 25% of corn in the US next year will be used for a few percent of the car fuel? I cant see a solution, even if you created clean, unlimited fusion energy. Made all the hydrogen you needed, can you imagine the effort to convert all the cars and petrol stations in the world to use this? It would be hundreds of trillions or more, and thats only if the market doesnt collapse with the news we are going to only get less and less oil year over year.

Though... on the other hand.. its pretty easy to imagine (at least in larger cities), converting roads to rail, solar powered trains running all the time in stead. Farms built in hydroponic skyscrapers, all in walking distance.. humans have already been able to travel a few km a day with ease, just by eating the same daily food. When we have to drive a 1 ton car 20km to get food for 70kg of person, its easy to see the problems (not that I want to go back to eating whatever comes from a local farm, but it sure is efficent).

Im equally surprised how easy some huge improvements could be made compared to the huge issues that could face us if we really did run out of oil. The big problem my brain has is that I pretty much never see humans doing anything, on a large scale, pro actively. If it all goes to shit, sure, the effort we would apply would be hard to imagine. It just seems like we need to put ourselves in a position where when we do dig in and do something, it can actually have an effect. If nothing is done, oil peaks without us believing it, oil hits $500 a barrel, too expensive for trucks to deliver food. Inflation explodes, food runs out, Im not sure what could be done unless we are already moving in the right direction.

On the flip side, if you have a few solar panels on your farm and a bunch of dvds. Life would probably be about the same :)


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Lugaidster on 7/28/2008 5:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you want an example of what would happen if oil just disappeared and you had no more money look at Cuba and how things changed when the USSR disappeared. Suddenly there was no way to get oil so people had no means of transportation. Without which there was barely any means to deliver food or produce electricity. There were blackouts almost every day. And you couldn't even get basic raw resources, so if you wanted to build something wood was practically your only alternative. People starved and deflected to other countries USA being the most popular. People got used to walk as there were no alternatives. There weren't many imports because of the embargo. And so on...

I just hope that this doesn't happen to the rest of the world and we find other ways to produce energy (besides using food, because that's almost the same thing). Otherwise, population will go back to 19th century numbers.

I say leave that oil buried in the arctic and use the money to research other alternatives.

---

On the subject of saving oil for flights I would say that planes are probably the easiest problem to solve if we were oil constrained (or at least oil constrained enough to come up with a solution). After all, planes enjoy the flexibility that the car industry doesn't have. Given that R&D takes time, if we really need a specific technology, time won't be as much of an issue (otherwise look at war times as an example).


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrids are not alternative to fossil fuel cars, it is a convervation method.

A true alternative to fuels would be electric and hydrogen-fuel-cell electric for example.

You can't replace traditional power plants with AF of 80-90% with something that has an AF of 30-40% and costs more. That just does not make sense! I have worked in the power industry. Alternative sources are poor choices for the grid due to their variability. Balancing the grid is hard enough due to the dynamic nature of the electrical load, and that is when you have a stable reliable set of power generation to tap.

If the alternatives performance figures were equal to or better than fmore traditional methods and the cost was similar, than now we are talking.

Be more pratical and make sure the solution does not perform worse and/or cost more than the problem.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By plinkplonk on 7/26/2008 12:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
are you?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By mmatis on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By epobirs on 7/24/2008 4:18:24 PM , Rating: 3
Uh, no. There was nothing requiring us to institute price controls and rationing. That was an idiotic outburst of socialistic thinking that has thankfully not been repeated.

Price controls created a situation where gas station owners found themselves required to sell for less than their cost. Not being stupid, they decided it was better to run out until they could buy more supply at a reasonable price than to actively lose money on every gallon sold.

This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge. The problem was the rising price driven by OPEC, not a lack of supply. It would have far better to let prices at the pump rise to whatever the market dictated. This would have gotten more than a small minority deeply interested in purchasing cars that got much better mileage. If Detroit couldn't or wouldn't do it, the rewards would go to whoever offered a better choice.

No hamfisted government intervention needed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "This was an incredibly stupid policy on the part of the government that created an artificial shortge"

Of course. I never disputed that. The fact remains that the 1973 oil embargo was a more severe situation than the price escalation we see today. With OPEC refusing entirely to sell to the US and several other nations, oil prices went almost overnight from $3/bbl to $15/bbl, then continued rising over the next few years up to $40/bbl.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By William Gaatjes on 7/24/2008 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 1
Are the time frames you are naming coincidence ?

1970 oil supply problems.
1980 alternative energy source like solar plants where being taken to production if i understan correclty.
Now given that research takes some years that would not seem like a coincidence.

If it is or not, you have to agree that when the oil get scarce it is more of a push in the direction of alternative energy sources. Our infrastruture depends on oil and that infrastructure would only change if it is necessary. When there is enough oil, nobody would go through that trouble.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By SiliconAddict on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 12:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
No company can be at the forefront of every potential technology. It would just cost too much. So they essentially place their bets on which technology they think will win out. The Japanese car companies gambled that hybrids would be the next big thing. They won. The American car companies gambled that hydrogen fuel cells would be the next big thing. They lost. That's the way the market works. I remember reading an article around 2000 where a Japanese car company CEO said that they were 5-10 years behind the Americans on fuel cell research, and if the fuel cells won out they were in big trouble.

And it's really ironic that you posted what you did as a criticism of American car companies not conducting alternative fuel R&D. The environmental groups condemned hybrids when they first showed up because they got all their energy from gasoline. They wanted electric and fuel cell vehicles, not something that just used gasoline differently. The American car companies were doing what the environmental groups wanted. It ended up costing them, and now you're condemning them for not developing hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2008 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. And then guys like him also give credit to Honda for releasing a "production" fuel cell car despite GM having done something similar over a year before.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 2:42:32 PM , Rating: 3
The flaw in your argument is that alternative energy R&D didn't just start when oil prices shot up this time around. It's been going on for many decades already.

People are always looking for and working on alternatives; they just become more attractive, relatively speaking, when the cost of traditional energy sources increases.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 2:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything. Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Spuke on 7/24/2008 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
R&D existed, but it never amounted to anything.
It didn't? How so? Explain.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'll explain since you're enjoying playing the dumb game. Who knew what a Hybrid car was 5 years ago vs. how many people know now?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 3
Public awareness is not the same as research and development.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
and yet it "amounts to something". the fact is interest drives funding, and larger amounts of interest come from necessity than anything else. pinch the gas prices and people will demand electric cars. pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
> "pinch natural gas prices and people will demand geothermal heating and cooling "

But people aren't demanding geothermal heating right now. They're demanding cheaper natural gas. Look at the article I posted above.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 6:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
that's 'cause they don't know about geothermal!

give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 7:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
> "give people an alternative that they understand and that's cheaper and they'll jump to it, guaranteed. "

Of course. The problem is those alternative sources *aren't* cheaper...and only further R&D can make them so.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By JoshuaBuss on 7/24/2008 7:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
a well designed geothermal heating and cooling system in your home can save you 70% on your energy bills and totally remove your dependence on natural gas. it may not be cheaper to install at first, but it will pay for itself within a few years in most cases, even faster in some.

http://waterfurnace.com/benefits.aspx
http://waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Solandri on 7/25/2008 1:04:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, I priced several heating/cooling systems for a construction project at my last workplace. Initially it was supposed to be eco-friendly, but budget costs forced it to standard construction. We already had some of the eco-friendly options priced out, and geothermal actually ended up being cheaper than regular heating/AC within I think it was 3 years.

Don't confuse it with geothermal energy, which is only viable near volcanoes and hot springs. Essentially a geothermal heat pump is the same thing as a regular heat pump (which operates cheaper than heating/AC for efficiency reasons), but uses the ground as a temperature sink instead of the air. That makes it a lot more efficient than a regular heat pump (since the ground is a lot warmer than the air in Winter, cooler than the air in Summer). The only drawback is you need to dig up the lawn. But the payback is relatively quick, nothing like solar. It's one of the few eco-friendly options I consider to be viable right now.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:08:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you seriously going to argue that if gas was dirt cheap, people would look to EVs and Hybrids? "

If gas is dirt cheap, it implies its plentiful and not in short supply. If such is the case, why would we need to be driving around more expensive hybrids and EVs? Doesn't it make more sense to save that money, and instead spend it on something more useful...like more research to improve the alternatives?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By isorfir on 7/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 3:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
If we're spending the money on gas, we CAN'T spend it on anything else. Wealth creates progress, plain and simple.

Seen Zambia fund much alternative energy research lately? Only a wealthy nation can engage in such endeavors...and if oil continues to rise, the US will no longer be such.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 4:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy. Coincidence?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Noya on 7/24/2008 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
That's because EU countries tax their fuel considerably more than the US does = that's what subsidizes the alternative energy research/sources.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 4:53:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gasoline in Europe is far more expensive than in the US, they are also a leader in alternative energy.

I'd like to know how you reached that conclusion. When I look at Europe, compared to other developed nations, I see basically the same energy sources.

Nearly all vehicles are powered by oil (diesel or gas), and nearly all infrastructure powered by oil, coal, nat. gas, nuclear, and hydro. All developed nations have just a tiny fraction generated by "alternative" energy sources like wind, solar, etc.

So how is Europe a "leader" exactly?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By DanoruX on 7/24/2008 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
They're a leader in R&D.


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By 4play on 7/24/2008 5:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
@ TomZ:

Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/40791/54...

maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

heres a wiki link as well :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European-union-...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By masher2 (blog) on 7/24/2008 5:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "@ TomZ: Germany is up to getting 14% of it's electricity from renewables "

Yes they are:

quote:
BERLIN'S POLITICAL CONUNDRUM
Voters Furious over Surging Energy Prices

In 1997, the Germans spent €69 billion ($107 billion) on electricity, heating and fuel. By 2007 -- a year with a warm winter -- that combined figure had increased to €95 billion ($147 billion)...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518...


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By foolsgambit11 on 7/25/2008 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering that US natural gas prices have doubled since 1997, and gas and diesel prices have more than doubled, I wouldn't be surprised if the US figures showed at least a proportional rise in energy costs. And that without serious investment in alternatives. So from this admittedly small sample, you could conclude that investment in renewables is not causally linked to Germany's energy prices.

In fact, the article you link to specifically cites traditional energy sources (natural gas and oil specifically) as being the source of the increased energy costs. Quoting out of context, for shame!


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By Jim28 on 7/25/2008 11:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
If they are such leaders in alternative energy, then why are new coal plants being built there?


RE: Greetings Dr. Falken
By TomZ on 7/24/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
maybe 14% is considered a "tiny fraction" but you need to start somewhere.

If you want to play the game of cherry-picking statistics, I'll give you Washington State, which generates 84% of its electricity from renewable sources.

http://www.energyatlas.org/PDFs/LowRes/atlas_state...

Hopefully Germany will catch up sometime in the future... :o)