Posted on 05/26/2004 9:48:04 AM PDT by Rebelbase
Perhaps you are deluded enough to believe that it is about NOTHING BUT oil, and that what I had to say about oil versus alternatives was either incorrect or irrelevant. Crude oil will be the fuel for 95% or more of the world's transportation for many years to come. We are a western, Christian country, and will not transform ourselves into what the Islamists want in order to beg for their oil. But we will, and we do, pay the market price for it.
Nobody knows what form any new technology might take, which is exactly what I said - although I mentioned several possibilities. Do you have the answers to the questions I raised? Real answers, not just guesses based on wishful thinking? Research and development is needed, along with the time to get it done.
Oil's replacement might just turn out to be synthesized petroleum instead of hydrogen. Or perhaps we will learn to extract and process Canadian tar sands, an immense resource pool that dwarfs Middle East oil. But the kind of supersized, multicycle nuclear facility I mentioned has never been designed, and that task will take years if it is ever done.
Actually, no, but you said that it was a small thing. It's not. It's the major thing, and it should be. National interest should be the only determining factor in doing things like invading other countries. If it isn't, then everyone in the Capitol is stark raving mad.
Crude oil will be the fuel for 95% or more of the world's transportation for many years to come
Probably, but largely due to the inertia of such a prevalent technology and the willingness of the various governments to actually go to war over it. And because there may be more oil around then previously thought, and because engineering efforts to improve overall efficiency has and will produce improvements (specific fuel consumption, mass of an equivalent vehicle, combined cycle engines, etc), which will allow less oil to be used for the same amount of activity or the same amount of oil but with increased activity.
We are a western, Christian country, and will not transform ourselves into what the Islamists want in order to beg for their oil
Not for long if illegal and legal immigration keep up at the current rates.
Real answers, not just guesses based on wishful thinking?
The standard retort. It's all just wishful thinking, right? Something as simple as running a vehicle on gaseous hydrogen has been around for decades. It's not "wishful thinking" in that it physically can't work. It's merely not "optimal", at least under the current assumptions. There are a zillion different flavors of alternative vehicles and methods, all of which require a change in the assumption set containing range, size, overall cost, etc. Hard to compete against the economies of scale currently enjoyed by the existing technology, especially when it is subsidized.
What is happening now has almost nothing to do with the 'science' of 'How do we do it', but rather the systems engineering problem of 'which way is best?'. That's the real answer.
Or perhaps we will learn to extract and process Canadian tar sands
Oh yeah. The Athabascan fields. Which is already turning into Synfuels the Remake. Hey, I was there for the first movie. It was hilarious. But a lot of people out in Vernal and Craig made some money. Whatever.
But the kind of supersized, multicycle nuclear facility I mentioned has never been designed, and that task will take years if it is ever done
Don't worry, be happy. Inertial confinement will save us all, right?
Actually, no, but you said that it was a small thing. It's not. It's the major thing, and it should be. National interest should be the only determining factor in doing things like invading other countries. If it isn't, then everyone in the Capitol is stark raving mad.
OK, I exaggerated somewhat, but do you believe that if the alternative fuel problem were solved tomorrow that we would suddenly be safe, and the Middle East countries and people would be our friends? You know that envy at our success versus their failure is far too strong for that.
Crude oil will be the fuel for 95% or more of the world's transportation for many years to come
Probably, but largely due to the inertia of such a prevalent technology and the willingness of the various governments to actually go to war over it. And because there may be more oil around then previously thought, and because engineering efforts to improve overall efficiency has and will produce improvements (specific fuel consumption, mass of an equivalent vehicle, combined cycle engines, etc), which will allow less oil to be used for the same amount of activity or the same amount of oil but with increased activity.
Yes, it is important to our economy, but we are willing to pay market prices for it and have no desire to steal it. That does not mean that we will submit to blackmail, or be forced to pay prices far above market to obtain it. We have not taken a single dollar's worth of oil out of Iraq without paying for it.
We are a western, Christian country, and will not transform ourselves into what the Islamists want in order to beg for their oil
Not for long if illegal and legal immigration keep up at the current rates.
Irrelevant to this discussion.
Real answers, not just guesses based on wishful thinking?
The standard retort. It's all just wishful thinking, right? Something as simple as running a vehicle on gaseous hydrogen has been around for decades. It's not "wishful thinking" in that it physically can't work. It's merely not "optimal", at least under the current assumptions.
Run a stationary engine? Sure. Not economically viable, but technologically possible, with either a continuous, piped supply or a very big tank. Of course, you still have all of the inefficiencies of an IC engine, but it HAS been done. The question that matters is how to make the fuel supply convenient and portable, as well as economically viable. Those answers are NOT YET KNOWN, but we do know that producing pure hydrogen is going to require about THREE times the energy as input that the resulting hydrogen can produce as fuel. Gasoline delivers about 80% of the energy in its raw source to the vehicle tank.
There are a zillion different flavors of alternative vehicles and methods, all of which require a change in the assumption set containing range, size, overall cost, etc. Hard to compete against the economies of scale currently enjoyed by the existing technology, especially when it is subsidized.
Existing transportation is heavily taxed, not subsidized. Infrastructure is subsidized, in the form of roads, bridges, rights of way, etc, but not gasoline. You are probably thinking of the army stealing oil, but I do not buy that argument.
What is happening now has almost nothing to do with the 'science' of 'How do we do it', but rather the systems engineering problem of 'which way is best?'. That's the real answer.
Or perhaps we will learn to extract and process Canadian tar sands
Oh yeah. The Athabascan fields. Which is already turning into Synfuels the Remake. Hey, I was there for the first movie. It was hilarious. But a lot of people out in Vernal and Craig made some money. Whatever.
Nevertheless, it is a hydrocarbon source that could be tapped, if the price is right. Economics rules.
But the kind of supersized, multicycle nuclear facility I mentioned has never been designed, and that task will take years if it is ever done
Don't worry, be happy. Inertial confinement will save us all, right?
Maybe it will someday. Or maybe not. We have enough fission fuel for centuries, so that is not the critical issue. The designing I am talking about is the nuts and bolts stuff of flows, temperatures, bursting strengths, and all of the other engineering necessary to build something that works. It doesn.t exist today.
Well done I am very impressed.
Warm Regards,
Steve Z - Nat.H.Inst.of Aus.
Fuel C.I.A.
SHR96 P/L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.