Abraham: USA can wean itself from foreign oil

USA TODAY ^ | 3/5/2003

[Willie Green]

Question: A USA TODAY poll found that 66% of Americans believe oil companies are overcharging. What is your view?

Answer: The average price of gasoline is about 10 cents higher this winter than the winter two years ago. The strike in Venezuela has constrained supply. The economy in comparison to last year is stronger, so demand is greater than it was a year ago. The reduction in production from OPEC on several occasions in recent years has affected supply. And uncertainties about what is going to happen in Iraq have fueled a lot of speculation in terms of price in the energy markets. All that having been said, we do not want to see people exploited. The Energy Department has a hot line available to anyone who wants to report evidence of price gouging. The Federal Trade Commission and others are monitoring. We should always be vigilant. These high prices hurt average working families, and we are concerned about them.

[Willie Green]

U.S. Petroleum & Crude Oil Overview
(thousand barrels per day)

	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
U.S. Crude Oil Production	7,035	7,804	9,637	8,375	8,597	8,971	7,355	6,560	5,834
U.S. Petroleum Imports	1,815	2,468	3,419	6,056	6,909	5,067	8,018	8,835	11,093
Total	8,850	10,272	13,056	14,431	15,506	14,038	15,373	15,395	16,927
Imports as % of Total	20.5	24.0	26.2	42.0	44.6	36.1	52.2	57.4	65.5

More energy, from another source, is required to manufacture hydrogen than can obtained when hydrogen is used. It will require unimaginabley MASSIVE amounts of energy to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to displace the huge amounts of petroleum we import. Yet in the promotion of this bogus "solution", Spencer Abraham cavalierly dismisses discussion of what this alternate source of energy might be.

"We would produce the fuel from a variety of sources here at home."

Yeah, right Spence -- a "variety"!!!
Can't you get any more elusive and noncommittal than that???

[FredZarguna]

The energy would be produced from coal.

[Radioactive]

More energy, from another source, is required to manufacture hydrogen than can obtained when hydrogen is used. It will require unimaginabley MASSIVE amounts of energy to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to displace the huge amounts of petroleum we import. Yet in the promotion of this bogus "solution", Spencer Abraham cavalierly dismisses discussion of what this alternate source of energy might be.

The best way to create hydrogen is from wind power. The Ecoquest corporation is coming out with a wind powered generator that is called "Wind Tree".

Thus is not a 12 volt generator but generates 120 volts with enough amperage to power a home with no problem.

Electricity would then be put into the grid and the home owner would recieve a check from the power company for any electricty put back into the grid.

I sure get tired of people who always say---no it will not work.

The world is full of loosers who said it will not work and then watched as people who made it work do what they say they were going to do.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

USA can wean itself from foreign oil...

That's nice Spence. Now can we wean ourselves off those H1-B visas you love so much that are putting Americans out of work?

[Bob J]

On NOW!

With your host Luis Gonzalez

This week's guest:

Mr. Ward Connerly

Mr. Connerly will discuss current issues and take calls.

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep! HIFI broadband feed HERE! (when available)

Would you like to receive a note when RadioFR is on the air? Click HERE!

Click HERE to chat in the RadioFR chat room!

Miss a show?

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

[Jhoffa_]

[Jhoffa_]

The world is full of loosers who said it will not work and then watched as people who made it work do what they say they were going to do.

The world is also full of other losers, like the ones who shut down wind mill farms in california during the power crunch because they were killing birds..

There's also the "Art Bell" types who think everyone lives in sunny Arizona and can power everything they (ahem) "need" to power with solar energy.

Further, there's even more losers who think everyone in America has money to buy things like wind mills and solar cells..

[FredZarguna]

Not really sure what your post indicates. Are you unaware that most electrical power in the US is generated by coal? Are you unaware that by far the largest known energy reserves in coal on earth are in the US? Here's the breakdown: [In Quadrillion BTU]:

Coal 23
Natural gas 20
Crude Oil 12
Nuclear Power 8
Wood 3
Hydro-eletric 3
Biomass 3
Geothermal, Solar, Wind <1

I don't claim this mix is desireable. Most of our electricity should come from burning plutonium and uranium. But politically, this isn't going to happen. People who think wind, geothermal, or solar are going to displace fossil fuels are living in a dream world: the physics is simply not behind these notions. They cannot account for more than 15% of current needs, and that is the most optimistic [and many think unrealistic] estimate.

Hydrogen fuel cells--if ever brought into serious production--will need to be "charged." They will be charged by electircal power plants, and that means coal.

[Jhoffa_]

Not really sure what your post indicates.

It indicates my reluctance to be stuck in a Stanley Steamer during rush hour traffic.

I have no problem with coal for power plants, that's fine.. But I have no desire to be killed in a boiler explosion on the freeway. Gimmie oil any day.

I was just teasing when I posted it, actually..

[Jhoffa_]

PS: Actually I would prefer power plants be fired with coal.

Save the oil for vehicles and the natural gas for home heating.

Let them build power plants by the river and tote the coal up in barges. Then, everyone's happy.

[Carry_Okie]

More energy, from another source, is required to manufacture hydrogen than can obtained when hydrogen is used. It will require unimaginabley MASSIVE amounts of energy to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to displace the huge amounts of petroleum we import. Yet in the promotion of this bogus "solution", Spencer Abraham cavalierly dismisses discussion of what this alternate source of energy might be.

There are catylists that look promising for separating hydrogen from methane. LNG looks like it's to be the preferred source.

We should probably start with diesel-electric hybrids. That plan could be widley implemented in as little as five to seven years using the existing fuel delivery infrastructure.

The other major energy solution is trip reduction through broadband. The first step there is eliminating the Post Office. Homes would then purchase one daily delivery of mail, food, library books...

I think it's doable. Screw your damned trains.

[Willie Green]

There are catylists that look promising for separating hydrogen from methane. LNG looks like it's to be the preferred source.

That's a wasteful use of natural gas when there are so many other applications dependent on it's availability. And stripping the hydrogen catalyticly to oxidize it alone loses all the exothermic energy that's released when the carbon is oxidized. Heck, you couldn't possibly find enough methane to substitute for the petroleum we currently import.

Screw your damned trains.

You and Dubya are the ones who are out in the Twilight Zone with Ozone Algore as far as coming up with a sensible alternative.

[ggekko]

"It will require unimaginabley MASSIVE amounts of energy to manufacture sufficient hydrogen to displace the huge amounts of petroleum we import...."

The US needs an integrated Energy strategy. Hydrogen could be produced cheaply and in massive quantities as a byproduct of a nuclear power generation in a new generation of nuclear power plants.

The Bush team has been pursuing a good energy strategy, IMHO. One part of the strategy is to diversify our sources of oil; this has been done in Russia's Caspian basin and in East Africa. OPEC's global market share has fallen to 37% and wil fall further as more Russian production comes online. The US has gotten to access the lion's share of this oil because of Bush's policy.

The second prong of the Bush energy strategy is nuclear power. Spencer Abraham is the first enegry secretary in 30 years to allow the permits for new nuclear power plant construction. The Hydrogen strategy will be much more viable once these plants come online.

Our dependence on foreign oil has developed over 40 years. It will not be possible to reverse it overnight. I for one am glad that we have a President who worked in the Enegery field for many years. We are starting to move in the right direction.

[TFMcGuire]

I believe the only way this could be done in an economical way--cf. above remarks--would be if we were able to use nuclear power to electrolyse water. Nuclear power could and should be very inexpensive. But we know what overregulation and mass hysteria has done to this industry.

Of course if fusion can ever be harnassed.....

[TFMcGuire]

I believe the only way this could be done in an economical way--cf. above remarks--would be if we were able to use nuclear power to electrolyse water. Nuclear power could and should be very inexpensive. But we know what overregulation and mass hysteria has done to this industry.

Of course if fusion can ever be harnassed.....

[TFMcGuire]

sorry--Harnessed.

[Willie Green]

Spencer Abraham is the first enegry secretary in 30 years to allow the permits for new nuclear power plant construction.

I am unaware of any such positive developments in the domestic nuclear power industry. The most I could find in the FR archives is an article I posted concerning the potential reactivation of a TVA nuke plant that had been mothballed for 17 years. (Restarting Reactor Could Boost Nuclear Power Industry)
That, and I seem to recall that one or two others successfully being recertified for extended operation. That's better than what could've been expected under Klintoon/Algore, but hardly what I'd call a reversal of fortune for the domestic nuclear power industry.

However, NEW construction isn't ringing a bell.
Could you please provide a link to such information, I'm very interested in learning more about it.

[TFMcGuire]

Last time this came up, someone humorously made reference to a "Rolling Hindenburg." He nearly killed me with his good wit.

By all means, let's use our inexhaustable coal supplies to run power plants etc. Clean coal technology.

The Germans even developed a way to convert coal to liquid petroleum in WWII if I'm not mistaken.

[Willie Green]

Of course if fusion can ever be harnassed.....

Sadly, fusion power seems like its been 30 years in the future for the last 30 years. It may still be 30 years in the future 30 years from now. Sometimes I think the theoretical physicists who are working on this are more concerned with finding new little particles that they can name and envisioning quirky alternate realities predicted by their mathematics than they are with actually producing electricity.