It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An Idea for Oil Reduction in the USA

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
(Pleae read whole post before responding. I did some major rambling, but hope I got my point across.)


It's been awhile since I have posted. The site has changed. I don't know if this has been posted before. I think the new search engine is not that user friendly (Or it could just be me). I'm not sure if this should be posted here, but it has to do with oil and the price of gas. Mods, Please bare with me.

Anyways, with the high price of gas, I began thinking about an article I read about a year to 18 months ago. After some searching tonight, I have not found it, but have found some others which I hope will give you insite to my first of 2 points.

The 1st on converting coal into liquid fuel. The article I was looking for, said as long as oil remaned above a certain price, say $18 a barrel this would be feasible. The articles I find say $35, but at this point that is even good. The original article I am refering to said, that as long as oil remaind above $X (18-35). Coal could be used to produce liquid fuel and make money. Now the draw back to the original artical I read, is that this process would only make diesel and jet fuel. But if you take those 2 out of the equation, think how much would be left for the refinement of gasoline. Surely this would lower the price of gas. For those playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, Yes this may cause an incease of the price of coal, but it still should be less than the $100+ price of a barrel of oil. The conversion process is called Fischer-Tropsch.

Here is an article I did find on it....
www.associatedcontent.com...

My 2nd idea,
This maybe a little more out there.
Every year the US Govt gives grants, substities, and tax rebates to companies working on alternative fuel ideas. What if instead the Govt takes all that money;. Say 10, 50 even 100 billion dollars and gives that to the person or company that finds that source, TAX FREE. Now this opens a whole new market. The prise has to be enough, so that the oil companies can not buy the discoverer off. Do I know this for fact NO. (But tell me in this day and age with the technology we have, shouldn't have someone have come up with an engine that gets 100+ miles to the gallon.

With that tax rebates, sudtities, and grants, all big corporations are worried about are the next one of these they will get from the Govt. It is free money. Why come up with a solution, when the Govt is giving to your bottom line.

The answer is for the Govt, to give nothing, until you produce results. Now this may keep some companies from working on a solution, maybe there is some JOE PUBLIC somewhere who has an idea, and the thought of getting all this money tax free appeals to him. He will find the money to create his project.

While I am one of the first people to say GOVT. is not the solution to anything, the PEOPLE ARE. With a reward like this, the PEOPLE will be motivated. Also, going against everything I believe in, the Federal Govt. should pass a law that any company/individual interfering with this process, will lose everything. That is why the prize has to amount to more than any company/individual is willing to lose.

Let me say first and foremost I am a Conservative. I believe in limited Govt. and the such. And in typing this I have come up with many things that can go wrong with this idea.

But, one of the major reasons I am posting this, is that all of you oput there on this board, can help find a way to make this work. Let me say this...........

At one point 10 - 15 years ago oil was trading at about $10 a barrel. The oil companies had to be making money then. Otherwise they would have gone bankrupt.

The price of oil is based on SPECULATION, not how much it takes to pump it out of the ground and transport it. While global conflict may account for some of the price, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT STILL COSTS MORE TO PUMP THE OIL. While some salries may have gone up, it does not justify a 10 fold increase in price. I'm willing to bet the farm that over the last decade that more of the proccesses have become automated. Which should reduce the price.

Oil companies are showing $10-40 billion in profits a quarter. If they are serious about showing, IT"S NOT THE MONEY. then the price should go down. I am the first to agreee that the Govt. Whether is is FEDERAL or STATE taxes on gas is high. From reports I've read it is anywher from 1/3 to half of the cost of a barrel of oil. But until we pay the price for drilling and transporting a barrel of oil, with a profit factores in this will only get worse.

Granted it is the Govt's fault a new refinery has not been built in over 20 years. I ponder this question.....

Why does our own, (The US Govt) make it so hard to drill and process our own oil? Are they subject to some middle eastern countries demands? IF so, THEN THIS IS TREASON!!!

All the LIBERALS, cry about the ENVIROMENTAL impact. Guess what? Simple solution. If someone destroys the ENVIROMENT, then make them pay for it, through the ASS!!! (Sorry for the language, but I think it makes the point.)

We know the US has the reserves and the capability. The LIBERALS and the TREE HUGGERS are the ones stopping us. Personally, I'd rather take my chances on an AMERICAN company doing the right thing, then send my dollars to some middle eastern DICATATOR who is going to use them against us.

Before I made my opion clear, that the Govt. is not the solution. But I do think they can help, FIND the solution.

While Govt. can't find the solution, thay can make it worthwhile for the people to do so. The Govt can set uo a program similar to the X_Prize. Instead of finding a cheaper way into space, they can offer a reward to find alternative energy!!

Will this be easy..NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

But someone has to show the direction.

I will not be online for 12-24 hours. Please add your thoughts/ideas to this, I will respond when I return. Do I have the answers, NO!! But I'm willing to give an IDEA, which I hope you will contribute t(SP)!!!!




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
I think that the main problem with your argument is that you feel that the government is really trying to help us with the issue of oil dependence, but they are just going about it in the wrong way. I think you are incorrect on this point.

Like you said, these companies (Exxon) are making record profits yet won't make any more refineries. From a business standpoint, why should they? The entire world is addicted to your product and couldn't function without it, why pay money out of your own pocket to do something that would guarantee that you would in turn make less money? These same companies contribute greatly to the campaigns of the people in power. Thereby ensuring that the policies don't change.

It's all about who has the money.




We know the US has the reserves and the capability. The LIBERALS and the TREE HUGGERS are the ones stopping us.


I am sure that your conservative friends are smiling to see that you are such a firm believer in the company line. Do you honestly think that drilling in Alaska or anywhere domestically will do anything to lower the price you pay at the pump? Will it do anything for the average American at all? Like you said earlier, they won't invest in refineries, which would actually help us, so what would more capacity mean without the means to refine it? I guess I don't feel better when I am getting screwed if it is by an American company vs a ME country. If it isn't going to save Americans any money and it will only make companies like Exxon even more money, only this time at the cost of our own environment, is it really worth it?

The reality is that the entire world is addicted to oil. Oil companies are going to do everything that they can to ensure that things remain that way. Lessening our dependence is not really going to work since worldwide dependence is increasing at such a fast rate (see India and China). It is either going to have to run out completely or we are going to have to find real alternatives and hope that the those true alternatives are not bought out or buried by the oil companies.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   


The price of oil is based on SPECULATION, not how much it takes to pump it out of the ground and transport it.


My friend, a lot so called experts are touting this claim on the television but don’t be absurd. It simply isn’t true.

You see, the experts know that you don’t know what the word “speculation” really means in regards to oil. So, they tout this as the root “cause” for the high price of oil to give you a “Boogie Man” to blame everything on. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Commodities, such as oil, are not speculative in the least tiny little meaning of the word. They trade in trends, not the ups and downs of the stock market. The price of oil has been rising ever since we invaded Iraq, and it will stay high as long as our tax dollars are paying off the Iraqi government not to flood the market with oil. Since we have invaded Iraq, Iraq has produced less than half the oil that Saddam did when he was in power.

This is the reason that the price of oil is so high. It isn’t speculative at all. Oil traders simply look at how much oil the countries that have it are producing verses the demand for the product itself. What we have here is a basic manipulation of the global commodity on the supply side, while demand is increasing. It is not speculative at all, it is simply a reflection of the global numbers.

The experts on TV don’t really want to talk about why we are paying high prices for oil because they know full well that it’s a simple problem and an easy solution. If the American public realized that Iraq is only producing half the oil that they did under Saddam then the problem would be quickly changed. You see, they know that as long as the US stays in Iraq then the Iraqis will get billions of tax dollars to subsidize the low oil numbers.

However, as soon as we leave Iraq, then the Iraqis will have no choice but to produce more oil because they will no longer be getting billions of dollars for just sitting quiet and shutting their mouths. It’s a win/win as they see it because they still have the commodity in large numbers and letting the US drive up the price of oil will only help them all the more when we finally let them sell it again.

The price of oil today is not “Speculative”. Instead, it is “Manipulative”. But traders want you to think that it’s just the “Boogie Man-Speculator” so that you will not call your congressmen and get the US government to leave Iraq ASAP.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
You are not considering that we have the knowledge already to eliminate most of the U.S. petrol consumption. We don't need oil or coal.

Bio-fuels can be produced. No, not food crops. We can make gasoline and diesel from renewable sources through the use of engineered bacteria used on waste products and high oil content plants like Hemp. No, burning Hemp oil won't do anything, it has no THC, so don't worry about everyone becoming hippies from exhaust fumes.

Ethanol is only a temporary solution, since we cannot depend on a food crop for fuel.


But, all of this is still only a temporary solution while we master other sources (though they have already been mastered). Harnessing solar energy and hydrogen engines would be a great way to run clean transportation. 20 years ago Chevy leased electric cars with 200+ mile single charge capabilities. This b.s. they advertise about the Volt is an insult to our intelligence and memory.

If we build a car with solar panels to charge batteries, have a hydrogen generator (not engine) to help keep the battery packs charged ... then we end up with a an exteneded trip electric vehicles that can charge themselves and get fueled up for demanding terrain or areas with limited sunlight.

Combining all of our technology into one great solution is something we need. We have all sorts of things already. Regenerative braking. If you combine two systems already in use, you waste even less energy. Take the braking system in the Hybrids that waste less energy stopping, since instead of using just the brake pads to stop, which essentially turns your momentum into heat, it uses the electric motor to assist your deceleration and charges your battery packs up to again use that energy to assist in your acceleration, demanding less energy from gas. Another system uses the energy braking to compress air, this compressed air is then used to aid in acceleration. This system is used of a couple experimental UPS trucks to save fuel, and is proven to work.

On all vehicles, we have areas that must come in contact with the air in front of you. Why not take this known factor and use it to an advantage? We know we can create electricity from wind power, so why not put wind turbines in these areas, now, while driving, especially at highway speeds, you are also getting a little bit more energy back, that before would have only gone to the negative effect of drag. No, not suggesting to increase area, but there are plenty of surfaces where a small array of turbines could be places where most wouldn't even see it. With a bit of design, ducts could be placed to increase efficiency. Behind the wheels in the wheel wells, in front where it is not used for radiators, intercoolers, oil-coolers, brake ducts.

Now add to that solar panels on the roof, hood, trunk utilizing any light from the sun, or even the street lights at night. These panels are far more efficient than a decade or two ago. The batteries themselves are becoming more compact and more efficient. But, instead of just taking up a small space behind the back seat or under the floor of the trunk, why not fill an engine bay with it, or at least use a large portion of it. Now you can have longer trips and more storage for luggage.

If the car is built electric, it will have the motors built into the wheel assembly. This is much more efficient. Each one wouldn't need to be very powerful to do daily routines, and they have ones powerful enough to use on municipal bus systems, so even a large truck can do what it needs to. 25 hp per wheel would be a nice 100 hp all wheel drive car. 50 hp per wheel boost it up to the average 'sport' car worth of power. 100 hp per wheel and now you are talking faster than most people could handle.

So, at gas stations, instead of selling petrol, they now sell a renewable, clean fuel. Maybe bio-diesels and hydrogen. The burning of this fuel is greatly reduced, for it is burned while running an efficient generator that keeps the battery cells properly charged. It could always run in the most efficient rpm, since it is not being forced to run at various speeds being tied to a drivetrain directly. They also would not have to run constantly, only when necessary. With the right vibration and sound dampening, the passengers might not even notice it kicking on and off besides and indicator on the display.

Even plugging the cars in at night isn't so bad. The fuel wasted to transport, crack, then transport gas again adds up to a lot of waste as well. Overall power plants are more efficient than the fuel infrastructure and technically cleaner. Though, I am all for nuclear power plants, which cleans up things a lot more. I think we should have had the whole world on nuclear power by now. If safety is always kept a top priority, then it is not a bad thing. I am sure there are some who if put their mind to it, could utilize the waste for more energy.



This has nothing to do with conservative ideals, or liberal ideals. This has to do with us having one planet, that we will also pass on to future generations. We must act now and quit passing the torch to our grandchildren to solve our procrastinated issues. I am personally neither conservative nor liberal, labels are only meant to divide us. I could be labeled either one depending on what criteria you were to judge me by.



Oil is a wasteful energy source. Most of the energy expended in your car/truck's engine goes to heat, not acceleration. Diesels are a bit more efficient. But you lose energy in every component, the flywheel, the torque converter/clutch, the gears/fluid in the transmission, the axles, the bearings ... the more you eliminate from the equation, the better. This is why I think electric motors in the wheels will be the best.



I only oppose more drilling because it is like a crack head crawling on the carpet looking for another hit. We need to break our addiction instead of giving in to it. We are destroying ourselves instead of becoming stronger and independent. Other countries have done it, and I know we could if we put our efforts into it.

We also have no idea the consequences of drilling off-shore. Should I believe the salesmen that tell me it is just fine? Or should I notice the effect that earthquakes started happening in the gulf after we started drilling in the 70s? Just coincidence? I am not willing to risk U.S.American lives just so I can drive where I want when I want for as cheap as possible on a fuel that is wasteful and dirty, when there is already technology to avoid that.


Another thing people don't think about is how wasteful their current mode of transportation is.


To put it simply, I paid around 79 cents per gallon in 1995. I had a vehicle that got around 16 mpg. So, I essentially paid 5 cents per mile. Now, I drive a vehicle that gets at worst 40 mpg in city driving, but usually 50 mpg city, 60+ highway (on the display that I reset at every fill up, and what can I say, I drive well). So we take the average 50 mpg real world mileage that I get driving this car. Until recently, I paid the same per mile to drive my car as I did 13 years ago (5 cents per mile, 50 mpg = 2.50/gallon). I do assume that gas will be $5/gallon within a year (maybe two). That will still put me only paying 10 cents a mile. If I still had that 17 mpg vehicle, I would be paying around 33 cents per mile ... It adds up to a lot considering 100 miles would be the difference between $10 and $33, and even the person who doesn't drive a lot puts 10,000 miles on the car a year (I used to do that every month or two), now we talk about a yearly cost of 1000 versus 3300, a 2300 savings, but that is at $5/gallon. Today it only saves about $1500 a year at 3.33/gallon at 10,000 miles a year.


It is time to be intelligent in the world. Quit ignoring our responsibilities and be half as good as the past innovators instead of resting on their accomplishments.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


What you have said was not lost on me Your points are extremely valid. But I want to ask your thoughts on the second point I posted. (In my rant, which looking back, that's what it was.)

What do you think of pooling all the Govt. money into alternative fuels research, into a winner take all proposition? In thinking (and as well as hindsight) I can see problems with this, but I do still think that this would be the best way to go. If you can offer a prize. A prize that can't be matched by any corperation, then I like to think that something god can come of it.

I use the X-Prize as an example. This was only $10miion, but someone came up with a vehicle to travel into low earth orbit. And while I don't know the actual cost. I'd bet it was more than the $10million won.

We need to find a program, we if Joe Blow down the street has an idea to make this work, he has a chance. There is always money floating around for ideas. And if the sucsessful idea is enough....

If Joe Blow has an idea to rid our depence on oil, and he finds invesors who will fund his research. Believing that his idea, after they study it. Can be feasible, then why won't they invest in him? Especially if the payoff is big enough.



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hot_Wings
 


While I agree with most of what you posted. I also feel if that it possible someone would have done it by now.

As I said to the poster befor you, Karlhungis
, what do you think of my second proposal of pooling together all of the money the Govt. spends on alternative uel research into 1 winner take all pot?

Also, to your point of drilling for domestic oil not reducing our dependence on oil. I say would you rather the money spent on oil/gas go to the middle east or stay at home?

While ths will not reduce our dependence on oil. I'd rather my money go to Americans, than those who wish to harm us.

I know this comment can open a whole new can of worms. But I am making it in the context of....If we have to spend outrages sums on oil and gas. Woud be better spent at home or to thoe thawish us harm.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
The problem with alternative fuels is that most of them really aren’t the answer that most people claim that they are.

If you remember just a few months ago there were a lot of television ads on TV promoting plastics. The ad showed a bunch of things around people’s homes and businesses that started disappearing because the plastics they were made of just started to vanish. That’s the real power of oil. Oil is used in the creation of almost every single thing that we make.

It is not that alternative resources wouldn’t greatly help the situation as far as fuel costs go. The real problem is that if you trade off your consumption of crude oil, then you make the creation of plastics that much more expensive. Here is why. It seems like an inverse relationship and hard to understand but here is the theory.

Right now plastics are increasing in costs, this is true. But they are not increasing in cost to the same level that crude oil and gasoline are because we use so much oil that the derivatives of oil used to create plastics comprises a smaller portion of the profits. Basically they drill oil not for the ability to use plastics, but instead to get the fuel needed to run our engines. Plastics are basically the smaller component price part of refined crude oil.

That’s why the cost of plastics has not risen in price nearly as much as the price of gasoline and crude oil itself. Plastics have always been relatively cheap considering the alternatives because plastics are not what oil is priced at, so, the more oil we use the cheaper plastics tend to become.

However, if lets say we all of a sudden started using only half the gasoline that we use today, then the oil refineries will then cost average their goods that they produce and therefore raise the costs of creating plastics. Plastics, instead of being an almost throw away from crude oil, will instead be a major component price of the commodity. As well, the amount of oil derivatives available to be turned into plastics will decrease because refineries will be shutting down production to stabilize the price of gasoline and all their oil derivatives.

Basically this means that the less gasoline that we use from crude oil, the higher it will cost to create plastics. No one wants to see this happen. That’s why you see all the ads on TV recently promoting the idea that “we need our plastics, so stop whining about oil.” So you see, remove crude oil from the energy equation and you almost get another problem equally as destructive to the global economy.

Coke Cola does not want to see the cost of making plastic bottles go up because the average citizen is now using less gasoline. Almost no manufacturer in the world wants to see the cost of creating plastics rise because the cost of gasoline and crude oil production might fall. Now you see why despite the high oil prices, hardly anyone in business is doing anything about it. Almost everything that you buy your food in comes in a plastic container. Almost everything that you own contains at least 50% plastic. Lower the usage of crude oil, and you raise the cost of other things dependent on its relative abundance in the market. Our economy is married to the price of crude oil and every company that produces goods for sale knows this. This is part of the real reason why no one is really doing anything about crude oil prices.

If you really want the widespread adoption of alternative fuels, then you would be wise to also support the usage of items that contain no plastic. Use and purchase glass items whenever possible. Only buy metal, wood, and glass products when you might want to buy plastic items instead.

As another poster has all ready stated, we have the technology for alternative fuels. It is just that very few companies actually have a vested interest in promoting them. The use of alternative fuels will happen basically when we demand that it happens, and not one second sooner than that. The American people, like the Brazilian government, will have to demand that we use and create alternative fuels. There are too many companies in the world that don’t want to see us use alternative fuels, that’s why it hasn’t happened.

We are going to have to demand it my friend. We are going to have to fight hard to force the use of alternative fuels.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   

This article is about the cultivation and uses of industrial hemp, not its psychoactive cousin Cannabis (drug). For the biology of the plant, see Cannabis. For other uses of the word hemp, see Hemp (disambiguation).

Fuel

Biofuels such as biodiesel and alcohol fuel can be made from the oils in hemp seeds and stalks, and the fermentation of the plant as a whole, respectively, but the energy from hemp is low compared with the volume of the harvested hemp. It does, however, produce more energy per acre per year than corn, sugar, flax, or any other crop currently grown for ethanol or biodiesel.



Hemp Plastic is a new technology based on 20-100% hemp fiber-based plastics that can be molded or injection molded.


Source: Wiki: Hemp



We have solutions to our problems, it is just people don't want to open their minds past what they know and have already. Amazing since, 100 years ago people already thought to use these products for these purposes. They were ahead of the curve, yet we still play far behind it.

No single alternative fuel is the final solution. They all come together to help and to rehabilitate us from our dino addiction. One day I hope we do find ways to use 'free' energies at near 100% efficiency ... such as solar, wind, water, electromagnetism, etc. Until then, why not build up an industry that not only takes away our dependence on foreign goods, but also creates jobs and helps make the U.S. the great place it once was in the world, not the debt ridden fuel addicts that we have become.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Hot_Wings
 


Yep, yep yep!!!! S T A R R E D! Most intelligent and informed post I've read yet...

I might add that Bush & Co are puppets of the Saudi's who have benifited tremendously by the decrease in Iraqi production.

Wasn't it a lovely picture to see Bandar out on the balcony of the White House sipping his Brandy on September 13, 2001 (or was it the 12th?)? Wasn't that back when oil was around $20 per/bar? Wasn't that just about the time that the Saudi Kingdom was up to their ears in a pissed off public tired of high unemployment? Research the Bush family and ties with the Saudi Royal family...quite the history.

Hmmmm? Why did Pelosi and the newly elected Dem's pull impeachment off the table? Some kind of deal was brokered...man how I would have loved to have been a fly on that wall!!!

In a side note I have some "Impeach Bush" stickers...was going to put one on my car, but so near to the next election what does it matter? We should all just have chalk board like bumper stickers where the "Impeach" is permanent, and the space available for us to change names every four years.


Great post, thanks again!

[edit on 25-4-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
I don't get why coal is even an option at this point for warming our homes. Nuclear power plants all over this country are being either taxed or regulated to death while we still use coal to heat our homes????

It is ridiculous that we aren't building more nuclear power plants that can do the job of ten coal plants and produce little to no emissions into the atmosphere.

Yes the fission reactor produces waste but that waste can be safely stored. Where? Yucca Mountain.

And yes I have been to Yucca Mountain. It is in the middle of nowhere near nothing of importance or population. No one is harmed by storing nuclear waste in the proper containment units deep within a rock formation.

I know this is about oil but coal is also a factor we need to consider in our energy policy.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join