Bill W.

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 2

James, you said:
" Peak oil does not mean we are running out. It means we are discovering less than we are extracting. The easily obtainable fuel has been obtained. Now we need to use tar sand, shale, and deep water wells. To even undertake those projects at a profit you need $100 oil or greater. Demand will grow. That is a given. Supply will not be able to keep up."

Thank you sir for responding. I take exception with your statement that the "The easily obtainable fuel has ben obtained". If memory serves, it took about 5 years to construct the Alaskan Pipeline. I'm sure if this nation had the political will, the oil in Anwar and the natural gas stored in the ground at the north slope of Alaska could be made available in 5 years or less. Again, if memory serves, the oil companies obtained the permits for "right-of-ways" for the natural gas pipeline when they got them for the oil pipeline. Whether they did or not does not really matter, the point being the Alaskan pipeline was built in remote areas, so obtaining permits will be no big deal.

I think what is really needed is a comprehensive energy plan, one that uses a mix of energy resources until such time that alternative energy can be phased in as our main energy source.

I do agree with your premise regarding energy that if things don't change, this country is looking at a very bleak future. That is why we need a different perspective on this issue.

James, please let me say that your writing style is enticing, you do make one think, and I thank you for that.

















On Jul 14 01:58 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Peak oil does not mean we are running out. It means we are discovering
> less than we are extracting. The easily obtainable fuel has been
> obtained. Now we need to use tar sand, shale, and deep water wells.
> To even undertake those projects at a profit you need $100 oil or
> greater. Demand will grow. That is a given. Supply will not be able
> to keep up.

Winter's Coming for the Boomers: Part 2

James, with all due respect, I must disagree with some of your premises regarding peak oil. Yes, we do in fact have a peak oil situation if, and it's a big IF if you believe the oil companies numbers. Why do I make such a statement? It's because I've learned to never discount my own experiences.

Let me explain. In 1975 and 1976, I was a Project Planning Engineer on working for Brown and Root at the North Slope on the Alaskan Pipeline Project. I helped plan and schedule the gathering units (the pipes running from the wellheads to pump station number one and the separation units, the purpose of the separation units was to separate the natural gas, water, and oil, the natural gas was injected back into the ground, water was discharged into Prudue Bay, and the oil was sent to Pump Station One.

While at the North Slope, I stayed at the BP Hilton, a facility that provided lodging. While there I got to know more than a few geologists from Standard Oil and BP. Anyway, one evening over a few beers I made the statement that the world was running out of natural gas and oil. Well I had these guys ROFLAO. They were amazed that I was that naive. They essentially told me that there is enough natural gas and oil to last the lower 48 states for the next 500 years.

We're Nearing Crunch Time for Oil

• Sir, Oil and natural gas are not the answer. You're left off solar as a new mega trend. It may be that in your mind set that alternatives can't power America. This is simply not true.

And the cost of continuing to do what we are doing is ruining our economy. Switching to alternatives will end the estimated $800 billion in annuall hidden costs of oil. Instead of giving the oil companies and estimated $80 billion annually in tax credits and subsidies, we could be investing in something with a future. And solar and wind and other clean energies won't cause wars in the mideast costing trillions of dollars and thousands of GI lives.

If you were paying for the hidden costs of oil at the gas pump, the price would be approaching $12/gallon.

The Greenies could be the smart ones. They aren't burying their heads in the sand.

And here's an example of what solar can do. and do it without any of the dangers of hidden costs of nukes and oil.

Yes alternatives need subsidies to get up to scale. So far they are miniscule compared with the subsidies for competing fuels.

Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
sciam.com/article.cfm?......

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods."

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."
ausra.com

blogs.business2.com/gr... /
And go to Green Wombat to see what's already happening in California with solar thermal power plants
•
frflyer
Mar 30 01:44 PM
Sources of estimates of oil's hidden costs and subsidies.

setamericafree.org/saf......
monitor.net/monitor/10......
progress.org/2003/ener...
eoearth.org/article/Te......


Respectfuly,

Bill W.