A new "Manhattan Project"

[Joe for Clark]

In something less than 36 months the United States can be totally self sufficent in oil needs.

I don't think so, I know so.

The consequences are something like a calculus problem.

Regimes will collapse, fuel for our cars will be set at about $3.18. The open market for sweet crude will drop, maybe making the move seem problematic. Other problems.

But you know what, our prices will stabilize at that rate - and more, our dependence will shift away from the area - maybe more importantly, our money will stay in our country. And jobs, good jobs will stay in our country.

There is this concept in finance - "velocity of a dollar". A dollar isn't really worth a dollar when kept in circulation, it is worth 4 - if you keep it in circulation.

When our country sends funds to the middle east - it is gone. Write the same checks to americans, and it takes on a velocity. And we fund the same people that would kill us, this is just crazy.

That something like this is possible, it has been done before.

The oil companies looked at the same possibilites in 1974 and 1979 - they aren't going to oppose it, they may be the best backers.

And we sure don't need to burn our foods to produce these fuels.

Joe

[bluerum]

1. I'm on board. Are you talkin about ethanol?

[Joe for Clark]

2. No, I'm not.

I really think ethanol is a really bad move.

But we can use oil shale - even coal to do this. I am saying the Germans did so. SO it really has been done before. And it didn't take them even 36 months to convert.

I know the contingency plans that existed in 1979 for at least some of our oil companies after that shock. I really know.

I think we have a moral and practical objective to use our food output to support Africa. And I don't want to see it burned in a Chevy.

Jioe

[johnaries]

3. I can't support coal - the mining process is too destructive

and poisonous.

[gizmo1979]

4. You have to think past fossil fuels!

fossil fuels are old and outdated technology if you're going to have a Manhattan project you have to stretch whats imaginable.Shale is a non-starter,coal for the love of god man what about global warming?Think outside the box.

[Joe for Clark]

5. Well,

we drive cars. They burn oils. And it will be so for some years.

The problem isn't from the oil exactly - it is that that oil has chemical components (like sulfur) that burn poorly.

I think the realistic solution is a switch from carbon to hydrogen based fuels.

A hell of a switch. And we don't have that many years to do it in.

SO, what do we do in between?

This is surely not so simple. We must shift, but it must be gradual.

Yeah, I think Manhattan Project is the right term here.

Because if we do not do so, we probably are going to be staring down the barrel of a WWIII scenario.

Joe

[bluerum]

6. Ethanol can be had from many non-food sources.

Sugar cane and switchgrass. It is extremely renewable - relatively clean burning and easy to manufacture. People have been doing it for thousands of years!

It may not be perfect but it is far better than oil for all the reasons that you mention in your original post.

Coal has its place but I can't see driving down the street in a coal powered vehicle being any cleaner than modern 10% ethanol vehicles. It is not renewable and requires some fairly invasive methods to extract and process.

[Joe for Clark]

7. You do not get it.

You don't burn coal in your car, in is synthesized into a liquid - you burn that.

And I think, I know, oil shale produces a much more pure LIQUID fuel.

That you can burn in your car today. You can do so with coal, but the sulfur content is much higher.

Ethanol burns food - and sugarcane is food.

We have a thousand year supply of such fuels, more. We only need a very small fraction to get to a hydrogen based economy.

Joe

[bluerum]

8. Sugar cane is renewable. That it can be considered a food is debatable.

Switchgrass is not food - to humans anyway - and it is very renewable.

I am fairly certain that ethanol will cost about the same to process into fuels suitable for vehicles as coal. It is also much cleaner to process and burn than petroleum based fuels.

Again - mining coal or oil shale to produce oil is a dirty and invasive process.

[Joe for Clark]

10. I am not trying to be an asshole, really.

If you can put something into a starving persons mouth, it is a food - to me.

There are two costs here - moral and ethical.

I suggest the ethical is the right course, in the long run.

To the extent we (the USA) can put food into starving mouths, we create friends.

To the extent we don't need it, such a waiste.

I think coal is a "dirty" fuel. I think shale burns very clean. But lets be clear here - maybe it is time to stop measuring the enviromental against the survival of species.

Maybe that is exactly where we are.

Maybe they are not exclusive. Maybe the country can transition.

I know we can do exactly as stated. About 3.18 a gallon at the pump. I'll pay that price.

Joe

[bluerum]

22. I don't think that you're being and a$$hat. But you seem very sold

on the shale oil.

Forget sugar cane and corn. Switchgrass will do fine.

What is un-ethical/im-moral about ethanol? Farmers around the world will have jobs. Processing plants will spring up. The bio-research done to find or create plants to maximize ethanol production may spur research into food production. It will be a relatively clean fuel with a lot of spin off industries.

I would pay $4 a gallon at the pump right now if I could get a 100% ethanol vehicle like they use in some countries in South America. Ethanol is a proven technology. We lack the infrastructure and corporate and government support.

There is certainly a place for petroleum based fuels as well. But in the long run, I think that we must reduce our dependence on non-renewable resources for the environment and for our own independence from international pressures .

[Joe for Clark]

25. It is just my opinion,

I am really just an accountant.

But my Dad ran an oil company - I know what they were looking at - especially when I had to wait in line to get gas, at 3 in the morning, to get to school that day. I asked questions.

And I know, those organics used to create that fuel are sorely needed in other parts of the world.

Not a complete solution - and you can make a similar fuel out of coal - I just know oil shale burns cleaner.

If we bought ten years time switching to such fuels, and fed a continent at the same time - everybody wins. If we can do so and cut our dollar bleeding to countries would screw us in a minute - I'd pay $4 a gallon. Hell, I'd pay $5.

I know for a fact, we could do that. I was inquisitive, way back when.

Joe

[Swamp Rat]

12. You are correct

Brasil has been very successful using sugar cane.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. What do you do when the coal runs out?

Unlike coal, you can grow sugar cane in a field.

[Joe for Clark]

13. The oil shale reseve in US will last about 1100 years at the

current user rates.

We better not be burning any carbon based fuel in 20 years.

On the other hand - how many kids do you think died this year in Africa??

How many?? Why??

That really is the problem.

Joe

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Oh, it will be around for 1100 years.

That's because it takes more energy to extract fuel from oil shale than you get out.

Myself, I'm going to attach a wind powered turbine to the front of my car and sell the surplus back to my electric company.

That'll help kids in Africa.

[Joe for Clark]

15. It is just about a price point.

Maybe you ought to attach that wind power turbine to your brain.

What the hell do you know about the cost to extract useable fuels from shale.

I know it cost a dollar and ninty cents in 1979 a gallon. And not because I read it on the internet.

(not that it is on the internet)

Joe

Joe

[NickB79]

23. What will we use to extract the oil shale?

Oil shale requires massive amounts of water and fuel to "cook out" the kerogen and convert it to actual petroleum. Natural gas in North America has peaked in production, so the current way of cooking out the oil is rapidly becoming unfeasible. You could burn some of the oil you extract, but then your oil output plummets. Nuclear reactors directly on the shale ranges?

Then you have the limited water resources of the US Southwest and central Canada dictating how much oil can be extracted. Pipeline from the Great Lakes?

[NickB79]

24. Alberta Oil Shale Unsustainable

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x60727

[Joe for Clark]

26. About 1100 years worth.

The shale gets "coked" at 350 degrees and the result is near perfect crude.

Yes, you expend energy to get energy.

We don't change the amount of energy available - we transform it into something we can use.

I know this to be true - personal experience.

Joe

[DireStrike]

11. What about solar/electric/fuel hybrids?

The technology for solar is still coming along. There are solar cars, but they're not the kind of thing we'd drive on the road. I don't trust the corporations to think about the future, so few people have probably considered it.

You combine the solar with whatever fuel you want, and use energy technology like the current hybrids. You can make a sturdy car that uses far less fuel energy and is cheaper to run...

Or is that the problem? Oil companies...

[Joe for Clark]

16. Solar has been around for so long now -

I just do not have any faith in it anymore.

You know, anyone that is predictable can be used. The oil companies can be too.

This wasn't so when sisters were in charge. But over these last years, they have been consolidiated - over and over.

Lawyers run it man - if their interest is a percentage profit - well, maybe we can both win.

Sometimes - the problem is the solution.

Joe

[LeftCoast]

17. OK, just to clarify...You do realize it's the carbon and not really the

sulfur that's the problem with fossil fuels? Yes, sulfur is bad, but the release of billions of tons of carbon (in the form of CO2) into the atmosphere is rapidly heating our planet to a dangerous level. Continuing to burn fossil fuels can only accelerate this process.

[Joe for Clark]

18. Yeah, I think so.

Now I am just a F-cking accountant. SO maybe you could enlightend us.

But I understand, the major problem with burning crude right now is the sulfur content.
You know, the difference between sweet (and not so sweet) crude. Bonds with the carbon in a REAL bad way.

I don't have any doubt Gore is about right. I do think, burning a sweeter crude may allow us an additional 10 years to convert.

We have to go to hydrogen eventually. Wouldn't it be great to do in those bastards before we "convert".

It is the temprature that the crude is created at that causes the diversity in sulphur content.
At 350 degrees (I think) we produce a perfect crude. We can certainly last ten more years with that product in our refineries.

And remove certain geo political threats at the same time.

And maybe feed Africa with the same solution - you know?

Joe

[LeftCoast]

19. I'm not an expert, but I'll give it a go

You're kind of talking about a couple of different issues. The issue of sulfur is primarily that it is an air pollutant which causes acid rain. It's also a cause of lung ailments. It's not a good thing to be pumping into the atmosphere. It doesn't lead to global warming though. So you're right in that some fossil fuels are better in terms of sulfur, but all burning any fossil fuel pumps huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 which is a gas that traps heat. We currently have more carbon in the atmoshpere than at any point in the last several hundred thousand years and by the end of this century CO2 levels are projected to be at least twice as high as today (going from memory on this so don't sue me if I'm not 100% here). Higher CO2 = more warming.

Also, you can think of hydrogen as more of a battery than an energy 'source' since you have to use energy to create the hydrogen.

[Joe for Clark]

20. I am sure no expert either. I know a little -

It is something about sulphur, they were afraid of it. That it was a catalyst for other events.

Something.

Stay away from it - I took that from my discussions.

In 20 years, we will be a hydrogen based economy, I am sure. I hope so.

I am less concerned about global warming then the events that can happen now.

Joe

[Joe for Clark]

21. I wrote this really cool thing,

About the Romanian oil fields - how long it took for us to wipe them out, the timing of Germany and how long it took us to wipe out their synthetic fuel plants.

But I screwed up and it got wiped out.

Sorry.

Suffice to say, it sure didn't take them 36 months to replace production.

Joe