Most of the 'solutions' presented here are short term at best. I would like to see a much more long term approach.

1. Electric vehicles
2. improved home efficiency (incentives needed)
3. solar/wind development
4. alternative fuels
5. Lifestyle changes (reduce excessive consumption)


Cheesehead, can you show me an example of an integrated solar solution that provides both electricity and hot water from the same system?

P95, I have to agree that both reduced consumption and increased production should be implemented, however, as noted above, this does NOTHING to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I'd like to make a statement that America does NOT have an energy policy at present. All we have is a consumption management plan.

DarJones

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;136442]P95, I have to agree that both reduced consumption and increased production should be implemented, however, as noted above, this does NOTHING to reduce dependence on foreign oil.[/quote]

Please explain, if we increase production or decrease consumption then we reduce our dependence (or at least slow our growing dependence).

[quote]I'd like to make a statement that America does NOT have an energy policy at present. All we have is a consumption management plan.[/QUOTE]

Amen to the first sentence. I'm not sure we even have a consumption management plan.

[QUOTE=Prime95;136444]Please explain, if we increase production or decrease consumption then we reduce our dependence (or at least slow our growing dependence).[/QUOTE]
Perhaps Fusion_power is regarding dependence as a binary variable.

I.e., "we" are dependent on foreign oil and even after increasing "domestic" production to the largest possible extent, "we" will still be dependent on foreign oil.

Quotes used above because I'm neither a US citizen nor resident in the USA.


Paul

[quote=Fusion_power;136442]Cheesehead, can you show me an example of an integrated solar solution that provides both electricity and hot water from the same system?[/quote]Why?

Or maybe I should ask: By "integrated", do you mean that the exact same mechanical structure, or at least some shared component, is used to convert solar radiation into both electricity and heat?

(In the following, I write in the context of a home-sized system. For instance, while extreme concentration of solar heat may be used in electricity generation stations, that isn't practical in a home system -- and the electric generating station isn't producing hot water for consumers.)

It might be convenient for a homeowner (or small businessowner) to purchase both as a package deal, but there isn't any particular engineering or energy savings to be had by combination of most physical components. Solar photovoltaic cells are inefficient for heating water; solar heat collectors are inefficient for generating electricity.

It may be helpful to recall that, thermodynamically, electricity is inherently high-temperature (several thousand degrees) while solar heat is inherently low-temperature (under a hundred degrees C.), so conflicting thermodynamic considerations would apply in a number of places in designing apparatus to collect/generate both.

I suppose both the heat collecting tubes and photovoltaic cells might be mounted on a common platform in a sun-tracking system, but sun-tracking usually isn't economically justifiable in most home systems. (I saw sun-tracking photovoltaics on a Solar Tour farm, but few homes would need that much.) There could be some possibility I'm overlooking.

Several days ago, my post #77 discussed profits and "windfall profits" measures directed at oil companies.

Let me make it clear that: (1) [I]I want oil companies to be treated like similar companies in other industries, not singled out for punitive treatment just because they're [B]oil[/B] companies[/I], and (2) that applies to both punitive and protectionary measures.

In particular, I want antitrust measures applied to the oil industry just as they ought be applied to other industries. The Bush administration has been noticeably reluctant to do that, for any industries, but especially the oil industry. The concentrations that have occurred in the oil industry mergers of the past decade have reduced competition, and that's bad for consumers.

Amoco, the company I worked for in the 70s, was better-run than most other oil companies while I was there and for a few years afterward. But since BP (British Petroleum) took it over in 1998 BP's way of doing things has not been to my liking.

[quote=cheesehead;135743]Back in 1973-4 (when the "obscene profits" cry arose), the [I]Business Week[/I] tables showed that oil companies had profitability similar to the averages of companies in most other industries. I specifically recall that one year, the oil industry was averaging 11-13% RoSE, which was about the average for all industries. Computer manufacturers, however, were in the high teens, and office furniture companies averaged about 25%. I didn't hear any Senators calling for windfall profits taxes on computer or office furniture companies, then or now.[/quote]But increasing concentration in the oil industry has raised its profitability levels since the 1970s. By itself, increased profitability's not necessarily bad, but when it's the result of companies' having larger and larger shares of the market and thus having greater power to make decisions detrimental to consumers, it's a sign that antitrust investigation and action is needed.

- - - - -

Recently I found a Consumer Federation of America report from 2003, "Spring Break in the U.S. Oil Industry: Price Spikes, Excess Profits, and Excuses", at [URL]http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/gasoline1003.pdf[/URL]. It is an external link from the Wikipedia article "Oil refinery" at [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery[/URL].

(Let me emphasize that it's from [B]2003[/B] -- five years ago.)

After reading it partway, I find that it looks reasonable, and all its description of oil industry operations seem in accord with what I know. I haven't crosschecked its figures, but have no reason to suspect any errors. After making some caveats, I'll recommend it to those of you interested in learning a bit more about how Big Oil works.

Caveats:

It's from [B]2003[/B] -- five years ago.

It mentions "a wild price spiral" and "the average increase of 26 cents per gallon in the price paid at the pump since the election of George Bush" in a section titled "Domestic Gasoline Price Shocks". So, keep in mind that a mere 26 cents was a "price shock" or part of a "wild price spiral" back then, in 2003.

It says, "The largest cause of rising gasoline prices in recent years is the domestic refining and marketing sector, not crude oil prices or where it comes from." That was then (2003), not now. So, keep in mind that you're traveling back in a time machine of sorts when you start reading this report.

Q: Since it's so "out-of-date", why do I heartily recommend it? A: Because the different situation back then allows one to study "the domestic refining and marketing sector" without distractions from abroad. So I recommend it as a way to learn more about certain aspects of oil companies from what seems to me, so far as I've read, to be a fair point of view.

Xilman is essentially correct re my statement about dependence on foreign oil. No matter how much we explore, no matter how many new wells we bring into production, the maximum we could produce would be 10% of our projected oil needs. Under those conditions, it is not possible to sway the world price of oil.

George, While I agree with your basic view re conservation and exploration, I do not accept the premise that it can significantly affect our dependence on foreign oil. I am of the opinion that the only way to affect that dependence in the long term is through a major paradigm shift in the way we manage our energy resources. Please note that this applies equally to the EU as to the USA.

DarJones

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;136475]George, While I agree with your basic view re conservation and exploration, I do not accept the premise that it can significantly affect our dependence on foreign oil. I am of the opinion that the only way to affect that dependence in the long term is through a major paradigm shift in the way we manage our energy resources. Please note that this applies equally to the EU as to the USA.

DarJones[/QUOTE]Sure does, IMAO. It applies at least as much to most of the rest of the overdeveloped world (AUS, NZ, J, CH, for example) as it does to the EU and US. Norway, and perhaps Canada, are the only major exceptions I can think of right now, but there could well be others.


Paul

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;136475]While I agree with your basic view re conservation and exploration, I do not accept the premise that it can significantly affect our dependence on foreign oil.[/QUOTE]

Then we are in agreement. The wording "does NOTHING to reduce dependence on foreign oil" was a bit misleading. Replace "NOTHING" with "little" or replace "reduce" with "eliminate" and I would not object.

*****

It might be interesting to hear what various readers would like to see in a comprehensive energy policy.

Off the top of my head I would do lots of "little things" in hopes that it amounts to a modest dent in slowing our growing dependence while we await Fusion_power's paradigm shift.
1) U.S. drilling, but not at "give away the farm" lease terms. Use proceeds for funding basic R&D in alternative energy sources (or debt reduction).
2) Mandate higher MPG standards and/or tax the crap out of gas guzzlers.
3) Place a substantial tax on non-clean energy sources. We want clean alternatives to have an advantage over non-clean ones.
4) Have a hefty guaranteed minimum price for energy. Reducing investor risk will encourage building of wind farms, solar farms, etc. A high price will also encourage a ton of private R&D.
5) Let the market decide what is cost effective. The mandated production of corn-based ethanol is dead wrong. Sugar or switchgrass or some other alternative energy might be a substantially better choice.
6) I'm no expert on the oil industry, but I suspect $140/barrel is all the incentive oil companies need. I'd repeal any tax credits that were designed to encourage oil exploration and drilling.

[QUOTE=Prime95;136488]It might be interesting to hear what various readers would like to see in a comprehensive energy policy.

Off the top of my head I would do lots of "little things" in hopes that it amounts to a modest dent in slowing our growing dependence while we await Fusion_power's paradigm shift.
1) U.S. drilling, but not at "give away the farm" lease terms. Use proceeds for funding basic R&D in alternative energy sources (or debt reduction).
2) Mandate higher MPG standards and/or tax the crap out of gas guzzlers.
3) Place a substantial tax on non-clean energy sources. We want clean alternatives to have an advantage over non-clean ones.[/QUOTE]Do you classify crude-oil derived motor fuel (whether petrol, gasoline or diesel) as unclean? If so, you appear to be moving to a more EU-like situation. LPG (despite being a CO_2 producer) has significant tax advantages in much of Europe. Electric (and its equivalent in various forms) and LH_2 has a substantial tax incentive here, despite taking a 65% efficiency loss at the generator and subsequent losses afterwards, at least in part because it doesn't fill city streets with CO_2, NO_x, SO_2 and particulates.

My personal view is that the problem is multifaceted and very complex. It will not be solved by a single mechanism, or even a moderate collection of mechanisms. It requires a very large number of disparate mechanisms, some widely applicable and some very focussed. A few suggestions, in no particular order:

1) Reduce wastage. That is, spend capital investment now to reduce future current expenditure. Examples include better thermal efficiency in buildings (whether to keep them hot or cool) and better fuel-economy in transport. Neither of these involves new technology (not to say that new technology can't do it better), merely application of widely understood and reasonably widely implemented processes and techniques.

2) Where wastage is inevitable, because of the laws of thermodynamics perhaps, exploit the waste product. Examples include using power-station cooling water to heat buildings (so-called CHP) or to grow high value crops (shellfish is the classical example, but many forms of vegetation appreciate high humidity, high CO_2 and warm temperatures) in climates which are otherwise unfavourable; the Microsoft Research building in Cambridge is heated primarily by its inhabitants and its computers, and it's cooled largely by carefully designed ventilation, with appropriate attention paid to to shading and/or reflecting the correct areas from solar heat.

3) Employ mechanisms which have greater than 100% thermodynamic efficiency. The best known is the use of heat-pumps to heat buildings in cold climates, but there are others.

4) Continue to invest in alternative sources of energy, whether fission, fusion, wind, tidal, wave, solar, geothermal or whatever. Some won't be cost effective in many circumstances. Some are already cost-effective and have been for decades. Some others, I'm sure, will become cost-effective in more circumstances.

5) Place amortized costs on consumers rather than instantaneous costs. The headline price may be higher on average, but the smoothing surely increases reliability and predictability (so reducing incidental costst significantly), thereby allowing a longer-term view on investment decisions.


Paul

The lies Big Oil tells | Dang Speculator Varmints!
 

Forgot to mention one more key argument in favor of reducing consumption as being the option of First Resort: [b]there is no environmental downside to reducing consumption.[/b], if done prudently[sup]*[/sup].

Oh wait, at this point the U.S. auto industry shills will counter with something like, "but think of the environmental cost of taking all those millions of SUVs out of the auto fleet prematurely, and having to replace them with newly manufactured 'green' vehicles" - conveniently ignoring that those gas guzzlers should never have been manufactured in the first place. I say, institute a nationwide "SUV recycling" program, and kick-start it with a couple billion $ of government money and tax incentives. [Maybe use a few % of that money that was slated to go to the pork-barrel housing-bailout bill, one of the few Bush vetos I agree with, though our motives surely differ].


[url=http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm]America's untapped oil[/url]: [i]Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.[/i]
[quote][i]By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 23, 2008: 1:38 PM EDT
[/i]
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. land for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of offshore areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

If all these areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, up from about 8 million barrels a day currently.

That compares to an increase of maybe 2 million barrels a day experts say opening up other coastal areas and the Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge might yield.[/quote]
Sounds to me like Big Oil is using the current crisis atmosphere in an attempt to lock up long-term leases on huge amounts of previously-off-limits land and offshore areas. The motive is obvious: after all, it`s [b]not in Big Oil`s interest[/b] - just like it`s not in OPEC`s interest - to boost production in order to lower prices[/b] . The political cover for this? - notice how the Saudis made heavy use of this over the weekend - is too simply blame "oil market speculators." To be sure, speculation plays a significant role in the oil-price runup of the past 5 years - but that begs the question [unless your name is George Bush or Ben Bernanke], why has there been such a huge increase in speculative investment in oil and other commodities? Could it be that unlike the "new Lira" U.S. dollar, they actually have some intrinsic value which makes them attractive during periods when U.S. government policy is to try to inflate their way out of an economic mess by debasing the currency?

Nah, that couldn't be it - damn "speculator varmints" probably to blame for the dollar`s slide, too - and the dot com bubble, and the housing bubble, and halitosis, and itchy foot fungus...

==========

[i][sup]*[/sup]An example of why 'going green' isn't a complete no-brainer: the toxic materials used in rechargeable batteries for hybrid and all-electric vehicles. Without proper regulations with respect to the disposal of these [i.e. battery technologies not allowing for 100%-or-close recycling of toxic materials should be disallowed], there can in fact be considerable environmental downside from widespread adoption of such technologies.[/i]

John McCain has proposed an idea I've seen many times over the years (but I keep forgetting to mention it to others), an appropriate use of government money that ought to have bipartisan support: offer prizes for development of new technologies.

We've seen this concept work beautifully in the recent DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Grand Challenge ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge[/URL]). It set forth USD $1 million prize money in a 2004 competition to develop a fully autonomous ground vehicle capable of completing a substantial off-road course within a limited time. In 2005, prize money was increased to USD $2 million, and resulted in _five_ different vehicles that completed the 212 km (132 mile) competition course ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_%282005%29[/URL]).

In 2007, the DARPA Urban Challenge ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_%282007%29[/URL]) used a 96 km (60 mile) course in a simulated urban environment. "Rules included obeying all traffic regulations while negotiating with other traffic and obstacles and merging into traffic." From [URL]http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/[/URL]: "this event required teams to build an autonomous vehicle capable of driving in traffic, performing complex maneuvers such as merging, passing, parking and negotiating intersections. This event was ... the first time autonomous vehicles have interacted with both manned and unmanned vehicle traffic in an urban environment."

Now, McCain has proposed a $300 million (a 100x ramp-up from the DARPA challenges) prize for the development of advanced battery technology capable of powering motor vehicles. "As outlined by McCain, the prize would be paid the first innovator to develop a battery technology that 'leapfrogs' existing electric car and plug-in hybrid technology, in terms of size, capacity, power, and cost. The aim is a battery technology that capable of powering motor vehicles at 30 percent of current costs." ([URL]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODg2MmE0OGU1MWUzNzg1YzBiOWNkOGUzYTIwMWQxZmQ[/URL]=)

- - - -

However, McCain continues to use misleading words when talking about energy policy. From [URL]http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjhhMTA4NzQ2YTQ4YjZkNzI0YzYyNmVhOThlM2I3ODA[/URL]=: "'There’s so much regulation' of the oil industry, McCain observed, 'that the last American refinery was built when Jerry Ford was president.'"

There again is the false implication (no new refineries = no new [I]refining capacity[/I]) that I wrote about earlier in this thread. It's part of the unfair slam that environmentalists are responsible for high gasoline prices.