(Don't worry...I'll get to my Dr. Strangelove reference before the end of this article, promise)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081108/ap_on_bi_ge/af_alge...eVCgOEZxJyFaauis0NUE

In a move that surprises noone and underscores what our priorities are, OPEC has announced that if we don't start paying more for their oil, they will again cut production. They see a "stable" price as being in the $70-90 US dollar range.

What's strange is that I didn't see a similar level of concern when we were almost $60 over the high end of that threshold!

I don't know about the rest of you, but the price increase hit us HARD. We're ready for the inevitable climb back upward now, but we've cut just about everything that isn't a necessity from our budget to get there.

And if you're Canadian, I. Don't. Want. To. Hear. It. Yes, we know you're already paying about $8 a gallon for petrol. The difference is, your wages, lifestyles, and cost of living have adjusted to the insane price. Imagine that $8 a gallon petrol leaping to $16 in a few months' time, and you'll have some idea of what it has done to America over the last year.

This warning underscores the imminent need to develop alternative energy, and most importantly, home grown energy quickly. As a result of the last 30-40 years worth of policy, we are entirely at the mercy of foreign nations, who, make no mistake about it, will deepen our recession before they will make their own nation suffer theirs.

On this one, Barack Obama is right AND John McCain is right. When the question arises, "should we drill and explore more, use nuclear power, develop wind and solar energy, or conserve", the answer is "YES!" as in "all of the above". We need to make changes and quickly, or else $4 a gallon gas will soon be the find memory that $1 a gas currently is.

The most contentious item on the list is nuclear power (see, I told you I didn't use Dr. Strangelove's name in vain!). While nuclear power is certainly not 100% safe, we must face the harsh consequence that no form of energy conversion actually is. If we want complete security, we actually will need to move backwards to Third World Nation status. Just as feeding a large population demands we use more efficient agricultural methods, providing energy for the same population requires more efficient energy methods. And anyone relying on a single point solution hasn't learned from the history that brought us $4 a gallon gas in the first place.

In the election, the economy was the number one concern. I am hoping that Barack Obama heeds this and realizes that an energy solution is actually more pressing than some of the other things on his plate. Otherwise, we can expect to be held hostage in the war for oil that has dominated the last eight years.

Well said!

Seems like prior to 9/11, OPEC's stated pricing goal was $28/bbl. Given that the Saudis, and I assume other middle east producers, can produce a barrel for $1-$2, they've been spoiled with the recent markets. The problem is that production costs worldwide have gone up due to steel prices and other inputs to levels much higher than what OPEC producers face. Oil companies based in Oklahoma such as Chesapeake are getting hammered, and it's evident in share prices that have almost halved. Production will respond to the market, and prices will return to the levels we have seen.

One of the biggest concerns I have with an Obama administration is that I think he wants higher petroleum prices to increase the relative profitability of alternative energy sources. He even stated at one point that he didn't mind the high price of fuel, he just didn't like how fast it got there. Bill Clinton made the argument more than 10 years ago that drilling in ANWR made no sense, because it would take 10 years to see a drop of oil. Well, here we are, and now Obama will make the same argument. In my humble opinion, the government needs to get out of the way and let U.S. oil companies drill where they can to make a profit, while be being good stewards of the land. Boone Pickens' attitude of exploring all U.S. sources of energy makes the most sense to me. We cannot change the petroleum production and use infrastructure overnight, and it makes little sense to attempt to do so. Energy companies will attempt to maximize profits over both the short and long term, and they will invest in alternative energy sources as it makes economic sense.

light chaser,

Excellent points, all of them. What we need to be doing is decreasing demand for energy and increasing supply. I'm personally pushing for the return of the "victory gardens" in the hope that we can encourage Americans to produce 10% of their food supply, and reduce energy dependence in the process (along with the other reforms, INCLUDING drilling in ANWR and oil shale exploration).

If we can ease our burden ten years out, we know where our oil's coming from in ten years, at least. Makes sense to me.

Am I the only one who noticed gas prices dropping just before the election? Anybody else remember the same thing happening in 2000 and 2004? I do, and I didn't notice a similar drop in October in non-election years.

Anyone want to bet whether the price will climb back to where it was about a week before Thanksgiving?

This is a topic near & dear to the heart. I work in an industry that has one foot in the coal gasification box (the other foot is in with traditional oil & gas).

I can excitedly go into great detail on this subject while others are bored to tears, so work with me as I try to be brief.

Basically, the same technology that is behind 'clean coal' electricity also can be used to create synthetic transportation fuels. The Germans and South Africans have been doing this stuff for generations, so the tech is proven. The elegance of this technology is that it can also use biomass (check out "Conservation Reserve Program" if you're worried about food production). This is important because cutting coal with biomass effectively neutralizes the global warming crowd.

The downside is the cost. Oil has to be sufficiently expensive (~$60/barrel). That said, the money you'd be spending would go to Americans (I'm thinking of one who lives in Greater Tulsa ) instead of terrorists.

On nuclear energy, everything I've read on the subject basically says the risk of waste is overblown. Nuclear energy makes great science fiction, but the space requirements to store the stuff are not that demanding. That said, only 5% of the energy of the nuclear fuel has been extracted. That means that most of the energy is still available for use; however, you have to reprocess the waste, like the French, to do this. Also, there is the Holy Grail of nuke power, Breeder Reactors (A.K.A. Gen IV reactors). Yeah, Baby! The beauty of breeders is that the costs of fuel become almost insignificant when rolled into the price of your electric bill. This is important for the following reason:

Uranium salts can be strained from the ocean at about ten times the costs of conventional methods. Using breeder nukes, the available supply of energy is on the same time scale as the remaining life from our sun.

The added bonus is that breeders are functionally safer than the current Gen II reactors or even the Gen IIIs coming online. This is because they use sodium, which is an unpressurized liquid at operating temperatures. Liquid metal reactors are passively safe because they can use natural convection for circulation instead of coolant pumps. They literally cannot be made to fail (the government actually tested this out and the reactor performed superbly).

Conclusion: We have plenty of American coal & biomass to run our cars if we're willing to use gasifciation (clean coal) technology. We have a viable nuclear option to replace the power plants that currently use coal. None of this will shackle us to foreign powers. The only catch is that it will take a generation to change over 100%, so it will not be instant. However, by combining energy efficiency (check out "http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/british-motor-show-ford-fiesta-econetic-63-5-mpg-us/") with available technology, to include wind & geothermal, we should be able to stop the pain within a smaller timeframe (5-10 years?).

Thoughts, anyone?

<Sarcasm on - high>
But if we decided to do something now to break our dependance on foreign oil, say like drill in places currently off limits to everyone but our adversaries, it would take at least ten years to see any impact. </Sarcasm off>

This is what the Democrats have said, including over ten years ago when President Cinton, was in office. And yes, President Bush 43rd continued it until too late. But we are beyond Bush 43, and still haven't seen evidence the Dem's learned anything from his mistakes. What we have seen is that if one party first says "Yes", the other party just has to jump on "No".

If Democrats can't see far enough ahead to something in ten years, I suspect regradless of the world wide benefit, they are not able to see the difference in a lifetime like Skook suggests it will take.

So hang on to your wallets. Regardless of who is in the White House, when the middle east muslims decide they need a raise, you will pay for it. You already made a down payment on it with your vote.

quote:

On nuclear energy, everything I've read on the subject basically says the risk of waste is overblown. Nuclear energy makes great science fiction, but the space requirements to store the stuff are not that demanding. That said, only 5% of the energy of the nuclear fuel has been extracted. That means that most of the energy is still available for use; however, you have to reprocess the waste, like the French, to do this. Also, there is the Holy Grail of nuke power, Breeder Reactors (A.K.A. Gen IV reactors). Yeah, Baby! The beauty of breeders is that the costs of fuel become almost insignificant when rolled into the price of your electric bill. This is important for the following reason:

(borrowing Aviator's sarcasm font, setting to high).

You know, in all the talks about nukes, the liberals fail to realize this may be the perfect environmental solution. Wouldn't nuclear winter cancel out global warming?

(walks away, whistling, setting sarcasm font back to "medium")

I'm going to assume that at least two people agree in principle with what my views. Let me add two rays of hope:

<charmingly naive optimism - high>

(1) The economy will probably be in the tank for three or five more years, keeping energy prices low because nobody will have any money.

(2) Removing unnecessary government regulation should be able to cut the time from ten years to five years.

<charmingly naive optimism - off>

I'm pretty sure the physical construction for a refinery can be done in three years or less. Lead times on major equipment is rarely, if ever more than 18 months. I can usually get a pressure vessel in six to nine months, and that is from the low-cost vendors. If you're willing to pay extra, there's always someone available to serve.

A big chunk of the time is in the upfront planning. If you go with standardized plants, your timeframe drops. All of this requires a focused, unified country that has zero tolerance for those who try to stop progress just because they can. For example, if the Grandmothers Against Global Warming chain themselves together to block construction, society would demand the road crews pave over Grandma to meet schedule. That kind of 'unified' will only come when survival is at stake, but we're getting close.

Skook, I agree with you on all points except one. With the folks making policy for our country, being blind to everthing except their hatred for the other party. I doubt they will reconize the point when our survival is at stake. Had they been forward thinking our country would not be in the bind it is today. But I do hope I'm wrong.

Hmmm...Sometimes I joke with my wife that if we can't save the world, at least we might be able to score a quick buck. By extension, if we can't reform Washington to save our country from some really dark days, can we at least save Oklahoma and the surrounding area?

For example, if I were in Nevada, I'd be calling my local state representative, like Podunk (did he win?), to horse trade breeder nuke technology from the Feds in exchange for taking in waste storage. After I got the Feds to build nuclear reactors to burn the nuclear waste, I'd then recycle the waste, which would be free to Nevada (put it into the contract before Washington realizes what was up), and sell electricity to the West coast. Get Washington to pay for me to get rich of off of California's dime. I would then siphon all the gold from that vault in Beverly Hills into the Nevada state coffers.

<Skook wakes up from day dreaming>

Of course, I'm in Oklahoma instead of Nevada. However, is there some way, maybe by cutting a deal with the Indian nations, that Oklahoma can get around carbon trading? After all, if Indian land is out of the jurisdiction of the environmentalist, then Oklahoma will have a HUGE competitive advantage.

Incidentally, a friend in the business once told me that they could send electricity all the way from OK to CA by running high voltage and low amps. Food for thought.

Back to my initial point: Is there a way we can outfox the environmentalist and bring obscene wealth to our state? Maybe pull some 10th amendment stuff? If a fool and his gold have to be parted, then we have no choice but to do the partitioning, right?

Thoughts?

quote:

Incidentally, a friend in the business once told me that they could send electricity all the way from OK to CA by running high voltage and low amps. Food for thought.

I think the "grid" system is more efficient. Send the power to the next power station in every direction and let them allocate their power to the more highly populated areas.

quote:

Originally posted by folkieokie:
(borrowing Aviator's sarcasm font, setting to high).

You know, in all the talks about nukes, the liberals fail to realize this may be the perfect environmental solution. Wouldn't nuclear winter cancel out global warming?

(walks away, whistling, setting sarcasm font back to "medium")

ROTF LMAOOL

I have to remember that one Folkie! Do you think we will have to explain it to the libs? It loses some of the punch when you have to explain it.

quote:

Also, there is the Holy Grail of nuke power, Breeder Reactors (A.K.A. Gen IV reactors). Yeah, Baby! The beauty of breeders is that the costs of fuel become almost insignificant when rolled into the price of your electric bill.

I thought the holy grail of nuclear reactors is the fusion reactor--basically the Sun? No worries about waste--it consumes all.

You're right, Jawbone. My bad...

Unfortunately, we don't have fusion (yet). We have built breeders. A possible solution that has been floated about is to develop reactors that work primarily in 'burn' mode simply to get rid of the waste. That way you don't waste your money building a fission-based infrastructure just in time for fusion to become viable.