McCain's latest switch-a-roo

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wow, that's a new one on me. I'd kind of take it with a grain of salt though until I could see where all those numbers came from.

If those numbers are true we're fucked.

lemme make it nice and big for ya:

According to IEA

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

lemme make it nice and big for ya:

According to IEA

Show me on that page where it lists the power outputs of Nuclear, solar, wind, dam, and coal plants.

[motivez]

You're assuming they'd sell to Americans at a reduced cost instead of the world market. There's no reason to believe that is what would happen, unless you're suggesting the government should either run the operation directly or have control over what the corporations do with their own product.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

You're assuming they'd sell to Americans at a reduced cost instead of the world market. There's no reason to believe that is what would happen, unless you're suggesting the government should either run the operation directly or have control over what the corporations do with their own product.

Oil gotten in the US and sold in the US will be cheaper. They don't have to transport it across the world, saving them money. It's already here.

Plus, even if the cost doesn't go down,we are less dependent on other peoples oil and how THEY price it. We won't be under OPEC's boot as much. And that is a very, very good thing.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That's 75 cents per barrel in the world market. Hopefully our oil will only be used in the US (and maybe Canada) which would save a lot more $ per barrel. And like 7960 said, that number is just for anwar. It doesn't include everywhere else we could drill but aren't.

if the US was to give itself preferential rates for "its own" oil would that not be 'socialist'?

Is the 200 mile limit now the accepted definition of soveriegnty anyway?

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Wow, that's a new one on me. I'd kind of take it with a grain of salt though until I could see where all those numbers came from.

If those numbers are true we're fucked.

The $500milliion a day figure comes from an IEA report from 2005, ..., it depends upon ones views as to their credibility, ..., theres a link to a news story for it in the earlier post.

The other figures are very much 'back-of-the-envelope' kind of figures that just serve to give a rough guide to the scale of the issue

The cubic mile of oil
1 cubic mile of oil = 26.21billion bbl of oil
world consumption = approx 85million bbl/day
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls
= 31.02 billion bbl per year

claimed total world proven reverves approx
1136.7 billion bbl
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1136.7/50 years = 22.73 billion bbl/year
which is less than either the cubic mile or the 'real' figures given above

There are of course numerous footnotes on how the figures were compiled & also the lack of transparancy for OPEC reserve figures (their own rules very likely caused states to massively exaggerate their reserves), ..., also estimates of Russias reserves vary by quite a wide margin etc


But in any case we are NOT 'f*cked', ..., the rapid rise in wind turbines coming on line mean that combined with nuke power stations, solar panels etc then it is all doable, ...., just, ..., if we start now, ..., probably

The questions are

can we get it together to pay for the oil exploration & pay for the replacement non-oil energy streams & pay for any infrastructure works to protect against any possible rising sea levels & styill pay for all the maintainance of the existing infrastructure?
&
can we do all this without hitting any energy gap whilst doing it?

Of course the entire fingy might be wrong if suspected cranks like Lindsey Williams & his almost totally unsupported claims are true, ...., but do you want to rely on him?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

lemme make it nice and big for ya:

According to IEA

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Show me on that page where it lists the power outputs of Nuclear, solar, wind, dam, and coal plants.

Still waiting for you to show me those numbers

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by avsp

if the US was to give itself preferential rates for "its own" oil would that not be 'socialist'?

Is the 200 mile limit now the accepted definition of soveriegnty anyway?


The $500milliion a day figure comes from an IEA report from 2005, ..., it depends upon ones views as to their credibility, ..., theres a link to a news story for it in the earlier post.

The other figures are very much 'back-of-the-envelope' kind of figures that just serve to give a rough guide to the scale of the issue

The cubic mile of oil
1 cubic mile of oil = 26.21billion bbl of oil
world consumption = approx 85million bbl/day
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls
= 31.02 billion bbl per year

claimed total world proven reverves approx
1136.7 billion bbl
Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1136.7/50 years = 22.73 billion bbl/year
which is less than either the cubic mile or the 'real' figures given above

There are of course numerous footnotes on how the figures were compiled & also the lack of transparancy for OPEC reserve figures (their own rules very likely caused states to massively exaggerate their reserves), ..., also estimates of Russias reserves vary by quite a wide margin etc


But in any case we are NOT 'f*cked', ..., the rapid rise in wind turbines coming on line mean that combined with nuke power stations, solar panels etc then it is all doable, ...., just, ..., if we start now, ..., probably

The questions are

can we get it together to pay for the oil exploration & pay for the replacement non-oil energy streams & pay for any infrastructure works to protect against any possible rising sea levels & styill pay for all the maintainance of the existing infrastructure?
&
can we do all this without hitting any energy gap whilst doing it?

Of course the entire fingy might be wrong if suspected cranks like Lindsey Williams & his almost totally unsupported claims are true, ...., but do you want to rely on him?

It wouldn't be oil companies giving us a preferential rate. It would be oil companies saving money by drilling locally. More important than cheaper oil though is less dependence on foreign oil. Not living under the heal of OPEC would be a great thing for us.

When you look at that picture it just boggles the mind to think we would need that much stuff, every year, just to make up for what oil gives us. Those numbers are SO HUGE I have a hard time just taking them at face value. Thanks for the info though!

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It wouldn't be oil companies giving us a preferential rate. It would be oil companies saving money by drilling locally. More important than cheaper oil though is less dependence on foreign oil. Not living under the heal of OPEC would be a great thing for us.

When you look at that picture it just boggles the mind to think we would need that much stuff, every year, just to make up for what oil gives us. Those numbers are SO HUGE I have a hard time just taking them at face value. Thanks for the info though!

Yeah, the stat that does my head in is that its just a cubic mile of oil, ..., I'm guessing some of the more heavily fractured finds must be the around the size of a large shopping mall, ..., its pretty impressive technical feat to get a pipe into such a space under the North Sea etc

As for the 'value' of the oil, ..., even if it appeared magically in your back garden all barreled up for free etc its 'market value' would not be changed. Either way is 200 miles off shore really that local? & drilling in water that deep is expensive compared to onshore drilling anyway.

The graphic also doesnt take into account that hydro-dams dont give you any plastics etc. Much more importantly it doesnt account for the replacement of oil for transportation, ..., which is a MAJOR PROBLEM.

As for the strategic benefits of not relying on foreign sources, ..., the RATE at which domestic fields are likely to produce arent going to totally replace foreign sources, & as such the strategic benefit is unlikely to be that great. Although combined with substitution perhaps independance is more possible.

Either way, & back on-topic-ish, I see Mr McCain has called for nuke power station building programes to be stepped up
McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors


[edit to add]
I'll try & get sources for the output figures of the alternates tomorrow, ..., probably. To my shame I'm taking the word of brother Boris mididoctors for the valididty/accuracy of the data, ..., which is easy for me & I accept that theres no reason for anyone else to do so[/edit]



further edits
The article from whence, seemingly, the graphic originally came
IEEE Spectrum: Joules, BTUs, Quads--Let's Call the Whole Thing Off
&
IEEE Spectrum: Joules, BTUs, Quads--Let's Call the Whole Thing Off

Assumptions: The Three Gorges Dam is rated at its full design capacity of 18 gigawatts. A nuclear power plant is postulated to be the equivalent of a 1.1-GW unit at the Diablo Canyon plant in California. A coal plant is one rated at 500 megawatts. A wind turbine is one with a 100‑meter blade span, and rated at 1.65 MW. A solar panel is a 2.1‑­kilowatt system made for home roofs. In comparing ­categories, bear in mind that the average amount of time that power is produced varies among them, so that total energy obtained is not a simple function of power rating

Extensive debate on the meaning of it all, including the prospect or otherwise of 'peak uranium', queries & statements about the relevance of consciousness in ones pets
The Oil Drum | Getting a Grasp on Oil Production Volumes


As a bonus for odd facts, ..., 1%-3% of the world CO2 comes from fires in coal fields across northern China/Mongolia, ..., some have been burning for 100's of years
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/links.html