More fuel for thought

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 14, 5:02*pm, "Private" > wrote:
> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made..
>
> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate


Dems also decided that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be too
damaging for the environment so they are letting the Chinese do it
instead.

-Robert

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>>
>> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
>
> Dems also decided that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be too
> damaging for the environment so they are letting the Chinese do it
> instead.
>
> -Robert

.............And when and if the American tax paying public realize that
the gas they are paying for at 4 dollars a gallon so they can go to work
to pay more taxes represents cash from their NET income and that Al Gore
and the left who are blocking drilling for domestic resources pay for
their gas on credit cards paid for in full by the tax paying public,
there is going to be all hell to pay! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Private]

I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.

Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate

By Dennis T. Avery
web posted April 14, 2008

Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

This high-quality oil isn't controlled by Muslim zealots, or hidden
under a federal wildlife refuge. Moreover, it can now be cost-
effectively retrieved with computer-directed horizontal oil wells,
probably at $20 to $40 per barrel.

The U.S. is blocking new coal-fired power plants. With no coal to
burn, natural gas is becoming impossibly expensive. Biofuels are
proving worse for the environment than gasoline. Nuclear is
"dangerous." Erratic and expensive windmills have seemed the best the
West could do.

But the Bakken Formation in the Great Plains holds a monster oil
deposit. Estimates of its potential range as high as the U.S.
Geological Survey's figure of more than 400 billion barrels. The
Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves, the Russians just
60 billion.

Until recently, Bakken was thought too expensive to drill. But oil is
now at $100 per barrel. Even more important, new computer-controlled
drills can go sideways for hundreds of feet to suck the petroleum out
of oil-bearing shale strata, instead of just punching short vertical
holes through shallow rock layers.

At the higher end of its potential, Bakken could change the political
economics of the world. One hundred billion barrels would be worth $9
trillion at today's prices. Will America turn its back? Will we give
up our autos, airplanes and air conditioners if the oil to power them
is affordable and "home-grown"?

Consider:

The net global warming since 1940 is a miniscule 0.2 degree C, even
after 70 years of unprecedented human CO2 emissions.
Meanwhile the forcing power of additional CO2 has declined by perhaps
three-fourths. There can't be much left.
Seven years ago, NASA discovered a huge cloud-controlled "heat vent"
in the sky over the Pacific. It emitted enough heat during 1980-2000
to have dealt with a doubling of greenhouse gases.
The earth has not warmed since 1998, despite a continuing rise in
atmospheric CO2.
NASA now admits the oceans "stopped warming" about 4-5 years ago. The
end of the warming trend was documented by 3,000 high-tech Argo ocean-
diving buoys.
The planet actually cooled in 2007, attested by three major
temperature monitoring sites. The decline was apparently predicted by
a downturn in sunspots that began in 2000.
The earth's recent warming seems to be part of the moderate natural
1,500-year climate cycle controlled by the sun--which was discovered in
the Greenland ice cores in 1983. The three discoverers of the cycle
won the Tyler Prize, the "environmental Nobel," in 1996.

Short-term, there's a strong 80 percent correlation with both the
sunspots and the cycle in Pacific sea temperatures. Both now seem to
be predicting a moderate 22.5-year decline in global temperatures. We
had a similar decline from 1940 to 1975--also while CO2 levels were
rising. Such "double sunspot cycles" factor heavily in our records of
rainfall, droughts and monsoons, as well as in temperatures.

Bottom line: We now find massive man-made warming only in unverified
computer models that have consistently predicted far more warming than
we've gotten. With a downturn in temperatures--and lots of homegrown oil
--Al Gore's anti-fossil ad campaign may not be fully persuasive.

Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in
Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food
Issues. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.
He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming
Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202,
Churchville, VA 2442 or email to .

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:02:08 -0700, "Private" >
wrote:


>
>The net global warming since 1940 is a miniscule 0.2 degree C, even
>after 70 years of unprecedented human CO2 emissions.

Horse hockey.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:02:08 -0700, "Private" wrote:



>Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in
>Washington, DC and is the Director for the Center for Global Food
>Issues. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State.
>He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming
>Every 1500 Hundred Years

Fred Singer?

Haw-haw-haw!

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 14, 5:09*pm, Dan Luke > wrote:

> Fred Singer?
>
> Haw-haw-haw!

Certainly not alone...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us

-Robert

[[email protected]]

On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>
> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> By Dennis T. Avery
> web posted April 14, 2008
>
> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

The US Geological Survey begs to differ:

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
-- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 5:09 pm, Dan Luke > wrote:

> Fred Singer?
>
> Haw-haw-haw!

Typical response from the clueless.

:>Certainly not alone...
:>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us

And Fred Singer was soundly beaten in a debate with that emminant scientist,
Al Gore.

They did have a debate, didn't they? Hey, Dan, when you boy going to show
his stuff?

{crickets chirping}

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
>> made.
>>
>> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>>
>> By Dennis T. Avery
>> web posted April 14, 2008
>>
>> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
>> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
>> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
>> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
>> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
>
> The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
>
> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
> -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
> months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
80's, too.

Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
1940...then 1960...then...

[[email protected]]

On Apr 14, 4:09 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> > I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>
> > Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> Dems also decided that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be too
> damaging for the environment so they are letting the Chinese do it
> instead.
>
> -Robert

You've got your facts wrong. The Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium to
which you refer was passed in 1981 and signed by Ronald Reagan. The
law has to be renewed on a yearly basis, which it has been by every
president and congress since then, including the current one. In
addition, in 1991 Bush Sr. added Leasing Deferrals which automatically
extended it to 2002.

The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
leases their rights to the Chinese and others. None of this
information is difficult to find.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 14, 4:09 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>>
>> > I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
>> > made.
>>
>> > Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>>
>> Dems also decided that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be too
>> damaging for the environment so they are letting the Chinese do it
>> instead.
>>
>> -Robert
>
> You've got your facts wrong. The Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium to
> which you refer was passed in 1981 and signed by Ronald Reagan.

Because, at the time, Reagan knew that his de-reg would provide ample
petroleum, and he was right.


> The
> law has to be renewed on a yearly basis, which it has been by every
> president and congress since then, including the current one. In
> addition, in 1991 Bush Sr. added Leasing Deferrals which automatically
> extended it to 2002.

So what's THEIR hangup?

> The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
> a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
> leases their rights to the Chinese and others.

Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a massive
enema.

> None of this information is difficult to find.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> On Apr 14, 5:09 pm, Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> Fred Singer?
>
> Haw-haw-haw!

Hey, genius; tell us how the falsification process works in the scientific
method, and how your hysterical pals are NOT missing the point.

{crickets chirping}

[[email protected]]

Matt W. Barrow > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> >> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
> >> made.
> >>
> >> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
> >>
> >> By Dennis T. Avery
> >> web posted April 14, 2008
> >>
> >> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
> >> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
> >> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
> >> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
> >> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
> >
> > The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
> >
> > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
> >
> > They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
> > -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
> > months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.

> USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
> 80's, too.

> Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
> 1940...then 1960...then...

Yep.

Strange people those oil producers, they keep improving the recovery
technology and getting more oil out of formerly "dry" holes.

What, is there someone that believes oil forms in a big pool and all
of it gets sucked out with a big pipe?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 14, 6:21 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 4:09 pm, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>
> >> > I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
> >> > made.
>
> >> > Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> >> Dems also decided that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico would be too
> >> damaging for the environment so they are letting the Chinese do it
> >> instead.
>
> >> -Robert
>
> > You've got your facts wrong. The Outer Continental Shelf Moratorium to
> > which you refer was passed in 1981 and signed by Ronald Reagan.
>
> Because, at the time, Reagan knew that his de-reg would provide ample
> petroleum, and he was right.
>
> > The
> > law has to be renewed on a yearly basis, which it has been by every
> > president and congress since then, including the current one. In
> > addition, in 1991 Bush Sr. added Leasing Deferrals which automatically
> > extended it to 2002.
>
> So what's THEIR hangup?
>
> > The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
> > a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
> > leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>
> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a massive
> enema.

I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
drilling.

[[email protected]]

On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> >> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
> >> made.
>
> >> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> >> By Dennis T. Avery
> >> web posted April 14, 2008
>
> >> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
> >> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
> >> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
> >> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
> >> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
>
> > The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
>
> >http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> > They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
> > -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
> > months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.
>
> USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
> 80's, too.
>
> Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
> 1940...then 1960...then...


According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 14, 9:48 pm, wrote:
> On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> > >> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
> > >> made.
>
> > >> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> > >> By Dennis T. Avery
> > >> web posted April 14, 2008
>
> > >> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
> > >> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
> > >> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
> > >> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
> > >> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
>
> > > The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
>
> > >http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> > > They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
> > > -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
> > > months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.
>
> > USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
> > 80's, too.
>
> > Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
> > 1940...then 1960...then...
>
> According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
> Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
> industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
> imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
> potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
understand the reason for celebration.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:23:15 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:



>>
>> Fred Singer?
>>
>> Haw-haw-haw!
>
>Hey, genius; tell us how the falsification process works in the scientific
>method, and how your hysterical pals are NOT missing the point.
>
>{crickets chirping}

You're babbling, Barrow.

And when it comes to crickets chirping, you're a regular live bait
stand.

The ol' Perfesser's CO2 argument?

Relative humidity?

[PhilS1965]

On Apr 14, 7:16 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 9:48 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
> > > >> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
> > > >> made.
>
> > > >> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> > > >> By Dennis T. Avery
> > > >> web posted April 14, 2008
>
> > > >> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
> > > >> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
> > > >> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
> > > >> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
> > > >> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
>
> > > > The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
>
> > > >http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>
> > > > They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
> > > > -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
> > > > months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.
>
> > > USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
> > > 80's, too.
>
> > > Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
> > > 1940...then 1960...then...
>
> > According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
> > Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
> > industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
> > imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
> > potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.
>
> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> understand the reason for celebration.


When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
celebration.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:02:41 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow" wrote:
outh.net> wrote:
>
>> Fred Singer?
>>
>> Haw-haw-haw!
>
>Typical response from the clueless.
>
>:>Certainly not alone...
>:>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us
>
>And Fred Singer was soundly beaten in a debate with that emminant scientist,
>Al Gore.

Haw!

Who cares?


>They did have a debate, didn't they? Hey, Dan, when you boy going to show
>his stuff?
>
>{crickets chirping}


"when you boy going to show his stuff?"

Eh?

Are you drunk, Matty?


Oh...and Fred Singer is an Exxon-Mobil whore and a liar. When's the
last time he published any peer reviewed research?

*Now* I hear the crickets.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
>> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
>> understand the reason for celebration.
>
>
> When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> celebration.

Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> > The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
>> > a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
>> > leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>
>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a massive
>> enema.
>
> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
> drilling.

Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
offers any answers.

We *need* a third political party in the U.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[PhilS1965]

On Apr 14, 8:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> >> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> >> understand the reason for celebration.
>
> > When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> > celebration.
>
> Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
>
> Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
> it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

If we were to exploit every potential domestic oil resource we have,
including Bakken, the Alask Wildlife Refuge and all offshore sources
within our territorial waters, it would barely make a dent in our
consumption. This is a simple fact acknowledged by the oil companies
themselves.

People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
from using it. As we all learned in elementary school, fossil fuels
are a finite resource, and they're running out. There shouldn't even
be a political component to it, but for some reason, there is. Facts
shouldn't be this controversial.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Apr 14, 5:02 pm, "Private" > wrote:
>> >> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
>> >> made.
>> >>
>> >> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>> >>
>> >> By Dennis T. Avery
>> >> web posted April 14, 2008
>> >>
>> >> Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
>> >> of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
>> >> tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
>> >> oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
>> >> Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.
>> >
>> > The US Geological Survey begs to differ:
>> >
>> > http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
>> >
>> > They say 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels. At our current rate of consumption
>> > -- about 20 million barrels per day -- that would last us about 6
>> > months. Not sure where the 400 billion figure comes from.
>
>> USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
>> 80's, too.
>
>> Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
>> 1940...then 1960...then...
>
> Yep.
>
> Strange people those oil producers, they keep improving the recovery
> technology and getting more oil out of formerly "dry" holes.
>
> What, is there someone that believes oil forms in a big pool and all
> of it gets sucked out with a big pipe?
>

Actually, it's a plastic straw in the shape of a rabbit.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 14, 6:10 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> USGS said that Northern Slope Alaska would be depleted by about the early
>> 80's, too.
>>
>> Back in the early 1900's, they aid we would run out of oil by 1920...then
>> 1940...then 1960...then...
>
>
> According to their press release, "USGS worked with the North Dakota
> Geological Survey, a number of petroleum
> industry companies..." to reach this assessment. It's difficult to
> imagine that petroleum companies, of all people, would underestimate a
> potential oil reserve by a factor of 100 to 1.

Ummm...maybe they don't want a price spike?

Recall they (USGS and the producers) said the same about the Alaska North
Slope back 30 some years ago.

They said the same about Oklahoma, the Continental Shelf....

But like the Energizer bunny, they keep going and going and going and
going...

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:bTUMj.67327$TT4.14148@attbi_s22...
>>> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
>>> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
>>> understand the reason for celebration.
>>
>>
>> When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
>> celebration.
>
> Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

And their estimates in the past have been off by several orders of magnitude
EVERY time.

I think it not even 80 years ago they said Texas held nothing, etc.

> Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you
> cut it.

They want us to save pints and they won't go after billions of barrels.
Someone check those folks straightjackets.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"PhilS1965" > wrote in message
...
> If we were to exploit every potential domestic oil resource we have,
> including Bakken, the Alask Wildlife Refuge and all offshore sources
> within our territorial waters, it would barely make a dent in our
> consumption. This is a simple fact acknowledged by the oil companies
> themselves.

Cite?

> People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
> untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
> from using it. As we all learned in elementary school, fossil fuels
> are a finite resource, and they're running out. There shouldn't even
> be a political component to it, but for some reason, there is. Facts
> shouldn't be this controversial.

Yeah, they've been telling us that since the 1880's and good little menchen
keep barfing it out in public.

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> On Apr 14, 6:21 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>> > wrote in message

>> So what's THEIR hangup?
>>
>> > The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
>> > a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
>> > leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>
>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a massive
>> enema.
>
> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
> drilling.

And I was emphasizing your point and expanding on it that the biggest
hindrance is Congress, not Exxon, et al.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22...
>>> > The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil rights to
>>> > a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba, which in turn
>>> > leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>>
>>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a massive
>>> enema.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
>> drilling.
>
> Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
> offers any answers.
>
> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.


We have one. It's the Green Party.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
> untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
> from using it.

http://tinyurl.com/54rp3x

Whoops! Another utopian idea reinforced....

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Stella Starr]

Private wrote:
> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>
> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>

Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Then when the price goes down the projects are immediately dropped. It's
costly, messy and just barely worth the trouble even when the fuel's
literally black gold.

And this report is only an estimate, in location thoroughly probed for
many years...and even IT calls the invisible resources "technically
recoverable," basically admitting that it would take a good deal of
technical processing, some of it pretty speculative, to squeeze oil out
of those cold fields.

Don't take it from me: take it from the local folks.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/414164

[Stella Starr]

Private wrote:
> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified,

Why not?
Got time to forward something without caring if it's true or not?
Interesting view of responsibility.
I'm just sayin'.

[Bob Fry]

>>>>> "P" == Private > writes:

P> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no
P> commentary made. Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy
P> climate debate

Then let's get some facts. The USGS just released a new assessment of
the Bakken.

"3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation--25 Times More Than 1995
Estimate"

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation.

Apparently the Bakken formation has been known for decades, but its
potential usable oil estimates not so well known.

As for changing the climate debate, that will happen only among
republicans, religionists, and rednecks. Science continues without
regard to politics of greed and convenience.
--
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with
my legs.
~ Frederick Douglass, escaped slave

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
> offers any answers.
>
> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

I'm not so sure that would help, until you get rid of the special interest
group lobby on the politicians.
--
Jim in NC

[Stella Starr]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> http://tinyurl.com/54rp3x
> Whoops! Another utopian idea reinforced....
>
> ;-)

My clues that it's nothing to pop champagne corks over just yet, from
the article referenced:

1. "may have discovered..."

2. "did not provide any details about... his information, except to say
it came from "nonofficial, non-confirmed sources."

3. "Oil prices were unaffected by the news."

It could be confirmed, but so far the leading indicators, as economists
like to say, don't look very fired up about the claim.

I'd applaud as warmly as any if we found a humongous source of new
energy, though it sure would be nice if we weren't arguing over cleaner
sources not being worth developing. That's just giving a free ride to
oil-baron press releases.

[Private]

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>
> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
> By Dennis T. Avery
> web posted April 14, 2008


And an announcement today from Brazil.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_oil_10%3B_ylt%3DA0WTcVdg0ANIYFQAZQSAsnsA

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Stella Starr > writes:

>Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
>Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
>roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
>astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

Back when oil was getting close to $30/barrel, an article on cnn.com
commented that there was a huge amount of oil in oil shale, but it would
not be economical to extract unless oil got to $40/barrel. Well, at $100
per barrel, it seems that the oil companies are hoping for even more profit
when they finally decide to get it.

Alan

[The Old Bloke[_8_]]

"Private" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Private" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary
>>made.
>>
>> Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>>
>> By Dennis T. Avery
>> web posted April 14, 2008
>
>
> And an announcement today from Brazil.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080414/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_oil_10%3B_ylt%3DA0WTcVdg0ANIYFQAZQSAsnsA
>
That is potentially a very good find. But keep in mind that only about 35%
of an oil reservoir can be economically extracted. (Less hope future
advances are made). So if the world uses 85M barrel a day ....... So about
135 days of world's supply.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-15, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.

Well, actually, it's not; it belongs to the companies that extract it.
It will be therefore traded on the world market along with all the other
oil. Oil companies, like any other firm, want to maximise their profits
and so will sell the oil where it's most profitable to sell it.

So it'll barely change oil prices.

To make it "your" oil, you would have to take the socialist step of
making it a nationalised industry. To make it lower the cost of oil in
the United States, you'd also have to make it a nationalised industry
selling below market price.

The country 50 miles to the right of me is a net exporter of oil (the
UK). That's where Brent sweet crude comes from, one of the benchmark
prices. Their oil price goes up and down with the global market just
like everyone else's. Being an oil producing country does not get you a
price break from the global oil market.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> >> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> >> understand the reason for celebration.
>
> > When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> > celebration.
>
> Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
>
> Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
> it.
> --

There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
wing that we are simply throwing away.

The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
achievable.

Even if we discover some large oil reserve, it is only going to
prolong the eventual demise of oil.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>>> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
>>>> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
>>>> understand the reason for celebration.
>>> When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
>>> celebration.
>> Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
>>
>> Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
>> from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
>> it.
>> --
>
> There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
> wing that we are simply throwing away.
>
> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> achievable.
>
> Even if we discover some large oil reserve, it is only going to
> prolong the eventual demise of oil.
>
I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
.......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

> I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
> help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
> completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
> too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where the
> changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no longer be
> made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
> ......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

Oil is $110/bbl and climbing. Gasoline is on a similar path. Those facts
alone are already starting to give serious economic impetus to alternative
energy development.

Yeah, there's going to be pain, but watch the good ol' profit motive produce
its usual surprising results in wind, solar thermal, PV, biodiesel, etc.

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

>
> Even if we discover some large oil reserve, it is only going to
> prolong the eventual demise of oil.
>


Which a Brazilian Oil just happen to do the other day. The 3rd largest
field ever found. I wonder how many other 1st, 2nd or 3rd largest oil
fields are out there waiting to be found? Including those that we are
pretty sure exist but are to deep for our current technology to make use of.

While I agree that alternate forms of energy are a very good thing for
very many reasons there is no reason to do anything at this point that
will trash the world economy because there is still several metric
butt-loads of crude out there.

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > >> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> > >> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> > >> understand the reason for celebration.
> >
> > > When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> > > celebration.
> >
> > Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
> >
> > Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> > from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
> > it.
> > --

> There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
> wing that we are simply throwing away.

Unless I dropped a decimal somewhere, there is about 16 M^2 of wing
area on a C-172.

30 HP is 22.4 kW; there isn't that much energy in sunlight.

> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> achievable.

You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?

There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:

Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.

Cure cancer.

Produce sustainable fusion.

Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dan Luke wrote:
......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.
>
> Oil is $110/bbl and climbing. Gasoline is on a similar path. Those facts
> alone are already starting to give serious economic impetus to alternative
> energy development.
>

Oil is at an all time high because the dollar is at an all time low. All
the money both foreign and domestic is moving into hard commodities.
Gold and oil just happen to be the most popular two. If the dollar
wasn't in the hole so badly the resent find off the coast of Brazil
would have really depressed the oil futures market.

[[email protected]]

Alan > wrote:
> In article > Stella Starr > writes:

> >Eh. I lived around there, had friends who went off to work in the North
> >Dakota oil fields a time or two. Every time petroleum goes through the
> >roof in price, someone reopens the oil shale fields, which require an
> >astronomical amount of work and expenditure to wring oil from the rock.

> Back when oil was getting close to $30/barrel, an article on cnn.com
> commented that there was a huge amount of oil in oil shale, but it would
> not be economical to extract unless oil got to $40/barrel. Well, at $100
> per barrel, it seems that the oil companies are hoping for even more profit
> when they finally decide to get it.

Two things have happened:

The cost of extraction from oil shale and tar sands (both of which have
enormous amounts of oil) has gone up along with everything else. Current
costs are estimated to be in the $80 to $100 per barrel range.

Since a long term, large capital investment is required to do this, the
oil companies waited to make sure the price was above, and going to stay
above, the level where recovery was economical.

Recovery from such sources is starting now, but in some places is being
hindered by the NIMBY's and CO2 fanatics.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Bob Fry > wrote:
> >>>>> "P" == Private > writes:

> P> I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no
> P> commentary made. Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy
> P> climate debate

> Then let's get some facts. The USGS just released a new assessment of
> the Bakken.

> "3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in
> North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation--25 Times More Than 1995
> Estimate"

> http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

> See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation.

> Apparently the Bakken formation has been known for decades, but its
> potential usable oil estimates not so well known.

And the technically recoverable percentage increases continually with
advancements in the technology.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 15, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > >> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> > > >> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> > > >> understand the reason for celebration.
>
> > > > When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> > > > celebration.
>
> > > Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
>
> > > Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> > > from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
> > > it.
> > > --
> > There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
> > wing that we are simply throwing away.
>
> Unless I dropped a decimal somewhere, there is about 16 M^2 of wing
> area on a C-172.
>
> 30 HP is 22.4 kW; there isn't that much energy in sunlight.


On a clear day, the average solar power incident on the earth's
surface is 1400Wm^2. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/ManicaPiputbundit.shtml

That gives 22kW or 30 HP.

Regardless of the exact number, the point is that there is significant
amount of solar radiation that we are not making use of.



>
> > The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> > But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> > achievable.
>
> You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?

Yes, we have lots of ways to to do it, but we have not figured out how
to do that in a cost-effective manner that can be made for mass use.

>
> There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
>
> Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.

We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.

Had we spent all the post-911 terrorist-aversion expenditures on
something like this, we could be declaring independence from the
middle east.

I know that we spent several millions erecting a metal fence around
our small GA airport. All it did was screw up the localizer signal and
trap the deer population. I don't think even the administrators
believed there was a terrorism threat here.

On the other hand, NSF (National Science Foundation) budget has barely
kept up with inflation in the past 10 years. This is where we count on
for fundamental break throughs in discovery.



>
> Cure cancer.
>
> Produce sustainable fusion.
>
> Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Phil J]

On Apr 15, 11:52*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
>
> While I agree that alternate forms of energy are a very good thing for
> very many reasons there is no reason to do anything at this point that
> will trash the world economy because there is still several metric
> butt-loads of crude out there.

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
economy. But I think now is the time to devote some serious resources
to find alternative, sustainable ways to keep our societies running.
If we wait until the end is clearly in sight, we probably won't be
able to afford to spend the resources it will take to solve the
problem.

If you want to get some good perspective on this kind of thing, read
the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. It's a very clear-eyed, down-to-
earth analysis of why past societies have flourished, but then
ultimately collapsed. Over and over again in human history, societies
have over-used their natural resources until they suffered a
catastrophic collapse. This is the rule, not the exception. It is
very rare in human history for a society to live in a way that is
sustainable over the long term. Clearly, our current society is not
sustainable, and if we ignore history we will be condemned to repeat
it.

Phil

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
>> wing that we are simply throwing away.
>
> Unless I dropped a decimal somewhere, there is about 16 M^2 of wing
> area on a C-172.

At ~1000W/m^2 insolation, that yields an "ideal" max power of ~16,000 W.

> 30 HP is 22.4 kW; there isn't that much energy in sunlight.

Since there are ~746 W/HP, by my reckoning the sunlight power on a C-172
wing is ~21 HP. Still not bad, though not sure where Andrew got 30 HP.

>> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
>> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
>> achievable.
>
> You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?
>
> There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
>
> Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.

Real world system efficiencies of 40% should be possible today - using
solar thermal (e.g. solar troughs).

> Cure cancer.

That is already being done for some forms of cancer. Next time try "Cure
the common cold." (And strictly speaking the body does that on its own - it
just makes you feel miserable while it goes about it!)

> Produce sustainable fusion.

Always 30 years off.... ;-)

> Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.

An interesting idea. :-)

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:55 pm, wrote:
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> > > On Apr 14, 11:00 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > > > >> If I am not mistaken, current world consumption is about 85 million
> > > > >> barrels per day. The 4 billion barrels will last 50 days. I don't
> > > > >> understand the reason for celebration.
> >
> > > > > When you're addicted to something, even a tiny amount is cause for
> > > > > celebration.
> >
> > > > Whether it's 4 billion, or 400 billion barrels -- who cares? It's *ours*.
> >
> > > > Develop those fields now, and it's *that* much less oil we have to import
> > > > from the Arabs. This is what's called a "good thing" no matter how you cut
> > > > it.
> > > > --
> > > There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
> > > wing that we are simply throwing away.
> >
> > Unless I dropped a decimal somewhere, there is about 16 M^2 of wing
> > area on a C-172.
> >
> > 30 HP is 22.4 kW; there isn't that much energy in sunlight.


> On a clear day, the average solar power incident on the earth's
> surface is 1400Wm^2. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/ManicaPiputbundit.shtml

> That gives 22kW or 30 HP.

Only if the angle between your collecting surface is 90 degrees with
respect to the incident sunlight.

Otherwise, multiply by the sine of the angle.

So, if you are at Latitude 33 degrees north at noon in the middle of
the summer, that angle is roughly 57 degrees and you get .84 times
that, or roughly 18.5 kW for level flight.

The sun moves at about 15 degrees per hour, so an hour later or earlier
that angle is roughly 43 degrees and you are down to about 15 kW.

I'll leave the calculation of what you get at other times of the
year when the sun is low.

The only way around this is to always fly with your wings perpendicular
to the sun.

> Regardless of the exact number, the point is that there is significant
> amount of solar radiation that we are not making use of.

Not from airplane wings there isn't.


> > > The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> > > But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> > > achievable.
> >
> > You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?

> Yes, we have lots of ways to to do it, but we have not figured out how
> to do that in a cost-effective manner that can be made for mass use.

We do not know how to do it even in a lab.

> > There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
> >
> > Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.

> We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
> quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
> approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
> how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
> exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.

The best efficiency achieved in a lab to date is around 40% of the
total incident energy of the sun's spectrum.

> Had we spent all the post-911 terrorist-aversion expenditures on
> something like this, we could be declaring independence from the
> middle east.

Electricity has little to nothing to do with oil from the Middle
East or anywhere else and never will unless either batteries are
improved by an order of magnitude or electricity becomes cheap
enough to synthesize oil at a cost comperable with sucking it out
of the ground and refining it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> >> There is 30 horsepower of solar radiation falling on a Cessna 172's
> >> wing that we are simply throwing away.
> >
> > Unless I dropped a decimal somewhere, there is about 16 M^2 of wing
> > area on a C-172.

> At ~1000W/m^2 insolation, that yields an "ideal" max power of ~16,000 W.

> > 30 HP is 22.4 kW; there isn't that much energy in sunlight.

> Since there are ~746 W/HP, by my reckoning the sunlight power on a C-172
> wing is ~21 HP. Still not bad, though not sure where Andrew got 30 HP.

He's using 1.4 kW, which is about the max you'll ever get.

Both of you are ignoring the fact that you get that only if the angle
beteen the sun and your collector is 90 degrees, otherwise you have
to multiply by the sine of the angle to get the real energy per unit
area.

> >> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> >> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> >> achievable.
> >
> > You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?
> >
> > There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
> >
> > Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.

> Real world system efficiencies of 40% should be possible today - using
> solar thermal (e.g. solar troughs).

Lab efficiencies are already around 40%.

Using collectors or concentrators doesn't change the overall efficiency,
it only makes the area of the converter required for a given amount
of energy smaller; the total area remains the same.

And for photocells, it runs the temperature up which plays hell with
the usefull life and reliability.

> > Cure cancer.

> That is already being done for some forms of cancer. Next time try "Cure
> the common cold." (And strictly speaking the body does that on its own - it
> just makes you feel miserable while it goes about it!)

Cure cancer as in take these pills twice a day for a week, not irradiate
or cut out a chunk of the body and hope there isn't too much collateral
damage to the body, though with stuff like proton therapy the irradiation
stuff is getting pretty good.

> > Produce sustainable fusion.

> Always 30 years off.... ;-)

> > Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.

> An interesting idea. :-)

Mr. Fusion; I forgot about the banana peels.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Andrew Sarangan > writes:

>On a clear day, the average solar power incident on the earth's
>surface is 1400Wm^2. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/ManicaPiputbundit.shtml

No, that is the solar power at the top of the atmosphere.

By the time it gets through the atmosphere, the accepted figure is
1000 watts per square meter.

Consumer solar cells are available claiming about 20% efficienty now.
If they can do as their ads claim, the 16 sq meters of the top of the 172
will get 3.2 kW under direct solar radiation, and perhaps 70% of that on a
typical mid-day for most of us due to the sun angle being lower than
directly overhead. That 2.25 kW would give 3 horsepower if the conversion
were 100 percent efficient (it isn't).


As for 100 percent efficient solar cells, you say:

>We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
>quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
>approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
>how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
>exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.

If you believe that, you should be out convincing investors that you
can make them very rich. Don't tell us. Show us.

Convince those that point out that the laws of thermodynamics
setting limits apply to solar cells too.


>Had we spent all the post-911 terrorist-aversion expenditures on
>something like this, we could be declaring independence from the
>middle east.

Speculation, with no facts in evidence.


>I know that we spent several millions erecting a metal fence around
>our small GA airport. All it did was screw up the localizer signal and
>trap the deer population. I don't think even the administrators
>believed there was a terrorism threat here.

Yes, the whole security paranoia over aircraft has not gone away.


>On the other hand, NSF (National Science Foundation) budget has barely
>kept up with inflation in the past 10 years. This is where we count on
>for fundamental break throughs in discovery.

Last I checked, the NSF didn't do research. Universities do some, but
putting things into production is done by businesses.



Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight around.
It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar power weight,
but it would be fun if it could be made to work.


Alan

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Phil J wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:52 am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> While I agree that alternate forms of energy are a very good thing for
>> very many reasons there is no reason to do anything at this point that
>> will trash the world economy because there is still several metric
>> butt-loads of crude out there.
>
> I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
> economy.

There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
description.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Both of you are ignoring the fact that you get that only if the angle
> beteen the sun and your collector is 90 degrees, otherwise you have
> to multiply by the sine of the angle to get the real energy per unit
> area.

I didn't ignore that aspect out of ignorance or oversight. I'm not
trying to write a treatise on the subject after all. And anyway, we also
"ignored" clouds, fog, smoke, bug splatter, and night too. It didn't
seem relevant to the underlying point. Which I took to be the amount of
power in sunlight. (Solar powered aircraft have been built and set
records, after all.)

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Real world system efficiencies of 40% should be possible today -
>> using solar thermal (e.g. solar troughs).
>
> Lab efficiencies are already around 40%.

Real-world heat engine efficiencies of 36% have been observed in power
plants:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Other_criteria_of_heat_engine_performa nce

[Jim Logajan]

(Alan) wrote:
> Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
> could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight
> around. It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar
> power weight, but it would be fun if it could be made to work.

You are about 28 years too late - it was demonstrated in 1980. Here's a
brief history of solar powered flight:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-054-DFRC.html

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Both of you are ignoring the fact that you get that only if the angle
> > beteen the sun and your collector is 90 degrees, otherwise you have
> > to multiply by the sine of the angle to get the real energy per unit
> > area.

> I didn't ignore that aspect out of ignorance or oversight. I'm not
> trying to write a treatise on the subject after all. And anyway, we also
> "ignored" clouds, fog, smoke, bug splatter, and night too. It didn't
> seem relevant to the underlying point. Which I took to be the amount of
> power in sunlight. (Solar powered aircraft have been built and set
> records, after all.)

I can make a solar motor out of 4 cigarette lighter flints, a magnifying
glass, and a refrigerator magnet; that doesn't mean it is usefull
for anything other than a physics demonstration.

There is a big difference between the amount of power in sunlight
and the incident power in sunlight, and the incident power is what
there is to work with.

> > Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Real world system efficiencies of 40% should be possible today -
> >> using solar thermal (e.g. solar troughs).
> >
> > Lab efficiencies are already around 40%.

> Real-world heat engine efficiencies of 36% have been observed in power
> plants:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Other_criteria_of_heat_engine_performa nce

Yeah, and bejeezus huge solar boilers have been build in sunny climates
with some sucess.

None of that has anything to do with running a practical airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Phil J]

On Apr 15, 2:47*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> > I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
> > economy.
>
> There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
> the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
> people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
> on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
> favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
> description.

Really? How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
the world's economy?

Phil

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:58:25 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:

>Dan Luke wrote:
> ......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.
>>
>> Oil is $110/bbl and climbing. Gasoline is on a similar path. Those facts
>> alone are already starting to give serious economic impetus to alternative
>> energy development.
>>
>
>Oil is at an all time high because the dollar is at an all time low.

That's not the only reason. Demand is at an all-time high and growing
fast. Crude is getting more expensive to extract.


> All
>the money both foreign and domestic is moving into hard commodities.
>Gold and oil just happen to be the most popular two. If the dollar
>wasn't in the hole so badly the resent find off the coast of Brazil
>would have really depressed the oil futures market.

Hmmm...

"...could contain as much as 33 billion barrels!"

That's a pig-in-a-poke until the reserves are proven.

That's why it didn't depress prices--not even a smidgen.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:43:01 -0700 (PDT), Phil J wrote:

>I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
>economy.


Talk radio "environmentalist" strawmen say it all the time.

That's why it shows up here.


> But I think now is the time to devote some serious resources
>to find alternative, sustainable ways to keep our societies running.
>If we wait until the end is clearly in sight, we probably won't be
>able to afford to spend the resources it will take to solve the
>problem.
>
>If you want to get some good perspective on this kind of thing, read
>the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. It's a very clear-eyed, down-to-
>earth analysis of why past societies have flourished, but then
>ultimately collapsed. Over and over again in human history, societies
>have over-used their natural resources until they suffered a
>catastrophic collapse. This is the rule, not the exception. It is
>very rare in human history for a society to live in a way that is
>sustainable over the long term. Clearly, our current society is not
>sustainable, and if we ignore history we will be condemned to repeat
>it.


You're just one of those whacko alarmists.

Everything will be fine if we just keep doing things the same way we
always have.

Don't worry; be happy!

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:55:04 GMT, wrote:

>
>> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
>> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
>> achievable.
>
>You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?
>
>There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
>
>Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.
>
>Cure cancer.
>
>Produce sustainable fusion.
>
>Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.

You're just a happy little ray of sunshine, aren't you?

Yeah, you're right: we don't know how to do any of this stuff.

Might as well give up on all of it.

[[email protected]]

Dan Luke > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:55:04 GMT, wrote:

> >
> >> The challenge is extracting the full solar spectrum and storing it.
> >> But there are no fundamental scientific reasons why this is not
> >> achievable.
> >
> >You mean other than we haven't a clue how to do it in the real world?
> >
> >There are no fundamental scientific reasons why we can't:
> >
> >Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.
> >
> >Cure cancer.
> >
> >Produce sustainable fusion.
> >
> >Convert junk mail and coffee grounds into 100 LL.

> You're just a happy little ray of sunshine, aren't you?

> Yeah, you're right: we don't know how to do any of this stuff.

> Might as well give up on all of it.

I never said that.

But since I've spent most of my life building stuff that had to adhere
to both the laws of physics and economics, I'm probably a lot more
inclined to be practical rather than to go wishing on a star and hoping
something that doesn't exist suddenly does.

The odds are good that the cost of electic production will fall in
the near (decades) term, but it will be from plants firmly anchored
on the ground.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Private" > said:
>I just found this on another forum, facts not verified, no commentary made.
>
>Huge Dakota oil pool could change energy climate debate
>
>By Dennis T. Avery
>web posted April 14, 2008
>
>Al Gore is launching a $300 million ad campaign to support the banning
>of fossil fuels. But our faith in man-made global warming will now be
>tested by news that up to 400 billion barrels of light, sweet crude
>oil for America's future can be pumped from under Manitoba and North
>Dakota. That's more oil than Saudi Arabia and Russia put together.

You know, when the article starts off with a blatent lie, and everything
it says about climate science is a 100% verifiable bold faced lie, it's
really hard to believe what it says about the oil "pool".

I don't have time to refute all the lies about climate science, although a
few minutes with any article written by a real climate scientist (or even
a Wikipedia article or two) should be enough to do that.

So let's start with the first sentence in the article. "Al Gore ... to
support the banning of fossil fuels". Al Gore isn't dictator of the
world, so you'd think if that was his goal, he'd have to actually come out
and say that was his goal to try to convince people. Ok, I've read two of
his books, seen the movie, watched a couple of his speeches, and looked
all over his web site algore.com, and nowhere does he say "I want to ban
all fossil fuels".

Al Gore founded The Alliance For Climate Protection, whose web site
http://www.wecansolveit.org/ states as one of its goals "begining a
transformation towards a robust clean energy economy". That doesn't sound
like an outright ban to me. Maybe it's because I'm a liberal and a
scientist, and maybe it's because because I actually read what they were
proposing instead a summary provided by somebody with an axe to grind and
a less than stellar commitment to the truth, but that sounds like a
responsible process where we replace dirty energy with clean energy at a
pace that is based on what is economically sustainable.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"Tower zero one request clearance for takeoff."
"Cleared runway three contact ground point six three when off the runway."
- Michael Crichton destroys whatever technical credibility he had left.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 15, 2:45 pm, wrote:
ons why we can't:
>
> > > Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.
> > We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
> > quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
> > approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
> > how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
> > exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.
>
> The best efficiency achieved in a lab to date is around 40% of the
> total incident energy of the sun's spectrum.

That is why I said 'the challenge is how to translate that to match
the broad solar spectrum'. A narrow band emission can be converted to
electrons with extremely high efficiency. We are already doing it.
Look up the quantum efficiency of any high-end photodetector.

A challenge can be overcome. Fundamental physical limits cannot be
overcome. The quantum efficiencies of todays solar cells are due to
limitations of implementation, not due to a fundamental limit, similar
to the Carnot cycle. If you use a single material (silicon) and a
single junction, it will do poorly with a broad band spectrum,
especially the portion of the spectrum that lays above 1.1um
wavelength.

I can make a >90% efficient solar cell in the lab. Split the solar
radiation into many spectral components, and use a high QE detector
for each spectral range. Make your detectors out of GaN, GaP, AlGaAs,
GaAs, HgCdTe to cover the entire spectrum. That is the crude way to do
it, and will cost enormous $, and will never be practical. But it is
not an impossibility. There is much we can do to improve solar cell
efficiency. The focus needs to be there.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:55:04 +0000, jimp wrote:

> Both of you are ignoring the fact that you get that only if the angle
> beteen the sun and your collector is 90 degrees,

So we'd have to pitch and bank for best power? Big deal. That's what
makes it fun.

<Laugh>

- Andrew

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2:45 pm, wrote:
> ons why we can't:
> >
> > > > Convert light into electricity with 90% efficiency.
> > > We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
> > > quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
> > > approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
> > > how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
> > > exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.
> >
> > The best efficiency achieved in a lab to date is around 40% of the
> > total incident energy of the sun's spectrum.

> That is why I said 'the challenge is how to translate that to match
> the broad solar spectrum'. A narrow band emission can be converted to
> electrons with extremely high efficiency. We are already doing it.
> Look up the quantum efficiency of any high-end photodetector.

> A challenge can be overcome. Fundamental physical limits cannot be
> overcome. The quantum efficiencies of todays solar cells are due to
> limitations of implementation, not due to a fundamental limit, similar
> to the Carnot cycle. If you use a single material (silicon) and a
> single junction, it will do poorly with a broad band spectrum,
> especially the portion of the spectrum that lays above 1.1um
> wavelength.

> I can make a >90% efficient solar cell in the lab. Split the solar
> radiation into many spectral components, and use a high QE detector
> for each spectral range. Make your detectors out of GaN, GaP, AlGaAs,
> GaAs, HgCdTe to cover the entire spectrum. That is the crude way to do
> it, and will cost enormous $, and will never be practical. But it is
> not an impossibility. There is much we can do to improve solar cell
> efficiency. The focus needs to be there.

Actually, the real challenge isn't efficiency as that only matters
where you are weight limited, such as spacecraft.

There isn't enough surface area on conventional vehicles to gather
enough power to be usefull no matter the efficiency.

The real challenge is dollars/watt, total installed cost.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:

> > I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
> > economy.
>
> There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
> the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
> people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
> on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
> favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
> description.

:> Really? How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
:> the world's economy?

All of them.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22:

>>> > The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil
>>> > rights to a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba,
>>> > which in turn leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>>
>>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a
>>> massive enema.
>>
>> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
>> drilling.
>
> Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
> offers any answers.
>
> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.

You re an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:eOVMj.67389
$TT4.59838@attbi_s22:

>> People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
>> untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
>> from using it.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/54rp3x
>
> Whoops! Another utopian idea reinforced....
>
> ;-)

In your tiny mind, yes.


I propose a new approach to democracy, where you get multiple votes if
you read and none if you just watch Fox news, like Jay does.

It's worth a try..

Bertie

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Apr 15, 3:46 pm, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > Andrew Sarangan > writes:
>
>
> As for 100 percent efficient solar cells, you say:
>
> >We are already doing it, for specialized applications. Internal
> >quantum efficiencies of certain semiconductor materials have
> >approached nearly 100% within a narrow spectral range.The challenge is
> >how to translate that to match the broad solar spectrum. The know-how
> >exists, but there isn't enough investment to make it happen.
>
> If you believe that, you should be out convincing investors that you
> can make them very rich. Don't tell us. Show us.

That is a very simplistic view. This is not at a stage where a
business could be created. This is still at a stage where federal
investment is necessary. One can't do this without significant
investment in R&D. There are myriad of ideas, but little $ to fund
them.

When someone suggested in the 1940's that a man-made satellite could
be made to orbit the earth, I am sure many people told him 'Don't tell
us. Show us'.



>
> >Had we spent all the post-911 terrorist-aversion expenditures on
> >something like this, we could be declaring independence from the
> >middle east.
>
> Speculation, with no facts in evidence.

Take a look at where we (U.S) stands in R&D spending per GDP compared
to other industrialized nations. We rank 7th. How much money do you
think has been spent post-911 on unnecessary security measures, such
as the fence-example I mentioned?


>
> >On the other hand, NSF (National Science Foundation) budget has barely
> >kept up with inflation in the past 10 years. This is where we count on
> >for fundamental break throughs in discovery.
>
> Last I checked, the NSF didn't do research. Universities do some, but
> putting things into production is done by businesses.

Nor does NIH, DARPA, ASOFR, ONR etc..
Transitioning a technology to production is the last phase of a long
process. It is overly simplistic to think that research and
commercialization are compartmentalized.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 15, 3:46 pm, (Alan) wrote:
>> In article
>> >
>> Andrew Sarangan > writes:
>>
>> If you believe that, you should be out convincing investors that you
>> can make them very rich. Don't tell us. Show us.
>
> That is a very simplistic view. This is not at a stage where a
> business could be created. This is still at a stage where federal
> investment is necessary. One can't do this without significant
> investment in R&D. There are myriad of ideas, but little $ to fund
> them.

Venture Capital.

> When someone suggested in the 1940's that a man-made satellite could
> be made to orbit the earth, I am sure many people told him 'Don't tell
> us. Show us'.

The idea of satellite in orbit pre-dated the 1940's by quite a spell.

But it's always more fun to spend other people's money.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Jim Logajan > writes:
(Alan) wrote:
>> Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
>> could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight
>> around. It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar
>> power weight, but it would be fun if it could be made to work.
>
>You are about 28 years too late - it was demonstrated in 1980. Here's a
>brief history of solar powered flight:
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-054-DFRC.html

Yet none of these efforts were funded and built by individuals.
Research projects are nice, but many of those were extreme cases of
extra light aircraft.

I expect that you have never flown one. Neither have I. Many of
these were special case aircraft, similar to the ones for human powered
flight. They weren't exactly something that you haul out, hop in, and
fly off casually.

With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
reading about better funded researchers doing it.

Alan

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
> help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
> completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
> too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
> the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
> longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
> ......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.

There are really two possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
developed.

Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
competition.

I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
sorts of energy products.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2008-04-16, Alan > wrote:
> With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
> may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
> reading about better funded researchers doing it.

I've got many hours of solar powered aircraft time.

OK, so the solar panel was the ground, and the transfer medium was a
thermal... but many of us enjoy soaring for two or three hours at a
time in gliders :-)

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

[Frank Olson]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22:
>
>>>>> The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil
>>>>> rights to a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba,
>>>>> which in turn leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a
>>>> massive enema.
>>> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
>>> drilling.
>> Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither party
>> offers any answers.
>>
>> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.
>
> You re an idiot.
>
>
> Bertie
>


He can always vote "Communist"... <ducking>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
>> help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
>> completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
>> too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
>> the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
>> longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
>> ......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.
>
> There are really two possible scenarios:
>
> Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
> the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
> developed.
>
> Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
> have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
> economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
> become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
> competition.
>
> I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
> the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
> called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
> themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
> sorts of energy products.
>

Don't forget to inject into your "survival" scenario the extremely
distinct possibility that government, (and the absolute geniuses that
this term implies) manages to succeed in placing itself into your
equation, thus accessing all that nice R&D money for their own
"re-election", thus changing the dynamic of the free market.
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Frank Olson > wrote in
news:WumNj.55012$rd2.30218@pd7urf3no:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:cVUMj.67331$TT4.15571@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>>>> The current president also renewed the treaty that cedes oil
>>>>>> rights to a significant portion of the Florida Straits to Cuba,
>>>>>> which in turn leases their rights to the Chinese and others.
>>>>> Which indicates the Republicrat (nee: statist) Congress needs a
>>>>> massive enema.
>>>> I was merely pointing out some common fallicies about offshore
>>>> drilling.
>>> Both parties are to blame for the energy mess we're in. Neither
party
>>> offers any answers.
>>>
>>> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.
>>
>> You re an idiot.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> He can always vote "Communist"... <ducking>
>

I doubt he could spell it well enough not to spoil the vote if he wrote
it in.

Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Phil J wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>
>>> I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
>>> economy.
>> There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
>> the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
>> people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
>> on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
>> favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
>> description.
>
> Really? How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
> the world's economy?
>
> Phil
>

Which ones don't?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.
>
> I'm not so sure that would help, until you get rid of the special interest
> group lobby on the politicians.

True. Trouble is your "special interest group" might be my "worthy
cause" -- and vice versa...

I think the real solution would be to go back to a part-time Congress, with
legislator's pay insufficient to support a family. This would force
CongressCritters to actually work for a living, and would be a great impetus
to get things done quickly and efficiently -- and to leave Washington after
their duty was done, rather than turning into Kennedy-esque quasi-permanent
fixtures in government.

I know, wake up, Honeck -- you're dreaming!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2008-04-15, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I'm FAR from being any kind of an expert on these matters, but I can't
>> help but wonder, considering the fact that the world's economies are so
>> completely dependent on oil for survival, that the world has waited WAY
>> too long on this issue and that we have already passed the point where
>> the changes necessary and either implemented or discovered, can no
>> longer be made in time to make any difference in the inevitable outcome;
>> ......a self made dooms day scenario so to speak.
>
> There are really two possible scenarios:
>
> Scenario 1: The oil production declines at a rate that's too fast for
> the market to respond: the economy collapses before alternatives are
> developed.
>
> Scenario 2: The oil production declines at a rate where market forces
> have time to work, such that more and more alternatives become
> economically viable (cheaper than oil), and as they are developed,
> become steadily less expensive due to technological improvement and
> competition.
>
> I'm an optimist, I think we'll do Scenario 2. There may be some pain on
> the way, but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
> called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
> themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
> sorts of energy products.
>

There is a Scenario 3: Oil production increases as technology advances
and allows for exploitation of oil that we can't get to now and gives us
reason to look for oil in places we don't look now because we couldn't
get to it if we found it. Of course, sooner or later you get to Scenario
2 but there is more time to do it.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Frank Olson wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in

>>>
>>> We *need* a third political party in the U.S.
>>
>> You re an idiot.
>>
>>
>
>
> He can always vote "Communist"... <ducking>

Or Green though it is the same thing.

It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
hopefuls as there were Republicans.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:37:40 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

> It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
> ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
> really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
> hopefuls as there were Republicans.

As many Green candidates as there were Republicans, or
Republican *candidates*? :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-16, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I think the real solution would be to go back to a part-time Congress, with
> legislator's pay insufficient to support a family. This would force
> CongressCritters to actually work for a living, and would be a great impetus
> to get things done quickly and efficiently -- and to leave Washington after
> their duty was done, rather than turning into Kennedy-esque quasi-permanent
> fixtures in government.
>
> I know, wake up, Honeck -- you're dreaming!

Yes, you are. This wouldn't force Congresscritters to work for a living, it
would just restrict the job (even more than it is now) to the independently
wealthy. We don't need more Kennedys, but fewer.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Yes, you are. This wouldn't force Congresscritters to work for a living,
> it
> would just restrict the job (even more than it is now) to the
> independently
> wealthy. We don't need more Kennedys, but fewer.

Hmmm. Good point.

Maybe we need to make it like jury duty, or the military draft? Every so
often, you just get "called up" to serve in Congress?

Nah, Canada can't absorb that many more of us...

I don't know the solution to the special interests' influence in Washington.
Every potential solution has a potentially worse downside...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-16, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> I don't know the solution to the special interests' influence in Washington.
> Every potential solution has a potentially worse downside...

Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and small
business...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
> member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and small
> business...

Yep. It's a conundrum. As I said, my "special interest group" is your
"worthy cause"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Wait a minute. Before you decry the special interests, remember: you're a
>> member of at least two special interest groups, general aviation and
>> small
>> business...
>
> Yep. It's a conundrum. As I said, my "special interest group" is your
> "worthy cause"...

As I always say, if you are involved in any way at all with the
government, there is always the chance you will get royally f****d. It
does indeed pay to make sure they have an ample supply of "conundrums" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[Phil J]

On Apr 16, 9:28*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
wrote:
> Phil J wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> > wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
> >>> economy.
> >> There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and if
> >> the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are the same
> >> people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are watermelons. Green
> >> on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
> >> favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty good
> >> description.
>
> > Really? *How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to trash
> > the world's economy?
>
> > Phil
>
> Which ones don't?


Yeah, I never actually met any of them either, but I try not to get
confused by "reality". Rush says it so I know it's true. He also
says those evil Greens like to kill and eat babies. Isn't it great to
have Rush to tell us what to think??

Phil

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Phil J > wrote in
:

> On Apr 16, 9:28*am, Gig 601Xl Builder >
> wrote:
>> Phil J wrote:
>> > On Apr 15, 2:47 pm, Gig 601Xl Builder >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we trash the world
>> >>> economy.
>> >> There are lot's of Greens out there that would do exactly that and
>> >> if the truth were known they would be happy about it. These are
>> >> the same people that were pro-USSR prior to the 90s. They are
>> >> watermelons. Green
>
>> >> on the outside and red on the inside. That is a friend of mine's
>> >> favorite saying. He probably got it from Rush but it is a pretty
>> >> good description.
>>
>> > Really? *How many Communist Greens have you met that wanted to
>> > trash the world's economy?
>>
>> > Phil
>>
>> Which ones don't?
>
>
> Yeah, I never actually met any of them either, but I try not to get
> confused by "reality". Rush says it so I know it's true. He also
> says those evil Greens like to kill and eat babies. Isn't it great to
> have Rush to tell us what to think??
>
> Phil
>
>
>

I thank God for him every day.


Bertie

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:37:40 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
>> It actually surprised me that during this years primary there were three
>> ballots to choose from in Arkansas Republican, Democrat and Green. What
>> really shocked me was that there were as many Green presidential
>> hopefuls as there were Republicans.
>
> As many Green candidates as there were Republicans, or
> Republican *candidates*? :-)
>
> Ron Wanttaja


Candidates, though in my particular ward either phrasing would have been
close.

[[email protected]]

Alan > wrote:
> In article > Jim Logajan > writes:
> (Alan) wrote:
> >> Now, if I had the cash, I would be inclined to see if that 3 horsepower
> >> could be fed to a reasonably efficient prop to drive an ultralight
> >> around. It might be difficult to stay ultralight with all the solar
> >> power weight, but it would be fun if it could be made to work.
> >
> >You are about 28 years too late - it was demonstrated in 1980. Here's a
> >brief history of solar powered flight:
> >
> >http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-054-DFRC.html

> Yet none of these efforts were funded and built by individuals.
> Research projects are nice, but many of those were extreme cases of
> extra light aircraft.

> I expect that you have never flown one. Neither have I. Many of
> these were special case aircraft, similar to the ones for human powered
> flight. They weren't exactly something that you haul out, hop in, and
> fly off casually.

> With increases in efficiency and dropping prices for solar cells, we
> may one day be able to fly our own solar aircraft, instead of just
> reading about better funded researchers doing it.

Never going to happen.

With 100% efficient solar cells, flying over Tucson in the middle
of summer, and the wings banked 35 degrees to get 100% of the available
energy, there isn't enough wing area on a C-172 to generate enough
power to maintain altitude.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[PhilS1965]

On Apr 14, 8:44 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:
> "PhilS1965" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > If we were to exploit every potential domestic oil resource we have,
> > including Bakken, the Alask Wildlife Refuge and all offshore sources
> > within our territorial waters, it would barely make a dent in our
> > consumption. This is a simple fact acknowledged by the oil companies
> > themselves.
>
> Cite?

From the conservative New York Post:

http://tinyurl.com/2np4yb

" Overall, experts estimate that the undiscovered resources on the
federal Outer Continental Shelf that could be recovered with today's
technology are some 420 trillion cubic feet of gas and 77 billion
barrels of oil..."

This editorial is actually close to your view, but the numbers are
telling. When added to our proven reserves of around 20 billion
barrels, this great undiscovered 77 billion barrels gives us enough
oil to supply ourselves (just the United States) for about 13 years.
That's at the current rate of consumption, of course.

Opinions of oil company executives on peak oil:

http://www.energybulletin.net/37027.html

The opinions are many and varied, of course, as one might expect. But
many of them are surprisingly candid.

>
> > People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
> > untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
> > from using it. As we all learned in elementary school, fossil fuels
> > are a finite resource, and they're running out. There shouldn't even
> > be a political component to it, but for some reason, there is. Facts
> > shouldn't be this controversial.
>
> Yeah, they've been telling us that since the 1880's and good little menchen
> keep barfing it out in public.

Look, you may have misunderstood my intentions. I actually don't have
major objections to exploiting known oil reserves. I think a few basic
environmental guidelines are in order, since I don't happen to like
beaches that can't be walked on or surf that can't be swum in, as I'm
sure you don't either. I'm simply trying to be realistic with numbers.
Most of the estimates I've given you are actually oil company
estimates. If we take the oil companies at their word, we could drill
every square centimeter of the North American continent, both offshore
and on, and buy ourselves 13 years.

[PhilS1965]

On Apr 14, 9:03 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > People need to get over the utopian idea that there's some vast
> > untapped oil resource out there, but we're somehow being prevented
> > from using it.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/54rp3x
>
> Whoops! Another utopian idea reinforced....
>
> ;-)

33 billion barrels. Enough to supply the world for a whole year.

Here are some helpful statistics on oil consumption:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

I think part of the problem here is people misunderstanding the
numbers. As I cited in an above post, the most optimistic projections
of known and potential reserves in North America would supply the U.S.
for 13 years. I don't know about you, but 13 years doesn't seem as
long to me as it used to. I'm trying to think a bit further into the
future, but unfortunately when it comes to this topic, people seem to
think in terms of their next trip to the pump.

[Martin Hotze[_2_]]

Dylan Smith schrieb:
> but it's interesting to note that most oil companies haven't
> called themselves oil companies for some time, instead calling
> themselves energy companies - and spending R&D money on developing all
> sorts of energy products.


BP is one of the worlds largest producers of solar panels.

#m

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:04:00 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

>
>
>BP is one of the worlds largest producers of solar panels.

....and one of the largest killers of refinery workers.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/224394_bplede16.html