Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Despite spending down a fair amount this year because of lower oil prices, the Saudi government still has about $650 billion in cash reserves. And, unlike the Venezuelans, they never got bogged down in a horribly inefficient nationalization of the oil extraction entities in the country.
There is a major surplus of oil in the US via over fracking and leading economist suggest it could revive this lame performance.
I'm generally skeptical ,but their are windows of opportunity . I' m focusing on energy also via waste to energy, reclamation of
waste ( perhaps landfills harvesting) and many forms of recycling .
Right just like the Netherlands in the 70s Africa, or Russia. States that make most of their income exporting minerals are always paradise.
Sort of nuclear . . . but not really in the common language. More like Fusion with a nice, safe, self-cleaning reactor about 93 million miles away. I suppose you follow I am saying Solar.
Way too expensive, doesn't work at night, and the production process of making the panels is energy-intensive and uses a bunch of nasty chemicals.
So. Back to Oil. The ONLY thing that needs Oil are Internal Combustion Engines. The replacements for ICEs are already here. Electric Motors. Use about 1/4 of the energy of ICEs, and last 2 to 10 times longer. Even the electric motor itself is cheaper than the ICE to start with.
Likely to take about 40 years get the ICE Legacy switched out to Electric Motors. Already happening.
you're forgetting plastic bags, ink, etc. ... and a big one... diesel! You can't run a truck on electricity. A ship could be run on nuclear (such as nuclear submarines). Long-distance passenger trains outside the northeast corridor use diesel, and all freight trains use diesel. Freight trains use less fuel per pound of freight than trucks, but it's still there. Even if every gasoline car were replaced by electric, where is the electricity going to come from? What do you do with the batteries when they need to be replaced or get smashed in a wreck? The contents of the batteries is pure poison.
I will jump past the night one, as existing power is already so surplus at night, some areas have taken to giving away Night Time Electricity for Free, because it is worthless. The serious Daily Peak demand is Daytime -- same time Solar produces during.
As far as cost, electricity is generally 1/4 the cost of Oil in use, and PV is now cheaper than Nuke Electricity, under cutting Coal, and heading to take on Natural Gas, even as the present depressed NG prices.
As far at the IEEE Spectrum story -- you actually read it? It takes some real stretching to make Solar PV become dirty. Quartz Mining? Non-recycled tetracloride? HF hazards? None of these are real problems in production in the US.
It is China that any problems stem from. China abuses environmental regulation, but they do that with Coal, Oil, and everything else they touch, as well.
But for "energy intensive" I do not suppose you have worked or been around refineries? Most have their own substations because they use so much electricity. Solar produces MUCH more over its life than it takes to make.
Quote:
you're forgetting plastic bags, ink, etc. ...
Not really . . . I work this field. Natural Gas is now a common feedstock. This video is a couple years old, but with Frack Gas being so cheap, it is very cheap feedstock. So cheap that some plastic plants stayed in the US (instead of going to China) because the low feedstock cost more than offsets the higher US labor costs and environmental constraints.
(Just for giving you tips on your game -- Jets are supposed to the unsolvable liquid fuel problem that you come up with for why we cannot live without Oil.)
Quote:
You can't run a truck on electricity. A ship could be run on nuclear (such as nuclear submarines). Long-distance passenger trains outside the northeast corridor use diesel, and all freight trains use diesel. Freight trains use less fuel per pound of freight than trucks, but it's still there.
When Diesel costs are high, it benefits trains -- It tends to push trucks off the road, and puts the load on the trains. So trains are never inclined to stop using Diesel -- even when Diesel Prices are high. But do you understand how Diesel Locomotives operate? Electric Motors on the Axles. The lead engines are just big 3000 HP Generators. They create Electricity to turn the wheels. The studies and plans already exist to run rural remote trains along their paths fully on electricity. Like you observed, they work fine in the NE. You follow that in most advanced countries, many passenger trains already are fully electric?
Quote:
Even if every gasoline car were replaced by electric, where is the electricity going to come from?
Do you mean generation? Or do you mean how to get the Electricity to the Vehicle, itself? I will assume you are familiar with Electricity Generation and basic transmission -- and are just asking about the transfer at the end? This looks like a popular path (link below). Has been around in various forms since the 1970's "energy crisis" and is under serious study now -- as much for pollution reduction as Oil-use reduction.
Sometimes called the Electric Roadway (no exposed conductors) >>>
What do you do with the batteries when they need to be replaced or get smashed in a wreck? The contents of the batteries is pure poison.
Well, you never heard me talk about batteries as much of any system. Transport or other. Were I king for a day, we would be moving right past the batteries and onto the Electric Roadway.
Putting electric wires over every mile of railroad and road in this country would cost a ridiculous amount of money. It's simply not possible.
I'm aware that diesel trains are actually electric, simply using the diesel to generate electricity. They are mobile electrical generators. But they still use diesel.
I recommend building more electric passenger trains in cities. I have experience with this in Dallas. The trains run every 10 minutes during rush hour and they're packed. "Build it and they will come" is certainly true. However the trains only go to downtown, and not everyone wants to go to downtown Dallas. Unfortunately Texas is just not interested in expanding the system with crosstown routes and trains on every major road. That would greatly reduce the need to drive. Many cities in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex don't even have city buses. They just love driving which causes traffic jams everywhere. It's almost as bad as Los Angeles.
Diesel-electric passenger trains that run on their own tracks (not shared by freight trains which slows them down) going from every major city to any other major city would be nice, as it would reduce long-distance driving. Then you could electrify them.
I remember taking the train from NYC to Boston in the 1990's, and we had to stop in Connecticut (forgot exactly which station) to switch the engine from electric to diesel. The rate of electrification process in this country is disgustingly slow. It's been finished now, but geez, a route like that should have been fullly electrified decades ago. When will an all-electric train run from Dallas to Houston? 2250 or thereabouts?
At this point there is really no one on the planet to Export Oil to. The only country that has ever been willing to go massively into debt to buy Oil is . . . US. There is not a "Greater Fool" on the planet to sell the stuff to.
There has been a slight market for US to export refined Oil Products -- Diesel, Gasoline, and such as we have refineries that can handle the various crudes. These can go out as Exports to areas too small to have their own refineries -- Islands, etc.
But as far as Crude itself . . . we are still importing Massive amounts. And will likely continue to. This whole Frack and Tar Sand Oil fantasy is sort of . . . a fantasy. While we are deep into Unconventional Oil, the rest of the world is producing Conventionally.
=========================
Hierarchy goes like thusly . . .
Primary. [Very Cheap] Stick a straw in and Oil comes out.
Secondary. [Cheap] Pump water down hole, and Oil comes floating up.
Deep Offshore -- [Expensive] suppose there has been enough on the Gulf of Mexico blow-out to cover this . . .
Tar Sands -- [Expensive] melt the tar out with cheap Frack Gas and add water . . . makes MASSIVE Environmental mess.
Frack Oil -- [Expensive] Frack Deep formation Shale, mix in some chemicals. Again a Big Mess. About a barrel or more of Very Nasty "Produced Water" comes out with every barrel of Oil. Again, big Environmental mess.
======================
In North America, all our new stuff is Tertiary (Expensive), or Unconventional (Expensive).
The Export Fantasy is being driven by the estimates that there are at or around 5 Trillion barrels of Unconventional Oil here, with around 1 Trillion or so recoverable with current methods. A Trillion Barrels of anything is a lot of anything.
However, the International competing producers are still using conventional drilling and secondary floating, so they can operate much cheaper.
Looping back to the beginning . . . no one else is stupid enough to go into debt to buy our Oil, so the we wind up being only a market to ourselves.
Would be far smarter (now and for a while back) to be taking US Off Oil.
Then we neither have to Import (debt), nor Pollute ourselves.
The Stone Age did not End because folks ran out of Stones.
Certainly an interesting industry from high tech capital to rentier , but its an idiots paradise now. The Clampetts are back in power.
Putting electric wires over every mile of railroad and road in this country would cost a ridiculous amount of money. It's simply not possible.
That is a bit of a strawman (not saying intended, but so). You do not have to hit "every mile," as most cars and trucks do not travel on "every mile." Many massive miles of rural road may not even see a car a day. On the other hand, some roads have thousands or hundreds of thousands of car and trucks a day.
Dunno the exact numbers but the transport guys tell me it roughly follows the 80/20 rule. 80 percent of the cars and trucks are on 20% of the roads. So you only have to cover 20% of the roads to drop the fuel use by 80%. THAT is Massive and Cheap. Typically large cities and the Connecting Interstate Highways. Same pattern the Cell Phone business and towers took to eat the lunch of the existing Land Lines.
========================
Let's step back a second. When you say "over" do you mean like Gantry Style (like DART, you reference below) --- or do you mean like Overhead Power lines? I guess you follow that overhead gantry is really from two centuries ago, and the various trains and trolleys tend to use them out of habit and tradition. This-Century approach is like that Design News article linked. Coils that only energize when a vehicle passes over to absorb the power. Completely safe, low energy loss, lifetime in the decades. Already exists in Korea for buses. Relatively cheap to install those compared to the MASSIVE infrastructure required to produce and distribute Liquid Fuels.
If you mean the Overhead Power lines -- they already follow most of the roadways in the US. They have a service life of 20 to 50 years (max), and are fully replaced (and usually upgraded) during that lifetime. But overall, I would recommend and prefer taking them underground as much as possible for the ones in the Medium Voltage range (generally 2400V to 34.5 kV). At any rate, as they route along the roadways, there already is a source.
And before we start -- Electricity is already vastly surplus in much of the US. Has been since the onset of the Great Recession (big demand drop), and we were already building new plants based on a 2% demand growth rate that no longer exists. Add in all the new Wind and Solar . . . and things are Way Surplus.
Quote:
I'm aware that diesel trains are actually electric, simply using the diesel to generate electricity. They are mobile electrical generators. But they still use diesel.
Sure, but we both understand that is fully optional, right? Really I am not against keeping some or even much of the existing Diesel equipment around. We just do not need to borrow, buy, and burn the fuel through it. The equipment makes Excellent "back-up" generation and transportation.
Quote:
I recommend building more electric passenger trains in cities. I have experience with this in Dallas. The trains run every 10 minutes during rush hour and they're packed. "Build it and they will come" is certainly true. However the trains only go to downtown, and not everyone wants to go to downtown Dallas. Unfortunately Texas is just not interested in expanding the system with crosstown routes and trains on every major road. That would greatly reduce the need to drive. Many cities in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex don't even have city buses. They just love driving which causes traffic jams everywhere. It's almost as bad as Los Angeles.
Sure. Love the DART trains, too. Did a few years with TXU (and the various name-game corporations of the same), including as a staff engineer based downtown. I live about 10 miles out beyond the North Termination of the Red Line, and I loved taking the train downtown and back compared to driving. Worse day on the Train beats the Best Day in traffic, and there were rarely bad days with the train.
Dallas -- as in Dallas Proper -- insisted on that layout in a dying attempt to downtown relevant. Otherwise the obvious connection and routing would be from Mesquite/Garland, across the North Suburbs to DFW Airport. And hit the Red and Green on the way.
Quote:
Diesel-electric passenger trains that run on their own tracks (not shared by freight trains which slows them down) going from every major city to any other major city would be nice, as it would reduce long-distance driving. Then you could electrify them.
I remember taking the train from NYC to Boston in the 1990's, and we had to stop in Connecticut (forgot exactly which station) to switch the engine from electric to diesel. The rate of electrification process in this country is disgustingly slow. It's been finished now, but geez, a route like that should have been fullly electrified decades ago. When will an all-electric train run from Dallas to Houston? 2250 or thereabouts?
IF (just saying if) they put a "substation" car on that train, they could just jump from Fuel to Electric and back without even switching the engine, but things are what they are. But the thing that forced the Electrics in the NE was the Air Pollution -- not the Fuel use. We can do a "why technology shifts are slow" (about 40 years, and it is amusing as to why) if you like, but it is sort of off this topic.
You follow it is Southwest Airlines that keeps the High Speed Trains stalled out in Texas? We did some of early studies for the Triangle Route (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio -- with Austin and Waco on the way), way back when I was in school (early 90's, UT Arlington). The tech and money math are both good -- back then and now -- but it would wipe out SW Airlines and the "sunk" investments at Love and Hobby. So they do MASSIVE bribery (er ahh, lobbying) to the Texas Legs to prevent it.
But by the time things were to get real . . . have you followed any of the Hyper Loop? That would be a more likely design -- fully electric, could be all renewable, btw. Could be faster than a jet, and half-way to Houston before SW Airlines can get off the Taxi Lane and Clearance for Take-off.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
