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.
Ahem - the GRF is OIL SHALE.
It will require STRIP MINING huge areas... not drilling for crude.
It will require FAR MORE ENERGY to extract the oil from the shale, raising its cost.
It will result in huge amounts of WASTE.
And when it's all used up, what have we endowed our grandchildren?
... A toxic landscape, stripped, with mounds of detritus and not much more ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
This isn't liquid crude, its oil shale. A sand substance that must be processed to recover oil, that then has to be worked in a manner able to make gasoline out of it.
Its expensive, and is only viable when gas and oil prices are over 100 dollars a barrel.
Now I'm not opposed to using this, but there is much cheaper energy out there, with much less processing, and far less environmentally impactful.
Mainly, coal and natural gas. Sooner or later we are going to have to move to solar, but we aren't there yet. Our energy demands are simply going to be to high for any other power source, other then the sun.
Does it matter? Considering that geopolitical affairs are wrapped in the cloak of oil output, i'd say this is one hell of a position to be in, no matter what extraction method is required.
Expensive? We are sending aid money to Pakistan, Egypt and other questionable countries. Money doesn't seem to be a problem for them - even though we don't have any.
Recoverable U.S. Oil Equals Entire World's Proven Oil Reserves per GAO
And while some people scream that the "government" isn't issuing permits enough for big oil to explore, find, and process oil products which would, they claim, lower our gasoline prices (which would probably take a decade to accomplish), they ignore the fact that big oil has so very many permits already granted which they haven't begun to use to explore.
Pakistan - $7.5B in 2011 - U.S. Aid Plan for Pakistan Is Foundering The aid program promoted by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, promised Pakistan $7.5 billion over five years, much of it delivered through the civilian government.
Egypt - $2B per year - Follow the Egyptian money Since the Camp David peace accords more than three decades ago, the United States and Egypt have had an unspoken bargain in terms of the roughly $2 billion in aid given each year to Cairo:
Expensive? We are sending aid money to Pakistan, Egypt and other questionable countries. Money doesn't seem to be a problem for them - even though we don't have any.
They could auction off the land and use the money to pay off debt, or Obamacare. Then private companies could bear the expenses.
I agree we should quit sending those countries money. But that has nothing to do with the fact that oil shale and sands are an expensive energy source which we don't need to exploit because we have THE LARGEST NATURAL GAS RESERVES IN THE WORLD. Nat gas is cheaper, cleaner, and much less environmentally impactful.
What you would suggest is that because we are used to using rocks to open a can, that switching to a can opener would be bad, and we should just blow mountains up to get more rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Does it matter? Considering that geopolitical affairs are wrapped in the cloak of oil output, i'd say this is one hell of a position to be in, no matter what extraction method is required.
Yes, it matters when we have large reserves of easily accessible energy sources. Cars that are on the road today could easily move to natural gas, as well as it being inexpensive to do so. Even if they don't convert, if we mandated that so many cars detroit produced be running on natural gas, with a evolution to all natural gas in 5 years, then we could effectively reduce our dependence on foreign oil without using any oil sands.
As I said, I'm not opposed to using oil sands, but there is far cheaper and better sources of fuel out there.
Pakistan - $7.5B in 2011 - U.S. Aid Plan for Pakistan Is Foundering The aid program promoted by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, promised Pakistan $7.5 billion over five years, much of it delivered through the civilian government.
Egypt - $2B per year - Follow the Egyptian money Since the Camp David peace accords more than three decades ago, the United States and Egypt have had an unspoken bargain in terms of the roughly $2 billion in aid given each year to Cairo:
Don't forget 4 to 5 billion a year for Israel.
Its like taking out a personal loan, and giving the money to someone else. Stupid, regardless of who receives it.
Expensive? We are sending aid money to Pakistan, Egypt and other questionable countries. Money doesn't seem to be a problem for them - even though we don't have any.
They could auction off the land and use the money to pay off debt, or Obamacare. Then private companies could bear the expenses.
If you wish to stop oil imports, there is another option - transition to electric traction rail.
Based on 1920 data, 90% of all trips were by electric rail, and only 10% by private automobile, bus, taxi, etc. If that same percentage was the case today, we could extrapolate that the portion of petroleum consumed for transportation, would be cut by 90%.
Since we import about half (down from 74% in 2008), it's a good bet that we would cease importing petroleum.
And since the vehicle count would be down from 260 million to perhaps 26 million, the necessity for more roads and highways would "hit" the road construction industry in the wallet - and save us a bundle on taxes. Plus road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle load. A 20,000 lb axle causes 16 times as much damage as a 10,000 axle, and 160,000 times as much damage as a 1,000 lb axle (wider tires mitigate the effect slightly). 99% of the traffic damage to roads and highways comes from trucks and buses.Getting passengers and cargo on to tracks will greatly reduce the damage to the infrastructure.
Transitioning to electric powered rail would increase the load on the grid by 1.5 to 3.0 %.
If you wish to stop oil imports, there is another option - transition to electric traction rail.
Based on 1920 data, 90% of all trips were by electric rail, and only 10% by private automobile, bus, taxi, etc. If that same percentage was the case today, we could extrapolate that the portion of petroleum consumed for transportation, would be cut by 90%.
Since we import about half (down from 74% in 2008), it's a good bet that we would cease importing petroleum.
And since the vehicle count would be down from 260 million to perhaps 26 million, the necessity for more roads and highways would "hit" the road construction industry in the wallet - and save us a bundle on taxes. Plus road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle load. A 20,000 lb axle causes 16 times as much damage as a 10,000 axle, and 160,000 times as much damage as a 1,000 lb axle (wider tires mitigate the effect slightly). 99% of the traffic damage to roads and highways comes from trucks and buses.Getting passengers and cargo on to tracks will greatly reduce the damage to the infrastructure.
Transitioning to electric powered rail would increase the load on the grid by 1.5 to 3.0 %.
You simply aren't going to get people to transition to mass transit like that, when they have become used to being able to go where they want, when they want, and without strangers sitting around them.
What you're purposing is a step backwards. We can make cars run on fuels far less harmful then gasoline and oil products. We can make cars run on a singular rail system on the roads for long trips requiring less fuel and better drive times. We can even make them drive themselves without a rail.
If you wish to stop oil imports, there is another option - transition to electric traction rail.
Based on 1920 data, 90% of all trips were by electric rail, and only 10% by private automobile, bus, taxi, etc. If that same percentage was the case today, we could extrapolate that the portion of petroleum consumed for transportation, would be cut by 90%.
Since we import about half (down from 74% in 2008), it's a good bet that we would cease importing petroleum.
And since the vehicle count would be down from 260 million to perhaps 26 million, the necessity for more roads and highways would "hit" the road construction industry in the wallet - and save us a bundle on taxes. Plus road damage is roughly proportional to the fourth power of the axle load. A 20,000 lb axle causes 16 times as much damage as a 10,000 axle, and 160,000 times as much damage as a 1,000 lb axle (wider tires mitigate the effect slightly). 99% of the traffic damage to roads and highways comes from trucks and buses.Getting passengers and cargo on to tracks will greatly reduce the damage to the infrastructure.
Transitioning to electric powered rail would increase the load on the grid by 1.5 to 3.0 %.
That's 90+ years ago. I think a overwhelming multitude of people, including myself, would dismiss this as a viable option. Why go back to this?
Its like taking out a personal loan, and giving the money to someone else. Stupid, regardless of who receives it.
Understand - at least Israel has been an ally - but money outflow is money outflow - and regardless of who it is - we don't have the money.
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.
