http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/business/worldbusiness/29oil.html?pagewanted=1 &_r=2&hp

OPEC’s 13 members plan to spend $150 billion to expand their capacity by five million barrels a day by 2012. But OPEC will need to pump 60 million barrels a day by 2030, up from around 36 million barrels a day today, to meet the projected growth in demand. Analysts say that without Iran and Iraq — where nearly 30 years of wars and sanctions have crippled oil production — reaching that level will be impossible.

Found on KOS, I only linked the NYT article.

Whoever controls those two nations will be able to control energy for much of the 21st century.

What are we to do, given that much of our economy is tied to oil in one way or another. We desperately need to find alternatives. I guess we can adjust to paying $4.00 for a gallon of unleaded gas or we give some very serious thought to finding multiple alternatives to oil. But every time we make an effort to find alternatives, big oil seems to find a way to sabotage it. Maybe we've reached a turning point?

"Maybe we've reached a turning point?"

I'm thinking that too. Oil consumption is down in Oregon from a year ago.

If Al Gore, ahem, I mean Obama becomes president perhaps we'll see major changes in our "energy policy".

If John McCain is elected president in 2008, we can look forward to at least 4-8 more years of government inaction on the problem. Private industry will respond with better hybrids and better mileage but by then gas will be $10/gallon. What we really need is an Apollo project for energy independence, viable alternative fuels, and a car that gets 250mpg. Not going to happen with a president who believes the free market should do it all.

Andrew

Yep, Apollo Project. You took the words right out of my mouth Andrew! I should have said just that but I didn't.

An Apollo-type Energy Project would be exciting and I know just the fellow to run it!

I like this idea too.

Exciting is something that needs to be a part of the equation. New tech, framed this way, and tied to clear benefits (jobs, savings, new capabilities), is never a bad thing.

Nuclear Fusion Reactors and Fuel Cell Technologies are on the horizon. These are the right direction, away from Krud.

The physical first step would be for both political parties to agree that it would be done completely outside the political spectrum. They would need to agree that the first time someone started political grand standing, they would collectively shut them off. Is that even possible?

The second thing would be that it would need to harness some of the most brilliant minds we possibly can assemble. Is that even possible?

The third thing is that it would need to be set up in such a way that the vested interests (Exxon for instance) would have no influence on the project? Is that even possible?

But, the very first thing that needs to happen is for the American people to get fed up with the current oil dependency and start demanding action. Right now, people are pissing and moaning about $4 gas, but that's as far as it goes. People need to get angry enough to scare the politicians.

"The third thing is that it would need to be set up in such a way that the vested interests (Exxon for instance) would have no influence on the project? Is that even possible?

But, the very first thing that needs to happen is for the American people to get fed up with the current oil dependency and start demanding action. Right now, people are pissing and moaning about $4 gas, but that's as far as it goes. People need to get angry enough to scare the politicians."

Exactly.

The best way to get these vested interest big oil companies in is threaten them with regulation. Threaten them with capping their profits and slashing prices unless they become the torch bearers on finding alternative energy sources. God knows they aren't going to do it on their own, even if it is a profiting venture for them.

As far as people getting pissed enough to take action, well I remember everyone bitching when it hit $2 a gallon and threaten to stop driving when it hit $3 a gallon. People ARE angry! I think a lot of that anger is that it seems like every politician is offering lip service to the problem and not any solutions that will A) wean us off of foreign dependence and B) get the prices in line.

It CAN be done. Heck Nixon capped gas prices some 35 years ago.

Capping prices won't work. It will only assure a shortage and long gas lines.

People may be angry, but I haven't heard a single question asked of any of the three candidates what they would do about it. If they do comment, it shallow beyond belief, such as taking the gas tax off for the summer. Not one candidate has even hinted they would push an Apollo type project to solve the problem once and for all.

I got this from another thread on Honda's hydrogen/oxygen powered car to hit the streets in California this summer. Zero Arab oil, zero emissions.

http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/?ef_id=1097:3:s_5239a13bb270c6dafa1b3ef bc18cd02d_1053084702:slBRMEGvMUIAAG1CanUAAAAC:200804291529221

I suppose there is no free lunch. I don't know what the availability of hydrogen is going to be or what the side effects of obtaining it are. Can't be much worse than oil.

Well DUH. You think any candidate will take a hard line stand on any issue while trying to get elected? Get Real. 3 Billion spent campaigning and all we get is BullShit vague answers. We will not see the true colors of any candidate until they are sitting at the big boy desk in the Oval Office.

So then, how would we know who to vote for since we're getting only BS vague answers (true)?

I saw an article a couple of days ago (can't find it for the life of me) how Utah is becoming a serious hotbed for LNG-powered vehicles ... rivaling New York and California. Because so much LNG is produced there, it's running about $2.50 per gallon, and the citizens are lining up to get LNG cars.

That's another possible alternative.

I don't know man. Flip a Coin, throw some dice, pick a card. They all put on a good pre-game show but when push comes to shove whose got the horsepower to get things done and who is just a horses ass. It's easy to promise the world but sometimes difficult to deliver. I hope if elected Obama follows through with at least his education promises for the childrens sake.

The proof will be in the pudding as they say, lets just hope it does not spoil before it's expiration date like we currently have.

I don't know what the LNG supply looks like. I believe Honda uses natural gas to produce hydrogen. I don't know what the conversion efficiency is. If we trade one problem for another, that's not going to be a solution.

So then, how would we know who to vote for since we're getting only BS vague answers (true)?

Deanne, this time around it really is a CRAP shoot.

They all suck big time. The best we can do is choose the one that will do the least damage.

I think that would fall in this order;

McCain
Obama
Clinton

Maybe in 2012 there might, and that is a very vague might, be someone actually worth voting for.

Politicians and diapers should both be changed for the same reason.

Skybill, I think you have it figured out correct.

Yep, more of the same. If you think the last 8 years have been great for America, vote McCain 08!

Vitalogy, I'm sure you aren't old enough to remember the days of phonograph records, especially the 78 rpm versions, when the needle got stuck and it kept playing the same thing over and over again.

I'm familiar with a phonograph enough to know that John McCain is today's version of one. Same old technology as before. I like newer tech myself.

"availability of hydrogen is going to be or what the side effects of obtaining it are."

How many more times?

Wasn't that helium?

There's no "free lunch" with hydrogen. The reason for this is that you have to put in more energy to get the hydrogen (typically by separating water into H2 and O2), that you release when you burn the hydrogen. From where will this energy come?

Dr. Bill Wattenberg poo-poos many different alternative energy schemes based on the amount of energy that must be invested to get a given amount of energy out. Biodiesel, for instance, is great as long as you're recycling used deep fat fryer grease that would otherwise get thrown out. However, if you have to grow crops specifically to produce biodiesel, then you have a process that is hard to justify because it is so wasteful. Ethanol falls under the same trap. Even photovoltaic solar cells have to be used for about 2-3 years before they produce the amount of energy that was was required to make them. I think that natural gas is probably the vehicle powering scheme that Wattenberg would consider best. Dr. Wattenberg's bias is that he was a nuclear physicist for many years, so he is very openly biased in favor of nuclear power.

We should be building nuclear power plants as fast as we can, but people are too scared of radioactive boogymen.

Even that is only a short term solution... I read somewhere that we only have a 100 year supply of uranium in the ground.

As for the energy balance of biodiesel vs ethanol, biodiesel comes out far ahead of ethanol no matter how you figure it.

As for the crapshoot.. I can't see how you guys could think that the choices this time around are any worse than the previous two elections(especially given the benefit of hindsight).

By 2050 we should see Nuclear fusion reactors replacing Fission reactors. These are much safer to operate with infineately less rick of a meltdown and the waste is not as toxic and for far less time. It won't be long after that and everyone will have a "Mr. Fusion" on their vehicles.

"Wasn't that helium?"

No. Helium is inert.

Hydrogen on the other hand has many health considerations::

Effects of exposure to hydrogen: Fire: Extremely flammable. Many reactions may cause fire or explosion. Explosion: Gas/air mixtures are explosive. Routes of exposure: The substance can be absorbed into the body by inhalation. Inhalation: High concentrations of this gas can cause an oxygen-deficient environment. Individuals breathing such an atmosphere may experience symptoms which include headaches, ringing in ears, dizziness, drowsiness, unconsciousness, nausea, vomiting and depression of all the senses. The skin of a victim may have a blue color. Under some circumstances, death may occur. Hydrogen is not expected to cause mutagenicity, embryotoxicity, teratogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Pre-existing respiratory conditions may be aggravated by overexposure to hydrogen. Inhalation risk: On loss of containment, a harmful concentration of this gas in the air will be reached very quickly.

Physical dangers: The gas mixes well with air, explosive mixtures are easily formed. The gas is lighter than air.

Chemical dangers: Heating may cause violent combustion or explosion. Reacts violently with air, oxygen, halogens and strong oxidants causing fire and explosion hazard. Metal catalysts, such as platinum and nickel, greatly enhance these reactions.

These are some of the reasons hydrogen technology has been slow to advance. The other BIG reason is the danger in storing this gas in large quantities. A recent patent seems to indicate that this can be overcome.

http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn13431-invention-nonexplosive-h ydrogen-storage.html

The needle got stuck and it kept playing the same thing over and over again.

Reminds me of the neo-CON agenda. 9/11!!!! TERROR! TERRORISTS! BE AFRAID! 9/11!!!!!
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN! It's CONSTANT!
TERROR ALERT: Yellow!
AVIATION ALERT: RED!
FAUXNews ALERT: STUPID