House OK's Offshore Drilling

[Mr.Conley]

19 billion barrels. That's about 4-8 months depending on how much you can extract. Then again, by the time we start seeing this stuff, demand is going to be a lot higher in the US, so it'll probably be less.

 

[red states rule]

19 billion barrels. That's about 4-8 months depending on how much you can extract. Then again, by the time we start seeing this stuff, demand is going to be a lot higher in the US, so it'll probably be less.

Libs are the first ones to rant how little oil the US will get from any drilling venture

When was the last time libs were right about any thing?

Why waste time listening to them?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Libs are the first ones to rant how little oil the US will get from any drilling venture

When was the last time libs were right about any thing?

Why waste time listening to them?

Do it yourself then:
19,000,000,000 barrels/25,000,000 barrels/day= 760 days*.3 (30% extractable)= 228 days= about 7 1/2 months

Can you refute that? If you are a real conservative then you should have no problem seeing through the liberal lies. Please enlighten the rest of us as to how wrong and deceitful I am.

 

[onedomino]

It is a fact that offshore drilling offers no significant relief of the US energy crisis. Although politicians, oil companies, and Washington lobbyists, are not interested in publicizing that minor detail. Offshore oil does not provide significant volume, is too expensive, and will come online slowly, if at all.

Today, oil went over $75/bbl. In the very short term, that price may fall, but in the long term oil prices have the potential to strangle the US economy. How high must oil prices climb before the economy recedes? $85? $100? $125? In the long run (and maybe not so long), we are going to find out. As mentioned inthe post above, the Bush Admin has shown terrible energy policy leadership, as have previous administrations. Repeatedly, we have failed to make the tough choices necessary to place the Nation in a viable energy position, and we are going to pay very steep economic, political, and military costs as a result. For example, we are hamstrung when dealing with the nihilist nuke nutcases in Iran, because the needed military pressure would cause oil prices to go berserk and sink the economy.

We need to mobilize our national resources in a Manhattan or Apollo type approach toward solving our energy problems. We need to immediately begin construction of 200+ nuclear power plants, develop Colorado oil shale, encourage the development of Western Canadian tar sands, and build dozens of northern plains coal gasification complexes. All this will cost huge money, but if we can afford $400+ billion for Iraq, then we can afford even more to ensure our energy future. This is absolutely fundamental, and we are rapidly running out of time. Our problems pertaining to economic development, internal politics, education, foreign policy, and all the rest, cannot be solved without first providing the Nation with a foundation of reliable and inexpensive energy. Yet the Bush Admin has no viable solutions and the democrats are even worse. It seems that we will not adequately address our energy problem until the day that major economic and societal dislocations occur.

 

[Annie]

19 billion barrels. That's about 4-8 months depending on how much you can extract. Then again, by the time we start seeing this stuff, demand is going to be a lot higher in the US, so it'll probably be less.

I'm not going to dispute the numbers, even 2 months of oil would be 'significant' especially if the government DID give tax breaks for developing alternative sources, any of which onedomino listed and hydrogen.

My understanding is hydrogen would be good to go, IF they can get a changeover in autos and distribution. That is probably the first online from what I've read in the past few years.

 

[onedomino]

I'm not going to dispute the numbers, even 2 months of oil would be 'significant' especially if the government DID give tax breaks for developing alternative sources, any of which onedomino listed and hydrogen.

My understanding is hydrogen would be good to go, IF they can get a changeover in autos and distribution. That is probably the first online from what I've read in the past few years.

K., maybe it is just semantics, but a few months worth of supply is not "significant." Soon it will be 2007, and if we were pumping offshore reserves now, they would be gone by the New Year. We need to get tough and make the difficult decisions that will secure our energy future. Hydrogen is not a viable solution unless there is a massive increase in the supply of electricty. For example, it takes almost as much power to get hydrogen out of seawater as the hydrogen is worth. Where can the electricty come from? Nuclear power plants and coal gasification.

 

[Annie]

K., maybe it is just semantics, but a few months worth of supply is not "significant." Soon it will be 2007, and if we were pumping offshore reserves now, they would be gone by the New Year. We need to get tough and make the difficult decisions that will secure our energy future. Hydrogen is not a viable solution unless there is a massive increase in the supply of electricty. For example, it takes almost as much power to get hydrogen out of seawater as the hydrogen is worth. Where can the electricty come from? Nuclear power plants and coal gasification.

I would assume that 2 mo is per year? It's ok if wrong, just say so. As for any and all other possibilities, I think you are right on priority like Manhattan project.

As for hydrogen, the most recent stuff I've been reading is found here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/2936846.html

Hydrogen on the Cheap


Splitting Molecules: This prototype system from GE has the potential to make hydrogen at a cost on par with gasoline.
Last month, we took an in-depth look at alternative fuels. Among them was Earth’s the Universe's most abundant element, hydrogen. Although its future looks bright—the only by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell is water, and experts believe they can one day be used to create electricity to fuel cars—the cost and energy required to create hydrogen has taken it out of the running as a near-term energy alternative to oil.

That may be about to change. Researchers at GE’s Global Research lab in Niskayuna, NY, have developed a system that produces hydrogen at a fraction of the cost and could be available commercially in just a few years.

The basic process, electrolysis, is nothing new: Combine water with an electrolyte, and run current through the solution, forcing the water molecules to split into hydrogen and oxygen gases. But electrolysis-formed hydrogen has long been hampered by the high capital cost of the metals used in the process, around “thousands of dollars per kilowatt,” says Richard Bourgeois, GE’s electrolysis project leader. GE’s breakthrough comes from a proprietary material called Noryl, a highly chemical- and temperature-resistant plastic developed by the GE labs, that lowers the cost of hydrogen production to hundreds of dollars per kilowatt, according to Bourgeois.

Although GE has only built a prototype in their lab, Bourgeois believes that demonstrations can come as soon as the end of next year, and commercialization will follow that. The goal of the project, according to Bourgeois, is to bring down equipment costs enough to take the cost of hydrogen from $8 per kilogram to $3 per kilogram—comparable in energy and price to a gallon of gasoline.

Currently, Hydrogen production is also limited to industrial refineries and agricultural areas, where the gas is produced on-site using methane, says Bourgeois. GE’s system—which, at approximately 10’ x 20’, can fit in a small trailer—could be marketed to smaller-scale industries. And one day, Bourgeois sees a future when drivers fill their hydrogen-fuel-cell powered cars from pumps with built-in electrolyzers. If electricity needed to produce the hydrogen is wind- or solar-generated, the entire process is, essentially, emissions-free.—Erin McCarthy

and the older one here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2690341.html?page=7&c=y

 

[Mr.Conley]

I would assume that 2 mo is per year? It's ok if wrong, just say so. As for any and all other possibilities, I think you are right on priority like Manhattan project.

No, that 2 months is one time only. That's the sum total of oil that will EVER be extracted from offshore. Then you have to realize that we will only see a small trickle of that over the years. and that only after another decade. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't drill offshore, we definitely need to, but offshore drilling is not the answer to a energy problems. It is, at best, a very feeble stopgap measure.

Also want to mention this

World's largest solar plant planned in Bay Area
SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA AMONG POTENTIAL LOCATIONS
By Paul Rogers
Mercury News

A Palo Alto company has decided to build the world's largest factory for making solar power cells in the Bay Area -- a move that would nearly triple the nation's solar manufacturing capacity and give a significant boost to a growing source of clean energy.

Nanosolar, a privately held company founded in 2001 with seed money from Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, is scheduled to make the announcement Wednesday, and in the next two to six weeks will select either San Jose, Santa Clara or San Francisco for the facility.

At capacity, the factory could turn out enough solar cells each year to generate 430 megawatts of electricity, said Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen. That's enough electricity to power about 325,000 homes. By comparison, all solar manufacturing plants in the United States combined currently produce enough cells each year to generate 153 megawatts.

Backers of solar power said the project is the latest example of how demand for solar is rapidly expanding, and how the technology, once the realm of hippies and back-to-the-land advocates, has become a hot commodity among some of the same Silicon Valley engineers and venture capitalists who made a fortune in the 1990s during the Internet boom.

``This is a spectacular announcement,'' said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, in Washington, D.C.

``This is a very important step for us to address the energy crisis we face in this country. We cannot drill our way out or mine our way out, but we can manufacture our way out.''

Roscheisen said he will open the new factory, which will employ several hundred people, by the end of 2006, and expects to begin producing a type of paper-thin, flexible solar cell in 2007. Two weeks ago, he met with San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales to discuss possible locations.

David Vossbrink, a spokesman for the city, said San Jose is willing to streamline permits and reduce building fees for the company, but has not offered cash incentives. It was unclear Tuesday what incentives, if any, San Francisco and Santa Clara might offer.

The cells, each several inches across, will be assembled at first into solar panels in Germany, one of the world's biggest markets for solar power, Roscheisen said. Eventually, the panels will be shaped to fit archways, columns and other parts of buildings. The company has arrangements to sell the panels for use on the rooftops of large buildings, on homes and as stand-alone power plants, he said.

``This is a good space right now,'' said Roscheisen, 37, who holds a doctorate in engineering from Stanford University, and who sold his Internet company eGroups to Yahoo for $432 million in 2000.

``The market is very, very large. The technology is very complex. Once you figure out the technology, there are real opportunities.''

Globally, the solar industry totaled $11.2 billion in 2005 -- up 55 percent from a year earlier. It is projected to reach $51 billion by 2015, according data compiled by Clean Edge, a business research firm based in Oakland.

The U.S. has lagged Japan and Europe in solar production, and is now a distant third, with about 10 percent of the global market. The new plant would move the U.S. to second place, behind Japan.

High oil and natural gas prices, along with concerns over global warming, are driving demand, said Ron Pernick, a spokesman for Clean Edge.

``Solar has been expanding at growth rates more akin to the personal computer industry than the energy industry,'' Pernick said. ``There is a real ramping up of manufacturing and output. This is a big coup for the Bay Area.''

Pernick noted, however, that a key question will be how fast Nanosolar can ramp up to full capacity to run the world's largest solar factory. Currently the world's largest solar factories are in Japan, run by Sharp and Kyocera.

``It's one thing to announce your output target, and it is another to bring it online,'' he said. ``But if they can deliver on that, they are going to be one of the first to deliver a mass-produced thin film at competitive prices.''

About 90 percent of the world's solar energy comes from solar panels made of cells containing silicon crystals. Simply put, sunlight hits a silicon cell, exciting electrons and creating an electric current.

Demand is so high that there is a shortage worldwide in the kind of refined silicon that solar panels are made of.

But Nanosolar and other companies, such as Miasole, a privately held San Jose firm, have discarded silicon as their semiconductor material. Instead, they are working on mass-producing a complicated new technology: printing photovoltaic cells onto flexible plastic and foil, using a copper alloy that absorbs light and creates electricity.

The goal is to dramatically bring down costs, which have been the main stumbling block for expanding solar.

Nanosolar has been working on prototypes for four years. Roscheisen said Nanosolar's cells are now as efficient as traditional silicon cells, and can be manufactured at one-fifth the cost. However, its thin-film technology is not available for sale yet.

``This company is much more similar to printing a newspaper than making computer chips. We start with a giant roll of foil and print on it and cut it up,'' said Erik Straser, a general partner in MDV-Mohr Davidow Ventures of Menlo Park, one of the venture capital firms that is funding Nanosolar. The company has raised $100 million to date.

``The real innovation is that we're trying to move the photovoltaics industry from the economics of the semiconductor business to the economics of the printing business,'' Straser said.

Solar also is at the center of other Silicon Valley efforts. Last November, SunPower, a San Jose spin-off of Cypress Semiconductor, went public in one of the more successful technology IPOs of the year. The company's stock was offered at $18 and trades now at $27.

Roscheisen said Nanosolar decided to open a factory in the Bay Area, rather than in China or another developing nation, because being close to its R&D center in Palo Alto was important, and because labor costs are a relatively small part of the overall operation since so much is automated.

``I can't even remember the last time a major manufacturing facility opened here,'' said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. ``We would probably have to go back to the time of polyester suits and much wider ties.''

Environmentalists also were encouraged.

``Cleaning up the environment can be an economic opportunity,'' said Carl Pope, national executive director of the Sierra Club, in San Francisco. ``We are going to need these kind of breakthroughs. It is wonderful that Silicon Valley is taking the lead and that it is happening here.''

http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/sjmnwl.htm

As for hydrogen, there are so many technical breakthroughs that need to occur before we can even think about considering using hydrogen that I can't even begin. Wait another 15 years at the minimum.