Dependency on OIL

Hi farmatt,

Nice job.

As both you and AH state, it's all about money.

I have a huge carbon footprint. I'm hooked. My toys don't do well on alternate power sources. I guess I'm part of the problem.

Cheers.

And power. Mostly power, I think.

OK, power, too. But the real power will come later, when we really do "run low".

Anyway, it's hard to separate money from power and vice versa.

Cheers.

Yes and no. Most people and companies pursue money, but have no intents to use it to control other people.

Power, on the other hand, has no other use than to control people and does not always require money to wield it.

Points: 1) fuel cells are still unstable and become potential bombs? They are not yet cost effective unstable and bombs - no 2) The carbon foorprint of solar cells is quite small - the large part is a green legend - no 3) Hydrogen relies on coal fired power plants - not really as the power can come from anywhere. H2 is generally made from reformed natural gas in a steam reformer - no 4) Totally agreed about the aim of the energy companies goals being to make money. This is another green legend that the conspiracy bunch falls for every time. The recent publicity about the Bloom Box was just Khosla and other investors working a pump and dump scheme. That unit is one of the least efficient fuell cells.

Forgive my ignorance on the fuel cells, but, if you research the manufacturing process of solar cells that would be powerfull enough to run a mid-sized car, you will find a TOTAL carbon footprint that CURRENTLY utilizes fossil fuels to produce them. Same as with hydrogen, whether from reformed natural gas or coal, it still currently utilizes fossil fuel to produce.

Everything manufactured today uses either a carbon based fuel or hydro. Not enough wind and PV to talk about. Other than that I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I guess I was just trying to make a point that CURRENTLY all the other options are hugely reliant on fossil fuels so they are not YET options for replacing fossil fuels. Till we completely remove fossil fuels from the manufacturing process as well, we are not really becoming less dependent on them. Just because our cars are not burning them doesn't mean WE are not using them.

Too many people think that if they can't see it, then it doesn't exist. You can sweep the dirt under the rug, but the dirt is still on your floor.

Transportation is about half of the use of oil. The other half is used in every single aspect and product of your life in ways you can't even imagine.

That is probably why it befuddles you (and most everyone else, too).

It is also pretty frustrating to try to explain to people just why we can't simply turn off the spigot and abandon it nor easy to get people to understand why the political control of oil (and all other energy products) is even more important to those in power.

"...the lobbyist from the big oil companies keeps the entire world from making much a leap in technology to cut our dependency outright?"

Not really. It's much, much more complex than that. Oil companies would be just as happy selling you oil as they would be alternate energy if they could. They are a business and are perfectly content making a profit with whatever technology they can.

Right now their expertise is oil, but they will adapt to another profitable source should it become available or even more profitable.

Think of it this way. For oil companies, oil is profit. For governments and nations, oil is power. Who regulates who in this world?

Hi A Hero,

Who regulates who in this world?

The title, "dependency on oil". We need it! We want it! We need and want more!

As you said, multi-nationals put down the line to walk on ( automobile) and governments follow the path (collect revenue on cars, finances, and repairs) and impose to us. We have to remember, we put the government in place. However and honestly, governments want to initiate something new by allocating money (sometimes lots) to inventors (mostly a friend) and innovators (well established corporations) but the science of a few individuals or organizations don't create something that will change the world, and the 6.5 billion of us follow what is imposed by big organizations, corporations (our employers), and governments that we put in place to change something, which is a dream. Also, when we have something that could do the trick, the big lip or change, governments and corporations kill the inventor or the innovator, and we stay where we were because it's safe and already known. Wankel engine was not adopted by VW or GM to create something new. They let die!

The "dependence on oil" stay with us until we have enough to supply to everyone. When shortage comes to affect everyone, we will do something different and new to satisfy our needs and wants.

Dependence is created by us and we stay with it or we, all of us, change for something new, different, and available, Gil.

Conspiracies! Love it! The Wankel died all on it's own - no one had to kill it. Those same corporations will sell most anything they can find a market for. The big corporations don't impose anything on us - they don't have to as we do impose upon ourselves.

Furthermore, the big corporations wouldn't be big corporations if they weren't selling something we demanded. Most all of the major US corporations that exist today, did not exist (or were very, very small startups) only about 100 years ago. The major corporations of 100 years ago mostly do not exist, or are shadows of themselves.

Oil as big business traces to something like the 1880's- automobiles as big business traces to the early 1900's. Big pharm had to wait for Louis Pasteur to discover that many diseases are caused by germs (some time around the 1850's, I believe).

IBM was founded in 1896, but they were making cash registers, not computers. They had to wait until after WW II to get in to the computer business. Of course, Microsoft and Apple could not have existed 100 years ago, because computers did not exist. Modern entertainment industry? OK, Muybridge made the first motion picture in 1878, but it wasn't until pretty much after WW I that we had a major entertainment industry- once dominated by a few very large studios that pretty much only exist as shadows of their former selves...

Wind Power - The windmills are so huge that there isn't very many places windy enough to build so many to do any good. In Tehachappi California the mountains are covered with windmills. Who wants to see those big windmills everywhere?

- If you have a lot of property you can lease a part of it out to the power companies to build a windmill or two on it.

Solar - Each panel costs about $10,000 to set up and to have enough to be totally independant from the power companies you need about 10 panels on your home.

- One benefit of solar panels is that if you produce a surplus of power it goes back into the power grid and the power companies will give you a credit for it.

- You still have to have a battery backup system with one battery per panel, then you need the room to set up the converters for the system.

California has both windmill and solar farms in operation. Mohave has some huge solar farms out there. But even with these alternate power sources we still have to import power from out of state.

Maybe if we got rid of all the electronic gadgets that have become such common things in our lives but are really useless, we could really cut back on our energy usage.

Nukelear power plants have come a long way in establishing safety measures. It's the one power source that has global operational and safety standards set up. And is one of the first successful joint global programs set up between the United States and Russia that now has 35 other countries that have become members with.

- The only drawback is people still fear them.

Each panel 10,000 USD? Solar PV panels are presently between 1 and 3 USD per watt for the panel (depending on the type) and between 5 and 7 USD per watt all inclusive - panels, racks, inverters etc. Batteries, if used would be on top of that. If the unit is grid tie then no batteries are required. Who is going to cut back on power consumption? Not many I expect - until the cost becomes prohibitive. Nuclear is presently the best route but like you pointed out, people are scared of them due to ignorance.

The dollar amount that I specified was the price if I were to get the solar panels installed by Southern California Edison.

Sorry friend but you need to be a bit more clear - do you mean 1 kW panels or what?

I'm sorry. That price was out of my league so I've long since threw out the brochures I had on it to be able to tell you the KW output. But it seems to me that I saw .33/kwh per panel.