I don't really expect this to last long. Either the debate will get way too heated, or the usual suspects will ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda. Either way, I thought I'd toss it out there...
Discussions of U.S. and global energy supply refer to oil, natural gas, and coal using several terms that may be unfamiliar to some. The terms used to describe different types of fossil fuels have technically precise definitions, and misunderstanding or misuse of these terms may lead to errors and confusion in estimating energy available or making comparisons among fuels, regions, or nations.
Fossil fuels are categorized, classified, and named using a number of variables. Naturally occurring deposits of any material, whether it is fossil fuels, gold, or timber, comprise a broad spectrum of concentration, quality, and accessibility (geologic, technical, and cultural). Terminology is adopted to reflect those characteristics.
For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, and those are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.
In the United States, certain institutions are designated to determine and report quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal reserves and undiscovered resources. Other institutions also estimate these values, but differences in estimating methodology can produce significantly different values.
U.S. proved reserves of oil total 21.3 billion barrels and reserves of natural gas are 237.7 trillion cubic feet. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 145.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,162.7 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 489 billion short tons, of which 262 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable.
Comparisons of different fuel types can be made by converting all of them to a common unit, such as barrels of oil equivalent, based on their heat content. The amounts of fossil fuels found in other nations as reserves and undiscovered resources are much more difficult to determine reliably because data are sometimes lacking or unreliable, but gross comparisons of national endowments can be made using available data.
While I don't expect many here to actually -read- the report, check out the table on P.17 for an interesting perspective.
Modified by Seabird at 6:08 PM 11-2-2009
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Seabird.
I'm not making any point. I'm merely offering up some information on the state of the country's energy supply and potential. Since it tends to be such a hot topic here and because there is so much bad (junk) information, I thought that it might add a little value to the discussion.
Take it or leave it as you wish.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but I sincerely believe that it is unwritten US policy to allow the rest of the world to deplete its reserves of oil. Once this occurs, America will be sitting on a massive "bank account" of black gold that the rest of the world will need to source from us. I don't believe this to be an "evil plot" or manipulation, but it is plain and simple long term planning for the energy and financial future for the country.
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
I don't really expect this to last long. Either the debate will get way too heated, or the usual suspects will ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda. Either way, I thought I'd toss it out there...
The real problem has never been running out of oil, Seabird (as you doubtless know)- we can make all the oil we want from our enormous coal reserves. The problem is the atmospheric carbon level and the effect on the biosphere of increasing it by such an amount.
It's an interesting article, but something of a red herring.
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -John Maynard Keynes
Does anyone ever read what they post, critically? The US Barrels of Oil Equivalent number used to make this assertion (by the OP, not the actual report, BTW) uses exactly one source for the primary item that puts the US "over the top."
--Coal. Because our petroleum reserves sure as heck are not enough. Not even close.
But even the EIA calls their coal estimates at high levels estimates, because what reserves are considered technically recoverable and economically recoverable are for all intents and purposes unknown:
Quote, originally posted by The Actual Report »
For example, in one specific case in Wyoming, 47% of the in-place coal is technically recoverable, but the available, economically recoverable coal is only about 6% of the in-place coal. While these proportions may vary between 5% and 20%, depending upon the specific conditions for each coal mining area, very large coal numbers are viewed with some caution because in-place numbers, or even recoverable numbers, may not provide a realistic assessment of the coal that could actually be produced.
I don't think the idea that coal can be used to help offset energy requirements is exactly a new one. But as the primary reason why a lot of people hate coal is the fact we have to dig like hell for it and burning it can be bad, other sources need to be considered.
We are the world's leader handling nuclear power. Build them.
Modified by fbobberts at 4:53 PM 11-2-2009
Quote, originally posted by Dreek »
Working on and driving a 928 is like spinning the wheel at the Thunderdome. No good will come of it.
Quote, originally posted by VarianceVQ »
A near-new G35 or an older, busted Audi... Why don't you just ask me which one of my hands I would like to chop off?
This is not news. US has largest reserve of coal in the world, that is a well known fact. However, coal is also the most troublesome of all fossil fuel.
I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but I sincerely believe that it is unwritten US policy to allow the rest of the world to deplete its reserves of oil. Once this occurs, America will be sitting on a massive "bank account" of black gold that the rest of the world will need to source from us. I don't believe this to be an "evil plot" or manipulation, but it is plain and simple long term planning for the energy and financial future for the country.
Makes perfect sense to me, a lot more than "Drill baby, Drill!"
Quote, originally posted by PassSedanGLX »
Remember kids: government subsidies are fine for 'free' markets, but government regulation is communism.
Quote, originally posted by Adam Corolla »
I'm waiting for a day in the future when Chrysler or Ford pulls the sheet off something at an auto show, and it's a horse. Not a Mustang, not a Pinto, it's actually a horse. They'll go so retro, it's actually a living horse.
Does anyone ever read what they post, critically? The US Barrels of Oil Equivalent number used to make this assertion (by the OP, not the actual report, BTW) uses exactly one source for the primary item that puts the US "over the top."
--Coal. Because our petroleum reserves sure as heck are not enough. Not even close.
But even the EIA calls their coal estimates at high levels estimates, because what reserves are considered technically recoverable and economically recoverable are for all intents and purposes unknown:
I don't think the idea that coal can be used to help offset energy requirements is exactly a new one. But as the primary reason why a lot of people hate coal is the fact we have to dig like hell for it and burning it can be bad, other sources need to be considered.
We are the world's leader handling nuclear power. Build them.
Modified by fbobberts at 4:53 PM 11-2-2009
Exactly. The question isn't the quantity of proven reserves, but how much of that is economically recoverable. I could be sitting on the biggest oil field on earth in my back yard, but if it can't be pumped out at a cost that allows the oil company to make a profit on it, then all those hydrocarbons are going to stay right where they are.
Yes, "economically recoverable" can change as oil prices fluctuate, but that can go both ways. Investments in the Canadian tar sands are looking a lot less profitable right now.
I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but I sincerely believe that it is unwritten US policy to allow the rest of the world to deplete its reserves of oil. Once this occurs, America will be sitting on a massive "bank account" of black gold that the rest of the world will need to source from us. I don't believe this to be an "evil plot" or manipulation, but it is plain and simple long term planning for the energy and financial future for the country.
That's not planning or strategy. Dat's COMMON SENSE, mang. Seriously. This is what I've always believed any super power with the means to manipulate others would normally do without ANY thought whatsoever.
I don't want to sound like an ass. I just figured as greedy as man is... especially when he is on top of other men already... he'd be doing everything he could to milk everybody else first.
BTW... how the heck do you estimate quantities for "undiscovered" reserves.
I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but I sincerely believe that it is unwritten US policy to allow the rest of the world to deplete its reserves of oil. Once this occurs, America will be sitting on a massive "bank account" of black gold that the rest of the world will need to source from us. I don't believe this to be an "evil plot" or manipulation, but it is plain and simple long term planning for the energy and financial future for the country.
It makes perfect sense... in addition to energy, North America as a continent (as Canada is also energy rich) also has something that might be highly sought after at some point... Fresh water reserves.
The US never needed to sell copious amounts of its resources to become rich and powerful. They became powerful by exploiting knowledge: industrial, technological, medical, financial... you name it. To peddle off your non-recoverable resources is foolish, as the money source will eventually run dry.
I think green/renewable energy is like the Astra. EVERYONE says, "Bring it! I support it! I will pay for it!".
But they won't.
Not really.
Not until it offers the same performance at a similar cost to its competition. In this case, good old fossil fuels.
Call me a cynic, but I honestly believe that 99.999999% of you crying for alternatives will only do so as long as you can easily heat and light your homes. Once that becomes a lot more difficult to do (as a result of restrictions on development), there will be a few more people sheepishly whispering, "um... Drill, baby? Please?".
But hey... At least it's comforting to know that we have plenty here, just in case.
Modified by Seabird at 7:55 PM 11-2-2009
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Exactly. The question isn't the quantity of proven reserves, but how much of that is economically recoverable. I could be sitting on the biggest oil field on earth in my back yard, but if it can't be pumped out at a cost that allows the oil company to make a profit on it, then all those hydrocarbons are going to stay right where they are.
Yes, "economically recoverable" can change as oil prices fluctuate, but that can go both ways. Investments in the Canadian tar sands are looking a lot less profitable right now.
1) I'm pretty sure Seabird (and most anybody else with half a brain) is aware of that.
2) It WILL be "economically" viable in the future. It is only a matter of time before each resource is used up. It should be obvious that as we deplete them, the price will naturally increase... and at some point - profit. Just because it seems unprofitable now doesn't mean it will always be that way. IMHO, there will never be some magical Dilithium crystal discovered to save us all from our needs for power. Each region, each tool, each machine, each society, each need will require all diversity of 'fuels' that we can come up with or currently have... and that means finding ways to get deep oil or somehow minimizing the adverse effects of fossil fuel usage.
The one question of concern is whether we can maintain a halfway liveable environment (nature and societal) all the way through the next several decades of these challenges.
It makes perfect sense... in addition to energy, North America as a continent (as Canada is also energy rich) also has something that might be highly sought after at some point... Fresh water reserves.
The US never needed to sell copious amounts of its resources to become rich and powerful. They became powerful by exploiting knowledge: industrial, technological, medical, financial... you name it. To peddle off your non-recoverable resources is foolish, as the money source will eventually run dry.
True dat. Now if we could only keep our TOP SOIL from washing down the Mississippi.
I think green/renewable energy is like the Astra. EVERYONE says, "Bring it! I support it! I will pay for it!".
But they won't.
Not really.
Not until it offers the same performance at a similar cost to its competition. In this case, good old fossil fuels.
Call me a cynic, but I honestly believe that 99.999999% of you crying for alternatives will only do so as long as you can easily heat and light your homes. Once that becomes a lot more difficult to do (as a result of restrictions on development), there will be a few more people sheepishly whispering, "um... Drill, baby? Please?".
But hey... At least it's comforting to know that we have plenty here, just in case.
Not driving an Astra is slightly different from pissing in the drinking water.
Proud member of the Colorado Elitist Know-it-all D-bag club, Boulder chapter.
...Not until it offers the same performance at a similar cost to its competition. In this case, good old fossil fuels.
Call me a cynic, but I honestly believe that 99.999999% of you crying for alternatives will only do so as long as you can easily heat and light your homes. Once that becomes a lot more difficult to do (as a result of restrictions on development), there will be a few more people sheepishly whispering, "um... Drill, baby? Please?".
Perhaps your place of residency is influencing your estimate on this.
On both coasts, the attitude is different, and a significant percentage of the population is implementing solutions on a daily basis - buying Diesel and hybrid cars, insulating their homes, putting solar cells on their roof tops, moving closer to work or working closer to their home, telecommuting, substituting internet meetings for air travel, and whatnot.
Perhaps your place of residency is influencing your estimate on this.
On both coasts, the attitude is different, and a significant percentage of the population is implementing solutions on a daily basis - buying Diesel and hybrid cars, insulating their homes, putting solar cells on their roof tops, moving closer to work or working closer to their home, telecommuting, substituting internet meetings for air travel, and whatnot.
Absolutely. Even a lot of corporations are getting on board. The company I work for is allowing people to choose which of our 6 buildings to work at to reduce commuting, allowing for telecommuting two days a week instead of one, has worked hard to implement new teleconferencing systems, etc. My mother and her boyfriend are building a new house, they are spending a lot of extra money to make it more energy efficient. Using blown in insulation, 6" studs instead of 4", a new kind of heat that is supposed to me 50% more energy efficient, etc. This stuff is mainstream now in a lot of the country and world now. People are willing to pay more and put more effort into being environmentally friendly now, maybe you don't see it in Texas where everything is BIGGER, but in the real world it's happening.
The saddest thing that I see about the whole fossil fuel issue is all the hype and non-news. Speculation (greed) drives the price of oil. And for all the regulation of vehicles the amount of GHG's produces by cars is a drop in the bucket compared to other things like power plants or the international shipping business. The new Prius commercial that talks about how much oil it saved makes me ill.
The real problem has never been running out of oil, Seabird (as you doubtless know)- we can make all the oil we want from our enormous coal reserves. The problem is the atmospheric carbon level and the effect on the biosphere of increasing it by such an amount.
It's an interesting article, but something of a red herring.
]The saddest thing that I see about the whole fossil fuel issue is all the hype and non-news. Speculation (greed) drives the price of oil. And for all the regulation of vehicles the amount of GHG's produces by cars is a drop in the bucket compared to other things like power plants or the international shipping business. The new Prius commercial that talks about how much oil it saved makes me ill.
Speculation and OPEC play major roles in shaping the price of oil. But you lose the plot after that. You should be more ill about the fact that in addition to dirtying the planet, fossil fuels won't be around forever. Without even getting into numbers, it's fact: non-renewable sources of energy will not be around forever. It may not be in your lifetime that a major crisis in supply hits us, but it will, if we don't move toward different technologies.
Also, green technolgies and alternative fuels can be used to solve the problem of polluting "power plants" and shipping industry. Regarding regular consumer products, why would you not want your home to be heated in a way that reduces pollution? Why would you not want to drive a clean car, if it meets your needs?
I wish the NG infrastructure was better, up here in Northern New England we don't have it and I'd happily run my entire house on it instead of oil (heat) and electric (hot water, stove, etc.) http://www.pickensplan.com/
As for oil reserves (or potential oil reserves) I have no problem using up "someone else's " oil first before we drain our own. I suspect most countries do this to some degree and no country will be 100% honest about their own reserves imo. It's a national security issue.
I wish battery technology was better. I would totally run my car and house off of solar or wind if it were more economically and realistically feasible.
1/20/2009 & 1/21/2013 - The end of the errors
Quote, originally posted by 92_525i »
i find myself searching for a post by ATL_AV8r that i dont agree with... so far his words are gospel
Quote, originally posted by vw_jason79 »
What does mike type that isnt funny. Hes like the top resident smart ass of the vortex.
It makes perfect sense... in addition to energy, North America as a continent (as Canada is also energy rich) also has something that might be highly sought after at some point... Fresh water reserves.
.
Fresh water isn't really an issue, if you have plenty of energy available.
I wish battery technology was better. I would totally run my car and house off of solar or wind if it were more economically and realistically feasible.
You don't need batteries to run your house off of solar. The most common and cost effective system is a "grid tied" system, and it doesn't use any batteries at all. The solar cells from your home feed back into the grid during the day, spinning the meter backwards, and at night you pull from the grid. If the system is sized right your daytime output cancels out the nightime charges. It also helps stabilize the grid, as power consumption is drastically higher during daylight hours.
The return on grid ties systems after federal incentives is around 10-15 years right now, depending on your location. There's no technical issues that would prevent a person from installing one right now.
]The saddest thing that I see about the whole fossil fuel issue is all the hype and non-news. Speculation (greed) drives the price of oil. And for all the regulation of vehicles the amount of GHG's produces by cars is a drop in the bucket compared to other things like power plants or the international shipping business. The new Prius commercial that talks about how much oil it saved makes me ill.
Greenhouse gas emissions and oil usage aren't necessarily the same thing. The Prius commercial would be misleading people if it said driving a Prius will affect global warming (it won't), but the largest use of petroleum in the US is transportation (some 50% of which is personal cars). So, driving a Prius will affect oil reserves much more handily than finding new power generation techniques (most carbon-emitting power plants are coal or natural gas).
Fresh water isn't really an issue, if you have plenty of energy available.
Isn't that always the rub? You can do any ONE thing (i.e. make it possible) IF you have ANOTHER thing (energy) to... filter it, pump it, transport it, etc. Is that what you are getting at?
Isn't potable water a brewing problem in the US? Or at least in certain regions? I know it is all the talk in Mexico. They are turning down pressure and even turning off water to certain areas of Mexico City, because the burden is so heavy on the water system here due to low rains recently.
I don't subscribe to many conspiracy theories, but I sincerely believe that it is unwritten US policy to allow the rest of the world to deplete its reserves of oil. Once this occurs, America will be sitting on a massive "bank account" of black gold that the rest of the world will need to source from us. I don't believe this to be an "evil plot" or manipulation, but it is plain and simple long term planning for the energy and financial future for the country.
I also share and advocate this belief. Simply put, drilling now will provide mild relief. Drilling later will allow us to become the middle east energy superpower of the world, except we actually have way more than energy going for us, unlike the real middle east.
Eugene Leafty Fungi produce 13% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere, my motorcycle produces over 100 gallons of H2O per year.
Isn't that always the rub? You can do any ONE thing (i.e. make it possible) IF you have ANOTHER thing (energy) to... filter it, pump it, transport it, etc. Is that what you are getting at?
Isn't potable water a brewing problem in the US? Or at least in certain regions? I know it is all the talk in Mexico. They are turning down pressure and even turning off water to certain areas of Mexico City, because the burden is so heavy on the water system here due to low rains recently.
It is a problem, but it's more of a cost/energy problem than an actual shortage of water. There's plenty of fresh water available, it's just not where they need it (high density areas). They don't want to foot the bill for treating it and pumping it to where it's needed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against water conservation, because that's a very effective form of energy conservation and has lots of environmental benefits, but I don't subscribe to the notion that one day we'll be fighting wars over drinking water. It's just too easy to get.
You don't need batteries to run your house off of solar. The most common and cost effective system is a "grid tied" system, and it doesn't use any batteries at all. The solar cells from your home feed back into the grid during the day, spinning the meter backwards, and at night you pull from the grid. If the system is sized right your daytime output cancels out the nightime charges. It also helps stabilize the grid, as power consumption is drastically higher during daylight hours.
The return on grid ties systems after federal incentives is around 10-15 years right now, depending on your location. There's no technical issues that would prevent a person from installing one right now.
Modified by justanotherusername at 6:06 AM 11-3-2009
What's funny is even besides the fact that certain states are more friendly to PV (incentives, rebates, grid tie rules, etc.) you then have your LOCAL neighborhood "architectural council" as the final obstacle. We are our own worse enemies sometimes.
I haven't looked into PV for a few years, but back a decade ago, it was NOT in any shape or form logical for upper middle class on down to invest in it... unless they just wanted "to be green"... in MI. I think MI is slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. I want a turbine and PVs logically used on my dream house. And at this point, I am happy to take the hit. But it is easy for me to say, because my family is dual income upper middle class. The majority of society??? That is the bigger challenge.
What's funny is even besides the fact that certain states are more friendly to PV (incentives, rebates, grid tie rules, etc.) you then have your LOCAL neighborhood "architectural council" as the final obstacle. We are our own worse enemies sometimes.
I haven't looked into PV for a few years, but back a decade ago, it was NOT in any shape or form logical for upper middle class on down to invest in it... unless they just wanted "to be green"... in MI. I think MI is slowly changing, but not fast enough for me. I want a turbine and PVs logically used on my dream house. And at this point, I am happy to take the hit. But it is easy for me to say, because my family is dual income upper middle class. The majority of society??? That is the bigger challenge.
You're absolutely right about the local councils being a problem, but certain states were working on legislation that would basically tell them to "F-Off" when it comes to solar installations.
The majority of society is certainly the biggest challenge, but it's got to start somewhere, and business and the rich are a good place IMO.
For advertising information Click Here
-- 4669 deaths in Iraq, 1435 deaths in Afghanistan.
Seriously. This is what I've always believed any super power with the means to manipulate others would normally do without ANY thought whatsoever.
