U.S. is in quagmire-land in the ME with or without oil from there. Any chance the U.S. adopts a sort-it-out-yourself attitude to the region, oil or no [my favored approach], if Iraq points missiles at Israel, neither of them having oil? Nil is my guess. It is also (I’ve always thought) naiive to say that the U.S. policy is massively skewed by oil. Oil is called a “commodity” for good reason. It all looks, tastes, and burns the same. What are the Saudis or Iraqis or whoever going to do if the U.S. doesn’t “engage” in the Middle East? Drink the stuff? As the failure of the food-for-oil program proved – foreign policy doesn’t have much to do with overall oil pricing or movement other than in the short term (suicidal boycotts), so other than in the short term, oil possession or non-possession by poor (or otherwise) ME countries won’t massively or primarily shape or distort U.S. policy. It’s not like the Saudis give the U.S. a discount or exclusivity deal over the oil they sell . . . it’s more that there would be a short-term dislocation if the wells were set on fire, imams took over for a few months, etc.
You’ll want a cite. Let me get back to you.
I’m not a big natty gas foe. I have to admit it can affect the trade balance. But I do not want transportation in general to shift onto natty gas. I think these resources are something that will be worth staggeringly more in the future, if only we bother to conserve them.
Plus, this is still a carbon fuel. Separately from the war on oil, we need to reduce our use of carbon fuels. I’m cool with exploitation of natty gas, but puh-leeze do not go all-chips-in!
In many cases it is best to leave oil shale alone. You can throw around big numbers of the total theoretical cache of hydrocarbons in the shale, but any realistic calculations needs to admit that the per-year yields are necessarily modest. I haven’t heard of it. I guess I don’t believe it. I could be persuaded. But I doubt I’d think it were a good idea.
Look dude. My line is not to convince the studio audience that you are stupid. I’ll look up those shale plays later, ok?
The world today is not the world of 1945. The population is huge and still growing. We simply cannot afford to support them with fossil fuels long-term, oil in particular. We need a war on oil now.
Peak oil is not the motive.
I can admire the exploitation of the natty gas reserves, but again I urge caution. The globe is quickly running out of easy carbon fuel deposits. This natty gas would wisely be portioned out over the long term.
No radical crisis? Um, we have practically zero carbon-zero energy sources installed today. Please excuse my saying so, but your position is mad, sir.
xt: Before I address your points, do you mind sharing your thoughts on the choice architecture of our current energy regime?
One fifth of U.S. power consumption is nuclear- (i.e., no carbon sourced)-fueled. That is hardly “practically zero.” The ability of nuclear and NG to substitue for coal (in itself, a not-unsustainable, particularly on the domestic front, resource, but not very clean, resource) is far from “practically zero.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
[neutral AFAIKT but dense].
I love nuclear, to clarify any confusion. I love anything that makes economic sense and won’t kill us all [and none of the technologies under consideration come close to killing us all].
Hurrah for nuclear, but you have yet to answer the 25,000 year question- what to do about the nuclear waste?
Massive investment in Wyoming wind. Forget the cosmology or conservativism/leftyism factors. I mildly dislike Wyoming, but they got wind…
Whale blubber was not used to make medicines, cars, computers, clothing, houses, furniture… are you willing to stop using anything containing plastic or rubber? Most of the “rubber” around you came from an oil well, not a rubber tree. Anybody whose clothing contains polyester or spandex in any quantity, drop 'em? Yeah right. Oh, and anybody whose pantyliners, Depends, diapers or sanitary pads have adhesive or plastic, take 'em off.
Oil isn’t used only for burning.
We could still use oil to make the those things, although alot of that can be repalced by other materials, but we should rethink our transportation policies to use less oil.
Rail is key to this, and you don’t need to electrify every line to do it. All the major cities could easily be supplied with goods by the mainlines that exist today.
The electric- powered train would bring these goods to central warehouses in the cities. Then, electric -powered trucks would deliver the goods locally through out the city.
People could then use electric cars, buses and trolleys to go get the things they need. More people working from home would also help.
Airplanes could still be used, but basically only for long distance overseas trips. They would be huge A380 type planes to get the most bang for the buck.
We could do this now, with the tech we have today, and it wouldn’t be like living in the 1900’s. It would be a great start to reduce oil dependency.
What powers the “electric train?”
Just asking.
2.5 trillion cubic feet at Barnett, and maybe a comparable amount at Marcellus? I never said it was a joke.
But it is limited in the same way oil shale or oil sands are limited: by water. Consider this quote from here:
That isn’t the ‘green’ or ‘eco’ view- this is from what appears to be a pro-gas site. I am open to having any ignorance on my part fought, but for now I remain solidly unconvinced that we can transition (sensibly) to these sources on an overall scale. The deposits are big, but water is too scarce to run transportation entirely on shale gas and oil. China will face the same situation.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest hydrogen is practical. And please quit calling me ‘green’ or ‘eco-’ whatever.
I don’t deny that nat gas is useful. I deny that we can shift from importing oil to relying entirely on shale gas and oil. Mainly because the yield is limited by water. Also because these are not carbon-free energy sources. It doesn’t take an eco-nut to point out that continuing to base our economy on carbon-emitting fuels is a long-term loser.
So we want to avoid a situation where we do nothing because there is no immanent crisis, then shift to natural gas by default when/if the shit hits the fan. The T Boone Pickens types like that plan, but I don’t.
Again, these sources will be limited by water. The more they are relied on to replace conventional oil, the more they will lose their shine.
I’m advocating moving away from oil without waiting for a ‘pinch’ or crisis. Wind, solar, algae, nuclear (though everyone changes the subject away from the 25,000 year question) are better long-term solutions. A water crisis in a shale-gas glut would still be a nasty outcome. The current status quo leads to nasty outcomes. To ignore carbon-free energy sources is simply not realistic (and to respond to that point with eco-snark isn’t an answer). But I acknowledge your points and expect these resources to be developed in the future. Please don’t assume I’m out to kill these projects.
I would like to declare war on the concept of declaring war on something that is not a nation-state.
Um…would you pass a law saying that “Airplanes could still be used, but basically only for long distance overseas trips” Requiring that no one work more than 5 miles from home?
At this point, the market dictates those things. As oil prices have gone up, so have airline tickets. If they go down, so will airline tickets.
Practically no one would change their lifestyle unless the price goes way up, driving up the cost of travel, plastic, etc. At that point, the market will step in, and find different, cheaper ways to do things.
Just, please - no more wind power. It’s stupidly inefficient, pisses resources away, and looks terrible. The acres of wind farm in my part of Indiana has made the prairie look like a industrial area. 
Given the responses made so far, one does rather doubt that.
Quite right, it’s rubbish AND daft to boot.
It has neither merit as a stylistic device nor merit as a good means of organising policy. It is hackneyed, superficial and trite, as well as confused and woolly headed.
The remainder of your writing it superficial, largely emotive and entirely woolly headed.
Recycle until end of life-cycle, then store. Rather simple really, if it were not for the woolly headed thinking that attaches “radioactive” to some entirely irrational emotive reaction, rather than proper logical risk analysis.
One should hope so.
However the comment right above against wind is silly. Aesthetics is not a proper way to judge wind. It has its place in an energy mix.
What would it cost and how long would it take to convert the countries rail lines to run on electricity? What would it entail?
Same question. What would it cost to replace large portions of our current trucking with electric powered trucks? How long would it take to make the transition? What additional infrastructure would be required that doesn’t exist? What new training would be needed?
How will you force people to buy electric cars…and how long will it take manufacturers to ramp up to meet demand? How much will THAT cost?? What’s the time frame for all this stuff? Also, same questions as above…what new infrastructure would need to be built to support all this, what new training, etc etc?
We are talking trillions here…maybe 10’s of trillions. Over what time period? And who is going to pay for it all?
I know it’s a dirty word, but personally, instead of trying to dictate changes as drastic as these by fiat (and almost certainly being wrong), simply let the market decide. As the price of oil goes up people will be looking for alternatives, and companies will be looking for various ways to provide them. This is already happening. Companies are already researching and developing (and even attempting to market) alternatives. People are already starting to consider their options…and all this is happening at a time when the price at the pump is still relatively low.
Instead of a dippy ‘war on oil’, or dictating solutions by government fiat, why not just raise the tax on oil to set the price at the pump at something between $4-$5/gallon? Invest the extra money in a series of X-prizes or use it to pay off the national debt.
-XT
Yes, all energy should be produced someplace else. Someplace that’s Not In My Back Yard. And then it should be wrapped up in a tasteful package and discretely slipped under the backdoor of my house.
Stick it in a containment facility somewhere and stop pretending that it needs to be treated with such ridiculous paranoia. The problem with nuclear waste is political not technological. No, if some tiny leak develops in a thousand years it’s not some big deal.
For that matter, it’s quite likely that our descendants will just dig it up and use it for some purpose we haven’t thought of yet.
OMG you are absolutely right!
I was cooking last night and went to put some EVOO extra virgin olive oil in the pan and thought, “what would I do without my EVOO extra virgin olive oil?!”
The same way the war on drugs didn’t literally mean a ban on prescription morphine, the war on oil doesn’t have to mean a ban on anything even remotely pertaining to long chain fatty acids.
And as I said before, if we are as dependent on oil as you say, shouldn’t that be a serious wake up call?
Yes, that’s right. I prefer not to have giant wind farms stretched out over 100,000 acres of what used to be rolling green hills of crops. It looks terrible; to me just as bad as strip mining. At least strip mining is low to the ground - I used to be able to drive down I65 and look over the horizon, now all I see is wind mills packed closely together.
But I guess ruining the visual environment is okay as long as we get clean efficient natural energy! Oh wait:
"Despite shutting down when the winds are particularly fearsome, midwestern wind farms typically generate 30-35 percent of theoretical maximum output. Texas wind farms, for comparison, generate 40-45 percent. "
That’s from our one and only Cecil Adams, from his column here.
Have you ever seen an electric train? There are essentially two variations, one is to run current through the tracks, the other is to use overhead wires.
The first is easy but dangerous. The other is just a matter of running an overhead electrical wire the length of the rail line. Not free, not instant, but certainly doable. Would also mean a massive boost for the steal industry.
Why not instead of ridiculing a person’s ideas, try using some civility.
This is a great idea, one suggested frequently. Unfortunately, when you consider that the dude in Phoenix needs to get to work, now you’ve just raised his cost of living. He HAS to drive, now it’s just more expensive.
It’s really too bad that new subdivisions and suburbs were never required to incorporate public transit. A lot of new ones that I’ve seen don’t even bother with side walks.
Minneapolis, MN, recently started a commuter rail line running from the northern suburbs to downtown. One of the stops was about 4 miles from where I used to live, but it was completely inaccessible by anything other than car. I remember trying to find a bus route to get me to it. The route was 65min, and involved taking a 35min bus downtown, switching, then taking a bus 30min back to the station 4 miles from where I lived!
Switching off oil would definitely involve at some point raising the tax on gas and oil, I just think it needs to be paired with other options.
It always does, it always does…
I assume at some point we’ll declare war of steel.