# Let Them Drink Oil **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 13, 2001, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233 "2001-10-13T10:02:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Kalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalt)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/41 "2001-10-15T17:35:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > Well, a few questions: > > 1. Why exactly should the US support Israel? Because Israel has always been our ally, it is a democracy in the middle of hostile undemocratic territory, and because if we quit supporting israel because we don’t want any more terrorism, the terrorists win - and terrorism will be seen as a useful tool for getting your way in the future. > [@](#): > > 1. Do you not think you are oversimplifying to a high degree (misreporting even) the situation when you say that the Arab world can’t stand Israel’s existence? Seems to me that Egypt and Israel have actually made quite some progress in recent years. No. My statement sums it up entirely. Egyptian and Israeli relations only look like “progress” when compared to other arab-israeli relations. Egypt hates the fact that Israel is there just as much as iraq, iran, afghanistan, and every other arab country. > [@](#): > > 1. Is that an either-or fallacy when you say that either the US does not support Israel or the Arabs hate the US? No. As long as we support israel, the Arabs will hate the US. Now, maybe we can do certain things to convince them to express that hatred in ways other than violence, but I doubt it. > [@](#): > > The issue are a little deeper than this. I wish they were - we would have more options in dealing with them. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2001, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/42 "2001-10-15T23:53:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > > > [@](#): > > > > how are the reserves under ANWR going to help us long term? The reports I’ve read show those reserves falling off quickly after 10 years. > > Some say 5 weeks, some say 500 years. Let’s say there is at least 10 years of oil there. 10 years would be a helpful timeframe to convert to non-fossil fuel systems. No way we could do it cold turkey. Anyway, as long as the quantity of oil in ANWR is worth more than the cost of drilling for it, caribou should not stand in the way in my opinion. Well, actually the uncertainty on this, while real, is not nearly as large as you claim. You can get some pretty good estimates from a federal government [US Geological Survey?] study that noone really disputes (although they emphasize different facets of and uncertainties in its results to come up with different figures)…I don’t have time to find it now. By the way, the 10 year number is not correct…or at least it doesn’t refer to supplying all of our oil needs for 10 years. The amount of supply in terms of our total oil consumption is measured in months (with one going estimate being about 6 to 8, as I recall). But the real point is that there are many ways that we can conserve more oil than we would ever get out of ANWR, one of which is to raise fuel economy standards for SUVs by a few miles per gallon! In this respect, the U.S. Congress, led by the Republicans [and a few Democrats, e.g., from Michigan] and the auto and oil lobbies have been fiddling while Rome burns. Now they tell us the only solution is to drill more in pristine places?.. **Bull shit!** **Tuckerfan** , while I appreciate that rises in gas prices through taxation will hurt some people and that it will have to be done gradually not to shock the economy too much, we really do have to do it. One of the ironies here is that those people who are so hung up on how we can’t do anything, say to help the poor, because it interferes with the market are the same ones who support a system whereby gasoline effectively receives massive subsidies and thus is not priced correctly (without accounting for the external costs). This is just basic market economics. If you believe in a market economy, I think you have to believe in the correction of massive externalities; otherwise, what the hell do you believe in? Not any accepted economic theory to be sure! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > You leave my sexual preferences out of this! Both the Ford Excursion and I are consenting adults, after all. Hmmm…this makes for quite a great visual in my mind…But, I’m just sort of curious what orifice you use—the gas tank intake? And what do you do if you’re a woman? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/43 "2001-10-16T00:40:36Z")
jshore wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > Both the Ford Excursion and I are consenting adults, after all. > > what do you do if you’re a woman? Well … you could always buy the stick-shift model… ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/44 "2001-10-16T02:54:44Z")
Just to give you the references on ANWR that I didn’t have time to dig up earlier. Here is the most recent government report: [http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil\_gas/petroleum/analysis\_publications/arctic\_national\_wildlife\_refuge/html/anwr101.html](http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/anwr101.html) (You’ll have to edit out the space this message board “conveniently” inserts in the word “refuge” in order to get this link to work.) Note that it is based on the original USGS report although it tends to put more emphasis on the high numbers in that report in that it concentrates on the “technically recoverable” amount of oil rather than that which it is economically profitable to recover (although it does discuss the latter…see Fig. 8 in Analysis Discusssion section). As a basis of comparison, the U.S. uses 19.4 million barrels per day (7.1 billion per year),as noted here: [http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html](http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html) An advocacy piece on why we shouldn’t drill in ANWR and better alternatives is [http://www.ucsusa.org/energy/brf.anwr.html](http://www.ucsusa.org/energy/brf.anwr.html) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/45 "2001-10-16T03:29:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **As a basis of comparison, the U.S. uses 19.4 million barrels per day (7.1 billion per year),as noted here: > [http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html](http://www.wri.org/climate/anwr.html)** Uhhh…look at the cite they are using, then look at mine, and tell me why the cite by WRI is misleading…? The answer is that they picked **one month** to measure this in - January - high energy use, home heating oil month. I picked the **average** daily use per 2000. Their cite is incorrect, and now I immediately question the accuracy of everything on the WRI site. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/46 "2001-10-16T03:36:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tuckerfan \* > **Anyways, somewhere I read that diesel engines are easier to convert to hydrogen because of the high heat generated by burning hydrogen. Diesel engines are capable of taking higher heat than a gas engine.** While hydrogen does have a higher heating value than gasoline per pound, this really is meaningless, as one will not be forcing the same mass of hydrogen into the combustion chamber as they would gasoline. > [@](#): > > **Hydrogen also has a lower octane rating than gas and any engine converted to hydrogen has to run at higher compression ratios to compensate for this fact.** Hydrogen will autoignite at 400 C and high pressures, and at 600 C at any pressure, according to my IC Engines book by Heywood. I don’t know why one would run at a higher compression ratio to “compensate”, as a higher compression ratio would tend to increase knock if the octane rating is indeed less. Also, hydrogen has tremendously fast flame front, and very fast pressure wave effect, so the effects of knock would be even more pronounced. Although I cannot find my other IC Engines Grad text yet, it seems that one would want to be running a hydrogen engine at a lower compression than normal. In any event, I think we are getting snarled up the details of a side discussion here. I could be wrong about the above, I need to find my class notes (we did experiments on a hydrogen engine in a lab, and I can’t remember the conditions of the tests). **jshore** , I am sorry if my response to you seemed snitty - it was just the way I typed it quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/47 "2001-10-16T03:57:10Z")
**Anthracite** , allow me to say that your erudite observations are most welcome in this thread. Hydrogen is perhaps the sole candidate for a legitimate and immediately available automotive fuel source. I am also quite curious as to your own conservative take on the premise of the OP, but nonetheless welcome your input on the technologies being discussed here as well. Incidentally, what is your own opinion on further development in Alaska? I see it as a deceptive stopgap and interference with the real priority of converting our nation to another fuel source. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/48 "2001-10-16T03:58:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mayor Quimby \* > **I’m wondering about the power output of alternative type engines as well. Can they crank out the same pulling and pushing power? What of trains, planes, construction vehicles and marine vessels? Just thought I’d throw that one out there.** In my graduate engineering classes, which specialized in combustion (as well as materials science…but I digress), my favorite professor kept referring to gasoline as the “perfect fuel”. Gasoline is an exceptionally good fuel - it in not hydrophillic to any great degree, has a very low freezing point, does not spontaneously explode or autoignite without oxygen, is noncorrosive, can be used to operate a vehicle from -40 F to +160 F, and it has a very high energy density. Alcohol-fueled cars can run with the same power as gasoline-powered ones, but require more than 2 times the mass of alcohol per unit of power, relative to gasoline. Diesel has _slightly_ less energy than gasoline per mass. Natural gas, propane, and hydrogen powered vehicles can produce the same power as a gasoline powered car, and have slightly more energy density. Hydrogen has significantly more energy density. A table, from Heywood: ```auto Higher Heating Lower Heating LHV of Value, MJ/kg Value, MJ/kg Stoich mix., Fuel MJ/kg *********************************************************** Gasoline 47.3 44.0 2.83 Light Diesel 46.1 43.2 2.79 Heavy Diesel 45.5 42.8 2.85 Natural Gas 50.0 45.0 2.90 Methane 55.5 50.0 2.72 Propane 50.4 46.4 2.75 Methanol 22.7 20.0 2.68 Ethanol 29.7 26.9 2.69 Hydrogen 142.0 120.0 3.40 ``` So…neat table. What does it mean? First, ignore the first column (Higher Heating Value), as it is included for completeness. Now, look at the second one - Lower Heating Value. This tells us how much energy is theoretically in 1 kg of the substance. So, we can see that comparing gasoline (44.0 MJ/kg) to Methanol (20.0 MJ/kg), gasoline has more than twice the energy content per mass than methanol does. This would equate to a methanol-powered car requiring a much larger fuel tank to go the same distance between fill-ups. Now, look at the last column - “LHV of Stoich mix”. This is the heat released, per mass, of a stoichiometric mixture of the substance and air. Let’s assume, for simplicity’s sake, that your car operates at stoichiometric (it rarely does, but let’s assume). We can see that for every mass of stoichiometric mixture, natural gas and hydrogen give more energy than gasoline does - hydrogen significantly so. Sounds promising…and if the engine can take it, assuming that you have a similar density, a hydrogen engine should be capable of a bit more power per cubic inch than a gasoline one. In this simplified look, anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/49 "2001-10-16T04:11:43Z")
Thank you for the compliments, but I don’t think I am deserving of them yet. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*Incidentally, what is your own opinion on further development in Alaska? I see it as a deceptive stopgap and interference with the real priority of converting our nation to another fuel source. \*\* My opinions are this - I believe that the Arctic Refuge should only be developed as a measure to help reduce foreign oil dependence should World events develop such that we have serious energy instability, and **if and only if** a program like my $1.00 per gallon “Marshall Plan for an Energy Future” is already underway. In effect, make the oil refuge a true strategic reserve, but never declare it completely off-limits until we know we don’t need it anymore. Declaring it off-limits 100% is short-sighted, IMO, until we know a bit more of what our energy future looks like. There is a lot of oil up there, but IIRC also a lot of natural gas. Gas drilling is quite a bit more environmentally friendly, and perhaps the gas resources could be tapped while the oil is kept in reserve. I think a massive research project, coupled with a serious attempt at conservation, can really help secure our future. Will it depress the economy? Yes, it will. I do not deny that. Does the end justify the means? IMO…yes. If we do develop fusion energy, or fantastically efficient fuel cells, or make solar cells that can deliver power at anything close to competitive for the average homeowner…then we will be secure and set for a long time to come. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/50 "2001-10-16T04:16:33Z")
I wonder if an SDMB Conservation Day could be organized - where someone posts in MPSIMS urging all members of the SDMB to conserve as much energy as possible on one certain day, and to report their success, or lack of it (without fear of recriminations), or things they did to conserve on just that one day. I wonder if anyone cares enough to do a silly thing like that, or will I be the only one sitting by a window reading with the lights out, the heat down, and no extra appliances running. Just think - pick **October 27** (a special day), and see how many people join in. Make it an annual event if it is successful. Sounds neat, but likely there isn’t much interest. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/51 "2001-10-16T05:26:38Z")
> [@](#): > > Tuckerfan, while I appreciate that rises in gas prices through taxation will hurt some people and that it will have to be done gradually not to shock the economy too much, we really do have to do it. One of the ironies here is that those people who are so hung up on how we can’t do anything, say to help the poor, because it interferes with the market are the same ones who support a system whereby gasoline effectively receives massive subsidies and thus is not priced correctly (without accounting for the external costs). This is just basic market economics. If you believe in a market economy, I think you have to believe in the correction of massive externalities; otherwise, what the hell do you believe in? Not any accepted economic theory to be sure! I agree that _something_ needs to be done. I won’t hijack this thread with my comments about standard economic theories, other than to say that just because its accepted doesn’t make it right. I’d support higher gas taxes if the revenues earned from the increase went to helping those of us who can’t afford to switch to either a more efficient vehicle or one that burns hydrogen. **Anthracite** , it has been a really shitty day for me and I haven’t been able to do much digging, but I did find this in the _ **Fuel From Water** _ book: > [@](#): > > Because of the low volumetric energy content of hydrogen, higher compression ratios or higher fuel delivery pressures are needed to avoid reduced power. Since hydrogen can be a bitch to store in a small space, it seems to me that higher compression ratios would yield slightly better performance than increasing fuel delivery pressures. In any case, _any_ engine converted over to hydrogen needs fewer oil changes as none of the unburned fuel can contaminate the oil. This yields a nice saving for both the car owner and the environment. In any case, here’s the url for the American Hydrogen Associations website [http://www.clean-air.org/](http://www.clean-air.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/52 "2001-10-16T11:45:56Z")
Hm, **Kalt** , those questions were rhetorical! I was not trying to obtain answers, but to produce a specific effect. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > > 1. Why exactly should the US support Israel? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kalt \* > Because Israel has always been our ally, it is a democracy in the middle of hostile undemocratic territory, and because if we quit supporting israel because we don’t want any more terrorism, the terrorists win - and terrorism will be seen as a useful tool for getting your way in the future. The last point is an excellent one, I agree with it completely, however some of the earlier ones are not really reasons. To say we support Israel because it is a democracy is begging the question. And the nations around Israel are hostile _to Israel_. Democracy, after all, is not the _only_ acceptable method of government. Is it in fact US policy to support democracies first and foremost? > [@](#): > > My statement sums it up entirely. Egyptian and Israeli relations only look like “progress” when compared to other arab-israeli relations. Egypt hates the fact that Israel is there just as much as iraq, iran, afghanistan, and every other arab country. So you are effectively saying that there is no progress anywhere at all in the Middle East on these matters. I disagree, and I think the last three decades of history support my position. > [@](#): > > _Posted by Abe_ > Is that an either-or fallacy when you say that either the US does not support Israel or the Arabs hate the US? > [@](#): > > _Posted by kalt_ > No. As long as we support israel, the Arabs will hate the US. Now, maybe we can do certain things to convince them to express that hatred in ways other than violence, but I doubt it. It is inevitable that the Arab-Israeli problem will become a thing of the past eventually, meaning that your statement IS an either-or fallacy after all (in all likelihood Israel will not just be dissolved or destroyed, and the Arabs will not just disappear). Although you sound a bit extreme in your talk of hatred and so forth (sounds like you are listening to the vocal minorities) I do agree that the tensions that exist now are complex and quite serious. That is not to say they will not be resolved. ---
**Author:** ![Fyodor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/958977/32.png) [@Fyodor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fyodor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/53 "2001-10-16T13:32:17Z")
I guess this is a bit of a hijack but I’m sharing a map you may find interesting. Go to this website [http://www.hurricane-hhl.com/](http://www.hurricane-hhl.com/) , click on “Country Location Map” at the right side of the screen, look at the map that pops up, note the “planned pipeline” that runs through Afghanistan to Pakistan. Note that the oil can go by rail over to three refineries located in NW China. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2001, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233/54 "2001-10-16T22:49:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Anthracite \* > Uhhh…look at the cite they are using, then look at mine, and tell me why the cite by WRI is misleading…? Sorry…I missed your numbers! At any rate, it is not clear to me how they got their 19.4 million barrels per day number, as it really looks to be more like the 15 mil that you had estimated. (It doesn’t look like they took any one month because I don’t see the months varying that much. It may just be an error…those tables are a bit confusing.) At any rate, for the sort of comparisons I was interested in, the difference is pretty immaterial. > [@](#): > > **jshore** , I am sorry if my response to you seemed snitty - it was just the way I typed it quickly. Just remember the mantra “we’re on the same side this time; we’re on the same side this time.” > [@](#): > > Hijack…I wonder if an SDMB Conservation Day could be organized - where someone posts in MPSIMS urging all members of the SDMB to conserve as much energy as possible on one certain day, and to report their success, or lack of it (without fear of recriminations), or things they did to conserve on just that one day. I wonder if anyone cares enough to do a silly thing like that, or will I be the only one sitting by a window reading with the lights out, the heat down, and no extra appliances running. An interesting idea, although better yet is to implement methods to make every day a “conservation day”, which I have tried to do although admittedly with varying degrees of success. To continue the hijack, here are things I have come up with: (1) I have imposed an 100% gas tax on myself. Starting in year 2000, I keep track of how much I spend in gas during the year and make a year-end contribution in that amount to some organization working to mitigate the effects of my automobile use. This contribution is above-and-beyond anything I give already. In 2000, I gave it to Union of Concerned Scientists. This year, I think it is going to some combination of Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation. (These groups are the ones I credit with helping inspire this idea.) Interestingly, this may turn out to be more than a 100% tax since I have found my contribution to UCS made me a “Friend of UCS” and now sort of feel pressure to keep contributing at a level that puts me in that contributor category while at the same time giving my “gas tax contribution” to someone else. Part of the fun of this whole thing is to be able to tell people who are whining about high gas prices that I am paying more than $3 / gallon. (2) It has now become fairly automatic that I never get into my car without coming up with at least some reasonable justification of why I am making this trip at all, why I am not going by bicycle or foot, and what other errand I might combine with this trip in order to kill two birds with one stone. If I am planning to do something right after work and plan to drive (or think I might decide to drive), the rule is that I take what I need into work so I can go directly rather than having to go home first. For ultimate frisbee after work, this translates into the motto, “If I go home first, then I bicycle.” **tuckerfan** , Yes…I know that everyone cannot afford large increases in gas prices. Thus I would not propose that all the revenues go toward alternative energy, etc. but rather that a substantial fraction go toward a tax cut (or rise in the earned income tax credit or something like that) specifically targetted at low income people. My hope is that the net effect on low-income people (on average at least) would not be an increase in the amount they pay out taxes overall. However, they (and everybody else) would now have more of the proper incentive to conserve these resources that cost more than we pay for them. [I have no such concerns about compensating the SUV set…Those people \*\*should\*\* be paying more money.] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/let-them-drink-oil/87233.md?page=2)