How to replace the petroleum energy supply

This is a claim not supported by the facts.

 

This is definitely the case.

I've been reasonably pro nuclear power as one source we need in a menu of sources designed to replace our dependence on fossil fuel.

But, reactors cost stupendous sums, leading to high consumer prices for energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Permits_and_licences

This should be read carefully, as I don't believe the US is somehow going to do a whole lot better in any dimension.

 

If we had not attacked Iraq one of the most brutal regimes in the world would still be in power.

 

There are lots of regimes in this world where humanitarian crises are taking place, with horrible leadership being a key part of the problem.

Iraq was NOT at the top of any such list created by any agency in the US or abroad.

Beyond that, all we managed was to move Iraq closer to Iran and allow the further slaughter of Sunni Muslims by the Shiite government WE put in place.

Plus, we do not take such action in the numerous nations where there are worse conditions than existed in Iraq.

Humanitarian conditions could not possibly justify our conquest of Iraq.

 

We are not obligated to deal with every brutal regime around the world.

 

I certainly did NOT suggest that we are.

My point is that the humanitarian state of Iraq before the war did not justify our conquest.

 

Why not?

 

If you are talking about simplicity hydrogen is simply water split by electricity. You just pump it off the top of the ground and split it.

 

When deciding on war, the question is why, NOT why not.

I think that is not precisely what you are asking when you say "why not". But, it IS the major question.

If we justified the war in terms of the humanitarian situation in Iraq, we should first conquer all the nations that are far worse than Iraq before conquering Iraq. One has to believe that there were OTHER factors that superseded our evaluation of the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

But, this is academic, as the Bush administration did not use that justification for war.

 

Why? Why should the justification for a war by the U.S. be relative?

 

What analyses are you referring to that support your conclusion that investing $2T would result in replace petroleum with algae? What is the energy density of algae compared to crude oil?

 

Here's an interesting analysis by a group at UTAustin of the minimum cost method for creating electricity in a county by county analysis of the whole 48 state region.

There are a good number of maps, each with stated assumptions about fuel price variability, etc.

The even have a chart of the second cheapest fuel by county.

They all show that wind is the cheapest fuel for a significant region of the USA.

https://energy.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_LCOE_2016.pdf

 

What leftists don't realize is that this green nonsense stuff is the reason Ukraine got invaded and Europe will freeze this winter.

What leftists also don't realize is that if western nations (which already pollute the least) stop using gas/oil/coal, it simply means that you've actually increased the burning of gas/oil/coal globally.

Now I know you're thinking "That's nonsense!" but I'll explain it to you.

Places like the African continent, China, Russia, etc etc (i.e the countries with the most pollution) will burn exponentially more gas/oil/coal as it is now cheaper for them to do so.

All you're doing is ensuring a lot of war and a lot of suffering with this nonsense.

 

The funny thing is that oil is algae and phytoplankton, mostly.

 

LoL Iowa is less than 1% of the US population.

 

Non answer that. Energy density??

 

I just think it's funny they talk about algae like it isn't already what we use in the form of oil.

https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=1029

It's like the push towards EV's when the vast majority of electricity is generated from fossil fuels.

 

They've been saying we're going to "run out in a few years" since the 60's, and now the US is capable of producing more of it any anyone else.

 

We have a real problem with fossil fuels. The fuel that took us from animal labor and brought us to today. We could produce natural gas in many ways and use hydroelectric power to generate hydrogen. The mix is 80% nat gas and 20% hydrogen. You could also use O2 to add to the mix and beef it up some...or mix the O2 during combustion. We need a replacement fuel with power. I would rather have a steam powered auto than an electric one

 

Algae is not petroleum and can’t be compared because of the much lower energy density.

 

You should read the article I linked where they're basically turning it into a lower energy density (50-70%) crude oil.

I'm not arguing with you.

I'm saying that the green energy argument is laughable in that they're making a more expensive, less energy dense form of what is basically a petroleum product AND they're producing electricity from petroleum products and saying this is clean energy.

 

Got it. Missed your point the first two times.

 

cite please.

 

Algae is better, because it extracts carbon from the air.

So, there is a cycle - Algae takes it out of the air, using it as fuel just puts it back in the air.

Fossil fuels mine carbon sequestered below ground and dumps THAT in the air - which is not part of any cycle.

The algae cycle IS green. Mining carbon and putting it in the atmosphere is NOT green.

 

That is irrelevant. There is no real reason to care about energy density.

What IS relevant is what the process costs to run and how much electric energy is created.