Pardon je pour écrire seulement en anglais. Mon Français est très pauvre.
DissidentFrogman wrote:
>That 4 points demonstration of yours seems rather simplistic,
>but I imagine that was the poet speaking here, not the engineer.
One does not always have either the time or the space to fully support every point one might like to make. I apologize for anything which might have been lost in the abridgement.
>Saudi Arabia is not the only oil supplier.
A point well-understood by others. For some years the Saudis have been the world's swing producer, but this situation does not have to be permanent. Some have already posted on the idea that sufficient oversupply of oil will allow the world to say to the Saudis, "We don't need you". When excess world capacity equals Saudi pumping rate, that day will have arrived.
The point I would like everyone to understand is that this day arrives sooner with every barrel of demand reduced, and later with every barrel of demand increased. It is a simple 1/1 ratio.
>Pakinstan comes to mind as far as militant Islam is concerned
Follow that one step further. What is one of the most powerful promoters of militant Islam in Pakistan? It is the system of madrassas which have almost replaced the secular schools. Who pays for the madrassas and indoctrinates the teachers? The Wahhabists; specifically, the Saudis.
>I don't believe that switching our V8 powered wonders for humble bicycles to save on our oil purchases will help us in any way.
There I believe you are wrong. A V8 engine is almost wholly dependent on petroleum. But what are most V8 engines used for? Very few of them labor at nearly full power for long periods. Most V8 engines, and even most 6 and 4 cylinder engines, spend most of their time loafing at a small fraction of their peak power. Many spend a lot of their operating time at idle. This idling is very inefficient.
Batteries are actually a better source of power for short bursts, and electric motors are efficient, light and powerful. If you would like to see an example of what is possible near the limits of today's technology (and R&D prices!) see http://www.acpropulsion.com.
I've read that the average efficiency of American gasoline-fuelled vehicles (conversion of fuel to work) is 17%. Multiple measurements on different types of vehicles give numbers which agree with this to a surprising degree.
It is not very hard to make huge improvements when you are starting from a situation as poor as 17% efficiency. This is known as "low-hanging fruit", easy to pick.
I live in the USA, so I have spent more time studying US facts and figures than any others. (Pardon my parochial interests, but when the rest of the world concerns itself with my country's consumptive habits, why shouldn't I also?) It is a fact that the US consumption of motor gasoline is nearly equal to Saudi Arabia's entire production of crude oil: see http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/
petroleum/data_publications/petroleum_supply_annual/psa_volume1/
current/txt/table_02.txt for the most recent figures available. It follows from this that a large movement in the USA from V8 engines to hybrid vehicles could severely reduce the worldwide market for crude oil, and move up the day that Saudi Arabia changes from essential supplier to disposable nuisance.
>To precipitate this regime change from outside - and in addition
>to the political example of democratic society that the Coalition
>is helping to build in Iraq - finding alternative sources of oil
>and *viable* energy alternatives would help a lot indeed.
This may surprise you, but I have reason to believe that these viable energy sources are right under our noses. The problem is that few people have the educated insight to see them for what they are; most only see them the way they have always been seen.
A century or so ago the best evening light came from liquid drawn from the heads of a rapidly-shrinking population of one species of whale. Kerosene (paraffin) replaced spermaceti for most uses a short time afterward, and it was itself supplanted by glowing filaments of carbon heated by electricity. Carbon was replaced by tungsten (wolfram), and now the thermal spectrum of tungsten is being replaced by the glow of sodium vapor in large lamps and the emissions of phosphors under the bombardment of ultraviolet photons in smaller lamps. Some lighting is going completely solid-state, to LEDs.
If we are going to advance, we have to open our minds to the advantages of change. Science and technology have opened doors since our last major shift. We must select the correct door and take ourselves into the future.
I do not just include the USA in this. Spain has its own part to play, as does France. Spain has just received a powerful reminder of the cost of giving money and power to murderers. France may receive its own soon. It is time (actually it is ten years past time) to take action, on the economic end as well as the military.
Remember that the Islamofascists cannot spread their ideology nearly so well if their home countries are hungry and broke.
>(And oh, please, let's not forget that "alternative" means that it
>costs the same, and offers the same output....)
I have reason to believe that the cost of one of the MOST radical "alternatives" is getting very close to the current retail price of gasoline in California; better yet, developments moving into pilot production could slash the price within the next few years. I hope to be able to dig into this later, with facts and figures.
I intend to support and explore these points elsewhere. Feel free to write me or take a look at my blog: http://ergosphere.blogspot.com; I will attempt to answer counter-arguments as my time permits.