Skip to main content

All is unquestionably clear. Deniability is no longer an option.

A truth even more inconvenient than global warming is that the Oil Age is passing before our eyes.

The case is abundantly supported by the recent Swiss-produced documentary "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash." As one of the taglines says, "If you're not worried about peak oil, you will be after watching this film."

Far from alarmist and apocalyptic, the film is sensible and sobering, the consequences real and tangible. I strongly suggest that ALL Kossacks take the time to find and watch it, then discuss. And then spread the word to those Amurricans who still believe that taking out Saddam was a noble "mission" of liberation.

"A Crude Awakening" reminds with stark imagery, uncontestable numbers and blunt interviews with analysts, oil executives and governmental officials that our collective thirst for oil remains unquenchable, but the dwindling supply of cheap crude is being sought by an increasing number of users around the globe.

It also makes shockingly clear that NO other energy alternative -- nuclear (10,000 power stations needed; only a 20-year supply of uranium available; risky), solar (a land mass of California required), coal (plenty but dirty; airplanes can't use it), biofuels (requires more energy to create than they produce) -- comes close to providing the concentrated, accessible and transportable power of oil.

In other words, anyone who believed the White House when it said the invasion of Iraq "isn't about the oil" had their head in the proverbial sand. This administration's energy policy is summed up in three words: blood for oil.

Remember, it was Dick Cheney who said in 1999:

By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.

Seen through the prism of oil, under a government run by oilmen, it should be crystal-clear to anyone that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was vital and inevitable. American interests are its needs and its wants: an economy and defense system that cannot exist without oil, and a way of life that won't live without it.

The Bush-Cheney-Rovian manipulation of the American public, so vulnerable after 9/11, was bold and brilliant. The masses fell for the religious implications of fighting "evil" terrorists -- the rapture-believing base being especially receptive to the emotional but false conflation of Al-Qaeda's band of fundamentalist cave brothers with Saddam's secular regime and his nonexistent WMDs.

Clearly the Bushies feel the faith-based rhetoric still has an effect. Dubya brings out the emotional ammunition at every opportunity. Even yesterday after Sen. Harry Reid called Bush "an incompetent and isolated war strategist," the White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, "Mr. Reid was the one 'in denial,' about the kind of enemy the United States faces, the nature of the war against Al Qaeda and the wisdom of 'a surrender date.'"

Sure, the neo-conmen believe in their ideology of democracy -- but democracy as it applies to energy security. Big Bad Dictators are everywhere -- but it's only the ones in the Middle East, corrupted by the corruptibility of oil, that interest us.

Which brings me to my main point in this brief diary, not wanting want to get in over my head on petroleum issues and energy policies (which many of you out there are much more knowledgeable about than I):

As many of you know, my son just returned from Iraq, having survived his first deployment with the U.S. Marines. My son enlisted of his own free will, believing with a patriotic fervor so common among the young that it was his duty to defend his country in these chaotic times.

That's all fine and good and admirable, and while I disagreed with his choice, I've accepted the reality of it -- and I'm proud of my son's integrity and altruism.

However, if we are to call the invasion of Iraq by its real name, the first war over resources in the 21st century, a war to maintain and defend the U.S. economy and way of life, then the burden should be borne by all.

Which means bringing back the draft.

As Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said only last week:

"The president asks the impossible and the burden continues to fall on the very few. The pressure must be taken off the current force and their families who have already sacrificed so much. If the president insists on continuing the current operational tempo and policy, then he should call for a military draft. That is the responsible thing to do."

Naturally, there are those who will say that war shouldn't be necessary, that diplomacy could have provided the "un-war" solution by a President Gore or a President Kerry. I fervently agree. But as long as powerful corporations, all stakeholders in the military-industrial complex, put oil-connected sock puppets like George W. Bush in the White House, war is what we're going to get, no matter what the feeling of the electorate.

As a letter writer responded to a New York Times editorial on the draft last Nov. 21:

"The war in Iraq has been waged with entirely too little consequence for the vast majority of Americans who are not connected to the military. Unlike the situation in World War II, there are no war bonds or victory gardens or any sense of shared national sacrifice beyond crass yellow ribbon stickers placed on the back of oil-guzzling automobiles."

Of course the upside to a draft would be a stronger collective aversion to war among ALL the classes. Diplomacy would be given a greater chance to prevail. Politicians would be forced to think and wait.

One can dream.

Meanwhile, though, we have been rudely, crudely awakened to a new reality. Oil is dwindling, our current leadership knows it, has known it, and clearly prefers grabbing over negotiating. And if the U.S. prefers this type of leadership, then everyone should bear the burden of securing "American interests," not just the young, the few and the brave.

Originally posted to demetroula on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:14 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Hence the name for my vastly unread... (8+ / 0-)

      yet ongoing 3 year satirical alternative news series: "Tales from the Oiligarchy"...

      Dudehisattva... <div style="color: #0000a0;">"Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"&l

      by Dood Abides on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:14:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't you think there might be something (14+ / 0-)
      profoundly immoral in destroying another people's country and way of life, killing them and stealing their natural resources so that we might maintain our way of life?

      Not to mention that you want to dragoon our own citizens into this foul project.

      May I suggest a solution not on your list? Let us reduce our energy consumption.

      When the camel stumbles, the knives come out. (Arab proverb)

      by Ptah the Great on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes! Reduce energy consumption! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GreyHawk, letsgetreal, ReEnergizer

        Of course it's one of the solutions, and something both my husband and I try to do ourselves and promote in our rural economy. But the gist of this diary, with my son having just returned from Iraq and the intransigence of Dubya and his neocons, is that if the American public (not you, not me) continues to elect morons like the Bushies, who will choose to wage war over diplomacy, might over sacrificing extravagant lifestyles, then ALL should bear the burden, not just those of us whose children, for whatever reason, enlisted in the military. A draft would get everyone's attention the next time the topic of war was broached.

        •  Most analysis is correct but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

              The rest of the story may never be told. It doesn't matter if it was Clinton, Gore, or Bush, the result would be similar. Bush has taken the confrontation of Globalization to a new level with direct military brute force. Under Clinton/Gore the pathway was much more subtle.
             Since the end of the Soviet threat, our government has continued the military buildup at the same pace that occured under Reagan/Bush I. We have military bases throughout the world and our imperial empire continues to expand. Our government has lost control. We have allowed large corporations who are intent on greed, control, money, and power to inflitrate our Congress. Most congressmen don't even understand the big picture.
             Gates is right now in Europe to discuss placing missles in the area. Objections from Russia are being greased because the leadership of Russia is not now democratic but controled by business. We call it the mob. It has a nasty ring to it doesn't it. Well, in the US we call them corporations. They are the same.
              What you present in the diary is extremely valuable. Now, how do we get the public and leading politicians to understand it. It's almost too big to get your mind around it. It is scary, dark, and abusive.
              We are placing troops and providing training in countries right now so that we can enforce globalization. The thought was originally that globalization would lift the poor in the third world with the help of IMF and the World Bank. It is all a ruse now. Here on DKos, we have struggled to bring light to the conditions in the Northern Mariana islands coming from Abramoff. What's happening there is a joke to the job we are doing in Latin America to keep the agriculture workers controlled and to keep them from organizing. It is our government and our military that is directing it. Not Abramoff. Not Republicans (although they are more involved).
              It has been reported here that Bush recently closed on almost 99,000 acres in Paraquay in the Tri Country Region near Ciudad del Este. We have troops there and they are training the Paraquay military police on how to handle agarian revolts. Ciudad del Este is the third largest free trade market in the world. It has huge hydroplants to produce power for Argentina, Brazil and Paraquay. Now ask yourself "Why would George Bush want to own 99,000 acres near this area." It is not a hideaway from the ICC (although it currently is) but it will be the center for him and the rich bastards who support him to survive once oil is $10 gal. Time for my second cup of coffee. Thanks!

          Eisenhower- "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

          by NC Dem on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:40:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yep, The Bush Smash & Grab! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Exacerbate regional conflicts, religious tensions, create sectarian violence, destabilize the oil rich Middle East, from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean Coast of Africa and declare yourself the Saviour of Democracy.  Osama couldn’t be prouder.

    •  Bush HAD to invade Iraq (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:


      Events are in the Saddle and Ride Mankind - Emerson

      by deepsouthdoug on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:08:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He got a barrel from $19 to $70, failed on ANWAR, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        but expanded leases (AND A ROYALTY GIVEAWAY) in the Gulf.

        No mileage increases, no pollution policies, expanded coal usage.....

        He needed IRAQ to misdirect attention and keep the public (over 50% thinking IRAQ did 9-11 is a "clue"), in order to perform Enronomics on the gubbmint.

        I threw Katie Couric's tea in the harbor on 4/08/07.

        by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:13:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Rice interview- GET the OIL agreement.....4/19 (14+ / 0-)

    Emphasis mine....I found an interview with C.Rice from 4/19/07, via Freeper Patrol, noticing ZERO comments on an indepth interview with the SOState.

    Wondering why there would be NO replies, I trudged though the first 10 paragraphs, and came upon some observational jewels.

    Sadr breakaway is basically NO Biggie.  Then an admission that that OIL AGREEMENT is still, and always will be THE priority.

    ...It's not also clear that the Sadr's movement is all that unified. This is a movement that has been splintering; there are some who may choose to remain in the process, but some who may choose to leave. So I think we'll have to let it sort out. But I didn't jump to the conclusion that this necessarily was a -- it certainly isn't necessarily a devastating blow to the government. I'm not even sure it's a blow to the government. And by the way, they've done this before and come back.

    RealClearPolitics: And so what in your mind right now -- I know there are a number of things that have to be accomplished to reach a political solution - but what's the single most important thing that the Iraqi Government has to get done to show progress in the next number of weeks?

    SECRETARY RICE: I think of it as this de jure reconciliation, which then allows de facto reconciliation to take place over time, because in some ways the important thing is that it's going to take time for people to truly reconcile after all they've been through. But passing the oil law is very, very important because it says we're going to share the wealth of this country in an evenhanded way. Nobody's going to take advantage of others in this society because you don't happen to have oil resources in your part of the country; you're going to somehow be disadvantaged. That's what this is really about and that's why it's so critical to Iraq as a unified entity.
    Then we are making new friends....

    Secondly, I think some movement forward on de-Baathification is important, although some of the steps that they've taken have been underreported. They have restored pensions for military officers at a certain level. They have begun at the local level to reinstate people who might have been members of the Baath Party for reasons having to do with it being instrumental rather than a matter of ideological commitment, but de-Baathification is important


    Then is SOUNDS like we are about to get in bed with the Baath party, not the first time we have changed allies in mid-stream.  

    I think it will be very hard because it's very emotional for people who lost family members, for instance, to the Baath Party, but it's very important because it will be a signal to the Sunnis about inclusion. And then at some point, and I don't think this is in the near-term -- immediate -- they need to structure provincial elections because the Sunnis were, of course, left out.

    Oh, and then we are going to look for some missing money....

    Now that's the legal framework. In some ways, one of the most important things they could do is to make sure that money and reconstruction is getting out to provinces that are Sunni provinces. And we're beginning to hear that some of that is happening. We're trying to help them with their budget execution and management. And so I'm sitting out at Anbar and Baghdad won't pay attention. I can have two explanations for that. One is they won't pay attention because of discrimination. The other is that they can't because they're not capable.

    I think that in the current environment the assumption will be they won't. So we have to help them to get out to parts of the country that may be feeling discriminated against.

    And I don't know what a PRT is, so I lost interest.

    RCP: That leads me to a question about the PRTs which are a new part of the clear, hold and build strategy. They left [for Iraq], I think, the end of March.


    The fact is troops are being pulled to OIL PROTECTION POSITIONS.  Look at the maps and figure out- All the lives and money, NEVER saying Oil was the reason, and new bases are now built along a line which sure resembles the oil resources and pipeline routes.....

    I threw Katie Couric's tea in the harbor on 4/08/07.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:14:14 AM PDT

  •  And a Blackwater army, with Sunni Soldiers, could (8+ / 0-)

    operate that line of oilfeilds very well, thank you.

    If the Kurd/Turkey situation remains stable, pumping the northern oil out via the Turkish route is do-able.

    The south can be annexed to Kuwait, when you look at the map.

    That would leave a large refugee center surrounding Bagdad, but with access to water at least.

    I threw Katie Couric's tea in the harbor on 4/08/07.

    by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:18:10 AM PDT

  •  Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spud1, bwintx, gchaucer2

    That was the first name for Operation Iraqi Freedom, before someone noticed that it spelled the real reason for the illegal invasion.

    Good diary, but ... Limited Silicon?

    From Wikipedia:

    "... silicon is the second most abundant element (after oxygen) in the crust, making up 25.7% of the crust by mass..."

    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - A. Einstein

    by FWIW on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:19:59 AM PDT

    •  I believe it's the extraction/production of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      silicon wafers needed to cover a land mass the size of California that's the issue...the energy required in its production would be greater than the output.

      •  well, here they say (0+ / 0-)

        The pair carried out a cost-benefit analysis and found that the total energy produced over a two-year period outweighs the energy used in manufacture, installation, and maintenance. Their analysis also shows that the manufacture and use of PV panels produces less pollution than fossil fuel based electricity generation.

        Your "20-year supply of uranium available" is true if you take the US model - once through the reactor then throw away most of the fissionables as "nuclear waste". Recycling the spent fuel both increases the total energy production by 50-fold or more, and greatly reduces the amount of long term waste. Using thorium in breeders multiplies that number by 4, or at least 200 times longer than those 20 years. This ignores lower quality sources of uranium as well.

        •  Well, that's definitely encouraging...... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but imagine getting 10,000 locales around the world to agree to build reactors. I'll be there are NIMBYs even in the South Seas.

          I suppose one sad thought on all this is to imagine the amount of research to solve our energy crisis that could have been done on a tenth of what's been spent on the Iraq war.

        •  the problem with breeder reactors... (0+ / 0-)

 that no one has made them work well enough.  Traditional breeder reactor designs are inherently unsafe - breakdowns lead straight to very violent meltdowns.  They've worked in labs since WWII, but no one has ever built one robust enough for commercial use (and it's not for lack of trying).  The same goes for thorium reactors... India has worked on them for decades (they have lots of thorium and very little uranium), but still haven't made one work well enough to provide real power.

          Pebble bed reactors MIGHT solve the problem, and are certainly much safer.  But again, no one has built a commercial-grade design.  And they don't work well as breeders, either, because the pebble bed design makes it exceedingly difficult to extract the newly enriched fuel.  

          Maybe if the problems are solved, nuclear power can be a medium-term solution.  But if we continue with (and expand) existing known-quantity, relatively safe light-water reactors, we WILL run out of usable uranium within the next century.

          Ever feel like you've been cheated?
          -Johnny Rotten

          by Leggy Starlitz on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 03:30:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  don't know about the rest of your "facts" (0+ / 0-)

    but silicon is not limited.

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:21:55 AM PDT

    •  Thanks to both on silicon catch...... (0+ / 0-)

      I may have heard it wrong. Deleted reference until I recheck -- but the requirement for a land mass the size of California as a base for solar energy is true, if it were used to replace oil in toto.

      •  You can listen to this BBC (0+ / 0-)

        reporton solar energy until Thursday. It's pretty interesting, about 25 minutes long.

        17. Ne5

        In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

        by Spud1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:00:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Solar roofing with only slightly better (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wondering if

        photo voltaic efficiency could be sufficient when implemented along with other energy generation. There is no single source solution but in aggregate the solutions can easily be adequate. Even coal can be burned cleanly by liquifying the CO emmisions and sequestering the liquid in abandoned oil fields. We can meet our energy needs but if we don't act quickly global warming will remove the need.

        "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

        by java4every1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:15:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sequestering tends to be short term (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          letsgetreal, demetroula

          as the CO2 slowly out. Some fields are tight, others aren't perhaps because of fissures opened as the oil was pumped out.

          And you're still turning mountains into rubble to get that coal.

          •  And last time I looked (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            airplanes don't fly on coal (at least the Cessna I learned in!)....

          •  There's enough domestic oil for aircraft.n/t (0+ / 0-)

            "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

            by java4every1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:36:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not much eveidence of this.. (0+ / 0-)

            Injection is being used now to extract remaining oil. The liquified carbon monoxide produced in this coal technique is at least as stable as the oil that it would replace underground.

            "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

            by java4every1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:39:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  carbon monoxide?! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              a brand new technique...

              Here is what some have to say on doing this with carbon dioxide

              Results from a field test on CO2 sequestration in an old brine-filled oil reservoir suggest that the mixture of CO2 and brine dissolves minerals in the rock walls, including carbonate, that could lead to pathways in the rock through which the gas could escape.


              Oil and gas fields, which were in production decline, have been raised to new production levels by CO2 enhanced recovery. Currently, these fields use nearby geologic sources of CO2. Future enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects are likely to include some industrial CO2, deriving substantial economic benefit over CO2 disposal in deep aquifers.

              The formation overpressuring required for substantial rates of CO2 injection may drive buoyant gases upward. Although CO2 is likely to be a supercritical fluid, CH4 will remain gaseous and, as such, is much more mobile. If CH4 is driven toward the surface, it represents a potential hazard to shallow water wells and basements.

              This research presents a protocol for baseline surface geochemical measurements to evaluate the potential risk. ...

              Notice what they are saying - the CO2 is used to force the last of the oil out, it's not captured CO2 for storing - the oil company doesn't care if it leaks out once the oil has been removed.  The paper says more study needed to evaluate risks


              another study study

              One hope for this technique is that the CO2 would react with the surrounding rock to form carbonate minerals, which will stay put until erosion uncovers them.

              •  That is not the technology I'm refering to.. (0+ / 0-)

                Princeton University has developed a method of capturing the carbon as carbon "monoxide", liquified under pressure and then injected. The liquid is stable. The scenario you describe above has oil extraction as it's focus and results in overpressurization. For sequestration purposes those pressures will not be required.

                "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                by java4every1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:29:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  think you'd better go read that again (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  carbon monoxide
                     * Critical temperature  : -140.3 °C
                     * Critical pressure  : 34.987 bar

                  Above the critical temperature no amount of pressure will liquefy the gas, first year chemistry. No matter how much the GOP wants it to, Nature isn't going to change its laws so they can keep burning coal.

                  carbon dioxide
                     * Critical temperature  : 31.1 °C
                     * Critical pressure  : 78.3 bar


                  Supercritical 'fluids' have properties between that of a gas and liquid, they flow through small openings quite well.

                  At least one of those studies addresses supercritical CO2.

                  Princeton U?  CO2 - dioxide - studies include this 1994 one


                  and this from earlier this year

                  So far, their conclusions are mixed: in many cases the acid cannot eat through rock or cement to reach the surface, but in situations where the cement already has defects, the acid can enhance the damage and lead to CO2 leakage. These results could influence the development of regulations and permitting criteria for large-scale injection operations, Celia said.


                  Nada on monoxide.

                  A whole lot of carbon sequestration links


                  •  I'm just passing on what Dr. Steven Pacala (0+ / 0-)

                    stated at a presentation I attended. Their method involves seperating the hydrogen from the coal (prior to burning) and burning the hyrdrogen and liquifying the carbon content for injection. I already know they are working on the cement used to seal the wells. The existing oil is a natural carbon sequestration but the process takes eons. It makes sense to explore this because as I already stated there is no magic bullet. It will take many technologies in aggregate.
                    I do agree with you about the damage caused in coal extraction and that definitely needs to be addressed. I don't know where i buried the notes but he had a name for the liquid CO and did say from "monoxide".

                    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

                    by java4every1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 07:08:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Pacala & Socolow always talk CO2 (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      as here

                      There isn't a lot of hydrogen in coal, less the harder the coal is.  I assuming he was talking about these old standard reactions

                      1. -------

                      Water Gas Reaction :
                      coke + steam goes to carbon monoxide plus hydrogen
                        C  +  H2O  =>  CO + H2
                      Coal can be used in place of coke, which is made from coal anyway.

                      The reaction is endothermic, it absorbs heat which must be supplied to keep the reaction going.  The reaction is generally run at red heat.

                      Water gas is the gas people used to commit suicide with, the carbon monoxide quickly rendered them unconscious and then killed them; the large amount of hydrogen made it more likely an explosion would be touched off by a small spark.

                      Carbon monoxide still contains useful chemical energy. If you're not going to burn it directly for heat, you want to use the ...

                      1. -----

                      Water Shift Reaction (or water gas shift reaction) :
                      carbon monoxide + steam goes to carbon dioxide and hydrogen

                      CO + H2O  =>  CO2 + H2

                      This is an exothermic reaction, it releases heat. It is usually performed at a few hundred degrees Centigrade, using a catalyst.  Often there are several stages run at different conditions and perhaps with different catalysts, in order to get as much conversion to CO2 as possible.

                      The heat released can be used to run reaction 1 - Water Gas, and/or to power the plant.

                      The combined reaction is  C + 2 H2O  =>  CO2 + 2 H2

                      Carbon monoxide is not acidic and does not attack cement, carbon dioxide is acidic and does attack cement and rocks.

  •  Our unvasion of Iraq for her oil does one other (6+ / 0-)

    thing: it says to other thirsty powers that they can use military force to secure their needs too. This is a two-edged sword, as this administration and the compliant media cite Chinese interests in Africa to further support more U.S. militancy.

    17. Ne5

    In chess you may hit a man when he's down -- Irving Chernev, on Przepiorka v. Prokes, Budapest, 1929

    by Spud1 on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 03:54:27 AM PDT

  •  All you have to do is remember the PNAC plans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwintx, truong son traveler

    They spell it out completely.  I also knew from the begining because I had read the PNAC plans.  We need to get these PLANs on the major News and go over the Plans to let Americans know what is really going on. I can't believe that Americans will still support the war if they learn about these plans.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 04:35:54 AM PDT

  •  $4 Gas never, WAR now that we can sell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you and probably this documentary miss the point, a supply squeeze from shrinking oil reserves is inevitable.  How to communicate or manage that with the public is another issue.  Gas and oil prices are floating higher irregardless of the actions in Iraq.  Whether the violence or the limits on Iraq production are squeezing production is almost irrelevant.  Saudi Arabia LOWERED their production, so clearly they have a clear handle on their understanding and manipulation of oil prices.  

    Now to the political issue, managing $2 gas has been difficult, $3 gas a real headache, $4 gas is really gonna set the public off but with the war in Iraq raging, well you have SOMETHING TO BLAME, it's the war, it's the terrorists, it's this or that.  Anything but telling the American people to conserve, anything but telling the American people to change their habits to adapt to the shrinking cheap energy supply.  But, the government can sell, it can sell patriotism, it can sell loyalty to the troops and it can mask the bad, stupid and ugly choices the government has made.

    •  I have the Guiness Book of Record- Mileage/distan (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ce- Most newspaper/television articles on the same theme (somewhere in the neighborhood of 25+ articles).  250 miles per gallon- see America for $10 a day !

      I threw Katie Couric's tea in the harbor on 4/08/07.

      by Theghostofkarlafayetucker on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 05:50:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure that it's impossible to sell $4 gas. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I live in Britain (ex-pat Amurrican). With the drowning dollar, it costs us $70-$80 to fill up our otherwise efficient, middle-of-the-road Peugeot 407. We think twice before we drive, and always try to double- or triple-up errands. People here are used to high taxes on fuel -- they don't like it, but they live with it, and adapt accordingly. Amurricans have gotten used to recycling; they can learn to conserve fuel if the right leadership can convince them to.

      •  sure, I think we can and will adapt (0+ / 0-)

        but as an "immediate" political issue, $4 gas is very toxic.  There was a day when $2 gas was political death.  Now the $3 threshold is broken.  The green revolution is taking a foothold because these practices are no longer sustainable.  It is now politically unwise to go against global climate change and fuel efficiency, slowing the tide is changing but it is coming with high economic and political costs

  •  Knew from the very start... (3+ / 0-)

    That this was about the oil in Iraq.
    This is also the reason they backed off when they could have caught bin Laden.
    They needed ObL to justify their terra terra terra strategy.
    They succeeded much more than most people believe, and would have done even better without the incompetent cowboy dumbya.

  •  Might I suggest (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Thank you for highlighting an issue of grave importance.  The MSM is failing us yet again by not sounding the alarm on peak oil.  It is not only "proven" beyond all doubt that oil demand will outstrip availability, but also imminent.  By some estimates the tipping point has already arrived, and by most estimates Peak Oil will 'arrive' within the next 7-8 years.

    This cannot be ignored.  Just read the site to find out the ways in which western society will likely collapse.  Time to stock up on those MREs...

    "These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God's children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other or we must die."

    by GeckoBlue on Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 06:22:12 AM PDT

  •  It's not about "peak oil" (0+ / 0-)

    It's about peak cheap oil.

    I agree with the diarist's points, with one exception: Iraq isn't just about oil.  It's about squandering hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of young American lives, and the goodwill of the world to "secure" oil that is $60 per barrel rather than $85 per barrel.

    If oil prices stabilized at $85 per barrel, a whole host of options would open up.  U.S. oil shales--a trillion barrels of new "proven" reserves--would become economical (break even is about $70 per barrel).  Coal gasification--potentially 3 trillion barrels--same thing (break even is about $60-$65 per barrel).  All based on domestic supply.  All available to satisfy current U.S. consumption that is about 7.5 trillion barrels per year.

    This reality doubles my rage.  This war is not about "maintaining our American way of life" at all.  It's about pursuing the fantasy of keeping oil prices below $70 per barrel.  And the shelf life for even that fantasy ain't that long.

    •  Whoops (0+ / 0-)

      Annual consumption: 7.5 billion barrels

      Those three zeroes make a difference.  Sorry.

    •  Yes, good point, and you're right. (0+ / 0-)

      I should've made that clearer, as the documentary does as well. (Though clearly what I've written, perhaps not succinctly enough, hasn't resonated with more than a handful of Kossacks.) The oil isn't going to run out tomorrow, but the CHEAP oil already has. And yes, we're squandering gazillions on the status quo fantasy. My Marine son survived Iraq, unlike the nine more U.S. soldiers sacrificed yesterday. Where IS the outrage??

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site