GM & Hydrogen

[HarleyEarl]

Monday, December 12, 2005 John McCormick The case for hydrogen as an industry transformer Wondering where the automotive industry is headed? Spend time with General Motors Corp.'s research and development chief, Larry Burns and you will come away with a pretty good idea. I was fortunate enough to catch up with this far-sighted Detroit executive at a recent auto show. Our conversation ranged far and wide, from the ramifications of Hurricane Katrina, to the hegemony of the energy companies, to the major progress GM is making towards a commercially viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Like any large automaker, GM is concerned about the effect on sales of higher fuel prices, whether induced by hurricanes or other causes. But Burns believes that there will not be a radical change in consumers" choice of vehicles. "That’s not what happened in the previous oil shocks,” he points out. The bigger concern, not just for the automotive industry but for the entire economy, is the threat of a global recession. The way Burns sees it, the big energy companies have little incentive to invest in new capacity production that carries the risk of being in excess of demand for fuel. “As such, the oil companies have the favorable perfect storm,” Burns argues, “in that they have capacity short of demand and they have constraints in their supply chain that explain away why they have to raise prices.” The result is an “outrageous” transfer of wealth to the oil industry, as evidenced by the fact that ExxonMobil’s profits are greater than GM’s market capitalization. What galls Burns is that the auto industry has been driven to the point where it is giving its cars away and the oil industry is making the money on supplying fuel. The potential long term answer to this dilemma is the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Burns plans to have an 'automotive competitive’ FCV ready by 2010, meaning a running vehicle that could be put into production on an equal footing - in terms of costs, performance and durability - with a conventional automobile. To hydrogen skeptics out there, this goal - the most aggressive of any the major automakers engaged in FCV development - seems optimistic, to put it mildly. But Burns points to dramatic progress at GM on improving the FCV hardware; for instance, the fuel stack power density (a measure of output versus size) has improved by a factor of 14 in the last seven years. Today, GM’s fuel cell team has not reached its objective of $50 per kilowatt output for the hydrogen fueled powertrain, a figure that would make it cost competitive with a conventional internal combustion engine. But Burns is more confident than ever before that this competitive target can be met over the next five years. Once the feasibility of FCVs is proven by GM, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, Toyota, Honda, VW and the other leading automakers all working hard in this field, then in Burn’s vision, the whole paradigm could change for the auto industry and the energy companies. Currently, there is a proliferation of different powertrains and transmissions, from gas to diesels to hybrids. “So you’ve got a wide range of fuels that are rivals, a wide range in the cleanliness of fuels around the world, and the auto industry is carrying all that structural cost,” Burns contends. Instead, the auto industry will perfect and simplify the hydrogen fuel cell system and by doing so, shift the focus of competition to the energy companies, who will be forced to develop the multiple available sources of hydrogen. All this presupposes that the automakers will not trip over themselves in their efforts to develop and refine the fuel cell vehicle itself. As Burns puts it: “If every automaker goes down a separate path to get to a hydrogen economy, we will be saying, ‘mine’s better than your’s’, and we’re going to be fighting each other in front of governments, in front of energy companies, in front of suppliers; that’s not going to shift the industry.” One obvious answer would be collaboration at the highest level. Joint fuel cell technology development by GM and Toyota has been discussed repeatedly by both companies, but so far no deal has emerged. Clearly, Burns sees advantages to a GM/Toyota alliance on FCVs. “The benefits would be significant,” he notes, “in terms of accelerating the transformation to hydrogen and fuel cells.” In 2010, we should know whether GM’s pioneering FCV role has borne fruit. And the ensuing decade will determine whether an industry transformation is to be realized or not. John McCormick is a columnist for Autos Insider and can be reached at

[evok]

That in light of this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047173876...=books&v=glance

Just finished it a couple weeks ago. Opened my eyes. If nothing else read the customer reviews. Edited December 12, 2005 by evok

[haypops]

Nice find Evok. The so called tipping point of oil field production appears to be a sad part of our futures. I believe that GM's depencance on the hydrogen economy is a bigger threat to GM's future than is Toyota. Recently a guest of NPR radio simlarily declared the hydrogen solution pure folly. The infrastructure is too expensive, and once that problem is breched the over all inneficiency of energy conversion to Hydrogen is damming. The only hope for hydrogen that I see is if energy supplies are not restrictive but polution (aside from green house gas emissions) problems become crititical.

[HarleyEarl]

And if GM didn't do some research on alternate technologies, there would be a big outcry because they didn't do enough. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. And frankly the whole 'sky is falling' oil stuff is all doomsday fantasies. There is much oil still available...for example, Alberta, Canada. It is calculated we have as much as, or more than Saudi Arabia. In the tar sands alone, we have at present production levels, 500 years worth.

[haypops]

The whole tipping point thing is based on the increased cost of production as an oil field matures. Sure there is oil in lots of strange places but tis going to cost $10 a gallon to get it out. By the way California is 94.7% self sufficient in gasoline production.

[evok]

Nice find Evok.  The so called tipping point of oil field production appears to be a sad part of our futures.  I believe that GM's depencance on the hydrogen economy is a bigger threat to GM's future than is Toyota.  Recently a guest of NPR radio simlarily declared the hydrogen solution pure folly.  The infrastructure is too expensive, and once that problem is breched the over all inneficiency of energy conversion to Hydrogen is damming.  The only hope for hydrogen that I see is if energy supplies are not restrictive but polution (aside from green house gas emissions) problems become crititical.

[post="57423"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I have been to meeting with GM on their Fuel Cell program. Though they have done excellent work and appear to have though may out of the box issues through, GM can not do it alone or with a consortium. The governments around the world can only pull off a transition to hydrogen, if that is proven to be the best course of action.

[evok]

And if GM didn't do some research on alternate technologies, there would be a big outcry because they didn't do enough.  They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  And frankly the whole 'sky is falling' oil stuff is all doomsday fantasies.  There is much oil still available...for example, Alberta, Canada.  It is calculated we have as much as, or more than Saudi Arabia.  In the tar sands alone, we have at present production levels, 500 years worth.

[post="57450"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I suggest that you and everyone else read the book. The book is not a Y2k thriller but a detailed analysis of oil production, in particular Saudi Arabian, Armco production. It really opened my eyes into the complexities of oil production. It is a lot harder than sticking a straw into the ground. And as an fyi, the book does discuss some of the issues related to tar fields as it pertains to Saudi production. The book using real data dispels a lot of myths surrounding the fantasy data that is selectively fed to the public. Edited December 12, 2005 by evok

[ChevyNovs99]

I suggest that you and everyone else read the book.  The book is not a Y2k thriller but a detailed analysis of oil production, in particular Saudi Arabian, Armco production.  It really opened my eyes into the complexities of oil production.  It is a lot harder than sticking a straw into the ground.  And as an fyi, the book does discuss some of the issues related to tar fields as it pertains to Saudi production.  The book using real data dispels a lot of myths surrounding the fantasy data that is selectively fed to the public.

[post="57466"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Does it talk about the abiogenic theory at all?

[Newbiewar]

what about the guy who invented a way to make oil from dead things... shouldnt that put a dampiner on the cost of digging hundreds of feet for oil?

[evok]

Does it talk about the abiogenic theory at all?

[post="57554"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Briefly, but even if abiogenic is real, it would not solve the problems the author brings up.

Good book for abiogenic is Deep Hot Biosphere by Gold. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Ghost Dog]

The problem with Hydrogen is its need for electricty to be extracted from water. How would the huge amounts of electricty be generated? Fossil fuels?

[haypops]

The  problem with Hydrogen is its need for electricty to be extracted from water. How would the huge amounts of electricty be generated? Fossil fuels?

[post="57699"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Coal and radiocativity are possible but both have their own pollution problems that make the whole hydrogen thing a no-go.

[aaaantoine]

The  problem with Hydrogen is its need for electricty to be extracted from water. How would the huge amounts of electricty be generated? Fossil fuels?

[post="57699"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The transformation has to take place somewhere. FCVs move the energy generation responsibility from the car to the power infrastructure. It will be easier to eliminate fossil fuel needs when fewer power sources (including car engines) use it.

There are alternative methods to power generation. The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) is offering massive rebates to homeowners interested in installing solar power generators onto their roofs. So there's one alternative. How about wind? Geothermal energy? Hydro-dams? You know, nuclear energy is still an option...

Go back to the idea of each individual building having their own base power generation with solar panels or wind turbines. Imagine how much strain that takes away from the grid. Now imagine how much more feasible it could be to have a power infrastructure free of fossil fuels.

[aaaantoine]

I just finished the rough draft of a big report on this for college and will post it if I can figure out how to convert it from WordPerfect 4.1 to Microsoft Word. Stay tuned!

[post="57739"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Copy, paste, reformat. :P

[aaaantoine]

Doh! Lousy antiquated software... Can you save it as a plain text file and reopen it in windows?

[ChevyNovs99]

Briefly, but even if abiogenic is real, it would not solve the problems the author brings up. 

Good book for abiogenic is Deep Hot Biosphere by Gold.  It makes a lot of sense to me.

[post="57681"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Thanks I'll take a look at both of them.

[evok]

Thanks I'll take a look at both of them.

[post="57847"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

After you read them PM/email me and we can discuss them.

I thought both books complemented each other well in disputing myths about oil and the oil industry.

[Cremazie]

I suggest that you and everyone else read the book.  The book is not a Y2k thriller but a detailed analysis of oil production, in particular Saudi Arabian, Armco production.  It really opened my eyes into the complexities of oil production.  It is a lot harder than sticking a straw into the ground.  And as an fyi, the book does discuss some of the issues related to tar fields as it pertains to Saudi production.  The book using real data dispels a lot of myths surrounding the fantasy data that is selectively fed to the public.

[post="57466"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

As Harley said, the amount of oil in tar sands is huge, but it is worst for the environment. There are huge amounts of natural gas used to remove the oil from the sand, whether it is mined or SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drain). Hydrogen is necessary now, there will be plenty of ways to use oil, but with the explosion of the automobile in China and India, we will not be able to keep up much longer.

[evok]

As Harley said, the amount of oil in tar sands is huge, but it is worst for the environment. There are huge amounts of natural gas used to remove the oil from the sand, whether it is mined or SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drain). Hydrogen is necessary now, there will be plenty of ways to use oil, but with the explosion of the automobile in China and India, we will not be able to keep up much longer.

[post="57918"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html

http://www.syncrude.ca/who_we_are/01_02.html

http://www.osern.rr.ualberta.ca/Images/old/AOSM_Full.gif

[Cremazie]

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html

http://www.syncrude.ca/who_we_are/01_02.html

http://www.osern.rr.ualberta.ca/Images/old/AOSM_Full.gif

[post="57926"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's a laborious process, to say the least - 2 tons of sand yields just one barrel of oil - but nowhere near as painstaking as it used to be.

Working in these mines is Amazing. To see the amount of work that goes into making oil is mind boggleing. I've worked on the crushers, surges, slurry preps and the extraction. Economy to scale seems impossible when it takes 2 tons of tar sand to make 1 barrel of oil, yet they have it down to $10. All of this work, just to make it crude oil.

http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/

Hydrogen couldn't be any harder

[evok]

Working in these mines is Amazing. To see the amount of work that goes into making oil is mind boggleing. I've worked on the crushers, surges, slurry preps and the extraction. Economy to scale seems impossible when it takes 2 tons of tar sand to make 1 barrel of oil, yet they have it down to $10. All of this work, just to make it crude oil.

http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/

Hydrogen couldn't be any harder

[post="57936"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

So are you our resident expert when we have oil questions? Edited December 13, 2005 by evok

[haypops]

Hydrogen couldn't be any harder

[post="57936"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

But this is how hydrogen will be made. Oil from here and oil from there will make elctricity and that can be used to make hydrogen. Each step along the way will have inneficiencies. Skip the hydrogen and burn as little as oil as possible by making lighter vehicles utilizing less wind reistance and compression ignition engines.

[PurdueGuy]

The use of nuclear power is likely to be a cornerstone in a hydrogen economy. Creating hydrogen through electrolysis doesn't make any sense - why would you make electricity to split water to make hydrogen to make electricity, unless it's for portability? Nuclear processes allow for the superheating of water until it splits, not from electrolysis, but simply from the heating. The only other method of hydrogen production I've heard that makes any sense is algae farms, and I have my doubts about their ability to meet capacity requirements.

[haypops]

The use of nuclear power is likely to be a cornerstone in a hydrogen economy. 

[post="57944"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

France has been more dependant upon nuclear power than the U.S. for quite some time. The downside of nuclear power is usually listed as disposal of the spent nuclear material. Geographically France would seem to be at a disadvantage than we are in respect to the waste material. What does France do with their trash?

[PurdueGuy]

to quote my wife (a nuclear engineer), "waste is such a bad word for it." Almost all of what is called "nuclear waste" can be refined back into fuel. It's just currently more expensive to do that than to use the fuel we currently use (part of which we purchase from the former soviet union - they need the money, we want less nuclear proliferation).

[Flybrian]

France has been more dependant upon nuclear power than the U.S. for quite some time.  The downside of nuclear power is usually listed as disposal of the spent nuclear material.  Geographically France would seem to be at a disadvantage than we are in respect to the waste material.  What does France do with their trash?

[post="57947"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

France has been recycling spent reactor material since the beginning of the nuclear programs, turning the plutonium and unused uranium into other fuel elements. Because of that, the high-level waste generated is very small, amounting to "the contribution of a family of four using electricity for 20 years is a glass cylinder the size of a cigarette lighter."

Back in 1991, the French parliament laid plans to build four research laboratories to investigate different means of disposal from burying the waste in the ground to detoxifying it somehow in the labs. Based on their results, parliament will make a final decision as to what to do with the waste and by the year proscribed, one of those labs will becoming the national stocking center for waste.

That year is 2006, so we'll see what happens.

The reason why France, Japan, and Canada are so successful is due to their spent fuel recycling programs and that they use one type of reactor (the CANDU setup up north and 56 Westinghouse PWRs in France), minimizing the cost and complexity of a national power grid.

Our power grid runs off several different types and we have this inherent fear of nuclear power because of incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Everyone likes to point out how unsafe nuclear energy is by referencing Chernobyl, but really that was a result of pure ineptitude by the people running those facilities.

to quote my wife (a nuclear engineer), "waste is such a bad word for it."  Almost all of what is called "nuclear waste" can be refined back into fuel.  It's just currently more expensive to do that than to use the fuel we currently use (part of which we purchase from the former soviet union - they need the money, we want less nuclear proliferation).

[post="57962"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, I believe only a very, very minute percentage of 'nuclear waste' is truly waste, i.e. unrefineable.

[BuddyP]

Here would be a opertunity for GM to start their own "Hydrogen Fuel" Company. Why not profit off the fuel that is going into the cars that they make? Sure it's a bit far fetched but could be done. They said it perfecally when they said that they are practically giving cars away so the oil companies can make all the money. As far as fueling the hydrogen stations, there was a article that I read not too long ago about hydrogen generators that can be placed at each filling station. Of course these would need to run off of Natural Gas but that is very minute compared to the amount of emmisions it would delete from the vehicles filling up. Also another idea would be to have each hydrogen vehicle have a generator and batteries to hold a charge that could be discharged into the hydrogen station at the time of fillup. So while your filling up with hydrogen, your car is helping to fill up the hydrogen station with electricity. If each car did that as they filled up it would greatly reduce the use of natural gas to run the filling station.

[evok]

Here would be a opertunity for GM to start their own "Hydrogen Fuel" Company. Why not profit off the fuel that is going into the cars that they make? Sure it's a bit far fetched but could be done. They said it perfecally when they said that they are practically giving cars away so the oil companies can make all the money.

As far as fueling the hydrogen stations, there was a article that I read not too long ago about hydrogen generators that can be placed at each filling station. Of course these would need to run off of Natural Gas but that is very minute compared to the amount of emmisions it would delete from the vehicles filling up. Also another idea would be to have each hydrogen vehicle have a generator and batteries to hold a charge that could be discharged into the hydrogen station at the time of fillup. So while your filling up with hydrogen, your car is helping to fill up the hydrogen station with electricity. If each car did that as they filled up it would greatly reduce the use of natural gas to run the filling station.

[post="57981"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Actually from what I have seen from GM you might not be so far off in concept. Think of it this way, what if your home was powered by a fuel cell?

[haypops]

Our power grid runs off several different types and we have this inherent fear of nuclear power because of incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Everyone likes to point out how unsafe nuclear energy is by referencing Chernobyl, but really that was a result of pure ineptitude by the people running those facilities.
Yes, I believe only a very, very minute percentage of 'nuclear waste' is truly waste, i.e. unrefineable.

[post="57963"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Lots of interesting information here. Certainly any consideration of Chernobyl is a waste of time. If the atomic grid were modernizied complete with efficient recycling of the spent fuel, then that sounds like a real oportunity. At the very least electricity for stationary coustomers could be produced with less demand on natural gas. With less polution from coal fired electricity plants, some of the strain on automotive sources would also be relieved.

[PurdueGuy]

the use of fuel cells makes sense to start in places other than cars, really. The biggest problems (from what I understand, which is probably only a moderate amount) is the cost of the cells and storage of the fuel. The cost factor is coming down, and could be quite reasonable somewhat soon. The storage factor is what makes other implementations make sense first. Generators for buildings could have storage containers that are far less in need of compactness/lightness, since they could be put on the ground, or a roof if the building is strong enough. On cars, the weight of the fuel storage system affects the overall system efficiency, so it's a bigger problem. Would still like to see it in cars someday.

Here would be a opertunity for GM to start their own "Hydrogen Fuel" Company. Why not profit off the fuel that is going into the cars that they make? Sure it's a bit far fetched but could be done. They said it perfecally when they said that they are practically giving cars away so the oil companies can make all the money.

As far as fueling the hydrogen stations, there was a article that I read not too long ago about hydrogen generators that can be placed at each filling station. Of course these would need to run off of Natural Gas but that is very minute compared to the amount of emmisions it would delete from the vehicles filling up. Also another idea would be to have each hydrogen vehicle have a generator and batteries to hold a charge that could be discharged into the hydrogen station at the time of fillup. So while your filling up with hydrogen, your car is helping to fill up the hydrogen station with electricity. If each car did that as they filled up it would greatly reduce the use of natural gas to run the filling station.

[post="57981"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You might see if you can find & share more of that article. What you've stated so far doesn't make much sense to me. First, it adds batteries to the car (more weight and cost), and what is the electricity being used for at the station? Is it supposed to be a way to take the station off the power grid/suppliment it's electricity supply, or is it part of the hydrogen generator's process? The fuel cell is already a generator itself, so that part is taken care of.

If the electricity is meant to make hydrogen, then it's a self-defeating system. The process creates hydrogen to power a car to make electricity to make hydrogen? If that's the process (which it's probably not since that doesn't account for the natural gas), then it's just a pointless loop. Is the idea to pull hydrogen from natural gas? I'm far less familiar with those types of processes, so I won't speculate on that... :) Edited December 13, 2005 by PurdueGuy

[Spike]

Actually from what I have seen from GM you might not be so far off in concept.  Think of it this way, what if your home was powered by a fuel cell?

[post="57990"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They already do help power a Dow Chemical plant....

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_te...nary/index.html

[Cremazie]

So are you our resident expert when we have oil questions?

[post="57938"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Expert is not the term. I work in the oil sands so I have an real good idea how things work up there. It's a dirty operation, but it is slowly getting better. I just hope that the SAGD technology gets better (as opposed to open pit) because it cuts down on the greatest cost of the projects, removing overburden and re-claimation.

[evok]

Expert is not the term. I work in the oil sands so I have an real good idea how things work up there. It's a dirty operation, but it is slowly getting better. I just hope that the SAGD technology gets better (as opposed to open pit) because it cuts down on the greatest cost of the projects, removing overburden and re-claimation.

[post="58449"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Good to know that we have a resourse like you on the board. Forward good links when you come across them. This thread turned out to be very informative to me.

[loki]

what about the guy who invented a way to make oil from dead things...

shouldnt that put a dampiner on the cost of digging hundreds of feet for oil?

[post="57594"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

thermodepolemerization (sp?) i should know how to spell that. lol
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
an article in discover said that if all the waste in the country went through that process we could make at least 90% of all the oil we needfor today's needs....maybe less than that in 10 years? but the main point about this is that The U.S. could most likely be self sufficient as far as oil production. and the other big + is that if they made enough plants to do this, they might beable to sell it as cheaply as $5 a barrel. when that happend last..i have no idea. but even if they taxed the hell out of it and made a gallon like $1.50 (just guessing) the government would have tons of extra income. and it might even stop the "humans are causing a global warming" theories

just a side note on "global warming"...scientists are seeing warming on other planets also, like mars, estimating the sun to be warmer, and might be responsible for 10-30% of the "global warming" here. i might beable to find that link again, found it on digg.com

[loki]

thermodepolemerization (sp?)  i should know how to spell that.  lol 
http://www.changingworldtech.com/
an article in discover said that if all the waste in the country went through that process we could make at least 90% of all the oil we needfor today's needs....maybe less than that in 10 years?  but the main point about this is that The U.S. could most likely be self sufficient as far as oil production.  and the other big + is that if they made enough plants to do this, they might beable to sell it as cheaply as $5 a barrel.  when that happend last..i have no idea. but even if they taxed the hell out of it and made a gallon like $1.50  (just guessing)  the government would have tons of extra income. and it might even stop the "humans are causing a global warming" theories 

just a side note on "global warming"...scientists are seeing warming on other planets also, like mars, estimating the sun to be warmer, and might be responsible for 10-30% of the "global warming" here.  i might beable to find that link again,  found it on digg.com

[post="59032"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

http://livescience.com/environment/050930_sun_effect.html
this wasn't the one i saw but says the same basic thing

[johnnyb]

Our power grid runs off several different types and we have this inherent fear of nuclear power because of incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Everyone likes to point out how unsafe nuclear energy is by referencing Chernobyl, but really that was a result of pure ineptitude by the people running those facilities.
Yes, I believe only a very, very minute percentage of 'nuclear waste' is truly waste, i.e. unrefineable.

A litte of topic, but I just read an in depth article about the Chernobyl incident. It's incredible how many mistakes were made and how many chances there were to prevent the accident. A good read (and a damn interesting site! :P )

Chernobyl Article

[PurdueGuy]

Yeah, while the plant design that Chernobyl (and several other Nuclear plants of the former soviet union) has is a fairly bad design (doesn't have many of the fail-safes, safety systems, and natural safeties that US plants have), it still took a LOT of human error to cause that screw-up. Never underestimate how much people can screw up...

[evok]

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?A...358/1148/AUTO01

Alaska's crude oil output hits new low, raises fiscal concerns

Decline exceeds energy politics for state residents who get a hefty dividend from the oil tax revenues.

Tarek El-Tablawy / Associated Press

Advertisement




Al Grillo / Associated Press

The drop in Alaska is led by a slump in output from the once-mammoth Prudhoe Bay field, which has been producing oil since 1969. See full image



NEW YORK-- Alaskan North Slope crude oil production, once heralded as a domestic mother lode, has hit a new output low -- embodying the precarious balance confronting the United States as it struggles for energy security in an era of volatility in the international oil market.

The decline in Alaska is led by a slump in output from the once-mammoth Prudhoe Bay field, which has been producing since 1969. At its height in fiscal 1988, the field produced an average of 1.6 million barrels per day; but in fiscal 2005, it was down to 381,000 barrels per day. Overall production in the North Slope has dropped to an average of 916,000 barrels per day from 2.01 million barrels in the same period.

[Cremazie]

Chernobyl was a bad design, considering how much it took to screw it up, it wan't as bad as I thought.

About oil on the decline in Alaska; they canno build that pipeline fast enough to sell the gas. The near term future of the state depends on it.

Thirdly, everything into oil: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm

[Flybrian]

Chernobyl didn't even have a full containment vessel because of costs associated with building such a thing to fit around the large reactor, so when the steam explosion blew apart the pressure vessel, it ejected everything skyward and allowed oxygen to start and feed a massive graphite fire. That's what made a tragic situation truly catastrophic.