"US will be energy independent by 2035"

Lets not forget your car runs on gas, the Tesla and Plug-in Prius run on electricity which is generated by............. you guessed it some form of petroleum product. You can look through the glass and see nothing but a half empty glass, or you can look at it this way............. At least we would, might have the possibillity of being energy independent.

Your correct about the environmental concerns, but at least we live in a country which has two sides to every issue, for good or bad. Hopefully those localized environmental concerns can be mitigated through science. I may be sugar coating it, but I'd rather have the money here and some form of knowledge knowing things are being done under a watchful eye. If you believe other energy producing countries have any concern for the environment or the issues their own people face, you'd be sadly mistaken. I'll take this country being energy independent over the wars we fight for oil today.

 

Vitamins.

Ever noticed how the information about what vitamins you should take seems to change every 3 months or less? First you'll read a how bunch of articles about how everybody should be taking this vitamin or that mineral. Then in a couple of months you'll read how everyone should stop taking that same vitamin or mineral, because it's going to kill you?

I find fossil fuel and energy articles to be much the same. We will get a flurry of studies, or opinions saying that because of "whatever", The US will never run out of energy or gas, then we will get a flurry of opposite articles telling us we were lucky to fill up today,- because we are already out.

Shale Oil supplies? Well maybe. But I await the converse articles and studies that will reveal the opinion of why it ISN'T the answer and how it won't lead to providing for the US and the worlds energy needs.

Any topic along this lines I very much take a wait and see, and show me attitude. I refuse to panic about what it might mean, either economically, socially or environmentally, because I can just about guarantee you we will soon hear the opposite opinion.

I do believe unfortunately that humanity as a whole will produce and burn fossil fuels with little regard to detriment for as long as is possible. But whether we are a scant century away from that possibility NOT being possible, or just a few decades away from new sources extending that window indefinitely? That seems to depend a whole lot on who is funding the study.

 

It's great that you have the option to opt for wind generated power, and the fact that your paying extra to purchase that fuel is putting your money where your mouth is. I like that. Here is the issue my friend, unfortunately people opt for what's cheapest. Particularly when your talking about a world market, your analogy may be correct but wind power or any other alternate form of energy isn't going to be able to supply the worlds power needs. The only real viable alternative is nuclear, and well that goes a whole different direction. You have the Walmart scenario, everyone talks poop about Walmart, but they all sneek off to buy their Chinese made goods for pennies on the dollar. Two years later they are crying that their low paying factory job just got shipped out of the country, yet they still can't see the light. The petroleum industry is the same way, and China and India don't give a rats butt what happens to you or me let alone their own people. Your right it's like heroin, and it's not going away.
One things for sure you don't have to worry about the earth, like the ice age, if we screw it up she'll take over and get rid of us, just to be a blip in the long history of this planet.

 

Yes in combination with shale gas we have a whole new US energy picture.
Energy policy is a divisive topic, partially because back in 2005/2006 it appeared oil/gas was running out, and we got started on electric vehicles, mandated renewables, and biomass-to-gasoline mandates, etc etc. I think the answer is we still need to progress all-the-above areas, but the rationale has changed from we must do it to we should do it, which leaves room for politics/choices.

 

I will be dead by then, it will not do me any good!!

 

That is an assumption that doesn't seem to hold true.

 

"cheapest" energy is a complicated issue. Cheap how? Factor in externalities including (but not limited to) CO2 emissions and renewables become life cycle cheapest in the net.

Bottom line, EVs and PEVs win hands down because of the inherent efficiency of electric traction motors, and the potential to use PV and wind to absorb excess grid capacity, (and to sell back to the grid in times of grid shortage). The fear with shale gas and shale oil is we WON'T come close to paying the externalities, which will continue to make renewables (seem) more expensive.

Icarus

 

If people (the majority) didn't opt for what's cheapest, we wouldn't be in the predicament we are in as a nation. That includes cutting labor costs to fill the pockets of investors as well as greedy corporate managers who could care less about the long term consequences of their actions. It also includes, as mentioned earlier, the guy or gal who runs to Walmart to buy the "Cheapest" item they can. My point here is that the countries we are selling our souls to don't care about our energy policies, environmental concerns or those of their own people. We will without a doubt become subserviant to these nations long before the 2050 greenhouse gas goals your worried about.

We live in a volatile world, like I said before, I'd rather use our resources to our advantage, and hopefully extract them in a way that is as minimally invasive to the environment. Europe is a perfect example of what not to do. France has one of the largest natural gas supplies in all of that region. The Russians have successfully duped the French population by funding the anti fracking movement in France. They were so successful that the French have passed laws to prevent the extraction of their own natural gas. They are now strangled by the same Russian gas supplier who controls their entire supply of natural gas. Coincidentally the Russians have no problems with fracking for natural gas. Everything is not as simple as it seems. Everyone has an agenda to fill their pockets with as much cash as possible, don't think for a moment that the so called alternative green energy movement isn't, or wouldn't play the same dirty hands. It's great to live life with rose colored glasses and be idealistic but at some point you'll figure out there's dirty money in every corner. No offense to anyone here, it's something that's become apparent with time, ok being burned about 30X over..............

 

It's not the Scientists, it's big business. Just like so many laws in the books, written with good intentions.............then manipulated by a third party for their gain. Wow, I'm starting to sound really negative .

 

1) The IEA doesn't have a great track record, in terms of accurate forecasts.
2) To predict "energy independence", they assumed much higher energy efficiency in the future. In other words, conservation and efficiency aren't passe', they are a fundamental part of that "energy independence" prediction. Efficiency gains contribute only modestly less than production gains in their forecast of energy independence.
3) You should look at at least some dissenting views on how rapidly tight oil will begin to decline, and how high the peak is likely to be. The IEA sets the US oil production peak way, way off in the future -- all the way out in the year year 2020. Or, to speak plainly, seven years from now. And if you look at their prediction, it's a straight line extrapolation of recent trend until very near the peak.




But there are already signs of diminishing returns in the Bakken (North Dakota) formation. If so, it's going to take a fairly high oil price to generate that much production.

Take that prediction with a grain of salt, that's all I'm saying. And realize that it's based on a prediction of a large, temporary increase in oil production, combined with assumptions of ongoing efficiency and conservation efforts.

 

Perhaps I've misread it, perhaps you are looking at global use, not US.

I'm not willing to pay for the IEA report on a whim, but their executive summary stresses efficiency gains, and here is a summary of their US projection:

" For example, the report predicts about a 1 mb/d drop in U.S. oil consumption by 2020 and a 5 mb/d drop by 2035 relative to current levels."
Econbrowser: Will U.S. oil consumption continue to decline?

I was curious enough that I looked up the projections of the US Energy Information Agency. Those are pubic information, and can be found here:
EIA - Annual Energy Outlook 2013 Early Release

There, consistent with what (I believe) the IEA projects, they predict a modest decline in total liquid fuels use, in the US, between 2012 and 2020.

By contrast, for world liquid fuels consumption, they show continued growth out to the end of their projection period.

So the US EIA says declining domestic use but increasing world use. I'd be surprised if the IEA and the US EIA really were at odds about that.

Most of the writeups of the IEA report confuse things. For example, the IEA report doesn't say that the US will become an oil exporter, it says that North America will. And the projection of US production exceeding Saudi Arabia in 2020 is based on counting barrels of fluids, regardless of heat content. (A large share of projected US production is natural gas liquids and refinery gains, which have less energy than crude oil and zero energy, respectively.) And then the projection of energy independence, but somehow the efficiency component gets lost in the translation. I sometimes wonder if IEA does that sort of thing on purpose.

Rising world oil use matters for climate. But I think it's fairly key to realize they project rising world use against a backdrop of falling use in the US and the EU. and EU. That projection of rising use already factors in (e.g.) new US auto fuel-efficiency standards. It already assumes we continue a slow march toward greater efficiency.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more on the points about climate. Barring a miracle, given what the mainstream projections look like, there isn't going to be much arable land left in the USA in 2100. Against that, US tight oil's a drop in the bucket.

 

A significant amount of plug-in drivers (including many of us here on PC) have solar, and thus don't add to petroleum use - unless you count the amount to create the panels. Others that have the option in their areas, may buy power from environmentally friendly sources. just sayin' ... the oil/coal shut fed plug-in is far from an absolute ... and clean energy/PV last year increased more that the amount of all prior PV production. Hope that helps to remove part of the gloom & doom.

Also curious about the 'concern' of electricity use to run autos. How come there's not such a showing for the electricity that gets generated to run the refinery ... and pump the fuel ... and deliver it to stations?
.

 

^not to mention that a fair percentage of electricity continent wide comes from Hydro as well. Replacing gasoline/disel fueled vehicles is a win/win across the board. Even if the ALL The electricity to power EVs came from fossil fuel it is still a win, because electric motive power is very much more efficient than is any ICE. Couple that with the ability to recapture energy upon deceleration, AND the currrent potential to use non fossil fuel, AND perhaps most importantly, the ability of EVs to effectively use wind and solar on a 24/7 basis makes the equation very much more favorable for EVs.

Consider this; a fleet of EVs, plugged into the grid 23/7 absorbing excess grid power from wind and solar (and other renewables) at times of excess production, and then being able to sell back to the grid at times of a shortage of production creates (in effect) the long sought after "battery bank" that people envision for wind and solar. The ability of these EVs to reduce the idle, spinning capacity of the grid, that is spinning just waiting for the peak demand, reduces the most wasteful and most polluting portion of our grid system...that is the power generated by conventional fuel, but is not consumed.

We produce (and buy) ~16 million vehicles per year. If 25% if these were Plug in EVs, in ten years you'd have some where in the neighborhood of 40 million battery banks absorbing from and contributing to the grid! At 5 kwh each, that is a LOT of battery capacity.

What is not to like?

Icarus

 

One safe thing about guessing "energy independence" in 2035. Nearly a quarter century out. No one will remember how off the mark the claim is, as the guesser will be long gone.