1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

US Energy Independence No Longer A Pipe Dream

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by zenMachine, May 16, 2012.

  1. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ...related article fyi, this month's Popular Mechanics is called "America's Oil Boom."
    They probably should say mini-boom as their nifty charts show state-by-state production pretty low compared to past heyday, with a small tick up. They give detailed and somewhat dramatic description of fracking process for oil in North Dakota, but it's a little unclear unless you already know a little bit about it. They seem to take a positive position.
     
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Do you understand economics. A scarce consumable resource at some point in the future is either substituted away from or runs out. Do you think the united states can import 4Bbl barrels a year for 1000 years. There just isn't that much oil:) I fully expect north america to be oil independent in my lifetime, since at some point in time the conventional oil outside will be spoken for from other countries. At some point substitution needs to take place.

    If you read and think, you will stop posting the same wrong stats at every comment.
     
  3. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Lots of pretty graphs here too
    http://www.secureenergy.org/sites/default/files/SAFE_Oil_Boom_Report.pdf

    Its a real oil boom. If the boom continues, and consumption continues to decline, imports can decline for the next decade. But the boom is unlikely to last more than a decade. After that its more unconventional reserves and/or lower consumption.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ...thanks for sharing. Very well done report. I am not sure I agree with the overall philosophy. But I wish I could hire the writer(s). Saving the file to my Clean Energy folder, which means I want to keep it.
     
  5. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    21
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    The idea of x years of reserves are two halves of same equation.

    Part of the reason US coal reserves keep getting marked down from 1,000 years to 250 years to 100 years to 50 years during the last 20 years is coal production is up.

    [​IMG]


    We are talking about energy efficiency and US is 50% less energy efficient based on a per capita use of energy and a per GDP dollar production per unit of energy.

    This energy efficiency is the single biggest threat to US national security as the last 30 years of military spending priorities and 20 years of oil wars in the Middle East have demonstrated. It is a huge drag on US economy as 4B barrels of imported oil results in $500B oil trade deficit tax on US depending on the price per barrel which is trending up, ironically in large part to US military operations in the Gulf and resulting instability which in turn adds, on average over the last 30 years, $500B per year in non-productive military spending.

    [​IMG]

    Back to topic point, US can and should achieve energy independence but that independence, economic, military and environmental is FROM fossil fuels. It will never come from increased production of fossil fuels in US as we lack the resources despite the "hundred years reserves" and "Saudi Arabia of fill in the blank" put out by the oil, gas and coal industry as US began to use and import more and more energy products after WWII.
     
  6. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    21
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    It's a piece of deceptive advertising put out by oil and gas industry. The gist of even this advertising copy is that US can USE MORE OIL and keep imports AT SAME LEVEL thereby with magic trick can continue to import 4B barrels a day at rabidly increasing oil prices with increase oil trade deficit cost and continued US military costs as Middle East will always be the control factor in world oil prices and availability.

    Better to look at somewhat less biased information like National Academy of Science.

    http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/coal_r&d_final.pdf
     
  7. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Well I agree with you the other article AG posted was a position paper, but it was not pro-Oil...yes it was deceptive, they said full speed ahead on current oil boomlet. But if you are pro-Oil, you do not say (paraphrashing) "...society must break free of the stranglehold oil has on us". Those are political words of someone who is selling a different energy strategy. I noticed some overlap with the electrification coalition (eg; FedEx participation).
     
  8. The Electric Me

    The Electric Me Go Speed Go!

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    9,083
    5,795
    0
    Location:
    Undisclosed Location
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Yes, but I don't see where my statement disagrees at all with your opinion.

    Even though, I would say, while I don't foresee a "Mad Max" world...

    I am neither as optimistic as to believe society will act prudently.

    In general? People do not embrace change easily. I don't see a major shift happening until things become painfully inconvienent.

    Prius, Volt, Leaf owners...almost by definition are somewhat on the vanguard.

    Most people are going to drive their 12-24 mpg vehicle...until it becomes too painful to do so.

    But if we area talking a 100 years? Yes, I hope technology offers options that will ease the inevitable transistion. At least options better than "Master Blaster" and Cities run on Pig shit.
     
  9. Mr Incredible

    Mr Incredible Chance favors the prepared mind.

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    955
    506
    0
    Location:
    Neb
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius c
    Model:
    Four

    Would you happen to have a time estimate and cost factor for us to achieve parity with the rest of the world? Would we really want to live like the rest of the world if we were not forced to? Energy efficiency by using less energy to do less? Or do more with less. Usually, it's simply do less with less.
     
  10. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    We are in the third oil shock of the last 40 years. Some are already feeling the pain. I put hope in technology, and that individuals will get things done. I see adaptation as inevitable. If you see the future coming you can at least mitigate the pain.

    My friends that drive trucks are hoping the next one is cng:) Those that don't need the truck either have already gotten something more efficient (though not as efficient as a prius) or have plenty of money for the expensive gas in the future. Other parts of the country are moving more slowly:eek: There will be some pain.

    Funny you say that, I hope we do process the methane from sewage and farm waste:D But that would be to reduce the pollution. 50 years out, solar, wind, and batteries or fuel cells to buffer the grid can't be all that expensive. Certainly less expensive than oil. Allow that grid fuel phev to run on biodiesel made from algea and we are all good. But we aren't moving fast enough in that direction, and we don't know the renewable winners and losers yet, but have a good idea.

    I've decided to ignore him, as he just repeats the mantra.

    Europe does drive fewer vehicle miles which accounts for a big part of the less oil. They also have looser environmental regulations which means more efficient but higher polluting diesels. Finally they have smaller vehicles and these are more expensive. They are doing less with less and polluting more when it comes to oil. But they are also more efficient. There tax system has rigged their economies to be harder hit by oil shocks also. But they use much more per capita than a developing country like china or india. Can we design our cities and add public transportation to lower vmt (vehicle miles traveled)? I don't know. I don't think we want to pollute more, but hybrid and plug in technology allows more efficient vehicles to pollute less.
     
  11. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,527
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I don't think it was deceptive, it was advocating policy. I didn't put it out there to advocate policy though, but to put the real numbers out there. It had excellent facts. Please ignore the policy part, I wasn't trying to push that, just get the facts out there.

    The group is not pro-or-anti oil company. They are anti-oil use and anti-opec though. It cuts across party ideology and aims to reduce the impact of oil on the american economy and national security. If you agree with these aims you probably agree with the policies. If you just don't like big oil or care more about climate change than reducing oil use and its bad economic and foreign policy implications, you may want different policies.
     
  12. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    21
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    The threat of energy inefficiency and oil use and imports is RIGHT NOW. We are being taxed at $500B per year for oil imports. We are wasting $500B per year on military equipment and operations to secure oil we do not need. We are polluting air, water and inducing climate change at twice the rate we would if we were as energy efficient as Europe is NOW.
     
  13. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    21
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    The glossy piece of advertising referenced was put out by the oil and gas industry. As pro-oil as it gets.
     
  14. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ...the article I was commenting on is from AG is from an organization known as SAFE (Securing America's Energy Future) and their No.1 objective is to reduce USA dependence on oil.
     
  15. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    976
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    If I a am reading things correctly, SAFE is funded by the Hudson Institude, which in turn is funded largely by corporate largess, including companies like Monsanto and ConAgra.

    Hmmm!

    Icarus
     
  16. FL_Prius_Driver

    FL_Prius_Driver Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    4,319
    1,527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    I
    Please skim the report. I did before commenting. It just seems strange that a large organization that is striving to transition away from gas vehicles is implied to have suspect motives. (Unreported Tesla stock holdings??)
     
  17. ProximalSuns

    ProximalSuns Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    1,877
    21
    27
    Location:
    PNW
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    It's kind of like the Chevron ads touting Chevron's environmental "concern" and all the "good things they do for the environment" leaving out the fact that it is a 1:1,000,000 ratio to "do not harm" to totally destructive.

    The SAFE group advocates lots of drilling now which is the main goal of oil and gas industry and what the corporate funders of SAFE lobby for in Congress.

    The other projects they offer are the big expensive build outs that benefit their corporate sponsors and are advocated over decades while the "drill baby drill" short term profits are pushed.

    One of the most interesting omissions is that SAFE never addresses the facts of US energy inefficiency being the real problem and the real solution.

    All the drilling and mining that SAFE advocates for on behalf of their corporate sponsors is not needed if US were to push for upgrade of energy efficiency for US infrastructure reducing US overall energy needs by 50%.

    That can be achieved in 10 years.
     
  18. soup kitchen

    soup kitchen New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    30
    4
    0
    Location:
    san diego ca
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    Until the United States has the so called "green energy" that is sufficient enough to transport all the required goods for the society, the United States must develop its own oil resources and nuclear energy. If we continue to import oil we are indebt to those countries who export it. We need to redevelop our oil infrastructure and put on the back burner the solar power plants and wind turbines. Unless you like high energy prices....
     
  19. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    We don't have an oil resources to redevelop. Known US reserves 20 Billion Barrels. US Daily usage 20 Million Barrels. Time to empty 1000 days. And all of it is more costly than imported oil.