EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 6, 2008 13:06:44 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 6, 2008 16:30:51 GMT -5
That's quite a good article, Ed. I met the author, Gal Luft, a few months ago. Very knowledgeable guy. He left out Iceland.. they've taken their electricity grid entirely off fossil fuels, using Hydro and geothermal instead. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 6, 2008 16:32:54 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 6, 2008 16:34:14 GMT -5
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 6, 2008 16:49:32 GMT -5
There are three overwhelmingly critical reasons to get off fossil fuels.
Each one alone is more than enough reason.
Some people understand and believe all three.
Some only one or two.
But almost everyone gets at least one.
They are:
National Security
You could substitute Global security if you wish.
Too many countries with rapidly growing energy demand relying on too few, mostly politicly unstable regions of the globe for their energy supplies.
Too much competition for those supplies.
Sooner or later it will lead to armed conflicts
Economics
With Oil at $145/bbl, the cost of energy is having drastic negative effects on the US and other economies. In 2000, the cost of oil was about $12/BBL.
The US Imports roughly 14 million BBL/Day.
14 mm times an extra $132/Bbl price increase is: $1,848,000,000 -- Round that to $2 Billion/Day MORE than we paid 8 years ago... all that dough going out of the county.
$ 2b/day x 365 days = over $700 BILLION a year -- money going out of the US economy. Not a sustainable equation
CLimate Change
I realize there are people who don't want to believe in the climate change issue, or they try to make it a political issue.
But for the vast majority of scientists from around the world, this is a very real phenomenon that will dwarf the other reasons for why we need to get off fossil fuels.
The important issue here is NOT whether you believe in climate change.
It is that almost everyone believes at least one of the reasons above.
and that should be enough to get the entire country moving behind a smart, long-term, sustainable energy plan.
Unfortunately, the current administration is so deeply entrenched with oil interests that they have been unable to recognize the obvious facts right before their eyes, and have been unable and/or unwilling to demonstrate the leadership necessary to deal with these issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 6, 2008 22:21:38 GMT -5
Definitely agree with your assessment Saxa. There's really too much at stake that has nothing to do w/ the environment.
I think that even if this administration had within the last year or two wanted to take on this initiative, there would have been neither the time nor political capital to do so with any success. I sincerely hope that whoever wins this election comes in with this issue as a top 2-3 priority and really rallies support for some kind of coherent plan.
It really does touch a major political point of interest for both Democrats (the environment) and Republicans (national security/ability to more aggressively deal w/ the nations that control too much of the world's oil supply).
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2008 8:49:19 GMT -5
Of course if, like me, you are really only sold on the first two of those three reasons, then what you have outlined is also an argument why we should be drilling in the US right now, building refineries right now, and bringing more domestic supply online right now.
I'm all for developing the alternatives/renewables as well, but to not be seeking out additional domestic supply is just dumb, as far as I'm concerned.
And don't forget, we're not just talking about drilling for oil, but natural gas as well, which is a MUCH cleaner fossil fuel and already is being used very successfully in co-generation (i.e. - to generate electricity). There's no reason we can't have more natural gas vehicles either. Honda makes an NGV Civic that anyone can own and it qualifies as an alternative fuel vehicle under current statutes. There are just not enough filling stations, but if you have an NGV, you can actually have your filling station at your house. It's a sizable investment though.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2008 8:59:10 GMT -5
"Unfortunately, the current administration is so deeply entrenched with oil interests that they have been unable to recognize the obvious facts right before their eyes, and have been unable and/or unwilling to demonstrate the leadership necessary to deal with these issues."
A typical talking point. Let's examine the history. The first oil embargo occurred in 1967 during the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson's presidency. He made much of turning the lights off in the White House as a way to save energy. The second oil embargo occurred in 1973 during the Republican administration of Nixon. In 1974 he introduced "Project Independence" to make the U.S. energy independent. I can't recall anything of significance on energy during the Republican Ford administration. Democrat Jimmy Carter called the energy crisis "the moral equivalent of war". Nothing of significance on energy occurred during the Republican Reagan's or George H. W. Bush's presidencies. During Democrat Clinton's two terms, the only thing I can remember is his vetoing drilling in ANWR. Republican George W. Bush's years have seen his proposing drilling in ANWR and some off-shore, both of which were turned away by Congress. There was also, due to a Democratic lead, upping the average gas mileage. (There was also another, earlier, upping of the average gas mileage but I can't recall when that happened.) And there was Bush's half-hearted backing of hydrogen-powered autos.
The message is that neither party has anything to brag about on the subject of energy independence which was the subject of the article I cited, not fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jul 7, 2008 9:05:20 GMT -5
Of course if, like me, you are really only sold on the first two of those three reasons, then what you have outlined is also an argument why we should be drilling in the US right now, building refineries right now, and bringing more domestic supply online right now. I'm all for developing the alternatives/renewables as well, but to not be seeking out additional domestic supply is just dumb, as far as I'm concerned. And don't forget, we're not just talking about drilling for oil, but natural gas as well, which is a MUCH cleaner fossil fuel and already is being used very successfully in co-generation (i.e. - to generate electricity). There's no reason we can't have more natural gas vehicles either. Honda makes an NGV Civic that anyone can own and it qualifies as an alternative fuel vehicle under current statutes. There are just not enough filling stations, but if you have an NGV, you can actually have your filling station at your house. It's a sizable investment though. My only fear, and it's more related to human psychology than politics or the environment, is that if we drill and utilize those potential resources, then the sense of urgency in developing different energy sources will dwindle. I just generally think that now, there's sort of a fervor to address the energy issue, and a lot of it is pushing towards (what I consider to be) more long-term solutions. If we allow the more short-term drilling option, it may absolutely provide relief and be effective at the moment, but some of that heavy pressure to advance the technology may drop off. Essentially, this is a "people are stupid" argument--unless there's a major problem, people don't want to deal with what's obviously coming down the road next. Sure, scientists and industry people will work on the technology, but on the larger scale, there won't be such a swell of political pressure to do something about energy if people are happy with the temporary results of just drilling more. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2008 11:33:39 GMT -5
I don't see any "temporary results of just drilling now". It will take five or more years before we see any oil from drilling now, let alone a significant amount. And we still must build new refineries to process the crude.
To me a more realistic fear than losing a sense of urgency from drilling in other U.S. places is that, if we start drilling, OPEC will see the future as threatening to their ability to dictate oil and will then lower prices in an attempt to ensure the new drilling is not profitable. So they could offer cheaper oil and drive the new drilling out of business.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 7, 2008 14:00:43 GMT -5
I don't see any "temporary results of just drilling now". It will take five or more years before we see any oil from drilling now, let alone a significant amount. And we still must build new refineries to process the crude. To me a more realistic fear than losing a sense of urgency from drilling in other U.S. places is that, if we start drilling, OPEC will see the future as threatening to their ability to dictate oil and will then lower prices in an attempt to ensure the new drilling is not profitable. So they could offer cheaper oil and drive the new drilling out of business. I'm not sure I follow you. That process is exactly what we would think would happen, but that is a good think. Cheaper/more competitive prices in the short term without actually tapping into our unknown reserves. I'm not sure I see the "more realistic fear" there. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2008 15:06:50 GMT -5
The more realistic fear is that we will have short-term lower prices until OPEC et al forces the new-drilling oil out of business through the lower prices. Then, OPEC raises prices at will.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jul 8, 2008 12:07:23 GMT -5
I don't think of it that way. Basically we could be in no worse shape than we are now, but with the short term benefits between now and then. Additionally, hopefully technology will continue to improve, giving us more fuel alternatives and at the least making drilling and refining our untapped resources more efficient. I just don't see much of a negative to that possibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jul 9, 2008 20:56:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 10, 2008 7:30:47 GMT -5
I tried to find a picture online of "energy in depends" and failed. Oh well.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 10, 2008 12:48:30 GMT -5
Oilman Pickens has seen the light and is taking action. Watching that ad, it is embarrassing that an Oilman is so much more aware of the reality of our strategic position and is demonstrating a leadership role, while the President of the USA remains clueless and completely ineffective. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 10, 2008 13:16:18 GMT -5
Oilman Pickens has seen the light and is taking action. Watching that ad, it is embarrassing that an Oilman is so much more aware of the reality of our strategic position and is demonstrating a leadership role, while the President of the USA remains clueless and completely ineffective. Sigh. The United States funds energy research, including wind. The president has proposed a variety of plans to reduce energy dependence. The Pickens Plan puts all of its eggs in wind power (on which T. Boone has a vested stake) and natural gas. Well, let me step back - it likes them, but it's not a plan. It sells wind power and natural gas, but it doesn't say what it's going to do. And the best part? One of the countries with the greatest reserves is .... IRAN!!!! And as more people switch to natural gas, the price of natural gas goes up (switches to ethanol have raised the price of other crops). So, in summary, the Pickens Plan has a cute website, but is clueless and completely ineffective. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 10, 2008 13:33:53 GMT -5
"Unfortunately, the current administration is so deeply entrenched with oil interests that they have been unable to recognize the obvious facts right before their eyes, and have been unable and/or unwilling to demonstrate the leadership necessary to deal with these issues." A typical talking point. Let's examine the history. The first oil embargo occurred in 1967 during the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson's presidency. He made much of turning the lights off in the White House as a way to save energy. The second oil embargo occurred in 1973 during the Republican administration of Nixon. In 1974 he introduced "Project Independence" to make the U.S. energy independent. I can't recall anything of significance on energy during the Republican Ford administration. Democrat Jimmy Carter called the energy crisis "the moral equivalent of war". Nothing of significance on energy occurred during the Republican Reagan's or George H. W. Bush's presidencies. During Democrat Clinton's two terms, the only thing I can remember is his vetoing drilling in ANWR. Republican George W. Bush's years have seen his proposing drilling in ANWR and some off-shore, both of which were turned away by Congress. There was also, due to a Democratic lead, upping the average gas mileage. (There was also another, earlier, upping of the average gas mileage but I can't recall when that happened.) And there was Bush's half-hearted backing of hydrogen-powered autos. The message is that neither party has anything to brag about on the subject of energy independence which was the subject of the article I cited, not fossil fuels. Even more typical is the standard response to any criticism of Bush... "OK, never acknowledge any failings of the Bush administration - instead, try to distract everyone from the real point." Of all the presidents you cited, who addressed Energy? Heck, Richard Nixon put in the 55 mph speed limit, Ford and Congress got minimum auto mileage requirements through, and Jimmy Carter started the Dept of Energy, a major solar energy research and development program, and fostered more aggressive mileage standards. Reagan came in and gutted the Dept. of Energy, eliminated the Solar Energy program and.. during his years.. exempted SUV's from auto mileage requirements by putting them in the TRUCK category instead, and essentially stopped all progress on mileage standards. You want to share blame? Bush I and Clinton didn't do much of anything. Rep. John Dingell, D of MI, has enabled the self-destruction of the American auto industry by promoting legislation and regulations to impede mileage requirements. But the issue isn't Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton. It is G. W. Bush. We are talking 9/11 now. The "National Security" president, who still doesn't understand that sending more and more US $ to the middle east and making the entire world (not just the US) more and more dependent on middle east oil is the most dangerous thing that could be done in terms of national and global security. We are funding terrorists. We are funding Iran. And we are doing absolutely ZERO to deal with the underlying energy issue. And at the same time? We are crippling our own economy. Right after 9/11 Bush had the overwhelming political support to demonstrate leadership and institute major change. Like what? He could have easily brought back the 55 mph limit. He could have put a tax on gasoline sales and used the money for energy research. He could have demanded legislation to significantly increase mileage standards in cars and eliminated the exceptions for SUVs. He could have started an Apollo-like program to develop alternative fuels sources like Solar, wind, geothermal. There are tons of things he could have done, but that would have necessitated leadership and smart policy. It would have meant going against the interests of the Bush's dear friends the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, and the oil industry in Texas. Now if you add in the entirely predictable growth in the economies of India and China, it is so incredibly obvious that the demand (and hence, the price) for oil and fossil fuels would be skyrocketing, there is absolutely no excuse for Bush's disastrous failure to address this CRITICAL issue for US National and Economic Security. Oh, and ANWR? Let's blame the environmentalists for our energy problems? Increasing mileage by 3 mpg across our fleet of cars, would created a bigger benefit than ANWR. And it wouldn't take 10 years. And it wouldn't necessitate building a 3,000 mile pipeline through remote, pristine natural lands... a 3000 mile pipeline that would be a most inviting target for terrorists. And it would be better for the environment. Suggesting that Bush is no worse than other presidents? Well, not much of an endorsement of him is it? And besides, it just isn't true. Faced with energy crises in the '70s, Nixon, Ford and Carter did vastly more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2008 14:00:00 GMT -5
The president has proposed a variety of plans to reduce energy dependence. It's nice that our President has "proposed a variety of plans." I can propose plans too. But despite having 6 years worth of a friendly Congress and the power to actually - you know - make things happen, the President has accomplished about the same as I have on this front. |
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 10, 2008 14:01:29 GMT -5
SirSaxa:
No. Just no.
Everyone wants to talk about how X had its own role in helping 9/11.
Al Qaeda - who was responsible for 9/11 - had its roots in Osama bin Laden, a man whose family is big in construction. Not oil. Saudi Arabia kicked him out. He took in with the Sudanese, who eventually kicked him out. He went over to Afghanistan and the Taliban, which is not famous for having oil.
Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Therre's no real argument that the Saudis' oil wealth helped to radicalize them. Saudi Arabia is famous for funding radical Islamic schools outside of Saudi Arabia, but not inside. In any case, the 9/11 attacks were funded with a relative pittance of money.
So. 9/11 is not related to oil wealth.
9/11 was a calamitous, horrific event. Please don't politicize it by using it to defend your own political goals.
Radicalism may be related to oil - there's a lot of discussion between the price of oil and lack of democracy - but that's debatable. One of the US' biggest threats in the Middle East is Syria, which has jack squat in terms of oil. And Iran - as noted above - is big in natural gas, so switching over to that won't help matters.
And energy independence in general? Eh. I like it, mainly because technological developments have positive environmental effects and I like the control. But the Chinese have cut deals with odious regimes (including Sudan, most of the nasty regimes in central Africa, and Burma) for natural resources, including oil, so the US suddenly going off the grid isn't going to suddenly make everything hunky-dory.
On the ANWR, remember that drilling there helps reduce foreign dependence on energy. And the pipeline being a target is a canard - Red Storm Rising's plot line dealt with a terrorist strike on an oil refinery. The problem exists, and building one more pipeline isn't suddenly going to cause problems.
|
|
