Energy Independence

[Deleted]

Jul 10, 2008 14:01:29 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

9/11 was a calamitous, horrific event. Please don't politicize it by using it to defend your own political goals.

The President has been doing precisely that since September 12, 2001.

[TBird41]

SirSaxa,
Clinton vetoed opening ANWR. So, I guess you have to say he did do something about energy. And ANWR's about 74 miles from the current Alaskan Pipeline, so opening it wouldn't require a new 3000 mile pipeline, just a 74 mile one to connect with the current one.

Also, I'm curious about your assertion that increasing our fleet by 3mpg would quickly impact gas demand. Is that if next year's model's all were able to get 3mpg more? Or is it if every car on the road got 3mpg more? I don't see a problem with the former. The latter is unrealistic.

[hifigator]

As far as I'm concerned, McCain is on the wrong side of the ANWR issue. But that isn't really that surprising. He is making a very concerted effort to be a moderate and one who is willing to cross party lines and to extend his hand to those on the other side of the aisle. In theory I like that idea and really desire a centrist/moderate leader. But too many times, at least in my opinion, he is selecting the wrong issues to bend on.

[EasyEd]

To be truly energy independent, or nearly so, we must do "all of the above". No one single action will accomplish near-independence.
First, we must conserve. This includes setting realistic auto mpg standards, providing tax incentives for such things as insulating our homes and for installing more efficient heating and air conditioning systems, foster the use of more efficient lighting and lamps, etc.
Second, we must greatly expand the use of nuclear power with the goal of providing the bulk of our electricity from nuclear. To accomplish this we must streamline the process of approval so it doesn't take 10 years to obtain permission to build a nuclear plant to the same design.
Third, we must proceed with clean coal programs and provide tax incentives for those demonstating the "clean" part of that. The clean coal program should include coal gasification.
Fourth, we must proceed with haste to produce large quanties of ethanol and methanol and open up large new lands to the growing of crops needed for both.
Fifth, we must drill wherever possible in the U.S. for oil, while ensuring the drilling is environmentally sound.
Sixth, we must bring new oil, ethanol and methanol "refinery" systems on board and use tax incentives to do so.
Seventh, we must challenge industry to produce vehicles capable of running on electric or other fuels, such as hydrogen or gas-powered and offer very large rewards to any that are able to show how they will mass-produce such vehicles and handle the safety and the distribution systems that would be required.
Eighth, we must require auto manufacturers to provide true multi-fuel capability vehicles.
Ninth, we must proceed rapidly with large increases in renewable energy sources such as wind power, geothermal, etc.

Finally, we must lay out an overall plan that achieves energy independence by the year 2020 or so and set benchmarks for each year up to 2020 so we can determine how we are doing.

I'm sure there are other elements to a rational program over what I have listed above but the message is "all of the above, not one silver bullet".

Energy independence must be our goal, even, if required, at the expense of global warming. We may soon find out how disastrous our current situation is if Israel takes out the Iranian nuclear capability and the gulf states impose an oil embargo on the U.S. thereby shutting down our economy.

[SirSaxa]

Jul 10, 2008 19:12:44 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

To be truly energy independent, or nearly so, we must do "all of the above". No one single action will accomplish near-independence.

I'm sure there are other elements to a rational program over what I have listed above but the message is "all of the above, not one silver bullet".

Energy independence must be our goal,.

Ed, you and I have a lot of common ground based on your post.
No, I can't say I agree with everything.
But I do agree with a LOT.

The next president, whether Obama or McCain, has to make this the #1 priority for the USA. And that means bringing everyone into the solution. And asking Americans to make sacrifices. And putting big bucks into developing technologies that will not only help America's energy situation and economy, but can be exported all over the world. The US can regain technological leadership in an area crucial to the world economy.

The best place to start would be the common areas among those who believe the economic arguments, those who buy the environmental ones, and those who are moved by the national security issues. Conservation and efficiency, alternative energy R&D, CAFE standards and MPG, these are so obvious and productive and can begin right away.

Then get down to the tough negotiating on the more controversial solutions.

We could have/should have done this already.

[theexorcist]

SirSaxa wrote:

"The next president, whether Obama or McCain, has to make this the #1 priority for the USA."

Wow. Just wow.

So, let's clarify.

Energy independence beats: Reforming DHS; Resolving the North Korea issue; Resolving Iraq; Preventing a terrorist attack on the United States; Reforming FEMA; Addressing health care; Finding a long-term solution for illegal immigration; Fixing social security; Fixing the mortgage mess; Getting Georgetown back to the Final Four; Determining our long-term relationship with China; Addressing racism in the United States; Improving education; Improving the march of those under tyranny towards freedom; Determining what balance should be struck between liberty and security; Making progress towards the Israeli/Palestinian issue; Determining what's going to be done with Iran; Determining our long-term relationship with Russia; Determining our long-term relationship with the EU; Addressing an increasingly partisan political divide; Containing nuclear proliferation; and Positioning the United States for the next technological revolution?

[TBird41]

Jul 11, 2008 7:26:02 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

SirSaxa wrote:

"The next president, whether Obama or McCain, has to make this the #1 priority for the USA."

Wow. Just wow.

So, let's clarify.

Energy independence beats: Reforming DHS; Resolving the North Korea issue; Resolving Iraq; Preventing a terrorist attack on the United States; Reforming FEMA; Addressing health care; Finding a long-term solution for illegal immigration; Fixing social security; Fixing the mortgage mess; Getting Georgetown back to the Final Four; Determining our long-term relationship with China; Addressing racism in the United States; Improving education; Improving the march of those under tyranny towards freedom; Determining what balance should be struck between liberty and security; Making progress towards the Israeli/Palestinian issue; Determining what's going to be done with Iran; Determining our long-term relationship with Russia; Determining our long-term relationship with the EU; Addressing an increasingly partisan political divide; Containing nuclear proliferation; and Positioning the United States for the next technological revolution?

Well, it's pretty hard to do any of that without a working economy, something that we're not going to have if energy prices (and especially gas) continue to be this high / rise. EVERYTHING NEEDS ENERGY

[theexorcist]

TBird:

Yes, everything needs energy. But saying that something is priority #1 means something. You make sacrifices based on the fact that other things aren't ranked #1.

But there's a difference between saying energy independence is important (it is), and making it priority #1. I disagree strongly with those European governments which have made climate change their most pressing national security priority - it's important, but dealing with the Iranians and North Koreans (plus successfully figuring out a way to integrate their immigrant Muslim populations) seems more critical.

EDIT - oh, and the economy hasn't suffered significantly due to energy prices. It was already on really shaky ground due to the subprime mess. People are altering their commuting habits, but higher fuel prices haven't significantly affected the economy.

[Deleted]

Jul 11, 2008 8:33:33 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

EDIT - oh, and the economy hasn't suffered significantly due to energy prices. It was already on really shaky ground due to the subprime mess. People are altering their commuting habits, but higher fuel prices haven't significantly affected the economy.

You think people higher fuel prices aren't significantly affecting the economy?

For every 10,000,000 people out there are spending $50 per week on gas instead of $25, that's $1,000,000,000 a month that's disappeared from the economy. Multiply that out by whatever numbers you want, but higher fuel prices are DEFINITELY affecting the economy, and will continue to do so.

The economic downturn was certainly triggered by the subprime mess, but fuel prices are not an insignificant factor here.

[TBird41]

Jul 11, 2008 8:33:33 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

TBird:

Yes, everything needs energy. But saying that something is priority #1 means something. You make sacrifices based on the fact that other things aren't ranked #1.

But there's a difference between saying energy independence is important (it is), and making it priority #1. I disagree strongly with those European governments which have made climate change their most pressing national security priority - it's important, but dealing with the Iranians and North Koreans (plus successfully figuring out a way to integrate their immigrant Muslim populations) seems more critical.

EDIT - oh, and the economy hasn't suffered significantly due to energy prices. It was already on really shaky ground due to the subprime mess. People are altering their commuting habits, but higher fuel prices haven't significantly affected the economy.

So the rising cost of, oh, everything that is shipped by truck (which is pretty much everything, isn't it?) isn't going to effect the economy? The effect hasn't kicked in yet, but it's going to.

And I didn't say "climate change"--I said energy independence.

So let's see about your very SFS colored list--I think energy independence will help a lot more than some of these (and may actually help with some of these):

Reforming DHS--more important than people being able to go to work? Don't think so.

Resolving the North Korea issue--It's important, but the most important thing? I don't think it's even the most important Foreign Policy issue (Personally, I'd go with resolving Iran there, but that's just me).

Resolving Iraq--Iraq's getting resolved as we speak. Again, it's important, but no where near the crisis it was pre Surge. Also, if we're energy independent, Iraq becomes a lot less important, right?

Preventing a terrorist attack on the United States--Pretty important, but something we've been doing for the last seven years. This is something that's going to have be continually worked on, and would also be helped by energy independence.

Reforming FEMA--FEMA did a pretty good job in Iowa, from what I understand. Doesn't seem as pressing a matter as it did after Katrina. Also, isn't FEMA part of DHS?

Addressing health care--Health care costs will continue to increase if energy costs continue to increase. Also, fixing illegal immigration issues will help as well. Probably better to choose a different topic, if parts of the issue can be solved by solving other issues.

Finding a long-term solution for illegal immigration--This one I can see as an alternate, but I think you can argue that fixing the energy crisis is more important.

Fixing social security--Ditto, though if energy costs go up, there'll be a lot of people on Social Security that can't afford to live.

Fixing the mortgage mess--the reforms are already starting to happen, I think. Also, I'd bet that there's a lot fewer people who have been hurt by this than by the rising cost of energy.

Getting Georgetown back to the Final Four--Obama wouldn't even crack the rotation in 09/10(and neither would McCain). JT3 doesn't need the President for this one (though the President might want to talk to him about some of these other issues)

Determining our long-term relationship with China--Important, but I think making sure Americans can get to work, afford to eat and heat their homes is too. The status quo isn't great, but neither is it so bad that it needs to be addressed first (it's not like China is Cuba Missile Crisis era Soviet Russia)

Addressing racism in the United States--Not an issue at all. President Obama will fix this by teaching everyone Spanish. (Sorry, couldn't help myself). But yeah, we're not in the 1960s anymore. Is there racism? Yes. Is it more important to address than whether or not people can get to work and heat their homes? No.)

Improving education--Fixing energy costs and illegal immigration would help here.

Improving the march of those under tyranny towards freedom--Energy independence would help the Middle East. Also, it's such a long term goal that it realistically can't be the number one priority, unless you think the President should go about changing all the non free regimes? Honestly, what would the President do all day? And shouldn't Americans come before people from other countries in the President's priority list?

Determining what balance should be struck between liberty and security--Ummmm....yeah. How exactly do you go about achieving this goal? It's kind of a theoretical until you put it into the context of a situation. And wouldn't it change with each President? Should he sit down with Congress and negotiate a law to determine this?

Making progress towards the Israeli/Palestinian issue--This is important, what with its destabilizing effects on the Middle East, but a President's #1 priority? Shouldn't he do focus on American problems first? And wouldn't energy independence help with this, as it'd make the Middle East less important?

Determining what's going to be done with Iran--important, perhaps the most important foreign policy issue. That being said, energy independence would help here. Also, I think the energy crisis is a more pressing matter to the average American.

Determining our long-term relationship with Russia--see the China answer, only less important than China.

Determining our long-term relationship with the EU--I think we should continue to be friends with them. Does that work?

Addressing an increasingly partisan political divide--This is important, but as important as ensuring that people can get to work/buy food/heat their homes? And won't solving our energy crisis help with this, as it would remove one of the pressures that's exacerbating this issue?

Containing nuclear proliferation--Important, but again, I think energy independence helps here, as it lessens the importance of the Middle East, which means Iran is less important and Al Qaeda is less important. Also, this is one of those things that has to be constantly worked on--you can never be finished. It's like disproving a negative. Also, this goal is part of preventing a terrorist attack.

Positioning the United States for the next technological revolution? You need energy for technology.

So, by my count, there are maybe four things that can reasonably be argued are as important to America as energy independence (and therefore can be argued as reasonable #1 goals). And I don't think it's unreasonable to choose energy independence over illegal immigration, Social Security, Iran and preventing a terrorist attack.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Some anecdotal evidence about how people and the economy are being affected:
money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0805/gallery.real_people_gas/index.html

42 stories of how people are changing how they live as a result of gas prices.

Ed, thanks for your last post. That's the kind of thoughtful, reasoned discussions that will allow us to resolve this issue. Reasonable people can disagree about the details (and I admit I disagree with a few of your proposals BUT I ESPECIALLY AGREE with 1, 7, 8, and 9), but a comprehensive, strategic suite of solutions is precisely what this country and the world need.

[hifigator]

Ed, you said much of what I have said all along. And to TBird who made a clear distinction between "energy independence" and "climate change," I understand your point, but those two issues are so intertwined that it is often difficult to address one and not the other. Still, I have said that while I am still not convinced of the impending doom of global warming, I still think it wise and prudent to promote cleaner and more renewable forms of energy as well as improving efficiency. Mileage would certainly fall in such a category. Overall a comprehensive plan such as you suggest, is the most likely to succeed in my opinion. I just don't see why so many people keep oversimplifying it, implying that we are in "either/or" situations. That just isn't the case.

[hifigator]

Jul 11, 2008 11:52:26 GMT -5 Coast2CoastHoya said:

Some anecdotal evidence about how people and the economy are being affected:
money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0805/gallery.real_people_gas/index.html

42 stories of how people are changing how they live as a result of gas prices.

Ed, thanks for your last post. That's the kind of thoughtful, reasoned discussions that will allow us to resolve this issue. Reasonable people can disagree about the details (and I admit I disagree with a few of your proposals BUT I ESPECIALLY AGREE with 1, 7, 8, and 9), but a comprehensive, strategic suite of solutions is precisely what this country and the world need.

Well imagine that. You especially agree with 1,7,8 and 9. Not surprisingly, those are the proposals that address the problem by creating the least amount of energy. Some of his other suggestions are certainly at least as important in a comprehensive plan. You know, the ones that actually create more energy like expanded nuclear power and additional drilling.

[EasyEd]

SirSaxa and Coast - despite your kind words about my post, both of you seem to only agree with the "no fossil fuels" and no nuclear side rather than the "all of the above" that I suggested.

Three things seem to be very clear. The first is that we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The second is that we cannot become energy independent through only conservation and some hoped-for technological breakthroughs that will give us sufficient alternative energy sources. Third, we cannot legislate our way to independence by mandating unachievable standards.

The world generates about one-tenth of its energy needs from nuclear power. In France about 75% of its electricity is from nuclear power and overall it exports electricity. But we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in decades even though nuclear experts say they could recycle about 90% of spent material if only the U.S. government would let them.

In 2005 China brought at least 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants on line (about one every three days). Yet, we are not allowed to consider coal-fired power plants or coal gasification, even with improved means of reducing ill-effects.

We are not allowed to drill offshore except limited areas in the Gulf area but Cuba is drilling off the coast of Florida and there is nothing that can stop other countries from doing the same off any of our coasts.

Having spent a career in high-tech engineering it is well known you cannot program technological breakthroughs and you certainly cannot depend on it happening. You cannot hang your future on the expectation that someone will come up with an alternative source of energy that has zero effect on the environment and introduces zero effects on the climate while replacing fossil fuels.

Very few who post here witnessed the effects of the prior oil embargoes and they lasted only a very short period of time. I repeat my warning that you may see something much worse than that if Israel destroys Iran's nuclear capability and the middle eastern countries impose a new, longer term embargo on oil to the U.S. Or if such an embargo is imposed anytime in the next 10 years or so until we can start producing most of our energy at home.

We must do "all of the above" if we hope to secure our country, militarily and economically.

[AustinHoya03]

Jul 11, 2008 15:44:12 GMT -5 hifigator said:

You especially agree with 1,7,8 and 9. Not surprisingly, those are the proposals that address the problem by creating the least amount of energy. Some of his other suggestions are certainly at least as important in a comprehensive plan. You know, the ones that actually create more energy like expanded nuclear power and additional drilling.

hifi actually has a point here, and I would think a Californian might have learned his lesson re: the dangers of not adding production capacity:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Texas, on the other hand, has added not only wind turbines (#1 wind state in the nation), but coal-fired power plants to the grid over the last decade, whereas attempts to add coal-fired plants were blocked in states with a stronger environmental movement/lobby. As a result, "rolling blackout" is not part of the local vocabulary here, but air quality is not great in Dallas-Fort Worth or Houston (though it's still better than many places in California). Personally, I'd trade my kids not having asthma for rolling blackouts, but I understand that many people don't feel the same.

www.lungusa.org/site/c.dvLUK9O0E/b.50752/k.D532/Rankings.htm

I am fine with adding new nuclear plants in addition to renewable technology. As ed correctly points out, the United States has to add non-renewable energy capacity, and it is my opinion that if at all possible we should wean ourselves from coal-fired plants (even so-called "clean coal" plants), despite the fact that coal remains an abundant natural resource. Besides, that repository at Yucca Mountain is geologically sound, right Nevada?

I agree with most of ed's other points, but not #4. The production of ethanol is too expensive and too wasteful.
________________________________________________

I'd also like to address theexorcist's comment that people are simply changing their commuting habits to deal with high gas prices. Out here in flyover land, my office is 47+ miles from my house. The only way back and forth is a US Interstate, and nobody else at my office lives within 25 miles of me, which rules out carpooling. My options for changing my commuting habits are to buy a more gas-efficient car or to move. The only significant way to up my MPG is to buy a hybrid, and there is currently a 3-month+ waiting list for a Prius or Civic Hybrid. Dealers are asking $2500 over MSRP for these vehicles, and are asking the same price for used models since buying used eliminates the waiting list. In other words, I cannot just jump on the Metro instead of taking the beltway -- Americans out here don't have much choice in their commuting habits. Even those who trade their trucks in for Corollas aren't getting much of a break -- they still have to buy gas and now have a car payment. Good luck if you're upside-down on your current vehicle (which if you have a truck or SUV you probably are due to abysmal demand). In the long run high gas prices will make transportation across the nation much more efficient, but let's not pretend that changing commuting habits is a cinch for everyone -- many Americans are feeling the crunch right now.

[EasyEd]

Another interesting take, stressing electricity:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102549.html

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Gee, my bad for a short post on the subject and for starting from a point of agreement. I know that doesn't happen often in the B&G board in the off-season, but oh well. I never said I disagreed with Ed's other proposals, just that I favored most highly the ones I mentioned. I think that starting from a point of agreement is better than starting from a point of disagreement on this issue.

So allow me to continue:

I agree with point 2 that we should expand nuclear. It'll be hard to do policy-wise (NIMBY!), but from a utilitarian standpoint it's necessary if we want to maintain our high level of consumption and reduce GHG emissions.

I don't buy the underlying motivation for point 3; the propograda about "clean" coal & that its use should be expanded does not seem like a course of action consistent with a comlimentary goal of reducing GHG emissions and other pollutants. Concomitantly, because of the US' large reserves of coal, but the problems of pollution, natural resouces, and human health issues with coal, I think of coal as a massive energy resource that should be used sparingly and reserved as much as possible for a "real" energy crisis, and doing so will allow the US to leverage its supply if and when such a crisis occurs.

I could not disagree more with point #4 about ethanol, especially the part about using huge tracts of arable land to do it. To do so would mitigate an energy issue by exascerbating a natural resources, pollution, and acess to food issue. There may come a time when the production of energy from sources of food and fresh water does not run up against our need to eat and drink (like when we invent replicators like in Star Trek), but the time is not now.

I actually agree with points 5 and 6. Not a popular standpoint for an enviro, but enviro issues matter little if a nation's economy is crippled to the point that it can't be environmentally sensible, which could happen if we don't wean ourselves off the foreign oil addiction. Refining capacity is a particularly cogent point.

And finally, I wholeheartedly agree with ed's "finally" point.

Happy now?

P.S. Austin -- don't forget that Enron and other companies share a lot of responsibility for CA's energy crisis. I'm the first to criticize CA's lack of forsight about this issue and the way it was handled (and it's continuing lack of vision with regard to a long-term strategy) but to discount or omit the patent greed of the firms partially responsible for fails to tell the whole story. On the other hand, there are tens of thousands of acres being slated for solar and wind power production in CA as we speak. Kudos to Texas (and to T. Boone Pickens for his recent visionary shift of focus and ad campaign: abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4680263) for its leadership in the area of wind power. CA, of course, has been using wind since the 1980's (when the state offered tax breaks for environmentally friendly energy), but hasn't kept pace with population or consumption growth.

[EasyEd]

Good post, Coast. Of course my saying it might lead to more insults than you can imagine.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Facinating development in wind power. Might be the kind of thing to get regular folks in the wind power game.

www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4224763.html

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Thanks, ed. I'll take the insults if it means further constructive discussion on this and other issues.