Question: Energy Independence. Is it a myth foisted upon the public?

[deejaydana]

I've been doing quite a bit of looking into the "Energy Independence" issue and the more I look into and research it, the emptier it seems to me. This last election cycle, and even further back then that, we were told that "Ethanol" (fuel derived from corn) would be our savior and the next viable alternative to crude oil. Upon closer inspection this math just completely does not add up. It would take 6X the amount of farmland we're presently using and would provide a fraction (less then 10% of our energy consumption needs). More then this, it would take immense amounts of water---water then diverted from other use----to simply grow the crops. The fact that water will soon become another precious commodity makes ethanol look even more shaky.

There are many other myths or misrepresentations that I can use as an example but my question is this:

Do you believe "Energy Independence" is even a real issue? If so, why? What ends does it or can it achieve?

[desioreo87]

well if oil isn't a bottomless well than you have to think it would make sense to research other methods of providing energy for things like cars and such.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I do think it is a real issue. Our enemies have used energy as a blackmail tool for decades, use our funding to buy weapons and train those who want to hurt us, and leave us beholden. Look at what happened the last few years when the Middle East decided to yo yo with supply. So, from a national security point of view as well as an economic point of view energy independence is a real beast.

If you add to that the environmental impact, it's even more paramount that we design a better mousetrap. The ammount of damage from ozone to asthma to cancer we inflict upon ourselves through the overuse of oil and carbon based fuels is staggering.

The point that I think you are fretting is that we do not have a ready answer. Neither solar, wind, ethanol, or nuclear have been developed in such a way that they are a better solution at this moment. That doesn't mean the problem isn't real. It means we have work to do. Somewhere amongst those options I listed above or more probably some combo of all the above plus something some nobody in Nebraska will discover one day is a better way. But simply because we haven't found the holy grail doesn't mean the quest isn't worthwhile.

We need to do better for our economy, for our health, and for the environment and the downside of using oil and coal more efficiently, harnessing wind and solar better, utilizing biofuels, etc. etc. is very small compared with the potential upside.

[deejaydana]

I should have also mentioned that ethanol is dirtier than crude oil at present and that wind and solar can't work yet viably to replace crude (though natural gas can at some point).

My question was however NOT that we shouldn't make an effort to look into some complimentary or alt fuels going forward BUT rather is "Energy Independence" really something that can be achieved. I guess I sort of convoluted that in my OP (apologies).

[Larry]

No, energy independence is not a myth.

Corn-based Ethanol is a myth.

It seems really likely, to me, that Hydrogen obtained from water as a fuel source has to be a myth. (Although as a means of energy storage it might work well. And some folks have posted links from places that may have a shot at proving me wrong.)

I believe that Wind power, geothermal, and tidal power will always be myths. Although I'll admit that I know of no hard-and-fast Law of Nature that says so.

I wouldn't be surprised if solar might be a viable energy source, although it really seems to me like it ought to work much better if it's done in wholesale power-generating stations than in millions of do-it-yourself-ers.

Some people have accused me of being hopelessly stuck on the romantic idea of space-based solar power.

Far as I'm aware, nuclear is the only "alternative" power source that has been proven to work, at a profit, in the real world, right now. And I do admit that there's a whole lot to be said for "It works. Right now."

[Midnight Judges]

Energy independence is a lofty goal, by no means impossible. We just need to diversify our portfolio.

[Larry]

Energy independence is a lofty goal, by no means impossible. We just need to diversify our portfolio.

Agreed. The way to go is to encourage several technologies. Some (many?) of them won't pan out. Promote several of them, and the worst that can happen is that two of them will work, and we'll just have to let them fight it out in the marketplace.

[Burgold]

I think it depends what you mean by independent. If you mean 100% independent and flawless, then no... not unless we develop cold fusion or some miraculous star trek contrivance. However, if you have a somewhat less strigent definition of independence... I think the answer is probably. With certainty, we can become far less dependent through better refining, conservation, and the use of alts today. Mind you, the infrastructure and initial start up costs will make many balk, but there are lots of stuff we are not doing because we are cheap and greedy and still think far too short term.

[GibbsFactor]

I think it's hilarious. We want to globalize EVERYTHING but our energy.

Pipe dream.

[deejaydana]

Here's another fact I found (and it's as sobering as hell):

In 2007 China was bringing on-line one coal burning plant PER WEEK. ouch. I know we have many coal plants within the United States, but this stat caught my eye.

[Larry]

Yeah, I keep thinking that when people balk at the costs of promoting alternatives fuels, that some day the People are gonna realize that

"Being able to tell the Middle East the diplomatic equivalent of :munchout:, specifically 'Go ahead and kill each other, we're all gonna watch" = "Priceless".

Seriously, if the Middle East, national security, and our balance of trade, aren't reason enough for us to be pushing some other form of energy, then what would be a good enough reason?

[deejaydana]

Here's another question for you because I can't figure it out:

why is there no nuclear option in Obama's energy plan? It's been made much safer since the Three Mile Island debacle and it's incredibly efficient and clean. Do we have to include it in our plans going forward? France has almost 100 reactors and they derive about 80% of their electricity thru this method? Has it suffered because of NIMBYs?

[Burgold]

From an environmental pov that is also scary. As China and India really catch up and start consuming more resources in as cheap and dirty a way as possible, it would behoove us even more to develop an independent cleaner form of fuel. Clean air agreements are difficult to get or to make other nations follow, but if we can make something that works better and is cheaper... they'd have to go for it.

I tend to be an idealist to a degree. I marvel at how the world has changed technologically in a hundred years. We've really entered the land of science fiction in many ways. I don't see why, if we put our minds together, we can't make a significant jump in this arena.

Edit: I think, right now, nuclear should be part of the game plan. I think you put all of it into play. I think the reasons against it are A) cheap greedy ****s who want the money and outcome now and don't want to spend the gazillions to develop safe and secure nuclear power plants and some misinformed well intentioned liberal loonies are scared of the worst case scenario of a nuclear power plant. (and perhaps they aren't loonies)

[Larry]

Here's another question for you because I can't figure it out:

why is there no nuclear option in Obama's energy plan? It's been made much safer since the Three Mile Island debacle and it's incredibly efficient and clean. Do we have to include it in our plans going forward? France has almost 100 reactors and they derive about 80% of their electricity thru this method? Has it suffered because of NIMBYs?

I'd really rather see us using some other technology that doesn't have nuclear's particular form of pollution. At least eventually.

But like I said in my previous post, there's a whole lot to be said for "It works. Right now."

(And the reason it isn't in Obama's plan is because Obama's a Democrat.)

[PeterMP]

Much of what you are posting about ethanol is old. Look at the energy related threads around election time. At the time, I was posting links to real studies. The effeciency in ethanol production has come a long way in the last 2 or 3 years.

With that said, I don't think anybody has ever pushed ethanol from food crops as the ultimate solution to our energy needs. There is likely to be no single solution in the short term. What could work (and also that has come a long way) is hydrogen or ethanol production from something that is photosynthetic along with other things (e.g. ethanol production from celluosic material).

Again, around election I was posting links on a regular basis.

With that said, I don't think we'll be independent any time soon. What can/will happen is that there will be enough competition with oil products that the prices of associated products (e.g. gas) will come done, and if things start to go up, people will shift to these other things.

[Larry]

I tend to be an idealist to a degree. I marvel at how the world has changed technologically in a hundred years. We've really entered the land of science fiction in many ways. I don't see why, if we put our minds together, we can't make a significant jump in this arena.

Arthur Clarke observed in one of his books, that his mother was alive when the Wright Brothers flew, and when Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon. One lifetime.

[PeterMP]

Here's another question for you because I can't figure it out:

why is there no nuclear option in Obama's energy plan? It's been made much safer since the Three Mile Island debacle and it's incredibly efficient and clean. Do we have to include it in our plans going forward? France has almost 100 reactors and they derive about 80% of their electricity thru this method? Has it suffered because of NIMBYs?

Nuclear is last decades technology. Building nuclear plants takes time. There is even a limited number of companies that make the required parts, and they are already over worked so even w/o the red tape issues, you'd have issues getting them built. If we are smart about investment and encouraging advances in effeciency and new approaches, there wouldn't be much demand before them before you could get very many nuclear power plants built.

I'm not saying some new ones wouldn't be built, but starting a plan doing what France did NOW would be stupid. It be like starting anything else in terms of a long-term plan based on 1970s technology.

[GibbsFactor]

I thought Obama was pro nuclear power.

I think it's the only way to power the east.

[deejaydana]

Much of what you are posting about ethanol is old. Look at the energy related threads around election time. At the time, I was posting links to real studies. The effeciency in ethanol production has come a long way in the last 2 or 3 years.

With that said, I don't think anybody has ever pushed ethanol from food crops as the ultimate solution to our energy needs. There is likely to be no single solution in the short term. What could work (and also that has come a long way) is hydrogen or ethanol production from something that is photosynthetic along with other things (e.g. ethanol production from celluosic material).

Again, around election I was posting links on a regular basis.

With that said, I don't think we'll be independent any time soon. What can/will happen is that there will be enough competition with oil products that the prices of associated products (e.g. gas) will come done, and if things start to go up, people will shift to these other things.

The stats I'm mentioning related to ethanol haven't changed, they're up to date. I don't think the media or politicians portray it honesty relative to its many drawbacks. Maybe it has to do with the farm subsidies being pushed their way.

[Larry]

With that said, I don't think we'll be independent any time soon.

Also agreed.

Heck, we've got the ability to be getting our electricity, at least, 100% from nuclear, right now. But even McCain's plan was to have us build 50 plants in, I think, 50 years, and that, I think would only account for about half of our electricity.

If we had some solar/hydrogen/dilithium technology that worked right now, we'd still be looking at at least a few years just to build the technology-demonstration plant. And then years after that spent tweaking. And then, what, 20, 30 years converting?

It's gonna take a lot of time.

Which is why we're really, really, late getting started.

[deejaydana]

I thought Obama was pro nuclear power.

I think it's the only way to power the east.

Some say it was Harry Reid who asked him to drop nuclear out of the energy plan (as his home state is Nevada and it's one giant dump site for old nuke waste). Sorry no link on this to coroborate.

[TheGoodBits]

Here's another fact I found (and it's as sobering as hell):

In 2007 China was bringing on-line one coal burning plant PER WEEK. ouch. I know we have many coal plants within the United States, but this stat caught my eye.

This is a good point about China. Right now they are still developing, and at a crazy rate. It's obviously much cheaper for them to use older technologies that are not energy efficient. So for everything that we can cut in terms of fossil fuel consumption, coal use, etc, China is increasing consumption to replace it. The thing with China, however, is that they don't have to deal with the the ineffective government that we do. If the US decided to pass a law that mandated only "clean coal" technology, it would first take several years to pass the law, then as much as 1-2 decades to implement.

China could do the whole process in a fraction of the time. Day 1- Decide that all plants in the country need to use clean coal technology. Give all the companies 6 months to start to implement this technology. Mandate that they all have to use it within 2 years. And it would happen.

I was discussing the energy and fuel consumption in China with my professor a couple weeks ago, and he gave me an example of China working to clean up the environment/use less energy. He was in Beijing one year, and all the city buses were diesel. They all emitted ridiculous amounts of dirty exhaust. At some point in the next year the government decided they could not have that. When he returned the next year, EVERY single bus ran on natural gas. Amazing what you can do when you don't have to deal with democratic processes.

[Burgold]

Also agreed.

Which is why we're really, really, late getting started.

Yup.

I actually really liked Bush's oil addiction line. I thought it was apt. Problem was, very little was done about it (at least that I noticed in terms of funding research or developing or building new infrastructure)

[deejaydana]

Nuclear is last decades technology. Building nuclear plants takes time. There is even a limited number of companies that make the required parts, and they are already over worked so even w/o the red tape issues, you'd have issues getting them built. If we are smart about investment and encouraging advances in effeciency and new approaches, there wouldn't be much demand before them before you could get very many nuclear power plants built.

I'm not saying some new ones wouldn't be built, but starting a plan doing what France did NOW would be stupid. It be like starting anything else in terms of a long-term plan based on 1970s technology.

Your argument above can be applied to the other alt sources just as easily. That is, they take time and legality before they're functioning. My point on nuclear, and I'm not saying it in the sense that it would be an exclusive source, is that it is still much more efficient then all other sources at this point in our evolution (of course the risks are well, nuclear).

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not saying some new ones wouldn't be built, but starting a plan doing what France did NOW would be stupid. It be like starting anything else in terms of a long-term plan based on 1970s technology.

Why couldn't we improve upon the technology? Make it more efficient and safe? Incorporate other technologies into it. Perfect it.