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

[Mad Mike]

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.

My grand mother grew up in Italy before flight, when steamships and horses were the fastest transportation. She went from that to flying in a jet and watching man land on the moon to watching the shuttle go up. As well as pretty much every technological innovation of the 20th century. She lived to be just over 101. I've marveled at what went on during her lifetime pretty much all of mine.

[Mad Mike]

Yes it's a real issue. The reason we invaded Iraq a country that hadn't provoked us other then to say No to illegal searches they were stupid enough to agree to was to secure the oil they had. I'm ok with that. I wasn't ok with the reasons we were told why it happened. Why Bush didn't just come out and say "We are going to ensure we don't become finacial hostages to the country that holds the second largest stock pile of oil and take over this piece of crap country so you guys don't have to pay $10 for a gallon of gas" I'm sure was because it would have been political suicide for him since the majority of citizens of the USA are idiological idiots who think with there hearts and not enough with there heads. But the message was clear to me once you got past the lies.

We are dependant on energy. We need fuel, oil, gas to run the country. The idea that were going to find some magical fuel alternative to me is never going to happen. If the USA decided to go make cars that run off chocolate like this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30581299/.

Then you have to look at the global impact that would have on the entire world. We have a balance of want vs. need that must be upheld. Imagine the blacklash that would happen if we suddenly stopped giving trillions to the middle east? To me that would start WW3 or what ever stupid number were on in a heartbeat. Doing that would be considered an attack on all of the countries economies we buy oil from. We'd be crippling countries like:

1. Saudi Arabia … 8.9 million barrels per day (14% of estimated world total)

2. Russia … 5.1 million bpd (8%)

3. Norway … 3 million bpd (4.7%)

4. United Arab Emirates … 2.54 million bpd (4%)

5. Iran … 2.52 million bpd (4%)

6. Canada … 2.3 million bpd (3.6%)

7. Mexico … 2.27 million bpd (3.6%)

8. Venezuela … 2.2 million bpd (3.5%)

9. Kuwait … 2.2 million bpd (3.5%)

10. Nigeria … 2.1 million bpd (3.4%).

The top ten list of countries that export oil. Our Government knows this so they speak a bold game that they are looking for alternative fuels but time and time again these things are produced but never adopted. The idea that the government is interested in alternative fuels is a farce. The car makers are in on it too. They are being paid off like we paid off other countries to do what we want. This is just another example of our curropt Government lying and manipulating it's people and the majority buying the crap they are selling.

Now the answer for how to get out of our dependacy on oil is we take on an approach that will take many years to pull off. First we need to start drilling our own oil. We need to tell these countrys we aren't going to screw them over we just want to extract it and put this in reserve. So we stockpile the crap out of our own stuff and while we are doing that we prepare for the eventual war to come. We build massive weapons that can wipe out these countries and we strengthen our borders. We also bring in a few of the countries that are going to be hardest hit and create allies with them. During this time we are creating secretly other fuels that can work in existing cars. When we feel the times right we announce to the world we will no longer buy a single barrel of oil from them and that any acts of aggression against us for this will result in full scale retrobution. Then we sit back and wait for the eventual wars to come and fight them the best we can and hopefully have something left of the country and planet left when its all said and done. I'm thinking a massive execution like heroshema might just be enough to get these other countries to stop aggressive action against us.

I don't think it will be possible for the country to go to alternative fuels on any serious level while oil is still in production across other countries without a senario like the one I just discribed. I believe the course that our current government has been taking is a wait it out approach because they don't want to wage a full world war. They likely figure that if other countries don't have oil they won't care if we move away from it since they aren't affected anymore. If we use oil for the next 100 years we will eventually run out of it and the problem will correct itself. At least that's my take on it.

:rotflmao:

Thanks. I haven't read such a cartoonish world view in a while. Most people like you have faded into the background since Obama was elected. I was beginning to miss the comic relief.

[deejaydana]

I only have one link for you.

Why is this wrong?

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/464.long

I posted it earlier in the thread, and you've done nothing, but ignore it.

I haven't ignored it, I posted a rebuttal to it a few posts back. I'm not saying the viability "might" be there as humans push science forward in the next two decades. Switchgrass is clearly not a viable alternative in any measure to crude at this time. The argument that we should follow Brazil is also flawed and, when used by politicians, it's both flawed and dishonest. Just my researched take on the topic.

[PeterMP]

I haven't ignored it, I posted a rebuttal to it a few posts back. I'm not saying the viability "might" be there as humans push science forward in the next two decades. Switchgrass is clearly not a viable alternative in any measure to crude at this time. The argument that we should follow Brazil is also flawed and, when used by politicians, it's both flawed and dishonest. Just my researched take on the topic.

The only thing that you've posted that mentions cellulosic ethanol is an article for Time, which doesn't address the issue raised in the study I posted at all, and if you bothered to read it, you'd know that.

Specifically your article states:

"When the EPA studied a reasonable 30-year time period, even with its generous assumptions, soy biodiesel and corn-ethanol plants powered by coal or natural gas actually produced more emissions than gasoline; corn ethanol only passed the stress test (and just barely) when powered by the cleanest possible power."

Coal powered ethanol production plants is a thing of the past. In addition, it competely ignores producing ethanol from the ceullosic part of the corn (stover), which negates any cacluation with respect to planting, fertilizing, land use, and water use because those things are going to happen anyway.

http://nebraskacorn.blogspot.com/2009/03/nebraska-business-looking-at-corn.html

In general, your article didn't rebut anything I've posted or said. It completely ignored it.

Lastly, at one level, Brazil is a bad comparision. They are sugar based ethanol production country. While there is sugar grown in some parts of this country and ethanol producing facilities have been set up in La and Fl to produce ethanol from the part of the plant not used to produce sugar (see there's that theme- one part of the plant goes to food; the other to ethanol) there will never be enough produced to make it a viable competitor with fossil fuels.

On another level Brazil is an excellent example of what we should shoot for. Brazil is NOT energy independent. They are still a net oil importer, BUT their energy production means are diverse enough that increased oil/gas prices don't have massive ramifications on their economy.

We can do the samething, using a combination of technologies. Ethanol production from bio-material is one component. That biomaterial can come in multiple forms, including non-food components of food crops, but there are other places too:

http://www.sapphireenergy.com/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/mit-algae-photobioreactor.php

And of course there is direct production of ethanol by organisms directly.

What you will end up with is multiple ways to produce ethanol (plus hydrogen production and improved battery technology allowing for greater dependence on electricity), and you have competition with oil that produces a more Brazil-like economy in the US.

**EDIT**

You can even use biomass other ways, which will couple well with improved battery technology.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1896813,00.html

[deejaydana]

On another level Brazil is an excellent example of what we should shoot for. Brazil is NOT energy independent.

I get some of your points, I just think we're talking past each other, generally.

Brazil is not energy independent, but then again, no country is ever energy independent. It's a myth. Even for Saudi. My whole point (and others in between) is that energy independence is a complete myth. It can't ever happen. Countries, even those hostile (at least hostile in the press) to each other still sell to each other because economics over-ride ideology in the end. This isn't the end of the world and we don't need to tear our hair out but what we do need is more honesty out of the nation's capitol (imho).

There is a saying in Saudi about the Chinese (I'm paraphrasing):

The Chinese don't ever ask us (Saudi) about price, they only ask about how much oil we can buy.

When you're up against this line of thinking towards consumption it makes taking a moral stand that much muddier. We can play the leader and we should re: crude and alt sources but we can realistically make change w/o all the other nations signing up and following suit.

Back to your points, emerging alt sources will continue to be pursued but the road there is bumpy and it comes at great cost. It has also, sadly, been oversold and overstated recently (by both parties). Do we need to pursue 'some' of the other sources you've mentioned? Unquestionably. Just don't count on them happening soon or representing much more than a very small part of the overall energy picture for the United States.

[PeterMP]

Back to your points, emerging alt sources will continue to be pursued but the road there is bumpy and it comes at great cost. It has also, sadly, been oversold and overstated recently (by both parties). Do we need to pursue 'some' of the other sources you've mentioned? Unquestionably. Just don't count on them happening soon or representing much more than a very small part of the overall energy picture for the United States.

Well, if you can show me somewhere somebody is talking about alt energy replacing oil on anything other than the decade level timescale (not one decasde, but in time measured in decades) and w/o further government encouragement, then I'd agree with you.

As is, I think you've created a straw man to beat up on.

Obama's web site is talking about generating 25% of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2025 so a decade + and he's still not talking about energy independence (keep in mind that he isn't talking about on top of what we alread do, but 25% including what we are already producing from renewable energy sources).

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/newenergy/index.php

I think it is possible (depending on what the government, economy, oil prices do) to have real competition for oil in the market place in under a decade. Probably not to the extent that Brazil does, but the consumer will have at least some realistic/reliable options.

[deejaydana]

Well, if you can show me somewhere somebody is talking about alt energy replacing oil on anything other than the decade level timescale (not one decasde, but in time measured in decades) and w/o further government encouragement, then I'd agree with you.

As is, I think you've created a straw man to beat up on.

Obama's web site is talking about generating 25% of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2025 so a decade + and he's still not talking about energy independence (keep in mind that he isn't talking about on top of what we alread do, but 25% including what we are already producing from renewable energy sources).

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/newenergy/index.php

I think it is possible (depending on what the government, economy, oil prices do) to have real competition for oil in the market place in under a decade. Probably not to the extent that Brazil does, but the consumer will have at least some realistic/reliable options.

You're telling me I'm making a straw man argument and then you provide a link to Obama's website? Holy cow. I'm done reasoning with you at this point. Believe what you want to believe.

Because the President is pushing it neither makes it more viable or the best path though it MAY however be forced upon us but at least Congress is already getting buyer's remorse on the cap and trade fiasco. I'll leave you to your devices. let me know how it all works out...or doesn't.

[Larry]

You're telling me I'm making a straw man argument and then you provide a link to Obama's website? Holy cow. I'm done reasoning with you at this point. Believe what you want to believe.

Not aware of what a straw man argument is, are you?

[addicted]

:rotflmao:

Thanks. I haven't read such a cartoonish world view in a while. Most people like you have faded into the background since Obama was elected. I was beginning to miss the comic relief.

Excuse me? Cartoonish world view that says that if our country decided to do away with buying oil from other countries that it wouldn't have sever economic reprocussions on those nations? Who's living in a fairey tale world here pal. Why can I show you case after case of cars running on alternative fuels yet we are no where closer to adobting any of these methods then we were 12 months ago. The reason? We know getting further away from oil will cause a world war.

And what's this crap about Obama? Listen buddy I'm not a republican and I'm not a democrat. If anything I am against both of these stupid parties and think our governments completely curropt and screwed up. So take it for what this was meant to be, my opinion. I don't get into pissing contests between you Red and Blue posters, to me it's all the same bull**** in different color wrapping yet some of you with your heads in the clouds still think it means something when these people talk. I don't believe a word of it when Obama says something and I didn't believe anything that Bush said either. That guy you thinks looking out for you is hustling you

[deejaydana]

Not aware of what a straw man argument is, are you?

give me a break holmes. I've not misrepresented anyone else's opinion herein. The hard facts of science should stand as they are on this topic. I'm just trying to call attention to 1) the myth of 'independence' (not that it's all bad) and 2) what the reality is on alternatives to crude (vs what is parroted by selfserving politicians).

[Larry]

give me a break holmes. I've not misrepresented anyone else's opinion herein. The hard facts of science should stand as they are on this topic. I'm just trying to call attention to 1) the myth of 'independence' (not that it's all bad) and 2) what the reality is on alternatives to crude (vs what is parroted by selfserving politicians).

By pointing out how impossible it is for the US to completely discontinue it's use of oil quickly.

Problem is, nobody's said that it's going to happen quickly.

This is called a straw man argument. You construct a straw man, claim it's your opponent, and then demonstrate how well you can beat up on it.

It was pointed out to you that Obama is talking about replacing a portion of our oil usage, decades from now.

Your response is to try to claim that because Peter used Obama's actual words to demonstrate what Obama is actually saying somehow renders his argument invalid.

It doesn't.

[twa]

New Year, new troubles

Biofuel plants idled by loss of tax credit

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6794155.html

Late Thursday night, as most prepared to ring in the new year, Renewable Biofuels was joylessly preparing to halt production at its giant biodiesel fuel plant in Port Neches, just a year after it opened.

The Houston-based firm said the decision became unavoidable after Congress failed to renew a tax credit of $1 per gallon for the alternative fuel on Dec. 31.

In place since 2004, the credit gave a dollar to refiners for every gallon of biodiesel they blended into petroleum diesel. Without it, output at bio*diesel plants nationwide is grinding to a halt.

“The vast, if not all, of our contracted parties have essentially said please put ours on hold,” said Jonathan Phillips, chief investment officer at Renewable Biofuels, whose 180 million-gallon-per-year Port Neches plant is being idled but could resume operation if the incentive returns.

The entire biodiesel industry is in a similar holding pattern, though it's unclear how many companies idled plants Thursday. Producers still hope the credit will be renewed and applied retroactively when Congress reconvenes later this month.

• Predicted job losses from lapse in tax credit: 23,000

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think 100% energy independence at least in the short term (next 100 years) is a myth, however that doesn't mean that I think that energy independence itself is a myth. BTW, corn based ethanol is an awful idea...why the heck do we want to burn up our food?

The thing I worry about with a new energy independence is once we have shrugged off one bitter taskmaster (ME oil) who will take their place and at what cost, I trust corporations about as much as I trust the sheiks.

[Vicious]

This is a dumb question. Of course it is possible, we have at our disposal a gigantic ball of energy that is so big and dense our planet orbits it. In order to harness it we have adapted nanotechnologies with the solar panels. It'll be cheaper to get your power from your roof than from your power company by the end of the next decade.

Now, there are going to be a lot of humans trying to make money that will try to tell you otherwise. They'll Lobby the Republicans, and pressure the uneducated into believing things like "energy independence" is not possible.

[Vicious]

I think 100% energy independence at least in the short term (next 100 years) is a myth

We'll have reached peak oil way before then, so we better be.

[twa]

It'll be cheaper to get your power from your roof than from your power company by the end of the next decade.

Only if they tax carbon to death...but that is the plan ain't it:chair:

Solar has great promise,but cheap it ain't

[Hubbs]

This is a dumb question. Of course it is possible, we have at our disposal a gigantic ball of energy that is so big and dense our planet orbits it. In order to harness it we have adapted nanotechnologies with the solar panels. It'll be cheaper to get your power from your roof than from your power company by the end of the next decade.

That seems incredibly optimistic.

[Vicious]

It's optimistic to think that the technology will be allowed to thrive seeing as how you can't divide up sunlight to sell it.

Conventional solar cells operate at 15 to 20 percent efficiency. The maximum possible will be about 42 percent, that's not attained yet though. That's twice as effective for the same cost to produce.

When you break the numbers down, it's about 40 cents per kilowatt hour for solar cells compared to the 8 cents a kilowatt hour you get charged by your electric company. The reason people use solar cells for when you can't plug into the grid. 40 to 8 is not that hard of a mountain to climb in 20 years.

[twa]

How much has the cost came down in the last 20?

The flat sheets are a major step,yet the costs have a long way to go..

They have been promising cheap energy since I was a kid.

[Larry]

It'll be cheaper to get your power from your roof than from your power company by the end of the next decade.

You keep making that claim.

I look here for current prices for residential solar electricity. What I see from them is that a system that has a peak capacity of 2kW would cost me $16K to install, and the electricity it generates would be 56.4 cents/kWh. (I'm in northern Florida, which I assumed was halfway between their "sunny climate" and "cloudy climate" figures.

(My current electricity costs me 7.3 cents per kWh.) (And a good chunk of that is actually a tax. The city owns the local power company, and they overcharge customers and then give the money to the city.)

(I also observe that my average electricity usage is 1250 kWh/month, meaning that I average using 1.7 kW/hour, 24x7. That 2kW peak household system means that when the system is running at it's maximum possible efficiency (say, as Noon on a sunny day) it will barely be producing electricity as quickly as I use it. But I assume that installing an array that doubles the peak output actually costs

less

than double the price, so the cost per kWh would be slightly lower.)

You're predicting a 90% price drop in the next 10 years?

[Vicious]

You're predicting a 90% price drop in the next 10 years?

No, 20 years.

edit: People are not going to want to push this tech very hard, it's not something that can be as profitable as fossil fuels. When oil really looks like it is going to be hitting its peak, there are going to be serious contenders to take its place. Solar power will be one of them.

[Larry]

No, 20 years.

While I'm not going to try to say that there has never been a case of a technology seeing a 90% price drop in 20 years, I'll observe that as far as I'm aware, no one has ever been able to schedule one in advance.

Those :idea: moments are rare events, and they occur on their own schedule.

----------

Recall reading a column talking about how our world differed from the way the science fiction people predicted it would be, in the year 2000.

One of the points they made was that all the sci-fi people in the 50s knew that computers would change things. But they were predicting that "computers" meant there would be a very small number of computers, each the size of the pentagon, which would need Niagara Falls for cooling, which people would be interacting with by speaking to it in plain English.

They assumed that, by 2000, we would know what every single "bit" in human DNA did. That science would be able, for example, to take a strand of DNA, and tell you with mathematical certainty what that person would look like at age 50.

----------

And I think that your conspiracy-theory hinting that if there isn't a 90% price drop in the next 20 years, then it's because evil capitalists have suppressed the knowledge, is, well, as stupid as it sounds.

And I'm making that statement speaking as someone who once predicted that computer hard drives would never drop below $1/MB, because the market would gladly pay that price, therefore there would be no pressure for the prices to go lower.

If the technology is developed to permit a 90% price drop, then there will be a 90% price drop.

[Elessar78]

Politically, I think we can all agree that we shouldn't rely on an energy supply that's mainly found in a volatile region of the globe that's not always friendly towards Americans.

So as a matter of policy and national security the US needs to strive for energy independence. Hey, Brazil can do it, why can't we?

Drilling in ANWR is just a stop gap regardless of how much oil you believe there is there. It's still oil, it's still finite, it's still a stone's throw from Russia. And it doesn't have to be an all encompassing solution—some oil, some nuclear, some solar, some wind, some biofuels, some hydroelectric, etc.

So let's do what America does best—INNOVATE. I refuse to believe that a country that put a man on the moon less than sixty years after he learned to fly and developed the atomic bomb can't figure out how to "grow" energy locally. Like those two examples it's just a matter of political will. If the country and the politicians are behind it then it can be accomplished.

[twa]

No, 20 years.

edit: People are not going to want to push this tech very hard, it's not something that can be as profitable as fossil fuels. When oil really looks like it is going to be hitting its peak, there are going to be serious contenders to take its place. Solar power will be one of them.

Something you overlook that the profit from fossil fuels is divided many times before it hits the market.

If solar was cost effective(profitable)there would be companies lining up to provide it...the market would control that,and there is certainly a market for cheap energy.

Just imagine the profit on a new patent that had a worldwide market