Could the US be energy independent in 20 years, and would the cost be worth it?

[StageLeft]

Another article about OPEC cutting supply to keep prices high.

Oil suppliers are making a killing now. This decade--only several years ago--I remember Opec publically stating that they felt oil should be around $28/barrel (it was around there then) and would manipulate supply accordingly. Well, they've grown accustomed to prices three times that and apparently that's the new "proper price".

I used to think we should let the private market sort this issue out, but it's happening so slowly, and this is more than an economic issue. The US could be held hostage by various countries/groups, from Venezuela with its empty threats about holding off oil (but what if Chavez did?) to OPEC having done it before and could again. Oil is one of the key motivators of foreign policy.

I think it may be worth the government throwing vast sums at this problem because it represents a national security issue. Imagine the freedom the US would have from being embroiled in certain situations if it was no longer importing its energy deficit. Could it be done, though? Could a couple trillion spent over the next 10-20 years even get it there without an associated loss somewhere else, from corn fields to whatever else?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In twenty years? Sure. They built the interstates, got a man to the moon. It's really a matter of research and infrastructure AND keeping the lawyers out of intellectual property wars, which I suspect would be the real impediment.

 

[wwswimming]

"Could the US be energy independent in 20 years, and would the cost be worth it?"

absolutely. but the deeply ingrained habit of being able to drive a gas-
guzzler all over the place is something all but the wealthier people will
have to give up.

Sweden is making the transition & i think they'll hit their target (the year 2020,
fossil fuel free.)

 

[ebaycj]

The government can override / violate IP laws as it wishes.

If we spent as much $$ annually on our energy situation as we have spent on Iraq (annually), we would be in good shape in no time.




I'm thinking LARGE arrays of highly efficient solar panels (think 100 square miles), along with large battery/capacitor arrays to buffer the solar power, efficient and safe breeder reactors, modular pebble bed reactors, and eventually (hopefully) fusion.

I'm thinking butanol as a gasoline replacement (screw ethanol, butanol is the way to go). Initially could be replaced by butanol derived from US-mined coal, followed later by butanol derived from fermentation of biomass (switchgrass).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
The government can override / violate IP laws as it wishes.

If we spent as much $$ annually on our energy situation as we have spent on Iraq (annually), we would be in good shape in no time.




I'm thinking LARGE arrays of highly efficient solar panels (think 100 square miles), along with large battery/capacitor arrays to buffer the solar power, efficient and safe breeder reactors, modular pebble bed reactors, and eventually (hopefully) fusion.

I'm thinking butanol as a gasoline replacement (screw ethanol, butanol is the way to go). Initially could be replaced by butanol derived from US-mined coal, followed later by butanol derived from fermentation of biomass (switchgrass).

Tidal power should be considered. There is a lot of energy in moving water. Hydrogen can work, but if it's carbon neutral, that's good too.

There are a lot possibilities. Sorting them out should be a top scientific priority.

 

[1prophet]

People would have to change their values from cheapest is best to looking at things as investments and opportunities which on the surface and in the short run may not make economic sense.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Tidal power should be considered. There is a lot of energy in moving water. Hydrogen can work, but if it's carbon neutral, that's good too.

There are a lot possibilities. Sorting them out should be a top scientific priority.

Why do you think we in the midwest are driving gas guzzlers? We're just trying to save the earth. If we try harder, we can really get this greenhouse effect going to melt the polar caps, flood the east and west coasts, and then we can use tidal power instead of oil. It's really quite an elegant plan.

 

[K1052]

Its already started to move that way.
The USAF and a few commercial air carriers are testing domestically produced synthetic fuels.

If oil maintains this pricing or continues to rise (likely) the market forces alone will find all the alternatives we need. Imported oil is less and less economically and politically attractive every day.

 

[Robor]

Right now the need for oil has us at the mercy of foreign countries that we probably wouldn't be dealing with were it not necessary. Some say we should explore oil sources here in the US and to that I say why? It would be a short term solution at best and has potential for environment disaster. IMO clean alternative energy should be one of the top priorities. Hopefully it gets the attention and funds it deserves soon.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We should begin to find out in about 8 more years if it's possible:

http://www.iter.org/

I think it's great that oil prices are outrageously high right now. It finally makes alternative forms of energy that oil used to easily undercut far more economically feasible. The ME may enjoy rolling in the dough for another decade or two, but it's going to end. High oil prices are going to bite them right in the ass.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We should begin to find out in about 8 more years if it's possible:

http://www.iter.org/

I think it's great that oil prices are outrageously high right now. It finally makes alternative forms of energy that oil used to easily undercut far more economically feasible. The ME may enjoy rolling in the dough for another decade or two, but it's going to end. High oil prices are going to bite them right in the ass.

I saw a piece on that on (I think?) the Discovery channel last night. Very interesting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We should begin to find out in about 8 more years if it's possible:

http://www.iter.org/

I think it's great that oil prices are outrageously high right now. It finally makes alternative forms of energy that oil used to easily undercut far more economically feasible. The ME may enjoy rolling in the dough for another decade or two, but it's going to end. High oil prices are going to bite them right in the ass.

I saw a piece on that on (I think?) the Discovery channel last night. Very interesting.

I'll have to see if they're rerunning that Discovery channel show. Didn't know they were doing a piece on ITER. Thanks for the heads up.

:thumbsup:

 

[zig3695]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
"Could the US be energy independent in 20 years, and would the cost be worth it?"

absolutely. but the deeply ingrained habit of being able to drive a gas-
guzzler all over the place is something all but the wealthier people will
have to give up.

Sweden is making the transition & i think they'll hit their target (the year 2020,
fossil fuel free.)

huh? the whole idea to become energy dependent on renewable energy would mean MUCH cheaper gas.. i see us going right back to the days of $1.50/gallon fuel... no problem...

 

[zig3695]

furthermore- we already have the clean renewable infrastructure here. available now. been here for over 100 years. its called electricity.

the ONLY reason we are (and everyone else) is dependant on oil is because our battery technology STINKS! if we could develop a long lasting battery that could drive a car 400 miles and recharge in 10 minutes we would all be FINE.

 

[piasabird]

What you plan on doing with all the cars that burn gasoline now?

I do not think electric cars are pheasable.

I think we might be able to reduce the weight of cars by 50% using better technology and lighter materials.

I also do not think making ethanol from Corn is such a good idea. This has just caused a significant increase in prices for everything we buy.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zig3695
furthermore- we already have the clean renewable infrastructure here. available now. been here for over 100 years. its called electricity.

the ONLY reason we are (and everyone else) is dependant on oil is because our battery technology STINKS! if we could develop a long lasting battery that could drive a car 400 miles and recharge in 10 minutes we would all be FINE.

The majority of our electricity still comes from fossil fuels. Also, the battery you speak of is nowhere near existing (though R&D should continue).

Let's try to focus on what we can do now with the technology we have available to us.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: zig3695
furthermore- we already have the clean renewable infrastructure here. available now. been here for over 100 years. its called electricity.

the ONLY reason we are (and everyone else) is dependant on oil is because our battery technology STINKS! if we could develop a long lasting battery that could drive a car 400 miles and recharge in 10 minutes we would all be FINE.

You seem to discount the much higher demand on the electric grid that switch would cause. The enviro whackos who so desperately want clean energy wont let us harness the cleanest energy available that can fulfill that demand....which is nuclear.

 

[Brovane]

Personally I think we need to take action that would be painful in the short-term but in the long term would pay off.

I would immediately impose a tax of $10 Barrel on each barrel of oil extracted and US in the US. I would also impose this same tax level on oil from Mexico and the US.

For all other countries I would impose a tax of $40 Barrel. Based on the oil consumption figures from 2006 you are looking at around $200 Billion dollars in revenue.


For gasoline I would impose a additional tax of 30 cents a gallon. This would raise a additional $62 Billion dollars.

This would give about $262 Billion in revenue to allow targeted tax credits to reduce the dependence on oil.

The first thing I would do is to increase the size of the US strategic petroleum reserve to help ward off future oil shocks. I would increase the size while at the same time increasing the interest in oil shale. I would gradually increase the size of the US strategic petroleum reserver to over 5 Billion barrels.

I would announce the following long term oil contract. The US DOE is willing to sign a contract for 10 years at $80 dollars a barrel for the delivery of 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day. The catch is that the oil delivered has to be produced in the US from oil shale.

This will cost the US around $29 Billion dollars a year but will generate a lot of interest in producing oil from oil shale which the US. It is estimated the US has over 800 Billion barrels in oil shale.

Offer a tax incentive of $5 per watt for installation of solar panel. This should generate a lot of interest in solar panels. With a cost of around $5 Billion per Giga-watt of solar power installed.

Also offer a tax incentive for electric cars. Say the electric car has to be able to hold 2 people, attain highway speeds and a 200 mile range on one charge. Any purchase of a new electric car meeting these requirements will get a $30k tax incentive at the dealership. This will be worked out so the consumer never actually has to see the money. When the purchase happens and say the car cost $60k the person will only pay $30k and the dealership will file with the federal government to get the money. For say 100,000 electric cars this will work out to around $3 Billion a year. This would probably generate a lot of interest in electric cars. This should also hopefully kick start electric car production in the US. If this doesn't generate action by the car manufacturers to produce a electric car then more drastic action might have to be taken. There will be a reduced tax incentive for plug-in hybrids that say have at least a 30 mile range and can attain highway speeds on electric power alone.

US money generated by these taxes to help develop more ways of producing Ethanol like Enzyme based Eathonol that doesn't use Corn.

Basically by using taxes we can generate interest in other fuels besides just oil based petroleum and secure the US's energy independence. While not perfect and there is a lot of details missing this would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Personally I think we need to take action that would be painful in the short-term but in the long term would pay off.

I would immediately impose a tax of $10 Barrel on each barrel of oil extracted and US in the US. I would also impose this same tax level on oil from Mexico and the US.

For all other countries I would impose a tax of $40 Barrel. Based on the oil consumption figures from 2006 you are looking at around $200 Billion dollars in revenue.


For gasoline I would impose a additional tax of 30 cents a gallon. This would raise a additional $62 Billion dollars.

This would give about $262 Billion in revenue to allow targeted tax credits to reduce the dependence on oil.

The first thing I would do is to increase the size of the US strategic petroleum reserve to help ward off future oil shocks. I would increase the size while at the same time increasing the interest in oil shale. I would gradually increase the size of the US strategic petroleum reserver to over 5 Billion barrels.

I would announce the following long term oil contract. The US DOE is willing to sign a contract for 10 years at $80 dollars a barrel for the delivery of 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day. The catch is that the oil delivered has to be produced in the US from oil shale.

This will cost the US around $29 Billion dollars a year but will generate a lot of interest in producing oil from oil shale which the US. It is estimated the US has over 800 Billion barrels in oil shale.

Offer a tax incentive of $5 per watt for installation of solar panel. This should generate a lot of interest in solar panels. With a cost of around $5 Billion per Giga-watt of solar power installed.

Also offer a tax incentive for electric cars. Say the electric car has to be able to hold 2 people, attain highway speeds and a 200 mile range on one charge. Any purchase of a new electric car meeting these requirements will get a $30k tax incentive at the dealership. This will be worked out so the consumer never actually has to see the money. When the purchase happens and say the car cost $60k the person will only pay $30k and the dealership will file with the federal government to get the money. For say 100,000 electric cars this will work out to around $3 Billion a year. This would probably generate a lot of interest in electric cars. This should also hopefully kick start electric car production in the US. If this doesn't generate action by the car manufacturers to produce a electric car then more drastic action might have to be taken. There will be a reduced tax incentive for plug-in hybrids that say have at least a 30 mile range and can attain highway speeds on electric power alone.

US money generated by these taxes to help develop more ways of producing Ethanol like Enzyme based Eathonol that doesn't use Corn.

Basically by using taxes we can generate interest in other fuels besides just oil based petroleum and secure the US's energy independence. While not perfect and there is a lot of details missing this would be a big step in the right direction.

Those taxes would put the brakes on the economy like none other. The rest of that plan isn't bad and some of it is happening already.

Also, total oil shale reserves in the continental US are thought to top 2.6 trillion barrels.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What you plan on doing with all the cars that burn gasoline now?

I do not think electric cars are pheasable.

I think we might be able to reduce the weight of cars by 50% using better technology and lighter materials.

I also do not think making ethanol from Corn is such a good idea. This has just caused a significant increase in prices for everything we buy.

Yeah, you're right...we should just throw up our hands and give up because we didn't think of a solution in 5 minutes :roll:.

And you'll excuse me if I don't take my views of electric cars feasibility from someone who can't even come close to spelling the word. The problem, as another poster said, is battery technology...which is something fuel cells are going to improve, eventually. A fuel cell car basically IS an electric car, just with a different energy storage mechanism.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
People would have to change their values from cheapest is best to looking at things as investments and opportunities which on the surface and in the short run may not make economic sense.

or the externality of the cost to national security, environment, etc., can be factored into the price of the good. much easier than trying to get people to change their values.

 

[StageLeft]

Battery tech is not the only thing holding back electric vehicles. It's also the grid. It simply could not support all cars on electricity. The newer hybrid cars are using a type of lithium cell that can fully charge in a fraction of an hour and is good for more years and cycles than previous lithium types, but your house probably couldn't supply the current anyway. A 100 horsepower car is 75k watts, which is well above the capability of most new houses, so you'd still be looking at overnight anyway. I could see rest stops with restaurants or at malls perhaps having quick-charge stations or something. Most of us don't drive that far at a shot anyway, so plug-in hybrids (capable of gas-running, too), seem ideal--once the grid can handle the load and we can produce the power.

 

[nonameo]

A. Quit subsidizing childbirth.
B. Quit subsidizing companies that are not developing something important(for example, energy alternative startups), or are already self sufficient.
C. quit the corn ethanol crap.
D. I'm sure I could add some more.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Battery tech is not the only thing holding back electric vehicles. It's also the grid. It simply could not support all cars on electricity. The newer hybrid cars are using a type of lithium cell that can fully charge in a fraction of an hour and is good for more years and cycles than previous lithium types, but your house probably couldn't supply the current anyway. A 100 horsepower car is 75k watts, which is well above the capability of most new houses, so you'd still be looking at overnight anyway. I could see rest stops with restaurants or at malls perhaps having quick-charge stations or something. Most of us don't drive that far at a shot anyway, so plug-in hybrids (capable of gas-running, too), seem ideal--once the grid can handle the load and we can produce the power.

I don't understand the love affair for batteries. If the idea is a zero pollution vehicle, then a little modification of the current infrastructure would allow hydrogen to be substituted for carbon based fuels. Then all that matters is the power generation source. Until superconducting powerlines come into being (if ever) there is no inherent superiority of electric over other vehicle types. I'm not against electric vehicles per se, but as you say it isn't just plugging your car in at night and driving a thousand miles for free.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: nonameo
A. Quit subsidizing childbirth.
B. Quit subsidizing companies that are not developing something important(for example, energy alternative startups), or are already self sufficient.
C. quit the corn ethanol crap.
D. I'm sure I could add some more.

If the US is subsidizing birth rates, they sure are doing a crappy job. Birth rates are at an all time low.........